User talk:Wiggum

Hallo, ich finde es frustrierend, wie die englischsprachigen WP und die Commons mit Bildrechten umgehen. Auch deshalb habe ich mich aus der Wikipedia zurückgezogen. Es macht einfach keinen Spaß mehr und ich bin Streitereien leid. Wie ignorant muß man sein, die Rechte eines Fotografen, der in der NS-Zeit gelebt hat, einfach zu verneinen? Gleiches für die sowjetischen Bilder, die einfach kurzerhand als vor 1973=PD gemacht werden, was ausgemachter Unfug ist. Wenn auf Experten wie Lupo oder Histo nicht gehört wird, sollen sie hier machen was sie wollen. Ich habe selbst mehr als 3000 Bilder drin, hatte auch etliches zum Bilderwettbewerb vorbereitet... ich lasse es sein. Und dann kommen Löschanträge für Bilder vom WP-Stammtisch, prost Mahlzeit! Sorry, wenn ich dich volltexte, du kannst ja nun gar nichts dafür. Gruß Ralf 217.88.156.78 13:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Ralf (Marcela-Ralf nehme ich mal an, oder? Ich steh etwas auf'm schlauch, samstags arbeiten macht keinen spass ;-( ... ). Ich bin eigentlich auch dafür, sehr strikte Regeln bezüglich zulässiger Lizenzen einzuführen. Diese ganzen Weltkriegsbilder, die aufgrund irgendwelcher obskuren Sonderregeln (was in den National Archives rumliegt ist PD - da lachen ja die Hühner) gemeinfrei sein sollen schaden imho dem Projekt, dessen Ziel die Schaffung freier Inhalte ist. Lupo hat seinen Widerstand gegen die Löschung der Hitler-Bilder größtenteils aufgegeben, soweit ich das sehe. Wobei der ja noch ein sehr angenehmer Diskussionspartner ist, mir stellen sich die Nackenhaare vor allem auf, wenn jemand mit "Behalten, das wurde in Takatuka-Land ohne XYZ-Kennzeichnung publiziert und ist daher gemeinfrei" daherkommt, was durchaus häufig der Fall ist (PD-Polish ist auch so ein Käse).

