User talk:High Contrast/Archive 7

Archives 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Current

Happy New Year!

* * * Gutes Neues Jahr 2012! * * *

-- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, George! I wish you the same! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mariensteg in Wernstein am Inn, 2011.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 Some parts are overexposed, I think. Please see annotations.--Jebulon 16:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)  Comment And these small parts make it an overexposed image? I think I should reduce the size so that these parts do not carry weight. --High Contrast 18:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Did I oppose ? Did I say that the image is overexposed ? If you do not accept comments, please do not submit pictures in QIC !--Jebulon 16:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Of course comments are welcome - especially yours - but I was confused about overexposition. Overexposed images look more brighter than this one --High Contrast 18:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC) This image is not overexposed. Some (small) parts are, that's only what I say.--Jebulon 02:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Not enough to be declined, and the job is great. QI.--Jebulon 14:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:91.57.86.224

Hallo! Alles Gute für 2012!!! Leider fiel mir direkt dieser dort mit einem Löschantrag auf. Der Typ hat offenbar keine Ahnung und verursacht lauter Unruhe. Kannste da was machen? Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Habe mich um diesen Löschantrag gekümmert. Wie du schon sagtest: es handelt sich nicht um ein Duplikat. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke, aber wie gesagt, der wildert, bewusst oder unbewusst, noch an anderen Stellen rum (z.B. File:Panzer_III_in_Russia_1941.jpg usw.). Laut IP-Adresse auch noch aus Deutschland... Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

slight overexposure

Hello High Contrast!

Thanks for kind message, there is obviously no grudge !

It was only a discussion about a picture. Maybe you noticed that -First, I didn't oppose, and -Second, I promoted !

Ich wünsche dir (dich?) alles Gute für 2012, and hope for you and from you many nice pictures to be shared with friends in QIC !

Sehr freundlich, --Jebulon (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Mais, c'est avec plaisir! --High Contrast (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Great Patriotic War Monument in Shatki.jpg

So this is not not an ordinary Soviet or Russian monument that is covered by PD-RU exempt? If so, I wonder how Russian FOP cover it. Is it because it is an open square with just 1-2 sculptures? Oh well. I'll remove the PD-RU exempt template. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: By the way, I asked EugeneZelenko and he says that a DR is preferable for the Hotel Cosmos images here Probably the category of images for this hotel should face a DR too. But its your decision if you wish to initiate one. I told Eugene I would not nominate this image to be fair to you. A DR could go either way but I think most people would look at the date of construction rather than the regular window style as Eugene writes. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Church_of_Christ's_Resurrection,_Kaunas.jpg

File:Church_of_Christ's_Resurrection,_Kaunas.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!

Leoboudv (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Church_of_Christ's_Resurrection,_Kaunas_-_interior.jpg

File:Church_of_Christ's_Resurrection,_Kaunas_-_interior.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!

Leoboudv (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? So new? Ok. Thanks for finding out! --High Contrast (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: I've DR'ed the other images you mentioned and I may take a break from reviewing images for a while. The other uploaders whose pictures I DR'ed may complain about my actions here. Such is life. You can also ask Morning Sunshine to mark panoramio images. (he has marked many of yours too) Soon my family will have to wrap up the artificial Christmas tree and put away all the tree decorations and cards. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Leoboudv! I do definately see no problems with your work! Your contributions are appreciated and of course very welcome. Nobody will take it bad if you nominate a file with good reasons. There is no reason for others to complain. If someone opposes a DR then one can bring arguments at this discussion. I wish you the best and I hope you will restart your activities here again. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep on keeping on! Kindest regards, High Contrast (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for correcting my miscategorization of File:Trams in Saint Petersburg.jpg. I failed to look for the original upload information. 69.115.42.244 02:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your contributions. If you create an account for you, you can work more effective due to new functions that are available. Kindest regards, High Contrast (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Obrint_pasavui_com_ahir.jpg

File:Obrint_pasavui_com_ahir.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!

Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Лобачев_Владимир#Нарушение авторских прав

I see, 9 december you write him a message about copyright violations and that he can be blocked. He is doing the same in this year (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lob Spas.jpg. I think it is time, and I think he is not reading his userpage. I'll write him in his rus page. --Shakko (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for writing this late. My time was limited. I think this issue is solved by now? Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:High Contrast/vector.js

Hello High Contrast, There are deprecated functions inside User:High Contrast/vector.js. With MediaWiki 1.19 it will cause errors.

I recommend you keep the following code only:

importScript("User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js");

or, if you want a better script (for all types of license-review, blacklist check, a template-message for the flickr-user, no-source notification for the uploader) and you are not using <IE 8,

importScript("User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js");

If you did so, please disable the following in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets

• StockPhoto

and please enable

• Quick Delete
• User Messages (will be one link "notify this user" only instead of all you currently have)

to get your old functionality back. If you have questions, please ask me.

I wish you a happy new year.

Sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 09:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - war letztens nicht online. Aber danke für die Kosteloskorrektur. Ich war bemühmt gemäß deiner Angaben vorzugeben. Falls es nicht passen sollte, dann bitte kurz klingeln. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Alles, bis auf

importScript("User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js");

oder

importScript("User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js");

sollte raus. Quick Delete wird jetzt von MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js erledigt und kann in den Einstellungen aktiviert werden. Der Scriptaufruf ist also ohne Wirkung und unnötig. User Messages (der ganze Rest deiner Vector.js), wird jetzt auch als Gadget bereitgestellt und muss nicht mehr importiert oder selbst kopiert werden. D.h. zum Schluss sollte User:High Contrast/vector.js aus nur noch einer Zeile bestehen.

Ein weiterer Vorteil der Gadgets ist, dass sie zentral gewartet werden können. Es war mir schon ein großer Aufwand alle Nutzer veralteter Funktionen aufzuspüren und anzuschreiben. Grüße -- RE rillke questions? 15:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In solchen bin ich einfach von Gestern - zumindest auf Wiki. Im zweiten Anlauf dürfte ich nun erfolgreich gewesen sein. Besten Dank für dein Engagement. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glen Canyon Dam - generator building.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}}}

Panoramio

Hi! What script (or service) do you use for uploading images from the Panoramio? Kobac (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I use this tool for generating all relevant licence, source and author information. The rest is a manual thing with a lot copy&paste. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks useful. Thanks. Kobac (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Log shows that you deleted my file Radial_engine_timing-px270.gif. This is a smaller resolution version of the main file Radial_engine_timing.gif. I have done this to work around the known bug with the MediaWiki image resize function. The wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_engine does not show the large one as an animation because the resize function makes it a static image.Please don’t delete again.

Thank you,

Dan --Stoianovici (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Vedagiriswarar FootHills temple (2010).jpg

Is it possible if you could mark this single image which I uploaded? If its already marked, its OK. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Its OK. Someone else has finally marked this single image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I would have had done it but User:Techman224 was faster. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Administrator's barnstar

		The Administrator's barnstar
		I hereby award High Contrast this barnstar for high activity as Administrator on Commons in 2011. Very good work! -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this barnstar! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aero HC-2 Heli Baby, National Technical Museum (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  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 15:42, 21 January 2012 (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:
Czechoslovak helicopter Aero HC-2 Heli Baby.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

SIS MERCADO (Picasa) idw

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Óscar Cardozo Paragay.jpg. Die dort gelisteten Dateien hast du hochgeladen. --Martin H. (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Du wirst ja immer freundlicher. --High Contrast (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This DR

Do you have any views on this DR? Just curious. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look on it. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Myself vs own

Somebody should fix Commonist so it would have own as a selection choice, I keep forgetting. There is a bot I believe that should be able to replace myself with own, I am most certainly NOT wasting my time manually changing the 400 or so photos I just batch-uploaded :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Piotrus, you are violation COM:L by not doing so. As a consequence your image might get deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bonhams - The Paris Sale 2012 - Delahaye 135M Cabriolet - 1946

Hello Thesupermat!

Can you write a short description for the categories you have created? According to COM:CAT this is required and in addition it makes it easier for other users to navigate throught categories - especially if they are not experts on some topic. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour, j'ai fait cette petite présentation, ça devrait répondre à tes attentes. sinon, désolé, mais je ne parle pas anglais.--Thesupermat (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCU

Thank you for your support and kind words.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Honor to whom honor is due. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

copyvio

Hi, du hast einige meiner hochgeladenen Bilder mit copyvio markiert. Ich verstehe die Problematik, dass Dritte schwer prüfen können, welche Copyright-Status das Bild hat. Ich habe die Bilder für jmd. anderes hochgeladen und mir per Mail seine Zustimmung dafür eingeholt. Wie kann ich das in WikiCommons kenntlich machen. Oder müsste ich die Bilder dann als eigenes Werk hochladen? Bzw. was ändert der Fakt, dass der Dritte das Bild schon auf Panoramio veröffentlicht hat? --Aschroet (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Du kannst die Original-Email des Rechteinhabers an permissions-common@wikimedia.org weiterleiten. Vergiss aber nicht anzugeben, auf welches Bild/welche Datei sich die jeweilige Erlaubnis bezieht. --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ich habe alle von mir hochgeladenen Bilder mit subst:OP markiert und die Lizensierung über OTRS beim Autor angestoßen. Mir war das Verfahren vorher nicht klar. Ich hoffe, dass damit das Löschen der Bilder erstmal aufgeschoben ist. --Aschroet (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Das kriegen wir schon hin. Wie ich sehe ist alles auf bestem Wege. Und: Bilder, die gelöscht werden sind nicht wirklich gelöscht, sondern bloß nicht mehr für die "Allgemeinheit" sichtbar. Sie können jederzeit (sofern alles i.O. ist) und unproblematisch wieder hergestellt werden. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

EMB-312

This [1] was tagged for speed deletation... I have added the propers tags and information. Dafranca (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Embraer_AT-27_Tucano_(EMB-312)_Lofting.jpg

I see. I have fixed the licencing information [2]. Please be more careful in future with such specific licencing tags. Thanks for your support. Happy editing! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:File:Uc2530.gif

I have an e-mail when i have the permition to use all the images of the site:

"Dear Renato, thank you for your enquiry and interest in our web-site: for non-commercial educational purposes we ask that you cite the source of the image, and credit it copyright of the Petrie Museum, UCL - all good wishes, Stephen"

Please remove that notification of the image because I'm not violating any law or rule.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the notice I have left on your talk page. --High Contrast (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrectly identified object of the photo

Hi! I just wanted you to know, that vehicle on the picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2S4_Tyulpan,_Military-historical_Museum_of_Artillery,_Engineer_and_Signal_Corps.JPG is not 2S4, its 2S5 Giatsint. It's a great quality picture and it's surely worth having in wiki, but I guess it should be moved to proper location to serve its purposes better. I don't know if other editors, like myself can do it; even if, I'd not like to try and damage something. I guess informing the uploader is for the best. Vonzgred (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right! Thank you. Greeting, High Contrast (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Outdoor seating row, 2012.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.--ArildV 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thx for help. Zu Thema "Einsicht", es folgte das: [3]. -- Simplicius (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Keine Ursache. Den "edit summary"-Kommentar hat inzwischen Turelio verschwinden lassen. --High Contrast (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Amanda, prof. photo shoot.jpg

File:Amanda, prof. photo shoot.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!

68.62.100.148 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User page

Hi, your user page says you've been here for 11 years, 1 month and 9 days. I think this is because you're trying to include the parameters for {{user since}} within the Babel template. Your user page is protected, though, so I can't fix it. :-)

Also, just curious: do you have a native language? --Emufarmers (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Athens

Honey, give me time. I am in this very moment reorganising the cathegory. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What is a "cathegory", sweetheart? --High Contrast (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

FlightGear screenshots

What's wrong with them? FlightGear is a software released under GNU GPL. --LoStrangolatore (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

At first the uploader released it under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license" which is wrong. Afterwards it was corrected and now everything is fine - which is very good. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing author and source information

Hello, I've noticed you have reported as missing of author and source information some pictures I uploaded ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frazibo ); I've understood why you have reported them but I don't know how to correct the information I've already given. The thing is that I have been personally given the pictures by the Municipality (the local government) of Gavirate, who is the author of them and the owner of their rights and told me to use them freely to edit the italian Wikipedia page of Gavirate ( you can see it in my sandbox http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frazibo/Sandbox ), so that I wrote "concessione Comune di Gavirate" (Grating of the Municipality of Gavirate) in the source field and "Comune di Gavirate" (Municipality of Gavirate) in the author field. Can you give me some advice to edit the source and author field so that the pictures will follow Commons rules? Thank you in advance --Frazibo (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

According to COM:L "Concessione Comune di Gavirate" is no valid source. If you have a special permission by the copyright holder, please send this permission to OTRS-team. Thank you in advance. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you very much, on Monday I'll ask the "Comune" to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so that they can verify the permission. Sorry for all the troubles I created. Greetings --Frazibo (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No trouble. I'll hope we can keep those files. Happy editing. --High Contrast (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sorry but the Municipality has told me they aren't the only owners of the rights of some photos I uploaded, the thing is that they received some of them from different people, so now they don't know actually which pictures have rights shared with other people. They told me that they'd give me photos directly taken by them in next days. My question is: do I have to make a deletion request for my photos or will they be deleted automatically seven days after 23rd February? Thank you for your help, you're very kind --Frazibo (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response - work. The files I have tagged will be deleted after one month if no additional source information will be added. But it is a great thing that you can get other free images of them. But don't forget to consult COM:OTRS in order to verify the given permission. Regards High Contrast (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry! The owner of the rights of the new photos told me that he will upload them using his own Commons account, so that there won't be any problem using them. Thanks for everything you've done! Goodbye! --Frazibo (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Perfect. Thanks for your support. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File talk:1967 Saurer military vehicle.jpg

Hi High Contrast,

Someone left a message on the talk page of a file you uploaded. Came across it while patrolling, wasn't sure what to do with it. –Krinkle^talk 01:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! It seems that the disc-page comment is referring to the file description page. I've copy&pasted it from its original flickr page. The IP can comment what he/she wants to. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

11 Jahre und 2 Monate

Bist du wirklich seit 11 Jahren und 2 Monaten bei Commons angemeldet? Laut dem Toolserver bist du erst seit 2006 angemeldet. -- Elendsredder (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Art-top broke {{User since}} by hardcoding 2001-01-15 as the date. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, autotranslated is even better. And {{Babel}} does not pass year, month, day to {{User since}}. You see it: 6 years 2 months but it should be 6 years only. -- RE rillke questions? 10:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:USS Boston (CA-69) being scrapped at Portland 1972.jpg

Hi, hab mich beim Hochladen vertan! Könntest Du bitte obige Datei in "USS Baltimore (CA-68) being scrapped at Portland 1972" umbenennen. Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Mach ich! Kümmere mich drum! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Adolph Menzel - Begegnung mit Kaiser Joseph II in Neiße 1769.jpg

Hallo! Unterlasse das Wiederherstellen deiner unzureichenden Quellenangabe. "Internet" ist eine geradezu lächerliche Quellenangabe - wenn du das www als Quelle stehen lassen willst, dann gib den e x a k t e n Weblink auf das Bildchen an. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Unterlasse bitte bei deinen Änderungen herabwürdigende und unsachliche Äußerungen wie "silly". Ebenso verbitte ich mir Bezeichnungen wie "lächerliche Quellenangabe". Du kannst diese Quellenangabe gerne als "unpräzise" o.ä. kritisieren, aber bitte in einer der wikipedia/wikimedia angemessenen, sachlichen Ausdrucksweise. Gruß, Waterborough (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wo drückt dich der Schuh? --High Contrast (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wie ich sehe: du warst inzwischen gewillt eine ordentlichere Quelle anzugeben. Das ist gut - vergleiche hierzu die Richtlinien für Quellen und Lizenzangaben auf Commons. Bitte in Zukunft dieses Schriftwerk respektieren. Gruß, High Contrast (talk)

Wie ich sehe: du bist Administrator. Das macht die Sache nur noch schlimmer. Da hast du nämlich, was Umgangsformen anbelangt, Vorbildcharakter. Ich gehe aber davon aus, dass du wie auch ich gewillt bist, etwas dazu zu lernen. Das wäre dann auch gut so. Vergleiche hierzu ein heimliches Wikipedia-Gesetz: Häufig verhalten sich Anzahl der Edits und Umgangsformen indirekt proportional zueinander. Bitte in Zukunft dieses Gefährdungspotenzial im Auge behalten. Gruß, Waterborough (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Als Administrator auf unserem Commons-Projekt bin ich befugt Urheberrechtsverletzungen zu löschen - mehr nicht. Falls ich das in einem Maße praktiziere, das nicht vertrauenswürdig erschein, so können mir dieses "Rechte" per Konsensus abgenommen werden. Welches "Gefährdungspotenzial" identifizierst du hierbei? --High Contrast (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ich gehe davon aus, dass du mein Anliegen und meine Warnhinweise verstehst. Wir vereinbaren daher folgendes: Ich gebe nie mehr einfach nur Internet als Quelle an und du bist zur Kundschaft netter. Einen schönen Tag und weiterhin frohes Schafffen wünscht Waterborough (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Zu vereinbaren gibt es nichts. Und was bitteschön ist bei einem freien Mediendatenprojekt Kundschaft? P.S.: Du scheinst ein Trotzkopf zu sein: Diesen "Internet"-Nonsense kannst du wohl einfach nicht lassen. Lass diesen unnützen Quatsch einfach weg, da schlicht und ergreifend überflüssig. Ok? --High Contrast (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Kundschaft meine ich im übertragenen Sinn und hatte die Hoffnung, du verstehst das. Die Ergänzung "Internet" halte ich für hilfreich. Man erkennt sofort, dass der nachfolgende Link zur Internetquelle führt. Das hat nichts mit "Trotzkopf" oder "Quatsch" zu tun. Übrigens wieder unsachlich und respektlos im Umgangston. Du hast auch nicht automatisch die Deutungshoheit, was sinnvoll ist und was nicht, nur weil du Admin bist. Aber ich lass es jetzt mal gut sein. Waterborough (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Das Einschätzen des Umgangstones scheint keines deiner Talente zu sein. Und nein: der Zusatz "Internet" ist sinnfrei wenn unmittelbar anschließend ein Weblink folgt. Das merkt der letzte Geisteslahme, dass es sich hierbei um eine Internetquelle handelt. Wie dem auch sei: Besten Dank für das Nachtragen der genauen Internetquelle. Übrigens: Wenn du Bilder hochlädst, die du selbst gemacht hast, dann bitte {{own}} als Quelle angeben (statt "photo shoot" oder dergleichen). Die Verwendung hat diverse Vorteile für alle nicht Englisch-sprechenden. --High Contrast (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you for your welcome. It was my pleasure to add notes and will do so in the future, especially when there are many weapons and military hardware on one picture, easier for users to distinguish certain models. I've uploaded images mostly on my native SR Wiki, but will upload directly to Commons in the future. Have more pictures of military hardware available. If you encounter picture like previous one and have time you could direct me to it, I would be glad to add notes. Aleksej fon Grozni (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer! Yes, if I have such images, I will contact you. And yes, self-made photographs are always welcome on Commons. Maybe you can upload some photographs of the region where you live. Would be great. --High Contrast (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I will first upload pictures of military fair in Belgrade (remaining ones, already uploaded some on SR Wiki, they got transferred to the commons). Will upload soon some pictures of Belgrade as well. Got myself new camera, nice time to use it. Will also see to work out pages in commons (if not mistaken, some categories have pages onto themselves that you can link note up to, some don't and red link appears). Aleksej fon Grozni (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! If any problems occur with uploading images, you can contact me! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Uhhh what???

