User talk:High Contrast/Archive 5

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


File:Girls oktoberfest.JPG

Is Right now? Guilherme Burn (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. The picasa user did not allow this image for commercial use. Such files are not accepted on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Temple of Baal in Palmyra.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. Additionally you can add geocode. --Berthold Werner 15:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Just added the coordinates. --High Contrast 15:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

KWZ

KWZ is user:Kwz, my brother (he does not have his own user page, but he is registrated user of Polish Wikipedia and Wiki Commons; see also user talk:Kwz). He asked me to select and upload some of his photos. Julo (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. BUT it is not allow to connect Commonscategories like Category:Jordan and Category:Israel with private stuff like a photo compilation of your brother. This is a basic principle. For more information read COM:SCOPE and COM:CAT. The Category:KWZ, December 2009, Jordan & Israel must be deleted - not the photographs. As a replacement for your category, you can open a gallery on your user site, or user-subsite. Please never mix private stuff with Commons file collections: Commons is NO PRIVATE PHOTO ALBUM. Thanks for giving me those information. --High Contrast (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
As you see, these photos are not just private stuff, I have selected interested places in Jordan and Israel. I have got more than six hundreds photos and I can select several dozen from them. This category is temporary, I did not imagine myself or contrive any other (better) name. After finishing my selection I will change name and remove this category. I must have few days for this job.
Greetings Julo (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It was the category and not the photos. I have said this above. I have removed the cat for you. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I must first do my job to select pictures; I will categorize them properly afterwards. Julo (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If you need help, let me hear. The images are very good, but the category was not ok. Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Federixin here!!

HEY high contrast. You erased my photomontage. So, i ask you why? that image is complety mine, i did it on photoshop based on other photos, that were mine too. i have psd proyect in my pc. Please if you dont have an confirmed case, don't erase it! so thank you for understand me and please excuse me, im not from an english country, i must have a lot of orthography errors. im from the Spanish Wikipedia. ok that's all, for any question, put it on my discuss page. --Federixin (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of which file are you talking exactly? --High Contrast (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The file were 300pxdolfinesxc0.jpg please don't touch my files. Thank you. --Federixin (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This image is a copyright violation. The deletion was legitimate. --High Contrast (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
THAT FILE DOESN't HAVE ANY COPYRIGHT. please if you are going to erase my files again, do it with confirm that has copyright giving me the copyright info. THAT IMAGE DOES NOT HAVE ANY TYPE OF COPYRIGHT. from now, thank you.
Obviously, you do not have no idea about copyright issues. --High Contrast (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
OBVIUSLY YOU DON't HAVE IDEA WHAT MEANS "I DID IT". that image is MINE. i do whatever i want with it. it has uploaded from me in my webpage firstly on 3 february 2009, another use of th archive isn't under my responsibility. i clearly say, that that image hasn't any type of copyright or commons. if you have probes evidence, post it. THANK YOU, Ferixin.
If this image is really your own work, it would be no problem for you to upload it in a very high resolution. Of the other file versions, higher resoluted ones could be found on the web. If you have high resoluted version of that building upload it and it will remain on Commons - of course.
One Tipp ahead: be less agressive. --High Contrast (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
okie. i'm going to do an better photomontage... ok? so, when i post it in a better ressolution you will not erase it? i can give you psd file.--Federixin (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No, no psd files, please. Upload a very high resoluted file version. Note: NO derivative works! That's very important. By the way: I didn't delete this file for fun or other emotional issues, there were/are severe copyright problems. --High Contrast (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyway i have some new photos that i taked today, so i'm gonna do a better montege. i readed the copyright terms of wikipedia, and my error was that another people took my photo and posted it in many other places. So, that image doesnt very like me... im gonna do a new one. im very sorry if i sound agressive. i traduce it from spanish in google translate. so,spanish can sound agressive... maybe. ok. thank you :)
All in order. Good thing. Would be nice if you would contribute good images about Argentinia. For help you can ask me or (in spanish) here. --High Contrast (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the new file. it's ok? i must do somthing now about copyright, or something else?? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dolfines_guarani.jpg

Very good! But can you give a better description? It must not be in english. It is absolutely sufficient to write it in spanish. In which city does that building stand? --High Contrast (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

High Contrast, may I assume you have this situation in hand? Normally, I try to get everything in Category:Buildings into a more appropriate category, and follow up on anything with possible rights problems, but it looks like you are here before me. - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice a recent anonymous blanking of his user talk page (I'd guess it's himself trying to remove the warnings). Again, do you have this in hand or should I be taking it on? - Jmabel ! talk 04:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to help, Jmabel. --High Contrast (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing file names

You have changed 3 file names which I have uploaded. People may change article names in wikipedia but no one changes someone else's file name on Commons. I don't know what do you want to prove by doing childish acts like this. But it has only one effect. I won't upload a single military image again. Now go change whatever file names you want.--Professional Assassin (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Do what you want, but do not waste other people's time. --High Contrast (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Universität Regensburg Forum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI to me. --MattiPaavola 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I've never seen this tool before! NatanFlayer (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's okay. Have fun by using it. --High Contrast (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:TASCAM X-48.jpg

Hi, High Contrast. In a few days ago, you've added {{no permission}} tag on File:TASCAM X-48.jpg [1]. But I don't know whose permissions are needed. Please tell me your opinion.
BTW: I've already sent a OTRS request to Studio S.O.N. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this file your own work? If yes, state that explicitely as source and not "http://www.myspace.com/studioson43". The recent status who has shot that image is unclear. Ok? --High Contrast (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Gerne... Um welche Bilder gehts genau? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schummchen (talk • contribs)

Um das von dir oben genannte. Generell werden myspace-Quellen (http://www.myspace.com) auf Commons nicht akzeptiert, es sei denn es liegt eine entsprechende Erlaubnis vor (COMMONS:OTRS). --High Contrast (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Danke, geht klar :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schummchen (talk • contribs)

Danke Jungs. Ich möchte den Autor um Erlaubnis umschreiben "own work" anfordern. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Galego2006.gif

  1. Can you review the image?
  2. You say: You are no Commons-admin. Please remove the tag on your Userpage. That misrepresentation may confuse other users. Thank you ——> Why?
    Español: Quizás he hecho algo inconscientemente
Español: No comprendo su actitud. He añadido unas líneas aclarando que la imagen es self made. Cuando era yo administrador nadie tuvo pegas a que considerase que al subir las imágenes las cedía a Commons. Nadie tuvo pegas porque como autor aparece "Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez", como usuario que sube la imagen aparece "Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez" y, además, en la línea superior de los datos (al menos en el caso de esta imagen, pone self made y ponía también ciando se me hizo la advertencia self made. Que es lo que ocurre?

--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 18:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand spanish. The "discussion" was started on your talk page and there it will be continued. --High Contrast (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't understand you. Please speak spanish, portuguesh or galician language. Sameone speak that, i can't understand what tag I must remove--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. See User:Lmbuga--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
There are +200 images (I was the uploader) with source = Commons. All the images are of User:Lmbuga (Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez), and I'm Lmbuga. The author and the aploader are the same. --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you must change to source = {{own}}. Source = Commons is worthless because these images do not come from Commons - they came from you. --High Contrast (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

so, jetzt müsste ich eigentlich alle geändert haben, glaube ich zumindest (:

200 files already editted? That's quite fast, but very good. --High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Federixin

Given your remark at User talk:Federixin, you'll probably want to take a look at File:Dolfines guarani.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cruise ship on the Danube side view.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good enough for me. ZooFari 22:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
The natural reserve Divnogorje (Russia)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

descriptions

My mistake, thanks.--frk@ 16:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --High Contrast (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Glass car silos.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good composition and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 15:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

File:TourGeneve.png, and File:Tour Geneve Projeto.jpg was recried in [[File:TourGeneveProjeto.jpg]].Jo Lorib (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And this image is a derivative work. Thank you for helping. --High Contrast (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I got by then. ✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Novoanninsky church.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 08:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stadtplatz Vilshofen im Sommer.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  CommentBis auf das viele Pflaster gut. --Berthold Werner 18:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Habe das Bild zugeschnitten. So besser? --High Contrast 10:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC
Finde ich viel besser. --Berthold Werner 12:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Iss020e015790.jpg

I don't understand this message. What is a better source for a Nasa's picture than the image's adress ? --Pline (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the message again carefully. This message tells you that direct links to the image, like you are doing it, is not good because, on the NASA there are many images that are not in the public domain because the NASA is not the copyright holder of some images that appear on the NASA website. WHAT YOU MUST DO: Give as source not the direct image link (not xyt.jpg) but only the link to homepage where the image came from. Example here: File:Russian-made all-terrain vehicle.jpg. Is it understood now? Thanks in advance for correcting this in all of your uploaded NASA files. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pline (talk • contribs)
Very good and thanks you! --High Contrast (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fotos de Edificios de Asunción del Paraguay y de Auguto Roa Bastos.

Hello High Contrast! Gracias por estar atento a mi trabajo en Commons. Muchas de las fotos que había levantado allí no fueron tomadas por mis cámaras, las levanté solo para referencia.

  • Salemma Supercenter: la fotografía me pasó el dueño de ese supermercado.
  • Tapa de American News: yo soy el editor de esa revista y esa es una foto tomada de un PDF que yo mismo confeccioné y que se puede descargar de la página www.uamericana.edu.py.
  • Augusto Roa Bastos con Fidel Castro: no son fotos mías definitivamente.

Si son inapropiadas, por favor elimínalas, pues yo no se cómo se eliminan las imágenes de Commons. Desde ya agradezco su colaboración y espero poder seguir aportando con mejores fotos a la Wikimedia! Saludos! --FF MM (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot understand Spanish. Can you explain in English? --High Contrast (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation, courtesy of Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello High Contrast! Thank you for being attentive to my work on Commons. Many of the photos I've uploaded don't come from my cameras: I've uploaded them solely for reference.

  • Salemma Supercenter: the photograh was given to my by the owner of the supermarket.
  • Cover of American News: I am the editor (possibly publisher, the terms don't line up neatly to English - JM) and this is a photo taken from a PDF that I myself made and that one can download from the site www.uamericana.edu.py.
  • Augusto Roa Bastos con Fidel Castro: definitely not my photos.

If these are inappropriate, please delete them; I don't know how to delete images from Commons. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and I hope to continue to provide better images to the Wikimedia! Greetings!--FF MM (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

file deletions

Hi. on 15 jan you deleted the file File:George Jellicoe.jpg .I didn't see it, but I think it was nominated for speedy deletion by an anon editor who also nominated File:JellicoeSkiing.jpg at the same time. According to the original uploader, he has permission from the original authors to post these and a number of other images which have been deleted. He says he has attempted to follow the rules about registering permissions but these and others have been deleted. I am not the least bit surprised if the uploader doesnt understand why they may have been deleted despite his best efforts, because I have considerable trouble understanding the system myself. It also bothered me that someone who seems to have had a lot of files deleted would have some nominated for deletion by an anon. Sandpiper (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

as best I can make out, the uploader had permission from the author and probably correctly followed procedures to post the files on wikipedia. Then more recently it was transferred to commons without conforming to new changed rules. There seems to be very poor provision for registering permission when the owner of an image is known personally to the poster rather than someone contacted via an email and poor explanations given to anyone trying to understand what is happening to their posted images. Administrative mess. Sandpiper (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For permission you have to contact COM:OTRS. Send the permission to OTRS, when this permission is confirmed, File:JellicoeSkiing.jpg can be restored. --High Contrast (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Windräder, Nähe Pollenfeld.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 10:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

yaonms.jpg

Hello,

First time uploader (duh), trying to get that image up. I have the permission from the person who owns it, but don't know the exact steps to getting it uploaded. I have sent him the template with a link to the image, but can't see the bridge between uploading it onto wikipedia and his permission.

Does he just send the template with the link to the image? Or is there something obvious I am just blind to?

Thank you for your help.


Nico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngl5003 (talk • contribs)

Hello Nico! COM:OTRS: Here you can find all relevant information for image permission. If you have solved this, simply re-upload the image again with the confirmed permission. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Da

stimmt aber was nicht. Einmal werden die Kameraden als aus Niger Niger und bei Dir als aus Nigeria File:Nigerian soldiers.jpggeführt. --Erwin Lindemann 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hat sich erledigt, einer hat das zweite Bild eliminiert. --Erwin Lindemann 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Natassa Theodoridou.jpg

Thanks for notification. The correct source was added. --Erud (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. But references like en.wikipedia or "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kokkinou_Kourkoulis_Theodoridou_Votanikos2007.jpg" are not considered as valid sources on Commons. In future, please use this tool to transfer files from Wikipedia-projects to Commons. By using it, all relevant information is kept. Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ALCS photos

Thanks for the reminders on the sourcing. I don't like having to put down someone else's website as a source, but all of their photos (www.fas.org) are obtained through US Government sources; that's why the photos state Public Domain. These locations (the aircraft) would not have just "any" photographer walking around taking pictures. They're all vetted through Public Affairs. I'll try not to be so lazy in the future. Pbx-127 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good. Please add valid sources to all of your uploaded images. --High Contrast (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Anuvadh Phanna

File Tagging File:Mercedes-Benz_Travego_Suvarnabhumi_Airport-Rong_Kluea_Market_1.jpg File Tagging File:Mercedes-Benz_Travego_Suvarnabhumi_Airport-Rong_Kluea_Market_2.jpg File Tagging File:Mercedes-Benz_Travego_Suvarnabhumi_Airport-Rong_Kluea_Market_3.jpg File Tagging File:Mercedes-Benz_Travego_Suvarnabhumi_Airport-Rong_Kluea_Market_4.jpg File:O404_OLD1.JPG File:O404_OLD2.JPG File:Sombat_Tour_Lion's_Coach_Bangkok-Chiang_Mai1.jpg File:Sombat_Tour_Lion's_Coach_Bangkok-Chiang_Mai_2.jpg File:Sombat_Tour_Bangkok-Chiang_Mai_Province_1.jpg File:Sombat_Tour_Bangkok-Chiang_Mai_Province_2.jpg

Allow all owners a picture I used rightfully created, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuvadh Phanna (talk • contribs)

You must prove that you are the author. If you state some internet link where the image does even not appear, nobody can extract that you can be the photographer of those file. So, we need evidences. --High Contrast (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Rally Dakar 2009 9.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rally Dakar 2009 9.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion

You recently deleted a restored version of a photograph of the Vietnam war with the deletion rationale, "Out of project scope".[2] Please explain how it is that you consider a field photograph of wartime soldiers performing a military operation to be out of scope. Durova (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this image is not out of scope, it was obviously misleadingly tagged falsely by me: this file was aduplicate of File:Vietnamtunnel.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not a duplicate. It is a digitally restored alternate. Durova (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yes, i know that it is a digitally restored alternate. But it differs marginally from the original file and it is not used anywhere. Do you really want to restore this file or do you see it as I do, that we see this file as superseeded by the original, promoted image. --High Contrast (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, under the circumstances since it was unused I have no strong objection to it remaining deleted. The work with this particular restoration was not very extensive. Durova (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Afghan posters

Hello, I have removed speedy deletion tags from File:Afghan presidential election, 2009 poster 3.jpg, File:Afghan presidential election, 2009 poster 4.jpg, File:Afghan presidential election, 2009 poster 5.jpg and File:Afghan presidential election, 2009 poster.jpg. There is no copyright law in Afghanistan thus all images are under PD in the USA and original poster's author cant claim any copyrights. --Justass (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I know of {{PD-Afghanistan}} and that these files are PD in the USA, but only in the USA. The problem is, that the flickr User did release them under a free C&C licence and that's not okay. --High Contrast (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
But why not ok, if posters are not copyrighted and in PD then anyone can claim own copyrights over photos where those public domain pictures are visible. Author own copyrights over photo, but not of poster. And by COM:L it matters only country of origin and US law --Justass (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The main difference is, that {{PD-Afghanistan}} claims "This work is in the public domain in the United States". That means not coercively in Italy or in any other country. A Creative Commons licence is accepted in any country in the world. So, there is slight difference. --High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Two Pictures

Hello, recently you sent me messages saying that some pictures i uploaded did not have sources. As you can see by the upload information, i took those pictures and it states that it states it right there. sorry if there was a mis-understanding.Rahlgd (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Henschel HWK-11.jpg and File:Torre Latino America Noche.jpg? Really own work? Be honest, please. --High Contrast (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

NORAD Tracks Santa Logos for 2002 and 2003 and Multi-Year

High Contrast -

This is the http://web.archive.org/ version -- 

 http://web.archive.org/web/20021224104711/images.noradsanta.org/images/f18_1024x768.jpg

Of this page back in 2002 - http://www.noradsanta.org/images/nts_logo09_download.jpg

In a simailar fashion the NORAD Public Affairs has the old 2003 logo (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F18_1024x768.jpg) kept at

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsnoradpubaffairs/4315257871/

Also in a similar fashion the NORAD Public Affairs has the old multi-year logo (pre-2002) (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norad_tracks_santa_180-90_multi-year.jpg) kept at

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsnoradpubaffairs/4315257885/

I have heard from e-mail by other Wiki contributors that this has been difficult to explain to your associates who have a "delete first" and "not give a crap" about explanations !!

Any truth to this ??

Is this e-mail note sufficient explanation ??? Yes or No ??

Thanks - Bob Jones

File source is not properly indicated: File:Osorio.jpg

I think it would be more helpful to leave your message on the original uploaders talk page instead of mine, since all I did was adjust the colour balance and am not going to have much of an idea on how it was sourced. Hohum (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Setra bus in Syria.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI --George Chernilevsky 11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello, I have uploaded 2 own photos, this is images taken by myself and uploaded to Commons. I have filled in all fields have has my user name Wikimedia - Pycckue as the creator and holder of this work, plus copyright notice. What is wrong with these photos? Pycckue (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

-- &

I also have uploaded 3 photos of other autors.

You tagged the three photos as a copyright violation. Please, take this photos, because I have the author's permission, I asked for it by email, he allowed me to use these pictures for wikipedia. I have added a link to the site of the autor of this work. I'm not so expert about licensing, I can't understand, for what then we need these two licenses? - {Copyrighted free use} and {Attribution} If the license is not appropriate please suggest me how to apply properly the appropriate license for those photos. Let me know what i need to do to be able to keep that photo on wiki? However, please, delete this three photos if you thing it is against any Commmons rule. Thank you. Pycckue (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have the permission for free use, please send an Email to the OTRS-team: here you find all relevant information. --High Contrast (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Kronshtadt1.jpg

You just tagged my uploaded photo as lacking source data. How is this possible when I provided the US Naval Historical Center # and said that it was a captured Luftwaffe reconnaissance photo from 1941. WTF? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Milan missile.jpg is not of the MILAN. It is of the ultra-short range ERYX antitank missile

See the subject line. If you with go to WP.En and type in ERYX antitank missile. I wrote an article on the ERYX back in the 1980s. An additional note: First photo I have seen of the ERYX fitted with its add-on night sight. --Jackehammond (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Interesting info. Did you categorize it properly according to the new information you were telling me? Thanks for helping out. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I go slow so I don't step on anyone's toes over the rules. I am having a hard enough time categorizing my files, much less someone else. I enter the right categories that exists on WP commons but they don't show as categories????? There is a "Grenade launcher" -- goofed it is suppose to be Grenade launchers with and "s" -- and a "M79 grenade launcher"???? I am doing something wrong, just can't figure out what? Do all new editors have this steep a learning curve or is it just me? I about got lynched over on the WP.En side over signing my name and I kept saying I am signing my name: Jack E. Hammond. I at last figured out the four wavy things --Jackehammond (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem you are telling of is quite famous - I think. In my view you are absolutely right with this case: "M79 grenade launcher". This was changed recently by another admin who seems to be more catholic than the Pope, when he implemented the "plural rule" of Commons, which he thoght must apply to technical things, too. But you can help with your opinion and arguments: This case is in discussion right now, but exemplarily with "tank"-categories: you can participate here. Thanks for your support. --High Contrast (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Padre Victor

Prezado, Gostaria de saber o por que que você excluiu a imagem de Padre Victor da Wiki? Só por que está imagem foi também publicada em um site católico de Minas Gerais, nada impede que a mesma seja também publicada na Wiki. Att. Deiwyd (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear, I wonder why you deleted the image of Father Victor Wiki? Just why is image was also posted on a Catholic website of Minas Gerais, nothing prevents it to be also published in the Wiki

Simple case: Commons:Copyright violations. --High Contrast (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Marcoligabue zoostudio.jpg

Hi HC! I'm writing to U in place of Senzagenda, for the file linked in the title: what's wrong in it? It doesn't lack the author, nor the source, or the license! :-) -- Massic80 Contattami 12:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is User:Senzagenda the photographer of this image? The problem is because there is no EXIF data, one can think this might be uploaded falsely. --High Contrast (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I just noticed your answer here :-) Senzagenda is the owner of the picture, even if he isn't the photograpHER, but the photograpHED guy with guitar ;-) I asked him (directly) to upload a fee-of-copyright picture -- Massic80 Contattami 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:ErnieHareProhibitionSuicide.jpg

Hello. Why did you remove Category:Suicide [8] from File:ErnieHareProhibitionSuicide.jpg? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I have added the category back; I assume the edit was just a mistake. The category seems clearly relevent to me, and this image is in use illustrating the suicide article in ru:w. If you disagree, please explain. Thanks much. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, was proceeded by me misleadingly. --High Contrast (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Imagens deletadas

Prezado,

Nestes últimos dias varias imagens você vem solicitando ou apenas deletanto com argumentos que não condizem com a verdade dos fatos. Gostaria de solicitar a você respeito pelo material por mim postado na Wiki, visto que o mesmo retrata a boa intenção de enriquecer os artigos com fatos que você provavelmente desconheça e não julgue interessante. Não se prevaleça de alguma posição na Wiki para estragar artigos alheios que são estranhos a você, deixe quem tem interesse de enriquecer a Wiki trabalhar, se não foi pedir muito. Att. Deiwyd (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand spanish. --High Contrast (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eu não traduzir Espanhol ou Português

It is Portuguese. --Jackehammond (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In recent days many images you have been challenging or just Deleted with arguments that do not match with the true facts. I would like to ask you about the material I posted on the Wiki, since it portrays the good intention of enriching the articles with facts you probably unknown, and no judge of interest. Not prevail in any position in the Wiki articles to spoil others who are unfamiliar to you, let those who want to enrich the Wiki work if it was not too much to ask.

Deiwyd Saudações. Por favor, postar sua mensagem em Inglês. Você pode traduzir a sua mensagem de Português para Inglês, clicando neste link Respeitosamente,--Jackehammond (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Ivins award ceremony.jpg

Hi, why exactly did you delete this image? And why didn't you at least tag it or nominate it for deletion before doing so? FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Which image exactly? --High Contrast (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The name is in the title, this one. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, the source is quite poor. There is no evidence that would allow a PD-USGOV-MILITARY-ARMY licence. --High Contrast (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't mean you cans just delete it. You would at least have to tag it as a copyvio and wait for seven days. The real problem here is that the original page doesn't work anymore. Luckily, the same image is found here, in a smaller version, with a working URL: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bruce_E._Ivins.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I know about the 7 days rule, but in blatant violations I tend to proceed faster. In this case (no working source, weak sourcing, no evidence for "public domain") I acted immediately because of that. But, all in all, the source you gave above clearly proofs the US-Army-licence - I have added it recently. Thanks for helping for clarifing this fact. --High Contrast (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You should be careful with immediate deletions, many times a second opinion can save a picture. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But in blatant cases a second opinion is not needed. As I stated above, due to the bad sources the discussed files seemed to be one of those blatant copyright violations. Thanks again. --High Contrast (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo Provided by US Army

This is will be honest with you about. After the US Army in 1983 chose a new weapon that was originally from Sweden, in 1984 I contacted the US Army and was sent some photos. Three I think came from the manufacture in Sweden. All the photo labels on the back says -- with front sight, rear sight, or safety-trigger -- is: Jan 84 Front sight of the AT-4, antitank system, a candidate for replacement of the VIPER, manufactured by FFV of Sweden with Honeywell as the US licensee. Can I upload them as US Army? --Jackehammond (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, those images came from the manufacturer in Sweden, so they are likely not US Army images. Does this category help you? Here you can find loads of US military public domain images of which 90% are able to get uploaded on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't show the detail. Well, so much for that idea. I figured as much. From what can tell about Federal Law it has to be "done" by a federal employees not "provided" by a federal employee. And I have done this enough to be able to spot the difference between US government stuff and the commercial stuff the defense manufactures hire to do --Jackehammond (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

It is a little late but, thank you very much for your support on my RfA, I should said that many times ago, but I thought it is kind of spamming, writing to everybody who voted for me, so I decided to just write a thank you note on my own talk page, anyway, I apologize for being late, thanks and best regards   ■ MMXX  talk  23:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --High Contrast (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:BG-Policies-on-MK.png

Apologies, I've wrongly put there the author of the book itself; the image author is given now. Hope it's okay. Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everything ok now. Thanks for your (good) help! --High Contrast (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Cargo Ship under attack in Tanker war.JPG

Hi. did you study my answer?Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. --High Contrast (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

files

every picture which i upload has a permission from OTRS, i have just upload it, so ther is no pasible way that the permissions from OTRS will be added at the same time, i truly don't understend why you are adding "no source since" template DingirXul (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You must use this template then: {{subst:OP}}. --High Contrast (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Großarmschlag, 2008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI --George Chernilevsky 11:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Cc apilas.jpg in WP commons and permissions?????

I checked one of the links on an antitank weapon article and it did not have a photo. I checked WP commons and there was Cc apilas.jpg. I added it to the APILAS article. But it is in Italian. And I noticed a photo of a Finish soldier firing the APILAS had been previously deleted. Is this image ok. Or is there some permission (ie I notice permission this, and permission that, and don't understand what it means) requirements. Do I have to contact someone to use it on the APILAS article. It looks commercial to me????? --Jackehammond (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Apilas: The italian Apilas-image is released under a free "Creative Commons Attribution" licence by the italian ministry of defence. The licence was made possible by a Commons-User who asked there for the permission (look at the OTRS ticket). Well, the permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system (commercial files, too). The finish apilas image was just a copyright violation: it was not released under a free licence and no OTRS permission was stated.

Image use: Any image on Commons can be used freely on any Wikipedia project. You do not need a permission for using this file in an article on Wikipedia. --High Contrast (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jackehammond (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arava-cockpit.jpg

I've just explained the source there. 217.132.39.115 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This photo seems to be taken by a professional photographer. Does a higher resoluted version of this image exist (with EXIF data)? --High Contrast (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Uri Ben-Avraham appears to be a professional photographer. I've never seen a higher resoluted version, but Uri Ben-Avraham probably has it. However he allowed Nehemia G to upload this version to Wikipedia with the mention license. NatanFlayer (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just removed the "no source" problem tag. Can you ask him for a higher resoluted version? --High Contrast (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll talk with Nehemia G. NatanFlayer (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

US Army photo I uploaded

I put every piece of info that was stamped on the back of the 1969 photo I found: M72A2 LAW 1969.jpg. Even the name of the soldier and the DoD photographer working for the US Army.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Was this image published in a leaflet of the US Army, too? Specification like, "United States Army Public Affairs Office, Washington DC" in [9]. --High Contrast (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Both images were sent me by the US Army, Public Affairs Office, Washington DC (ie it is not a pamplet -- ie it is an office annex in the Pentagon). The Viper image you linked to had nothing on the back of it like the M72_1969 photo. But you can find the same exact person posing with the Viper, except the tube is collapsed. It is on the Redstone Arsenal archive website in Huntsville, AL. WP Commons has hundreds of photos from that sources. The photo I am stating about now that I posted last night is one of the PR photos the US Army in the 1950s-Now take and send to the soldiers home town newspaper. Only now, they send a Jpeg and post it on a website with US Army photos from various commands. I got it, because in 1983 I sent in a request for photos of the antitank weapons being tested to replace the M72 LAW (ie there was a huge defence scandal over this issue). Also requested some photos of the M72 LAW that showed the back blast danger of light antitank weapons when they are fired (ie one of the six weapons being tested did not have a back blast -- ie long story). That was all they could find in their files. Probably the only print they had! Also, I am going to be posting another photo that the US Army took of a US Army soldier with the British LAW 80 -- ie one of the weapons being tested. It is actually a pretty poor quality photo, even for black and white. But the WP.En LAW 80 article has no photos in WP Commons, and the article looks pretty bare without one. So I hunted that one rare photo up. It has the day it was taken, photographer, who is in the photo, that it comes from the US Army's Audio and Visual Agency, etc. No self respecting commercial photographer would ever claim it. Also on the M72_1969 photo, I forgot to include the official file negative number: CC 60148. Is that important??? Maybe WP Commons just needs to change the rules, to where the only photos accepted under that federal law, are only if the photo taken by a US Government employee has been posted on an official US government internet webpage. I wouldn't be a happy trooper, but at least the confusion would end. And Ain't it horrible to have an old retired buzzard now on WP with a treasure drove (at least he thinks they are) of old US Army b/w photos from the 1960s to the 1980s that his wife has been trying to get him to throw in the trash on threat of a divorce. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Snow Trac in Bavaria.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Could have had some more room at the left side, but ok. -- Smial 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Bonnie Kathleen Wright.jpg

Hi,

I saw that you deleted this file a few weeks ago because of a copyvio (same for File:Bonnie wright.jpg). I'm curious as to the copyright problem since you didn't elaborate in the deletion summary. Kooritza (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahm ahm. Kooritza (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tower crane, close-up.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. -- Smial 22:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 Comment I think the composition could still be improved, though, by cropping off half the blue area to the right. -- Avenue 06:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tower crane, close-up.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. -- Smial 22:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 Comment I think the composition could still be improved, though, by cropping off half the blue area to the right. -- Avenue 06:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

File:LuFisto.jpg

Hi , I am the creator of LuFisto.jpg. The photo is now under Creative Common license on Flickr, so anybody can download it and use it

Tibi Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtibi (talk • contribs)

Good. I managed to a Commons-re-Upload. Thanks for your support and your quick reaction. --High Contrast (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

PET

Well the autor is here, discuss with him http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:KieranMaher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.53.78 (talk • contribs)

??? --High Contrast (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ARV-A-L.jpg

I believe I have fixed the sourcing for Image:ARV-A-L.jpg. Hohum (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Image Descriptions

Thanks for your message regarding image descriptions, (example File:Carolina Gynning tits.jpg). At this time I am simply uploading new versions of existing images with watermarks removed, and I don't have further information about the original images. When I upload a new image I always try to add useful information.