Ich halte ja gar nichts von diesen "Bitte geh nicht weg"-Veranstaltungen die regelmäßig gemacht werden, wenn jemand keine Lust mehr hat. Aber wenn du jetzt auch noch aufhören würdest fände ich das schon sehr schade. Ich wüsste auch kein Patentrezept, wie man das Klima verbessern könnte. Ich persönlich versuche mich aus den Projektdiskussionen weitestgehend rauszuhalten, was sich auf meinen Wikistress sehr vorteilhaft auswirkt, aber freilich auch nicht immer funktioniert. :-) Grüße, Wiggum 13:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ja, ich bin es, Marcela=Ralf. Lupo hat aufgegeben und ich auch. Wenn ich meine eigenen Bilder in so unkompetenten Händen sehe, bleibt mir nichts weiter übrig. Weiß ich, was die daraus machen? Nein danke! Wenn einem Sowjetbürger 1972 das Urheberrecht abgesprochen wird, werden meine GFDL-Bilder bald PD, weil das jemandem gefällt? Kannst mal http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ralf_Roletschek/sowjetische_Bilder lesen, nur ignorieren die commons-Leute das. Ich bin Includist und habe immer versucht, möglichst viele Bilder zu behalten. Aber wenn es ans Urheberrecht geht, muß man die Rechte des Fotografen achten. Als solcher bin ich bedient und werde mich nicht weiter beteiligen. Ich habe die Schnautze gestrichen voll. Ich habe ganz bewußt GFDL lizensiert, weil ich möchte, daß bei offline-Publikationen nachgefragt wird. Das hat bisher auch bestens geklappt. Die Willkür bei commons geht mir gegen den Strich, sollen sie doch machen, was sie wollen, ohne mich! Das ist keine Datenbank freier Bilder mehr sondern eine Sammlung von Müll, jeder, der was in einer WP gelöscht bekommt, lädt es hoch und es wird behalten. Wenn die Ami's ihre Rechte auf die Welt ausdehnen wollen, dann sollen sie, aber ohne mich! Gruß Ralf 217.88.156.78 01:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Lupo ist nicht nur ein sehr angenehmer Diskussionspartner sondern auch äußerst kompetent - nur zählt sowas anscheinend nicht. Das Bild von der Flagge auf dem Reichstag am 8. Mai 45 mit den sowjetischen Soldaten unterliegt eindeutig dem Urheberrecht, nur wollen das hier die meisten nicht sehen... Uns gehört nicht, was gefällt oder bekannt ist! Selbst wenn das ein unbekannter Soldat der Roten Armee war, - er hat Erben und die haben ein Recht auf das Bild. Die Qualität spricht dagegen, das war ein Militärberichterstatter, sein Name und die Erben sollten mit recht geringem Aufwand ermittelbar sein. Aber nein, da wird auf 1973 berufen und "keep" geschrien.... Außerdem ist es ignorant, einen deutschen Löschantrag englisch zu diskutieren - ich werde hier wenn überhaupt nur noch spanisch disutieren, das sprechen mehr Menschen als englisch (was ich nicht verstehe). 217.88.156.78 01:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ja, ich verstehe sehr gut was du meinst. Die Denke, dass man möglichst viele Bilder unter fadenscheinigen Begründungen behält, um Artikel illustrieren zu können, ist sehr kurzsichtig. Damit vergrault man nur all diejenigen engagierten Fotographen, die hier qualitativ hochwertige Bilder beisteuern. Meine self-made Bilder sind meistens mit dem Prinzip "Vollautomatik und draufhalten" gemacht, von daher halb so wild, aber ich würde mir auch dreimal überlegen, hier Bilder hochzuladen deren Herstellung sehr aufwendig war, wenn die Autorenrechte so mit Füßen getreten werden. Meistens trifft dieses System - wie in DE - die engagierten Mitarbeiter, ist ja auch klar, wenn man mit Herzblut drinhängt, verschleisst man sich schnell. Ich war schon beim Meinungsbild gegen die Commons-Migration und bin nach wie vor sehr skeptisch. Auf jeden Fall wäre es sinnvoll, bestimmte Löschdiskussionen nicht immer in englisch führen zu müssen, da sowohl beim Schreiber als auch beim Leser beim Übersetzen jeweils Missverständnissse auftreten oder Informationen verloren gehen. Die Sache mit dem Spiegel-Cover war da das Paradebeispiel, ich wüsste nicht, was da nicht deutsch sprechende Mitarbeiter beitragen sollten, da es fundamental um die Interpretation der (deutschen) Freigabe ging. Übrigens habe ich gemerkt, dass Commons-Löschanträge bei mir Wikistress abbauen, deshalb ist jetzt Image:Fritz Todt.jpg fällig. ;-) --Wiggum 11:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Recht am eigenen Bild

Unter Template:Deletion requests#Image:Sunbathe breasts.jpg hast Du zum Recht am eigenen Bild geschrieben: "In Germany it is not separated." Nach meinem Verständnis ist es das, es ist immerhin schonmal im separaten Überbleibsel des Kunsturhebergesetzes geregelt, nicht im Urheberrecht, und es hat eher persönlichkeitsrechtlichen Charakter (Siehe de:Recht am eigenen Bild Einleitungssatz). In meinen Augen besteht es unabhängig vom Urheberrecht und eine ohne Einverständnis erteilte freie Lizenz ist gültig (der Fotograf kann niemanden mehr verklagen, der das Bild Lizenzgemäß verwendet), aber der Abgebildete kann immer noch dagegen vorgehen, weil Veröffentlichung solcher Fotos zusätzlich durch das Kunsturhebergesetz sanktioniert sind. Sonst könnten wir auch keine Fotos von Prominenten unter freie Lizenzen stellen, weil sie nicht für Werbung etc. verwendet werden dürfen. Jedenfalls wäre es ganz gut, wenn Du mal Quellen für die Ansicht angeben könntest oder was Deiner Meinung nach den Unterschied ausmacht. --Rtc 02:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, da hab ich irgendwie schmarrn geschrieben. Ich wollte wohl zeitökonomisch der Behauptung des Vorposters widersprechen, nach der uns das Recht am eigenen Bild nicht interessieren muss, weil es eine Angelegenheit zwischen Fotograph und abgebildeter Person sein, was zumindest hierzulande nicht stimmt.--Wiggum 10:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:RIGIS

