User talk:Pieter Kuiper/Archive2011

Archives: 2008 | 2009 | 2010a | 2010b | 2010c

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlueSuedeShoes.ogg

You're gonna have to explain yourself there. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... it is on my watch list, no need to notify me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you demanding source for old paintings?

Whether it is a Rembrandt, a Van Gogh or a Sérusier, it does not matter for {{PD-Art}} where the image file comes from. Revert your tags. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you very much for the attention you pay to my work... It isn't the same thing if the picture is taken on gallica.bnf.fr or is a poor quality scan by the uploader. And the uploader has said he will add the source of his uploads.--Bapti ✉ 10:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter at all. Your tags are threatening with deletion, but there is no reason whatsoever to delete this files. They are just harassing and intimidating to the uploader. You must remove them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pieter. While it would certainly be nice to know the source of the images, there is absolutely no reason to delete them for lack of that information - anything that is {{Pd-art}} should not have our aggressive {{No source since}} tag. Perhaps we need a new tag that requests a source but does not insist on it, or threaten.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back Pieter! Yes, I agree, a new tag would be great! Amada44  ^{talk to me} 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#{No_source_since}      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you remove your tags and make an ordinary deletion request, I will report you again to the user problem board, and propose that your admin rights be taken away from you. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for yours threats and your harassment, but feel free to add a source if you find it. Again, the {{PD-Art}} is just *my* supposition (I have added this lisence) but we need to know the source of the uploader to confirm it's really an old painting.--Bapti ✉ 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Martha Raye

Hi Pieter,
would you like to have look into the Sweden-related uploads of this user. Despite his/her claims they are rather surely not own work; but could they be PD-something already? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I will try to save what can be salvaged. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that important, but if you want to take a look at File:Båstads kommunvapen original.png whether the copyvio-tag, added by an IP, is justified, or if it could stay as Svedish-something. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Borderline case. This CoA has been in use since 1941, almost more than 70 years ago, and I have not seen a name of a designer, except for this 3D representation. The Finnish copyright council has stated that images of traditional heraldry lack originality, and Sweden has the same Nordic copyright laws. It is a bit strange that an IP-number tagged this a few minutes after upload. Anyway, we do not need the municipality's own version, there is File:Båstad vapen.svg. I do not care enough about heraldry to have a firm opinion. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Gaza.gif

Thank you, Pieter! In fact, File:Gaza.gif doesn't work, but the other version, File:Israeli Apartheid Week 2009 poster.jpg, is ok. Regards. Yone (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediawiki can't thumbnail Adobe RGB. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Flooding in Brazil and Uruguay 2009.gif

Unfortunately we have the same problem here. Yone (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That is because it is too large. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous work copyright under Indian copyright act

Please see this. Thanks --Jyothis (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ineligible for copyright

Please explain why you removed the copyvio notice from [1]. User has previously uploaded [2] which was removed as a copyvio. - Amog |^Talk 05:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Some things are too simple for copyright protection. See Threshold of originality for examples. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And this? - Amog |^Talk 12:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Should be ineligible too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. There's a non-free logo advice for trademark issues. That's all it needs. The first file should get that too. --Martina Nolte (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Caroline Church Murray by Irving Ramsey Wiles (1861-1948).jpg

I noticed you removed my copyvio tag from the file. I uploaded the image but I overlooked the fact that it is not yet in the public domain. We don't need to debate this, the artist died in 1948. It is highly unlikely that the debate would result in a conclusion that the painting is in the public domain, and it is important that the situation of copyright violation last no longer than necessary. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is not {{PD-1923}} it is {{PD-US-no notice}}. The painter's death date is irrelevant. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oké, didn't think of that... Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

File:E17 - korte sluitertijd.JPG

There's no indication anywhere, either in the file summary, licensing information or page history that would indicate the uploader created the work entirely by himself and why would you try to do so for him? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This contribution was uploaded with a {{PD-self}} tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The uploader licensed it as being their own work, and I'd also note that they did this some years ago, when it wasn't unusual to upload with descriptions like that. You are required to WP:AGF of the uploader and should not assume that it's not their work, unless there is some other reason to. I see no reason why this photograph couldn't have been taken by a Commons editor, just as they describe. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

PD-self just signifies that the uploader is the copyright holder, not the original author. AGF simply means that the uploader always has good intentions and is not necessarily representative of the content xhe uploaded. That is, "I know you mean well but you're doing it wrong" is not the same as "You're doing great, keep uploading those bad pictures and they'll turn out better than ever before". Plus COM:AGF isn't a policy; and when dealing with copyrights, it's best to err on the side of caution. See also: Commons:Don't be bold. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your preaching here is no use except that you are bothering me; make a DR if you must. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination)

Hi, could you have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination)? There is a case of possible {{PD-US-no notice}}, but we don't know how to find out. Maybe you know? Jcb (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that DR. And I do not have anything meaningfull to say. For American copyright, the expert on Commons is Carl Lindberg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nordic copyright laws

Hi

Just had a question about the Nordic copyright laws harmonisation. It's something that I've seen mentioned before this so I'm not questioning it's existence, I just can't find any info about it. Do you know when the process happened, as in is it still the post WW2 creation of them or were they realigned later on.

Cheers, Lokal_Profil 16:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a conscious but informal effort to keep copyright legislation and other laws about intellectual property aligned in the Nordic countries, in order to facilitate trade. This was not regulated by any specific treaty, I believe. One expression of this unity is the journal Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättskydd, which is a forum for Scandinavian legal experts in this area. Another expression of this effort is the attention given to laws in neighbouring countries in the förarbeten for legislation. However, the laws did not end up to be identical. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As to when this happened, I only know that it was a long time ago. Maybe there was collaboration between Sweden and Denmark already before 1905, when Norway and Finland were not independent. Anyway, all four countries had a law for simple photos, which Sweden adopted in 1919. That was also in line with German legislation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks =) /Lokal_Profil 11:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Skogsfinnar.jpg

Jag citerar texten i copyvio-mallen: "Invändningar: Om du inte håller med om att filen bör snabbraderas, förklara varför på diskussionssidan." --Zejo (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Det är nog främst riktad till uppladdaren. Och du kan väl läsa {{PD-Sweden}} själv? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Vad ska jag läsa där? --Zejo (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Fotografiska bilder", såsom pressens bilder, är fria att använda om de är skapade före 1 januari 1969. Men det antar jag att du har redan kunnat stava dig igenom. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Knoting2.JPG‎

Hello!