-=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay. But if you stumble over bad image descriptions and you have time, feel free to write a few words. Thanks and have fun contributing for Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NIST-F1 image

Hi,

The image of an atomic clock I uploaded, Nistf1ph.jpg, has been deleted due to copyright infringement. The NIST image seems to be copyrighted by Geoffrey Wheeler (see: http://physics.nist.gov/TechAct/Div847/div847.html). Should the same not happen then to the following image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Atomic_clocks.jpg?uselang=en ?

Coenen (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for the speedy deletion proposal

Hi. Almost half of the picture is composed with a commercial which may be copyrighted. There's no proof we can use a derivative work with it freely. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do not share your opinion. Nevertheless, feel free to nominate this file for deletion, so others can state their opinion about this case. Thanks in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:12_-_Картина_Блаженного_Бартоло_Лонго.jpg

Hi!

Your asked me: > Editor's summary: Where does > File:12_-_Картина_Блаженного_Бартоло_Лонго.jpg > come from?

All matherials for the article was presented by St. Maria Order's office (Bari, Italy).

I used 'my own' license because of Wikipedia limitations for "newbees" only.

Sincerely Yours, A. Guryanov

File:Teupen_20100204042917.jpg

scroll her to the End of the Side. Then your see a CC-Button with Link. Follow the Link ...--Sarkana frag den ℑ Vampir 23:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right; that was a little bit too small for my old eyes --High Contrast (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Kommt vor. Ist aber auch gut versteckt. ^^ Schade nur, daß die Auflösung so gering ist. Aber zum Online was illustrieren reichen etliche der dortigen Bilder aus.--Sarkana frag den ℑ Vampir 20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Lorenz church Kempten.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI --George Chernilevsky 08:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your Flickr uploads

Thanks for the tips. Capmo (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --High Contrast (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Maoz Aviv Tel Aviv.jpg

Ok. "Maoz_Aviv_inTel_Aviv.jpg", Gedeon07 (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots of "Google Maps" or "Google Earth" (e.g.) are not allowed on Commons. In general fair use material is not allowed on Commons. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi BTR

Hello, High Contrast!

I have a question; I think, that File:BTR-80A.JPEG is also not a Russian BTR-80A, but a Ukrainian BTR-94. How do you think?

With best regards--BezPRUzyn (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
There are certain similarities, but I am not sure in this case. The source states this is a BTR-80A. Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

I think, that this BTR on the photo has a twin turret, that looks very much like BAU-23x2.

With best regards--BezPRUzyn (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palmyra, December 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments very good --Archaeodontosaurus 18:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

cats & appropriate admin behavior

hi;

removed nudism as a compromise gesture

the other categories are all appropriate, & NOT overcategorization; if you have a more efficient way to catalogue the files, i invite you to demonstrate it.

as regards your deleting the category: "Category:Human anatomy, set of subject 01"

you don't work much in the human anatomy section; you don't really know what is going on there, & it is extremely inappropriate for an admin to go around deleting things, where they have taken an opinion on one side of the issue beforehand.

also, if you continue to "stalk" my edits, expect me to take appropriate action.

an admin should follow the rules better than you have been in this case.

regards Lx 121 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, you are now engaged in an "edit war" which is even more inappropriate behavior for an admin. you are dismalting other people's work umnilaterally, & this is the final request i will be making directly to you, to cease & desist. my further complaints about your action will be directed eslewhere. Lx 121 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cruise ship turn-over on the Danube.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Sharp and otherwise also good. -- --Cayambe 19:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

3/10/10 Hello High Contrast. I was writing because an image i uploaded was deleted because of copy right. I am working with the owner of this image ( it a image of himself). We created a CC common license (CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0), so that we could add the picture on wikicommons to use on his wikipedia page. He would like to use the same image of himself he has on his website on the wikipedia page. Can you please provide some guidance and explanation on we need to do inorder to use this image. (The image you recommendd for deletion was Michael_Godard_Copy.jpg on 3/10/10). Thank you in advance for you assistance.

FV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fveseli (talk • contribs)

Hello! Of which image do you talk exactly? --High Contrast (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello High Contrast- Here is hte link to the picture i am refering to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Godard_copy.jpg Thanks FV


Hello High Contrast- I appreciate any feedback you can provide in how to get my image accepted. please see my previous messages above. Thank you in advacne for your assistance.

Well, you say this file is published under a "CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0"-licence which would be definately OK on Commons, but the image could be found here: http://www.michaelgodard.com/ © 2010 Michael Godard Fine Art Associates All Rights Reserved. "All Rights Reserved" means not free. Can you clear this? Do you have a higher resolution of the image? --High Contrast (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Your deletion of the walking robot animation was innapropriate, as the disscussion had already been closed, and there was at least 4 people who had good arguments for a keep. Mod mmg (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hope the information below will help. The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sameh Ashour is a senior vice of the Egyptian Arab Democratic Nasserist Party and is also a member of its supreme body. He used to be a member of the People's Assembly of Egypt between 1995 and 2005. He is also a potential candidate in the Egyptian presidential election, 2011. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article.

I believe you that this person is relevant for Wikimedia project. But here on Commons, we have to take care of copyright issues and this image is a copyright violation and must be deleted, equal if it is useful or not. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The picture is taken for Al Jazeera website. I am only required to leave Al Jazeera logos intact, reference to the repository website, and the license itself. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Refaat El-Saeed is the President of the National Progressive Unionist Partyin Egypt and is a current member of the Shura Council. He is also a potential candidate in the Egyptian presidential election, 2011. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article.

I believe you that this person is relevant for Wikimedia project. But here on Commons, we have to take care of copyright issues and this image is a copyright violation and must be deleted, equal if it is useful or not. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The picture is taken for Al Jazeera website. I am only required to leave Al Jazeera logos intact, reference to the repository website, and the license itself. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gamal Mubarak is the General Secretary of the Policy Committee of the National Democratic Party and the younger of the two sons of Hosni Mubarak. He is also a potential candidate in the Egyptian presidential election, 2011. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article.

I believe you that this person is relevant for Wikimedia project. But here on Commons, we have to take care of copyright issues and this image is a copyright violation and must be deleted, equal if it is useful or not. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The picture is taken for Al Jazeera website. I am only required to leave Al Jazeera logos intact, reference to the repository website, and the license itself. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right: Give the exact source of the image on http://cc.aljazeera.net/ and I will restore this file.--High Contrast (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abaza is the current president of the Egyptian New Wafd Party and is a member of the People's Assembly of Egypt. He is also a potential candidate in the Egyptian presidential election, 2011. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article.

I believe you that this person is relevant for Wikimedia project. But here on Commons, we have to take care of copyright issues and this image is a copyright violation and must be deleted, equal if it is useful or not. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The picture is taken for Al Jazeera website. I am only required to leave Al Jazeera logos intact, reference to the repository website, and the license itself. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right: Give the exact source of the image on http://cc.aljazeera.net/ and I will restore this file.--High Contrast (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ayman Nour is the founder and leader of the Egyptian Al-Ghad Party and former candidate in the the 2005 Egyptian presidential elections in which he emerged as runner-up to the winning President Hosni Mubarak. He is also a potential candidate in the Egyptian presidential election, 2011. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article.

I believe you that this person is relevant for Wikimedia project. But here on Commons, we have to take care of copyright issues and this image is a copyright violation and must be deleted, equal if it is useful or not. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The picture is taken for Al Jazeera website. I am only required to leave Al Jazeera logos intact, reference to the repository website, and the license itself. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The image is too simple to have any copy rights.

No it is not too simple. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. So what should I do to keep it? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The image is too simple to have any copy rights.

No it is not too simple. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. So what should I do to keep it? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I took this photo of Mr. Essam and he agreed that I can use it.

Do you have a higher resolution of it or a better one? It looks like an image taken out of a pasport. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure if I have a higher resolution of it but I might have better pictures. I will have to check. but is it ok for now? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Alawan_Arabic_Logo.jpg

It a online news paper. The image is too simple to have any copy rights.

No it is not too simple. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Al_Shorouk_Newspaper_Logo.jpg

It is a logo for an Egyptian news paper. The image is too simple to have any copy rights.

No it is not too simple. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Somali man in fez.gif

Hi! Since you have closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somali man in fez.jpg, could you please also close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somali man in fez.gif as this is the exact same case? Thanks. — Xavier,

File:Poster Orlando Zapata.JPG

Hi, High Contrast. I took this photograph of a sign located on a wall. I've seen that image of Zapata in many places, and I think it's in the public domain. Greetings. --Mad Simpson (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mad Simpson! This case is somehow more complicated. Just because a photograph is located on walls in public places does not mean that you can put it in the public domain or that it is in the public domain. It is a derivative work of copyrighted material. Feel free to contribute other photogrpahs that you have taken. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Bonnie Kathleen Wright.jpg

I asked you about this file File:Bonnie wright.jpg, but you archived my question (here) without an answer. Kooritza (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't do it on purposes. Please help me remembering: what was the problem with this file? As I can see, it was deleted because of copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I understood it from the summery, but I was curious as to the nature of the violation and whether it is repairable. Kooritza (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Where did you have this image from? --High Contrast (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the uploader. The problem is I couldn't understand from your edit summery what is the nature of the violation. Kooritza (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Pjatiletnu prevratii ve chetuirekhletnu.jpg

Hi, I found in my talk page your message about this file. I've noticized that the version i uploaded was modified erasing some letter and numbers from the left side of that picture. Sorry forthe mistake. Regards. --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for uploading this image, but just add the source where you have this image from and then you can remove the tag I have added before. --High Contrast (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

PET

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PETScanner.jpg I think the source is clear, so we can remove the tag that says that the source is not clear. Dirk Hünniger (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the source is not sufficient because there is no proof that "Kieran Maher" is associated to the "Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne" and that he is the photographer of this image, too. Unfortunately, the original file on Wikibooks was deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
In the section Feedback of this webpage http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Basic_Physics_of_Nuclear_Medicine the Email address of Kieran Maher is given. He will provide you with the necessary information, but you will have to ask him for that by addressing him personally (e.g. by Email)Dirk Hünniger (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I will not ask him. You are the uploader and it is your task to do this. --High Contrast (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I will ask him to contact you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk Hünniger (talk • contribs)
This is something, I do not want. Again: On Commons, it is the uploader's task to inform properly about his/her uploaded files. I am not interested in getting arranged contact to others. If this would be a common practice here, this would end in a bottomless pit. Thanks for understanding. --High Contrast (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No I am sorry I don't understand you. I mean you want a proof that he is the author. I do not really understand what kind of proof you want. And especially I do not understand why you don't just ask the author himself to give you a proof. I mean I live in Europe and the author lives in Australia. And the picture was taken in Australia. So to me it looks much more manageable to try to proof that in Australia. Dirk Hünniger (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
The fortress Qasr Azraq in Jordan.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

File:Qasr Al-Azraq.jpg

Hello Berrucomons!

Thanks for adding the french description to this file! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome!
I translate any caption as long as it is usefull, if people ask, or if the picture is FP or VI. So, if you want other translations, just ask!
--Berru (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Archways of Qasr al-Azraq.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 22:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Air Forces

The category for Austria's Air Force contains this as a header, and has for a very long time as far as I can tell. I've simply been replicating it on the other Air Force categories. I believe it makes a nice header. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Air_force_of_Austria Fry1989 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly this is not necessary and categories are not intended to look good. Categories must contain clearly arranged information. Please do not keep adding colorful images to categories just because you think it might look nicer then. As I told you, you can create articles in which you can insert some images. --High Contrast (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not just doing it to make it look nicer, and I notice that you haven't removed it from Austria's air force category, so maybe you should remove it from there or not complain when I duplicate it for other air forces. Fry1989 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have noticed that I missed Austria's air force, it wasn't a great job for you to proceed accordingly. So quit adding superfluous Eye Candy to categories. Thanks for applying! --High Contrast (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Remember the facts: Please do not play the innocent one: I once contacted you because these superfluous actions back in November 2009! --High Contrast (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Help

tr-0
Bu kullanıcı Türkçe anlamıyor (veya anlamakta büyük güçlük çekiyor).

Neden telif ihlali olduğunu anlamıyorum?Yüklediğim resimler Flickr'dan.Hepsine kaynak gösterdim.Neyi yanlış yaptığımıda anlamıyorum.Resim yükleme sayfasındakilerin %90'ı İngilizce.Ama malesef İngilizcem iyi değil.Ne yapmalıyım?

HELP User talk:Merve.1996 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Flickr'dan fotoğraflar bir "serbest lisans altında değil" dir. "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" flickr üzerinde "onlar Commons'da aktarılmaz gerektiğini belirtir. --High Contrast (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Frage zu dem Babelkasten

Wie kann ich mir einen einrichten? Finde auf der ganzen Website leider nur Englischsprachige hilfe von der ich nicht allzu viel verstehe Felixwenzltalk) UTC 17:33 22.3.2010

Wie ich sehe, hast du dir auf deiner Benutzerseite schon einen erstellt... --High Contrast (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ja hab es dann geschafft nachdem ich auf einer seite mit Babelkasten geschaut habe wie das gemacht wurde! [User:Felixwenzl|Felixwenzl]] (talk) 16:31 24.3.2010 (UTC)

Sichterrechte auch auf Commons

Hi, danke für den Hinweis. Ich hab's gemacht und tauche nun unter den Commons:Requests for rights/Approved/Patroller/2010 auf, allerdings, ohne, dass das jemand als "erledigt/granted" markiert hat. Vielleicht kannste ja mal gucken. Vielen Dank und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Stimmt, da ging etwas schief. Ich habe das Häkchen nun neben "Patroller" gesetzt. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


Lösch Fanatiker

Die kritisierte Dstei, die ich eingestellt habe, hat : 1) einen genauen link zur Defence Library vom DOD, ist als Regierungswerk also gemeinfrei 2) ein Ausschnitt der auf wiki schon vorhandenen File:Aukstaitis-1993-1.jpg Hattest du einen schlechten Tag, das du mal wieder Brave User ein auswischen wolltest ?? --Gonzosft (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mäßige dich im Tonfall und entferne keine Problemhinweise von Dateien, wenn das Problem nicht geklärt ist. Ich hoffe ich habe deine Ausführung richtig verstanden: Das hier http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil ist keine valide Quelle (das übrigens verlangt Commons, nachzulesen hier). Richtig wäre ein Link auf die Seite, von der du das Bild hast und zwar kein direkter Link auf das Bild, spirch auf die .jpg-Datei. In Zukunft bitte beachten!
Weil ich ein ausgesprochen guter Mensch bin, habe ich dir diesen Fehler verbessert.
Mentor High Contrast (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Your link seems to be broken, or maybe it's my computer--I'll check later. I figured I'd upload both, each with a link to the other: one showing the original, one showing in the upright position. I'll await your answer here in your talk page. Thanks for your help.  :)  Better than Hustler (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Must be some problem with your computer because I've just checked the link and it worked. --High Contrast (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Mural_-_Battle_of_the_bogside_2004_SMC.jpg

Frage: Wenn das ein Originalbild ist und keine vergrößerte Version eines Kunstwerks, würdest Du dann FOP gelten lassen? Mir scheint die Frage von grundlegender Bedeutung zu sein, weil es viele Wandgemälde betrifft. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ja, wenn es keine vergrößerte Version eines Kunstwerks ist, dann würde ich FOP gelten lassen. --High Contrast (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Dank Dir für die schnelle Antwort. Es scheint laut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogside_Artists ein Originalbild der Malergruppe zu sein. Ich werde dann auf Behalten entscheiden. Viele Grüße --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Wäre nett, wenn du als Begründungstext bei dieser Diskussion einen Verweis/Hinweis o.ä. hinterlässt, der auf unser kleines Gespräch hier aufmerksam macht. Danke dir im voraus. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Kategorisieren

Danke für das Kategorisieren meiner Bilder, doch das hätte ich schon noch selbst gekonnt. ;-) Ich hatte nur eine kleine Pause gemacht, um die wenigen Sonnenstrahlen heute für ein paar weitere Fotos zu nutzen. Wenn Du aber unter Langeweile leiden solltest, hätte ich noch ein paar interessante Aufgaben zu vermitteln. Beispielsweise bei folgenden Usern:

-- Ies (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Finnish defence doctrine, territorial defence.png

Dear High Contrast,

I think that the OTRS request you placed on the file File:Finnish defence doctrine, territorial defence.png, is unnecessary. Please continue discussion at the talk page. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear MPorciusCato! Thanks for helping out! Can you purchase a better version of it? --High Contrast (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Topol-M

You asked for sketch of Topol-M. It's here: File:Topol M SS27 Sickle B sketch.svg--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice, very good drawing! Thanks for this contribution! --High Contrast (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Road works in Ohio.jpg

Hello,

I just happen to browse through this page (I am uploading conveyor belts drawings 1, 2) and had 5 minutes free…

Leider ist mein Deutsch nicht so gut, aber vielleicht kannst du es selbst übersetzen ;-)

Cdang (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


Your Flickr uploads

Hey HC, i do use the highest resolution, what i'm also doing is enhancing them slightly in Photoshop for optimum color renditions, also slight cropping in some of them, but alway keeping them the original size, everything hardly noticeable, thanks for the info though, cheers – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This was an automatic message. You are right, you are uploading the highest resolution available, but think about using this delightful tool. It makes it easier for you! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Dani Wilde close up.jpg

The fraction of a second before you deleted the image the author posted on the file talk page. Please restore the file. I will write her a message on myspace asking for email permission. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Seh jetzt erst, dass du Deutsch sprichst, aber verstehst ja :) Hekerui (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Datei restored. Bitte halte mich auf dem Laufenden über den Fortgang dieser Erlaubniseinholung. Danke im voraus. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hab ne ausführliche Erklärung aus Wikipedia:Example requests for permission und Photo submission zusammengeschrieben so dass man was versteht (Schinderei! :) und ihr geschickt. Mal sehen, was wird. Hekerui (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Scheint erledigt. Hekerui (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:2105race historiccup cocacola.jpg

Hello, i downloaded this and other deleted files from Flickr. What i do wrong???? Racer009 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

These files are marked as "All Rights Reserved" on Flickr. Such images are not allowed on Commons due to licencing questions. Please do not upload or re-upload such files. Thank you! --High Contrast (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Ок. Thanks!Racer009 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Feel free to contribute images og which you are photographer of. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please....

...do not modify my comments on images. Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (d) 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually no problem! I was confused if I did write falsely or if the wiki software is working erroneous after the re-organisation. --High Contrast (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: File source is not properly indicated: File:Evd-javalina-045.JPG

At Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010Mar#Proposed Collection for Escuela Virtual de Deportes is a discussion on this content. The content is CC-by-sa 2.5 (Colombia), and has been delivered to me by the authors themselves, however this material should also be available as at http://www.deportes.gov.co

I will check on th online copy of the source.

— Chlewey (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Check here[11] in the next to last page in the PDF is the license of this work and related content. That includes al Javelin images I've been uploading today.
— Chlewey (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please explain

Could you please explain what the programme is for and how it is used? Thanks Sp33dyphil 07:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It creates a complete scheme for your flickr image you want to upload. You just have to copy and paste the flickr ID and push the button "Flickr Info anfordern"- Then look what happened. All relevant information is contained in the created text. You can use this text by copying it in the upload form. Basically, this tool makes flickr uploads easier, faster and it creates Commons-conform upload texts. --High Contrast (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Djiboutian army soldiers on a truck.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 08:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hab das gerichtet. Hekerui (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Danke. --High Contrast (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Adjusts in file

Tks to talk me about the File:Jose_Verissimo.jpg. See this now to are ok, please. (sorry my bad English, I speak only portuguese). André Koehne TALK TO ME 01:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok now! Thanks for correcting! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Flickr

Thanks for the heads up. I've used a variety of uploading tools over the years, but I prefer the convenience of copying over formatting from previous images I've uploaded. I guess it's old school, but it gets the job done. Thank you for taking the time to review the licenses for the images, I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. When you prefer methods you are used to, why not. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Uploads of Esonocabe

Hallo, just wanted to notice you about the user Esonocabe. In the file descriptions he says (in spanish) that he's the author of these files because he's a member of the band, I told him about sending a mail to OTRS, but while waiting for that, his uploads can be deleted or we just need to wait? --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Ukrainian Tu-22 M3.jpg

Theoretically, I have loads of images of this airshow (and many others), practically, I have to search them. Which images are You interested in? --KGyST (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, photographs of air defense systems (radars, launchers, etc.) or soviet-built vehicles are generally asked Commons. Categories dealing with this theme are quite weakly filled. Thanks for searching your archieves. --High Contrast (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
From that airshow I have some not-too-good pics of a Slovakian S-300 TEL and an Ukrainian Su-27, plus the Tu-22M3. I'll upload some more later. --KGyST (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to uplad them all. Photographs of air defense systems are always appreciated. --High Contrast (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos of posters, etc at Defence Shows

This probably won't fly, but here goes: To wit, Back in the 1980s I attended defence conventions where they also had a display hall of the verious weapons, equipment, etc. Sometimes they did not have the photos or brochures available for various reasons. But their would be wall display, or something like that. Well, I had a professional camera with a detachable flash (for weddings to prevent redeye) and a flat macro-lenses and I would just take a photo of the brochure, painting or drawing I wanted. Jane's Information Group (ie the largest publisher or defence magazines) did the same thing. I have a whole box full of slides I took at those defence shows. Now my question: Can I donate those images to WP Commons. Of even though they had the illustration in plain sight it is still covered by copyright?????? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is hard to say what applies here. If the photographed content is in the public domain, then it would go. But it is not easy to prove this. If you have photographed copyrighted material: The photograph may be your own work, but when the majority of the photograph is covered by a copyrighted poster, it is not working, too: COM:DW applies here. --High Contrast (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I read the link you gave for about a half hour. The answer is a simple: NO it seems. I just knew it was not going to fly. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:Archivo P-12

No, no tengo una mejor imagen pero la podría intentar hacer, si necesitas otro mapa de Palencia o algo me avisas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiducho (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately I do not understand spanish. But higher resoluted versions of images are always highly appreciated. --High Contrast (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Flickr images

You mark of two Flickr images (File:Фронтовые бомбардировщики Су-24 .jpg and File:Фронтовой бомбардировщик Су-34. Сброс авиабомб.jpg) as copyvio with reason "flickr washing". But on Flickr these images available under these same CC-BY licenses. What's the problem? I no remove "copivio" template, but mark these in additional as "flickrreview needed". Maybe you re-check these?--Kaganer (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Flickr user mashleymorgan is definately not the copyright holder of these images. Flickr washing: A flickr user has uploaded copyrighted, unfree images and tagged them with free licence like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. --High Contrast (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, but maybe you can say the name of copiriht holder? (If I saw a link to the copiright holder in the reasons, I would not ask these questions)? Or link to diskussion about this? --Kaganer (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer about the VIRIN ID

To answer your question: Here is an official guide to how a VIRIN ID is created.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Big - Lean Into It

Hi, I noticed you deleted File:Mr. Big - Lean Into It.jpg due to copyright violation. I presumed it was PD. Can you please tell me which copyright was violated on that image? Best regards, Clausule (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your presumption that this album cover would be in the public domain is wrong. As long as you are not the copyright holder of this music album cover, you have not the right to release it under a free licence like public domain. Album covers are generally not allowed on Commons - except you have a special permission by the copyright holder. --High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are these album covers allowed then: File:Nirvana album cover.jpg, File:The White Album.svg?
These albums do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. See here: Template:PD-textlogo/en. That does not apply to this "Mr. Big"-album cover you have uploaded. --High Contrast (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it DOES apply on the text and font on the album cover: "Mr. Big Lean Into It"? Clausule (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
edit: To be precise: is this allowed?
Well, I'd say it does not meet the threshold of originality. Others may see it differently. But what are you willing to do with this file? It is neither the original album cover nor a helpful derivative work of it that can be used in an article. Anyway. Two problems remain: Firstly, the source is broken. You wrote "own work, based on [1]" and "[1]" directs not to the original album cover. Secondly, such files are ideally purchased as .svz-file: all relevant information can be found here: Help:SVG. Besides, have you considered cropping the image? --High Contrast (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to use this image. It can be deleted after this discussion. The only point I want to make is: as this does not meet the treshold of originality (and I think it indeed does not), and therefore is PD, how can you claim copyright to it when you add a PD-image like File:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895.jpg to it. I just believe one can't claim copyright on the Lean into it album, as it is released. Clausule (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Aha! Good finding! Well, obviously the image that is the basis of the album is in the public domain. Considering this new information, it is no problem to upload the Mr. Big music album. But two things ahead: watch out for a high quality version of the album and write in the "permission field" of the upload form something out the wirting that does not meet the threshold of originality and that the background image is in the public domain (with a file link). If you have done this, let me know. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi High Contrast, I believe I already describe the permission situation with uploading the file and I surely linked to the PD-image. Is it possible to make the deletion undone? If you think my references to templates are inadequate, I will rewrite them. Right now I understand that you didn't notice a PD-image was involved in the album cover. I First I thougt you did and that is why I wanted to make sure WHAT in your opinion was copyrighted and what was not. Excuse me for that. By the way, I don't think that lowering resolution would be usefull, as this has nothing to do with fair use (which is of course forbidden on Commons). Clausule (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, a low image resolution is pointless, that's true, but I did not ask for that. I wanted to know from you if you can # obtain a HIGH quality version (high image resolution). Anyway. Yes, deleted files can always be restored on any wikimedia project: here it is restored: File:Mr. Big - Lean Into It.jpg. By the way: You are right, I did not know that this background image is in the public domain that's why I deleted it after this file was requested for speedy deletion by User:Motopark. To be honest: I do not know all 5 million files on Commons. I would't have deleted it if I had known about the facts.
Finally, please correct the information of the restored file: public domain image, writing does not meet the threshold of originality. What about this file now File:Mr. Big - Lean into it album cover without image.jpg? --High Contrast (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay nice, I rewrote the permission section and I'm uploading a higher resolution image right now. The white background image is in fact useless, I guess. But it's not really in my way. If you want you can nominate it for deletion, but if you don't want, that's fine for me as well :-). Thanks for undeleting the image! Clausule (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Thank you for helping clearing the facts and containing a valuable image on Commons. I will delete the "white background"-image. In my view, there is no use for it. --High Contrast (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

YOU

Have a serious problem. Stop undoing my edits, they do NO harm, actually help, and you are the only person who complains about this. Blocking me will serve no purpose, you are in the wrong, unless you can prove otherwise. There are tonnes of areas on here that have a similar format, and I don't see you going after them. Leave me alone and stop threating me just because YOU don't like my work. Fry1989 (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Useless colorful is not wanted here. This is not my personel opinion. And stop menacing me. --High Contrast (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
And yes, your superfluous putting of roundels in categories does harm Commons. Roundels can be in articles on Commons - that would be OK. But with putting images manually in categories, you are extend loading time unnecessarily. Please accept that. --High Contrast (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
My links and insert of the Air Force roundel adds a common face and design to the Air Forec by Country system, as well as giving people the direct link to the Air Force in question's Wikipedia article in both english and it's native language. Nobody complains about this except you, so unless you can get some other people to agree, stop this personal attack on me. As I said, there are many other places on here that do the same and I dont see you complaining about them too. I do not accept you explainiatiopn, the roundels are so small they could not possible affect load time, that is an excuse made by you. Stop threating me, if you have a valid arguement, then surely there will be others who would concur, at which point I will cease. Fry1989 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Come down. You seem to be very excited right now. I do not have any personal objection against you. As I already stated: I do not follow personal preferences but Commons guidelines. Anyway: The next day I offer you a plan with which you can be content with. Because reverting edits is not the best ways. But you must accept, that removing global inter wiki links is not good. We hear from each other the next days. --High Contrast (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I will stop and wait for a while, but when someone threatens to block me for vandalism, it makes my blood boil. I has seen vandalism before, such as when the Wikipedia article on Turkey was changed to say some very nasty things about the Turks(by an unknown person, since blocked), but all my edits are meant to be helpful. Every time I undid your edits, I always maintained the links you added, but simply re-instated my Links and roundel graphic as well, which is the item at arguement between us. Fry1989 (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It is important that you cool down. I'll tell you the next days what is the proper way to solve the "roundel"-problem. As I said above: I do not follow my personal perceptions, there are certain guidelines about this on Commons, Wikipedia, etc. Concentrate yourself in contributing in working on flags, etc. instead on categories (for the next (very) few days). Commons is an old project. --High Contrast (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
okay Fry1989 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

renew

Today and tomorrow I'll load new photos into Category:Technical museum Togliatti. And radars too :)ShinePhantom (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions! I was not thinking that it goes this fast ;-) --High Contrast (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
And two more photos: File:Unknown radar-11 in TLT-5235.JPG and File:Unknown radar-12 in TLT - 5246.JPG. Small daily update :) ShinePhantom (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Just categorized. Thanks for the new one. I hope lots more will follow ;) --High Contrast (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatly not. All radars in museum now on commons. Just another views, angles and details. ShinePhantom (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the radar antennas. I can barely wait to see other photographs for Commons of vehicles that are standing in the museum. --High Contrast (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

T-55 tanks

Hello.