I have responded at Template:Deletion requests#Template:RIGIS. You seem to have misunderstood what GIS data is. --SPUI 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wii controller

Please read the case again at Template:Deletion_requests#Image:WiiRemoteController.png. Your comment suggests that you misunterstood the point being raised. ed g2s • talk 04:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reichstag image

Re discussion at de: See here... on that particular image, I'm not sure... I wonder how well-founded these agencies' claims are. In the EU, it might be subject to copyright (because even if TASS was the copyright holder, that copyright expired only on December 31, 1995). However, doesn't the EU have the rule of the shorter term with respect to non-EU countries? Because of these uncertainties, I wrote that I didn't know what the status of the image in the EU was. Lupo 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes as far as i know the rule of shorter term is used throughout the EU. Anyway, if Khaldei himself was the copyright owner the picture would be protected by modern russian law and by EU law, so it doesn't matter if you apply the rule of shorter term or the respective national law. If the Soviet Union / GUS successors had a rule for copyright ownership of legal entities this must be shown and proven in the particular case. I'm not very familiar with the legal entity copyrights because this construction doesn't exist in german law. So i would be grateful if you know anything further. :-) --Wiggum 14:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, wouldn't it be nice if we had a general rule for _all_ pictures (i.e. 70 years pma) with very few exception (like PD-USGov). These repeating cases of "i have no clue about copyright but i create my own template because i read something about 'free' on a website" are annoying.--Wiggum 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Right on all points. If Khaldei was the copyright holder, then the image is certainly copyrighted to 70y p.m.a. in the EU. If TASS (or some other agency) owned the copyright, it might be PD in the U.S., and I don't know about the EU. In any case, a news agency's copyright would have expired in Russia on December 31, 1995, i.e. after Russia joined the Berne convention. See Liapin & Paliashvili, TACIS Retroactivity Report (Russia) (MS Word document) (from my favourite template discussion :-/) on that. What that'd mean for the copyright status of that image, I just do not know. Would the EU consider Khaldei the copyright owner all the same? (The U.S. apparently wouldn't, following the Itar-TASS case... or maybe it would all the same...) Would it apply 70y p.m.a. to the image? Or would the EU apply the rule of the shorter term and thus terminate EU copyright also on December 31, 1995? So many questions... Lupo 14:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The EU harmonization directive ([1], article 1, clause 4) treats legal entity copyrights in the same way like anonymous works - protection works for 70 years after the first lawful publication. A 1945 picture therefore would be protected until 2015 (or 2016). I don't think that there is a conclusive and clear ruling which governs the applicability of laws in world-wide copyright cases. The 2003 decision of OLG Frankfurt ([2]) which approved copyright protection to a 1939 anonymous work from the US is a very demonstrative example of case law which shows us that a "nobody will sue us" argumentation is irresponsible.--Wiggum 15:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Apart from being irresponsible, that "nobody will sue us" is also completely off the track. We don't want to lie, do we? I think we should only claim some work was PD in some jurisdictions if we have good reasons to believe it was indeed PD in those places. Anything else would be, well, unethical. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, I once dug out that AA case link for Histo :-) ... yup, here. Lupo 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"A 1945 picture therefore would be protected until 2015" (in the EU). What about the rule of the shorter term (Schutzfristenvergleich) vis-à-vis non-EU countries? See §7 of 93/98/EEC, which you linked above. Lupo 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Now i know why Historiograf appreciates you so much what isn't easy by his person. ;-) Maybe i should have said "It's unlikely that anybody will sue us" but i think this is off track too. And i only lie when it's for my advantage ;-) To be serious: I think you are right with the rule of shorter term assumption for non-EU member states. It doesn't help me (personally) either because i have no idea what's the retention period for corporate copyright in russia. It seems that you are able to read cyrillic writings so won't you get deeper into some very thrilling russian law? :-) Besides, the PD-Soviet case seems to be decided with a transition period of 3 weeks.--Wiggum 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