Um, what is this about [4]? Not only did you block a very valuable user completely out of the blue but you even failed to provide a rationale. What in the world happened here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

High Contrast, Piotrus privately asked me to look into his unblock request User_talk:Piotrus#You_have_been_blocked_for_a_duration_of and so far I was not able to find rationales for his block. It is not mentioned on his user page and "Uploading unfree files after warnings: and uploading spam; this user has been warned for several times but she/he did not react" in the block log was also not very helpful. Since Piotrus is not very active on Commons (less than 50 edits and hardly any uploads in last month) I guess the block is not for any resent activities. I can see evidence for sometimes choosing quantity over quality in his uploads, resulting in small but steady fraction of out of scope images (I agree he should be more selective), but I have not seen any "spamming" activities or deliberate uploading of "unfree files, although small fraction of his mass upload of images from Category:Carnegie Science Center had few images of robot movie characters like Maschinenmensch from 1927 Metropolis movie or Star Wars characters which are still copyrighted and where correctly deleted. Can you comment on specific reasons for this block? --Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention blocks are suppose to be preventive not punitive. There's no duration given in the template. There's no rationale given in the template. It's obviously done hurriedly and in a very sloppy way. And it's for three days! And completely unwarranted. What the hell is going on?

Got to ask. Did someone ask you to make this block or to "look into" it or something like?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Marek, your comments are not helpful. There is a lot of rhetoric and hidden insults and not much substance. High Contrast, I just realized that by "spam" you might have mean large volume of poor quality images with no descriptions or categories. is that the reason for the block? --Jarekt (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I see, you have overtook this issue, Jarekt. It would have been nice if you have had the chance to talk to you about it. Unfortunately it is not possible for me to be online 25h a day or 8 days a week. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. You make a completely unwarranted block on an innocent user, don't explain your reasons for it and then go AWOL for most of the block's duration - as if purposefully avoiding the possibility of discussion - and then almost the instant that the block is removed by someone else, you reappear, complaining that you weren't consulted? How many wrongful actions is that?

And you STILL have not explained your actions or what caused you do carry them out. Can you explain the block? Can you explain how you came to be aware of Piotrus' alleged nefarious activities? What was this all about, honestly, because it's a bit of a mystery.

@Jarekt - I've been around various Wikimedia projects long enough to know when something weird is going on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you want? A rationale was given. Are you able to read? Besides, honey, do not waste my time. --High Contrast (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A viable explanation of why you made the block. With specifics. As in "this", "this" and "this". "Warned here", "warned here" and "warned here". Purpose was to prevent "this" "this" and "this".

You left both the "duration" and the "reason" fields blank in the template and your block summary was strange to say the least. And it was a 3 day block, not preceded by any kind of warning.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:1K17 Szhatie.jpg

Hello, I see you upload from Vitalykuzmin as well can you check this picture for me, look to what wrong with it that someone want to make it be deleted. Sorry if my English is bad.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I have left a message on Commons:Deletion requests/File:1K17 Szhatie.jpg. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I left the comment there, Hope now everything will be okay. Thanks for your support.--VitalyKuzmin (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Stitching error?

Where?

Hi! At QIC you mentioned a stiching error in this image. Where do you see it? I was pretty shure I got them all removed. Don't be mistaken by broken branches hanging in other trees... --Martin Kraft (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I found 2 and corrected them. Do you see any further? --Martin Kraft (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I won't look over it again because the risk is too high to confound broken branches with stitching errors ;-) --High Contrast (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

user:JackieBot

Hello! I see you blocked the Jackie's bot; I understand the reason but I want ask you to unblock it. It worked incorrect, but it's owner found this by himself and took a part in the solving of the problem (he reverted the changes with the help of some users which he called); he is an experienced bot's owner in ruwiki, and he promises not to repeat his mistake. The problem was that the bot was writing pages instead of reading them; Jackie says that he tested the new code already.

You blocked his IP so he isn't writing it to you... Анастасия Львова^ru (ru-n, en-2) 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lvova! It happened accidently that I blocked User:Jackie indirectly because of his IP adress. The block action by me was not against the human User:Jackie but against his bad bot. I have modified the block so that User:Jackie is able to edit on Commons again. Sure he is welcome here but his bot not (yet). But I will not unblock the bot. This must be done offficially by a different admin after a request was made here: Commons:Bots/Requests. There, this bot problem will be handeled. Greetings and thanks for your help. --High Contrast (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He was not going to edit, but before the application for the status he need to do the correct test edits, so that the situation is a stalemate... It upsets that you decided to leave the block, but thank you for it's correction! Анастасия Львова^ru (ru-n, en-2) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you know: two reasons led to my descission and theses two reasons are surely comprehensible. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: File:Foto jaru.jpg

Todas as fotos feitas nessa montagem foram pedidas autorizações para os fotografos.

Português do Brasil

Engenheiro Jeferson (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide some evidence for that. Go to COM:OTRS in order to learn more about that. Thank you. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Eu ainda não sei como se faz isso, sou inexperiente na Wikipedia.(PT-BR) I still do not know how to do this, I am inexperienced in Wikipedia. (EN-US) Engenheiro Jeferson (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this version. Or post questions here - both links are in portuguese language. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Boxer Foto's

Ist die nachfolgende Aussage der Hersteller-Webseite wohl hinreichend für Wiki Commons zum Bilder hocladen ? Media - Picture Gallery Please note that all the materials may only be used if the source (ARTEC GmbH) is indicated. --Gonzosft (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Um welches Bild geht es genau? Wo steht der Hinweise "Please note that all the materials may only be used if the source (ARTEC GmbH) is indicated"? --High Contrast (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.artec-boxer.com/media.html --Gonzosft (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Und wo steht auf dieser Homepage "Please note that all the materials may only be used if the source (ARTEC GmbH) is indicated"? Gemäß diesen Disclaimers sind alle Bilder urheberrechtlich geschützt und nicht für Commons geeignet. --High Contrast (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Den Disclainer habe ich auch gesucht und gefunden. Der andere Freigabe Text steht genau da, wo mein Link hinzeigt. Die spezielle MEDIA Seite, heißt ja auch so. Dort sind 8 Panzerbilder und genau drüber steht der zitierte Text, genau unter der Überschrift. Erfüllt {PD-author|author}. Ich würde jetzt deuten, das die Bilder der Media-Seite freigegeben sind, die der anderen Seiten nicht.--Gonzosft (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Es könnte sein, aber widerspräche dem Disclaimer, der für die gesamte Seite gilt. Um sicher zu gehen, müsste man an die Homepage-Betreibe ein Anfrage per Email schicken. Ich deute es so, dass die Bilder nur mit Quellenangabe benützt werden dürfen, nachdem eine Anfrage mit positiver Freigabe erfolgte. --High Contrast (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Minsk - burning military vehicles - 2010.jpg

There is no evidence that Алексей Халецкий may release news photos by others like these [5] into public domain. Same applies to File:Tank-zagorelsya2.jpg. Feel free to change the copyvio template to something else, but we normally must have (OTRS) permission in such situation. Materialscientist (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

See the image caption - that's exactly the same author as the picasa user (both are). File:Tank-zagorelsya2.jpg is copyrighted by Yury Amelchanka, the uploader on picasa [6]. --High Contrast (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm watching talks where I post. I might indeed be missing something, but if I click the sources on those files [7] [8], I get not to Yury Amelchanka, but to Алексей Халецкий. Халецкий is a journalist; he openly states that the author is Amelchanka - the missing link is permission from Amelchanka to Халецкий to release the files into public domain. Sorry for being picky, I've got that file for image review and followed the standard procedure, as I know it, "saying" that we either need some sort of proof that Amelchanka works for Халецкий (maybe it's easy - haven't looked), or an OTRS permission from Amelchanka. Materialscientist (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I assumed these guys were the same. Is that unlikely? --High Contrast (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess so [9] [10] (this blog is linked from [11]). They might be friends - I don't know. Materialscientist (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I know these blogs. There is some kind of image exchange. One can assume that since the image appear nearly randomly on the two users Picasa accounts.

Can you help asking them - I see that you can speak Russian. --High Contrast (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find email of Amelchanka (and his name is too common for googling it), and therefore emailed to Халецкий instead, asking to redirect the request to Amelchanka. I'll add "OTRS pending" to the files if I get something positive. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I see this positively since there are connections between those two. Let's see what comes. Thanks for your support. --High Contrast (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Benz-Motor

Hi High Contrast, um die Benz-Motoren wird sich wohl der Daimler-Spezialist M 93 aus Wikipedia kümmern. Hab ihn dort auf der Disk schon angeschrieben. Grüße aus der Allgäu-Metropole, alofok 21:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Perfekt. Hat er schon auf deine Anfrage reagiert? --High Contrast (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Noch nicht, aber ich glaube dass er sich als Daimler-Fan schon darum kümmern wird. Ich pflege ja auch die Škoda-Kategorien und manchmal auch um die Kempten-Kategorien. ;) alofok 21:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wunderbar. Es ist immer von Vorteil, wenn Experten für bestimmte Themen aktiviert werden. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Bilder vom Swarowski-Haus (Hochschule, der schwarze Palast) hab ich auch. Aber das Hochladen dauert so ewig. -_- alofok 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC) PS: Im Posteingang wartet etwas.

Neu-eingegangene Emails kann ich erst ab morgen abrufen. --High Contrast (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, dann warte ich und gute Nacht! alofok 22:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Die Email betreffend. Besten Dank für den Hinweis. Zeitlich klappt es bei mir nicht. Dafür bin ich viel zu weit weg. Dennoch würde mich interessieren, welche "Tagesordnungspunkte" es für das Treffen gibt. --High Contrast (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Licensing

Good evening. Why do you write on my talk page warning about non-free files that I added?! Those photos - my own work, so your warning is inadvisable.--Stanislavovich (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many images that were uploaded by you but were blatant copyright violations. Here you have a list of them:

• • File:Боевая тяжёлая машина пехоты БТМП-84.jpg
  • File:Btr4.jpg
  • File:L-39 Ukraine1.jpg
  • File:Ukrainian Falcons L-39.jpg
  • File:Ukrainian Kozaks1.jpg
  • File:Alfa Ukraine.jpg
  • File:Konotop witch.jpg
  • File:Ak-47 ukraine.jpg
  • File:Btr4.jpg
  • File:Гором.jpg
  • File:Володимир Замана.jpg
  • File:Oplot-m.jpg
  • File:Oplyatukr.jpg
  • File:Боевая тяжёлая машина пехоты БТМП-84.jpg
  • File:БМПВ-64.jpg
  • File:Витренко в Одессе.jpg
  • File:Ukrainian Falcons3.jpg
  • File:L-39 Ukraine1.jpg

All of these files have been deleted by different administrators. Your comments on that were in two cases: "I see no rational reason to delete this file, because I have the source and information about autor.--Stanislavovich (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)". This implies some kind of unreasonableness since the reason were clearly explained. As a consequence I warned you a second time not to upload any copyright violations again. Photographs that are taken by you are appreciated. Happy editing. --High Contrast (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Re File tagging File:Indrani Haldar.jpg

Hi. I received a notification for uploading File:Indrani Haldar.jpg for not providing permission. Image has been uploaded thru the site www.bollywoodhungama.com and the permission for use of the work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. It is available as ticket #2008030310010794 for users with an OTRS account. Please let me know if its is still not acceptable. I will delete the file. Vivvt (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You cannot delete image. To the image: why didn't you use the correct OTRS-tag? Why did you not insert some categories? --High Contrast (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added a category and OTRS tag for the image. Vivvt (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good! --High Contrast (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File:FlyPort Wi-Fi Module.png

Hey, you were right to tag that file, but the company which produced the image is an open source hardware and software company, so the image is likely to be free. We should look around and discuss it. Thanks, Steven Walling • talk 02:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven. If you remove the speedydeletion-tag then start a regular DR. I think, you are wrong with this image - at least there is no certain evidence for it. The fact that company does produce open source hardware is irrelevaqt for the copyright status of the images in their homepage. Look at the bottom on the homepage: you can read "Copyright 2001 © OpenPICUS - All rights reserved - info@openpicus.com". Here they only talk of their "Schematics of openPICUS" and "Open-source hardware" which are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License. No info about the copyright status of the photographs on their homepage. Thus, the images and all provided stuff on that homepage are copyrighted, not free. Please start a DR for all files from openpicus. (sorry for my english, i am a non native speaker) --High Contrast (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:F4 Phantom Marines.jpg

Hi, nettes Foto, aber die Lizensierung finde ich fragwürdig. Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Allerdings, du hast völlig Recht. Ohne Quellenangabe geht ist eine PD-USGov-Lizenz nicht verwendbar. Aber es scheint, dass das gleiche Problem für viele Uploads dieses Benutzers zutreffen: siehe User:Mr.Nostalgic/gallery. Starte einen Löschantrag, wenn du willst, ich kümmere mich anschließend darum. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ex-Distribution substation in Windorf, 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 Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 17:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sutan thrust fault

Hi High Contrast, this fault in Germany has a German propper name: Sutan-Überschiebung. See here. So I wonder why you renamed it. -- Ies (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Commons language policy does not cover this name because it is not really a specific name but more a geological process that is linked with a local finding of such. --High Contrast (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Look the history. I don't purge my Commons' user page since a lot of time; no, I'm no longer sysop. I resigned in Meta directly for lack of time. SallesNeto BR (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• meta:Steward_requests/Permissions/2008-02#SallesNeto_BR.40pt_wikipedia. SallesNeto BR (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Lack of time is always a problem. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Autokran 13t glw der Bundeswehr.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. --Carschten 21:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ČD Class 362 in Prague, 2012.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. --Ralf Roletschek 21:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

images pending deletion

Hi. You have marked Brest-Courier-1990-12-15 bw.jpg and Brest courier logo.jpg for copyright violation. This is clearly wiki's coryright issue rather than a real copyright issue pertaining to images. Please let me know how it can be fixed. I am assuming I have tagged the images wrongly. It is rather difficult to translate Western copyright policies to Belarusian ones (there are none really). The images have been sent to me by their maker and I've never thought there would be an issue.

D.tsapkou (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)D.tsapkou

You need a valid permission by the copyright holders in order to get these files kept. Look at COM:OTRS; there you can read more about it. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Feuerwehrhaus von Arnstorf, 2012.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--Lmbuga 22:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Chernobyl reactor clean-up operation.JPEG

File:Chernobyl reactor clean-up operation.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!

Ralf Roleček 09:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

q: about file you flagged for deletion.

Hello, You tagged my talk page with a notice about File:Soviet intelligence ships.jpg not having adequate sourcing information. This file was originally on the english language wikipedia. My only action with this image was to upload the image to commons and tag the original as a duplicate, accepting the sourcing information on the english language wikipedia as valid. This was when I was relatively new to wikipedia and I accept that I may not have included sufficient information from the transfer from the original. Here is the original text of the sourcing information on the english language wikipedia as uploaded by w:User:Bert_Schlossberg:

This is a photo of the Soviet intelligence ships shadowing the vessels involved in the search for KAL 007. The photographer is seaman Paul Sauter who has given his permission to use these Navy Dept. released photos. There are no other pictures chronicaling this particular aspect of the search and no infringement of the photographers rights occur by its usage in wikipedia

If you can advise on how to fix this I will do my best to do so. Dave (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If the image was accepted with its insufficient source information is not of interest on Commons. We need a valid and correct source that can you show without any doubts a) that it was taken by "Paul Soutar" b) that he is/was a US Navy employee and c) that he took it on duty. The current source info cannot fulfil this and just because it is written there does not prove anything. I have already tried to find that image here but there were no positive results. When we want to keep it, we need sufficient source, author and licence info (as a result). --High Contrast (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sounds like the best thing to do is let the deletion process run its course. However, I will advise the user who posted this to see if he can provide documentation. Dave (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Assistance is always appreciated. If you have more success in finding the image, for instance, here then it would be great. It would be a loss if it gets deleted. I'll try it, too later on. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Glittertind

Hi, You tried to delete all my cover-artwork files and promopictures. I own the rights to these photos and want them availeble for everyone. Please cancel your act of deleting these photos.