Recently I too have been thinking about rearranging the categories in the Category:T-55 tanks. My first ideas included T-55 tanks by service and by museums. I agree that we should come up with a universal way to call the categories about vehicles in museums to make it easier to manage. I also think that the "Vehicle XY in the XY museum, country" pattern is very good as it is simple and includes the three pieces of information that a name of such category should have: what vehicle is it, in which museum is and where is the museum located.

Also I believe that pictures of each T-55 tank in a museum or used as a monument should have their own separate categories to make it easier to go through not only the vehicle categories but museum categories as well. Look at categories for Polish Army Museum or Yad la-Shiryon museum. They are a mess because there are hundreds pictures in the main categories with no subcategories even though there's plenty of opportunities to create such.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we must find some order in those cats. As an exmaple may attend this category: Category:Leopard 2 tanks. This category complexs was created by several experienced contributions 2 years ago.

Well, museum cats can be helpful, but in some cases it can be disproportionate. --High Contrast (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing I would like to suggest is to change the Category:T-55 by type to Category:T-55 by models and T-55 variants because of two reasons: one, "type" isn't really a good name for models and variants and 2, we should split models and variants because models are different production versions of the tank (T-55, T-55A) as well as its modernizations while variants are vehicles based on the tank (VT-55A, IMR etc.). Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

File:HMS Ark Royal USS Nimitz Norfolk2 1978.jpeg

Hallo. Irgend jemand hat obige Datei zur Schnellöschung (und File:HMS Ark Royal USS Nimitz Norfolk1 1978.jpeg) eingetragen und die Datei als File:DN-SC-87-08415.jpeg und File:DN-SC-87-08414.jpeg hochgeladen. Ich weiß ja nicht, ob Du Ahnung von britischen Flugzeugträgern hast, aber die Beschreibung der U.S. Navy ist FALSCH. Der Träger ist nicht HMS Hermes, sondern die HMS Ark Royal. Der, der die andere Datei hochgeladen hat, hat auch keine Ahnung. Vielleicht kannst Du da was machen. Danke und Gruß Cobatfor (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe nun gemäß den Anweisungen speedydelete in delete umgewandelt und auch dem Urheber User:Hydrargyrum geschrieben. Schade, dass der so übereilt gehandelt hat ohne die Frage der Identität der Träger vorher in der Diskussion der Fotos zu klären. Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Danke-- Cobatfor (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Eigentlich ne klare Sache. Bloß dein gestellter Löschantrag war technisch unvollständig, aber das ist in Betracht des Ergebnisses hinfällig. --High Contrast (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Die von dir hochgeladenen Dateien waren a) schon ca. ein Jahr länger auf Commons und b) mit der zweifellos besseren Dateibezeichnung versehen. Deshalb habe ich die anderen beiden Dateien entfernt. --High Contrast (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mil Mi 12.gif

Bin dabei. --Master Uegly (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vorab schon einmal besten Dank! --High Contrast (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Vorerst fertig, aber das Ergebnis gefällt mir noch nicht 100%ig. Mal einen Kommentar dazu. --Master Uegly (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich finde es gut. Eventuell die Liniendicke erhöhen? --High Contrast (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Erledigt. --Master Uegly (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

G36

Also ich weiss nicht, aber ich sehe hier und hier G36s auf den Schultern--Sanandros (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In selber Größe sehe ich italienische Fahnen, weiße Handschuhe, eine spanische Fahne, Pflastersteine, eine Matallabsperrung, Stiefel, ja sogar Gürtel - worauf ich hinaus will: COM:CAT besagt ja, dass das "Hauptobjekt" für die Wahl der Kategorie entscheidend ist und nicht was irgendwo auf dem Bild auftaucht. Wenn du einen Verweis auf die Kategorie "G36" setzen möchtest (bei derart "kleinen" Objekten), dann verwende die eleganten "image annotations", also die gelben Rahmen, mit denen man Bereich auf Fotos markieren kann. Andernfalls könnte man darüber nachdenken, ob das Gründen einer Kategorie à la Category:People with G36 rifles sinnvoll wäre.
Dass du mich über deine Bedenken informierst spricht für dich, aber dein revert wohl nicht. --High Contrast (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
OK gut war vlt ein bisschen vor eilig, werde das nächste mal an dich denken ;). Aber der Autor hat darum gebeten Waffen zu kategorisieren--Sanandros (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Nunja, der Autor wünscht dies in als Beschreibung und nicht als Kategorie ("For each photo should be found and added in description"). Sinnvoll ist trotzdem die Verwendung der Image annotation: das ist a) exakter, da jedermann sofort sieht, wo denn die entsprechende Ausrüstung ist und b) übersichtlicher. --High Contrast (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:River_gunboat_rangiriri.jpg]

This file has been listed for deletion because the file is missing its source, but the source is listed. The New Zealand Wars by James Cowan. 1922. P.311. Please explain what is missing. Mosborne01 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just answered on your talk page, where the discussion started. --High Contrast (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll clean up any similar files.Mosborne01 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! --High Contrast (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Frank C. Müller

Hi High Contrast!

Warum hast Du in der o.g. Kategorie die Category:Men of Germany entfernt? Da ich mich ein wenig kenne, bin ich eigentlich bisher davon ausgegangen, dass diese Kategorie auf mich zutrifft.

gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dass du ein Mann aus Deutschland bist bezweifle ich nicht. Nun ist aber Category:Frank C. Müller sozusagen deine Privatkategorie, d.h. deine Kategorie ist in "wikipedians from Germany" legitim, aber nicht in einer Namespace-cat. Faustregel auch hier auf Commons: bewegt sich deine Person nicht innerhalb der Relevanzkriterien, so ist eine Einsortierung nicht vorgesehen: auf de:wiki ist ein Artikel im Namensraum ebensowenig "zugelassen". Der Projektrahmen von Commons erlaubt nur Dateien von edukativem Wert; private Bildersammlungen, Archive, Photoalbem, etc. sind nicht erlaubt. Für derartiges gibt es [www.flickr.com flickr]. Gruß --High Contrast (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Na dann weiß ich ja Bescheid. Dank insbesondere für den Link auf den Commons:Project scope. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pas de problème. --High Contrast (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mis-ID photo in photo title

The photo

Milan missile.jpg

with the file name "Milan missile.jpg" is not the MILAN. It is of the very-short range ERYX anti-tank missile. I changed the photo description to the correct missile but can not change file name. It is being used in WP.DE language article on the Estonian Army incorrectly Jack Jackehammond (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please correct the french file description, too, and correct the wrong file usage on other wikimedia projects. Then you must put this: {{rename|newname.ext|reason (explanation for why the file needs to be renamed)}} in the file (insert file name, reason, etc.). Then a Bot come up and moves the file (someday). --High Contrast (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should have stated, that I did not upload that photo. And thanks for finding the correct source statement for the TOW mock up. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --High Contrast (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

File:British Chieftain tanks.JPEG

Hello High Contrast, I saw your baffling changes to the date of the picture. Sunday June 17th just can't be. Sundays in June '89 were the 4th, 11th, 18th, and 25th. The parade was on the 18th. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And you think the description of the source is wrong? --High Contrast (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, I not only think so, I know it's wrong. The US Military can make mistakes, too. The parade was on Sunday. It couldn't have been held on a Saturday without causing a major traffic collapse. Why do I know it's wrong? Let me quote the Berlin Bulletin from the Education Branch, HQ Berlin Infantry Brigade from Friday 16 1989:

Allied Forces Day Parade. This years's Allied Forces Day Parade will be on Sunday, 18 June at 1530 hours on Strasse des 17. Juni. This is the 26th anniversary of the parade which is held annually to demonstrateallied solidarity and resolve to protect the freedom of West Berlin.

If this doesn't convince you, I will send you a copy of this page by email. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I forget, the image I got here in the quoted article looks quite similar, so if our picture in question was not Sunday June 18 1989, it could've been another year. Joerg, theBajanZindy (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Da sehe ich gerade, dass User:BajanZindy Deutsch versteht. Folgendes: Ich "hänge" nicht an dem "alten" Datum. Mir geht/ging es nur darum, dass die Quelle entsprechend anderes angibt. Nach dem die Quellenorientierung richtigerweise das oberste Leitziel aller Wikimedia-Projekte ist, so handelte ich gemäß dem, was die Quelle angab. Ich vertraue deinen Recherchen. Jetzt gibts es zwei verschieden Vorgehensweisen: Entweder du besserst die falsche Angabe aus - wie bereits geschehen - und schreibst eine Anmerkung in Englisch und Deutsch darunter (z.B. in kleinerer Schriftgröße zu Verdeutlichung: "Anmerkung: Die Quelle gibt zwar den ..., dies ist jedoch falsch, da..."). Die zweite Möglichkeit wäre, dass du eine Anmerkung auf der Bild-Diskussionsseite einträgst, was aber den Nachteil hat, dass dies kaum Beachtung finden wird. Ich rate zur Möglichkeit 1.
Übrigens: Dass diese US-Militärquellen oftmals falsch sind weiß ich zur Genüge :)
Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo High Contrast, als waschechter Spandauer hier im ehemaligen britischen Sektor von Berlin verstehe ich Deutsch und Englisch. Das mit der Anmerkung ist eine gute Idee. Damit wäre dann ein dauerhaftes Vor- und Zurückändern verhindert. Ich werde die Anmerkung in den nächsten Tagen einfügen. Ich war übrigens auch überrascht, als ich auf Deinen Benutzerseiten Deutsch als Muttersprache gesehen habe. Grüße aus Spandau, Jörg, der BajanZindy (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hallo High Contrast, ich habe gerade die Anmerkung eingefügt. Hoffentlich ist sie soweit in Ordnung. Die Frage ist nun, sollte jemand den Nachweis wünschen, das die Parade wirklich am 18. war, ob und in welchem Umfang ich dann die Titelseiten vom Berlin Bulletin vom 16. und 23. Juni 1989 einbringen kann bzw. muß? Gruß Jörg, der BajanZindy (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Nein, bitte keine Titelseiten von Zeitschriften etc. hochladen. Damit gibt es sicherlich Urheberrechtsprobleme. So wie du die Anmerkung formuliert hast, reicht es vollund ganz. Im derzeitigen Zuständ müsste er vorsätzlicherweise deine Anmerkung ignorieren und das käme Vandalismus sehr nahe. Die Sache ist m.E. rund. Danke für den Zusatzkommentar. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Railway Line Leipzig-Plagwitz–Leipzig-Lindenau

Tu es, aber warte bis morgen, ich bin noch beim Hochladen. Der L-Lapsus ist durch Kopieren und Einfügen passiert. --Falk2 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kein stress. Das Verschieben erledigt ein Bot (oder ein anderer Admin) in ca. 1-2 Wochen. Du brauchst diesbzgl. nicht verärgert sein; lass dir mit dem Hochladen Zeit. Verwende auch die "falsche" Kategorie. --High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I wo, ich bin doch deswegen nicht verärgert. Zu Fuß möchte ich das nur nicht ändern müssen (und ob irgendein englischer Muttersprachler was mit dieser Strecke anfangen kann, ist sowieso sehr fraglich) --Falk2 (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Waha JPG00i.jpg

Merci pour ton aide. Il s'agit effectivement d'une œuvre personnelle pour laquelle j'avais effectivement oublier d'insérer le fameux "own". Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --High Contrast (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

page move

Thank you very much!--BezPRUzyn (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to thank for: I only try to support your fine contributions. --High Contrast (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Day

Ive uploaded the original version of the PA V150.jpg, You might check it. LightAj (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Are you the author of this photograph? --High Contrast (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Detail des Kirchturms St. Peter.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Little noise against the sky imo acceptable --Mbdortmund 12:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kirche von Seuversholz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos on Italian Wiki

I need this photo at this location on Italian language WP, but it refuses to post under the file name at that location. Is something being done wrong. Or do photos from other language WP articles not work with English WP? Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is wrong there. Please ask an admin on en.wiki that has some knowledge with image licences. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Tum kolegiata 2-2.JPG

Thank you very much. Your rating is a pleasant surprise for me. Albertus teolog (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I hope more good images of you will follow. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I want to see this image: „Conacul_din_Soleşti33.jpg”. This file was removed by EugeneZelenko wit the reason: „Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since June 7, 2. I'm the author of the photo and I want to correct the license. Please, help me. Cezarika1 (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: File:Conacul din Soleşti33.jpg. You must insert a licence, categories AND a good description within one day, otherwisely I have to delete again. For example this licence can be used {{Cc-by-3.0}} - if you were the photographer. --High Contrast (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Cezarika1 (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
One more question. I was not supposed to be announced that I forgot to insert the license before deleting the image? Cezarika1 (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If you upload a file without any licence information (no licence tag, no information about the author, source, ...), then this tag {{No license}} gets automatically inserted. This is neccessary because of the loads of files that come to Commons every day. Basically, the uploader has to check one's files if everything is OK.
To your file: Please use author information (of course if you are the uploader) like this "Cezar Suceveanu", not like this "Cezar Suceveanu" because you have a different username. Romanian is a nice language and you can also write image description in Romanian. That's no problem. But never forget stating categories. Thank you for your support. --High Contrast (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Truck in Iraq.JPEG

Hello.

It has to be a Ural-4320 or a variant of it because of the cabin. My guess that it's either a two-axle model of the Ural-4320 or an unofficial conversion made in a private workshop.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An unofficial conversion would explain why I couldn't find anything about this truck. --High Contrast (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Roman remains in Petra.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality and good illustration. Albertus teolog 18:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pylon transformer in Syria.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI with high informational value! -- Smial 20:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:UAZ-452 minivans in Tajikistan

Hello.

Why did you erase Category:UAZ-452 minivans in Tajikistan?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This category is too special and has no comparable and logic categorization tree. Only one image entry makes it barely outside the project scope. --High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
What about Category:UAZ-469 automobiles in Tajikistan? There are 5 pictures that could go to that category and there are a few more that I haven't yet uploaded (mostly because of lack of time).
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I really appreciate your categorization-contributions, but sometimes you create extremely "spacialized" cats without consistency. Creating categories like Vehicle_XYZ_in_country_XYZ would be somehow "virgin soil" in this way because we have no categories like "Peugeot 604 in Belarus" or "Cadillac DeVille in Mexico". The proper categories wouls be with the example Peugeaut "Category:Peugeot 604", "Category:Automobiles in Belarus". There was once led a discussion about this on Commons (unfortunately I couldn't find it). The result was that these themes should be treated seperately, that means: "Category:Peugeot 604" and "Category:Automobiles in Belarus" instead of "Category:Peugeot 604 in Belarus". What is your final opinion on this? --High Contrast (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Well since it was decided by the community that such categories are undesirable than I won't create them. However does this mean that categories such as Category:UAZ vehicles in Tajikistan are undesirable as well?
BTW do you remember when you asked me about that four-wheeled Ural-4320 truck? As it turns out there is a 4x4 version of Ural-4320 and it's called Ural-43206. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Very good! Thank you for finding it out. Since you have time, you can create the related category to it. --High Contrast (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm ahead of you on this one as I already created and moved the pictures of Ural-43206 trucks to it yesterday. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! Well done! --High Contrast (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Permission to use your photo

Dear High Contrast, I would like to use your photo of the Great Wall found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Chinese_Wall_with_train.JPG in a textbook. Please email me at mcispl@yahoo.com if this is okay with you. Thank you!

own

No, the photographer do not have a commons account. There is a mess with my talk page, the sign template do not work (???)--Jor70 (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, then you need a permission by the photographer to get these files uploaded. More information can be found here: COM:OTRS. If this permission does not reach Commons, your uploaded files will be deleted. So please get that OTRS ticket. Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

file:LaPizia.gif

Hi! I'm making a file better than this, thanks --LaPizia (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

...higher image resolution, please. Thanks in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks?

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

You are leaving? Why? --High Contrast (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump#Cleanup_policy, User talk:Jimbo Wales. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! The Town Hall of Augsburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good.--Mbz1 15:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lake Baskunchak.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Good Day

Sir H, You have tagged the File:Philippine_Army_AIFV.jpg‎ as a copyright violation. Kindly check this image-http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scorpion1.jpg that I have uploaded recently if this one is a copyright violation too, because they have the same URL link that I provided. If yes then you may delete both image, so that I will be more aware. If not please tell what I would have to do with File:Philippine_Army_AIFV.jpg‎ so that it can not be deleted.

Also, I can not use the Scorpion1.jpg as an image link because it has the same name with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scorpion1.jpg, please help.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LightAj (talk • contribs)

✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Aloha Airlines Disaster image

You recently applied the no source tag on this image. I am not the original uploader of the file, I just submitted an improved version. However, the source has already been listed as the Hawai'i State Archives, by the original uploader, along with the applied PD-Gov tag. I'm not sure what more information needs to be listed on the image. If you could educate me on the topic, that would be great. Aiyizo (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hawai'i State Archives, Aloha Airlines Disaster" is no valid source according to COM:L. If this image is really from the "Hawai'i State Archives" it needs the corresponding internet link to the page, where this image can be found - again the page where one file is placed and not the direct link to the .jpg-file. If the image comes not from the internet (e.g. from a book, magazine, ...), you need more source information: that would be author, title, year of publication, page on which it can be found and, in this case a file identification number (all archives have this with their files).
Imagine: You could upload any copyrighted image and just give as source something like this "Hawai'i State Archives" and nobody could check if this is true. One of the basic principles of Commons is the validity of file sources.
Are any questions left? --High Contrast (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I get it. :) I'll do some sleuthing. Maybe the original uploader can give me some hints. Aiyizo (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hello, I noticed that you tagged File:Amrum lighthouse.jpg and File:VomHafen.JPG for the lack of sources. I have however removed your tags as it was clearly stated in both cases that the source was the German Wikipedia. The relevant files of the same name have already been deleted on the local server. Please note that the upload procedure explicitely allows for sourcing files with "<language> Wikipedia". De728631 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe die beiden "no source"-tags wieder eingefügt und da bleiben sie auch, solange keine valide Quelle angegeben ist. Die Quellenangabe "German Wikipedia" oder "English Wikipedia" usw. sind explizit NICHT als valide Quelle angesehen. Das kannst du hier nachlesen: COM:L#License information. Die Frage bleibt, wer denn der Autor dieser Fotos ist. Wenn es der angegebene Autor ist, dann müsste im Feld "Quelle" beispielsweise stehen: "eigenes Werk von XY" und nicht "german wikipedia". Sei produktiv; gruesse --High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Na das steht doch schon in der Lizenz und im Feld "Urheber" drin. Wie dem auch sei, ich habe das mal ergänzt. De728631 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Jetzt passt es. Für das Übertragen von Bilder aus verschiedensten Wikimedia-Projekten kannst du in Zukunft dieses Tool verwenden: [12]. Dieses Tool generiert dir alle relevanten Infos. Na das steht doch schon in der Lizenz und im Feld "Urheber" drin: So ist es nicht ganz richtig. Kurzum: Der Urheber muss nicht zwingend der Rechtsinhaber sein. Egal, in Zukunft einfach einen Hinweis auf eigenes Werk des Autors setzen bzw. das tool verwenden. --High Contrast (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hervorragend, so ein Tool hatte ich schon länger gesucht, vielen Dank! Dann geht auch nichts mehr schief mit den Autoreninfos. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Mirage IIIEA - FAB.jpg

why you tagged ?? it is a {PD-AR-Photo} released 28 years ago by the FAA during the war --Jor70 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. This needs evidence. "Argentine Air Force" as source does not proof that this image is 28 years old. Commons needs valid sources: read here COM:L. --High Contrast (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories and the main subject

You talk that "categories are here to get used for the categorization of THE MAIN SUBJECT on a photograph". Why? What rule regulate this? -- TarzanASG +1  10:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

COM:CAT, in special: Commons:Categories#Categorization_tips. Categories have the purpose to sort images logically depending on what is visible on the photograph - the main subject, in short. If you want to pick out certain parts of the image, use the Image annotation tool: with this tool you can mark, for instance, the buildings that can be seen on the photograph. You can also add comments and detailed descriptions, too. --High Contrast (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I strong disagree. Categorization tip don't talk about mass deletion of very important categories, which help Wikimedia Commons to solve problems with non-existing of freedom of panorama in Russia. -- TarzanASG +1  11:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
"mass deletion of very important categories"??? Of what are you talking? --High Contrast (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
About this. -- TarzanASG +1  12:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This is no deletion but a removal - an enormous difference. The removal was stated according to the guidelines written here. Even if you do not agree with COM:CAT you have to follow what this guideline-compendium proposes. --High Contrast (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
No. It's just tip, one of recommendations. And this tip don't talk about removal. Please revert your edits and start discussion on Commons:Village pump. -- TarzanASG +1  12:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Starting a discussion is a superfluous act. COM:CAT gives clear guidelines and I work accordingly. The only problem is you because you don't want to accept those rules.
As I suggested you, you can mark the buildings ith the image annotations tool. --High Contrast (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't work accordingly. Your edits conflicts with guidelines. -- TarzanASG +1  12:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT --High Contrast (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Certain flickr images

It's a pity, I find those images very usefull:( --Mladifilozof (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are useful and good. But Commons is a free media compendium. Active users like you will surely find really free files that are at least this good. --High Contrast (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

ZiL fire engines

At first I too thought that these fire engines were made by ZiL but Georg Pik told me that these designations have nothing to do with the manufacturer and that they refer to the parameters of the water pumps these fire engines have installed. As you can see on this picture File:Matchboxes USSR 1918-1988 10.jpg there are also AC-40 fire engines based on Ural-375D trucks.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, then it's only the water tank. Can you identify the same or comparable water tanks on this image? --High Contrast (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am not much of an expert when it comes to fire engines but you might want to ask User:Georg Pik for his/her opinion. He/she seems to be better oriented in the subject than I am. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:94andrej94#File:Let_L-410T_Turbolet.jpg

Hi High Contrast,

If the text in the permission field is correct, it's not a copyright violation, but simply missing an OTRS tag. I noticed this when checking another upload of the user from the same source. -- User:Docu at 10:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image transfer from Wikipedia to Commons

Okay, thanks for the info. - RepliCarter (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget always to upload the highest resolution available. --High Contrast (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:S-300 launcher, 2009.jpg

Dear Admin High Contrast, Are you a bit confused here? Is the author rata or Archlinux (as it says on the given picasa link for the picture)? You have certainly confused me. Thank You from Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC) ✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh I see now. You are involved in an edit war over a picture with another user. I never saw this happen before on Commons. This is a first for me. Edit wars usually happen on wikipedia. What a pity this happens over a small matter. Best regards and I hope cooler heads prevail. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I always stay cool in such things. What is your opinion on these edits? --High Contrast (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I *had* no real opinion on the edits...but the more I see the uncropped and cropped photos, the more I prefer the cropped version because it focuses exclusively on the military vehicle and excludes third parties and bystanders. I also felt that your the real author (Archlinux) should be credited. Anyway, I have now passed the image. Congratulations, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Archlinux is credited. Happy Day, High Contrast (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

File:P-8 Poseidon taking off NAS Pax Jun 2009.jpg

Hi, ich habe gerade das obige Foto hochgeladen. In der nun angezeigten Metadata steht nun Folgendes: "Copyright 2009 The Boeing Company All Rights Reserved" Kannst Du es also bitte wieder rausschmeißen? Gibt es denn einen Weg, das vorher zu lesen, damit dies mir nicht noch einmal passiert? Ich habe es in CorelDraw probiert, aber da fand ich nix in der Datei-Info. Für Hinweise wäre ich dankbar. Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Kein Problen - der Fehler fiel dir ja selbst auf; habe die Datei gelöscht. Mir fallen spontan zwei Möglichkeiten ein (für MS Windows Nutzer), wie du unter zuhilfenahme der EXIF-Daten die Lizenzierung sehen kannst. Eine Möglichkeit wäre Rechtsklick auf die Datei -> Eigenschaften -> Reiter "Details"; dort findet man vielerlei Infos, unter anderem auch "Copyright 2009 The Boeing Company All Rights Reserved". Eine weitere Möglichkeit ist, dieses Programm - Microsoft Photo Info - herunterzuladen. Dabei handelt es sich um ein kleines (4MB; offenbar nur für Windows) und relativ brauchbares Programm mit dem viele Metadaten eingesehen werden können. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Danke vielmals und Grüße -- Cobatfor (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:S-300 launcher, 2009.jpg

Hello.

I believe that cropping this picture is unnecessary.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is advantageous here because of the fact that this image is in use in an article that devotes MAZ-543 trucks, so cropping this file meanes reducing it to the important subject on the photograph. --High Contrast (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, a cropped version of the file should only be uploaded if there's nothing on interest on the rest of the picture.
Second, if it's so important for there to be cropped version of this picture than why not just upload it as a different file?
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This exchange of words is unedifying. To your second point: Other way round: Why do you not upload the original version? Your first point is not true - this is your personal opinion.
What is fact on Commons - and this keep in mind please - is delicate. This is no standard function intended to be used just for fun. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Flickr Info

Vielen Dank, Ji-Elle (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gerne doch! --High Contrast (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hello.

Sorry for not replying but I was just so pissed off that I barely managed to stop myself from destroying everything around me in an inhuman rage. I simply didn't pay attention to the file that i wa uploading (uploading many, many, many files will do that to you) but as you can see I quickly acted to repair my mistake. Again thanks for helping me.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If you need addition help, ask me. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hanukkah White House Candle-lighting photo.

Hi, HighContrast! Thanks for your note about the photo I used for the White House Hanukkah Party article, asking for a better source site. I have added the URL for the White House website (official White House "blog") where I found the photo, which identifies it as a White House photo, and includes the name of the photographer. I hope this is sufficient! (I'm still learning!). NearTheZoo (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

F-35

I looked at the hidden image description and it attributes it to Lockheed but doesn't attribute it anywhere else. Does that mean Lockheed waived all the rights? Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right: The hidden EXIF states "Lockheed Martin Photography By Darin Russell". This is a quite hard case because on the one hand "PD-USGov" does not apply because it is no work of a governmental employee and on the other hand the sourced homepage states that all images are in the public domain unless it is explicitly stated that anybody else is the copyright holder. Well, I think this hidden EXIF-data is what is meant by "explicitly stated". My suggestion is to open a deletion request and discuss this case with others. What do you think? --High Contrast (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt EXIF counts as "explicitly stated" but I'll do the deletion request thingy and delay putting that image in the wikipedia page. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


BK Brunch.jpg

This is an image of a sign posted in a public place. I have seen several similar images around Commons that have a similar subject, so how is this particular one a derivative image while the others are not?

eg, this one :File:Burger King Seoul South Korea.jpg --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In this case De minimis applies. --High Contrast (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Danke!

Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Gerne doch! --High Contrast (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Library Photo question

Dear High Contrast: I left a note for you about the Hanukkah photo with President Obama, hoping I had added the information necessary to solve the problem. However, now I have a separate question. On the White House site -- http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/president/holiday/hanukkah/03.html -- there are a couple of wonderful old photos, including one of President Reagan, that I would like to use. There is no copyright indicated, and it is a government site, HOWEVER, the photos are labeled "courtesy of the Reagan presidential library," or courtesy of one of the other presidential libraries. Can I use these photos if I include the same "courtesy of" line, since I am 99% convinced that these were originally White House photos that were then taken by the presidents in question for their presidential libraries? I would appreciate the help! Thanks again -- NearTheZoo (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Caffè dell'Ussero

[13] Hi High Contrast, I would like to change this title but I can't do it. Could you, please, edit a new version with the right word which is Caffè instead of Caffé. Thank you. The right title is: File:Caffè dell'Ussero – 1775.jpg --Nevertime (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please add a valid source. This is missing. --High Contrast (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Image note

Hi HighContrast. I don't mind you placing image notes - but please do not, by moving a specific category into the filenote as a link, remove a file FROM the category. I'm only telling you because if you do this on other files, people might not notice. Happy editing, Ingolfson (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I proceed like this because some categories are too specific for the subject that is really shown on the photograph itself (per COM:CAT: Categories should be placed after what can actually be seen on the image). Oftenly categories are put because there is somewhere in the background a 30 pixel item because of which the category gets inserted. --High Contrast (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My images

I appreciate your work going through and fixing the summary info for my images, but just wanted to let you know that you've doubled up the licences in a couple of instances... might be a case of more care less haste! lol see here. Cheers, PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Happpened accidently. Thanks for notifying. --High Contrast (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About categorisation

Hi! Actually I use Flinfo tool and it's proposal of categories. But it is only a proposal and I cut or add some categories myself. I don't say that in some situation they are very proper but for some photos it is not easy to find good categories. But I try to do my best... Electron <Talk?> 10:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing against using Flinfo when you check the categories after having uploaded an image in order to avoid - for instance - overcategorisation. Thanks in adcance. --High Contrast (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Flickr uploads

You are Welcome my Friend . But, Why not open the link . Thank you .--Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Open which link? --High Contrast (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my Friend, Does not open the link .--Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php - Doesn't open? Strange. --High Contrast (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, I do not know does not open

You have an account at Flickr ?