addendum: I haven't read the doc complete yet but i don't see why an agency copyright should have expired after Russia joined the berne convention? Another important question from de-Wiki was, whether there are institutions which are able to release pictures under free licenses (like NASA i.e.). I think this depends on the question whether there is a corporate copyright in Russia. If there is such a copyright, we might have a plausible source for free pictures.--Wiggum 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Corporate copyright didn't expire because of the Berne Convention. According to the TACIS report (link above), the new Russian copyright law of 1993 abolished corporate copyright. Before, it was perpetual. With the implementation act of the 1993 law, (existing?) corporate copyrights were defined to run 50 years since publication. Therefore, the Russian news agency copyright on that image (assuming that TASS or some other agency was indeed the copyright owner) expired December 31, 1995. Russia joined the Berne Convention on March 13, 1995. At that date, this copyright was still effective, and thus the image became copyrighted in the EU. The EU term for such works is by default 70 years since publication (as you said above), but through the rule of the shorter term (because Russia is not an EU member), that gets shortened to whatever the term is in Russia. Hence the EU copyright would also have expired on December 31, 1995, but only if the EU does also consider a corporation the copyright owner. If however Khaldei was the copyright owner in Russia or is considered the copyright owner in the EU, then that image is copyrighted until 70y p.m.a. in the EU.

For the U.S., the argument is similar: if the work was registered in the U.S. (unlikely?), and the copyright was renewed (likely if registered in the first place), the image is copyrighted until 95 years since publication in the U.S. If the image was not registered in the U.S. (or the copyright was not renewed) and if a corporation is considered the copyright owner, the image is PD in the U.S. (because it was PD in Russia on January 1, 1996, the URAA date). If it was not registered and the U.S. considered Khaldei the copyright owner, it would've been still copyrighted on the URAA date and would thus be copyrighted in the U.S. again until 95 years since publication.

Who is considered the copyright owner is next to impossible to determine for us in this case. That's a question an EU or U.S. court would have to answer for us. I just don't know how a U.S. court would interprete Russian law to determine copyright ownership (according to Itar-Tass). See e.g. Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov (154 F. Supp. 2d 432 (E.D.N.Y. 2001), 250 F. Supp. 2d 156 (2nd Cir. 2003), also 98-CV-7674 (DGT) (E.D.N.Y. 2001-2004)), and its discussion (pp. 917ff) for a case where a U.S. court interpreted Russian law and even explicitly denied a dissenting interpretation by a Russian court.

In summary, I personally think that we just don't know whether this image is indeed PD, and there is a fair possibility that it is still copyrighted. Some news or image agencies (Corbis, Getty, RIA Novosti) claim to manage or hold the copyright. Even if these claims may be spurious, we cannot prove that. Since we're not reasonably sure the image was indeed PD, we shouldn't be making that claim, and thus the image should go. But I didn't prevail with that reasoning (in condensed form) in the old deletion discussion. Lupo 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PD-Italy

they actually have to be implemented in national law mandatory

Yes! Right! So why did you voted for deletion? --Snowdog 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the international treaties require a retention period of 70 years pma within the European Union. However the discussion about the templates abandoned a minimum level of sanity. Since Commons is a world wide content provider every country might request application of it's own law and rightly so because of the berne convention. We will have similar cases on and on when we will not be able to adapt a common rule.--Wiggum 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you also want to delete PD Finland, which pictures have been here for years. But now you have a hurry to delete them. Were PD-Italy pictures moved to Eng. Wikipedia, to save the uploads of many years, or was it all wasted because of you? Oh and why some German copyrightparanoid would sue a Finnish Wikipedian of uploading a Finnish image, taken by Finnish photographers, law approved by Finnish goverment in Finland? In any case, the copyright would be owned by Finns, not by Germans, if it would be valid after 50 years? --Pudeo 14:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Kamp_Vught_1945.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kamp_Vught_1945.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Frumpy 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Weizmann and feisal 1918.jpg