Kuiper: information is given

There is no information given that could be taken as evidence that these files are the own work by the uploader. Please read COM:L for more information. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at the upload edit summary. I cannot read Chinese, but uploader's name is there as author and as source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted a request for someone in the know to fix the information template. Should be easy to do if you understand the text. /Lokal_Profil 11:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is likely that these images are taken by the uploader. Glad to see that they can be kept. Anyway it is good to have them posted on the chinese village pump in order to get the licensing information fixed. --High Contrast (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Some rights reserved, Flickr

Hi Pieter,

I'm unclear why you tagged my photo "File:Winterlude Snow Sculpture.jpg" as "Some rights reserved on Flickr" -- it is marked with a Creative Commons attribution license in keeping with Wikimedia policy. Can someone (I'm not sure how) remove the problematic tag on this image? It's fine. I'm not sure why the bot is having issues with it. Thanks. --Kathleen5454 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kathleen. What I did was to remove the no-permissions tag on File:Winterlude Snow Sculpture.jpg, because the license on Flickr is indeed free (that is what "some rights reserved" means there). I think the bot has a problem because the image was rotated - the files are not exactly the identical. Best regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Portugal_CP.svg

Concerning this and your astonishing reply, I invite you to ponder what was repeatedly reported in the history of this file: This map is wrong. Wrong as in it shows a topologically inaccurate rendition of the railway network it is supposed to illustrate. The only sensible course of action is to replace it where it has been misleading the project users, not to keep it just because it is in use. Tuvalkin (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not notice any topological differences. But in general, files that are in use, only get deleted for reasons of copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

...and for reasons of not being with in the project scope. --High Contrast (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Files that are in use are in project scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is definately true. My message was a general annotation - not linked with this issue above. --High Contrast (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed now, thank you! Tuvalkin (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sami child saved ;-)

Hi Pieter, would you like to take a look at File:Sami child.jpg? I first thought it was finnish, but Jafeluv told me that it's swedish. I assume that the Flickr user, who also has a blog (where one of your uploads is used!), has no real ownership in the image (he scanned it). But may be it is already PD or something. --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. Yes, this is PD-Sweden, child saved :) But I will try to find a better source. I could not find this one on the Saamiblog. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Helena Mattsson 01.jpg

Hello Pieter,

I delete the picture after I found it several times on google.

Groetjes -- Neozoon (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete Helena Mattsson 01.jpg

Hi Pieter!

Why did you delete the image of Helena Mattsson 01.jpg that I took and have rights to use? That makes no sense? The image that are from some old performance is a picture that is not accurate. She's beautiful girl and the old picture she looks like a drag queen. The image that I upload are the way she looks. Beautiful.

It was the same image as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helena Mattsson headshot 01.jpg. Du hörde inte av dig, fast jag också hade underrättat dig på en:User talk:Johan se#Repeated edits to Helena Mattsson. Du borde skriva till COM:OTRS för att övertyga dem att det är din bild (om det är din bild). Hälsningar, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Kungl. slottet från ovan.jpg

I assume this image cannot remain, or? Do you think PD-Sweden for File:Kungl. slottet från ovan 2.jpg is valid? --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but I do not see a problem. A simple postcard from before 1969. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Trophée Coupe de la Ligue d'Algérie.jpg

Thank you for your message, just to inform you, i took the file from the official website of MC Oran. Greetings. Faycal.09 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I noticed that you han been notified of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trophée Coupe de la Ligue d'Algérie.jpg. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin's Umbrella

Hi Pieter. Usually you are good with this: Do you know by chance the author of this image? I read something like "E. Deschamp" but have no relevant google hits for that. Cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 15:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I found a version with a caption in French at the bottom of this page; it shows some more of the signature at the left. It says "Guiguet", more clearly here. I will have another look later this evening. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite likely from this 1883 book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

With L. Guiguet I found this image of the same author. There (on getty) it says its from 1754 (is that a reliable date??). So both images should be fine to upload. What do you think? And thanks for helping out. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 17:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1754 is only the year of the discovery, but this is a 19th-century woodcut, probably by Emile Deschamps. I have not found his dates yet, but it should be ok. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here it is. If you have anything useful to add, please feel free to do so ;) - Amada44  ^{talk to me} 18:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Liz Taylor, Liza Todd and Mike Todd by Toni Frissell, 1957.jpg

Please correct your edit summary: You not undid my edit. You made your own edit and changed the license to something that you think is ok. I dont want that your edit summary gives the impression that my wrong PD reasoning was added back. --Martin H. (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Too bad, I cannot do anything about it even if I wanted to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

en:Help:Dummy edits can be used to correcting a previous edit summary. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Too bad, I don't want to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Tingstads tunneln 1958.jpg

Hi Pieter, could you take a look at File:Tingstads tunneln 1958.jpg, an uploader-photo (hopefully) of a swedish map allegedly from 1958, which has been requested for speedy deletion. Maybe it's a PD-Sweden..(whatever).. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not qualify for PD-Sweden. It is not a photo (well, it is, but it is a photo of a map). And formally, the map is probably still protected by copyright. In reality, nobody would object to this image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Rachel_standoff1.jpg

File:Rachel_standoff1.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!

Hold and wave (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• In some other recent discussions I pointed out that image republication services routinely acquire public domain images, and add them to their image libraries, and charge their clients for making them available. I asked whether, when images were credited to multiple image republication services that established that the image was really in the public domain. While many contributors agreed that it strongly suggested those images were in the public domain. But most thought that this nevertheless fell short of the strict requirements we follow here, and we really needed an OTRS ticket.