Which images do you mean? --High Contrast (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Glittertind Evige Asatro.jpg

File:Glittertind Til Dovre Faller.jpg File:Glittertind Landkjenning.jpg File:Glittertind Landkjenning Promo 2.jpg File:Glittertind Landkjenning Promo.jpg --torbjosa (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you the manager of this band? Or did you get to those usage rights? To the problem: We need a written permission of this because Commons must be very sure. This process is very easy: you only have to send an Email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org where you must point out that you are really the copyright holder of those files. More infos here: COM:OTRS. The fact that some files have been deleted does not matter because they can easily get restored. --High Contrast (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you try to regulate WP and copyright abuse. However, this is not the case here. I sent an email to the address you mentioned a couple of hours ago mentioning the respective photos. I am Torbjørn Sandvik, manager of the band owner of the copyrights to these images. I am no longer bound by contract to Napalm Records so these images belong to me personally. I want to make them public and grant Wikimedia the rights to publish them. I want that because of promotional motives and also because it should be in the public interest to increase the quality of WP articles with high quality photos. For how long do I have to wait until they are reactivated an availeble on my Wikimedia profile? Torbjosa (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Have not heard anything from Wikimedia after sending them the information required on e-mail. How many days should expect to handle such a request? Torbjosa (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Well such requests can take some days. But I can ask what happened. Where did you send your request? Email adress? --High Contrast (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Thank you!Torbjosa (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Then everything should work normally. --High Contrast (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Email received and you can restore them under OTRS 2012042210005361. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See above message. Will you restore them High Contrast? Only one picture is restored, but I also need you to restore "File:Glittertind Landkjenning Promo 2.jpg" Torbjosa (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#OTRS_2012042210005361 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hallo

, du hattest mich hier gewarnt und gesagt, dass es reiner Vandalismus gewesen wäre. Guck dir das auf meiner Disk und der Versionsgeschichte der Datei nochmal genauer an. Danke. Grüße, --Lukas²³ 15:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Na dann ist das geklärt und es ist kein Vandalismus. Obschon auch nicht-existente (rote) Kategorien ruhig "stehen" gelassen werden können. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ich will nur keinen Streit --Lukas²³ 21:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dodge-based recreational vehicle in Munich.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. --NorbertNagel 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Volkswagen LT-31 recreational vehicle.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. --NorbertNagel 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Reply to High Contrast

I'm afraid I am not proficient in the Wikimedia process, but I would appreciate some help, as noted in this email sent to High Contrast via the WM system on April 22...

Thank you very much for your emails advising me of a problem with the uploading of these two images to Wikimedia Commons:

File:No Gun Ri survivors read petition-1999-b.jpg

File:No Gun Ri scene in film "A Little Pond".jpg

These are two of four images that I uploaded on April 21. Your emails and postings on my talk page said they lacked source and author. However, the summary on each does identify source and author (in the first instance, the No Gun Ri International Peace Foundation is both source and author, in the second it's Nogunri Production). And so it is not clear to me what is missing. If it's expected to provide a URL to the source, there is none.

There is a related issue, meanwhile, I hope you can help with. I have copyright permission letters for all four images (all come from the same two sources mentioned), using the template form recommended by Wikimedia Commons. I understand that I am supposed to forward these by email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I can do that. However, I also understand that I am supposed to "tag" each image in some way to signify that its permissions status is being reviewed, after which Wikimedia will make the upload permanent.

I don't know how to "tag" these four items. Can you help?

Many thanks. Best regards, Charles Hanley

Cjthanley (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[12] --High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Source information für ein Bild

Hallo High Contrast,

ich bin noch neu bei Wikimedia und habe als Vorbereitung für das Einsenden eines Artikels einige Bilder hochgeladen. Bei einem Bild werden jetzt die Source Information beanstandet, womit ich überfordert bin. Ich war eigentlich der Ansicht, alle nötigen Informationen gegeben zu haben.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MaxWildFlotte.jpg

Das ist das Bild. Ich habe das Bild aus dem Firmenbestand (Abteilung Marketing) und die Genehmigung der zuständigen Person, das Bild für Wikimedia/Wikipedia benutzen zu dürfen. Mit den Angaben zu Quelle und Autor dachte ich, das wäre ausreichend. Was muss ich nun noch ändern?

Gruß, Erfolgsgarant

PS: Das Verlinken will nicht so recht klappen.

Hallo! Die Quellenangabe ist leider für Wikimedia nicht ausreichend. Der Grund ist, dass wir auf Commons nur freie Dateien zur Verfügung stellen wollen, ohne irgendeinen finanziellen Beweggrund. Deshalb ist eine detailierte Quellenangabe, die zeigt, dass das Bild unter einer freien Lizenz verbreitet wurde von außerordentlicher Wichtigkeit. "Max Wild Fotogalerie" ist leider keine ausreichende Quellenangabe. ABER: Nachdem du eine valide Erlaubnis hast, ist es sehr einfach die Datei als "freie Datei" zu verifizieren: du musst lediglich diese schriftliche Erlaubnis an folgende Emailadresse schicken: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Dort kümmert sich dann ein freiwilliger Mitarbeiter darum und erledigt den Rest. Einfach die Erlaubnis schicken, dann abwarten. Bei weiteren Fragen kannst du dich an mich wenden. --High Contrast (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, danke soweit! Das betrifft aber auch die anderen von mir eingestellten Bilder. Ich weiß nicht, ob ich die Erlaubnis vor Ablauf der Löschfrist schriftlich habe, besteht Gefahr für die Bilder? Oder ist solange "Schonfrist"?

Gefahr besteht prinzipiell für keines der von dir eingestellten Bilder, da sie ja nicht gelöscht werden, sondern nur "versteckt" und ja, für alle sichtbar sind sie nach Ablauf der "Schonfrist". Keine Sorge. Einfach die Erlaubnis an die oben genannte Emailadr. schicken und falls dann doch ein Bild gelöscht werden sollte, dann gib mir einfach bescheid, ich kann sie auch wieder "entlöschen" falls nötig. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Building construction in Jordan (2).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. --NorbertNagel 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glass fome of the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II in Milan.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. --NorbertNagel 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glas Goggomobil Coupé.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 Perhaps a bit tight on the crop but overall this is a very likeable picture with good quality. --Saffron Blaze 13:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Svoboda tractor, National Museum of Agriculture in 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 Good quality. --Yann 14:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Höre...

...auch du bitte auf zu "stalken". Das ist einfach unerträglich. Die Münchner IP von Arcor-Vodafone beschattet mich ebenso in der Wikipedia. Daher behalte ich mir vor, Beiträge von ihr zu revertieren. Verarscht werden, lasse ich mich von der IP garantiert nicht. alofok 18:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Siehe deine Diskussionsseite. --High Contrast (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Verstehst du überhaupt etwas? Diese IP beschattet einen und nervt einfach! Revertiert einfach drauf in der Wikipedia. Zu dem Bild mit den Schuhen: Guck hier unter Urheber. Da liegt eine Freigabe vor! Ist das zu kompliziert für dich dann logisch zu überlegen, dass für das andere auch eine Freigabe vorliegt? Hier wurde ein Speedy gestellt. Was machst du? Du revertierst primitiv. Überlege bevor du was machst überhaupt nach! Danke, 93.134.11.25 19:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Und diese "Münchner-IP" bin ich. Übrigens wird diese direkt auf das Kemptener Stadtzentrum verlinkt. Der Münchner Troll kommt direkt aus dem Münchner Stadtzentrum her. Aus keinem Umland! Echt zum Heulen. 93.134.11.25 19:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ich warte auf eine Antwort??!! 93.134.11.25 19:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Man muss IP-Aktivitäten als Realum hinnehmen. Ich habe das schon oft erlebt und es nervt, aber das gut ist, dass es fast immer sehr schnell zu Ende geht. Also, das Entfernen von DR-Hinweisen geht jedenfalls nicht. Die IP hat sich an sich anständig verhalten, die eigenen Ansichten bzgl. eines Sachverhaltes zu vertreten ist legitim. Illegitim sind Edit Wars - hüben wie drüben. Der Schnelllöschantrag wird deshalb zurückgesetzt, da a) ein Löschantrag läuft, b) von deiner Seite kein Grund für eine Schnelllöschung angegeben wird und c) kann ich mir gut vorstellen, dass das Bild erhalten bleiben wird. Zur OTRS-Freigabe: du musst die schon bei allen Bildern hineinsetzen, um diese spezielle Erlaubnis anzugeben. Es ist weder meine Aufgabe, noch die eines anderen Benutzers andere Bilder von dir zu durchforsten, um eventuell eine OTRS-Erlaubnis zu finden. Das ist die Aufgabe desjenigen, der eine Datei hochlädt auch sicher zu stellen, dass sie gemäß der Commons-Lizenzrichtlinien veröffentlicht werden darf. Du solltest dir mehr Besonnenheit angewöhnen und auch das Randalieren "als IP" einstellen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Weißt du was: Ich werde hier keine Bilder hochladen. Dafür ist mir das Umfeld zu primitiv. Und eine Freigabe liegt mir persönlich vor, habe aber keinen Bock hier toll bürokratisch wie man es gewöhnt ist eine E-Mail rauszuschicken und danach von 10 unterschiedlichen Personen vom OTRS die gleiche Frage gestellt zu bekommen. Ich lade die Bilder auf mein Risiko hoch, das steht auch so in den Nutzungsbedingungen. Du solltest dir mehr Hirn mit IQ angewöhnen und das Unterstützen von Trollen abgewöhnen. 93.134.18.95 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hirn mit IQ? Wirklich schlecht formuliert und noch dazu fachlich verkehrt. Mach was du willst, aber störe nicht den Ablauf hier. --High Contrast (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Urban legend in Poland--Gungir1983 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be out of scope. Can you bring e.g. a wiki article where this phenomenon is described? --High Contrast (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Black Volga --Gungir1983 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you. But this urban legend does not qualify any black volga automobile to this. --High Contrast (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Black helicopter is also a urban legend or conpiracy with gallery... --Gungir1983 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide links. --High Contrast (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm? Article Black helicopter on wiki. Wikimedia Commons under External links --Gungir1983 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

On which Wikipedia project? You know, there are plenty much of them in many different languages. Please paste the full weblink, please. --High Contrast (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopter --Gungir1983 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is linked with "Category:Black helicopters" - this is an issue of en:wiki. The automobile equivilant is Category:Black automobiles - you can link on that. But on Commons categories of specific automobile types by colors are not wanted. --High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sepura

Hallo, ich bin nicht sicher, aber ich vermute ich habe mit dem Upload meiner Datei einen Fehler gemacht. Worin liegt dieser? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

Hallo! Hast du das Bild selbst erstellt? --High Contrast (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ja habe ich. Zuerst dummer Weise mit 72dpi, habe es jedoch in neuer Version in 300dpi hoch geladen.

Passt. --High Contrast (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Vratsa, Bulgaria in 2009.JPG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Vratsa, Bulgaria in 2009.JPG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Lymantria (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! Error fixed. --High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Colaj prezentare Racovita, Sibiu.jpg

Done. Asybaris01 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New collage uploaded. Asybaris01 (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. --High Contrast (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

File:F4 Phantom Marines.jpg u.A.

Hi, der User:Mr.Nostalgic hat viele Postkarten hochgeladen, die laut Source von ihm selbst sind, der Autor aber unbekannt. Ich finde das zusammen mit der Lizensierung alles schwierig. Soll jedes einzelne Bild dann zum Löschen vorgeschlagen werden? Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Sieht nach einem eindeutigen Fall aus. Nein, alle Bilder auf die "klassische Art" zu nominieren ist zu aufwändig. Nominiere einfach ein Bild klassisch und füge alle weiteren mit [[:File:Bildxyz.jpg]] darunter ein und dann noch das Signum. Muss reichen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Helene-Fischer-Goettingen.jpg

Hi, could you pls. undelete this file exept the second file version uploaded a few days ago, which was a cpvio. The first version was allready kept by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helene-Fischer-Goettingen.jpg. You may have missed that but I had left a note on the description page. Thx. --JuTa 06:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: Could you undo the delinker as well... thx. --JuTa 06:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This file was nominated for deletion by User:Benoit Rochon. Don`t gripe to me about it. When I was deleting it, the old version was visible as the recent one. Likely some Wikimedia software error. Restored. --High Contrast (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Danke für die schnelle Reaktion. Ich hatte ja eine Bitte auf der Beschreibungsseite [13] hinterlassen. Hätte ich etwas anders machen sollen/müssen? Gibt es eine passendere Stelle für solche Versionslöschungen auf Commons? Nur für die Zukunft; ich konnte bisher keine finden. Gruß --JuTa 10:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nichts zu danken. Einfach direkt einen Administrator ansprechen. Sollte derartiges wieder vorkommen, dann kannst du einfach mich fragen. --High Contrast (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krematorium in Vilshofen a.d. 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 QI for me. -- JLPC 21:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Magirus-Deutz 170 D 11.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 but please add an English file description. --NorbertNagel 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)  Done added English description and coordinates. --High Contrast 18:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kässbohrer Pistenbully PB 160D Seitenansicht.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 but please add an English file description. --NorbertNagel 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)  Done added English description and coordinates. --High Contrast 18:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rathaus von Arnstorf -2.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. Please add geotag. --Cayambe 09:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Good idea!  Done --High Contrast 12:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bahnhof Kempten-Allgäu - Diesellok 218 488-5.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. A geotag would be nice here too. --Cayambe 14:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC) I have just added the geotag.  Done--High Contrast 14:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

files deleted

Files of user yearitems that had been deleted on wikimedia commons has licence given by users on flicker that says : You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work. See here and here. Could you explain why the file has been deleted if the licence says that, please.--Yearitems (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please get familiar with COM:L and COM:FLICKR: "Noncommercial" and "No Derivative Works" Creative Commons licenses are not allowed on Commons. You have uploaded lots of copyright violations. Please stop that. Besides, you tried to cheat for several times with your flickr uploads placing a reviewed-tag on some files. Please stop this disruptive behaviour as well. Thank you for that, too. --High Contrast (talk)

Please i have a question. can I upload this image and this one to wikimedia commons?. And I'd like to know where is it hosted beacuse seems not to be in wikimedia commons. Thanks for your answer.--Yearitems (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No. We do not accept fair use files on the Commons. They are hosted on the English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

is there any way to get those files visible on commons or any other wikipedia apart of english wikipedia?--Yearitems (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

They will not be visible on the Commons due to their copyright. What wikipedia are you thinking about? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Spanish, French or Italian wikipedias.--Yearitems (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Spanish no, French and/or Italian maybe. Please look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks a lot for your answers.--Yearitems (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Zscout370, thanks for helping! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem! User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Need some time

I try to help this user out. Can you hold a while before deleting all her images. Thank you ! --Zorion (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Look closer. I did not delete one single image of that user. --High Contrast (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Licensereview

Hi. I don't know if I have understood correctly. I should add {{Licensereview}} for each image I have uploaded from http://www.camptocamp.org (even if the image is marked as CC BY-SA 2.0 on camptocamp.org site). Is it correct? Thanks in advance. --Rotpunkt (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this would be appreciated. And not even if the image is marked as CC BY-SA 2.0 but because they were published under a free CC-license. Please read Commons:License review for more information. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just added {{Licensereview}} to all images (21) from camptocamp.org. --Rotpunkt (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for your support. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schliemann1910.png

Hallo High Contrast, vielen Dank für das Schließen dieses Falls. Du hast aber beim Löschen die erste angegebene Datei noch übersehen, so dass diese noch existiert: File:Schliemann1910.png. Vielleicht war es etwas ungeschickt von mir, das erste Bild nicht weiter unten in der Aufzählung ein weiteres Mal aufzunehmen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Gerne doch. Du hast ja auch völlig Recht. Danke für den Hinweis, die Datei war tatsächlich noch da, obwohl sie eigentlich angeklickt habe. Da hat mir wohl die Software wieder einmal dazwischengefunkt. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! North American T-28, Flughallenfest Vilshofen a.d. 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dead Sea sunrise.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 Beautiful. --Mattbuck 16:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Recreation of an image you deleted recently

[14] (sorry, I don't know how to link without an url) is a recreation of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schliemann1910.png - I guess not surprising seeing the editor's comments. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've raised this at our Administrators Noticeboard as I'm not sure if I can delete on the basis of the Commons discussion (I doubt that I can). Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Can you paste the link of this threat, please? --High Contrast (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2012 (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!