I have an account in Flickr How do I make pictures Original Size How .--Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not have a flickr account. You do not know how to use the tool from above? Or isn't the tool working? --High Contrast (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey My Friend, I do not know use the tool from above . Big picture, but show me Large not Original size Lock in my account http://www.flickr.com/photos/50236260@N03/4649833741/sizes/l/ And look at the credit of such person image shows a Original : http://www.flickr.com/photos/proteinbiochemist/4649781849/sizes/o/ Why ? --Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the tool cannot be used for [this image] because it has no free Creative Commons licence (Attribution-Non-Commercial 2.0). Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-licences is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Qasr Al-Azraq.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Makele-90 12:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Niko & copyvios

You warned Niko to stop uploading copyvios on March 26....and he uploaded another copyvio or 2 on March 30. I tagged one on his talkpage here Found it under tineye. Just to let you know. Some people never learn. Maybe a 48 or 72 hour ban is worthwhile as a lesson here or perhaps someone should teach him about uploading fair use images on wikipedia. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I follow your request because I found another copyvio upload. This is User is blocked for one week. --High Contrast (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It is unfortunate. I don't want to block people indefinitely the first time. That is why I suggested a time limit. 1 week is also fine...as a warning. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Own work

Hey My Friend, Thank you for your interest in my photos, Possible, request, How do I upload pictures Own work .--Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is very easy: Go to Commons:Upload and choose "entirely my own work". That's all. --High Contrast (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Any image can Upload in own work ? --Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is your own work, then yes, upload your photographs (in the highest resolution). Own work is always appreciated on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the good picture, Add some skills .--Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why was nominated for deletion, Why are pictures .--Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand now must be a copy of a productive personal .--Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course: "own work"means you are the photograher of an image. --High Contrast (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Amman notturna HPIM3410.JPG

La foto forse non è bella ma è l'unica che ho di Amman--Mappo (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Due to the poor image quality, this image is not within the Commons' project scope (in my view). --High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Steinwelten

Moin, hast du hierzu zufällig ein Foto? Gruß, --Flominator (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallo! Leider nein. Wusste nichts von dem Bedarf. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Young woman with sunglasses.jpg

Hi! Warum hast du von dem Bild nicht die volle Auflösung hochgeladen (dann hätte auch ein Bot das erledigt, oder hast du was verändert und darum extra diese Auflösung erzeugt?). lg Hekerui (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Schau noch einmal genau hin und du wirst dir deine Frage selbst beantworten können. --High Contrast (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ja Hekerui (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Nicht schlecht, die sadtrombone. --High Contrast (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Tja, bei sowas trumpf ich wiederum auf :) Hekerui (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
den sadtrombone-link habe ich mir jedenfalls gemerkt. --High Contrast (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:In the Heights08.jpg

Hello see the picture, Is it a good picture from Flickr, License Image : cc-by-sa-2.0 .--Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This licence is okay. --High Contrast (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you my friend .--Sub-Zero 88 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Old Mogadishu image

Hi, High Constrast, i would appreciate it if you could clarify the reason for this file's deletion on my talkpage, since i took the image from a sister project(wiki travel), thanks in advance --Scoobycentric (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all "wiki travel" is no Wikimedia project and thus no "sister project", as you called it. File transfers from "wikitravel" are basically problematic. Anyway the page where you have this image from contains insufficient source information that could prove a free Creative Commons licence. --High Contrast (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Das Schloss Obernzell, 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Sehr gut, QI. --Elekhh 03:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Trier Palias Walderdorff 1.jpg

Hallo, das Bild wartet schon geraume Zeit auf Umbenennung. Könntest du das erledigen? Vielen Dank im Voraus. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Soeben ausgeführt. Nichts zu danken. --High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Magdalenenkirche Altötting.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Danke für die Sichterrechte

Servus

hab bis heute gar nicht mitbekommen, dass es sowas wie Sichter in Commons gibt. Wie kann ich denn die alten Änderungen die noch unkontrolliert sind sichten. Bei den Wikiartikel gibt es unten dazu eine Schaltfläche ? Die sehe ich hier aber nirgends. Vielen Dank -- Vuxi (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Diesen "Sichter"-Button findest du in der Versionshistorie: du musst die letzten ungesichteten Versionen markieren und mit "compare selected versions" bestätigen und zum Abschluss "[Mark as patrolled]" klicken. Es folgt "Marked as patrolled" und es ist vorbei. --High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok Danke -- Vuxi (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You votes for POTY

Hi High Contrast, you are allowed to vote only for a single image in final round. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I just read and I just removed all other votes. Sorry for this. --High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Woman & girl

OK. I'll try my best but it is sometimes very hard to divide. Especially that in some culture it is not polite to ask a woman about her age ;). Also there is a category Adolescent girls for some countries... Regards Electron <Talk?> 21:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There was held a discussion about this here. I was not involved in this talking. But if you have any arguments, then bring them into this discussion. I only thought it would be interesting for you to know this exactly because you are counting to the trusted user group and trusted users should set a good example. Regards and happy editing. --High Contrast (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:DMV01.JPG

Hello. I play a role and have a look at it. I'm sorry, only with the thing which I photographed with a mobile telephone, there is only this size. In addition, it is newly difficult to photograph it because I did not come to my residence place. I will contribute it in future when I was able to photograph a big image. Thanks in advance for your help.

日本語: こんにちは。いつもご活躍拝見してます。申し訳ありません、携帯電話で撮影したもののみで、このサイズしかないです。また、私の在住地に来なくなったため、新たに撮影することも難しいです。今後大きな画像を撮影できた場合は投稿します。今後ともよろしくお願い致します。

--221.20 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to upload a higher resoluted version whenever you have the time photograph it.. --High Contrast (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

About Nava Struma

Hello High Contrast,

File:NavaStruma.gif is not the right image about this ship. The right images are Image: StrumaDampfer.zchn.jpg and Image: RealStrumaSinceMalioglou.jpg (this second is my work with Photoshop, since a drawing by the alone surviver's witness David Stoliar, watched by courtesy of Dan Malioglou in Athens. This drawings are the unique image about this ship (build in Great Britain around 1880) but many other images with diverse steamers improperly called "Struma" exists on the web.

Oh, you are an administrator: would you please rename my user page User:Spiridon MANOLIU to User:Spiridon Ion Cepleanu, as in french & romanian Wikipedia ? My reason ? It's time now to use my real name as in my scholar life. Thank you.

Excuse my rocky english,--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources for images

Thanks for the heads-up, but a lot of those images I cannot attribute to a publication, page number, etc. I send out Freedom of Information Act requests to agencies (NRO, USAF), and they send me back the images. For example the Discoverer 3 launch - the NRO Bar Code number is what was listed on the photograph itself. If you wanted a copy of it, referencing that Bar Code would allow you to get a copy from NRO. While I understand the importance of sourcing these images, I can't do much more if they just send them to me as-is. Any suggestions would be welcome. Tdrss (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Der Gemeindeplatz von Aldersbach.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice picture of it. Good colours --A.Ceta 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Die Donau bei Obernzell.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice picture of the danube. Good colors --A.Ceta 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Luc Jochimsen

Hallo! Ich habe dem Typen der Linken geschrieben, der soll eine Genehmigung an diese Email, permissions-commons@wikimedia.org schreiben. Hoffentlich reicht das...

--PolskiNiemiec (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wenn der "Typ [von] der Linken" dieses Bild unte eine freien Lizenz stellt, dann passt es. Bin gespannt, denn brauchbar ist das Bild allemal. --High Contrast (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:2C21 Обжимка.jpg

This is a scan of 25 years old photo of russian 2S21 gun prototype. Original image has no copyright protection at all.

--Smell U Later (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does the original image have no copyright protection? Can you proof that? Regards, --High Contrast (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Hubert Simar.jpg und File:A1435 Westerwald.jpg

Hallo High Contrast, du hast die beiden von mir hochgeladenen Bilder als mit mangelhaft bequellt angegeben. Was genau stört dich an den vorhandenen Quellenangaben? Das eine Bild stammt aus einem 108 Jahre alten Buch, das andere von der offiziellen Marine-Homepage, was beides auch angegeben ist. Wo liegt deiner Meinung nach das Problem? --Ambross07 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuerst: Hier geht es nicht um meine Meinung, sondern um eklatanten Quellenmängel, der gegen Commons-Vorgaben verstößt.

Beim Bild aus dem "108 Jahre alten Buch" habe ich den "no source"-tag entfernt, da höchstwahrscheinlich mittlerweile lizenzfrei. Erkundige dich aber, ob diese EU-Lizenz zutreffend ist. Gib dennoch die Quelle genauer an. Das zweite Bild stellt eine Urheberrechtsverletzung dar, da keine Fotos der deutschen Marine unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht wurden. Zudem passt eine "PD-GermanGov"-Lizenz hinten und vorne nicht. Lese dir bitte den Lizenztext durch. Abgesehen davon sind Quellen à la "PIZ Marine Archiv / Bundeswehr www.marine.de" auf Commons haltlos, da dies so nicht überprüfbar ist. Wenn du ein Bild aus dem Internet verwendest, dann die gesamte URL (ACHTUNG: den html-link, nicht ein Direktlink auf das Bild, sprich .jpg) angeben! All das kannst du hier nachlesen. --High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Die EU-Lizenz wurde mir extra dafür empfohlen, wenn bei den Bildern aus dem alten Schinken kein Urheber genannt ist - was meistens der Fall ist. Was soll ich bei der Quellenangabe noch verbessern? Seitenzahl, Heftnummer? Sehr viel mehr ist da nicht zu machen und eig. auch nicht nötig.
Bezüglich des Bundeswehr-Bildes: Das muß dann wohl wieder gelöscht werden. --Ambross07 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Die EU-Lizenz ist auch ok. Nur wie du schon geschrieben hast wäre eine genauere Quellenangabe mit Seitenzahl, Heftnummer, Auor des Buches, Erscheinungsjahr etc. genau richtig. --High Contrast (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Model of a Soyuz spacecraft, 1985.JPEG

maybe it will be better to rename this category for it could include all this space and air ships? I'm woman far away from this subject and not native English speaker, so I can't choose right word. Maybe you can suggest right expression?--Shakko (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to create a new category. If you are not sure avout its name, please consult COM:PUMP. Thanks in advance. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Breasts not Bombs

Could you please provide a good reason as to why you restored this photograph? What is the source? Did you check the permission? I'm really confused by your revert. I've restored the only version I was given permission to use. You are free to delete it or contact the original photographer to obtain new permission. As far as I know, the version you restored is labeled non-free. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nico is back

Uploader Nico is back. See this. A low resolution image with no source:

Is there really an OTRS message for this or is it an attempt to protect it from deletion? How can an image have OTRS permission when there is no source?? This smells like a flickrwash...again. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged this image with "no source". It is not protected - you can nominate it for speedy deletion or start a deletion request if you want to. If this image is flickrwashing, I don't know, I could not find it on flickr. --High Contrast (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. --High Contrast (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Ricostruzione della via colonnata HPIM3610.JPG

Ritengo che si debba conservare perché rende l'idea di come doveva essere la via colonnata, dopo il II secolo d.C., al tempo dell'impero romano.--94.36.59.153 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. it-0 --High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Samsung_C5212_keys.jpg

Hi, why is this file marked as a copyright violation? See it's source, it is licensed under Creative Commons - By Attribution. ChickenFalls (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Must have happened accidently. --High Contrast (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Uploads

Thanks but I was only restoring a photo that was deleted by User:Active Banana. They are claiming the photo to be a copyright issue Commons User Problems. Wetcloth20 (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just recognized. --High Contrast (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Whats Flickrwashing? Wetcloth20 (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Read here. All relevant information can be found there. --High Contrast (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Uploads

Thanks for the assistance. From now onwards i will do the uploading correctly. Kurun (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but your "old" uploads need this as well. --High Contrast (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

why did you remove my original photogrphy?

I dont understand why you removed my image for copyright violation for Biill Cherry (2009 UETA) ? That is a photo I took on stage and is my photography and no one elses. This is not right or fair. That is my original work. Please retract. Thank you. Darlene Perez june 18, 2010.(71.154.222.170 14:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC))

If you can state the correct path of this image, then we can talk about it. --High Contrast (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. This is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cherry_(2009_UETA) and this is what the image was: 18 June 2010 (Deletion log); 14:19 . . High Contrast (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Bill Cherry as Elvis on the Ultimate Elvis Tour.jpg" (Copyright violation: http://www.ultimateelvisbillcherry.com/index_002.htm)

(Upload log); 02:05 . . Darlingpresleyrocks (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Bill Cherry as Elvis on the Ultimate Elvis Tour.jpg" ({{Information |Description=

English: Bill Cherry is the 2009 Ultimate Elvis Tribute Artist champion, officially recognized by Elvis Presley Enterprises.

|Source=Template:Photo by Darlene Perez (own work) |Author=Darlingpresleyrocks)

It was deleted by you so I am unable to get the link. Again, this is a photograph that I took of Bill Cherry onstage at the Lumiere concert he did in October. It was taken with my Sony 10.1 Megapixel camera.

Darlene Perez June 18, 2010. (Darlingpresleyrocks (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC))

Are you User:Darlingpresleyrocks? If yes, please log in. So, it's all about this file: File:Bill Cherry as Elvis on the Ultimate Elvis Tour.jpg. And you say that you are the photographer of this file? User:Ttonyb1 tagged it as copyright violation because this file appears here in the same resolution. Do you have this image in a higher resolution? --High Contrast (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am DarlingPresleyRocks and it appears that I am logged in..Im new to this, sorry.... I am the webdesigner for Bill Cherry and that website is created by me. I wrote that. Yes I have it in a higher resolution (the original pic) the one I uploaded last night was one I altered on photoshop for artwork created on Bill's website. I can definetly re-upload in a higher resolution I just need a few minutes to upload from a saved disk.

Thank you kindly

DarlingPresleyRocks June 18, 2010. (Darlingpresleyrocks (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC))

No problem. Upload the higher resoluted version (at best the highest resolution you have of it). --High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I uploaded the original version of it which is high res and Tony removed it? I don't understand and I am getting frustrated. I did exactly what you told me to do. Please advise. Thank you. DarlingPresleyRocks June 18, 2010. 70.234.12.7 17:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Hello High Contrast

What is the ID ?

Thank you for the follow up to my pictures, Thank you my friend .--DC Comics (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The ID of NASA images is for instance this here: JSC2006-E-39244 of this image. With the ID an image can be identified exactly at all time because the NASA (and some other US Gov agencies ) provide their images with a unique IDs. --High Contrast (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Clock stratford 10.jpg

Dear Admin High Contrast,

I ask you this question if you can help. The only other image of the Clock Tower at Stratford-upon-Avon is a dark and low resolution photo. This is a clear high resolution photo which is badly tilted sadly. Can you straighten out the photo and either create a new image file here or upload your new photo over this existing photo? It could be used in wiki's article on Shakespeare's hometown if only it was taken right in the first place rather than this badly tilted existing example. If you cannot help, then I suppose it shall remain unused. This is the only image of the clock tower I found on Commons. If you can't help, then all I can say is thank you for reading my message. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have recently uploaded a corrected version. Is it this what you wanted? Greets, High Contrast (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes...the new picture is exactly perfect. Thank you very much. I'll use it in the Stratford upon Avon article now. Its much superior than the existing one there. With kind Regards from Metro Vancouver, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --High Contrast (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File:IWT 2.jpg

Lieber High Contrast, da Du ein deutscher Admin bist, kann ich meine Fragen mal ohne Verrenkungen stellen. Da ich viele Bilder bearbeite (Rahmen entfernen usw.) bekomme ich immer die Anfragen zu Quelle und Lizenz. Warum ist das so? Sollte nicht der ursprüngliche Uploader, hier SuperTank17, dafür verantwortlich sein? Mache ich mich als Bearbeiter eines Bildes verantwortlich für die korrekte Lizenzierung? Muss ich die Herkunft verifizieren, bevor ich einen Rahmen (auf Veranlassung einen dritten Users übrigens) entferne? Wenn dem so ist, wäre das IMHO eine, bitte entschuldige meine Worte, selten dämliche Policy. Ich hoffe, Du kannst mich über die Arbeit eines Commons-Administrators ein bisschen aufklären. Grüße --Ras67 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Du machst dich als Bearbeiter nicht verantwortlich. Diese Mitteilung wurde automatisch auf deine Disk.-Seite geschrieben, weil du der letzte "Uploader" warst. Das ist alles. Du kannst diese Nachricht entfernen, oder sie dem "rechtmäßigen" Empfänger SuperTank17 überstellen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:AC-40 (ZiL-4331)

Tsis is AC 3.2-40 (ZiL-4331). All three engines [14] Georg Pik (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Own work

I think by giving my ID for both source and author and the rigth as self|cc-by-sa-3.0 makes it cler enough for commons rules. If that is not the case then I have the best part of 1000 images to update.--JIrate (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just stating your Username is not enough. Let me explain: "Source = Irate" means the image comes from the Commons-User "Irate". But this information gives no clearance about who is the copyrightholder of it. Imagine, you upload a scan of magazine cover, the source would be you again, but you are not the copyrigh holder of it. And you are only allowed to publish files under free licences when you are the copyright holder - this is very essential for Commons. I suggest you to use {{Own}} as source from now on and you place a text on your userpage where you state that if you wrote "Irate" as source, it is your own work or something like that. Because if we are particular about this, we must delete your uploads because of missing source information. I do not want to this as well as I do not want your files getting deleted. So, please be cooperative in this case. Commons has strict rules, without them this project would not work. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you answer as I have set the rights to self|cc-by-sa-3.0 the self bit indicates it is my work so putting own is redundant. You may be particular about it but that does not mean you are right. I will be doing nothing pending a clarification from some commons vote. BTW do not use the royal we, it is very rude.--JIrate (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Then you violate basic priciples of Commons. Congratulations, Irate --High Contrast (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It isn't me that is breaking the principles it is you, the information contained in the meta data added by myself makes it clear I created the work and that I owned the copyright. Your making up interpretation of the rules as you go along. You then claimed "we" where going to have to do something, which is speaking for the users of wiki commons, which you have no right to do. You attitude verges on bullying.--JIrate (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Selbst sperren nach PA

Hallo High Contrast,
ich finde es nicht besonders angebracht, nach einem PA gegen sich selbst einen Benutzer für 3 Monate (!) selbst zu sperren (vgl.). Es wäre schön gewesen, wenn du das an jemanden anders abgegeben hättest. Ich finde dennoch den Block an sich allerdings auch nicht wirklich falsch, nur wäre es in Zukunft wirklich schöner, wenn es anders liefe. Viele Grüße, abf «Cabale!» 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Ich wusste nicht, dass bei derart offensichtlichen Fällen extra ein zweiter Administrator herangezogen werden muss. Dazu sei gesagt, dass ich höchsten Wert auf Transparenz und Konsistenz in meinem Handeln lege und ich somit nicht vorsätzlich gehandelt habe. In Zukunft binde ich einen anderen Administrator zusätzlich ein, da sehe ich kein Problem. Zur Begründung meines Handelns: Sperrung wegen unbegründeter und doch irgendwie überdurchschnittlicher Beleidigung. Die drei Monate wählte ich aufgrund des Beitragsverhaltens des Benutzers, der in den letzten sechs Monaten weniger als 50 "edits" tätigte. Aufgrund dessen entschied ich mich für eine dreimonatige Sperre. Die Reaktion des Benutzers ist Unverständnis begleitet von persönlichen Angriffen und Beleidigungen (nachzulesen auf dessen Benutzerdiskussionseite im Rahmen des Entsperrwunsches). Da Benutzer:Walter Grassroot absolut keine Besserung zeigt, finde ich, dass seinem Entsperrwunsch nicht nachgegeben werden darf. Sofern du meine Meinung teils, bitte ich dich, als Dritter, seinen Antrag abzulehnen. Besten Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Ja, ich habe deine Sperre bestätigt. Danke, dass du in Zukunft einen dritten fragen wirst. Es geht mir dabei einfach auch um die "Transparenz", die du auch angesprochen hast. Wenn man nicht selbst nach einem PA gegen sich selbst lange Sperren verhängt, sieht es eben weniger nach "Willkür" aus. ;) Versteh' mich aber bitte nicht falsch, es geht mir da nicht um den "typischen Vandalen", der (meist als IP) "deine Mutter [...]" auf deine Disk schreibt, der einem erzählt, wie "besonders" man rieche oder sonst irgendwie rumpöbelt, dass man da 'mal kurz abklemmt ist nichts weiter als normal, aber es kann bei manchen Usern einen "unangenehmen Beigeschmack" erzeugen, wenn man 3 Monate einen Benutzer, der durchaus auch Bilder hochläd für einen PA gegen sich sperrt. ;) Grüße, abf «Cabale!» 18:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Besten Dank! Grüße und einen angenehmen Abend, wünscht High Contrast (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Upload picture comic

Hello High Contrast, Can I Upload the image of This look http://www.flickr.com/photos/locationscout/4571432017/ ?.... --DC Comics (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it. Please consult COM:PUMP. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The Flickr user has used a wrong license. I think the Joker would still be copyrighted for nearly 60 years (Its creator, Bob Kane, died in 1998). Okki (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not working then. I did not recognize the character on the image but with this information it is a quite clear case. Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Franz Hartmann Gedenktafel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good -- Smial 23:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vils mit Stadt Vilshofen, Mai 2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 09:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Admin High Contrast,

I'm afraid now that I have to agree with Lupo here on the DR above. The copyright owner was contacted at the picture source and given 3 weeks to reply by MGA73 and yet nothing has happened. While the picture is top quality, it is licensed as ARR which means that WikiCommons cannot legally keep it. I think that a third party like you should consider stepping in now and deleting it sadly. I did not file the original DR but I had asked for a time extension just to be fair. But fair is fair and now it would be morally wrong to keep this picture today. With Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Woman & girl

Hi! To say the truth I am not sure she is 18 years old... The author of photo tiled it as the snorgtees girl has a nice smile. So, he knows better... ;) Electron <Talk?> 22:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen,

I do not know what is the proper way to provide permission for the media uploaded and filed under:

User:Spssps/gallery

This is to inform you that ALL files in this gallery starting with = EugenFound = are completely owned by the Eugenides Planetarium of Athens Greece. This is also to give the proper permission for these files to be used by all wikipedia authors in articles that are written in all language versions of the wikipedia free of any charges or other obligations.

Please make the necessary provisions to straighten things out.

Sincerely yours,

Dionysios P. Simopoulos Director Eugenides Planetarium 387 Sygrou Avenue Paleo Faliro 17564 Athens, Greece

Tel. +30-210-946-9633 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spssps (talk • contribs)

Hello! Firstly, thanks for your contributions! Please go to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard - there are the experts for this. Write there the same text as you did here and some expert will help you with this "problem". I hope these images can stay on Commons. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review notice

Hello High Contrast. You are receiving this message because you have recently or regularly participate in Flickr review requests. A proposal to move Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers to Commons:License review/requests was made and no objections were raised and thus transferred. Please watchlist this new page for further requests. Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers will continue to display for a period of time but new requests will not be raised on your watchlist. Thank you, ZooFari 17:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for the notification. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

*Seufz*

Was soll man bloß mit Usern wie dem da anfangen. Der Kiewer Bahnhof ist ganz offensichtlich auf keinem dieser Bilder auch nur annähernd zu erkennen. Ähnliches gilt auch für andere seiner Neukategorisierungen. Und diskussionsresistent isser auch noch... --S[1] 15:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ich teile deine Meinung zu 100%. Der Benutzer und sein Handeln ist mir bekannt. Auch ich habe versucht ihn diesbezüglich zu kontaktieren. Damals versuchte der Benutzer das russischsprachige Commons Forum heranzuziehen, um Gleichgesinnte zu finden, was aber nicht gelang. Er zeigte sich damals schon sehr Beratungsresistent. Was hast du bereits unternommen bzw. was hast du vor noch zu tun? --High Contrast (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Man sollte doch am besten diese unnützen Kategorien "Views of..." löschen, und gut ist. Nur halt nach einer gewissen Pause, vllt. ist er dann ohnehin nicht mehr aktiv. --S[1] 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Das löst meines Erachtens das Problem nicht: Beispiel dieses Bild: Es ist in folgende Kategorien eingeordnet Taras Shevchenko Embankment, Moskva River in Moscow, Bagration Bridge, Taras Shevchenko Embankment, Moscow Expo Center, International Trade Center (Moscow), Comecon building, Hotel Ukraina. Allesamt sind nicht korrekt gesetzt, aber es ist unmöglich diesem Benutzer zu erklären, dass er doch besser das "Image Annotations"-Tool verwenden solle, um bei derartigen Bildern auf Details hinzuweisen. Selbst die Regel what or whom does the file show? What is the main subject, wird total missachtet, aber das kann oder will TarzanASG kapieren. Schade, aber ich weiß nicht, was gegen diesen Benutzer zu tun wäre. Die einzige Möglichkeit ist, abzuwarten, bis er Commons den Rücken zuwendet und geht. Wenn dir etwas einfallen sollte was möglich ist, meine Unterstützung hättest du! --High Contrast (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cybersex

Really confused here, I added the otrs link. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please specify your request. --High Contrast (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Yaqoub Abdulla.jpg

What does one do with this incomplete upload? I don't use flickr upload bot. Do you tag it with speedy delete or upload the photo? It looks legitimate...I think from this The same flickr source. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the image comes from here. Why don't you upload it? At the moment, I have problems with loading the highest image resolution of the photograph on flickr. --High Contrast (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You can upload it regularly - as you are familiar with and then you can contact me again and I can delete this. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete these files!

Hello High Contrast, could you delete these images screenshot of the user insists [15] [16] on using, File:Korakuen-Stadium-1.jpg and File:Korakuen-Stadium-2.jpg. Truu (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Please tag it as copyright violation with stating a valid reason first. I cannot understand the source "投稿者祖父撮影8mmフィルム

原版著作権を保持する祖父は2005年に死亡し著作権は投稿者が現有" and "投稿者祖父撮影8mmフィルム 原版データの著作権を有する祖父は2005年に死亡し著作権は投稿者が現有", so I need more information about what is wrong there. --High Contrast (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Upload images from Flickr

Hello High Contrast, Possible request, Possible Upload These are pictures from Flickr :

And Licensing, (Attribution License), These are pictures of the artist Corbin Bleu Upload Photos Please, Thank you Good luck, my brother .--77.30.97.104 05:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not enough time to do this. Please upload these images yourself. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Friedhofskapelle Schweiklberg (2010).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good. --Cayambe 14:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

License of images

Hello High, the user Bylbyl asserted that the license of his images were sent by e-mail, can anyone check if this is true? I don't know what to do, see it File talk:Lierse lisp - tribune II oud.png. Truu (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Copyright violations

Hi High Contrast, wich images? --F l a n k e r (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

COM:FLICKRWASHING: File:Sukhoi Su-35BM - 01.jpg & File:Sukhoi Su-35BM - 02.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've uploaded those pictures many months ago (there are dates, check them) also (as if that is not enough) I have uploaded those pictures from Flickr (with the automatic procedure) with the correct license. As you can see I've not committed any error... --F l a n k e r (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: please, next time check before placing notices, thank you. --F l a n k e r (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
In future, please check flickr images more carefully if the uploader has the right to publish images under a free licence. Please be not this naïve in future and check first from whom you upload files to Commons. Thanks for respecting Commons' rules. --High Contrast (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh eh, OK, OK, you're right, I don't checked the two image to Sukhoj home site. But I've uploaded so many images from Flikr that I was getting too confident. :) See you, F l a n k e r (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Expositurkirche St. Johannes der Täufer, Ottmaring.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Die zwei Pfosten im Vordergrund noch retuschieren. Ansonsten gut. --Berthold Werner 13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done --High Contrast 20:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your questions about Arkadia Resort images

Dear Colleague, I noticed your questions about [17] and [18], and [19] and some other files I've loaded yearlier today. I do not understand reason of your alerts. I clearly stated in EVERY file that all images made by me (by SONY cybershort camery, which may be easily trasable) and they are photos of old Russian Post Cards of more then 100 years old. I'm the owner opf originals of these cards. All lisencing is proper mentioned. Please remove your alerts yourself. HOBOPOCC (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

With which camera you took this images is not of interest. You stated this is your own work, but this is not true. You did not draw these cards - you just photographed it. That's the problem. Please give more specific information about the author/publication of the cards and everything is ok. Please read COM:DW for further information. Greetings and happy editing High Contrast (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Give me sample for my better understandiing, please, how it should look for the Post Card issued in Russina Empire of 100 years old. I do not have any idea how to comply to your request. Sample will do education better then any words. HOBOPOCC (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are loads of examples: take this one: File:Old Kharkov Exchange and konka c 1900.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Dankeschone! Now it's clear! Will correct for all my loads accordingly. Will YOU remove alert or can I do so (do not have such experiance so far) after correction would be done? HOBOPOCC (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You can remove the "problem"-tags after the correction. I trust you! Happy editing. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:ANIMAL KINGDOM poster.JPG

Just 1 comment here. Can this poster really be OTRS'ed? I see that the uploader has one image deleted on his talkpage already with almost the same title. I would imagine that no studio would allow a poster of theirs to be posted here for free....and even the license is wrong. It is quite suspicious. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • As an aside, I think it is nearly time to close this DR as a delete. While it is not strictly 1 week long, (there is a few hours left) no one supports keeping it...and this is the uploader's sole image here and it failed review. The image is likely a copy vio as Admin MGA concedes and I had tagged it 12 hours earlier for a speedy deletion before MGA changed it to a regular DR. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is unneccessary to tag File:ANIMAL KINGDOM poster.JPG with "no permission". It contains an "OTRS pending"-tag which categorizes this image automatically in category-tree. Anything in here older than two months should be considered for speedy deletion if an OTRS is actually needed. Perhaps, the uploader of File:ANIMAL KINGDOM poster.JPG brings a valid OTRS-permission. Let's see. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Delinked Dr. Kenneth K. Kim's photo

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the photo. I am trying to get a better understanding of how this works, but I am a little confused. I got that photo from my mother, who got it from her work when they did an interview on him. The property was mine, and I had permission to upload it and link it as such based on what I read when it came to Wikipedia's copyright policy.People bios (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of which image are you talking exactly? --High Contrast (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The one that was ken200.JPG - I am sorry I am new to this but I thought that it was okay to upload files you owned yourself that were not copyrighted off another page. I read up on this and that was my picture so it didn't violate any of the policies set forth against uploading the picture and linking it on Wikipedia. The picture of Dr. Kim on his website was the same one I got from my mom, but she had the right to give me that picture and I had the right to use it. People bios (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Ken200.png: You claimed "own work", which is not the fact as you stated. Please get in contact with COM:OTRS: Send there the permission per Email. All relevant information can be found at COM:OTRS. This proicedure is neccessary because of the appearance of this image on the net. --High Contrast (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi there, yes I'll take it. Thanks!--Officer (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

[20] --High Contrast (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Geagea's RfA?