  I`d be happy to voice a keep -- if we had an OTRS for these images. Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Maybe I should have fixed a ticket for this photo when I uploaded it. OTRS is highly overrated, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cloaca Maxima 2.jpg. There are more examples. The problem is that the tickets are secret. Today I have questioned two tickets on the Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Rushed_side.JPG

File:Rushed_side.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!

Hold and wave (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove problem tags

---

Hi! It has come to my attention that you have removed a warning which says that a file doesn't have enough information about the source or license conditions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this information is still missing and I have restored the tag. You may either add the required information or, if you think that required information is already given, put the image up for a deletion request so that it won't automatically be deleted. Thank you.

File:Centuria Romana Macarena 1917.jpg does not have the required source and authorship information. Please read our policy on information that must be given on the description page. "Google" is not a verifiable source and "Desconocido" is not the name of an author.—LX (talk, contribs) 15:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Make a regular DR instead of edit warring. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you should! —LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You want the image deleted, so it is your responsiblity to make a DR. All this template warning stuff is just unnecessary aggravation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want the image deleted. I want the required information to be added. It's not okay for you to run around quietly removing valid problem tags at your own volition. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the user that thinks there is a problem is the best one to give the arguments why the source is not ok. If you want Pieter to start a DR what do you expect him to write? "Delete this file because there is a valid source." Naa that won't work. --MGA73 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos from Kurier Lubelski or College Park Archive

Here: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] is no information about the author or date of taking the picture. Source links don't give any information or even link to true source of getting files. So please give this information but don't revert the procedure. Thank You. JDavid (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Source is even given in the title. Make a regular DR if you want these deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Source is given in a way that doesn't allow veryfication of a legal status of these pictures. Therefore DR is not necessary, when this information is missing. DR would be recommended only when with a source given, there still will be doubts about the legal status of these photos. So please complete the missing information, including date, author (if known) and the direct link to the file description page, which would be the starting point for assesing the PD validity. Thank you! Masur (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And let me quote LX from above: I don't want the image deleted. I want the required information to be added. It's not okay for you to run around quietly removing valid problem tags at your own volition. Masur (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is incredible that you interpret "source" as "direct URL". Date is WWII, probably 1944 for all of them. There is no problem with copyright (automatic camera, no real personal author, Lichtbild). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation, but basic facts about guidelines. Check please: Commons:Essential_information#Source and Commons:Licensing#License_information (from the latter one: should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status (source link) even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws). Therefore, once again, to avoid any future misunderstanding or confusion regarding your upload, complete uploaded files information according to the Commons guidelines. Thank you!. Masur (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Too bad - there is no URL. I have now removed "(source link)" from that page, because people like you interpret this in completely unreasonable ways. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to be able to see where the files came from. You give two different URLs, neither of which has the images on them. There is no way to verify the license status from the information given. Until you provide the required information, please do not remove the {{No source}} tags again. It is true that they may be images taken with an automatic camera and, therefore, copyright free, but they may also have been taken with a handheld camera or with a photographer deciding when to expose the image, which would not be copyright free.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Make a DR, if you really must. But these are obviously free images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I blocked you for 3 days for removing problem templates from images descriptions, which you did again. As I said above, and as other said as well - we don't want to have these images deleted; we only request sources of them to validate their legal status and only if any problems regarding it occur, deletion request would be considered. I encourage you to put the missing source information (links to the image description or any other links/sources that can be helpful for date, author and original source validation) when you block is over. Otherwise these images will be deleted as lacking this essential information. Thank you. Masur (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How does that fit with COM:BLOCK? I did nothing wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment "I don't want the image deleted. I want the required information to be added..." So why not add {{Disputed}} then? --MGA73 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Alejandro Malaespina.jpg

Hello, could you please provide a source other than "internet". Given the previous deletion discussion, it needs to be verifiable that the artist is José Maria Galvan y Candela, so that we can close the book on this one. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The painting is signed J.M. Galvan. If I remember correctly, it is kept in a naval museum in Argentina. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well that makes it easy! Good observation. Because of the prior deletion discussion, and the fact that the source does not appear to identify the artist, I have added some details for anyone else coming along. Could you please also add the source where you got the image? Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not really remember where I got the file with this resolution from. I probably gave a url when I uploaded it over the deleted pen drawing (that drawing was a copy of this oil painting). But that upload record is accessible to admins only. I just reuploaded the file that I had on my computer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I just checked - when you uploaded it on June 19, you gave the source as "1881" and there was no other indication of the source. It's not a big deal in this case, but it's pretty important to provide the source. Thanks for trying to help, though. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I am sorry that I did not give the url. And now I cannot find the file at this resolution anymore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:MayDay at The Grove, 1968.jpg

Hey Pieter, thanks for saving that file, but how do you know it was published without copyright? See the other files from the same uploader, if I well recall there may be others in the same situation.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Florida archive says: "Pub date 1960", so it was published (unfortunately we do not know where, and I cannot interpret the codes that would contain information on where it is from). The archive possesses the negative. It is my impression that this is PR material produced by the Governor's office, released without copyright; see also {{PD-FLGov}}. The alternative (much less likely, I think) is {{PD-US-no renewal}}. See also the copyright info of the site - only some of the images are copyrighted.

I have not looked at those other photos (just a mansion). But this one was so special. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand how you found it was out of copyright. I find the US licenses very confusing, but I would like to know that, so that I could save the files I stumble upon with bogus licenses, like that one, licensing them correctly. How do you know it was published without a copyright notice?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In general, I tend to rely on professional archives to give the information that something was copyrighted, but to be really certain one would need to find an original publication, or one would need to check the renewal records of the Copyright Office. However, this case should be clear without that, because it comes from the Department of State of Florida. It was made when en:LeRoy Collins was Governor, who was living at The Grove. And maybe, FloridaDOS (talk · contribs) is even making his/her uploads in an official capacity (but that would need some proof by OTRS). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now understood the rational, though I doubt very much that I will be able to apply it myself. If someone challenges it it, they can always send it to DR, but with me that's ok. Thanks again.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:MayDay_at_The_Grove,_1968.jpg

File:MayDay_at_The_Grove,_1968.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!

Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-German_logos

Template:PD-German_logos 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 template, 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. 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!

h-stt !? 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Iwo Jima Memorial

saw your comment at deletion requests. SIRIS while i sympathise, the artist's estate does retain copyright. (had a little lawsuit here about this Korean War Memorial) however, can keep it, under a fair use 3D art rationale. the problem is fixing the licenses for all the photos, before the doomsday deletion machine comes round. Slowking4 (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

well i'm more disappointed than surprised. the copyright law is so complicated, there is much abuse. here's a statue you could argue was a derivative of a photo, and he copyrights it, and no freedom of panorama. but the folks working for a salary for the WPA, their work is Public Domain. Slowking4 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:IwoJimaMemArlington.JPG; yes, it is disappointing, artists and their estates trying to make money off war memorials. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove no source tags unless you place a source

Per policy, please don't do that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such policy. If you want to get the file deleted, make a DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_-_2083_A_European_Declaration_of_Independence.pdf

Your rationale for deletion is a procedural speedy keep as it is patently incorrect. A compendium that attributes sources is not a copy-vio - if it were wikipedia would be a copy-vio (AND SOME ARGUE THIS!!!), and furthermore, the author explicitly releases his compendium into the public domain. There rest of your nom is debatable, but this part is prima facie wrong - and in the commons as you know, copyright issues do matter much more than anywhere else, so being correct about them is important. I suggest you strike this rationale as it is incorrect, and if upholded, puts our entire project at risk. We can't be hypocrites on copyright.--Cerejota (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to argue here, write it in the DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah this is speedy keep, rationale is invalid, since you refuse to change it.--Cerejota (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. This is a clear violation of the copyright of several third parties. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice

In full disclosure I note that I have expressed my feelings on the "Perle" situation in which you are involved at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. – Adrignola talk 14:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your feelings were hurt! By a lowly user without admin rights!! Poor you. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Virgen de la Concha.jpg

From which "second upload" do you have those information from? Second file? --High Contrast (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

From the upload summary at the second upload, it is displayed at File:Virgen de la Concha.jpg#filehistory in the "comment" column. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I thought you ment this. Thanks for helping to keep this file. --High Contrast (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Rapid_River,_Heide-Park.jpg

File:Rapid_River,_Heide-Park.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!

Graham from Accounting (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Who are you? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Good question, I'm thinking it is a sock but unsure who. I've speedy kept the DR since it wasn't valid and the fact that the nominator is a SPA. Bidgee (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. My guess is that it has something to do with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg. Which has been running long enough now, I think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Noted and I am certainly watching for puppet activity - I consider the above a bad faith nomination for what it is worth. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Videvisan (Tegner)4.png

Hej Pieter! Kan du hjälpa mig med den här filen? Vad är det som händer - varför funkar det inte? Vänligen, Rex Sueciæ (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

File har för många pixlar. Du kan ladda upp en ny version, som du skalat ner. (Eller ladda upp som tiff, det kanske har inte dessa gränser.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Tack! Rex Sueciæ (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_in_chemical_suit_(self_portrait).jpg

File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_in_chemical_suit_(self_portrait).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!

S_peakF_ree (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PD-EU-no author disclosure

super cool, die licentie kende ik nog niet :D (begint door wikipedia copyright recht best leuk te vinden :) --IIVeaa (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, dat was om de Sneekweek-affiche te redden. Ja, het auteursrecht heeft een pervers soort logica, en steeds zijn er weer uitzonderingen waar je verbaasd van staat. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Publicité inspiré de Roy Lichtenstein(décembre 1977).JPG

Hello! Just for your information, I asked for speedy deletion of this image again. Whoever the author might be, even if he is totally unknown to the public and he based his work upon someone else's more famous creations, we still cannot distribute his artistic work under a free licence without his conscent. Cordially, Alchemica (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

These are based on old US comics, which mostly never had copyright renewed. Why not make a regular DR? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can figure why a logo cannot be copyrighted according to the US laws because it is not original enough... but if from now on we consider that any artistic work based on "free" existing material is not elligible to new copyrights, I won't follow. Because if Lichtenstein's work was based on the same kind of stuff, how come he could've copyrighted his artwork, while the guy who made this ad could not? Sounds like simple logic to me... Cordially, Alchemica (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But Lichtenstein was an official artist selling art to art collectors. This is just an advertisement, anonymous, utilitarian and ephemeral. But you have a point.

When I removed the tag, I thought that you believed that this was infringing on Lichtenstein's copyright, and his estate is known to be likely to take legal action. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Du är den ende.jpg

Hi. How can this image be PD? It's a record cover from 1966. -- Tegel (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The only copyrightable component is a pre-1969 photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Yalta Conference & The Big Three.jpg‎

The reason I removed File:Yalta Conference & The Big Three.jpg‎ from the category you added it to is because it is a fake, per the deletion request. It has been deleted before. Hohum (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the category. Yes, should be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Help wanted

Hi Pieter,

you reverted me yesterday and I would like to know why. I think that File:Albert_Camesina.jpg has not been photographed by User:Buchhändler. To find out who really made the picture, which source it comes from and to verify that pd-old is correct, the uploader should provide correct information. I did not place a deletion request because I believe that the uploader could deliver the missing information. Second case: File:32-o-RS.jpg I am quite sure that the uploader did not take the picture himself and therefore cannot put it under the given licenses. Still I did not put a DR to give the uploader the chance to rectify the information given. File:Ansicht-alt-72.jpg I do not believe that the picture was taken in 1886, but that the exhibition on the picture represents tools from 1886, photographed much later. Therefore we need further information about the photographer.