Affected:

• File:Mosque Hassan II, Casablanca.jpg

Yours sincerely russavia (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Hallo High Contrast manchmal versteh ich Dich nicht. Besonders warum Du alte Fotodateien immer nach irgendwelchen Lizenzangaben durchforstest. In diesem Fall steht doch alles auf der Seite: Datum 8. April 2008, Quelle http://www.eucom.mil/photo/16254/eucom-photo und Urheber: Sgt. 1st Class Steve Chenault. Du gefährdest damit manche Bildereinstellungen in der Wikipedia. Besonders wenn ehemalige oder selten online aktive Wikipedia-User Deine Warnmeldungen übersehen oder darauf nicht zeitnah reagieren können. Frag doch erst einmal direkt bei den Usern an, ehe Du diese Löschbalken inflationär einsetzt, besonders bei sehr "alten Bilddateien". Danke und sonnige Grüße --wikifreund (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Mehr Sorgfalt bitte: Diese Datei hatte keine Quelle. Wenn du die "Dateigeschichte" betrachtest, wird dir auffallen, dass zum Zeitpunkt des "no source"-tags folgende unzureichende Quellenangabe deinerseits vorlag. Ich war derjenige, der tatsächlich eine Quelle einfügte. Ich hoffe dieser Unterschied ist nachvollziehbar. Des weiterhin "durchforste" ich keine "alten Fotodateien", sondern sie laufen mir vielmehr über den Weg. Dein zweiter Punkt mit den "aktiven Wikipedia-Usern" ist leider ein Problem, das mit mir herzlich wenig zu tun hat. Wenn du oder andere Nutzer unzureichende Bildherkunftsinformationen angeben o. angaben, dann hat dies natürlich Folgen für Wikimedia, aber es bitte nicht Ursache und Wirkung verwechseln. Miserablen Quellenangaben werden vom Hochlader verursacht. Ich versuche wo ich kann diese Missstände zu beheben (siehe oben). Nur manchmal gelingt dies nicht, dann ist es umso ärgerlicher. --High Contrast (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2d Unmanned Gemini Launch photo

That will take an email to the 45th Space Wing History Office. The photo I uploaded came out of a PDF document. Will send an email out later on today. Regards Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your support. --High Contrast (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Salvatore

Hi, dear friend. I cant speak english, because write azerbaijani. Salam, yüklədiyim şəkillərin qayda pozuntusuna yol verdiyini düşünmürəm. Rəsm əsərləri ictimai mülkiyyətdə olan əsərlərdir, digər fotoların isə müəllif hüquqları mənə aiddir. Ümidvaram ki, məni anlayacaq və fəaliyyət göstərməmə kömək edəcəksiniz. Hörmətlə...--Salvatore (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be true for those pictures. But the rest are copyright violations from skyscrapercity, panoramio or from different internet sources. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Təkrar edirəm, yüklədiyim şəkillərin müəllif hüquqları mənə məxsusdur (rəsm əsərləri xaric təbii ki). Xahiş edirəm, şəkillərdən silinmə şablonunu çıxarasınız. Hörmətlə...--Salvatore (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard to believe since loads of "your photographs" appear on different webpages. --High Contrast (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asamin01.jpg

Please take care about rest of user uploads. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Xenos2008

Would it really kill the project to let him have his cc-by-sa license on his scans? According to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag its usage is not mandatory in countries where reproductions can attract copyright. It says it can be used in those countries. The tag {{Licensed-PD-Art}} can be used in this case. Also, as for scans of 1900's era postcards, those almost ALWAYS count as anonymous works. I'm dealing with an OTRS complaint and it appears to me we've driven away a good contributor unnecessarily. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

His behaviour kills the project. The rest is documented in the DRs. --High Contrast (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the image tagging, which wasn't part of a DR. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Which image do you mean? --High Contrast (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lets start with this one[15]. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Easy issue. {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} is incorrect; the uploader is not the creator of this image but only the person who maybe scanned it. His copyright claims are incorrect. --High Contrast (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• It appears this user got upset because our policy on Bridgeman was never properly explained to him. Would you object if I added {{Licensed-PD-Art}} to the user's files in question? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Licensed-PD-Art}} is ok. --High Contrast (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank

fürs Mithelfen beim Kategorisieren der Flugfotos! --Martina talk 12:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Gerne doch! Ich hoffe, dass ich etwas helfen konnte. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Driving school boat 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 Good. --Iifar 10:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Emirates A6-EDS in Munich 2012-05.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. --Cayambe 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

source

I added a source [16] Pass a Method (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This source was added by you. The file was not deleted by me. You did not provide licensing information. --High Contrast (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Antonov An-2 - D-FWJM - Flughallenfest Vilshofen 2012.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 Unschärfe des Propellers paßt, Tärfenschiefe etwas zu groß für mich aber auf jeden Fall QI --Ralf Roletschek 07:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:9K33 Osa

Hello.

All I'm going to say is that it is not my fault that 9K33M2 OSA-AK and 9K33M3 OSA-AKM are almost indistinguishable from each other. I did the best job I could.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop such attempts to improve the Commons' category system. It was better before you started to work there. I know that these version are hardly distinguishable that's why it is better not to create such a category with this chaotic name. --High Contrast (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The old setup was inaccurate, cluttered and IMHO chaotic. My system is a lot more straight forward: Categorize them to the best our ability and create sub categories were they are needed (here I used the sub categories to separate the different parts of this SAM system). In the old system there was just a general name and pictures of different versions thrown in together like trash. If someone was looking for pictures of a specific version they would have to look through that mess of a category.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a very idiosyncratic view of chaos. I think we must improve your latest attempt. --High Contrast (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the Category:9K33 Osa was a pretty good example of a chaos in a category. I think that categories should serve the purpose of categorizing their subjects and not be convenient containers into which throw the pictures you don't want to deal with further.

Here's an example of how my system is better than the old one. Say someone edits the 9K33 Osa article on Wikipedia and thinks "I wonder if Wikimedia commons has a picture of the 9T217BM2 missile transporter and loader." The person looks briefly at the category and doesn't find the picture that's there because it's lost in the crowd. If the picture of the 9T217BM2 missile transporter and loader, which is a independent enough to deserve its own category separate from the category of the SAM system, was easier to find everyone who's interested would benefit.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not tell me things I am perfectly aware of. Fact is that your attempt of categorising is of substandart quality and extremely confusing especially for your proposed image seeker from Wikipedia. Creating categories like "this or that or the other thing" for anything that is visually not distinguishable is complete nonsense. Sadly you were told this already for several times but you are unwilling to learn this. As I said, we must improve your attempt. --High Contrast (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

All I am doing is choosing the most appropriate names. It is only logical to say A or B if you're not sure whether you're dealing with A or B. If there was a better way of categorizing these pictures while getting the same message across I would use it. The situation was clear: 9K33M2 and 9K33M3 are almost identical from the outside while both are different from the 9K33. I dare you to find a better name while still getting the same message across.

While I agree that in the past I may have gone a little bit overboard this time I definatly had legitimate and clear reasons for my actions.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it is only logical to say A or B and it is unlogical to create a vague double category if you are not able to say if it is A or B. On Commmons you do not create such "A or B" categories. Images that cannot be identified remain in the lower more general category. Here is such an example for automobiles. --High Contrast (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

While I do see your point I also have to point out that the situation here is different than in the case of Category:Lexus GS (2nd generation). 9K33 Osa is not a general name that could be safely used for all models of this SAM system as it is the name of its first version which is noticeably different, even to an average viewer, from the later versions.

Is this the perfect solution? No, but it is the best one I could think of while drawing a line between noticeably different variants.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We've been going in circles. Such "A or B" categories are not wanted on Commons. Let's start to restructure it: Of which Osa models do we have images on Commons? How many for OSA, OSA-M, OSA-AK, OSA-AKM? --High Contrast (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We have 4 pictures of 9A33B TELARs, 16 pictures of either the 9A33BM2 or 9A33BM3 TELARs, 30 pictures of the 9A33BM3 TELARs (I have located the IFF antenna that were fitted to most of the 9A33BM3 TELARs, it's the smaller antenna on top of the larger rotating one), 1 picture of the 9T217BM2 missile transporter and loader, 3 pictures of the 9M33M3 missiles as well as 1 picture of a model of a missile labeled as "SA-8 Missile" and 1 picture of Saman-M target drone. So that adds up to 4 pictures for OSA, 0 for OSA-M, 1 (9T217BM2) for OSA-AK, 33 for OSA-AKM, 16 for OSA-AK/OSA-AKM and 2 that don't fit into this categorization.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So, we will create categories sorted by these variants:

• Category:9K33 Osa
• Category:9K33M Osa-M
• Category:9K33M2 Osa-AK
• Category:9K33M3 Osa-AKM
• Category:Saman target drones (subcat Category:Saman-M target drones)
• Category:Missile transporter and loader 9T217BM2

• Category:9K33 Osa by country of service (subcat1 Category:9K33 Osa in Polish service ||| subcat2 Category:9K33M3 Osa-AKM in Polish service) and so on

Looks good? recategorization must be done. The "X or Y" category will be removed. Any objections? --High Contrast (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have some reservations about this plan:

1. What are you going to do about the pictures in case of which we can't tell with 100% certainty if they show the AK or the AKM version? Are you going to put them into Category:9K33M2 Osa-AK?

2. "9K33 Osa in Polish service" is not a good name because it would give the viewer the false impression that the Polish Army operated the first version of this SAM system while in reality Polish Army operated only the AK and AKM versions.

3. I would suggest keeping the separate categories for the TELARs. It will allow us to connect them to the BAZ-5937 category without any problems.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

1.They must be put in category 9K33 Osa, the initial model.

2.Not the best solution but better than "A or B"-categories which are not allowed here. Images that can be assigned for sure stay in Category:9K33 Osa in Polish service PLUS a remark in the category description clarifies any reminaing uncertainity.

3.Which categories do you suggest exactly? --High Contrast (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about Category:9A33B and Category:9A33BM3. I think keeping them around would be beneficial for the following reasons:

1. Category:9A33B can be placed without any problems into the Category:BAZ-5937 thus allowing people browsing through the pictures of BAZ vehicles to easily find their way to the relevant vehicles (9A33B TELAR and its modernized versions were based on BAZ-5937 and likewise 9T217B and its modernized versions were based on BAZ-5939),

2. It would allow us to clearly separate the 9A33B TELAR from the TELARs of AK/AKM versions.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually it should be categorized by missile system variant and not by the launch platform. I am aware of the advantages when you are categorizing it by TELAR. But this should not be the problem: we could create a single category apart from the OSA-variants. --High Contrast (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that while I do see your point I do have to point out that it becomes rather ridiculous when in order for your categorization to make sense you have to write descriptions explaining that what the pictures show may not be called what the category's name suggests. At least in my system the category's name is all a person needs to know what it contains.

I do wonder what would you do, for example, in case of Category:T-54/T-55 tanks. After all, it is a fact that there are at least some pictures of T-54 or T-55 tanks in case of which it is hard or impossible to distinguish them.

Anyway that's my two cents. I know I won't change your mind but I just wanted to point out my doubts about your system.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just restructured the Osa category. All concerns have been respected. The category "...in Polish service" should be enriched by a comment in Polish language which exact variant was/is used of the Polish armed forces. --High Contrast (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Bruno Alves PC-2012-06.jpg

Sorry, I didn't know that. Thanks, will do that in the future. Dudek1337 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The best would be you would insert these tags to all of your uploaded images. --High Contrast (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

About foto Sergey Aleinik.jpg

This foto as well as the rest of fotos was made by pree-service of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus. In case there are some problem, please contact us info@mfa.gov.by tel. +375 17 289 15 48. BelarusMFA (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)BelarusMFA

I have answered on your talk page. --High Contrast (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lefbevre

Hast du nach der Löschung geschaut wo das pic sonst noch verwendet wird?--Sanandros (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Warum sollte mich das interessieren? --High Contrast (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Weil es als "Redundant or duplicate: File:MajGenLefebvre.jpg" gelistet war.--Sanandros (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Und genau aus diesem Grund wurde es gelöscht. Zumal es zum Zeitpunkt des Löschens nicht verwendet wurde, sonst hätte ich es nicht gelöscht. --High Contrast (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Frage

Es gibt da Bilder im Internet, die der Rechteinhaber folgendermaßen freigibt: "Sie können meine Bilder () verwenden ......" unter der Angabe des Copyrights und der Angabe der Homepage des Rechteinhabers. Sind diese Bilder bei commons hochladbar? Die Quelle dazu fände sich dann hier [17] ganz unten. Servus, -- Stoabeissa (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Bitte hier auch mal schauen -- Stoabeissa (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Servus! Am einfachsten wäre es, wenn du ihm eine Email (uli@moesslang.net) schreibst. Wenn er sein ok gibt, dann ist es lupenrein. Zumal man gleich fragen könnte, ob er die Bilder auch in höherer Auflösung hat. --High Contrast (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Yutong ZK6119HA.JPG

Hi HC, in relation to File:Yutong ZK6119HA.JPG, which you closed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yutong ZK6119HA.JPG, I was asked to look at it, and I think the file should have been kept. The photo isn't a professional photo, and it looks like a holiday snap, and I couldn't find any instances of it elsewhere on the net which would indicate anything but {{Own}} photo by Serko. User:Lvova has done a lot of transfers from ruwp to Commons of locally uploaded files, and it is obvious that Serko is the photographer, and Lvova has simply transferred the file to Commons. The source of the photo would obviously be {{Own}}. Please look at it again, as I feel it should be undeleted. russavia (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hello, High Contrast. In addition I restored original ruwiki photo for you to see: ru:File:AT237.JPG. --Rave (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Rave. High Contrast as you can see from the ruwp link, "собственная работа" means "own work". The file should be undeleted. russavia (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. File of course restored. This information was not given in the Commons file. Though the IP tried to receive this information, the Commons User Lvora who transfered this file from ru:Wiki to Commons did not want to help. Sad enough that she wasted that important piece of info. Thanks again. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, but can I say that this really isn't on. As we can see Lvova is en-2, so this DR is a case of editors basically telling us what we need to know, but possibly being unable to due to language barriers. Please don't attack our editors like this. russavia (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is no attack but a reaction on her actions. I was telling facts. As you can see I am en-2, too. --High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

High Contrast, I am telling you that I read this as an unnecessary attack on an editor. To tell another editor not to be cheeky and then "You were not even able to understand what the problem was." shows that it is we at Commons who have failed in this instance. It is pretty clear from the discussion that the file was initially uploaded to ruwp by the author, and then transferred to Commons, and that everything was ok, with a minor fix to the source being required. I will inform Lvova to check her transfers to Commons, as she has basically stated she would be doing anyways, and will also inform her to be a little more COM:MELLOW -- as admins we should be like this anyway. Anyway, thanks for undeleting, the matter is now closed. russavia (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

All in all I remember rough words by you as well, which were far heavier. But yes, this has come to a good end at all. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ElCarbot

Imho you've gone too far when you blocked ElCarbot you also blocked the IP of El Caro... Kyro (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot because it was activated illegally. I did not block his IP, at least not deliberately. I strongly oppose a block of El Caro. My apologies for this cicumstance. --High Contrast (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The option blocking the IP is checked by default. Next time, be sure you uncheck it Kyro (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks for remembering. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Gloria Guida in Quella età maliziosa.jpg

You deleted the image before I had a chance to fix the description, and the license (which is fine). Please undelete the file. And next time leave the uploader some time to fix things before you delete stuff. Thanks. Bomazi (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We are talking of this image. It is a copyright violation. And per its source it is a "Screenshot film" ({{Screenshot film}}) and Ligabo is not the copyright holder of this file. No undeletion. --High Contrast (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a screenshot of an italian film made before 1976 and therefore in the public domain. It is the same situation as for example File:Ines Pellegrini - Gatti rossi in un labirinto di vetro.jpg. The license tag introduced by commons helper is incorrect. Just let me fix this. Bomazi (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is true what you say. File:Gloria Guida in Quella età maliziosa.jpg - here you got it back. Be sure to all relevant information so that this image can be kept. Regards and happy editing. --High Contrast (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ił-102

Probably was taken during the MosAeroshow in 1992 (author of the article mentions that it was the weirdest plane for the first time exhibited at the fair). Nemo5576 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks for bringing this information. The Mosaeroshow-92 was quasi the first MAKS airhow. Can you purchase more files of that show? Maybe from that book? --High Contrast (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Andreas Kuhnlein - Im Fluss - Besucherpark des Flughafens München.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. --NorbertNagel 09:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Two deletion requests

Hi! Could you please take a look at these two deletion requests: one and two? Both are about examples of copyright violation. First is active for more than three months. Second is new, but it is about a clear copyvio. Thanks in advance! Best regards, James R. Nockson (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Commons:Deletion requests/files by User:Artem Tkachenko:  Done; the other one could come to a good end, means no blatant copyright violation. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Gonna ask Russavia about his opinion. James R. Nockson (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Liberty State Park, Jersey City.jpg

File:Liberty State Park, Jersey City.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!

russavia (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Emirates A6-EDS on the runway in Munich 2012-05.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 picture; I suppose the loss of detail in the front wheels is due to motion. I would seriously consider removing the lamp in front of the nose, which should not be too difficult. -- Aisano 21:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I tried it but the results did not convince me. I think it shows a typical airport situation where this stuff is all around. --High Contrast 00:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Since you do not seem to reject the idea completely I uploaded a proposal. Feel free to revert to the original version. I support your nomination one way or the other. -- Aisano 18:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC). This ones better than my attempt of reworking it. Thanks for your support! --High Contrast 09:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ceramic tile roof in Germany, 2012.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 technical quality. --NorbertNagel 15:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss Ortenburg - Innenhof (2).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. --Cayambe 09:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Samora Machel photo

Hi, I was first puzzled by your edit to this file : now I think I understand the reason, but I'm afraid we just have to trust the uploader. If the image comes from a family archive (judging from the name of the author, which is given, she is probably related to one of the persons in the picture) I can't see how we can doubt its origin. I may try to locate and contact Moira Forjaz but it seems to be a waste of time as the origin is rather obvious. cheers, JJ Georges (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

the source information is not reliable. Please read COM:L in order to learn what valid sources are. Just having a photo in an archive does not mean that you can upload it where you want to under free licenses. By the way, it is very doubtful that the owner of this file is the copyright holder - mind thes low image resolution. Please ask him per Email for clarification - this would be no waste of time. Let's wait for a positive answer of the user and then we will remove the problem tag. --High Contrast (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to locate the presumed author, but I have no idea if I will succeed. The low resolution may mean that it is simply an old picture, taken by the uploader who is not a professional photographer. This is a bummer : imagine that a person happens to own an old picture, either taken by himself or, for example, by his father (which means that he owns the rights,being his inheritor) where a famous person appears, and wants to upload it on commons on good faith. Would we oppose that ? If the picture was not published anywhere by anyone and comes from a family archive, I don't see how we can find a problem with it, unless we don't assume good faith. I personally uploaded a few pictures that I had taken myself many years ago, and that weren't published anywhere except on my photo albums (i.e. : "Pictures created entirely by you ") : does that pose a problem ? I'm just perplexed. JJ Georges (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ask the uploader, please. I will not discuss "low-image"-point of views. We need a valid source statment. As I explained: a) the license is wrong, a self-CC license does not fit because it is not the uploader's own work. b) Just having an image does not allow you to upload it under a free license. And PD-old does not apply because it was taken in 1982. So, as ling as we do not have clarified this issue by a hopefully positive Email, until that we have "no source". --High Contrast (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Mig-29.JPG

Danke für die Aufmerksamkeit. Ich hatte mich in der Zeile verhaspelt. Jetzt müsste es passen. Danke und Gruß --Coradoline (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Kein Problem. Ich habe den "Quelle-fehlt"-Hinweis bereits entfernt. Danke für deine Bilder. Kannst du bitte statt "selbst geknipps" {{own}} als Quelle angeben? --High Contrast (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mach ich. Gruß --Coradoline (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! Viel Spaß beim Weiteren Werkeln. Bei Fragen/Problemen kannst du dich gerne an mich wenden. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Danke für dein Angebot. Ich behalte dich im Auge. Schönen Abend noch wünscht --Coradoline (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc Champs sur Marne perspective.jpg

Hello High Contrast,

Many thanks for your support vote of the picture above.