Hi Wiggum, thanks for tagging Image:Weizmann and feisal 1918.jpg. It was under GFDL which wasnot right. The image was taken in 1918 in Syria, that makes it Public Domain. I fixed the info box there. --Tarawneh 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Naadam Ringer.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Naadam Ringer.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. |EPO| 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vulpes zerda dozing.jpg

Hi. The images by Ralf Schmode are up for deletion again, so I just wanted to ask you if there are any results from the pending request you mentioned while closing the old deletion discussion a while ago. --Conti|✉ 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately i didn't get any response. :-( --Wiggum 09:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Himmler ziereis kaltenbrunner 1941.jpg

Dieses Medium könnte gelöscht werden.

Vielen Dank, dass du Image:Himmler ziereis kaltenbrunner 1941.jpg hochgeladen hast. Leider gibt die Beschreibungsseite nicht an, wer den Inhalt erstellt hat, daher ist der Urheberrechts-Status unklar. Falls du den Inhalt selbst erstellt hast, vermerke dies bitte auf der Beschreibungsseite (siehe Lizenzbausteine weiter unten). Falls der Inhalt nicht von dir selbst stammt, musst du begründen, warum er auf den Commons verwendet werden darf, und angeben, woher die Datei stammt, z. B. mit einem Link zur Ursprungsseite und zu den Nutzungsbedingungen dort. Falls es sich um eine Bearbeitung handelt, musst du die Namen und eine Lizenz der ursprünglichen Autoren mit angeben.

Falls das Medium nicht mit einem Lizenzbaustein ausgezeichnet ist, musst du unbedingt einen hinzufügen. Wenn du das Bild, die Audiodatei oder das Video selbst erstellt hast, kannst du den Baustein {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} für die Creative Commons Lizenz oder {{PD-self}} für Gemeinfreiheit setzen. Siehe Commons:Lizenzvorlagen für die komplette Liste der nutzbaren Lizenzen und den dazugehörigen Lizenzbausteinen.

Bitte beachte, dass alle Bilder ohne Quellen- und/oder Lizenzangaben eine Woche nach dem Hochladen gelöscht werden. Dies kannst du auf der Seite Richtlinien zum Löschen nachlesen. Falls du noch andere Dateien hochgeladen hast, überprüfe bitte auch, ob dort Quellen- und Urheberinformationen angegeben sind. Du kannst alle von dir hochgeladenen Bilder mit dem Galerie-Tool ansehen. Vielen Dank.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Himmler ziereis kaltenbrunner 1941.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Himmler ziereis kaltenbrunner 1941.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Antonescu execution.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Antonescu execution.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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Lokal_Profil 01:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion of Image:Bukhara StreetMap2.jpg (July 14, 2008)

I am looking at the printed brochure from which I personally scanned the map. As I wrote in my notes on the image description page, there is no copyright notice on the map; nor is there any copyright notice on any of the folds of the brochure from which the map is scanned. One side of the printed brochure (when spread out) consists of 12 panels of commercial advertisement; on the other side, 10 panels are taken up by the map (without copyright notice); one panel is taken by an advertisement of hotel Bukhara Palace, and the first panel is an advertisement of the National Company "Uzbektourism" with information about the company (e-mail: bukhtour@bcc.com.uz), and again without any copyright notice(s). Based on the nature of the brochure (a free handout to tourists in Bukhara) and the total absence of any copyright notices, I take the brochure and the street map to be in public domain. This is my justification for uploading it to the Commons and using the image in en:Bukhara. If I erred in my interpretation, please illuminate me so that I can learn for the future. --Zlerman (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Kz_dachau_liberation_person.jpg

File:Kz_dachau_liberation_person.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!

Teofilo (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Double votes for POTY 2010

Just to let you know, you can vote only for one image in the final round of POTY2010. I saw you voted for more ... please remove all your votes and leave just one, otherwise none of your votes will count. Have a nice day, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, i removed all votes but one. Hard enough :-(--Wiggum (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

File:Gur Emir 2006.jpg

File:Gur Emir 2006.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!

JuTa 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Samarqand Registan 2006.jpg

File:Samarqand Registan 2006.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!

JuTa 15:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)