My intensions are always to keep as many pictures as possible, but only with legal information and license. I want to do it right the next time. Please let me know how I can avoid being reverted by you. Thanks --Schwäbin (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Being reverted is no big deal. But you must know that putting a no-source tag on a file, is just a slow speedy deletion. After a week, an admin comes along, and just deletes them, without too much scrutiny. If you just want to know where an old image is from, there are other ways: contact the uploader, or do the research yourself. If you think a file is violating copyright but the reasons are not obvious, the best thing is to make a regular deletion request. This has many advantages over tagging. More people take part in the discussion, and it leaves a record of why the file was kept or deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. To me, deletion requests seemed to be the biggest baseball bat among the various options, the ultima ratio. This is why I tried to avoid them. --Schwäbin (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Farmand magasinforside nr.52 1980.jpg

As you know better about Scandinavian copyright specialties, any chance this cover scan from 1981 is legitimate? --Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot think of any reason why that one could be free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

King Hussein's Autograph

Thank you for your input about the status of King Hussein's autographed photo. Since a kind gentleman is keen on seeing that this file is deleted, I request you to kindly help me in modifying its description. This autographed photo forms part of my family collection of autographs of celebrities - and in that sense belongs to me. Please help me in this matter. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, this is about Commons:Deletion requests/File:KingHussain.JPG; I expect that the deletion request will be closed as "kept". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cover-up of copyright violation

User Middayexpress is trying to cover up a violation of a copyrighted image from 1927 depicting the son of a Somali Sultan called Ali Yusuf (as you can see from the link with the original picture), but now the user has quikly slapped a PD-Italy tag on the image and continues to promote the lie that the picture depicts Sultan Yusuf Ali Kenadid, when in reality its his son, and the source the image comes is still copyrighted material and not from the 1900s! Take a look at the edit history:[ http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sultan_Yusuf_Ali_Kenadid.jpg&oldid=58777240]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.18.173 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the pic is not copyrighted. It was taken from an old book by Cesare Maria De Vecchi, who was the former Governor of Italian Somaliland (a former Italian colony). As such, the book falls under PD-Italy. This was already concluded by admins on Wikipedia (c.f. [9]). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The "source" and "author" information "somali government" is of course patent nonsense. If you know a verifiable source, why adding such nonsense instead? Its your burden to provide verifiable evidence that the copyright status is correct, the fields "source" and "author" are not intended to fill them up with random trash. Regards. --Martin H. (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I originally put "Somali government" because the file was taken from the former Governor of Italian Somaliland, as explained above. But as was later ruled in this discussion, the Governor's book that the file was taken from is actually PD-Italy. And that's what the file description page now reads as (c.f. [10]). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This case is too complicated for speedy deletion. Make a regular DR if there are still reasons for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Threshold of originality

Hi, You could have moved the examples I added down in the Commons section, instead of deleting them. I think it is important that we document our decision. Best regards, Yann (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not enthousiastic about including them under Commons decisions either. I wrote at Commons talk:Threshold of originality#Logo collection, let us keep the discussion there. (But it would be nice to include photos that are very similar to the French decision about the Louvre pyramid and the square in Lyon.) Best regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Östrabo snow.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Östrabo snow.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Östrabo snow.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Lokal_Profil 13:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Bilderna får användas fritt om källan anges." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Pieter. I need your advice on and help with something. There's a new account on English Wikipedia that was recently blocked for disruptive activity; specifically, for abusing multiple accounts (c.f. [11]). The user has created a Commons account of the same name [12], where s/he has exclusively posted copyrighted files that s/he has labeled as his own work. S/he is also using another account on Commons, the same other one as on English Wikipedia [13]. Could we do something about this? What is the normal procedure under such circumstances? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Schweden

Hallo Pieter, vom Kreuzfahrtschiff aus habe ich in den Schären vor Stockholm einige Landhäuser und Villen in reizvoller Umgebung aufgenommen. Darf ich die in Commons publizieren? Was meinst Du? Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Hedwig, ja, dass darf man in Schweden. Sehe zum Beispiel Category:Buildings in Stockholm archipelago. Grüße, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Pieter, vielen Dank für Deine Antwort mit den Bild-Beispielen. Grüße --Hedwig Storch (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Josef-mengele-1935.jpg

Hi Pieter, could you please check, if that picture of Josef Mengele is correctly licensed with permission? Josef Mengele uses the same picture but as copyrighted and under fair use. --Assayer (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

License must be wrong. It is certainly not correct that the Commons uploader is the author. A correct license could be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Anda Safranska.jpg

I decided that deletion request in the manner to keep the image for now, but to tag it as missing permission as well, and have also notified the uploader asking to clarify. Please do not interfere with this decision. Thank you. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Weird behaviour. Uploader gave permision. Youy action is just postponing deletion for a week. So I am interfering huh? Poor you. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked you for three days for disruptive editing and vandalism. Since you'll probably want a review of the block, I've already asked for one at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Pieter Kuiper. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The gist of the discussion there seems to be that the block was wrong (at least for that particular reason), so I have lifted it accordingly. The deletion request is reopened, we'll see whether the uploader will come forward with any clarifying info. --Rosenzweig τ 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a really amusing block reason! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your stalking of Saibo

I would advice you to stop stalking Saibo, as it doesn't look good for any further arguments from your side to have that in your baggage. _→AzaToth 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to keep Commons clean from copyright violations. For example, I am greatly concerned about File:OE Award.png. Do you want me to leave that be? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to keep commons clean from copyright violations, but it not fine to dig through someones contributions to find old skeletons, especially when you are in a non-copyright related disagreement with the person in question. _→AzaToth 13:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would that be? People dig through contributions all the time, see your own words. But I can assure you that my only issue with Saibo is related to copyright. I don't know him (or her, I even don't know that). But if you prefer that not I but someone else nominate the file that I have grave concerns about, why have not you done that yourself yet? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29 -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Undo revision ?

Hi.

Why did undo all the copyvio that i've put ? Kevin Benoit ^{[Let's talk about it!]} 07:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Numbers are obviously not copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not the numbers. It's the signs. And it's all in really low quality anyway... but okay -_- Kevin Benoit ^{[Let's talk about it!]} 07:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

RE:

Do you remember the map lists?, I can't find them Ezarateesteban 23:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible follow-up on a remark of yours?