I made a comment on Geagea's RfA, if one can call it, here. I have not seen an RfA where the nominated candidate never accepted the application and yet people vote for him. Would you care to make a reply in the DR or to Geagea? I believe you know him. I don't question his contributions--just this strange RfA. I made a strong comment in this DR, I'm afraid. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I dont' know Geagea. Please consultate the Administrators' noticeboard. In this case it is far better more People care about this. --High Contrast (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Technically it only runs once (and if) he accepts.  Docu  at 09:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I made a comment there and asked why there has been no feedback from Geagea on the RfA or how he plans to use his Admin tools. The ball is in his court now, I guess. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Country specific designations for military vehicles

I would like to know what is your opinion on countries that have their own designations for military vehicles purchased from their countries (for example in Poland BMP-1 is known under the designation BWP-1). Personally I think that when creating categories for vehicles in service with the armed forces of those countries their designations should be used instead of "Vehicle X in country Y's service". But what is your opinion on this?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this case was recently given with the CV90-"tank": In order to keep the consistency and unity of all categories, it is appropriate to apply some kind of fusion of both. That means firstly the Category:VEHICLE_XY by country of service and the apparent sub-category: Category:VEHICLE_XY in countryname(Demonym) service and then the country-specific vehicle (if existing). This has some adventures: 1) consistency 2) uniformity of categorization 3) future viability (who knows whoch variant may follow in the future) 4) it is more understandable for lay readers that may be confused 5) it produces no additional work. --High Contrast (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


File:Monument_for_the_explorers_in_Mirny,_Yakutia.JPG

File:Monument_for_the_explorers_in_Mirny,_Yakutia.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Playboy

The file File:Silvana Suárez 7.jpg is taken, as it is stated, from the "Playboy" magazine Nº 1. It's an argentine edition, written in Spanish and featuring local Argentine women. You can check here that such magazine did exist, it was published in 1985 and featuring Silvana Suarez. Belgrano (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The stated source is quite weak, you should specify on the file page why this file is in the public domain. Especially an Admin should lead by example. --High Contrast (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

SiU-5-Obus photo

Guten Abend! The permission of using files from site, where I am one of the authors is here. MfG, LostArtilleryMan (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was started on your talk page. It is not necessary to answer on my talk page. --High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Visually modified OT-810 APCs

Hello.

I saw your proposed name for the Category:OT-810 APCs painted or visually modified to resemble Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs and while it is much shorter it ends up missing the point of this category. You see the reason why I created this category to begin with was to seperate the "normal" OT-810 APCs from the ones used to portray Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs. "Visually modified OT-810 APCs" just doesn't capture this crucial part of this category. Also "visually modified" is very unclear term as depending on how you interpret it can be as broad as to include every visual change (like for example painting it pink) or as narrow as to only include the modifications that change the shape of the vehicle.

All I'm trying to say is that we should try to find a name that is both as short and as to the pint as possible while at the same time giving the person looking through the categories a good idea of what is in it.

One of the things we can do to shorten the original name is to replace the "Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251" in the name with "Sd.kfz. 251".

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

File:F-35A in testing.jpg

Can you please undelete the pic and re-upload it to Wikipedia? Thanks! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Already replaced on all wikis, probably destroying one of them with google translation. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Vertical launch systems → Category:Vertical launching systems

Please change this back. As a sailor on a VLS ship I can tell you the correct term is "launch". I know the "Google test" is not 100% reliable but comparing them you can see 500,000 hits versus 20,000. If it was changed as a result of a discussion I am curious to see it. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert about this. Did you contact somebody on en:wiki about this, too? There, they use Vertical launching system. I support your proposal, but I'd like to see the reaction on en:wiki. --High Contrast (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Autopatroller-Rechte

Nichts dagegen. Grüße!--Konrad Lackerbeck (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Confused about images

I'm confused. You removed the file BeastWizard1.jpg, but it seems like that low-resolution screen shot is no different from the file SW binary sunset.png as shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SW_binary_sunset.png

I used that as my example of what is exceptable fair-use. Is the StarWars low-res screenshot something that also needs to be removed? If not, what is the difference between that screenshot and the one I used, which was even lower resolution? Please explain.

Beastwizard (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

FAIR USE material is not allowed on Commons. And this is Commons. This image is placed on the english Wikipedia where FAIR USE material is allowed. Commons and many wikipedia projects differ in some questions. --High Contrast (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so how do I place the images on english Wikipedia? Beastwizard (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just upload those images on the English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Upload. Choose a valid licence for these images. --High Contrast (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That page comes back with the title Error and says "Unauthorized From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users.

Return to Main Page"

Is there a way I can link to an image that's on an official site? Beastwizard (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You need an account on the English Wikipedia, so that you can upload files there. --High Contrast (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Or go to this site: Wikipedia:Files for upload: There, somebody else uploads this file for you. --High Contrast (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nastoychivyy

Hello, Mr. High Contrast!

I apologize to you for my careless mistake. I copied by mistake a term "guard ship" (from File:Neustrashimyy2008Baltiysk.jpg maybe), but «Nastoychivyy» is a project 956-A («Sovremennyy» class) squadron torpedo boat ("squadron torpedo boat" meens "destroyer"). So I have to ask you to rename the page again. I'm very sorry.

Please, rename again these pages.

Sincerely yours,

--BezPRUzyn (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done You don't have to apologize and you don't have to call me "Mr." ;-)
Greetings and happy editing! --High Contrast (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thak you, High Contrast!--BezPRUzyn (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! --High Contrast (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A DR to close

  • I see that Commons reportedly has 7 million images. But the problem is that many many images are unused private images that have no encyclopedic use sadly. The DRs here are clogged with such useless images. I wonder if the Admins here has the time to delete them. I thought the DR waiting list was almost a year in some difficult cases. As an aside, could you just close this DR as a keep. (this is a non-controversial nominator request) I long ago withdrew my DR but no one closed it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking that DR out of the system. There are many more complex ones to deal with. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I apologise for disturbing you this one final time but this image has to be a copyright violation of someone else's right even though it is somewhat moderately used on wikipedia::

It has all the warning signs: no source, low resolution, and zero metadata. It does not look like own work since the author and uploader have different names. Combine that with what I said in my speedy tag statement and I doubt Commons can keep this although you can convert this to a regular DR if you wish. Thank you for your patience. PS: It was nice passing your uploads of Russian military vehicle from picasa. Quite fascinating though I'm not a military buff, I'm more into ancient studies and world politics. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Image deleted. This was an obvious case. --High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Visually modified (insert vehicle name here)" categories

Hello.

As I already told you "Visually modified (insert vehicle name here)" is a much too general term to use as a basis for names of categories for X vehicles made to resemble Y vehicles. Say what you will about Categories like Category:OT-810 APCs painted or visually modified to resemble Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs but at least it had a lot more specific name. As I already said "visually modified" can mean anything from painting the vehicle in a different color to adding new parts to it.

Besides how do say whether the vehicle is visually modified or not? What is the "standard" in this case? The paint job the vehicle received at the factory?

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot identify the core of your problem. Is it some kind of philosophical? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No it is not philosophical. My problem is this: the name "Visually modified (insert vehicle name here)" doesn't accurately describe the subject of the category. Common sense dictates that a name of a category should as short as possible while at the same time giving the person using Wikimedia Commons a good idea what's in that category. Put yourself in the mindset of a person who isn't all that familiar with military vehicles and answer me this: when you hear a name "Visually modified OT-810 APCs" do you immediately think about OT-810 painted to look like Sd.Kfz 251. APCs?
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No, a person who isn't all that familiar with military vehicles won't think automatically that the Category "Visually modified OT-810 APCs" is about OT-810 painted to look like Sd.Kfz 251 APCs. But this category is not intended to be exclusively for Sd.Kfz 251 APCs-look-a-likes. Commons categories are generally not intended to be such "narrow minded" but broader. There were held discussions about this and the result was that hole category trees with hundreds or thousands of entrys got deleted. There was consensus about this. The argumentation based upon the fact that too specialized categories are oftenly outside the project scope. Example: "Category:OT-810 APCs painted or visually modified to resemble Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs with User:SuperTank17 standing in front of the vehicle" would not be within the scope; or "Category:OT-810 APCs painted or visually modified to resemble Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs with one head lamp missing on rear of the vehicle" would not be within the scope either as well as "Category:OT-810 APCs painted or visually modified to resemble Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs" because - the last example - is too specialized. The only thing that's interesting about this is that there are vehciles that were modified on order to resemble other vehicles. Subcats maybe thinkable. --High Contrast (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't understand my point. I am NOT trying to create categories like "Category:OT-810 APCs painted or visually modified to resemble Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs with User:SuperTank17 standing in front of the vehicle" or "Category:OT-810 APCs painted or visually modified to resemble Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs with one head lamp missing on rear of the vehicle" because categories like those have little or no practical use and are just silly. What I mean is that "Visually modified (insert vehicle name here)" categories are so broad that they're entire existence starts to become meaningless. I mean the category "Visually modified OT-810 APCs" might just as well be completely scrapped and its contents simply moved to Category:OT-810. I mean when you think about it every vehicle is "visually modified" because every single one is different in some way. The reason why I created the "Category:OT-810 APCs painted or visually modified to resemble Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs" is because I wanted to separate the OT-810 APCs that were specifically painted or had their shape changed to resemble Sd.Kfz 251 APCs from the rest. I felt that they represented a very distinctive subgroup of those vehicles.
The shortest name for such a category that I can think of is "Category:OT-810 APCs visually modified to resemble Sd.Kfz. 251 APCs". Do you think that it is still too long?
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not invest irrational personal emotions into your argumentation. This is no help for solving problems here on Commons. How you act in your private life is your cup of tea but here we exchange arguments peacefully and respectfully between use. Back to the categorie: it is still nebulous which problem you see with Category:Visually modified OT-810 APCs. As I already stated, we can rename it into for instance Category:Visually modified OT-810 APCs to resemble other fighting vehicles (only an example). "Category:OT-810 APCs visually modified to resemble Sd.Kfz. 251 APCs" could be a subcat of it. --High Contrast (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
First of all: I think you're overreacting. Nothing that I wrote above has been in any way disrespectful or offensive. All I'm trying to do is to explain my point to you.
Second: as far as I know OT-810 APCs have only been used to represent Sd.Kfz. 251 APCs. I don't recall them being used to represent any other vehicles. Thus creating a Category:Visually modified OT-810 APCs to resemble other fighting vehicles seems kind of pointless.
Third: you keep asking me why do I think that "Visually modified OT-810 APCs" is a bad name. Here's my answer: because "Visually modified OT-810 APCs" doesn't carry any weight as I explained before that if you get right down to it you could argue that every single OT-810 APC is "visually modified" in some way. Also as I said before the main reason why I created the Category:OT-810 APCs painted or visually modified to resemble Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 APCs is because I wanted to separate them from the regular OT-810 APCs.
Here are my propositions to solve this issue: 1. we (or one of us) move the contents of Category:Visually modified OT-810 APCs to Category:OT-810 APCs visually modified to resemble Sd.Kfz. 251 APCs or 2. we scrap the whole idea of separating those vehicles from the regular ones and move the contents of Category:Visually modified OT-810 APCs back to the Category:OT-810. Both are acceptable to me although the first is the one which I prefer.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

JF-17 image problem

Hi, I fixed the details in the description page. I think some Pakistani enthusiasts were trying to bypass the none-free image deletion policy by changing the original image uploaded by myself to another one of the same aircraft. Can you get back to me on whether the changes I've made are ok? Thanks. --Hj108 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just checking you're still around! --Hj108 (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Kategorien Med

Hallo High Contrast! Freut mich, wenn meine Sortieraktivitäten pos. wahrgenommen werden. Wird aber noch eine Weile dauern, bevor man von einem gut strukturierten Baum sprechen kann. Hab auch mal die WHO angeschrieben wegen Übernahme des ICD10-Baumes, hab aber noch keine Antwort. Wegen Autopatroller-Rechten: Soweit ich das verstehe, ist das sowas Ähnliches wie Sichterrechte in der deutschen WP!? Ich hab da nichts dagegen. Viele Grüße! --Hellerhoff (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mach dir wegen der Zeit keine Sorgen, denn Gut Ding braucht Zeit. Ja, die Patroller-Rechte sind mit den de-wiki-Sichterrechten vergleichbar. Ich habe dich übrigens just dafür freigeschalten. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Neues Rathaus, Turm.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice detail shot --A.Ceta 08:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St. Johannes Nepomuk Kirche, Leopoldsreut.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. --A.Ceta 08:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with images

Hello,

All those pictures (except photo) are my own work (CorelDRAW 12). Please tell me what is particularly wrong in descriptions.

(talk) 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It maybe true that you used CorelDRAW 12 to paint these images, but it is not true that you are the copyright holder of them so that you can publish them under a Creative Commons cc-by-3.0 licence. As far as I can see, without having more time to figure out who is the copyright holder, these badges are of polish descent. Perhaps you can find out if you can find a free licence (PD from poland for instance) that would allow a free use. Consult the polish version of COM:PUMP. You get help there, so that the images can be kept or start a regular deletion request. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
All right. Tell me what should I do to correct all these errors. (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said: try to find a proper licence. It is fact that these files aren't your own work (although you have drawn them very good), so you cannot choose the licence. --High Contrast (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
May it be PD:Polish symbols? or Insignia tag? (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Image Vitaa

Yes, delete this now because I am completely wrong in the dates, then delete this ... I'll try to take my camera with a prettier picture of the young lady. Cl;nintendods (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You must understand what derivative work is, so that new images of you do not get deleted, too. --High Contrast (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
sorry, but I do not understand the help page that you put me, because I do not speak fluent English, so I help you talk of Google translation, I'm French ... but thank you for your help. I will not hesitate to contact us if you have a problem. thank you, Cl;nintendods (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
derivative work exists in several different languages. Look on the at the top of the page. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Aeroplane image - forgot to change file name

Hi, can you tell me how to change the file name of this image I just uploaded: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:100721-N-8931W-031.jpg Thanks.--Hj108 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please do not state direct links to the image (example: http://www.nellis.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/100721-N-8931W-031.jpg). This is neccessary because to direct link is not considered as a valid source.
Image rename: Please insert this tag {{rename|New name.jpg|Why renaming? (Reason).}} on the top of the image page. Please give a reason, too. An Admin or a bot will move the image. File:100721-N-8931W-031.jpg: Please tell me which name do you want and I can move this file directly. --High Contrast (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New image

Good morning. look at this picture that I published not long ago: Richard Armitage.jpg, I like this photo: [21], then is good this time? Cl;nintendods (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this image is not good for several reasons:
  • it is marked as "all rights reserved" on Flickr, thus this photo cannot be used on Commons
  • you did not insert the {{Flickrreview}}-tag
  • you did not add categories

Please read COM:FLICKR. Thanks in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But I did like the picture of Alicia Keys. :( Cl;nintendods (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I do believe you, but live's hard sometimes. Perhaps you can find a free one of her. --High Contrast (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(Ver-)Warnungen

Hey High Contrast, du stellst momentan vielen Nutzern die copyvio-Warnung auf die Benutzerseite. Sicherlich eine gute Sache, aus meiner Sicht solltest du jedoch darauf achten, dass eine solche Verwarnungen auch wirklich erst nach mind. der 2. Urh.-Verletzung eingeht (nicht wie hier, wo der User erst eine begangen hat - und nur vllt eine zweite). Schließlich steht selbst im Text "du hast mehrere Bilder hochgeladen". ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 19:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dieser Benutzer hat zwei Urheberrechtsverletzungen begangen. --High Contrast (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Nö, zumindest nicht unbedingt. Dein Hinweis war ein Hinweis auf eine fehlende Quelle/Lizenz. Nicht unbedingt eine Copyvio. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 10:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Das scheinst du wohl nur unzureichend differenzieren zu können. --High Contrast (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-File:Playback_legend.jpg

Sir, Ihave properly uploaded the file and also mentioned that its my own work. I have this file in my personal cam for the last many years as it eas taken in a studio. Free man100 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a better version of this image? Higher resolution without frame? --High Contrast (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How can i ever find a permission

about the file File:Adolf_Hitler_and_Benito_Mussolini2.jpg could you please give me an example on how to provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information other than flickr ?? --Coldface (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes this could be quite hard. But before uploading an image of which you do not know the licence, refrain from uploading images. Flickr offers the correct licence (in most cases), that's true. --High Contrast (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

National Archives Naval Color Slide Collection

Hallo! Ich fand die "U.S. National Archives Naval Color Slide Collection" im Netz auf historylink101.com [22]. Viele Fotos kenne ich als US Navy-Fotos, viele nicht. Meinst Du, die kann man einfach auf Wikipedia hochladen? (wenn man die Schrift entfernt) Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Interessante und wertvolle Bilder - das steht außer Frage. Ich würde die Bilder (von dieser Quelle) nicht hochladen. Sie würden auf Commons nicht lange Bestand haben: einige mögen von offiziellen US Quellen stammen, aber auf der von dir gegebenen Seite finden sich - nach ersten Einblicken - keine wirklichen Belege, die eine US-Gov-Military-Navy-Lizenz rechtfertigten. Bei dieser Lizenz muss/sollte ja der Autorenname angegeben werden, da ja diese Navy-Lizenz für Werke von Bediensteten der Navy gilt. Beispiel: kein Hinweis auf ein US Navy Bild, obwohl wahrscheinlich. Das größere Problem der Seite historylink101.com ist, dass sie unter der Creative Commons Lizenz CC-by-nc lizenziert ist (ganz unten auf der Seite zu finden): nc heißt NonCommercial und ist auf Commons nicht "erlaubt" - zumindest nicht als Einzellizenz. Daran könnte sich der ein oder andere Benutzer einharken.
Frage: Sind die Bilder nicht auch in den "National Archives" zu finden? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Tja, dachte ich mir schon. Leider gibt es viele der Bilder nicht bei archives.gov oder history.navy.mil. Vielleicht kann ich ja rausfinden, wie die an die Bilder kamen. Wenn sie ja schon digitalisiert sind, wieso gibt es sie dann nicht auch bei einer öffentlichen Stelle? Wahrscheinlich wie immer: kein Zeit, kein Geld, kein Lust ... Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So machen

Vielen Dank! Wieder was gelernt!--Nobrook (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Kein Problem. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File

So that file do not upload here? Jacson (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Which file? --High Contrast (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So... what other type of information should I add so that the image is kept ?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Targui8.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthere (talk • contribs)

Must have happened accidently. I fixed the source information anyway. --High Contrast (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure you tagged the right image?

I wonder why you made this edit [23]. The first line says "Author: Marie-Françoise Walk" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just removing the no source tag. I firstly thought en:User:Mfwalk would not exist, but this is not the case. The just has no disc-page and no User-page :-) --High Contrast (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Breasts-not-bombs.jpg

The file is not missing permission as you are well aware, and your continued obsession with this image is disturbing. User:Pieter Kuiper and myself disagree with you. You are welcome to take this to another forum or contact the copyright holder for more information. As I have clearly noted on the image page for many years now, "Terms of use require author attribution with city and state (Bert Schlauch, Minneapolis, MN) and the following caption: Scene from an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. September 24, 2005. Permission was requested and received by User:Viriditas." Are you challenging the fact that I received permission in e-mail from Bert Schlauch to use this image? Then please, by all means, contact him. Is there a reason you haven't done this? I think the reason is obvious. You were involved in a dispute concerning this image[24] and because you did not get your way, you are harassing me. Does that sound about right? Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Breasts-not-bombs.jpg

File:Breasts-not-bombs.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

93.211.79.170 09:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Edwards Air Force Base Main Base Area (2010-06-29).jpg

The Edwards Air Force Base does not provide a HTML page describing the image. The image is currently located at http://www.edwards.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?page=8 and the page number will change. Since the image link has the af.mil domain, there appears to have enough information showing the image is from USAF and thus is in the public domain.

Typhoonhurricane (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Robert F Hoy.jpg

Is this image OK for Commons...or not? It cannot have been taken yesterday since the subject died in February 2010. It looks like a flickrwash but one wishes the source was disclosed. A flickr account with 7 images says a lot. This person is no Allan Light. The metadata is also revealing: R. Klump. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for answering so late. I thought I would have had written already a response. I'd also assume that it is flickrwashing with the same reasons as you have stated. Do you think to start a deletion request? --High Contrast (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

AEW Images

Hello High Contrast, in July 2006 I uploaded four files for the AEW, then under my old user account User:The Rain Man (but it was definitely me). Unfortunately I forgot to put in the copyrightholder and the source, which is why two of the files have been deleted an the other two are tagged. I saw that you were the one who tagged them, so mabe you are the person to talk to. I'd like to deliver the missing information: I am the copyrightholder myself and the images were also produced by myself in June of 2006. But I am not very expierienced with handling files, so I don't know how to update the information in the two remaining files. As these files are embedded in various AEW-templates throughout the Wikimedia procects, I'd like you to ask, if you could restore the two deleted files.

These are the four concerning images: 150px 80px

Thanks very much for your care, with greetings from Munich --Black Moon (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Nottingham Pride MMB 63.jpg

I hadn't finished editing that yet :p -mattbuck (Talk) 23:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. --High Contrast (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kurort Bad Griesbach.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good --Mbdortmund 23:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Transmac Macau Route 4

"Own work has been filled in the source blank, What information is missing? Sux17alvin (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is okay right now. If {{Own}} was inserted.
By the way: Do you have the same photograph in a higher image resolution? --High Contrast (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I have inserted {{Own}} as I upload this file, and, if I have a bigger image, i will replace it.Sux17alvin (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, always upload the images in the highest resolutions you have of it. The higher the image resolution is, the better is. --High Contrast (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

File:LTC Paul Caviness 2005 2007.jpg

I added additional information on the Source, can you remove your tag or tell me what else you require? Template:Unsigned:Damon.cluck

Well, I removed the tag, but there is still a problem: as yiu have stated, you have received this image per Email. That's definately okay, but please send the text to our Commons-OTRS-team. Please look back to your image and read the text of the additional tag I have inserted, or go to COM:OTRS in order to get more information. --High Contrast (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

About File:Peruvian Naval Aviation - Helicopters.jpg sourcing

Greetings, you state than the File:Peruvian Naval Aviation - Helicopters.jpg is not properly sourced. Which information is missed? I'll obtain the permission from the author himself, in fact he suggested the type of license and all the data inserted in the license tag used in this image, perhaps can you be more specific? Thanks! --Cloudaoc (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the source is insufficient because if you state a website as source, the image must be found on that source easily (but no links directly on the .jpg-file!). Secondly, the permission you have stated is insufficient: The author was contacted via private message (http://www.defensa.pe) and gave his permission for this picture. Well it's nice that your friend gave you the permission to upload this photo but there is absolutely no proof for this: send an Email to our OTRS team in order to verify your permission. When this was done, you can also remove the "no source"-tag. Please go to COM:OTRS in order to get more information you need. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

KC-135 pic

I could link to the AF search but that would differ from time to time. Also, you happen to know what variant that KC-135 is would you? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know of this problem. But it is necessary. Have you tried to find the image in the news oarchive of af.mil (http://www.af.mil/news/index.asp). There is oftenly the related news article. If this does not work, try to narrow the search results as good as possible. This is the way how I get it done. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Останкинская_телебашня_(Ostankino-Tower).JPG

File:Останкинская_телебашня_(Ostankino-Tower).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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fernrohr (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vilsengtal bei Schönerting.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good... though too much grass is shown here imo. Please, add geotag. --Cayambe 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Von en:wikipedia nach Wiki Commons

Ich habe nur versucht die Bilder aus der englischen Wikipedia hierher nach Commons zu verschieben. Ist das verboten??? Ich kann kein englisch können sie vielleicht eine Genehmigung an den Autor schicken. Ich denke das geht inordnung das ich die Bilder nach Commons verschoben habe.

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Streetview_1st_Gen.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Streetview_2_Gen.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Streetview_3.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Google_Streetview_Car_4.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Streetview_4th_Gen.png

Google Translator: I have only tried the images from the English Wikipedia here to move to the Commons. Is that illegal?? I do not speak English, they may be able to send an authorization to the author. I think that's ok I've moved the images to the Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3122WIKI (talk • contribs)

Sei Bitte bei all deinen Beiträgen bei SÄMTLICHEN Wikimedia projekten sorgfältiger. Es ist natürlich gestattet, dass Bilder, sofern lizenztechnisch in Ordnung von Wikipedia nach Commons transferiert werden. Aber du hast das völlig falsch durchgeführt. Um diese Fehler zu beheben, verwende dieses tool und kopiere den generierten Text in das Bearbeitungsfeld. Wenn das bei allen Bildern erfolgt ist, melde dich erneut bei mir, hier auf meiner Disk-Seite. --High Contrast (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Ich glaube ich habe etwas falsch gemacht mit diesem Tool. Könntest du mir vielleicht helfen, diese Bilder nach Commons zu verschieben? 3122WIKI (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Die Bilder müssen nicht mehr verschoben werden - sie sind ja bereits auf Commons hochgeladen worden. Sofern du noch keinen TUSC acoount hast, dann bitte umgehend hier anmelden, dann funktioniert auch das tool. --High Contrast (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your post

I was wondering, is there some way I can see how many views an image have on wikimedia? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Images from picasa

Hey High Contrast, it's not neccassary, because template is automatically inserted by bot D'ohBot. Moreover, please keep in mind that Commonist does not support the insertion of additional templates. And before I uploaded files, I asked author of phothos, if he's sure that license of photos is permanent, so you can freely trust me :-). Regards, LeinaD dyskusja 12:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

i know about D'ohBot, but it is ununnecessary to require server capacities and Bot working spaces with such superfluous actions. It is no big deal to insert this tag and even with Commonist it is possible. --High Contrast (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Sander van Doorn.jpg

Hi, you marked the File:Sander van Doorn.jpg for deletion, because, according to you, it “is missing essential source information”. What kind of information is it missing? It clearly states who the author is, under what license is it released and that it has been copied from the English Wikipedia. Svick (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

a) Look at the original source on en:wiki and there is nowhere clearly stated who the author is: Read COM:L and you will learn what is perceived as "clearly stated".
b) This image is simply a copyright violation. The uploader on en:wiki is not the copyright holder of this image. He/she just grabbed it from the net and uploaded it under a randomly chosen free C&C licence. That's why I nominated it for speedy deletion - now.
c) Please do not transfer copyright violations from wikipedias to Commons.
Thanks in advance. Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright help

Hello and thank you for helping me change the name on one of my pictures. You asked me to update the copyrights on my photos, and I'm trying to figure out what is best to use. I posted this question on the commons help page also but realized I should probably ask you for a quicker answer.

To explain in general, my boyfriend and I both go out to take pictures of local areas to update the towns’ wikipages (we are both interested in expanding information on regional areas). He is not very computer savvy so I am the one that post the pictures (and edits entries on wikipedia). We basically work as a team to do this. Some of the pictures I take on my camera and some of the pictures he takes on his camera (I could just upload as my own since we work as a team but I want him to have credit).

My question is, what copyright do I use when I upload his pictures because I want to make sure his name is on the ones he took? He has given me permission to use all of his photos on wikipedia & Commons and if someone uses it they give him credit. I've tried to figure out what copyright that is and I'm new here so I need some guidance.

Thank you in advance! I will also update the categories on mine you advised me about (don't have a lot of spare time to do this). L.N.farm (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the best way would be to send a permission via Email to our OTRS-team. All relevant information can be found here. The easiest way would be if your boyfriend uploads his images with his own account. I hope to see more contributions by you. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Import of Hungarian pictures

As You can see I try import pictures from the Hungarian Wikipedia. Mostly I need few minutes to make the correct file description. Meanwhile, very annoying to get tossed message templates. --Beroesz (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Then try to manage yourself better. --High Contrast (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nappytabs

I saw that you reverted my edit to the Tabitha D'umo.jpg and I figured it was because the resolution quality came down a lot after I made changes. I just got a peer review on the Nappytabs article I wrote that this image appears in and my reviewer gave me feedback about cropping the photo so that their faces are bigger. I tried to this with the last edit but you reverted it, I think because I didn't do it right. Would you mind cropping the image so that the resolution is still high but there's less background? I would appreciate it. As you saw, I obviously don't know how. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem was that you uploaded a much smaller resoluted version: 2,800×2,100 and the a 433×411-version by you. I have restored the higher resoluted one and now I have uploaded a cropped version of it that, as I think, you wanted to have for you article. If you crop images, please use the highest resolution. Thanks in advance. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Dear High Contrast,

I am aware of the educational role of Wikicommons, and if you have a look at my thousands uploads http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:G.dallorto you will find 99% pictures of monuments, statues, paintings, architecture & re.

However, I am also interested in the picture of the male nude, both in art and photography, I created the very category here, and if you look at the Italian version of Wikipedia you will notice that I wrote the "Picture of the male nude" entry. Simply, I was sick of adding only pictures who were shot by people who were dead since at least 70 years. I wanted to add some male nude which was not stale. This is useful, as a look at this picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two_of_them_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto18-08-2002.jpg will reveal: please notice how many pages in Wikipedia link to it. Which shows that there is a lack/need of these images, whatever you may feel about. If you know any other way to add 21st century male nude images without breaking copyright laws in another way, please let me know: I shall be more than happy to learn about it.