As requested by many other friends in FPC page, I've uploaded a reworked and cropped version of this picture, and nominated it as FP candidate, after withdrawing the previous nomination. Would you please be kind enough to have a look ? I'm interested by your opinion: do you feel it is an improvement ?

Thanks in advance, --Jebulon (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Nice image - I liked the previous version, too. I would not say that it is a significant improvement but just a different version - at minimum as good as the other, "older" one. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Festsaal im Fürstenbau der Brauerei Hacklberg (1).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. --JLPC 21:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Messrs Gay UK.jpg

I deleted your {{No permission since}} from this file since I feel that the matter is better handled using a deletion request and since I had already posted the deletion request before noticing your {{No permission since}} tagging. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Messrs Gay UK.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. Thanks for your notification. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Baghdad South Power Station - October 2003 - side view with the four chimneys.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Baghdad South Power Station - October 2003 - side view with the four chimneys.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Lymantria (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DB-Baureihe 111 - Elektrik.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. --Florstein 16:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Read me

	Read me
	Hi, I'm Lucas Altuzarra, sorry about the images. I always love to help Wikipedia, it's just I may don't know how to upload images. Please, it's not a bad thing what I'm doing, please, would you like to explain me?I'm from Argentina, and I don't understand the English well Lucas Altuzarra (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Panormaaufnahme des Münchener Flughafens, 2012.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. --Carschten 16:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LKW zur Kanalreinigung in Deutschland (1).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. --Poco a poco 13:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Excavator Samsung SE210 LC-3.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. --Cayambe 08:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ahlmann Loader in Germany.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. --NorbertNagel 21:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Munich Business School, June 2012.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. --Selbymay 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

How are you? Can you look this is may it be QI? Thank you!!! Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks, good! And you? Well, I doubt that this image could have chances for a QI-badge. Basically not very sharp and it major part of the fruit is overbrightened. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

COM:VP#Removal of original uploader information

Zur Kenntnis: Ich habe unsere Meinungsverschiedenheit dort erwähnt. --Leyo 06:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Vermutlich

stehe ich gerade auf der Leitung - das verstehe ich irgendwie nicht. Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lies dir bitte erst die verlinkte Seite durch. Danach solltest du nicht mehr auf der Leitung stehen ;-) High Contrast (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of picture Worlds Finest

Hi i dont understand your copyright violation I have letter with authors permission, if youd like i can send you bye. --

   פיוס השנים עשר 14:25 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I do not know of which image you are talking of. --High Contrast (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Kok Tobe in Almaty.jpg

File:Kok Tobe in Almaty.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!

84.61.164.191 19:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lula Mutharika (Cropped).JPG

The original image is in the public domain and, moreover, the cropped image has no violation of the copyrights. --Ângulo ótimo (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You did not have provided any licensing information when I tagged this image. This is your task when you upload images. BTW, I am perfectly aware of copyright infos on Commons. Please work more carefully in future. --High Contrast (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Connollystraße 31 - 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 quality. --Cayambe 08:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Suppression Vieux port cannes 02.jpg

Bonjour,

Je travaille pour la Direction des Ports de la Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie Nice Côte d'Azur, et nous sommes les gestionnaires des 4 ports départementaux de Cannes, Nice, Villefranche-Darse, et Golfe-juan.

Je vous contacte pour contester la suppression de cette photo, car elle nous appartient, j'ai moi même coupé la bannière signature pour éviter les problèmes de publicité dans nos articles Wikipédia.

Je vous demande donc de restaurer cette photo.

Pour justifier mes dires, je vous invite à consulter le lien suivant qui contient la visionneuse de nos photos aériennes : http://www.riviera-ports.com/Display.aspx?p=y&s=y&URL=/Mediatheque/SommaireThemes.ascx&menuitem=18201&type=1 (Catégorie: "Vues aériennes")

Bonne journée

Webmaster Riviera Ports (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sparkler in action.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 Useful and OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 21:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

NOAA and NASA ships

Hello High Contrast, you placed a move command on Category:Ships of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Category:Ships of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. While I don't understand the reasoning behind this move, since no reason was given and this is correct terminology (while a long name, this is not against any naming rules that I'm aware of), the suggested names seem fine, except for one thing. My main concern is that neither agency is referred to as "the NOAA" or "the NASA". Despite the expanded form of these names necessitating "the", the acronyms are typically treated as proper nouns in and of themselves, and do not need "the". I've fixed this on the categories themselves, but as I do not have access to User:CommonsDelinker/commands, I would ask that you please update that page so the bot moves to the better names. Thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Feel free to fix the "the"-problem but the short form is preferred. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've done so, but I'm only a trusted user, not an admin, so I cannot change the CommonsDelinker page (it's protected). If you could change the target names, I'd appreciate it. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done [18]. Thanks for your support. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Heinrich Klaffs Collection

Hello, could a de speaking admin please look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Can 1972 (Heinrich Klaffs Collection 102).jpg? Thank you very much. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Double uploading from Flickr

Why have you uploaded the same picture twice? Ain92 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite curious. Could be some flickrupload-error. One of them is deleted now. Thank you for your eagle-like eyes. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW 335i in Munich.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 Poco a poco 19:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DB-Baureihe 111 - Stromabnehmer (2).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. --Cayambe 12:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

CTI

the file contains no copyright, as it was released by the CTI, it is therefore of public interest. --DLeandroc (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bring some valid evidence. Your statement is highly doubtful. --High Contrast (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

When the CTI publishes photos, makes releasing copyright files, meaning that anyone can use the. So in any website you can find the photo. I ask you to withdraw the notice. --DLeandroc (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I ask you to bring some evidence for your "copyright"-free thesis. --High Contrast (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand.

The photo was published by the body. When the agency published photos, makes fighting copyright files, so anyone can own the file and requiring the use dller. Then there is no impediment. The file is free. --DLeandroc (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You obviously do not know what the word _evidence_ means. Your statements are worthless without any valid proof like a weblink which contains the licensing information you are talking of. Since this file can be found on several websites, you need to bring hard evidences for this file being really free in the sense of Commons. Read COM:L. --High Contrast (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm from Spanish Wikipedia, I can not translate what you tell me. --DLeandroc (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Has subido varias imágenes que son violaciones del copyright, ignorando nuestras peticiones en sentido contrario y nuestras instrucciones. Si no dejas de subir imágenes no libres, tu cuenta será bloqueada. Consulta Commons:Sobre las licencias para la política de copyright en Wikimedia Commons. Por favor déjame un mensaje si tienes otras preguntas. --High Contrast (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Te pido que comprendas que soy de Wikipedia en español y que me cuesta entender lo que se me dice. Si consideras necesario eliminar los archivos que he subido, no me opondre.

Pido que no se me bloqueé. Tendrá más en cuenta, traduciré lo que aquí se dice respecto a lo de subir archivos.

I ask you to understand I'm from Wikipedia in Spanish and I can not understand what I said. If you consider necessary to delete the files I uploaded, I will not object.

--DLeandroc (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Subiré un archivo más y tu me indicarás si lo hice o no bien. --DLeandroc (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Subí ese archivo File:Pistola funcionamiento.jpgFrom Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Jump to: navigation, search ¿Lo hice bien? --DLeandroc (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a copyright violation. Please do not upload copyright violations. --High Contrast (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Added the source, can i remove the "missing source" tag on the image? Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done; no-source-tag removed. Thanks for your help! --High Contrast (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File: Balochistan-Montage.jpg

Your placed deleted tag on this picture. Can you please help me in giving source to that picture? I created this montage my own. Toafzaal (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The collage was created out of other copyrighted files. Thus it is not really your own work. --High Contrast (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions & comments

Good day, High Contrast. Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Слика на Јане Сандански.JPG - there were no links to any Wikipedia article on the file, where was I supposed to look that I didn't? Also it looks to me like you are saying the image is no later than 1915 - which I think would make it impossible to be a Creative Commons image that dates to 2010, so the license and date are false - What am I missing? Thank you for your feedback.

Also regarding your comment on my talk page regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Korean Soldiers.jpg, you did not ask me any questions about that listing nor my interactions with the photographer, but if you have anything you wish to discuss, I would be happy to do so. It also looks to me like you are making some allegations about me that I hope can be resolved-- again, if you think appropriate I would welcome bringing this to the attention of others here if you think that might help. Thanks again for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You do not have to say "thank you" for my work here. Regards and happy editing, High Contrast (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cigarette smuggling with a book.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 DoF is relatively small, but OK for QI, I think. --NorbertNagel 16:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mariä Heimsuchung (Schwanthalerhöhe, München).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. --Taxiarchos228 22:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

These 22 Images from Archaeowiki

Dear Admin High Contrast, The archaeowiki web site is now dead but I was wondering...can you not certify that the 22 images from these web site were all licensed freely as 'CC BY GENERIC"?

In 2009, you accused the uploader Tedmek here of uploading copyright violations. But Tedmek simply replied, please look at the source link to see the license. Apparently you must have since no images that were tagged were ever deleted. So, the images must have been licensed freely on archaeowiki as cc by. This is the pjcowie who says archaeowiki was his web site. Same person here Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• PS: This is his wiki account. These 22 images were uploaded in 2009 and the license cannot be withdrawn if you saw it was cc by generic in 2009. Since he is a scholar, he likely could taken these images at museums in Britain and France...and possible in the Cairo Museum in Egypt although I am not sure about the one in Egypt...but its only used in 1 wiki page and can be deleted. The point is I look at Tedmak's talkpage page history and I see no evidence of any copyright violations--only 1 warning and then Tedmak says please look at the source...and the issue is resolved in 2009 apparently. Tedmak looks reliable to me. I have to go now and work as I have some projects in the next few days. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not optimal when you come to clear any licensing problems after 3 years have passed. I fear I cannot help you. Unfortunately the only valid source that could help is gone and this dubious username specualtions on various homepages cannot really reliable. Sorry. As you can see quite easy: Tedmek did not provide any valid source information (see this tag {{Bsr}} for more information). That was and is the problem. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I thought that you had seen the license. Someone would have for these images to be here. But its too late I guess. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I could not find these images back then because there was this insufficient source. If there was a better source statement, I could have helped. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: Do you recall this image from Archaeowiki:
• File:Gold plaque Amenemhet IV Byblos.jpg

Its resolution is 600 X 600 pixels. I just found it on this British Museum web page here with the same resolution where it says the license is '© Trustees of the British Museum.' This other image and the text in this second image comes from this British Museum site..."almost word for word" and it was Tedmek who typed in those words. Perhaps it may be better to just delete all 21 of the 22 images from archaeowiki. Unfortunately, I am also very busy with work today in Vancouver and I am not familiar with mass deletions but maybe you know what to do. It may be the safer route to go legally for Commons. But it is your decision. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Only this image can be kept below because its pd-Art: a 3,500 year old papyrus:
• File:Rhind Mathematical Papyrus.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedřich Smetana monument.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. --Poco a poco 21:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Archaeowiki

I filed three individual DRs on 3 archaeowiki images here , here and here mostly from the British Museum only. The last image was Not uploaded by Tedmek. You could consider filing a mass DR on the other archaeowiki images except this one here: File:Rhind Mathematical Papyrus.jpg. I had assumed good faith at first...but I am not sure now since some of the images come from the British Museum web site. But should one give a 'free pass' to archaeowiki images from the Louvre Museum or Cairo Museum? This is the problem when a web site dies and there is no Admin or trusted user to create a template for its existence...so that there are no copyright difficulties.

• On the other hand, it looks like Tedmek knows what he is doing since he uploaded an image here from the Egypt Archive web site which is now also dead. But Egypt Archive's images were all licensed copyright free by John Bodsworth. I told MGA73 to create a template for it when it was taken offline in early 2011 and MGA73 could see the original copyright free license on the Internet wayback link in March 2011....which now no longer works. We both edited the Egypt Archive template, too. So, does one maybe designate Tedmek as 'trusted' on the other archaeowiki image uploads and should I cancel my image DR requests? What do you think I should do...let sleeping dogs lie on the archaeowiki images?

• File:Abydos seti 16 det2.JPG from Egypt Archive uploaded by Tedmek

--Leoboudv (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Der Gesteinskreislauf.svg

Lieber HighContrast, dein Revert ist mir unverständlich.

1. ist die Graphik eindeutig von Inkscape, wohin ich sie umkategorisiert habe.
2. ist Manually coded SVG eine Metakategorie, in der einzelne Dateien nicht aufscheinen sollen.
3. was ist nun daran "not true"? Von dir als Admin hätte ich Vernünftigeres erwartet.
4. Viel sinnvoller wäre es, diesen Red pog.svg richtig umzkategorisieren (zB "HandSVG|3=V"), denn die Datei ist (auch unverständlicherweise) gegen Bearbeiten gesperrt. Wozu ich dich nun offiziell ersuche.

Freundliche Grüsse, -- sarang♥사랑 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lieber Sarang. Es ist nicht wahr, dass ich diese Grafik mit Inkscape bearbeitet/erstellt o.ä. habe. Wie die Kategorie "Manually coded SVG" angibt, wurde genau diese Datei, von der wir sprechen, manuell "umgeschrieben". Das Programm Inkscape war zu keinem Zeitpunkt an der Erstellung dieser Datei involviert. --High Contrast (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Da bin ich mir aber ganz sicher dass du dich irgendwie irrst. Wenn nicht Inkscape, dann war meinetwegen Sodipodi heftig involviert, jedenfalls beginnt das Coding mit

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!-- Created with Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/) -->
<svg
   xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
   xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
   xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
   xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
   xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
   xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
   xmlns:sodipodi="http://sodipodi.sourceforge.net/DTD/sodipodi-0.dtd"
   xmlns:inkscape="http://www.inkscape.org/namespaces/inkscape"
   width="886.71429"
   height="698.14282"
   id="svg2"
   sodipodi:version="0.32"
   inkscape:version="0.46"
   version="1.0"
   sodipodi:docbase="C:\Documents and Settings\moi\Bureau"
   sodipodi:docname="cyclus_gesteenten.svg"
   inkscape:output_extension="org.inkscape.output.svg.inkscape"
   sodipodi:modified="true">
  <sodipodi:namedview
     id="base"
     pagecolor="#ffffff"
     bordercolor="#666666"
     borderopacity="1.0"
     inkscape:pageopacity="0.0"
     inkscape:pageshadow="2"
     inkscape:zoom="0.49497475"
     inkscape:cx="398.14094"
     inkscape:cy="344.72774"
     inkscape:document-units="px"
     inkscape:current-layer="layer1"
     width="1052.3622px"
     height="744.09448px"
     inkscape:window-width="1024"
     inkscape:window-height="726"
     inkscape:window-x="322"
     inkscape:window-y="106"
     showguides="true"
     inkscape:guide-bbox="true"
     showgrid="false" />
  <defs
     id="defs4">
    <inkscape:perspective
       sodipodi:type="inkscape:persp3d"
       inkscape:vp_x="0 : 349.07141 : 1"
       inkscape:vp_y="0 : 1000 : 0"
       inkscape:vp_z="886.71429 : 349.07141 : 1"
       inkscape:persp3d-origin="443.35715 : 232.71427 : 1"
       id="perspective98" />

und geht so weiter, 598 Zeilen und 26 Kb, der typische Inkscape-Müll.

Natürlich können auch mir Fehler unterlaufen, aber sicher werde ich nicht leichtfertig umkategorisieren.
Nimmst du bitte die fragwürdige Sperre des Red pog.svg raus, oder machst du den catcorr ? Gruss, -- sarang♥사랑 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Brorrado de imagen

La imágen marca de ron fue tomada por mi, yo misma con mi cámara, ¿por qué dices que tiene derecho de autor?. D vsquez (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You are not the author of this file. Please read COM:DW. Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz Citaro Bus in Munich-Pasing.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 -- MJJR 21:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Cu

Hi, kannst du meine Version wiederherstellen mit dem Noindex. Habe recht wenig Lust, mich so über Google finden zu lassen. Insbesondere weil mich manche Leute unter Echtnamen und Pseudonym kennen. Bei der Seite geht schon überhaupt kein Problem aus, da dadurch inhaltlich nichts geändert wird. Gruß, alofok 23:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Normalerweise gälte gleiches Recht für alle, aber bei dir möge ich ein Auge zusammenkneifen. Grüßle, High Contrast (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ach ja - bitte um Angabe des Links und keinen Quatsch mehr. --High Contrast (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dead trees in Bavaria and Czechia.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. -- JLPC 07:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Woman, Bolonia beach, 2010.jpg

File:Woman, Bolonia beach, 2010.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!

Welt-der-Form (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Forest dieback on Rachel mountain, 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 QI for me. -- JLPC 17:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bahnhof München-Pasing, 2012.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. --Bgag 22:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maria Rosenkranzkönigin in Pasing.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. -- JLPC 21:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zollbus VW T1 from 1962.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 Fine image! --Kreuzschnabel 06:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

re: deletion

Hello, you arbitrarily deleted several images that indeed are my own work. Feel free to restore them, or I can go about the arduous task of re-uploading them. Archivist1174 (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The deletion request that was launched by User:LX was open for over one week. Why didn't you provide your delightful thoughts there within that time? Deletion requests are there in order to clear such issues. --High Contrast (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kirche Maria Schutz in München-Pasing.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 Agree, I tried it myself Poco a poco 19:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Waldschmidthaus (1).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 now.. --Cayambe 18:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

SIRPA

Hi.

Here is a page where you can actually answer the question rather than split hairs on template usage: Commons:Deletion requests/SIRPA Terre. Badzil (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Already answered there. But you do not provide good reasons. --High Contrast (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo usage

Hello :-)

I just wanted to say "Thank you very much" for your picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salt_lake_Baskunchak_in_Astrakhan_Oblast_%28panoramic%29.jpg

My name is Daniel, i used that picture in my little "travel around the world" puzzle game for android.