Could you look in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aradarad.jpg? I don't doubt for a moment that the image (and quite a few of this uploader's images) are PD, but the obviously false claims of self-authorship need to be sorted through and corrected. Given that you seem to know the source of this one, you may be one of the better candidates to sort this out. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a time-consuming puzzle... My first impression was that "Kerpel jszo" was come kind of busses in Romanian (or Hungarian). I will have a look at his gallery though. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And now Rosenzweig (talk · contribs) deleted it. Time wasted, paranoid admins. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If anybody would have given any solid concrete hint that the image was actually published before 1941 I'd have very likely kept it. But saying it's PD-EU-Anonymous (because the) publisher is Kerpel Izsó simply isn't enough. --Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is an old postcard, obviously before 1941. Postcards are published. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly published, but I don't see why it was “obviously” published before 1941. One can suppose it was published before then, but that's not obvious in any way. --Rosenzweig τ 20:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

nederland?

Hoi Pieter,

kom je eigenlijk nog wel eens in Nederland? Als je er weer eens bent, laat vooral van je horen, misschien een idee om eens wat ervaringen uit te wisselen bij een wikimeet ofzo?

Mvg, Effeietsanders (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ik ben niet vaak in Nederland. Te weining eigenlijk. Maar ja, het zou wel nuttig zijn om eens te praten. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Geef anders eens een gil als je volgende keer weer van plan bent naar het Verre Zuiden te komen ;-) Effeietsanders (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Simas.jpg

Thanks Peter for your vote. That's what I've told to that idiot Denniss but I think that he his not able to read. The fact his that the photo was taken around 1917, it's a studio photo. It's impossible to determine in what Studio was taken. The photo was paid by the person depicted wich died in 1927, therefore his a public domain. Moreover, the photo in paper was given to me by the only living descendent os General Simas to be used in his Wikipedia article which I've written.

• Two questions.:

• First:I've uploaded a file of an Portuguese packetship. Prior to the uploading I've contacted the depositary of the photo (wich has them in the Flickr) and he personaly, on an e-mail, granted me authorization to upload to ilustrate wikipedia articles (I've shown this to that guy Denniss, but he didn't care. What should I do? Uploading again the picture?

• Second: The behavior of this guy is unacceptable. Where and how and to whom can I make a formal complaint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boni-pt (talk • contribs)

You are welcome. It is a general problem with the copyright hawks here, this is not a private idiocy of Denniss (talk · contribs) only. Probably it is best to wait for a decision on this file, before you start a complaint on COM:AN/U. Do not reupload deleted files, as this is likely to get you blocked and banned. The proper procedure is to ask for undeletion at COM:UNDEL. But that takes a very long time, and few cases are undeleted. Admins are reluctant to interfere with decisions by other admins. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As to the boat, that seems to be this 1947 photo on Flickr. A "for wikipedia permission" is not sufficient on commons (for reasons that are difficult to explain). You could ask your friend if the "non-commercial" restriction can be removed on Flickr. But it is not certain that would help, as admins are likely to question the authority of the Flickr account. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, Peter. I acted as a true Administrator unlike Dennis who acts as an absolute monarch judging himself as above the others, refusing to explain their actions.
Regarding the non-commercial license, I don't think that's impossible to change it because the photografer died around the 80's and the assets of the studio were offered by the surviving family to the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation so perhap's even the foundation can't make a commercial use of them. But the use of a picture in a Wikipedia article his a non-commercial use. I understand it, you understand it, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation understands it, only commons doesn't
Best Regards
Boni-pt (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Err

The edit warring started with you removing a perfectly valid deletion tag without providing any evidence for the lack of copyright violation. I sense that you are stalking - I would have thought given current discussions even you might think twice but obviously not. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit paranoid, I keep an eye on the copyvio category. You {{Copyvio}} tag was not appropriate, as it is to be used for obvious cases only. But for some reason, you did not want to make a regular deletion request. Instead you started edit warring, which forced me to make the DR to get a general discussion about an image that I want to be kept. Rosenzweig thought that such behaviour was disruptive, and even blocked me for it. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of information about the source/copyright it is an obvious violation given it was published so recently. You removed the tag and provided no more information - plain wrong.

Given your behaviour over many years the issue of being damned is hardly surprising or notable. Your lack of politeness likewise. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elizabeth Bowes Lyon 1902.jpg demonstrates that your copyvio tag was not justified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell - I will not hold my breath waiting for your apology over your comments on this one based on past performance. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to. You must not use {{Copyvio}} for cases that are not obvious. You must not reinstate such tags when tags are removed - take it to DR. And when you "sense" that you are being stalked, try to keep such feelings to yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can think of many people I have taken and will take advice from on the subject of my behaviour on Commons. However I am sure you will understand that you are not on that list. You do good work - frequently in an unpleasant manner. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There would have been no unpleasantness if you had taken the case to a regular DR. Don't you agree? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain what you found so inexplicable about my concerns over Jcb's closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan? His instransigence about explaining this bad closure didn't occur in May. It stretched throughout May and June. My request for undeletion was at the forum for almost two months, it was closed, and the redirects restored, after Jcb's bad closure had already squandered 20 hours of my time.

Pieter, I don't really know you. I don't really know your work here in any detail. I can't remember when I first became aware of you, and your struggles with some persistent challengers. I do remember I saw you outnumbered, and I made a conscious effort to remember that, even though you were outnumbered, you might be making valid points your several persistent challengers didn't want to hear. I extended the assumption of good faith to you then. I have still seen nothing to convince me that you may not have been making valid points then, and that you may be making valid points, worth listening to, now. Is there any possibility you could extend the same courtesy to me? Geo Swan (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why redirects would be essential, or how it could take 20 hours to get around their deletion. Some of them were apparently broken, some had already been deleted by others it seems. Yes, you tried to explain, but your texts are a bit tl;dr. On the other hand, I cannot understand why someone takes the effort to compose a DR like that about redirects.