As for being "self-promotional", since I am not making any money or career out of these images, I am not promoting anything. Furthermore, in my opinion, I am not self-promoting myself more by publishng a handful of male nude images than thousands of images of monuments. Or, if you prefere, ANY signed image is self-promotion... then should we get rid of any signed images being "self-promotional"? Of course not. It is ANONYMOUS images that have been deleted on a routine base until now, not the signed ones! Therefore I don't understand why only the male nude images should be seen as a form of self-promotion. Unless it is the difficult nature of all nude that made you perplex...

If such is the case, please be aware of the fact that I am aware of the current debate about sexual explicit images in WikiCommons. I am therefore uploading only images which have no sexual nature, since I respect those who may browse the category unadvertently, and who might be shocked.

On the other hand, I oppose censorship per se, as the majority of contributiors did when the issue was brough to our attention by Jimbo Wales himself. Unless I missed a part of the debate, nude images should be considered on a case by case base. This is the official policy of Commons, as far as I know.

Furthermore, non-porno images of gay couples are very rare on the Net, this is why I am providing them.

I understand some people are shocked by images with gay contents, but this is a political/cultural matter, not a matter of WikiCommons' policy. If you disagree with me on this point, I suggest we should move this discussione to the Village Pump to have it solved by the Community.

I am also aware that a few images of mine may be controversial, such as this one this one, and possibily this one, for instance. Therefore I am prepared to submit them to the vote of the community and have them deleted if the community deems them too controversial. Rules apply to everybody, me included. Please feel therefore free to open a deletion request for this image or others that may offend you: I shall not be offended, I shall only make my point of view available in the debate, obviously. I think this image is artistic, but art is a very subjective matter, therefore if the image is deleted, I shall accept the verdict wihtout regret.

Last but not least, the Francesco Belais case. He is well known in Italy, the fact that you never heard of him notwithstanding. I am afraid I can mention no German dj/journalist/author either, in my turn. Your query to Google did for instance miss this: http://www.culturagay.it/cg/showAll.php?autore=61&type=2 However, never I heard the rule that to upload an image there must be an entry in Wikipedia. If such a rule was voted, please kindly give me the link so that I may learn about it. In my opinion, adding images to be used when the entry is created is a policy which makes sense. Soon or late the entry will be created. And no, Wikipedia is not the only source of wisdom in the World. There are more things on Earth than entries in Wikipedia, Horace...

I added to Commons several images of public personalities from Italy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:G.dallorto#Personalit.C3.A0_italiane_.2F_Italian_people most of them still without an entry in Wikipedia (please check). What does it mean? Simply that Wikipedia in Italian has still a lot of holes to be filled. I am giving my contribution by preparing the images for the moment when the entries are written. And I don't understand why you object to Belais alone: merely because he sports a bare torso? But the image intended to be humourous. He works in the entertainment industry, he likes to shop up... that's part of his public persona.

In short: I am prepared to discuss the matter further in case you were not convinced by my reasoning. However, I hope I made my point of view clear enough and that I somewhat convinced you.

Thank you for your attention and your patience in reading me until here. Giovanni Dall'Orto --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Post scriptum. you are right about adding an explanation whenever I add a personality to Commons. I just did it for Belais and I shall do so in the future. Thx.

Concerning Francesco Belais, there is no clear notability criterion on Commons. Stating that a person is only notable when there is an article about him is blocking any future articles. Commons has to collect the needed material to prepare for new "notables". Anyway, when I search on google in Dutch, it becomes quickly clear that he is notable, searching in German even more so.
It is a pleasure to see quality nude foto's after all that trash we have to process. --Foroa (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As a sign of good will, I just had 5 of the images I deemed could be most disturbing to a general audience (nude genitalia, couples very tightly hugging) to be deleted. I hope I picked up the right ones :-) --User:G.dallorto (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Violation of Commons deletion policy

Please bear in mind that images you consider simply "out-of-scope" need to go through a regular deletion request. Please don't abuse deletion tools for this.

At Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Panzermuseum_Munster_2010_0939.JPG, I requested an undeletion to enable users to review.  Docu  at 08:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I did never abuse any rights. You should refrain from abusing others with weak accusations. This image is and was out of scope because it is a corrupted file. Any discussion about this case would be a waste of time --High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It's just as problematic if you don't use accurate deletion summaries.  Docu  at 10:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Accurate enough. It's just as problematic if you waste other people's time. --High Contrast (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dubna (river) in 2007.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good and usefull (Geocoding?)--Haneburger 11:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


Undeletion request

Please see

Cheers.  Docu  at 15:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, real out of scope images. --High Contrast (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kraftwerk Pleinting, August 2010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Sehr schön, und das nicht nur, weil ich Kraftwerke mag ;-) Interessante Farben übrigens. -- Felix Koenig 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fernrohr (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Friedhofskirche St. Michael, Bad Griesbach.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Comment - I find the clouds a bit distracting. Mattbuck 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Not a problem to me for a QI.--Jebulon 16:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Image authorization

Lieber High Contrast:

Danke für Ihren Beitrag in Bezug zu den Medien File:Conductor_Fabio_Costa.jpg und File:Fabio_Costa_concert_lecture.jpg. Die Photographen von den jeweiligen Beilder (nämlich Francilins und Paulo Lacerda) haben schon Ihre schrifliche Erlaubnisse durch email an Wikicommons geschickt, und zwar durch den (Brasilianisch)-portugiesichen Formular. Darum würde ich Sie darum bitten so behilflich zu sein, diese Bilder entsprechend zu markieren/behandeln.

Vielen Dank, Contribuidor, aus Brasilien


To: contribuidor@hotmail.com > Subject: Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Contribuidor has been changed by High Contrast > From: wiki@wikimedia.org > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:59:13 +0000 > > Dear Contribuidor, > > > The Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Contribuidor has been changed on > 26 August 2010 by High Contrast, see > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Contribuidor for the current > revision. > > See > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Contribuidor&diff=0&oldid=41662876 > for all changes since your last visit. > > Editor's summary: Please send a permission for > File:Conductor_Fabio_Costa.jpg to OTRS > > Contact the editor: > mail: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/High_Contrast > wiki: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:High_Contrast > > There will be no other notifications in case of further changes unless > you visit this page. > You could also reset the notification flags for all your watched pages > on your watchlist. > > Your friendly Wikimedia Commons notification system > > -- > To change your watchlist settings, visit > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/edit > > To delete the page from your watchlist, visit > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Contribuidor&action=unwatch > > Feedback and further assistance: > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

You're welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Katrina damage.jpg

This image should never have been passed. I checked the flickr owner's photostream under 'Katrina', and 'Hurricane[s]' and no picture matches this image. I think Howcheng was correct to tag this image as missing a legitimate source (see file history) . And yet someone passed it. Today that person has left Commons. I don't know if its a serious problem but I don't know why it was passed it in the first place. the flickr photo does not match the Commons photo at all. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, the best would be that you start a deletion request. I would state a comment there. Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jaquiecropped.jpeg‎

Hi I've had a message saying this image is a copyright infringement. It isn't. The image and logo are a promotional tool and the use of the image has been approved by the copyright holder - Young, Gifted & Brown, see admin@thejaquiebrowndiaries.co.nz for confirmation. Please do not remove this image.

Thanks

Hi YGB. In the case of promotional/professional photos, it's standard practice for us to ask for confirmation, as plenty of people upload images they just found via google or the like. Please either send an email to the OTRS team from the copyright holder, or have them add a note on the source webpage stating the licence the image is published under (first one is preferable). This is just a case of verifiability - we need a paper trail in case it's not kosher. I'll remove the speedy tag and change to no permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the soft way for a longer waiting time, but also possible. --High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Das Rachelkreuz, 2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support--Nevit 11:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! VW Logo am Heizkraftwerk Wolfsburg Nord.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments One deleted here sometimes the "Cavallino rampante" of Ferrari, which was QI candidate, I think because of copyright...--Jebulon 10:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
There was once led a deletion discussion about this here. The Volkswagen logo is not considered to reach the threshold of originality. --High Contrast 10:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 Support--Nevit 11:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable tagging

I noticed you recently tried to tag File:SNES 800.jpg as a copyright violation because you found similar images in a TinEye search.[25] Considering that the image has been here since 2005 (5 months before you were!), what reasoning led you to conclude that the version here was so obviously copied from one of those search results rather than vice versa that you had to clamor for immediate deletion rather than using {{Delete}} (or using any common sense and leaving it alone)? Or were you not actually paying attention to what you were doing? Anomie (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be a bit naiv. But this is not my problem. As you might think a DR cannot lead to a deletion because, as you have stated above, some would bring arguments like this image is here for such a long time, the others must have taken it from Wikimedia. Anyway I wish you a marvelous life. --High Contrast (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AEW Images

Hello High Contrast,

in July 2006 I uploaded four files for the AEW, then under my old user account User:The Rain Man (but it was definitely me). Unfortunately I forgot to put in the copyrightholder and the source, which is why two of the files have been deleted an the other two are tagged. I saw that you were the one who tagged them, so mabe you are the person to talk to. I'd like to deliver the missing information: I am the copyrightholder myself and the images were also produced by myself in June of 2006. But I am not very expierienced with handling files, so I don't know how to update the information in the two remaining files. As these files are embedded in various AEW-templates throughout the Wikimedia procects, I'd like you to ask, if you could restore the two deleted files.

These are the four concerning images:

150px 80px

Thanks very much for your care, with greetings from Munich --Black Moon (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Einfacher Fall: es fehlen die Quellenangaben (Woher? Wer ist der Autor? Von wann?) und, sofern du nicht der Rechtsinhaber dieses Logos bist, dann auch noch die Erlaubnis. Diese Erlaubnis musst du per Email beglaubigen, alle hierzu relevanten Infos findest du hier. Sofern dieses Problem aus der Welt geschafft werden kann, kann ich, sofern gewünscht, die anderen, bereits gelöschten Bilder wieder herstellen. --High Contrast (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, wie schon gesagt, diese Bilder wurden von mir kreiert und produziert, und natürlich habe ich auch sämtliche Rechte daran. Ich habe sie 2006 für die AEW hochgeladen, nur dummerweise habe ich damals vergessen, die entsprechenden Angaben einzutragen. Inzwischen habe ich die fehlenden Informationen nachgetragen so gut ich das konnte. Eines der beiden gelöschten Logos habe ich inzwischen unter dem selben Namen nochmals hochgeladen und habe hierbei die gewünschten Informationen eingetragen: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AEW_diamond_solo_white.gif Das vierte Bild (unser helles Logo) ist nach wie vor verschütt, und über eine Wiederherstellung würde ich mich sehr freuen. Mit vielen Grüssen --Black Moon (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Welche Bilder wurden wieder hergestellt? Welches muss noch wieder hergestellt werden? Bitte die genauen Wiki-Links. --High Contrast (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note on my talk page. That was your 2nd time you did. Please don't send me one of those notes again. Thank you Sp33dyphil 00:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I did not see this. What do you think about this tool? Are you content with it? --High Contrast (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:28th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron - KC-135 B-52.jpg

I am unclear about your request for "clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily"

The source provided, links directly to the photo on the http://www.afcent.af.mil website, - shown on the commons page - which is clearly a United States government source which is in the public domain. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the provided source links directly to the photo of a United States government source. Bute the problem is that there are quite a lot images on this page of which the United States government is not the copyright holder. That's the problem. And a direct link cannot proof that this image is really in the public domain. The basic prerequisite of PD-USGov is that it is a work of an US government employee (ideally: link and author name that can be confirmed by a homepage - if the image was taken from the internet). Here you have an example how I upload images from official US Air Force page - this is considered as a valid source. --High Contrast (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

SKA telescope pictures

Hi. The source for the five images in Category:Square Kilometre Array that you marked as missing the source, actually have the source specified: XILOSTUDIOS. They were uploaded by the SKA Programme Development Office (SPDO), who own the copyright on them, using the username Skaoutreach (talk · contribs). I was in the room when the person was uploading them, so can vouch for their veracity. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see that they've been uploading some more images. Didn't realise that before I left my previous message. The same still applies, though - they are being uploaded by SKA outreach. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:5th_Poland_International_Education_Fair.jpg

Hi High Contrast, just leaving a question - the file you asked me to fill information about, File:5th Poland International Education Fair.jpg, already has all the necessary information. Could you please clarify what should I add there? Datrio (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You should add a valid source. --High Contrast (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you mark my file "unsourced"?

I noticed that you marked this file I uploaded: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miyoko_belt_hawaii-350px.jpg

...as "unsourced", even though the "Information" template clearly says: 

Source=Matthew Olszewski
Author=Matthew Olszewski

So, what's the deal? What else is required?

Thanks, Chris.Wolf (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This file was uploaded by you, Chris.Wolf. The source is "Matthew Olszewski" and the author, too. Are you, User:Chris.Wolf, Matthew Olszewski? Whose work is this file? Is it own work of Matthew Olszewski? If yes, the source "Matthew Olszewski" is insufficient because a source like "Matthew Olszewski" gives no clearance about the source actually. For more information, you can read COM:L. --High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Use {{Npd}} for files like this one and File:BMKBDO2010.jpg, since there is a source but no permission. ZooFari 16:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
...can be applied, too."Lachlan McAllisters private collection of photos" is no valid source, this is a fact you cannot deny. --High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps but I still think it's better especially for Source=Matthew Olszewski. ZooFari 18:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, and why especially in this case? Both applies here perfectly as well. --High Contrast (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
We expect permission from Matthew Olszewski, don't we? :-). ZooFari 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Or a source (e.g. weblink) that shows us that this image was release under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license by "Matthew Olszewski". --High Contrast (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
High Contrast, I think it is logical that npd is the better tag. Newbies need the clearer instructions, and using good tags prevents confusion like below. ZooFari 18:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"...Are you, User:Chris.Wolf, Matthew Olszewski? Whose work is this file? Is it own work of Matthew Olszewski?"

Why are you asking these rhetorical questions when it is clear that my friend, Matthew Olszewski, not me, Chris Wolf took the picture? I said so originally by indicating author=Matthew Olszewski and how did I get it? Well, he gave it to me on CD, if you can believe that - that's why I indicated source=Matthew Olszewski. I asked you why these markings were not sufficient and you did NOT answer the question; you wrote, "...a source like "Matthew Olszewski" gives no clearance about the source actually.". What does that mean? Can you please explain it?

Don't point me off to some generic copyright law reference - tell me exactly why, in your opinion, the material is not properly labeled; even better, point to to an example where a private individual hands over a photo, that they took themselves, to a Wikipedia author to publish on their behalf. BTW, I notice that most of the postings on this page are people asking for clarification why you're marking their photos for deletion. You don't seem to explain to them either - you just write, "it's not correct", and you don't write why; then you give a link to some generic information page. This is very exasperating for the user - don't you think it would be better give more specific answers?Chris.Wolf (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If your friend is the author of this image, then it is a clear case for OTRS-team. By the way. Those people who ask on my talk page are all quite new on Commons. I give short answers with links to Commons Help pages where everybody can get addition information. It useless to rewrite things that do exist anyway. Accept this. Regards. --High Contrast (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Zoo, I have recently inserted the "no permission"-tag because the uploader stated that it was the photograph of his friend. With this information it is neccessary to use this tag. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Herr "High Contrast" - you have not been helpful at all. I think you just enjoy being a bureaucrat and it's uncool to delete a user's comments. I'm sure you'll delete this also. Keep up the good work. Chris.Wolf (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the appreciation of my work. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the npd tag is meant only for cases like this. Skim over the backlog and it's mostly what should have been used in this example. Moreover, "It has an author and source, but there is no proof..." is clearly better than "The author and source of the file must be given..." because newbies do not know what acceptable sources are. And the tag does not give this information, just a link to COM:L like npd does. Unless the wording of the tag is changed, I probably won't think otherwise.

@Chris.Wolf, see COM:OTRS. Since your friend is the copyright owner, you can't release it into a license of your choice. If your friend approves the use of the image on Commons, have your friend send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating the Commons license he/she wants to use. ZooFari 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is exact the same I wrote for him a few lines above. But he is not content with this information. --High Contrast (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
You just said, "a clear case for OTRS". Fortunately, when ZooFari said it, he took the few extra seconds to write a short sentence why; and the first objection from you was, "a source like "Matthew Olszewski" gives no clearance about the source actually. For more information, you can read COM:L." Chris.Wolf (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Start reading and learning and you will become a good Commonist. --High Contrast (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Armagur an Mehlsilo DSCF3171.JPG

Do you know of 1 or 2 cats you can give for this image. I cannot find any since it is not a usual flour mixer in a kitchen. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they're both in German. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

First image - well, the beginning. The second one is properly categorized. Thanks for helping out with categorization: do you know this category. That's plenty work to do. In last time i have worked on it, but the more you do, the more it becomes. If you have the time would be nice if you look through some of the subcats, perhaps you can find some proper cats for some images there. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I've been dealing mostly with uncategorised pictures. There were 6200+ when I started. Now there's 6,096 and falling. There were many useful photos (still are some) and lots of orphaned private, useless images. I will look at this cat if I have the time. Thanks for the pointer. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Glad to hear that others deal with the hard stuff, too. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment: If you have a blacklist for 'bad' flickr accounts, this account should be added ASAP to that list: [26] Someone tried to upload this image to Commons from this account but most of its photos are flickrvios. I have seen the same photo uploaded 2 different times already (and failed it) but it is copyrighted from some Hollywood film:
  • File:Knero.jpg

BTW, I am not perfect and sometimes make some mistakes (as you can see in my updated userpage where I note a link to my other Commons account here--Korman). I use Korman as a secondary account for voting in featured photos always since I created it. Its in the image DRs where I sometimes forget the rules and and vote twice as Leoboudv and Korman. Aargh! So, I have to be careful here and vote once only as either Leo OR Korman. Usually its Leoboudv since this is my primary account. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are very bad. --High Contrast (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes sorry! In this case, when I voted on a featured image on my Leo account here, I was scared of getting angry responses on my talkpage. This happened a lot to me when I voted to delete in article deletion requests on wikipedia. (Thank god Commons is less crazy than wikipedia) That was the reason I created this other account here 2 years ago. Since then, I always consistently do all my featured image votes on my Korman account, never through my Leo account here. That is the only thing I'm 100% certain off. I'll stop voting in image DRs from that account as its too hard keeping track with my main account...so I definitely get your point about sockpuppet accounts.
  • As an aside, I hope that this flickr account is on a 'bad author's list' someone on Commons as someone there posted a flickrvio and licensed it freely. Then he uploaded it to Commons on a free license Luckily I caught the File:Knero.jpg image. I think it is the Hollywood actor Eddie Murphy. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Plakette des Intercontinental (Prague).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  CommentI did not like the low angle shot of logo. A planar shot as you did for WV photo suites more to this kind of subject. --Nevit 11:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it could do with some cropping on the right, but generally good. Mattbuck 21:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)  Comment I tried a perspective correction, but without success.--Jebulon 09:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Pass and Dolphins of Rangiroa.jpg

What do you do in cases where a newbie doesn't know the licensing rules. He/she uploaded 1 flickr image licensed ARR and I failed it. But if I tag this other photo by him/her as a copyvio, the person won't know what the problem is. The image just gets deleted and that's that. Maybe you have...a better solution? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd write some sentences in which I explain what he/she did wrong. This is mostly the best solution. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gasse in der Fuggerei, Augsburg.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good -- George Chernilevsky 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Sky Shuttle B-KHM.jpg

Please see the edit comment at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=File:Sky_Shuttle_B-KHM.jpg your restoration would be appreciated as you cannot expect me to get around to reviewing the image in less than a day. You could add OTRS pending if you wish to avoid confusion. Fæ (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Was restored. --High Contrast (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

STOP

File:Álbum de manson.jpg

 Keep La imagen dice: 'Some rights reserved' / 'Algunos derechos reservados' en Flickr, razon por la cual debe detenerse el presunto borrado ! no se está violando ningun derecho de autor !

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/noneone/3332064/in/photostream/

Nanovapor9 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Forget it. This is a copyrighted album cover, equal what this flickr washing account tries to tell. Regars, High Contrast (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Álbum de manson.jpg {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}{{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass-change|diansty|http://flickr.com/photos/18325302@N00/3332064|23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)|cc-by-sa-2.0|cc-by-2.0}}

Nanovapor9 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Read COM:FLICKRWASHING. --High Contrast (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

STOP

te pido el favor que antes de colocar plantillas innecesarias a imagenes que tienen una fuente del gobierno federal de los estados unidos tengas cuidado y revises las referencias previamente aportadas, la imagen: File:Edgar lopez G..jpg, tiene su referencia y tu utilizas una plantilla de borrado porque supuestamente carece de información sobre su procedencia ???

http://www.state.gov/p/inl/narc/rewards/115352.htm

Nanovapor9 (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There, you are right. --High Contrast (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Logo + uni.jpg

Please don't tag files with OTRS permission as missing permission. If you think something is wrong with the permission in OTRS open a regular deletion request. Multichill (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that must have had happened accidently. You are closing a case on the total activity. --High Contrast (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Closing a case? Just pointing it out, nothing more, nothing less. Multichill (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, everything's okay. I hope we can continue our good cooperation. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Das gleiche auch für File:Josef Baum.jpg. Grüße --Mrilabs (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Falsch. Bei File:Josef Baum.jpg fehlt die Erlaubnis vom Autor Udo Grimberg das Bild unter einer Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Lizenz zu veröffentlichen. Das muss über OTRS erfolgen, da der Benutzername des "Uploaders" vom Namen des Autors abweicht. --High Contrast (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Ähm... Hast du dir das Foto mal genauer angeschaut? Urheber Chester100|Udo Grimberg. Sollte ja normalerweise assoziieren, dass Chester100 == Udo Grimberg (was ich sogar bestätigen kann ;-)). Das eigenes Werk, Foto Udo Grimberg drannsteht und der Uploader auch Udo Grimberg ist, sollte wohl dann kaum Probleme machen oder eine OTRS freigabe benötigen. Nach der Logik müsste ich auch alle meine eigenen Bilder OTRS freigeben, da ich hier ja nicht mit meinem Klarnamen angemeldet bin. Grüße --Mrilabs (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Argumentiere nicht mit "Logik". Faktum ist, dass diese Angabe undeutlich ist. Ich bitte dich in Zukunft nicht "Chester100|Udo Grimberg" zu verwenden, sondern [[User:Chester100|Chester100]]/Udo Grimberg. Das macht die Angelegenheit dauerhaft eindeutig und nachvollziehbar. Denn keiner (mich eingeschlossen als Administrator) wird sich den Quellcode bei der Überprüfung ansehen. Und schade wäre es, wenn deine Bilder in, sagen wir , zwei Jahren erneut als "Erlaubnis fehlt" markiert werden, du nicht mehr aktiv bist und die Bilder sang und klanglos gelöscht werden. Und die Wahrscheinlich ist groß, dass dies derart erfolgen wird. Weitere Fragen bei Bedarf an mich richten. --High Contrast (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, aber dem kann ich wirklich net folgen... Du willst mir also klar machen, dass ein Urheber: Johannes Böckh für dich undeutlich ist? *lach* also das geht mir etz wirklich zu weit. Ich hab jetzt hier weit über 1000 Bilder hochgeladen bzw. mit meinem Kollegen vom Portal:Memmingen weit über 3.000. Wir zeichnen unsere Bilder ALLE so und bis jetzt hat sich noch nie ein einziger beschwert... Für mich ist diese Kennzeichnung also wirklich eindeutig. Eigenes Werk und der Klarname mit dem Benutzername im Hintergrund... Kann mans noch eindeutiger machen?!? --Mrilabs (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Ich kann mich dem Tenor von Mrilabs nur anschließen. Die Lizenzierung ist eindeutig. Wenn jemand auf den Namen klickt, wird er automatisch zur entsprechenden Benutzerseite weitergeleitet. Einen neuen Account dafür anzulegen ist wohl unnötig und auch nicht Standard. Das Globale-Konto hat ja gerade den Vorteil, den entsprechenden Benutzer auf allen Wikis zu finden, ganz gleich obs nun in den Commons oder sonst wo ist. Und wenn er hier in den Commons seinen Klarnamen verwendet - mit der entsprechenden Verlinkung! gibts Lizenztechnisch auch keine Probleme. Daher ist Deine Änderung bzw. Dein Verschlimmbesserungsvorschlag auch für mich nicht nachvollziehbar. Ich werden Deinen Ratschlag, bei ebenfalls weit über 1000 Bildern nicht wahrnehmen und werde, solltest Du jemals auf die Idee kommen, dort einen Baustein einzusetzen, diesen auch einfach wieder entfernen. -- Memmingen (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Das ist keine Frage von Meinungen - Mrilabs liegt hier falsch (Eine wichtige Commons-Instanz verlangt nach validen Quellen). Auch ist es falsch einen speziellen Account dafür anzulegen - wurde auch nie angeraten. Ich rate dir die Änderungen umzusetzen, da sie von den Richtlinien verlangt werden. Alles andere fußt auf Begriffsstutzigkeit und/oder Ignoranz. --High Contrast (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, WIE ein Benutzer in Falle der Weiternutzung benannt werden möchte (ob mit WP-Nick, Realname oder Kombination aus Beidem) bleibt ihm überlassen. Und wenn der Benutzer das Bild selbst fotografiert hat, braucht es auch keine OTRS-Freigabe (zumindest wenn der Benutzer dauerhaft aktiv ist). Also hör bitte auf, die Bildbeschreibungsseiten dermassen zu verändern, denn es ist sowohl falsch als auch unnötig. --DaB. (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Tiefblaues-meer-kroatien modified.JPG & File:Tiefblaues-meer-kroatien modified by nightflyer.jpg

Dear Admin High Contrast,

Would you know what cats to add to these images? They are reasonably high resolution photos of a body of water off Croatia in the Balkans. The text seems to be all in German. I could translate it but maybe I can give only 1 cat whereas you may know more cats for this excellent image. Well, I hope you can help a little, nothing more. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Well, the translated description is: View from the "Magistrala" between Sibenik and Split. Sibenik and Split are croatian cities and Magistrala seems to be a road between those two cities. I have added the cat Sibenik. Well, you can consider adding Split as well. It might be helpful, but I just added on city cat. More important is to notify the uploader of this file so that he knows you important categories are for Commons. Best Regards, High Contrast (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop chasing away contributors

With edits like these. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Kuiper is back. --High Contrast (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
And he is right... And I bet that the reason that no admin had deleted this and others in Category:Media without a source as of 17 July 2010 is that there was a source.
It is important to tell users what is wrong when a source has been applied. Adding a template just because it is easy is not good. I agree that we prefer working links but I think that it is possible to find the right source if you know how to look at their web page.
I suggest that you use "no source" for images without a source at all. If there is a source you can leave a note for the users telling what is wrong and perhaps start a DR if you think that the problem can not be solved. --MGA73 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping MGA73. But this case seems to be more complicated. Kindest regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It often is. But you added a warning on Pieters talk page and your only response here was "Kuiper is back". And as you know many users feel that Pieter should be blocked so I think it is important to add a good reason if warnings and complaints is put on his talk page. I'm afraid that some users will just notice the warning and not check for themselves before they conclude that Pieter is doing something wrong again. --MGA73 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks again MGA73 for helping in this case. But I contacted Kuiper on his talk page. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories of Bosnia and Herzegovina

You can revert my edit, but i don't see the purpose of this category which had only three categories related to Bosnia and Herzegovina, it should have about 450 categories. Maybe bot can categorize them. --Smooth_O (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Would have been nice if you have had read the notice above. --High Contrast (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

K9 Thunder, K10 ARV, and K2 Black Panther pictures

High Contrast, please heed me. The deleted '''K9 Thunder (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:K-9thunder.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1)''' and '''K10 ARV (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:K10_ARV.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1)''' pictures were linked to the source '''http://dcn.or.kr/?_filter=search&mid=d5&search_target=title&search_keyword=%EC%9E%90%EC%A3%BC%ED%8F%AC&document_srl=31320''', on the bottom of which the author of the pictures, '''DCN 국방시민연대 권순삼''' (or '''Gwon Sun-sam''' of '''Defense Citizen Network''' in English), added the ''''사진 1.jpg, 2.jpg, 3.jpg, 4.jpg, 5.jpg, 6.jpg, 7.jpg, 8.jpg, 9.jpg의 사용을 Creative Commons [저작자표시-동일조건변경허락 2.0 일반] 라이선스에 표시된 조건들의 전제하에 허락합니다.'''' message so that the community could use them for public use under the mentioned Creative Commons license. The JPG files 1-9 in this particular post can be used under the Creative Commons license 2.0 as described in the Korean language, with the acknowledgment of the author of the post. You could have asked a Korean administrator first to verify that the message, and the licensing agreement, was what it said it was if you had questions about it, and also notify me first so that I could explain the situation to you. The deletion was so sudden for me to attempt any explanation, administrator. As for the K2 Black Panther picture '''(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:K2_black_panther.jpg)''', I'm going to replace the picture now with another one from '''http://dcn.or.kr/?_filter=search&mid=d5&search_target=content&search_keyword=XK-2&document_srl=1020''', on which the author of the pictures once again left the ''''사진 01.jpg, 02.jpg, 03.jpg, 04.jpg, 05.jpg, 06.jpg, 08.jpg, 09.jpg, 10.jpg, 11.jpg, 12.jpg, 13.jpg, 14.jpg의 사용을 Creative Commons [저작자표시-동일조건변경허락 2.0 일반] 라이선스에 표시된 조건들의 전제하에 허락합니다.'''' message, so that the community could use it with public and commercial intent, since the '''"사진을 퍼가실 때는 출처를 꼭 밝혀주세요."''' message on the source of the current one doesn't sufficiently convince you. I'll await your judgment on the new picture and the license that accompanies its release. It is my hope that you'll diligently employ the aid of a Korean-speaking administrator to verify the truth of the licensing agreement at the bottom of that particular source, as well as the previous source the K9 and K10 pictures from which were prematurely deleted before a meaningful explanation could be facilitated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desagwan (talk • contribs)

Hello! It is no problem to ask me again. Well, I think you should deal with COM:OTRS. There, the arosen problems can be solved surely. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for heeding me, administrator. There's one small issue I have to bring up; The permission to use the pictures were announced in a post simultaneously to multiple visitors, as opposed to an e-mail that had been recorded on a person's mailbox. Do you mean that, if the author was somehow rendered unreachable through e-mail, even with the announcement on the post being the a traceable source of the license, we still can't use the pictures because we can't use the OTRS? Desagwan (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I closed the DR. Forget about OTRS in this case. It is not necessary. Thanks for help and your contributions. Can you upload all other images from this site that were released under the cc-by-sa-2.0 license? Would be great. --High Contrast (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Yes, I'll eventually upload them one by one when reconstructing articles that need them. I'm reconstructing articles like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K200) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K30_Biho), for example, with verifiable sources so that people can know Korea's military armaments better. Previously they had citation issues, grammar issues, and bunch of other issues that made the articles very bad for people to look at. Desagwan (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. But maybe you find the time to upload them before you write the articles. Anyway. Thanks for helping out. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice about uploading images and always uploading the largest image. I don't come on the Commons very often, only to upload an image for a Wikipedia page if needs be. Regards, Stevo Stevo1000 (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's no problem. Thanks for your contributions. --High Contrast (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I uploaded some files and have a trouble. File:Governorate of Estonia 1820.png, File:Arkhangelsk Governorate 1824.png and File:Astrakhan governorate 1823.png and they hane no preview and thumbhails. Ok, i have found that there are a technical trouble with PNG more that 12 megapixels. I tryed to load this image in TIF - File:Congress Poland 1820.tif - but there're some troubles. Why? Only JPEG in this resolution can be loaded? ShinePhantom (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi ShinePhantom! That's no problem, this is a current error of high resoluted files. Mainly thumbnail are affected by this. As far as I know Wikimedia tries to find a solution for this problem. Thanks for uploading these files, although there are some technical problems, the files are on Commons. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Not so good. Much easy convert 2 JPG than wait until the problem is solved. Thanks. ShinePhantom (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
How you want. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

File:American toad.jpg

Hi. I see that you deleted the file above because you think it is a copyright violation of [27]. How can you be sure that the site did not take the picture from Commons, and not the other way around? The page actually states Wikipedia as one of the references. GoEThe (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The act of sourcing of this site is very poor. I do not like speculations in cases like these. To clarify this, write an Email to the site owner. If ye took that image from Commons, send this mail to the OTRS-team. Parallel to this leave me a note here and I will restore this image. --High Contrast (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you also tell me who was the original uploader of the photo, what was the source information they provided and when it was originally uploaded? Thanks! GoEThe (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Original uploader was User:Thamnophis. There is a discussion about this image on his talk page with the copyvio nominator User:Martina Nolte. You know what a copyvio nominator is? Speak with those people, they are into this "story". I was just the hard working admninistrator that executed this copyvio order. You know Ich bin nur ein einfacher demütiger Arbeiter im Weinberg des Herrn. – Pope Benedikt XVI. --18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not have access to all that information, since I am not a sysop on this wiki. I'll look into that, and talk to those users. Sorry to bother you, but it was the only way I could get the info I needed to have the complete story. Keep up the good work. GoEThe (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. If I can help you with this case, please let me hear. --High Contrast (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Gruber logistics - Frage lizenz

Hallo nochmal! ich hätte eine Frage zu den Lizensen und bin mir sicher, dass du dich da recht gut auskennst: wir möchten, dass unsere Bilder nicht verändert werden dürfen. wenn ich das alles richtig verstanden habe, dann ist die richtige lizenz dafür cc by-nd. Noch besser würden wir finden, wenn man kommerziellen Gebrauch auch unterbinden könnte, also cc by-nc-nd, aber das ist im vergleich zum ersten Punkt eher zweitrangig. Geht das auf Wikimedia? oder müssen wir die Veränderung unserer Bilder erlauben?

Danke für die Hilfe --GRUBER Logistics (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)GRUBER Logistics

Hallo! Auf Wikimedia müssen Veränderungen von Bildern erlaubt sein und auch kommerzielle Verwendung/Nutzung muss erlaubt sein: d.h. entweder cc-by oder cc-by-sa. cc-by-nc-nd oder cc-by-nd gehen nicht. Vielleich könnt ihr euch trotzdem durchringen die Bilder unter dieser Lizenz auf Commons hochzuladen (bzw. zu belassen), andernfalls kannst du dich an mich wenden bzgl. der Entfernung der Bilder.
Viele Grüße, High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


Hallo, es wird dich sicher freuen zu hören, dass wir beschlossen haben, verschiedene Bilder mit cc-by-sa hochzuladen:) wenn ich darf, dann werde dich in Zukunft also öfter mit Fragen löchern... --GRUBER Logistics (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)GRUBER Logistics (AKA Petra)

Das ist schön, dass die Bilder nun unter einer freien Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt werden können. Bitte noch die Erlaubnis an das OTRS-team schicken, dann ist alles felsenfest in Ordnung. Gruß und bis demnächst. --High Contrast (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

erase File:Champeta_baile.PNG but you would not Champeta dance.PNG Thank you Usuario:Halvis

✓ Done - I hope so. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Hidden categories

Hey High Contrast, do you know that adding this category to something does not make it hidden? If you want to make a category hidden, you must use __HIDDENCAT__. That will automatically categorize into Category:Hidden categories (which should never be added manually). Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that adding this category to something does not make it hidden but I did not know that a manual addition is not appreciated. Sorry. I'll fix that. --High Contrast (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. Why would you ever put something in a category called "hidden categories" if it's not hidden? :) Rocket000 (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Creeper.png 10 September 2010

Hey-hey! it all OK with license for that file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Creeper.png Looks here: http://minecraft.net/copyright.jsp

I think this tag {{Attribution}} would better fit. Please do not images under free Creative Commons licenses when this is not done by the author or you have a special permission. Please add proper categorie to your file. --High Contrast (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for a tip. I`m just new here) --Ohar (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Fallbeil_muenchen_1854.jpg

Hallo High Contrast,

du hast mir wegen des o.g. files eine Nachricht geschickt: Es sei keine "Permission" da. Das stimmt nicht; ich habe die Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers "Michael" (seinen Nachnamen wollte er nicht veröffentlicht sehen) im Summary wörtlich zitiert. Auch die Quelle, nämlich seine Homepage, habe ich angegeben.

Was fehlt denn jetzt noch? Soll ich etwa Michaels e-Mail von 2007 ausgraben, in der der zitierte Satz enthalten war...?

Gruß, Kauko --Kauko (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Kauko!
Das Foto ist gut und definitiv brauchbar - nicht nur für das Medienarchiv Commons. Im Vorfeld sei gesagt, dass ich nicht an deiner Glaubwürdigkeit zweifle - ich unterstelle dir demnach nicht, dass an der persänlichen Freigabe seitens des Autors etwas falsch sein könnte. Nur ist hierbei eine Commons-Formalie nicht korrekt ausgeführt worden, nämlich die Vorlage dieser Erlaubis beim OTRS-team, das die Erlaubnis sozusagen beglaubigt und sie mit einer "unanfechtbaren" Identifikationsnummer versieht. Dabei musst du die Email, die du bereits erhalten hast einfach an diese Adresse schicken: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Alle weiteren Infos zu OTRS findest du hier: Commons:OTRS/de. Ich habe den "no permissions tag" entfernt und ihn durch einen OTRS-Hinweis ersetzt, der, nach Erhalt deiner Email wieder in einen gewöhnlichen OTRS tag umgewandelt wirde.
Ich hoffe keine Unklarheiten erzeugt zu haben, aber diese OTRS-Sache findet sich auf allen Wikimedia-Projekten, so auch auf de-Wiki.
Mit Bestem Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

About the deletion argument on your photograph

Dear High Contrast. Discussion is a proposal by deleting your pictures that I recently discussed that are trying to stop. Are you sure?--Corpse Reviver (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I really do not understand what you mean: which of "my" photographes get deleted? --High Contrast (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:MiG single-engine aircraft.jpg

File:MiG single-engine aircraft.jpg. I'm pretty sure this is a Yak-11 and not a MiG, did you get the idea that its a MiG from the tags on the Flickr page, as I think those apply to the gallery as a whole rather then on this specific aircraft.KTo288 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no. That must have been a copy&paste error: of course this is a Yak-11. I will move this image. Thanks for notifying, Admin fellow. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem, would have renamed myself but wanted input from others.KTo288 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Constructive feedback is definately always appreciated. --High Contrast (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palmyra, Syria, 2009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good light, colors and sharpness. Not sure about the compo, but it is a matter of taste. QI, IMO.--Jebulon 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Location?

Hi High Contrast - what location in Morocco is this File:Animals on a tree in Morocco.JPG at, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello MPF! I would have had added the geocodes if I'd remember the place. But I have forgotten it - it was somewhere away from the cities. Sorry! --High Contrast (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Don't suppose you can remember whether it was northern, or southwestern, Morocco, or any other general region? Even that would help - MPF (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Solar chimney

I demand that you restore the Category:Solar chimney immediately. I made that category myself years ago, and some idiot renamed it to Category:Solar chimneys, without consulting me first. Obviously, the plural is plainly wrong; it does not adhere to naming conventions, which state that Categories should follow the names on en.wikipedia.org. I am getting sick and tired of this nonsense, and if it continues I will stop contributing to Wikimedia; I can't take it anymore JdH (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Using plurals is part of our naming convention. See examples on the guide page, for instance. The category should also be consistent with its parent categories (in this case it's Category:Architectural elements, and not Category:Architectural element). You can see here that the plural form of chimney is correct. Also, it is not a requirement to consult their creators when a category renamed for obvious reasons (even though it's encouraged). ZooFari 22:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You should apologize for your aggressive words. Things like "idiot" and demands like "I want immediately" is not appreciated. But if you leave Commons forever, then it is OK. --High Contrast (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I would not call it "ok" but "sad". I'm sure that the category was not deleted to annoy anyone but because the naming convention for categories are plural - also on Wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is always a loss if somebody does not want to support a Wikimedia project any longer. But this specific person is not willing to accept basic Commons rules and insults others with "idiot" without perceiving that this wrong and not helpful for this community. Therefore it often better for some individuals to leave Commons and come again later when these problems are solved. Thanks for your support in this discussion, MGA73. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mis imagenes

he subido una imagen en formato png, y no aparece cuando la coloco en artículos de wikipedia (File:Asamblea de La Guajira Building.PNG), yo subí la misma en formato .gif y sucede el mismo problema. (File:Asamblea de La Guajira Building.GIF). Ayúdame, gracias.--Halvis (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please add suitable licence tags to your uploads, then it should be okay. --High Contrast (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your comment here. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Image source problem

I put the picture of Carolina Eyck on Wikimedia commons in order to use it in the wikipedia article about her. She gave me the picture file personally for that purpose and for common (public domain) use. I'm not sure which source tags are appropriate for this. In the meantime I put her website as a reference which is not 100% correct, but I wanted to prevent deletion of the file.

Could you please tell me which source and license tags I have to put in order to respect wikimedia's and wikipedia's rules?

Thank you in advance

Thierry

TechnikAlsace (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)User:Technikalsace 2010-09-18

User rights

Hell High Contrast!

Thank you for your invitation to COM:Autopatrolled! Please, tell me, if I get such right, what happens?--BezPRUzyn (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done here. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!--BezPRUzyn (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your Flickr uploads

Hi High Contrast. Thanks for the tip, cheers! tyk (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Champeta_dance.PNG

that file was of my copyright, it had licence. How will i can recover? Happy day!--Halvis (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it with "no licence" because there was no copyright notice, licence tag, etc. You had plenty time to solve this problem. Finally, it was deleted by User:ZooFari. For further questions, please ask him. --High Contrast (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Probleme bei einem Bild

Servus High Contrast. Der Benutzer MechInf hat dieses File:Wiesel familie de.PNG Bild als sein eigenes Werk hochgeladen. Ich trau dem Braten allerdings nicht. Rheinmetall Defence benutzt auf ihrer Seite zur Präsentation zufällig die gleichen Bilder bei Mörserkampfsystem. Siehe dazu die Webseite. Ich ab auf Commons mittlerweile keinen Plan mehr wie hier der Hase läuft in diesem Fall. Das Bild vom Wiesel mit MK 20 wird so glaub ich mich zu erinnern auch in einem Buch verwendet und dort als Quelle Thyssen Henschel angegeben. Könnte ich allerdings erst am Wochenende nochmal prüfen. Den Benutzer hab ich übrigens schonmal in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia schonmal darauf angesprochen. mfg -Sonaz (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Servus Sonaz! Deinem Misstrauen kann ich folgen. Stelle einfach einen Löschantrag oder gib mir die genauen Links bzw. die Buchdaten, in dem das andere Bild auftaucht. M.E. ist es kein Problem einen Löschantrag auf Commons auch auf Deutsch zu stellen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Bin auf Arbeit. Werd das gleich am Freitag Abend machen wenn ich an die Bücher komme. mfg--Sonaz (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
So in Ordnung oder fehlt noch was. Bzgl des Buches. Das Bild ist ähnlich aber nicht gleich. Dafür findet man das MK 20 Bild hier.--Sonaz (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Loading from Flickr

Hello High Contrast. You sent me an email yesterday with a tool for loading images from Flickr. I have been trying to get the thing to work for the past hour but everytime I try to upload the image, I simply get a new form with red lettering at the top telling me to specify the source. However, it is impossible to copy the source into the line in question. Can you help or tell me where to go for detailed instructions. Otherwise I'll just have to continue copying the files to my hard disk and sending them in the normal way. That at least is simple, quick and always works. -Ipigott (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Please give the flickr link of the image you want to upload. I think the problem lies in the number you must copy in the right field. But, let's see. --High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've spent another half hour on this without success. I tried the Preview button and systematically got the message: "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in." I logged out and in twice but it made no difference. I am now logged in in the same session ,BTW, so there must be something wring with the tool. Perhaps you can check it out? Very frustrating and a waste of time. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else until it is reliable. - Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, please give me the link of the flickr image. --High Contrast (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The first one I had trouble with is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuckthephotographer/3296909032/ but it's now already on Commons using my old method. One I want to put up but have not managed to get through your tool is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/78541549@N00/3259778561/

This is what I get after "Get Info": http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php?id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2F78541549@N00%2F3259778561%2F&repo=flickr&user_lang=da

And this is what I get after "Preview" http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Flominator/Flinfo/Preview&uselang=en&action=submit

As I said before, if I go straight to "Get Upload File", I get: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=en&uploadformstyle=basic&wpDestFile=windmill%20far.jpg

I have logged on and of several times, I have experimented with different files and I have tried without success to add the info which appeared to be missing. I have a standard Explorer browser and Windows XP. I have never experienced similar problems on Commons or Wikipedia. Hope you can fix it. Otherwise I'll just continue to use the old system. - Ipigott (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot comprehend the problems you had. I have tested the tool with this image (File:Denmark - windmill far.jpg) and it worked perfectly - the hole procedure. As an alternative, you can use the just to create all relevant upload information and copy&paste it then in the normal upload form. This flickr upload tool creates - for instance - geodates that are very useful. By the way: could you add some categories for this image: File:Denmark - windmill far.jpg. Thanks and regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Pity you could not solve the problem. Do you know who maintains the tool? Perhaps similar problems have occurred before. What are geodates? If I copy and paste the preview info into the upload form, I am still told I need to provide a source file and licence - so it's easier just to copy and paste as before. The only thing the tool might help with is the licence - but then I don't understand the meaning of the code it creates. Is there an explanation of this anywhere? As for categories, you will see that I have systematically added relevant categories to all the images I have uploaded from Flickr. Anyway, thanks for your efforts. If I have the time, I'll experiment with another computer, another browser, etc., and let you know if it works. - Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Restitution file:Champeta_dance.PNG

Please, you would restore this file. I will appreciate you it very much! I will add the licence. Happy day --Halvis (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I did not delete this image. Ask User:ZooFari who deleted this image. Because it would be unfriendly if I restore files without involving him, I ask you to ask him directly. He can restore this file, too. --High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Arte_Zentrale_in_Straßburg.jpg

File:Arte_Zentrale_in_Straßburg.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

84.61.172.89 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Die Pfarrkirche St. Josef, Alkofen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good photo. Nice details. --A.Ceta 14:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No permissions case

Permissions fixed. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks for notifying. --High Contrast (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Flo_Rida_Sugar_set.jpg

How do you know this is a Flickr wash? This is not a screen grab, since if you look at other photos from the same stream, such as this one, you see photos that were clearly not part of the music video itself. Why do you think that http://www.flickr.com/photos/beyondthebarricadephotography/ is a washer? This Flickr uploader has many other photos of musicians that appear original. See also http://www.beyondthebarricadephotography.com/ All available evidence that I can see is that these girls show up at all sorts of musician events with their OWN camera(s). Why wash for Flo Rida? I think this should, at a minimum, be put up for normal deletion review as opposed to speedy delete.Bdell555 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This file (apparently the one that was deleted) appears in a totally different resolution than the other ones. If you can proof that this one is no screenshot, I'll restore it immediatelly. --High Contrast (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the full music video in 720p I don't see what frame would have been grabbed. It is close at 1:27 and following seconds, such that the photo was almost certainly taken while the music video shoot was underway. But I don't see a screen frame that has Flo looking to the right sans his trademark shades against the backdrop, as in the photo at issue. In any case, the more plausible explanation to me than a (semi?) professional photographer throwing up a screen grab into the middle of what is otherwise accepted to be their own photo stream, is that when the music video shoot was properly underway, she couldn't get very close (note the yellow tape in other photos) and therefore couldn't take a close up head shot of Mr Flo Rida without a zoom/crop. In any case, I can upload another photo from the stream easily enough, I just feel that a speedy delete is rather presumptuous when the photo has already been on the commons for two weeks i.e. almost certainly had some eyes review it when it was first uploaded (today I just cropped it). When something has been on for weeks what is one more week under AfD? To speedy delete as a Flickr wash on resolution alone, when less than a minute's review would have established that the Flickr uploader routinely photographs musicians and was "on location" for the video shoot, is a policy that I think could be "calmed down" to normal delete (community review).Bdell555 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I might add the the uploader tagged this especially good image BY-NC, such that she presumably knew what she was doing when she declined to tag the rest NC.Bdell555 (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have restored the image: File:Flo Rida Sugar set.jpg. The yellow tape in other photos-argument is quite good. All in all I think that most likely no flickr wash. Thanks for your support in this case. But you must have in mind you difficult this admin-job on Commons is: tons of copyvios, illegal derivatives and more and more flickr washs. Regards and happy editing, High Contrast (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ich danke Ihnen für Ihre Arbeit.Bdell555 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Fruitful cooperation is always appreciated. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:52_6106_engine_at_Trier_Hbf_Nov_2008.JPG

Hallo! Jemand hat das obige Foto zur Löschung eingetragen. Grund: von Bahnsteigen der "Deutschen Bundesbahn" dürfe man keine Bilder machen. Weißt Du was davon? Ich fand im Netz gar nichts dazu, auch nicht auf der Seite der DB AG. Ist das vielleicht eine Rechtsvorschrift der "Bundes"bahn von vor 1994? Wenn es verboten wäre, müssten ja Hunderte von Bildern gelöscht werden, die von DBAG-Grundstücken aus geschossen wurden. Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ich hab auch mal User:Axpde gefragt, da der den Löschantrag bearbeitet hat. Ist wohl ein Bahn-Fachmann Cobatfor (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
So, der LA ist weg - richtigerweise. Ich habe deine Frage jetzt erst gelesen und mittlerweile hat sich Axpde darum gekümmert. Wegen deiner Frage: es gab im Frühjahr 2010 eine ellenlange Diskussion über Bahnhofsbilder, die vom Gelände der DB AG gemacht wurde, und zwar hier. Ich war zwar kein aktiver Diskussionsteilnehmer, aber dennoch habe ich diese Diskussion bis zu einem bestimmten Grad verfolgt. Irgendwann, nachdem ich einige Einträge verpasst hatte zu lesen, bin ich ausgestiegen. Wie die Sache ausging, kann ich dir nicht sagen, aber offenbar wurden Bilder aus diesem Grund gelöscht. Du kannst die Diskussion gerne durchlesen, aber ich denke du hast - wie ich - sicherlich besseres zu tun. Naja, mehr kann ich dir zu dieser Thematik leider auch nicht sagen. In letzter Zeit gibt es wieder haufenweise IP-Löschanträge: wahrscheinlich wieder einmal von Mitarbeitern anderer Wikimedia-Projekten, die irgendwelche Diskussionen aus de/en/xy.wiki hierher tragen. Heißes Thema ist derzeit die Panoramafreiheit in gewissen Lämdern; nur als Einstimmung, falls in nächster Zeit bei dir ein derartiger LA eintrudeln sollte. Wie dem auch sei, viel Spaß beim weiteren Arbeiten! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ach du dickes Ei! Da habe ich wirklich Wichtigeres zu tun... Danke trotzdem! Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nichts zu danken! Bis zum nächsten mal. --High Contrast (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Help needed re deletion nomination

I nominated File:Grimeborn.jpg for deletion. I've never made a nomination on Commons before and am quite inexperienced here in general. For some reason, it now appears twice at Commons:Deletion requests/2010/09/24 and I can't seem to fix it. Also the person who uploaded the image, User:Ldnessa has another one which I'm pretty sure is also a copyright violation — File:ArcolaTheatre.gif. It's listed as her own work but is the logo which appears at http://www.arcolatheatre.com and on all their publicity in various colour permutations. (See for example the bottom of this page.) All the pages of the theatre's website are marked © Copyright Arcola Theatre 2005. I'm reluctant to nominate this one too after making bit of a hash out of the last one. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's no big deal. The double naming of File:Grimeborn.jpg seems to be solved. If you have concerns about this this image, feel free to nominate it. A little help for your future nominations: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-use-delete-gadget. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have another bash at it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Sikorsky X2 in flight.jpg

You have added this file to deletion list. This file was copied from Sikorsky_X2 as it is, so i don't think it should be deleted. Asally (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it must be deleted. Look at the licence that is used on en:wiki and your concerns will be gone. --High Contrast (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Capolinho

What's wrong with my picture? --Capolinho (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Which image do you mean? --High Contrast (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Lanzagranadas MGL.jpg

Ähm da ist Eigenes Werk angegeben.... Stell wenn schon den schon einen richtigen LA--Sanandros (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dabei handelt sich um eine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Die Tatsache, dass der Benutzer, der das Bild hochlud nichts zur Verbesserung beiträgt, bestätigt diese These. --High Contrast (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Dann solltest du das original auch noch verlinken...--Sanandros (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gebäude am Stadtplatz von Plattling.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good--Lmbuga 07:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Military Phoitos TAGed for deletion.

Educate me a little on the tagging of the these photos: File:Teague,Kenneth P.jpg‎; File:Smith, Carlon L.jpg‎; File:Shaw, Wallace B.jpg‎; File:Bailey, Larry A.jpg‎;

When a military officer assumes command of a unit, he traditionally has a "Command Photo" made for display in unit area. In the Arkansas National Guard, this is usually done at the Deputy Chief of Staff for Information Management (DCSIM), Audio Visual Department. The Author was either a Soldier or a Federal Technicial who was on duty that day. When the officer leaves command, we usually move his photo to a Past Commander's Wall. In this case, these photos were scanned in from the 1-153rd Infantry Battalion and the 39th Support Battalion. What should I be listing as the source?

File:Officers of the 153rd Infantry, 1925.jpg‎; I listed the Source of this photo as the Arkansas National Guard Year book, 1925-1926. The images were scanned from the copy at the Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. I believe this is a public document and is therefore not copyrighted, and even if it was I believe it is free use due to it's age.

Thanks--Damon.cluck (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no valid source. Usually done is not sufficient, we need 100% certainty and comments like "Arkansas National Guard" are no valid source. Read COM:L for more information. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, COM:L lead me to Wikipedia:Public domain which specifically referes to the .mil domain, so I assume that providing the .mil sourse for these images will work? --Damon.cluck (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if you provide the link to the page where the image can be found then it is ok. Note: Please do not state links to .jog-file itself. You can contact me again, if you have added the missing links. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

85.31.137.11

Hi! :)
Ich habe unserem IP-Freund 'mal eine etwas längere Pause gegönnt. Ich hoffe, das findet deine Zustimmung.
Grüße, abf «Cabale!» 09:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ja klar. Danke fürs Benachrichtigen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Das Kloster Vornbach.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Not perfect, but QI imo. -- Felix Koenig 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Krankentransportwagen in Passau.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Military vehicles in Zamárdi

Hi! Thanks for the contributions you made for these photos. Only few of the vehicles are still not identified.

Too bad the weather was difficult (half cloudy) when I took the photos, so many of them are not as good as they could be. --Gwafton (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The images are definately good. I wanted to ask you if you have more of them? If yes, would be nice if you upload them, too. --High Contrast (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I am not a good photographer and I regret I could not take better photos. The half-cloudy weather is most difficult because the photos become easily too dark or overlighted (as you know). The ones I didn't upload are way too poor quality. But I will visit in military and other vehicle museums in the future as well and I hope to get better shots then. --Gwafton (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded Photos

Hello. You have written that photos I had uploaded breake the license rules. Could you explain it? Bielsko (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The images are not published under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. That's all. The images are copyrighted instead (all rights reserced). --High Contrast (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem with an upload

Hi, I need your help, I screwed up and just realized it. Somehow I didn't include the URL from Flickr. I've GOT to stop these late hours, it was pure negligence on my part. I noticed the problem and added it today, and hope it's not the case of too little, too late. I've uploaded over 600 photos and used all but a handful on the biography pages of perhaps 10 Wikipedias, although the primary ones are the en.Wikipedia, es.Wikipedia, and pt.Wikipedia (my languages, not in that order). I email every single photographer, both to see if they are willing to allow us to use their photo(s), and coach them as to which Creatve Commons photos we can accept. I just noticed a photo of Bob Marley that was uploaded to Flickr by Eddie Mallin, with whom I have now known for some time (we've used some of his photos before!) has not passed the automated Flickr-reviewer. Could you please have a look at it? I was floored to see a big red X for the first time on a photo I know to be really his! I go to lengths to evaluate photographers' photostreams, to be certain it isn't just someone's favorite photo collection, or whatever. It is this photo: [28] Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done and flickrpassed. I don't know exactly what the problem was. Perhaps the fact that the initial flickr source was not sufficient. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Big thanks! It was my fault, I didn't supply the link, so obviously the computer bot thing couldn't evaluate anything without knowing just what I wanted to upload. Now that I think of it, I'd like to be able to come to you with questions of a basic nature. Two of them (if you don't mind-) I maybe because English wasn't my first language, and I have Attention Deficit Disorder, I bore easily, and often don't make it through long written explanations, but once I know the answer, it's there.
  1. First, frequently I upload photos of musicians that may be the only one. I wonder if creating a Category for one person, possibly the only photo to be uploaded is necessary? I never learned how to create a Category in all these years. (blush).. and often, notable musicians end up in Categories that are really general, like "Vocalists from the United States", or some rot like that.
  2. Is there a reliable bot to upload photos from Flickr? I once used one from Bryan, at the beginning of my uploads a couple of years ago. Then it quit on me, and another editor from en.Wikipedia had to teach me how to download the photos to my computer and then manually upload them to Commons, but there must be a better way- I find other editors here often return to the source and somehow upload it directly. How can I do that?
  3. Last, how can I apply for an ORTS (is that it?) account to obtain photos from other sources than Flickr?

Thank you. I appreciate all the assistance you can give me. I really only use Commons to upload photos for which there is a need. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
1. Yes, it is definately OK to create a category e.g. for a musician when there is only one image on Commons. There is always the expectation that more images will follow.
2. I know of these two flickr upload helpers: Flickr Upload Bot and Flickr Upload tool. Both are good. But I prefer the second one.
3.For OTRS-questions, please have a look there. I'm no member of the OTRS team, so there are better informed people.
Regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your Flickr uploads

Thanks for the tips. I was under the impression that unreviewed Flickr uploads were automatically found by bots. I "forgot" the template more than once, so I went back and tagged everything that I uploaded from Flickr. GregorB (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

I asked an experienced editor the same question below four days ago. They gave me good advice but did not know of any commons' policy that governs this type of thing. Please advise.