When a player sees your image (when completing a level) there is a short sentence describing the location visible on your panorama and also you are credited directly as "Photographer". Hopefully you are fine with that, if you want any changes please contact me directly. :-)

2012-08-09 User Sirleto / Wikipedia User:SirLeto

Hi! It is ok! Thank you for your notification.Feel free to use my image. Can I have a free account for your app? Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! It is free as of now, feel free to go ahead and download it (c: --Daniel/Sirleto

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Forest dieback on Rachel mountain -09.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. --Cayambe 11:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaiserherberge - Inschrift für Don Juan de Austria.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. --Cayambe 06:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Gabriele pauli.jpg

Ist es wirklich eine gute Idee ein Bild auf Zuruf ohne DR, das auch noch benutzt wurde und gar nicht so schlecht war zu löschen obwohl du weißt, dass es ärger geben könnte. Warum schreibst du nicht den wahren Grund? --Isderion (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mal sehen, welche neuen Info diesbzgl. eintreffen. Ein Löschgrund ist angegeben. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Vladimir Shamanov. Cabinet photo.jpg

This one is already promoted. Regards! --Ivar (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know who supported this image but the promoter did obviously not look close enough. --High Contrast (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Johann Eustach von Görtz Denkmal in Regensburg.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. --JLPC 22:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DB-Baureihe 111 - Stromabnehmer (1).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. --JDP90 11:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marktplatz von Aidenbach in Niederbayern.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. --Coyau 08:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bauernkämpfer-Statue in Aidenbach, 2012.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 Good quality. --JLPC 06:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Danke

Hallo High Contrast! Danke für das Kategorisieren der von mir hochgeladenen Bilder. lg Darkweasel94 (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Bitteschön - nur eine Kleinigkeit meinerseits. Gruß und viel Spaß beim weiteren Editieren! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Transfer to commons

Hi mate, I have to ask for your help, if you have time. I've uploaded image to SR wiki, here. Would like to transfer it to commons, if possible, with the same license. Also, I've made M-60 APC image here but I would like to further improve that image, but also transfer it to commons - since there are no many M-60 APC images. Will work out RPG rockets as well, probably, sort of chart/diagram. Thank you in advance and keep up the good work. --Aleksej fon Grozni (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Are these images your own creations? Do you have the first one in a higher resolution? --High Contrast (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are. I did save for web, for the first one (animation). Since GIF creates rather big files I did that to preserve space. I have PSD files as well, with all layers in it. Can send it in if required. Second one I made drawing with this photo as an inspiration. For the background I have used some photo of landscape from commons with free to use for any work without limitation license. I have more works/animations done already, you can check them out here. Also made this animation in Maya, for Ju-87, however, it turned out to be too heavy a bit :(. Doing this graphic work from time to time, part of my profession and quite interesting thing to do :). --Aleksej fon Grozni (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The animation is good. Thanks for that. But there could be a problem with this image because it is a derivative work - redrawings fall under this topic. --High Contrast (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahaaa, thanks for the info. To be honest, I did not know, if redrawing a picture in Photoshop is ok or not, guess it's not ok since it uses same perspective, position, plan etc. Will see to change it a lot, to see if it can be rotated, changed perspective. If not, will ask our admins on SR wiki to delete it, shouldn't create problems for item of such a small importance. Thanks for the help and info. --Aleksej fon Grozni (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. I will move the animation to Commons. And after the image has been recreated, it can be transferred to Commons, too. --High Contrast (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done File:Kumulativnimlazanimacija.gif --High Contrast (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much mate. You've helped me a lot. I am glad Wiki has got good admins like you, willing to help others. I will let you know when other image is done, to be transferred to commons. Best regards --Aleksej fon Grozni (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you wish to transfer more animations from sr.Wiki to Commons? --High Contrast (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it would be great to transfer these files:

• Panavia Tornado wing animation
• G-4 Supergaleb Render
• Su-27's firing AA-10 missiles render
• G-4 Superglebs flying over ocean render
• Ju-87 Stuka dive bomb animation
• Armored warfare tactics between WWI and WWII
• Blitzkrieg tactics of armored warfare
• Stuka dive bombing technique

I hope it's not too much. Have to start uploading images to commons directly instead of uploading on SR wiki. Thank you in advance. --Aleksej fon Grozni (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have recently transferred these animations [19], [20], [21], [22]. Nevertheless, the other ones ([23], [24], [25], [26]) cannot yet be transferred because there is the same problems that I have already described above (COM:DW). Especially this one causes problems because you did not provide any licensing information of the Tornado-photograph on which this animation is based on. The other images contain likely copyrighted images od aircraft - more detailed info is needed in order to varify that the aircraft images are free enough to be published under a free CC-license. Please help to clarify it so that we can move it to Commons (In the meantime you should also correct the license info on sr.Wiki). Thanks for your contributions. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate. Thank you for transferring those images to the commons. These images ([27], [28], [29] are 3D renders of my models from Maya. Glad that they look so real. I am professional 3D modeler and game designer, I can always do more renders from different angles to show these are my works. Tornado, however, is derivative work of this file, I was asked from more advanced user on SR wiki to make animation, did not think it was required to put info since file is in public domain (learned new lesson, thank you). Hope it solves the problem. And again, thank you for your effort and contributions on wiki and keep up with good work. Wanted to ask you, if you run into any photo of Yugoslav army from 1998. or 1999. that can be used on Wikipedia to let me know - I am writing one article there that can become good one, lack photos really.--Aleksej fon Grozni (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this essential information. I have just transferred the other files, too. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work mate. Thank you for helping me out and transferring files to commons and for clarification of some rules I was not aware of. Best regards --Aleksej fon Grozni (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Palácio Quitandinha, Petrópolis.jpg

Dear "High Contrast",

I should like to inform you that I have used your image uploaded on wikimedia commons in my book „Nur wer tot ist, geht kein Risiko mehr ein“ a history of 20th century casino gambling, published at the German Libri Bod, ISBN: 978-3-8448-0977-0, page 519. Thank you for making the work available.

Yours faithfully

Henry Lohner, Munich, Germany --Zenwort (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC) User: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Zenwort

Danke für die Info, aber das Bild wurde nicht von mir erstellt, sondern vom [www.flickr.com flickr-user] "Rodrigo Soldon" von Rio de Janeiro. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Setra S416GT-HD bus from Slovakia.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. --Taxiarchos228 20:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Gemini facility, Mauna Kea, Hawaii.jpg

File:Gemini facility, Mauna Kea, Hawaii.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!

Denniss (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Don Juan de Austria monument in Regensburg.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. --Cayambe 12:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Woman is sitting on a toilet.jpg

File:Woman is sitting on a toilet.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!

68.173.113.106 19:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ehemalige Johanniterkirche St. Leonhard, Regensburg.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 Excellent, I hope you changed the numbers on the plates --Moroder 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. I did not receive any requests or instructions "not to do so", and I did not "done so despite" the requests or instructions, which I haven't even seen. What exactly did you mean? – George Serdechny 13:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Instructions? Requests? What do you mean? --High Contrast (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'd like to ask you about, You wrote at my talkpage: "You have uploaded several files that are copyright violations and you have done so despite our requests not to do so, and despite our instructions". I can tell you with all the confidence in the world, that I did not receive any requests, nor did I receive any instruction. E-mails are included. – George Serdechny 13:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You have uploaded lots of copyright violations in the past. You seem not to remember. With requests all kinds of deletion requests on Commons are ment. --High Contrast (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I put the {{LicenseReview}} tag to all the uploads I made. To every and each of them, in order to prove my fair intents. After one user decided that it's not enough, I start discussing my new uploads with trusted user on a full-time basis. And, again, I really do not remember any requests and instructions "not to do so." Not to put LicenseReview tag, or stop consulting with the competent fellow, Trycatch really is? – George Serdechny 14:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for notifying. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean "peace man?" – George Serdechny 14:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not have personal discords with Wikipedia users but you seem to have seen a big problem. The main problem in the DR remains . we must solve that. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a big deal, huh. What I'm trying to say, is that just a few minutes before you point me out that "the problem is not the bunch of DRs but your DR-uploads," i.e. the problem is with me. And "Yes," doing all that check+description+license+review+consultation work, I really don't like such an approach, when smb comes around and says that the problem is with me. I hope, I made it clear enough to you. Regards. – George Serdechny 14:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that there is a difference in criticising a person and criticising a person's work. I was not criticising you as a person in any moment. Please make that clear to others where you may have pointed out different things. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Schloss Ortenburg - Renaissance-Holzdecke der Kapelle (2).JPG

Hallo High Contrast!

Bist Du dir sicher, dass das Bild jetzt rotiert ist? Bei mir wird es immernoch in der selben Ansicht gezeigt. Sag mal, hast Du vielleicht noch andere Bilder von Schloss Ortenburg? Vielleicht Außenansichten? Beste Grüße --Ortenburger 鼠 18:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Ortenburger! Vorher zeigt die (mittlerweile immer öfter fehleranfällige) Wiki-Software ein rotiertes Bild an - jetzt nicht mehr. Ich habe den rotation-tag wieder gesetzt. Mal sehen was passiert. Das kriegen wir schon hin - das Drehen des Bildes ist ja auch sinnvoll.
Bilder der Außenansicht habe ich nicht, zumindest keine, die ich hier hochladen möchte. Vielleicht komme ich die nächsten Wochen erneut durch Niederbayern und vlt. auch durch Ortenburg. Hast du keine Fotos in petto? Ortenburger = Bewohner Ortenburgs? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hallo High Contrast. Nur keinen Stress, das mit dem Bild wird schon klappen. Bin nur überrascht, dass es da Probleme mit der Wiki-Software gibt. Kannte ich bisher gar nicht.
Außenansichten vom Schloss habe ich leider nicht. Höchstens ein paar ergänzende Innenansichten. Viel gibt's da aber nicht wirklich. Hab eh erst neulich Bilder der Marktkirche samt Unterkategorien hochgeladen. Sind zwar auch nicht die Beste Qualität, aber was solls.
Ich bin ehemaliger Bewohner Ortenburgs. ;c)
Mal eine allgemeine Frage an einen Admin, kann man das hier hochladen oder nicht? Denn auf der Ursprungsseite steht nirgends was von Public Domain. Urheberrecht ist natürlich keines mehr drauf, aber ggf. Eigentumsreche? Beste Grüße --Ortenburger 鼠 07:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ja, diese Datei ist natürlich hochladbar. Es handelt sich zwar um einen "Scan" Europeana (?), aber der erfolgte wirklichkeitsgetreu gemäß der Vorlage. Somit kann/soll dieser {{PD-art}} verwendet werden. Die Abbildung selbst ist natürlich ausreichend alt um PD-old zu sein. Alles ok. Bei vorhandener Zeit kannst du dich gerne aufmachen die Datei hochzuladen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, ich wollte eine neue gedrehte Version hochlafen, aber es heißt seit gestern Abend die Datei bzw. die Datenbank ist inkonsistent. Kurzum kann man da noch was ändern ider is das Bild nun korrupt? Oder hat der Bot nun seine Finger drauf? Nur das is doch schon seit gestern. Sehr seltsam. LG --Ortenburger 鼠 09:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Um dieser Sache die Aufmerksamkeit zu entziehen, habe ich das Bild nun korrekt gedreht und manuell neu hochgeladen. Hier ist es - auf Wiki habe ich natürlich den Bilderwechsel vollzogen. So haben wir der trägen Software ein Schnippchen geschlagen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hallo High Contrast. Nur kurz nochmal wegen dem Stich des Grafen. Er entstammte dem niederländischen Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. Nur wie müsste ich das in den umfangreichen Category-Baum einbauen? So recht durchblicke ich den leider nicht. Weist du an wen ich mich da ggf. wenden könnte? Beste Grüße --Ortenburger 鼠 13:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Das kriegen wir schon hin. Lade die Datei einfach hoch (mit entsprechend vollständigen Quelleninfos) und steck sie erstmal in die Category:Ortenburg. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, hab deine Antwort erst jetzt gesehen. Datei ist schon oben und einsortiert. Danke auf alle Fälle. Beste Grüße --Ortenburger 鼠 18:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! JCB compact excavator.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. --Poco a poco 06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hüttschlag - Friedhof vor der Pfarrkirche.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 I like it --Poco a poco 06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sonnenuntergang in Niederbayern.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, i like it. --Ralf Roletschek 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)  Comment May be that it is nice. But what is the profit for encyclopedia? -- Lothar Spurzem 00:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)it can illustrate some articles (Gegenlicht, Dunst,...), we can use it at wikibooks or wikiversity Ralf Roletschek 22:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Or it can be used for the Wikipedia-article en:Sunset (including all language versions) --High Contrast 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Forest dieback on Rachel mountain -08.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. schöner Bildaufbau --Ralf Roletschek 03:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hanomag Brillant 700 - Oldtimerumzug Aidenbach 2012 (2).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 would crop out the two persons on the far right, that would move the tractor out of center as well, making the image look more dynamic --Kreuzschnabel 18:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, those guys do annoy. I cropped them away. Thanks for your notification. --High Contrast 00:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC) QI for me now --Kreuzschnabel 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nebentür, Sankt Johannes der Täufer 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stauwehr des Kraftwerks Kachlet.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.--ArildV 05:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Onjoly

I've nuked this user's uploads, as they all looked like they were obviously tv screenshots and internet grabs. INeverCry 19:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think we both worked on this User's contribs. As far as I see I was a few seconds faster than you ;) --High Contrast (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

First I click block, and he's already blocked; then, thinking I'm really slick, I click nuke... and they're already nuked. I just can't win... When that nuke finished in just a couple seconds, I knew something was amiss. INeverCry 20:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Make assurance double sure! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Off-road automobile in Munich.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. --King of Hearts 22:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Turbinenhaus, Laufwasserkraftwerk Kachlet.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. --Taxiarchos228 09:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Paradox12.jpg & File:Phantom10.jpg

This 2 images have not been marked by Admin Materialscientist for almost 2 days and I notice now that the uploader has a bad history with copright violations from his/her talkpage. The uploader has continued uploading some more images from his/her flickr own account. Its hard to say if they are own work unfortunately. Good faith only goes so far in this case. I don't know if you would even want to mark these 2 images...or what one would do with the other images the uploader placed here from his/her own flickr account. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my late respone. The best would be to start a DR, then we will see if the author helps us to keep this images. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nebel unterhalb des Lusen-Gipfels.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 quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altes Rathaus in Deggendorf, Bayern.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 --Iifar 06:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stadtplatz von Deggendorf -04.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. --Ralf Roletschek 00:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! City museum of Deggendorf, 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 Good quality. --Enamo 22:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZRK Sosna.jpg

Image deleted because of "Scale models are copyrighted: this one needs the permission of the author who must confirm this free license". Now take a look to Category:AFV scale models. No permissions was requested from authors of those models. So, why that images aren't deleted from Commons? Best regards, Smell U Later (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that situation which shows an inconsistent picture of this collection. Nevertheless, our licensing policy requires such a deletion (COM:DW). Have a look here: File:Derivative Works Decision Tree.svg. If any questions are remained feel free to ask. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked same question to User:Alex Spade, and that he answered:

I would try to apply for recovery. Personally for me, the phrase "Scale models are copyrighted" - it is not clear. I see that this thesis is used periodically. There is even an essay commons: User: NVO / Wikihistory of scale models. Each model (where soneone is original - for there model is original) are not original - and the originality and creativity of the mandatory conditions for copyright (and it is through the word "and" not "or"). It is a fictional object? Yes, they are protected - there are examples of American, And Russian practice - as protected by the first principle. But for models of real objects to look original. If this thesis (Scale models are copyrighted) as applied to real-world models are utilitarian or the copyright has a feature american right objects (such as the arrest of Nazi works), then I see no reason for him not to mention the fact that will be specific to the American models (just as if it will not be proved for other countries, or at least to the Berne Convention)

Now who's right? I see, that there is no clear kosensus, but image was deleted. Best regards, Smell U Later (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not interested what Alex Spade said. COM:DW is quite clear with such issues. And by the way, there is a consensus about this, unfortunately some do not know anything about it. --High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, when time comes, i will nominate all photos of the scale models for deletetion, good luck. Best regards, Smell U Later (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind: not every scale model is a violation of COM:DW - e.g. is one model very old (for example PD-old applies), the creator is not known (PD-anon could apply) or the creator himself published it here, it has to be kept. --High Contrast (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You are saying "COM:DW is quite clear with such issues". Not exactly. COM:DW (in section COM:TOYS) is quite clear with toys based on fictional characters, fictional starships or other copyrighted object. There are not words about toys based on uncopyrightable object (like car or train). Alex Spade (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking of toys. And I think you misunderstood something. But, you can ask James with it is about scale models. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. If I haven't understood you, plz, cite (or link to) section from COM:DW which is clear with such issues by your opinion. COM:DW is too large for reasking in every section. Alex Spade (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Kubanischer Tanklastwagen

• 
  kein KrAZ?
• 
  KrAZ-219
• 
  KrAZ-256
• 
  KrAZ-257
• 
  KrAZ-258

Würdest du bitte in der Bildbeschreibung ergänzen, warum der rote Tankwagen kein KrAZ sein soll, obwohl er typische Merkmale (Motorhaube mit Schriftug, Kotflügel, Fußtritt mittig unter der Stoßstange, Position des Tanks …) aufweist? Die nichtgeteilte Frontscheibe könnte ein Indiz sein, dass hier mehrere Fahrzeuge zu einem fahrtüchtigen LKW zusammengebaut wurden oder ein Stellmacher das Fahrerhaus überarbeitet hat, aber prinzipiell sehe ich hier einen KrAZ. --32X (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hier läuft eine Diskussion bzgl. der Identifikation des Fahrzeugs. Vielleicht weißt du, dass die "alten" KrAZ-LKW Kopien US-amerikanischen Diamond-T-LKW waren/sind. Kleinste Abweichungen können recht schnell zu einem völlig anderen Hersteller führen. Warte auf das Ergebnis der ru.wiki Benutzer. Keine Panik. Ohne Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

File:OMG spitfire! what a great photo.jpg

Hi, könntest Du die obige Datei umbenennen, etwa in "Spitfire VI No 124 Sqn at North Weald c1942" oder so, ich meine "Oh My God Spitfire! what a great photo" ist eigentlich unsinnig. Abgesehen davon könnte man so ja jedes Foto nennen, was einem gefällt! Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Du hast völlig Recht.  Done --High Contrast (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Suppi, war ja schneller, als die Polizei erlaubt!!! Cobatfor (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Gerne doch! --High Contrast (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church tower detail, Heilig-Grabkirche St. Peter und St. Paul.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. --Cayambe 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stadtplatz von Deggendorf -02.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 nice. --King of Hearts 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)  Comment My impression: Too much pavement, little contrast, leaning tower, many delivery-vans -- Lothar Spurzem 00:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! North tract, Main Custom Office in Munich.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. --Ralf Roletschek 12:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glass dome of the Main Custom Office in Munich.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.--ArildV 13:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Babel user

Hallo! D-2 or D 4 ? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Babel user

Hallo! D-2 or D 4 ? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Image transfer from Wikipedia to Commons

Hola,

Gracias por informarme sobre una herramienta que desconocía. La utilizaré en la siguiente oportunidad. Un cordial saludo: --Raimundo Pastor (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glaskuppel des Hauptzollamts München.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. --NorbertNagel 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theophiluslondoncropped.jpg

Hi, can you have a look at this image [30], please? 88.64.116.15 04:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Franklin 2 (2) (3) (1).jpg

If you can make out the river and Lake Winnipeg in this old map from the given source, then feel free to flickrpass it. I am not 100% sure here but the image on Commons may have been cropped from the original flickr source. Thank You Admin High Contrast, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! This image should be PD-old. No need to check its Creative Commons license. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: I know that Pd-Old could apply to it. I was just concerned 1. that no one marked this image for several days and 2. I wasn't 100% sure if the image was from the flickr source. It looks like it was cropped from the flickr source but with these old maps, I wasn't sure. So, I felt I needed guidance from an Admin here. Thank You for your analysis and best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Unidentified military trailer.jpg

Ist ein Bootsanhänger zum Transport von "M-Boot groß". Zuletzt im Einsatz beim Land/Wasserübungsplatz des Pionierbataillon 140. Der Koffer gehört da eigentlich nicht drauf. -- Steinbeisser (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Perfekt! Kannst du das bei der Bildbeschreibung hinzufügen? Gruß High Contrast (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

mach ich doch glatt -- Steinbeisser (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Merci bien. --High Contrast (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

j'ai vous en prie -- Steinbeisser (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Haupteingang, Hauptzollamt München.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. --Ralf Roletschek 10:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Building construction in Jordan (3).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. --JLPC 21:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! The towers of Regensburg.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. --Ralf Roletschek 10:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Varig cnf.jpg

If you know it's a copyright violation, please feel free to delete it. I just moved it over from en.wikipedia. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It'll happen. --High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ÖBB 1142.621-0, Hauptbahnhof 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 Good quality. --Cayambe 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Verschiebung der Leo-2-Cat

Hi! Ich hatte da ein bestimmtes System im Auge, weil ich die Kategorien nicht zu weit runterbrechen wollte, z.B. wollte ich die Zwischenstufen MBT bzw. Medium tank, Light Tank usw. einsparen. Du hast die Kategorie jetzt auf ein bestimmtes Modell eingegrenzt, den 2A4. Was ist, wenn demnächst mal ein 2A5 oder eine der anderen Varianten dazukommt? --Markscheider (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Deine Ursprüngliche Kategoriekreation war in der A4-Kategorie, weshalb deine Museumskategorie ruhig diese Präzisierung verdient. Sollte irgendwann ein Leo2A5 im Museum stehen machen wir das gleiche wie bei der A4-Museums-Kat, nur dass wir diese dann in A5-Kategorie im Leo2-Schema einsetzen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ja, schon klar, das kann man so oder so sehen. Ich wollte halt bei den MBTs das MBT im Namen der Kat haben, so wie bei den anderen "tank" steht, damit man bereits in der Category:Tanks in the Panzermuseum Munster eine Übersicht erhält. --Markscheider (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dieses "tank" ist mehr als Überflüssig und ist eigentlich das Resultat einer privaten Einzelmeinung eines bestimmten Benutzers auf Commons, der meinte, dies sei nötig. Ist es aber nicht. --High Contrast (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ich werd mich darum nicht streiten. Ändere die Kategorien, wenn Du meinst, es sei nötig. --Markscheider (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Gestritten wird hier sowieso nicht. --High Contrast (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pleinting power station - administration building.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. --Myrabella 07:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

at yor service

Category:KET-T in Technical museum Togliatti ShinePhantom (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you for your contributions. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Politischen Aschermittwoch in Vilshofen an der Donau - Strauß.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. --Poco a poco 08:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Scicli (Sicilia) 2010 066.jpg

Es: Hola, lo siento no tengo una versión de mayor resolución la que subí fue una foto de un viaje y cuando la tome no era parte de este proyecto, lo tendré en cuanta a futuro. Saludos.

En: Hello, sorry I have a higher resolution version which got was a photo from a trip and when the take was not part of this project, I'll keep in mind for the future. Greetings.--Veronidae (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hola! ¡Muchas gracias! --High Contrast (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MAN Postbus in Österreich.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 Bit bright, but ok. --Mattbuck 12:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View over Český Krumlov in 2012.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 composition  Request geotag --Moroder 07:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)  Done --High Contrast 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Door of a run-down building in Český Krumlov.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.  Request geotag --Moroder 07:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)  Done --High Contrast 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mobilbagger SCHAEFF HML 42.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. --Coyau 17:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Tango España-1982.jpg, File:Tango-1978.jpg & File:Teamgeist-2006.jpg

Are these 3 images of official FIFA footballs in this category OK to pass? Or copyright violations/derivatives? I am not sure if they are even own work by the flickr account owner. Just that no one seems to want to mark them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But have you find the same image on the web (eventually in a higher resolution)? If no, please start a regular DR. If yes speedy them. In both cases I'll handle this. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK. You'll handle this case. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Small remark

Thank you for downloading images from the ruwiki to the Commons. Small remark: in Russian "собственная работа" duplicates {{Own}} (text in "Source", if Russian in preferences: собственная работа, собственная работа). NBS (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I am aware of that. I know that it is redundant. I only did that for documentation. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz Axor based cement mixer truck.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. --Kreuzschnabel 01:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olympic Village in Munich in June 2012.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. --Cayambe 09:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bahnhofstraße 3; Vilsvorstadt 23.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. --Mattbuck 15:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

About images deletion on page "Sarina Maskey" and "Supriya Maskey"

Dear High Contrast,

Whats the problem in those images? Please could you assist me to do so. They are my own work and how can i overcome with these violation. Can you please suggest me? I am new to uploading those images. If you could help me with appropriate rule then i would do according. I have those pics on my laptop. Please help me out. .. Reply Binod.hyoju (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Do you talk of this image? Can you upload a bigger version of it? --High Contrast (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to have permission to upload Flicker images? I hope its free to use.Binod.hyoju (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please specify your question. I really do not have an idea what you are meaning. --High Contrast (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

New ships

Hi High Contrast,

Thanks for taking care of the above. In the meantime, it seems to be over. For the bot to update it again, would you lower its protection level it? --  Docu  at 04:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - didn't know the rights situation of the bot. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this over-sized gallery in passing. 450k is a bit tough to load and navigate. I don't do much with galleries usually, but is a gallery supposed to be this big? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 00:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The gallery is useful and only recently this big. Older entries get removed so that its size will be reduced automatically soonly. --High Contrast (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the quick response. INeverCry 17:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leiden Christi, Obermenzing in München.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--Lmbuga 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altes Rathaus Deggendorf - 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 Very good for me--Lmbuga 22:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Haidplatz - Wohnhaus - Ensemble Altstadt.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 --Iifar 13:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Haidplatz - Goldenes Kreuz in Regensburg.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. --NorbertNagel 12:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Haidplatz - Thon-Dittmer-Palais - aussen - Regensburg.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 --Iifar 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porta Praetoria in Regensburg.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 If you want to include the inscrption on the right, the crop is too tight No, I did not want to include the plaque on the right because it only contains a cursory description for tourists. All in all not relevant for this famous structure. --High Contrast 09:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)  Comment In this case I'd suggest to crop it out together with the other disturbing objects. That's at least my opinion --Moroder 09:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)  Done You are right. I have cropped away the plaque. Now, the image is "reduced" to the "main subject". Thanks for the hint. --High Contrast 09:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your undoing my edit on tuesday evening. I'll be mor careful (or less absent-minded) in the future. Best regards. JLPC (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. Thanks for your support! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Shyju.jpg - Copyrighted pic

Hi,

This is Elina here and I am the Social Media Admin of Shyju Mathew Ministries and hence I have the right to use the picture. So I kindly request not to delete the Shyju.jpg image. Kindly let me know if any queries and how can I go ahead. Thank you.

Hi! Can you provide a written permission to our OTRS-team, please? You will find the email adress there. The OTRS-team is there in order to save all "personal" permissions. Thanks in advance. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oldtimerumzug Aidenbach 2012-08-12 (81).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. --Poco a poco 02:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ammonitenansammlung (Dactylioceras).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. --Florstein 20:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stadtplatz von Deggendorf -03.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 Needs perspective correction. Mattbuck 11:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC) You are right - I have just made the perspective correction. --High Contrast 16:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)  Done Mattbuck 16:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012! Dear High Contrast, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 07:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I disagree about this violation. Files of both Eco Log and Sampo-Rosenlew forestry machines that I have uploaded are not copyrighted by the producer and might be freely used in non-commercial purposes. Please show me what terms of which license I have violated or undelete photos that I have uploaded. Andrewnew2 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Andrewnew2

These images are copyright violations for several reasons:

1. the images are copyrighted - the manufacturer's page brings no evidence in order to show that these images are sufficiently "free" in accordance with the Commons licensing regulations
2. a basic requirement of the Commons licensing regulations is that a commercial use for all files on Commons must be possible
3. you cannot bring any evidence that you have the permission of the copyright holder in order to publish those images under a free license.

Please browse our policies and guidelines. Thank you in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, High Contrast. You have new messages at Morning Sunshine's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Morning ☼ (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

High Contrast,

I agree, you were right. The question of copyrights is much more complex than I thought, so sorry for those uploads. If you still are monitoring my uploads I would like to inform you in advance, that this time I uploaded photos taken solely by me, so I am the rightful owner of those. I hope this time there is no place for any copyright violation whatsoever. Andrewnew2 (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Andrewnew2

Russia?!

Darf ich bitte wissen, was das soll [31] [32] Abgesehen davon, dass Dateien eigtl. ausschließlich in Unterkategorien anstatt direkt in Category:Russia hinzugefügt werden sollen (darüber steht dort oben auch ein schwer zu übersehender Hinweis Baustein). Was sollen die beiden Dateien mit Russland zu tun haben, außer dass sie von einer russischsprachigen Website zur Verfügung gestellt wurden? - A.Savin 14:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Da ich nicht mehr von einer Antwort Ihrerseits ausgehe (m. E. ist im Übrigen so eine Ignoranz für einen Admin untragbar, aber was soll's, nach der deutschen Wikipedia scheint mir fast nichts mehr unmöglich...), nehme ich diese Seite nunmehr von meiner Beobachtungsliste; falls Sie wider Erwarten doch noch irgendwas zu sagen haben, tun Sie's auf meiner Usertalk. Die Kategorie Russland schaue ich mir schon seit langem regelmäßig durch (was meinen Sie sonst, wieso die so sauber ist?); sollte ich in Zukunft ähnlichen Unsinn von Ihnen entdecken, muss ich das leider nunmehr als Vandalismus betrachten und Konsequenzen ziehen. Danke für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit. Ich wünsche noch frohes Schaffen. - A.Savin 18:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wie sähen diese Schritte denn aus? Vandalismus ist das Kategorisieren von Dateien nicht - da liegst du offenkundig falsch. --High Contrast (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Fotoweiterverwendung

Ich habe interesse 2 Bilder, die Sie aufgenommen haben, in einer Buchveröffentlichung zu verwenden. Die Bildernstehen unter einer Creative Commons Lizenz, d.h. Ich werde Sie entsprechende zitieren. Für weitere Details habe ich ihnen eine Email geschrieben. Ich möchte mich jetzt schon bedanken. Mit freundlichen Grüßen! Lorenz Mair

Danke! Nun per Email. --High Contrast (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Iron Panzer 2012

Hi,

I have noticed that you have found some photos of the xercise iron fist 2012. Can you upload more of them? Or where can I found more of them? Best wishes and Guten Abend! Henrik

http://www.defenseimagery.mil - there you can find more about this topic. But if you want to upload images on Commons, you need an account. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Jetzt sehe ich, dass du auch deutsch sprichst. Kann ich jedes Bild von dieser Seite hochladen zu Commons? Was muss ich beachten? Henrik

Schatten über den Zinnen

Hallo, ich bin mir nicht sicher ob wir das gleiche meinen. Ich habe mal von dem effekt den ich meine eine Ausschnittvergößerung gemacht. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ausschnitt aus Haidplatz - Goldenes Kreuz - Regensburg.jpg

Hallo! Da hast du ja mit 400+ Peozent gezoomt. Ich weiß nicht, woher diese "Schatten" herkommen. Eventuell liegt irgendetwas auf den "Zinnen". --High Contrast (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dann setzen wir das mal auf "promote" und schauen on Widerspruch kommt. --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Alles klar. Danke dir! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Gaudihans 1.jpg an File:Gaudimarie 1.jpg

Hello High Contrast, could You please expain me, the problem with this two pictures. You nominated them for deletion. Is it the low resolution? I´ve better Versions of it. Thank You --Schriebefax (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Are you the author of them? Did you take these two photographs? Please overwrite the "older" image versions by the newer, higher resoluted ones. Use "Upload a new version of this file" in both files. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallo zurück... da mein Schulenglisch etwas eingerostet ist, versuch´s jetzt auf Deutsch. Als Schriftführer, Vorstandsmitglied und Webmaster der Narrenzunft St. Blasien bin ich der Rechteinhaber der beiden Bilder. Habe beide Bilder gegen welche mit höherer Auflösung ausgetauscht. Viele Grüße --Schriebefax (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Bestens! Kannst du noch eine aussagekräftige Bildbeschreibung dazuschreiben und eventuell Kategorien? --High Contrast (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hab ich gemacht. Gar nicht so einfach, die ersten Schritte hier in der Wiki -Welt ;-) --Schriebefax (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Bei weiteren Fragen kannst du dich gerne an mich wenden! Viel Spaß bei deinen weiteren Bildbeiträgen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Marked Files

Hello, High Contrast. You point my files File:Pensacola Wings of Gold pwog-title E1.jpg, File:Pensacola Wings of Gold pwog-titleN.jpg, File:Pensacola Wings of Gold pwog-title E1.jpg as a copyright violation. They are only simple text logos without any pictures or background. They are the same category as File:The Unit 2006 Intertitle square.png, File:Lasko-Logo.jpg, File:House logo.svg. There is a category Category:Television program logos with more than 400 television logos and simple drawings round them.

What's the difference I wonder? Can you explain me?

Maybe I had to use {{PD-textlogo}} instead of {{Cc-zero}}. If it is, I'll change the licenses immedately.

{{PD-textlogo}} does not apply - they are too complex.

The other files File:E Daynov 2012 01.jpg, File:Ivan Kostov 2011.jpg, File:Ivan Kostov 1997.jpg, File:Ivan Kostov 2011 conference.jpg, File:Ivan Kostov 2011 in the Parlaiment 1.jpg,File:Ivan Kostov 2011 in the Parlaiment.jpg,File:Ognyan Minchev 04.jpg, File:Ognyan Minchev 01.jpg, File:Ognyan Minchev 02.jpg, File:Ognyan Minchev 03.jpg are from my archive.

The persons in the pictures are very popular public persones and they can be seen in many public places, conferences, meetings, lectures, etc. A lot of people take pictures of them. I clear the background because there were logos, advertisings or another faces behind them. You will never see such pictures in the Internet, papers, magazins, etc. That's all.

I'm sure my pictures meet all creteria of Wikimedia Commons and there is no reason to be deleted.--Gabriel VanHelsing (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide higher resoluted versions of these files? They look like video screenshots and the fact that you publish your images in such low resolution makes it a little bit doubtful that they are your own creations. --High Contrast (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some of them are video screenshots, from my videos. You are right. Is it forbidden?

And why did you delete my Pensacola files so soon without any explanation? What was the difference between those Pensacola logos and the other four hundred logos in the same categoria Category:Television program logos? I can't find the difference. I think you cannot either. It's more easier to delete images without explanations. I'm very upset. --Gabriel VanHelsing (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Pensacola files were copyright violations. They are different to the other TV logos because your file was a simple webgrab that was too complex to get it published under a free license. It is not a simple logo, its structure in the single letters was too complex. And yes, I published are reason for deletion. You should look closer. You might remember yourself that something like that happened to you earlier. --High Contrast (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Stretching woman, Crimea.JPG

File:Stretching woman, Crimea.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!

kosun (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Re

Sure, I always use that since I nearly the first one who use that anyway but when I add it since upload, it make too long, I don't know why so I do it later. Thank you for hardworking to keep Commons run smoothly and easy, because I know you are the first one who suggestions to make that template. Regards.Tnt1984 (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church of Our Lady in front of Týn - Prague - 2012.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. --Poco a poco 15:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Haidplatz - Goldenes Kreuz - Regensburg.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 Über den Zinnen des linken, niedigeren Gebäudeteils sind merkwürdige Schatten. --Berthold Werner 09:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)  Done Is removed now. --High Contrast 07:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Good quality. --Berthold Werner 14:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Old town with the Cathedral of Regensburg.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. --JLPC 11:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Todesmarsch-Mahnmal, Konzentrationslager Dachau April 1945.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 for me --Rjcastillo 13:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church tower , Heilig-Grabkirche St. Peter und St. Paul.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 A very little bit tilted (or distorded: a vertical line from the top of the upper cross does not follow the middle of the tower), otherwise very good. Could you try to correct ?--Jebulon 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC) You are right! I have just done the perspective correction. --High Contrast 20:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC) The clock face is a bit bright, but generally good enough. Mattbuck 12:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

License provided, high res file not deleted.

Hi User Talk. I do not know (yet) how to reply to a talk, so I have to do it like this. The subject is the photo Lilith_Portret.jpg. License permission has been given by the author by sending the filled-out template to permissions-@Wikimedia.org as instructed. When will this result in removal of the warning with the picture. In the history of the picture, there is a high-res version. The license does not cover this high-res version. It should be deleted, but is still accessible. How can I achieve that?