Admins are generally intransigent, I don't think I ever succeeded in making an admin change his mind about a deletion. They will always tell you to take it to an undeletion request. I also have undeletion requests, the top one right now has been open since August. You should not take it personally. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have explained why I estimate Jcb squandered 20 hours of my time, about half a dozen times now. I first explained my approach to the vast upload, on the tables I prepared to aid me in this task, prior to the nomination for deletion; I then explained when the redirects were nominated for deletion; After User:Jcb's unexplained and unaccountable deletion I explained on User talk:Jcb; when typically for Jcb, he was unwilling or unable to consider the possibility that he may have made a mistake, I explained on the request for undeletion. I've explained elsewhere.

If you have read one or more of these explanations perhaps you could be more specific as to which part of those explanations you did not follow?

If you haven't tried to read any of those earlier explanations is there any point for me to leave you yet another explanation here?

With regard to administrators being intransigent, I am sorry to read you are batting zero. I couldn't give you an exact percentage, I do succeed in convincing a fair number of administrators to change their minds. While some administrators do tell me to initiate an undeletion review, I find some are amenable to reason, and will restore articles or images if new information emerges, or if information they overlooked is drawn to their attention. Other administrators, while insisting on an undeletion review, will agree to a speedy closure, and overturn their own deletion, when the undeletion review causes them to see the issue from a different perspective. I think this would be a fair description of what happened when I asked for an undeletion review of w:Jeffrey Norwitz.

Too many administrators are intransigent about the possibility they may have made a mistake. In my opinion routinely uncivil administrators should be questioned over their routine uncivility. In my opinion administrators who routinely show an unwillingness or inability to consider the possibility they may have made a mistake should be questioned over their failure to consider that possibility. If that administrator's behavior has become problematic enough that a discussion is initiated as to whether they should retain their administratorship I strongly believe that routine incivility should be raised in that discussion; I strongly believe that routine failure to consider the possibility they were capable of normal human error should be raised in that discussion. I don't think we should agree to entrust any individual with administrator authority if we knew in advance that they would fail to be civil, or fail to be fair. And, if the administrator's use of tools is being formally reviewed I think their record of failures of civility and fairness is very pertinent. If we have reason to believe they won't be civil or fair in the future use of the tools, there is absolutely no way we should allow them to retain them.

As to your defense of his administratorship that he was not the worst administrator -- most administrators are fair and are civil, at least they are almost all the time. There are a small group of bad administrators and I am in favour of reviewing all their administratorships. Perhaps if the administrator you consider the very worst were to have their administratorship reviewed I would agree with you, and voice remove opinion. But I don't see that administratorship still being able to exercise their administratorship as a valid argument for Jcb to retain his administratorship, who, in addition to his failures to be civil, and to be fair, has what can be charitably described as blind spots, like for instance the closure of "straight buildings" -- where he always closes the discussions wrong, who routinely fails to offer meaningful explanations, who has deceptive commenting patterns, like only commenting in reviews of his closures as if he were an uninvolved third party, not the deleting administrator, and who gave the very strong appearance of improperly closing a discussion out of malice. Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-07#Request to undelete some redirects... shows that others also opposed undeletion. There is no basis for you accusation of personal malice. Also: keep in mind that non-native speakers of English may find long texts tiresome to read; this is not enwp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

1. No one ever voiced a valid policy based justification for deletion.
2. I accuse Jcb of personal malice? Go back and check. I wrote that his actions gave the appearance of mis-using his administrator powers to settle an inappropriate grudge. Every time I describe this incident I acknowledge that there are alternate explanations. But why don't you see it as Jcb's responsibility to offer that valid alternate explanation -- if one existed?
3. With regard to Jcb possessing an imperfect command of English, that makes it difficult for him to read long text. That is fine. But then Jcb should avoid closing discussions that contain long comments that lie beyond his patience to read, or that lie too far beyond the limits of his fluency for him to understand. Routine closure of discussions where he was unwilling or unable to read all the discussion would also be a serious problem. Routine closure of discussions where he wasn't fluent enough to understand all the arguments would also be a serious problem.
4. You may have meant my explanations of why Jcb's deletion of the redirections squandered 20 hours of my time was too long, and you found them tiresome to read. Fine. Should I interpret this as you rescinding your comment that my assertion Jcb's deletion cost me 20 hours didn't make sense? You aren't going to continue to hold this position if you didn't read my explanation, are you? Geo Swan (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

1. File redirects get deleted all the time on Commons.
2. Yes, you rhetoric accuses Jcb of malice. Without a shred of evidence.
3. I am just saying that he probably got tired of long harangues on his talk page.
4. At the undeletion request, nobody else understood this either.

Now please save your precious time. Don't waste it on me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with everything you wrote above. I will, nevertheless show you the courtesy to try to understand any points you might be trying to make in future discussions. We both have an obligation to show this courtesy to one another, and to our fellow contributors. I hope you will show me this courtesy in return. Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Nobel prize winners 1968.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Nobel prize winners 1968.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Nobel prize winners 1968.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Polarlys (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Credit: Donated by Corbis-Bettmann" Copyright status should be checked with the Bettmann Archive. --Polarlys (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)" Hvorfor? Det er et fotografisk billede taget i Sverige før 1969 - se teksten i licensskabelonen. Nillerdk (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That is why Polarlys should not use the slow speedy-deletion tag, but use a regular deletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello Pieter, do you see any edit warring here? if yes, then you have wrong definition of edit warring, here an unrelated user has removed the problem tag without any reason, as you can see here, they have been warned and I'm waiting for response from the uploader.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are edit warring. You have restored a tag three of four times now. That is not constructive. Take it to a regular DR of you still feel that this is a copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Three? please check the file history again, I had deleted the file because I believed it was a copyvio, I have restored it, tagging it with npd after I received a response from the uploader, claiming that they are copyright holder, I've also restored uploader's comment on the deleted file page. up to this time I only restored the tag once, after User:FLLL removed it without any explanation. also if uploader is copyright holder as they claim, making a DR is not only not helpful, it might even be confusing for them.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I had not seen the deletions and restorations. But FLLL translated uploader's message, was satisfied by that, and removed your tag. That was perfectly reasonable, I think. Which is why I removed the tag again, because this is just a somewhat delayed speedy deletion. If you are waiting for OTRS, there is a template for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when we accept such claims by users without having the permission on OTRS? and why should we open a DR when there is a useful tag to deal with images which lack evidence of permission?