I have been in the process of moving images by photographer Mark Sebastian to the category that I created for him. While I was editing each photo I noticed that some of the images—in the description and/or permission parameters—there are statements being made that appear to be from Mark Sebastian but, I believe, are not from him. I believe this because at the bottom of the page it says the image was uploaded by Tm who is not Mark Sebastian and because Mark Sebastian has a message on his flickr profile page that states "Dear wikimedia.org, Stop jacking my stuff. Thanks." So I've deleted these statements because since he didn't upload these photos and since he appears to not like the fact that his photos are on the commons, it couldn't come from him. The problem is my edits were reverted so these statements were added back. Is there some kind of policy on wikimedia that prohibits this—pretending to be the photographer? Here is an example of what I mean in the "Permission" field. I would like to leave a message on Tm's talkpage about this but I don't know what policy, if any exist, that this would fall under. Here is another example in the description field (the description statements that I've seen were taken directly from Mark Sebastian's descriptions on his flickr page; same image as example on flickr, same description. Is either example okay/allowed? // Gbern3 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The comment Dear wikimedia.org, Stop jacking my stuff. Thanks of "Mark Sebastian" can be ignored. As long his images are published under a free licence, it is legitim to transfer them to Commons. Please leave the link to the flickr page of "Mark Sebastian" instead linking to his homepage: this link to the flickr page is thought to be a documentation from where the image comes exactly (which author) from flickr (of course it is possible to stated the link to the homepage additionally). But in my view it is okay to remove the rest - as you did. --High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Soviet_SS-20_IRBM_System_(SMP_1988).JPEG

File:Soviet_SS-20_IRBM_System_(SMP_1988).JPEG 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a longer block

He's at it again - File:Patrick Veszpemi.jpg. Can we do an indef block until he posts a message to say he's understood that he can't cut and paste from commercial websites?The-Pope (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your notification. An indef block seems a bit too hard for me. I deleted the copyvio and I blocked for 2 weeks. When he uploads again copyvios in two weeks, he gets an indef block. --High Contrast (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

File:RT-15_(SS-14).JPEG

File:RT-15_(SS-14).JPEG 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Erdäpfel

… gut aufgespürt bei Flickr :-)

Und bei der Gelegenheit, was ich neulich schon mal fragen wollte, dann aber wieder vergessen habe: Hast Du zu diesem Agrobil etwas nähere Angaben? Hast Du eventuell noch ein zweites Foto gemacht, wo womöglich etwas von Rhein-Bayern steht oder das Baujahr (dürfte ja 1990+x sein) bzw. eine andere erhellende Information zu erkennen ist? --:bdk: 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Die "Erdäpfel"-Bilder stammen ja offensichtlich von einem BASF-beauftragten flickr Benutzer. Aber die Bilder sind gut. Ich habe mich spontan entschlossen, sie hochzuladen und dazu den entsprechenden Kategoriebaum (bzgl. Genfood siehts hier auf Commons ohnehin schlecht aus). Irgendwann hat mir dann das Flickr-tool weitere Uploads für die weiteren 24h untersagt :(
Von diesem Fahrzeug habe ich leider keine weiteren Bilder - blöd nur, dass ich vor einem Monat alle schlechteren Bilder gelöscht habe, unter denen sich auch ein paar von diesem LKW befanden. Das Baujahr würde ich auch auf 1990+x ansetzen, aber mehr kann ich nicht helfen. Apropos: Gibt es eine "Agrobil"-Kategorie? Ich konnte keine finden - gibt es dafür einen andere engl. Entsprechung? --High Contrast (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ach ja: File:John Deere 7810 Traktor.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Genfood BASF usw.: Jo, die Einschätzung teile ich; netter kleiner Fotofundus. Ein bisschen nerven bei solchen Öffentlichkeitsarbeits-Sammlungen manchmal die außerordentlich netten Bildunterschriften, aber die lassen sich ja anpassen.
Agrobil: Schade, hätte ich bloß mal früher gefragt … Kategorie: Nicht, dass ich wüsste. Wir haben ja erst ein Foto hier (Deines) und Agrobile sind eher eine deutsche Erscheinung (der Eigenname Agrobil geht auf Fendt zurück). Sonderlich durchgesetzt hat sich das Konzept auch nicht. Ansonsten (international) dürfte es schon eine größere Anzahl agrartechnischer LKW-Umbauten geben, für die es aber m.W. keine einheitliche Bezeichnung gibt … da bietet sich wohl nur eine Umschreibung an (Truck conversions for agricultural use oder sowas in der Art). Hmm, ich finde gerade nicht mal eine allgemeine Kategorie für Fahrzeugumbauten. Du bist in dem Bereich ja mehr unterwegs. Wäre solch ein neuer Kategoriebaum sinnvoll oder gibt's den womöglich gut versteckt unter einer anderen Bezeichnung? Auch mit modification statt conversion hat mir die Suche nichts Brauchbares ausgespuckt …
7810: Dankeschön! Besser ist das. Hab das Foto auch direkt eingetopft ;-) --:bdk: 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Eine Kategorie namens Truck conversions for agricultural use hört sich ja gut an. Man könnte das Bild von de:wiki nach Commons verschieben und schon gibts zwei Bildchen in dieser Kat. Mal sehen --High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ginkgo-Park in Vilshofen an der Donau.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 09:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Panoramaaufnahme der Donau in Vilshofen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Lack of detail at full size - I'd be more willing to promote if the image were scaled down to remove this problem. Mattbuck 14:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC) ✓ Done --High Contrast 14:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Much better. Mattbuck 14:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Belen Esteban.gif

I'm doing my best. I can't change it because I don'y know how to do it, but I see it well explained. If it's forme that you don't like, change the words. It's clear that it's a cut or a version from another picture of its category (with only three photos in total). I don't know if you are blind or you are so interesed in efacing pictures from other people. --Slastic (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, if there are only two images in this category, you have to specify the source. After that, you can remove the problem tag. --High Contrast (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Map

Hi there, can you please delete the previous version of this map that I cropped in 2009? I just want its latest version to stay. Thanks in advance.--Officer (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Can you give me the file-link, please? --High Contrast (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Ancient Khorasan highlighted.jpg, just to be sure I only want the bright yellow (03:15, 5 June 2009 uploaded version) deleted.--Officer (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Hubretter Wettingen.JPG

What's the problem with this file? As you can read the source is Jan Mlekusch. Or do you ask because the nick of the uploader is different? Then we need a OTRS I think. -- Badener  07:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Das Problem ist, wie der Problem-Baustein angibt, die Quellenangabe: "Feuerwehr Magazin Wettingen, Schweiz" sagt leider nichts über die Herkunft des Bildes aus. Wenn der Autor dieses Bild unter einer PD-self-Lizenz veröffentlichen will, muss er es auch selbst gemacht habe. Dies geht aber nicht aus seiner Quellenangabe hervor. Gemäß COM:L muss "eigene Arbeit" explizit als solche erkennbar gemacht werden, z.B. durch {{Own}}. Solange dies nicht erfolgt, muss der "no source"-Hinweis bleiben. --High Contrast (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Danke. -- Badener  09:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Vielleicht kannst du herausfinden, ob dieses Foto vom Uploader aufgenommen wurde. Es wäre schade dieses gute Bild zu verlieren. --High Contrast (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Ich sehe Jan am Mittwoch und kann ihn fragen ob er es selbst war. Die Frage ist aber, ob es reicht, wenn ich das dann allenfalls ändere oder ob das der Uploader selbst machen muss. -- Badener  09:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Normalerweise müsste das der Uploader tun - obschon ich dir diesbezüglich vertraute (empfehlenswert ist auch immer ein kleiner Text auf der dazugehörigen Diskussionsweite). --High Contrast (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Danke für's Vertrauen ;-). Ich schau mal, was ich machen kann. -- Badener  10:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

PD-Switzerland-photo

Hallo High Contrast, du hast Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Christoph_Meili_1997.jpg mit "delete" entschieden. Hast du noch weiteren rechtlichen Hintergrund dazu? Die Sache ist irgendwie reichlich unklar. Ich weiß leider nicht, was ich davon halten soll.

Wenn die Löschung korrekt ist, dann brauchen wir {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} nicht mehr, oder? Und was ist mit den ganzen Münzabbildungen, wie in der LD angesprochen wurde? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 15:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I made a request at COM:UNDEL. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ja, die Sache ist in der Tat schwierig, deshalb habe ich das Bild gemäß des Grundgedankens des vorbeugenden Prinzips gelöscht. Sofern der Tatbestand geklärt ist, kann das Bild problemlos wieder hergestellt werden - wie offenbar bereits geschehen. --High Contrast (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your response HC. I had a look: we have between 50 and 100 images which use this license template. According to the Precautionary principle we should not use it until we are sure - yes. However it's strange if we would not use it since we are also using (e.g.) source country specific FOP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Ich weiß um die Schwierigkeit dieser Angelegenheit, Saibo. Wie gesagt, das Bild kann ja jederzeit wiederhergestellt werden. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:RT-15 (SS-14).JPEG

Ein bisschen ausführlicher: Wenn man es von der Seite sieht hat Jameslwoodward nicht ganz Unrecht. „released“ muss tatsächlich nicht heißen, dass das Bild tatsächlich PD ist. „released to the public“ halte ich da schon eher für grenzwertig wobei ich eher in Richtung PD tendiere. Das Problem ist schlicht und einfach "Courtesy of Soviet Military Power" das man so interpretieren kann wie man es gerade haben will/braucht. Man kann sagen, dass es demnach ja die sowjetische Militär gemacht hat und die Amerikaner nicht zur Veröffentlichung in die Gemeinfreiheit befugt waren. Man kann aber auch wieder damit Argumentieren, dass ja alles was auf diesen öffentlichen Seiten PD ist, bzw. laut Disclaimer allles Material das dem Copyright unterliegt und nicht so ohne weiters kopiert werden darf als solches gekennzeichnet ist. M109A6 Paladin-front ID DA-SD-03-07467.JPEG wurde z.B. auch nicht von einem Angehörigen des Militärs gemacht. Es steht explizit dort "Photographer's Name: ANITA JOHNSON, CIVILIAN" Trotzdem findet man weder in der Bildbeschreibung noch auf dem Bild selber noch auf der seite einen Hinweis oder sonst irgendetwas das darauf hinweist, dass das Bild kopiergeschützt ist.
Obwohl ich es letztes Mal gesucht habe, habe ich auf http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ das Bild nicht gefunden. Jetzt habe ich es: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=6b821aa499f776d5934c4abe9dfbbd09d6f9ab45 Dort ist zwar auch "Courtesy of Soviet Military Power" vermerkt, aber wieder kein Hinweis darauf, dass es nicht unter einer PD Lizenz steht. "courtesy" heißt laut leo unter anderem "das Entgegenkommen", "die Großzügigkeit", "die Verbindlichkeit" oder "die Zuvorkommenheit". So gehe ich davon aus, dass die Russen/Sowjets das Bild der USArmy/wem auch immer zur (uneingeschränkten) Weiterverwendung übergeben haben. Die "Terms of Use" sagen ja "Generally speaking, nothing on this site is copyright (Defense Department imagery and unclassified information is usually deemed to be in the public domain) but if in doubt you agree to examine the Rights datafield for appropriate information." Das "Rights datafield" sagt aber weder eindeutig, dass das Bild unter PD lizensiert ist noch dass es © ist. So würde ich von "Generally speaking, nothing on this site is copyright" ausgehen und sagen, dass das Bild PD ist. Wie gesagt kann man das ganze Spiel aber auch umdrehen und mit dem Fehlen der eindeutigen Freigabeinformation eine nicht erlaubte Weiterverbreitung begründen.
Auch wenn das Bild (vielleicht) PD ist, ist es weiter meine Meinung dass eine PD-USGov nicht die wirklich richtige ist. Ich hoffe, dass ich mich halbwegs verständlich ausgedrückt habe. Ich werde den Admin wenn ich Zeit habe morgen kontaktieren und da mal nachhaken.
mfg D-Kuru (talk) (19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Du hast dich verständlich ausgedrückt, nur beziehst du dich auf Jim, der sich ganz offensichtlich nicht mit diesem Fall auseinandergesetzt hat. Alles was du die Zeilen darüber dargelegt hast, ist richtig und dem widerspricht auch niemand. Es geht nicht um diese "released in the public"-Sache (das war nie Gegenstand der Diskussion). "Courtesy of Soviet Military Power" ist definitiv ein Beleg, dass das Bild unter PD-USGov fällt: (Die besagte Publikation findet sich hier). Auf Seite zwei dieser Publikation (in der dieses Bild ebenfalls vorkommt) kannst du folgendes lesen: The illustrations of Soviet military facilities and weapon systems included in this publication are derived from various US sources, das heißt, public domain. Bitte überprüfe dies, eine Rückmeldung wäre wünschenswert. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Keine Ahnung was du mit "Wirklich erstaunlich, was du mir zutraust nicht zu wissen." ausdrücken willst.
Besagte Publikation kannte ich bisher nicht. Sie lässt sich allerdings in meinem Browser auch warum auch immer.
Gut, geht jetzt doch --D-Kuru (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Zum Bild: Ich wollte eigentlich die ganze Woche schon mich näher mit dem Bild beschäftigen nur, jedoch ist es sich einfach zeitlich nicht ausgegangen, dass ich mich mal meine Konzentration nur auf das beschränken kann...
--D-Kuru (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Volubilis, Roman remains.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good, please geotag. --Cayambe 08:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Catedral e comércio de Fortaleza.jpg

Bom, fui eu mesmo que fiz a imagem, e sei que já existe uma imagem noturna da Catedral. O que falta de informação? Rapper Ouriço (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You must explicitely state if you are the author of this image by, for example, inserting {{Own}} as source. If this was proceeded by you, you can remove the problem tag. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Destroyed Iraqi T-54A or Type 59.JPEG

Hello.

I would like to ask you one simple question: how do you know that the tank on the picture is a Type 59? From what I know the Type 59 and the T-54A are virtually identical to each other and as far as I know both were in service with the Iraqi Army during the First Gulf War.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's why I have inserted the cat T-54A tanks as well. A category name like Iraqi T-54A or Type 59 tanks is misleading, such problems are solved on Commons with the {{Seealso}}-tag. As a result we have two selective categories - both for 100% identified vehicles. Well, as you see, it is quite hard to clean up the T-55/T-54 category mess. --High Contrast (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

About the images deleted by you

I'll noticed than you are deleted several images uploaded by me under the affirmation than the use fo the images are not approved by the authors, what exactly you want or toy consider a valid proof? An email from them allowing the upload of their pictures in Wikimedia? The authorization was in VERBAL from two of them an one for an IM talk. I'm not lying or stealing pictures, an this persons doesn't want to make their emails public, y'know. Can you be more specific than just accuse and delete images perfectly valid and authorized and properly licensed just because you don't believe that. I'll repeat, I'll do not steal this pictures, I know the authors, they are my friends and they agree to liberate SOME (they have thousands) of their pictures to use them in Wikipedia. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Read COM:OTRS. After that you might understand what the problem was or is. I see, that you keep uploading images under these conditions. They will be deleted, too, if no written permission receives. --High Contrast (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Kommunikationszentrum TUM, 2010.JPG

Hallo High Contrast, mir fiel dieses Bild bei COM:QIC auf. Ich war noch nie auf dem Campus in Garching, aber ich würde eher vermuten, dass es sich um das TUM Institute for Advanced Studies handelt, das von den Architekten und TUM-Alumni Rüdiger Leo Fritsch und Aslan Tschaidse entworfen wurde. Es wäre vielleicht sinnvoll, diese Infos ggf. zu ergänzen und auch die {{Location}} hinzuzufügen. Ferner habe ich den Eindruck, dass das Bild ein wenig nach rechts wegkippt, weswegen ich es noch nicht QI gekennzeichnet habe. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Mir wurde das Gebäude als "Kommunikationszentrum" vorgestellt - schon vor Baubeginn à la da kommt das Kommunikationszentrum hin. Diese Person ist/war allerdings kein "offizieller". Ich entdeckte in einer Broschüre des TUM-Bauamtes für dieses Gebäude ebenfalls die Bezeichnung (auch online verfügbar, ich weiß nur nicht mehr wo). Aber die Beweislast ist erdrückend: dein link scheint aktueller und von offizieller Seite zu sein. Wenn du willst, kannst du die Datei gerne umbenennen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Beardmore vehicle - side view.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support This is the best --Archaeodontosaurus 13:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Goggomobil im Feuerwehreinsatz.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Sfu 11:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: File source is not properly indicated: MiG-23-red12.jpg

Sorry, 4 years it too much time to remeber... --F l a n k e r (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No valid source will cause the deletion of this file. --High Contrast (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you and sorry for the lack of the source. Bye! --F l a n k e r (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Police stations in India

Hi High Contrast. For changes such as this one, there is no need to go to the trouble of putting a move tag / discussion on the category itself. Uncontroversial stuff like capitalisation, or changing of/in to be in line with the parent and parallel cats - that can just go straight to the DeLinker, save you time and effort. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! DeLinker had some problems yesterday. Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Noortje-herlaar-1288866868.jpg

Thanks! Jochem Zandbergen (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gebäude der Hochschule Kempten.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 11:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Feuerwehrfahrzeug der FFW Vilshofen.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good photo, nice engine --Carschten 14:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

File:CA2010PREIMRE.jpg

Hi High Contrast, I removed the speedy request and I wanted to tell you that I left a note on the image talk page explaining why. You probably used tineye to check the image, but perhaps missed checking out the link of the blog where the image is embedded? If I missed something please nominate the image for deletion. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And from where do you know that "Nick Step" (the flickr user) is the same person as "Nick Stepowyj"? --High Contrast (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Verzeihung, hab das de-N übersehen, also im Klartext :) die Flickr-Bilderseite gibt den vollen Namen und das Flickr-Nutzerkürzel ist nick step, sein Twitter account verlinkt auf der Flickrseite heißt okaynickstep und gibt als Namen "Nick The Stepowyj" und der Blog heißt okaynickstep, ist unter nickstep.blogspot.com und gibt Nick Stepowyj als Bildautor an. Der Blog ist der Ort wo du erst das Duplikat her hast. Der Blog selber ist auch von der Flickr-Nutzer verlinkt. Ich kann auch gerne nochmal eine Nachricht an den schreiben aber ich finds ziemlich eindeutig, dass das einfach eine Abkürzung ist. lg Hekerui (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Das klingt gut. Da ist meines Erachtens nicht einmal ein OTRS-Ticket nötig. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Latvian politicians

Hi. I've discovered a gold mine for Latvian politicians at here. The flickr user is Saeima (which is the national parliament of Lativa) and has the official national parliament coat of arms. Given the extent of the photos 2300 odd including valuable ones of sessions like this etc I'd say it is definately a photographer insider of the Saeima. I wondered if you could use a bot to upload all of the photos of the politicians to the commons unless there is some problem. Photos like this are very hard to get hold of; its obvious to me that the person who uploaded them to flickr is the photographer so has the right to release the images under this license. Please can you bot upload them, it won't work when I do it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I don't have a bot that uploads images automatically from flickr. But you can consult this bot User:Flickr upload bot or you use this flickr upload tool to upload them manually. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Date cats

Hi, I saw you removed Category:10 November from File:SpaceX Dragon.jpg, I've been adding date cats to most images I upload and I wondered if I have been making a mistake and they are only intended for certain files? Thanks. --Jatkins (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Category:10 November is intended for images that are linked with November 10th - for instance for special events that occured on Nov 10th. Just because an image was taken on Nov. 10th is not sufficient. But nevermind, there are worse things. Your images are very good. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I'll remove them from the other few images I just uploaded. --Jatkins (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Happy editing. --High Contrast (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks

thank-you for the rotate :)

unfortunately, i botched the filename >__<

was re-uploading it while you were rotating the first one

version 2 File:Dodge.custom.royal.1956.mild.customization.front.view.elevated.angle.02.JPG

version 1 File:File-Dodge.custom.royal.1956.mild.customization.front.view.elevated.angle.02.JPG

XD

Lx 121 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

I want to upload a picture of Gamal Mubarak from this link World Economic Forum on the Middle East 2006, Gamal Mubarak for different articles that I have been working on. Can you tell me what license applies to the picture? if the picture cannot be uploaded, then can you help me find one the can be. thanks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This image was published by somebody with the username 'World Economic Forum on the Middle East 2006' here. Here it is written that These photos are of print quality and you can download them free of charge. Please cite World Economic Forum as the source.. That sounds good but it is a bit vage. The best would be to contact the page owner if this picture is published under a Creative Commons attribution licence. --High Contrast (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sulayman al-Murshid

Regarding this image which you recently tagged with a "missing source" tag: although the uploader did not expressly indicate the source on the image description page, I note that on 25 October he or she asserted in an edit summary that he or she owns the copyright in the image. More importantly, the image appears to be clearly one to which {{PD-Syria}} applies. If it is in the public domain, does it matter if the source is unknown? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Which image do you mean exactly? --High Contrast (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "File:سلمان المرشد (Sulayman al-Murshid), Beit Burghal village, Latakia, Syria - 1944.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, now I see. I aggree with you, {{PD-Syria}} applies. I have removed the "no source" -tag. Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the categorization

I uploaded some photos, thinking I would go back and add categories once I had gotten them into their respective Wikipedia articles and looked up the syntax. 10 minutes later, you had already done the grunt work. Thanks! :) -- Gnolam (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kapelle in Bad Griesbach.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good.--Mbz1 04:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Altstadt von Landshut.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Acceptable CA right and left, otherwise good. Needs geolocalization, more info in file description page, and better categorization.--Jebulon 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Bokan prospects.PNG

The source is a federal publication. I provided the entire citation in the source field when I uploaded it. I have removed the flag.Dankarl (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide the weblink as well where you found that map? --High Contrast (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
DoneDankarl (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Now, all essential information has been stated. Everything okay now. Please go ahead like this. Thanks and happy editing. Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What is your problem

I have permission from Martin H., to only upload photos that I've colored. Tzo15

All photos I've uploaded them to Wikimedia, I'm coloring in them no other! not stolen. Photos of Richard Ruof and Marc Mitscherimam permission from the author to get them if you noticed have no inscriptions on them. The source and author I've put everything as I said Martin H. Tzo15
Martin H. cannot have given you the permission to upload images randomly just because you have colored them. I think you misunderstood Martin falsely. You can color images from the Bundesarchiv that ARE already on Commons available. But it is NOT OK to upload images from the web and publish them under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported". --High Contrast (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Where can you find pictures that are not from the Internet. Under which license you want to upload them. All pictures that I uploaded to Wikimedia are colored, not black and white original, which I think there will be no problem. Greetings from --Tzo15 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This one is a problem and this one, too. But you are not willing to clarify this in the related discussion. --High Contrast (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete them well! Now! --Tzo15 (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I fear those two images I mentioned above are only examples of copyright violations by you. More important is that you learn from your mistakes. --High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well what another is a violation of copyright. Example of this en:File: Martin Gareis.jpg, and what is infringement. I make it I colored. Or this File: en:File:Generaloberst richard ruoff color.jpg, I told you that I have permission to upload the second picture. The second picture I was given by the author of my article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. I asked him at one of the forums. This — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzo15 (talk • contribs)
Thanks, I started a DR for these files. --High Contrast (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Why remove them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzo15 (talk • contribs)
There is no evidence for a free Creative Commons licence. --High Contrast (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well put you please! Just do not delete them. --Tzo15 (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with these things! I assure you they are not stolen! --Tzo15 (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You're not in court. But it is very unlikely that photographs of German WW2 people can be published under free Creative Commons licences - except the files from the Bundesarchiv. --High Contrast (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
See these two pictures under what license to post them. knobelsdorff and Hans Jordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzo15 (talk • contribs)

First of all: Please sign your comments with --~~~~. knobelsdorff and Hans Jordan: These images cannot be uploaded to Commons. I doubt that these images can be published under a free licence. For PD-old, we have too little information --High Contrast (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

QIC

Moin, war diese Änderung in dieser Form beabsichtigt oder wolltest du nur zu einem der Bilder abstimmen (oder möglicherweise sogar zu beiden?)? Grüße, -- Felix König ✉ 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Danke für den Hinweis. --High Contrast (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Danke für die Korrektur. Grüße, -- Felix König ✉ 18:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rudbeckia with insect.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good...please geotag. --Cayambe 17:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Nike-Hercules missiles on alert.jpg

I provided the source to the image, which is on a .mil website US government images are in the public domain. I'm unsure what you mean by a 'better source' ? It seems quite clear already. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not quite clear: Source information should be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. It is requested that a better source be provided to make determination of the copyright information easier. Please provide a URL to an HTML page that contains this image. See Commons:Licensing#License_information for more information. --High Contrast (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
referenced pages are now html

I made these maps on my computer using mapping software. Please advise why they are copyright violations? Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

These images are Google Maps screenshots. In short: you did not draw this map; thus it is NOT your own work. In future please try to read what was written in the comment line of "problem tags". That would save you and others of wasting time. --High Contrast (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
in short, I located the locations for the point data, and also annotated them with text. None of which are part of google maps. I can use other software to do the exact same thing and produce the same product. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Another admin will handle this. --High Contrast (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way. I doubt that these maps aren't Google Maps screenshot. Even the location annotation design is the same - as well as the writing. And if you should have used another software the map is still not you own work as long there is no evidence for this. --High Contrast (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Look again. I remade File:Deployment of Nike Missiles Within Continental United States.png with different software. OK now ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the new map is much better than the previously used "Google Maps"-map. But are you the copyright owner of this map of North America? Do you have the permission to publish it under a free licence? --High Contrast (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I bought the software for my personal use. The basemap is a generic one. I'm a geographer and making maps is part of what I do. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Buying a map makes you not the copyright holder. The basemap is a generic one proves nothing. The evidence is still missing that this "generic base map" can be published under a free licence. You as the uploader must prove this. --High Contrast (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

PoliceCarBW.jpg

I uploaded the image by mistake I tried to mark it for deletion but couldn't that's why I blanked the page and left notes.I guess I'm not that good at it yet btw thanks for the warning I will try to be more attentive.TucsonDavid (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Which image do you mean exactly? --High Contrast (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Editor Video Still 17.tiff

Hi, I noticed that you tagged this picture of Liam Wyatt taken at the Wikimania 2010 as "photo has no source". It looks fairly obvious to me where the picture is from (video footage from the Wikimania, author Jelly Helm etc.) so I removed the template. --Deryck Chan (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it is irrelevant if something "looks fairly obvious" to you. Perhaps this is new to you but we have basic principles on Commons: one of them is our Licencing-principle, COM:L. There it is written what is understood as a valid source and something like "Wikimedia Foundation" is no valid source. Read it yourself and do not act after your personal thoughts. --High Contrast (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo de meilleure qualité

Bonjour je suis désolé je ne possède pas de photo de meilleure qualité de FoxTrot 480 0140.JPG et Zeebruges rond point.JPG

mario52 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, et pourquoi pas? --High Contrast (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Je pense: Plus la résolution est la meilleure. --High Contrast (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Très bien! Allons plus loin! --High Contrast (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Donau und Marienbrücke.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Gut --George Chernilevsky 10:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Panoramaaufnahme des Eginger Sees - Richtung Süden.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good, impeccable stitching. Rama 17:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Traduction d'un message

Bonjour est il possible de me traduire ce message que je ne comprends pas ? (Espagnol Aragon) [[30]]

Je crois que l'on a créer une page à mon nom mais pourquoi ?

(PS : j'utilise le nom global dans Wikipédia) merci mario52 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Salut! Je ne peux pas traduire ce texte. Je ne parle pas aragonés. Pose ta question ici: COM:PUMP ou Commons:Bistro (en français). --High Contrast (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
OK j'ai utilisé babel mais je ne comprends pas le sens à part la création de "ma" page  ! je poste sur le Bistro merci mario52 (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


User:Tony Castle

Hallo, schau bitte mal, was dieser Benutzer für einen Unsinn kategorisiert. Ich habe ihn schon auf sein fehlerhaftes Kategorisieren hingewiesen, doch reagiert er nicht. Danke! -- Ies (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, ich habe ihn ebenfalls eine Nachricht hinterlassen. Insgesamt ist sein Wirken produktiv und konstruktiv. Sein Kategorisieren fußt sicherlich nicht auf bösen Absichten. Prinzipiell sind die gewählten Kategorien richtig, aber leider sind die Kategorienamen auf Englisch - zumindest die meisten. --High Contrast (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Du scheinst mit Deinem Hinweis nicht mehr Erfolg zu haben als ich. Haben wir hier ein Sprachproblem? Da die Bildbeschreibungen in spanischer (oder portugisischer?) Sprache sind, werden wir vielleicht gar nicht verstanden. Kennst Du einen spanisch/portugisisch sprechenden Kollegen, den man hier um Hilfe bitten könnte? -- Ies (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Ich habe bereits fast alle Bilder korrekt kategorisiert. Das ist angesichts seiner Kategorienwahl nicht besonders schwierig. Prinzipiell kann man nicht mehr machen als bisher geschehen: Für eine Sperrung reicht das nicht, weil kein offensichtlich schädliches Verhalten für Commons vorliegt. Dass Benutzer auf Aufrufe nicht reagieren kommt leider zu häufig vor. Einen Mitarbeiter zu finden, der dessen Sprache mächtig ist, ist eine Möglichkeit. Ob dies jedoch zum Erfolg führt sei dahingestellt. Du kannst aber zusätzlich das Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems konsultieren. Dort kannst du gezielt einen sprachkundigen suchen, der Lust hat, zu helfen. --High Contrast (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Verteidigungsminister_Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg_-_Eurofighter.jpg

Hello again. There is a de:Diskussion:Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg#Fotos about the usability of this file.--Bdell555 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Flickr ist mit Vorsicht zu genießen, jeder kann dort wie er möchte Lizenzen verändern. Bei Fotos von Flickr vermerken deshalb zuverlässige Benutzer, ob das Bild mit der korrekten Lizenz übertragen wurde, so auch in diesem Fall. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) PS: sorry for my german writing, i don't speak english.
Der zuverlässige Benutzer war hierbei ein sog. Flickr-Review-Bot, den extra behelligte, da ich es bei diesen "offiziellen"-accounts häufig zu Umlizenzierungen kommen kann. P.S.: Auf meiner Diskussionsseite darfst du immer auf Deutsch schreiben. --High Contrast (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Face of Gal Vihara, 2010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 07:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

{{since}}

Ich hab mir deinen Babel gemopst, der scheint aber nicht richtig zu funktionieren? Als Marcela bin ich seit 2004 aktiv, unter SUL seit 2008. Es wird aber was ganz anderes angezeigt, was mache ich falsch? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Als "Ralf Rolotschek" bist du gemäß des Beitragszählers seit 4. Juni 2008 aktiv. Als "Marcela" seit 8. Dezember 2004. Aber ich sehe, du hast bereits die entsprechenden Daten in die Vorlage eingegeben, aber angezeigt werden sie nicht. Das verstehe ich auch nicht wirklich. --High Contrast (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:High_Contrast/Archive_5&oldid=116320105"