Regards, HansTunnissen (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I am glad to see that this image could be kept. Thanks for your support! I hope more image contributions will come. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss Blutenburg - Haupteingang.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. --Smial 10:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Turm der Schlosskapelle Blutenburg.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. --Smial 10:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church dedicated to Bishop Nicholas of Myra in Niederaltaich.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 imo. --JLPC 19:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Nutzungsrechtsfrage

Durch einen Bekannten, bin ich darauf hingewieden worden, das die Bilder File:Siegel_Grafen_zu_Brehna_1226.JPG und File:Urkunde Grafen Brehna 1226 in Löben.JPG angeblich nicht hier freigestellt werden dürfen. Zwar ist der Urheber mehr als lange Zeit Tod, jedoch beanspruche das Landeshauptarchiv Brandenburg gewisse, strenge Nutzerrechte. (Zwang der Zustimmung bei veröffentlichungen, Zwang zur Abgabe von Belegexemplar) Bei der Aufnahme in einer Ausstellung, gab es nur die Vorgabe die Bilder ohne Blitzlicht zu machen. Jedoch sei die Anweisung von "nicht ausreichend geschulten Personal vor Ort" gekommen... Wie ist nun hier vorzugehen? Löschen? LG --LutzBruno (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Solche Anfragen hatten wir schon des öfteren auf unserem Forum. Nun, Urheberrecht und Hausrecht (sprich die Hausordnung) sind zwei paar Schuhe. Urheberrechtlich ist nichts einzuwenden, da sie unter die PD-old-Regelung fallen (den Lizenzbaustein würde ich hinzufügen). Du hast allenfalls gegen deren Hauordnung verstoßen - ob und wie das en Detail geahndet wird sei dahingestellt. Ein ähnlicher Fall wäre z.B. das Deutsche Museum in München - die verbieten ebenso das "unerlaubte" Fotografieren in ihren Gemäuern, aber die Gemeinfreiheit ist auch da nicht tangiert. Ist "LutzBruno" dein realer Name? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Name, Ja, richtige Vornamen... Nun könnte ich mich ja auf die Aussage der Austellungsaufsicht berufen (war ne Wanderausstellung), allerdings gäbe es da ein Archivgesetz in Brandenburg, welches die Nutzung regeln würde... Bin nun im Zweifel, ob das Ding nicht doch gelöscht werden muss, habe noch ne andere Anfrage laufen, mal sehen was da noch raus kommt..Danke erst mal..--LutzBruno (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Du kannst ja bei den betreffenden Dateien einen Löschantrag stellen. Dadurch erlangt diese Problematik eine breitere Aufmerksamkeit. Ich bin aber recht zuversichtlich, dass die Bilder erhalten bleiben. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Non free photos!

Hi sir. I guess all of these pictures of military rankings of Army of Iran are under copy right license, and must be deleted! please check them. thanx.2.179.74.71 17:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! The best would be if you start a deletion request on those images. Then, I can handle this. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I dont know true template for this! can you introduce it?2.179.74.39 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

notice:excuse me for for diffrent IPs! I dont use open proxy. but I dont know why my ip is dynamic(Each time)?2.179.74.39 21:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way would be if you create an own account. Otherwisely, click on "Toolbox" and there you'll gonna find the "deletion request tool". --High Contrast (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Porsche PFM 3200

Hallo High Contrast, ich habe Dein Foto Porsche aircraft engine.JPG als Vorlage für eine Bearbeitung verwendet. Ich hoffe, dass ich das mit der Lizenz und der Namensnennung so richtig gemacht habe - bitte schau' doch mal gelegentlich unter Porsche_aircraft_engine-2012-08-11.jpg. Grüße --Bergfalke2 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hallo! Alles ok. Passt alles! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Danke! --Bergfalke2 (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schlosskapelle Blutenburg - Altar.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. --JLPC 13:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:An-2 plane spraying wheat crops.jpg

Hallo High Kontrast. Habe mal das Bild auf Excellenz eingestellt. Bekommst Du es eventuell noch einmal in einer höheren Auflösung? Wär prima! --Frze (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! --Frze

Hallo! Auf die Schnelle konnte ich keine höher aufgelöste Version finden. Aber ich werde zeitnah einen neuen Versuch starten! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lass Dir Zeit, Bild wird leider automatisch gelöscht. Gib bitte Bescheid, wenn es geklappt hat. --Frze (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Galerie Luftfahrtbild der Woche Portal:Luftfahrt/Bildergalerie

• (geplant für 24.03.2013)
  
  (geplant für 24.03.2013)
• 
  Antonow An-2, der größte in Serie gefertigte einmotorige Doppeldecker der Welt, sprüht Pestizide während der Operation Barnstormer(2006).
  (geplant für 01.04.2013)
• (geplant für 07.04.2013)
  
  (geplant für 07.04.2013)
• (geplant für 14.04.2013)
  
  (geplant für 14.04.2013)
• 
  KLAPPT NATÜRLICH NUR IN DE.Wikipedia...

Kein Bild wird automatisch gelöscht und dieses An-2-Bild auch nicht. --High Contrast (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Church dedicated to Bishop Nicholas of Myra in Niederaltaich.jpg

File:Church dedicated to Bishop Nicholas of Myra in Niederaltaich.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!

95.195.157.173 01:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Drug smuggling with an elephant sculpture.JPG

File:Drug smuggling with an elephant sculpture.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!

95.195.157.173 01:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

95.195.157.173 is highly likely the indef blocked Kuiper Pieter. --High Contrast (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2012 (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!

Affected:

• File:10-meter South Pole radio telescope.JPG

And also:

• File:10-meter South Pole Telescope (SPT).JPG
• File:A Delta 2 vehicle near McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:A stretched D-8 Caterpiller bulldozer.JPG
• File:Abandoned russian station Leningradskaya.JPG
• File:Aerial photo of McMurdo Station in 2009.JPG
• File:Aerial photo of McMurdo Station, 2009.JPG
• File:Aerial photo of McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:Aerial view of McMurdo Station - descriptions.JPG
• File:Albert P. Crary Science and Engineering Center at McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:An Airbus A319 taxis to a stop at McMurdo Station's Sea Ice Runway.JPG
• File:ANDRILL - showing features.jpg
• File:ANDRILL coretable.jpg
• File:ANDRILL drill site.jpg
• File:ANDRILL washing core.jpg
• File:Antarctica - deep ice cores.jpg
• File:Antonov 3T biplane in Antarctica.JPG
• File:Antonov An-3T.JPG
• File:Atlanta Valley, Victoria Land, Antarctica.JPG
• File:Aurora over Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.JPG
• File:Buildings of McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:CASE STX450 used on the South Pole Traverse.jpg
• File:Caterpillar Challenger in Antarctica, 2010.JPG
• File:Caterpillar Kress AHT-730C.JPG
• File:Ceremonial pole at the South Pole.JPG
• File:Cotton Glacier flows eastward between Sperm Bluff and Queer Mountain in Victoria Land.JPG
• File:Cotton Glacier in Victoria Land.JPG
• File:Delta vehicles.JPG
• File:Dr. Matt Olney - ANDRILL.JPG
• File:Emergency vehicle near McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:Fingerpost at the Leningradskaya Station.JPG
• File:Foremost Commander-C-truck 2011.JPG
• File:Foremost Commander-C-truck.JPG
• File:Foremost Delta 2 Wheeled Vehicle.jpg
• File:Foremost Nodwell 240 bus.jpg
• File:Foremost Nodwell 240 emergency vehicle.JPG
• File:Foremost Nodwell Tracked Vehicle.JPG
• File:Foremost passenger vehicle at McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:Fragments of the ANDRILL get studied.JPG
• File:Geologist uses a microscope for analysis.JPG
• File:Giant Petrel in Antarctica.JPG
• File:Glossopteris leaf fossils.JPG
• File:Green Wave in Antarctica 2012 (1).JPG
• File:Green Wave in Antarctica 2012 (2).JPG
• File:Hughes Glacier, Victoria Land.JPG
• File:Ice core from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide.JPG
• File:Ivan the Terra Bus.JPG
• File:KRASINSOUND.JPG
• File:Leningradskaya Station in Antarctica.JPG
• File:Leopard seals in Antarctica.JPG
• File:Lyttelton Harbour, New Zealand.jpg
• File:Maersk Peary at McMurdo Station -01.JPG
• File:Maersk Peary at McMurdo Station -02.JPG
• File:Maersk Peary at McMurdo Station -03.JPG
• File:Maersk Peary at McMurdo Station -04.JPG
• File:McMurdo fire truck in 1974.JPG
• File:Mount Discovery, Antarctica.JPG
• File:Mount Erebus in 2009.JPG
• File:MV American Tern (T-AK 4729).JPG
• File:New Zealand's Scott Base (2006).JPG
• File:Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, Antarctica.JPG
• File:NSF helicopter.JPG
• File:Palmer Station (2008).JPG
• File:Palmer Station panorama.JPG
• File:Passenger vehicle in Antarctica - Oct. 2012.JPG
• File:PistenBully outside the Crary Lab at McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:Rear view of a Terra Bus.JPG
• File:Research vessel NATHANIEL B. PALMER at McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:Research vessel Nathaniel B. Palmer, McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:Russian station Vostok.jpg
• File:RV Laurence M. Gould - bridge.JPG
• File:Scott Base with Mt. Discovery.JPG
• File:Seal with camera.JPG
• File:Side view of a Foremost Terra Bus.JPG
• File:Skua bird at Cape Royds, Ross Island.JPG
• File:Skytrak telehandler in Antarctica.JPG
• File:Small electric truck at McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:Sno Cat Tucker-Terra 2000 groomer.JPG
• File:Snowblower in Antarctica.jpg
• File:South Pole Telescope (2008).JPG
• File:South Pole Telescope at night.JPG
• File:South Pole Telescope in 2012.JPG
• File:STX 530 Quadtrac.JPG
• File:The IceCube Laboratory, Antarctica.JPG
• File:The Mount Discovery.JPG
• File:The sun over the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.JPG
• File:The Transantarctic Mountains.JPG
• File:Tourist ship CORINTHIAN II.JPG
• File:Tracked Ford F550 in Antarctica.JPG
• File:Tracked vehicle in Antarctica.JPG
• File:Tractors in Antarctica (1957).JPG
• File:Tucker Sno Cat, McMurdo Station.JPG
• File:Twin Otter airplane at Westhaven Nunatak.jpg
• File:Vegetation of Antarctica.JPG
• File:Vince's Cross, Hut Point, Ross Island, Antarctica.JPG
• File:Winch on the ship "Laurence M. Gould".JPG

Yours sincerely, Andrew Gray (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

New comments

I've replied to you at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Oscar_Wilde_-_The_Duchess_of_Padua.jpg. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice welcome

Hi. I noticed you said welcome to User:Adam Cuerden and restored some of his rights. I hope you were aware of this and this before you did that. That said I agree that it is always nice that good contributors return. --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Of course I am aware of that. But this and that will not be possible with the rights I restored. All in all, Adam Cuerden did many good contribution - I'd say over 98% are valuable contribs - and assuming good faith (with his new start here) should be applicable. If you see any problems, feel free to remove those rights that I have switched free recently. But if you do so, please tell him why you did so. --High Contrast (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Very good. I do not plan to remove his rights or watch his edits. I think I can spend my time better elsewhere. I think asuming good faith and giving users an option for a new start is a good idea. --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View of Obernzell - as seen from 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 04:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Electric insulators on top of a transformer (2).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 It needs a perspective correction Poco a poco 04:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)  Done as far as it made sense for this objecct. --High Contrast 17:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Good quality now. --NorbertNagel 20:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schirmerweg-Villa in Obermenzing-München.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. --Poco a poco 02:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View over Český Krumlov in August 2012.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. --JLPC 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hochstein - Dreisesselberg - 2011.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 -- Lothar Spurzem 00:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:maybeMaybeMaybe

Hi, High Contrast. Not only has the user uploaded an alarming number of out-of-scope images, there are vast quantities of duplicates as well. In total, there appear to be upwards of 4 to 5,000 uploads, only some of which are both unique an in-scope. Even after the user is unblocked s/he shouldn't be let anywhere near Flickr2Commons without a commitment to avoid future indiscriminate mass uploads. The user is also reviewing his own Flickr uploads, which isn't permissible even if you have reviewer rights, which s/he doesn't. --Rrburke (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think before further action takes place, you should file the problematic for deletion. @ High Contrast, I think a longer Block is appropriate. The user violates several Commons rules - see Rrburkel's comment above. Thanks, flori@n

High Contrast, can you please explain your block of MMM. I am NOT seeing a huge amount of non-notable uploads as you imply. They obviously have not received actual warnings, past the templates on some images that we all get from time to time. The only real issue is that images are somewhat poorly named, and categories are out of whack -- both are things that are issues with the flickr2commons tool which I have noticed myself. If they are going to take steps to recategorise images (which they have started to do) and to rename images (and name them in future) to somewhat meaningful names, then this block in entirely punitive in nature, and not preventative. They are uploading a HUGE number of images, which we should be thankful for, and the occasional out-of-scope image is something that we expect. Overall, the number of out-of-scope images is miniscule, and they have engaged in discussion with editors who have come to them in relation to their uploads. I see no reason to keep them blocked any longer, as it is entirely punitive in nature. But before any unblock, which I hope you will do yourself, I think your comment is required. Cheers, russavia (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rrburke, the amount of duplicates is not something that MMM can, nor should, be held accountable for. This is something that the flickr2commons should be rewritten to be able to pick up (i.e. whether an image is already on Commons). I have uploaded a couple of sets of photos yesterday and have found a few duplicates in them. Duplicates are not something that the project really needs to worry about. As to their uploads, they are obviously going thru and uploading images in sets. Again, the number of out-of-scope images is minute compared to the total number of photos uploaded. Overall, the images being uploaded are a massive net benefit to the project. As to reviewing own uploads, that is not the case, the flickr upload bot reviews the images for uploaders, as their only edit to that image demonstrates. russavia (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As I haven't gotten a response, I have gone ahead and unblocked MMM as per User_talk:MaybeMaybeMaybe#Unblocked. Cheers, russavia (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be very impatient. You must think of people who do have an existence outside Commons. So, as everyone can see you have handeled this issue according your thoughts. And you did not forget to add strange comments on every (permanent) corner you were finding. Please keep in mind to keep your comments a bit shorter and simply stick to facts - it is quite exhausting for non native speakers of English to get through all this. --High Contrast (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The block was clearly punitive in nature, given that they were cleaning up and dealing with issues that had arisen. As one can see, now that they are unblocked, and have been advised of ways to deal with these issues, they are now doing this. So the block, in itself, was not preventative against disruption. We should use blocks as an absolute last resort; in this instance we were not at that resort. Also, I did wait more than 24 hours for a response, so there was no impatience in this regard. Thanks for comments. russavia (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I used the block according to Commons guidlines. You have just put your word above another ones of which you think that yours is of more value. Such behaviour makes Commons to be a tough place - sadly. --High Contrast (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't agree that the block was punitive: it prevented an ongoing problem that appears to have continued right up to the time of the block, one that several people had tried to talk to the editor about to no avail. It appears that the block was what finally got his attention and had a moderating effect on his behaviour -- though, I have to say, I'm not persuaded the problem has been entirely solved: the ongoing mass uploads are still pretty indiscriminate, with lots of files of rather dubious value that look out of scope to me, plus a burgeoning categorization headache that's going to need some substantial cleanup: I think it would behoove the editor to take a break from the file dump at this point and assist with some of that cleanup. --Rrburke (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Following up: to the user's credit, he appears to be making a genuine effort to fix the category problem. Rrburke (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The newest events with this user show effectfully that russavia's behaviour was obviously impetuous. If we had a discussion before his pseudo good will action, we could have found out that this user is a sock. --High Contrast (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Kohen Gadol

High Contrast-- how do I get this (below) posted to Commons:Categories for discussion? This page says to post at Commons:Categories for discussion for a category move, but I do not see how to do so correctly. Tahc (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

;Move Category:Kohen Gadol to Category:High Priest (Judaism).

"Kohen Gadol" is only clear to those who know this Hebrew term. Wikimedia Commons has many more English speakers than Hebrew speakers. "High Priest (Judaism)" is the article name on the English Wikipedia. "High Priests of Israel" is also a possibility. Tahc (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you talk to other users if this category move is the best solution? --High Contrast (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Like who?

I asking you how to post this notice so that I can talk to users about said move. The idea is to get people to talk about it at Category talk:Kohen Gadol

Is there some reason you will not tell me how to do this?

Do not take such things personally. I will support you, but I only want to know if your newly brought approvements are known by other users. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bilder im Eintrag "Sebastian Jäger"

Hallo High Contrast,

ich habe den Eintrag "Sebastian Jäger" geändert und habe verschiedene Bilder hochgeladen, die dann wiederum aufgrund Urheberrechtsverletzungen gelöscht wurden. Die Rechte an den Bildern besitze ich selber (Sebastian Jäger) - sind also frei - und verstehe deshalb nicht, wieso das passiert ist?! Auch Fragen die ich gestellt habe und die ich gepostet habe wurden nicht beantwortet. Also was soll ich nun machen, damit dieser Eintrag endlich die gewünschten Bilder erhält??

Gruss "Szaigoon" (Sebastian Jäger)

Hallo Sebastian!

Bilder, die überall im Internet auffindbar sind, sind in der Regel auf Commons nicht "haltbar". Wir sammeln Bilder, die unter einer freien Lizenz stehen, d.h. wirklich frei von jedem verwendet werden können. Das ist ein relativ restriktiver Ansatz, den man sich hier auferlegte, aber es stützt das Hauptziel von Wikimedia freie Inhalte zur Verfügung zu stellen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday greetings

Wishing you the happiest of holidays and the best new year! — Vera (talk), December 2012

Thank you! I wish you the same! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Mother carries her child.JPG

File:Mother carries her child.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!

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Praha-Nové Město - Jindřišská věž.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. --Kadellar 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)