I'm not waiting for OTRS, although it seems very likely that this user is someone from the magazine, we can not be sure that uploader is truly copyright holder or not, in fact, I'm only waiting for a response from the uploader, as I explained for them on their talk page, they can replace the problem tag with OP if they sent the permission. I believe this is a correct use of npd, in case they failed to verify their claim, the image could be speedy deleted, also, if it was deleted before they be able to see my comments on their talk page, it could be restored easily once permission verified.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 01:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Arecibo crop image

Sorry, but I really don't follow your 'keep' rationale at [14]. I've replied to it there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is on my watch list, no need to discuss this here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll only reply on the deletion debate in future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

your writing at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:1984_(1949,_front_cover_of_first_edition).JPG

Hello, I just saw now your writing at the now-deleted-file's talk page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:1984_(1949,_front_cover_of_first_edition).JPG , and if I understood it right, I want to thank you for being encouraged against deleting that file. I don't know if you've noticed it, but although I asked for this file for being on commons, I also put that deletion/doubt template on the file, but that that was not because I liked to do so but because I was told to do so by one who also could have added it by himself, and because my uploading was unintential, accidental. So although I would have liked the file to stay on commons, I think it has been established on commons/wikipedia, that before adding/uploading something, it must be licensed the right way, so as I'm new to commons, I asked for this, and, as you may have noticed, although generally favorable, in the end the discussion was inconclusive (and I'm not that into the UK law/situation to be able to say how they would see it), maybe due to wikimedia's problem adressing who why can decide/interpretate the rules, who decides what is right and what wrong, but however, there were doubts, and altough I doubt their proof, I couldn't falsify them, so... If I read it right, you opted instead of a speed deletion for a deletion request / deletion discussion, which I would have liked more than what have happened, but even if this would have been successful, this could lead to the general thinking of many that files should be uploaded first, and then to think about if it was really right to do it, if they could get an appropriate license or so... so as it also could have been deleted afterwards if I would have uploaded it first, I think it's rather a basic problem than a structural problem... So again thanks for your support for this file - I also would have liked it to be kept, but at that place I was bound by asking for it, and as the discussion was not successful in the end... - I could have not just said "ok, I will accept the result of this discussion, whatever it may be - but only if it'll be in favor of me", so...

(don't panic the long text here - I don't wanna turn your talk page into a discussion maelstrom, too... ;-) )

(I put a link of the commons discussion on the talk page of the original en:wiki-file of the book cover, so that that discussion doesn't get repeated in some years by someone else ones)109.90.75.130 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote in the link, I had removed your deletion template, because it deserved a regular deletion discussion. But then Martin H. (talk · contribs) deleted it anyway, which is quite irregular. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Tronlegacyreconfigured.jpg

Even the uploader claimed it was copyrighted. But if you consider it truly public domain, feel free to restore it. -- Magister Mathematicae 20:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Beyond my powers. You do not understand copyright. And your deletion was irregular. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

re: File talk:May Anderson and Louie Felt.gif

First, Thank you to for finding the source and author of this image. I was however wondering if you had a link to the image. My source for the Children's Friend only goes to volume 12. I would love to have volumes 13-18 to look threw for images.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not actually seen the page in Children's friend. I found a reference in a 2001 book by Quinn. You will find it when you do a google book search on "david and jonathan of the general board". I only have snippet view of that book, but I also saw the page that this photo was on (a search inside that book on "Louie" gave a hit where I saw the lower part of the oval photo). I found volume 18 of the Childrens' friend on google book search, but not even snippet view this time, and I could not confirm that the photo was there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

O'well. I would loved to have had the entire volume. Thanks again.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Mistagged images

Perhaps given your expertise, you'd like to prune the obvious cases (like pd-textlogo) from this report ? [15]. This would reduce the number of what you seem to consider spurious DR's. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is work on enwp. And don't they have a category for this, for easy overview? Anyway, "fair use" is not wrong on enwp, and it is always difficult to draw the line. There is a difference with Commons, that here we also take into account the laws of the country of origin. For guidance, look at the page Threshold of originality. The section for the United States has many examples. Unfortunately, we cannot have galleries for the other side of the line, but some examples are listed on the talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Iupac-alkane-5-nl.svg

Hi Pieter. Could you please translate the fixed English translation to Dutch? BTW: Is the image correctly used in nl:IUPAC-nomenclatuur? --Leyo 07:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, my course in organic chemistry was long ago... the problem had been noted in nl:talk:IUPAC-nomenclatuur#meerdere substituenten en notatie, but nothing was done about it in the text. I will fix it there later. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to find active Dutch “chemistry wikipedians”. There is no traffic on nl:Overleg portaal:Scheikunde. --Leyo 10:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Effeietsanders (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. You removed the image from nlwp, but the text about "4-(1-methylpropyl)octane" is still there. What one should do is to write something about the rule, and give this image and this name as an example of irregular nomenclature. I will fix it, but not this evening (Christmas party will start soon, with too much ethanol to write chemistry). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of the info in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iupac-alkane-5.png might be useful. --Leyo 16:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW: You might be interested in watchlisting this page. --Leyo 15:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Bertha_of_holland.jpg

File:Bertha_of_holland.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!

68.55.129.44 07:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hong Sa-ik

Look at his left shoulder. Takabeg (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you up to? First uploading a PD-old image and then immediately tagging it as copyvio? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification

[16] - Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been aggressively and interminably been questioning the reliability of defenseless Flickr reviewers, and now Ottava is crying for the admins? Well, Commons:Blocking policy says: "Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hi Pieter Kuiper ,

Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC).