User talk:High Contrast/Archive 4

Archives 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Current

Since it's an important piece I'd hate to see deleted...

I noticed your vote on Commons:Deletion requests/File:5-dead-goebbels.jpg, and updated the Source information per your request, and confirmed it several times. Since there are only the three votes on this file, I'm hoping it's enough to convince you to withdraw your vote for deletion. Much thanks Sherurcij (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. I have to think about it. --High Contrast (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Par installation.jpg

Hi,

You recently taken out the category:Radar antennas from File:Par installation.jpg. If you read the information about the image, you will see that this is a phase array radar antenna AND its radome. So this image belongs to both categories. Can you tell me your intend by this suppression? Pierre cb (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pierre, this happended most likely accidentally. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will reverse it if you see no problem. Pierre cb (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did already. --High Contrast (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem! --High Contrast (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salt lake Baskunchak in Astrakhan Oblast (panoramic).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks ok. --Eusebius 17:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Georgia-Abkhazian conflict

hello High Contrast,

I want to ask do you remove Category:Georgia-Abkhazian conflict in Category:South Ossetia war, 2008. Geagea (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because this category does not exist. Unsubstantial and not linked categories is not an enrichment for any category. Furthermore the name is wrong: correct would have been Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. You can, of course, create this cat correctly. That would be ok. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos

You are welcome. -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tr-122 cnra.jpg

It is transferred from tr wiki. Please read licence information: Erk at tr.wikipedia, the copyright holder of this work,...--Mach (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read the licence information - like i do everytime. Are you sure that User:Elk is the author? --High Contrast (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a parade every 30 August (en:Battle of Dumlupınar) in Turkey and he took this image in parade (from File's description). Everyone can take images like this in Turkey on 30 August. In addition he is interested in army, ammo etc. and he has some images like this. Example. Why are you in doubt, pixels?--Mach (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the low resolution which is often an indicator of copyright violation. I asked the author on his site on tr.wiki if he has this image in a higher resolution. Lets see. --High Contrast (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes the low resolution is often an indicator of copyright violation but it is not enough for deletion. Actually he has this image in a higher resolution (500×375, Original upload log). I am an admin on tr wiki and if 500×375 is enough for you i can reupload the image in a higher resolution. Regards.--Mach (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right that a low image resolution must not be copyvio, but low resolution _and_ no EXIF-data is quite dubious. Not enough for deletion, but enough for tagging it with "no source". By the way I tried to contact User:Erk on his discussion-page on tr.wikipedia to get Information from him about this file. The 500×375-Version of this file would be great. --High Contrast (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Avia FL3

Sory I disturb you (again) :-)). With good intentions, it seems I did mess again. I can't understand that is so big problem upload own picture (see file discussion page). However, please, without any further notice delete it if you thing it is against any Commmons rule. Thanks --Dtom (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! You don't disturb me ;)
Do you have the permission for uploading it? I mean did you ask the author Malcolm Clarke? I won't tag the image with "no permission". Perhaps you can ask the author and a positiv feedback. If you have the permission have a look here: Commons:OTRS. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Colombianfestivaluk.jpg

Hi I have entered more information on the source of the photo. It comes from Flickr where I recieved permission from the creator to use the previously copyrighted image, since I am fairly new to Wikimedia Commons, I am not to sure if I have added this photo correctly. I would appreciate your help, Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I will be happy to help you. Well, I have noticed that you have completed the source information. The "no source"-tag will be removed. But the licence of this flickr-image does not fit with the Commons-licencing. Only certain licences are allowed on Commons: see here and here. Please read carefully. Then you are free to act. Have fun and don't get frustrated ;)
Greets, High Contrast (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

respect of a redirection page

can you respect the redirection. It would be more friendly to the user. Crochet.david (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

hum, after all, is more complicated than that, the page redirects between users and talk pages are not in the same direction. So it's not your fault.Crochet.david (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Frage

Hallo D-Kuru!

Dieses, von dir hochgeladene Bildchen hast du ja, nachdem ich dich darauf hingewiesen habe, ja vorbildlich mit den korrekten Quellen versehen. Hast du noch dies auch mit all den anderen Dateien zu tun, die sich z.B. in dieser Kategorie befinden? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[...]

--D-Kuru (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sollte jetzt alles erledigt sein. Wo ich gerade dabei war habe ich {{ID-USMil}} mitreingegeben, wobei ich bei manchen Bildern, bei denen sich die ID warum auch immer geändert hat, die neue ID integriert habe. Die alte Quelle hab ich dringelassen, weil es die Originalquelle ist, war und auch immer bleiben wird woher ich dieses Bild runtergeladen habe. Bei manchen Bilder von http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp hab ich die Quelle auch noch verbessert.

--D-Kuru (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wunderbar! Bei welchen Bildern änderte sich die ID? Dieser Trend fiel mir besonders bei US-Navy-Bildern auf. Auch dass Dateien durch den Verschiebevorgang von der einen zur anderen Seite schlichtweg verloren gingen. --High Contrast (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Das Bilder verloren gegangen sind ist mir noch nicht aufgefallen. Wenn ich das jetzt richtig im Kopf habe dann haben sich nur die IDs von manchen Bilder von http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ (jetzt http://www.defenseimagery.mil/index.htm) geändert. Manche Bilder von dodmedia fingen vorher mit "DM-[...]" an. Jetzt fangen sie mit Zahlen an. Bsp.: no name Vorherige ID:DM-SD-04-07566.JPEG (auf dodmedia); Jetztige 030502-M-3692C-010 (auf defenseimagery). no name ist noch ein Beispiel. Bei navybilder ist mir eine ID-veränderung noch nicht aufgefallen.

--D-Kuru (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Konkret verschollen sind diese beiden Bilder: File:SS-N-12 missile launchers.JPEG und File:Mig-23-DNST8908431 JPG.jpg. Beide Aufnahmen konnten nicht mehr gefunden werden. Unerklärbar, wo die abgeblieben sind. Bei dem MiG-23-Bild konnte ich noch die ID organisieren, beim SS-N-12-Bild war dies leider nicht mehr möglich. Falls du also bei einer Recherche auf US-Gov-Seiten über eines der beiden Bilder stoßen solltest, kannst du das auf den beiden Dateien nachtragen. --High Contrast (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Be-200 photo

Do not delete my images of Be-200!!!! Stop doing that! You are the third in doing that! I got permission of oficials from Beriev. If you don't trust me you can consult it with them.

Wrong, you have to prove that you have the permission of oficials from Beriev. Read this carefully: Commons:OTRS. --High Contrast (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

réponse

Well, what you did is not sufficiant anyway. You should state as source a complete weblink to the page: Look here as how it would be correct. --High Contrast (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

et bien demandez moi d'importer ce lien plutôt que de passer ces images en suppression. il est facile de comprendre, sauf pour un esprit fermé, que c'est un manque de précision et non une importation délictueuse. un peu d'intelligence est nécessaire dans des projets collaboratifs.

peut-être vous vient-il à l'esprit que vous désorganisé les articles sur lesquels ces photos sont utilisées si vous les supprimées pour un tel motif mineur.

je vais donc importer les liens nécessaires mais vous me laisser le temps j'ai d'autres occupations dans la vraie vie.

cordialement --Michel d'Auge (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

un peu d'intelligence est nécessaire dans des projets collaboratifs - c'est vrai Michel. Allez, vite! --High Contrast (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:Catherine Zeta-Jones

Please do not delete the image, as it has removed the watermark. Fausto2009 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing the watermark does not change the copyright status. --High Contrast (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Marines during elections in Fallujah 001.jpg

Not all DoD images are found on the Internet & thus do not have a URL. Are you saying that United States Marine Corps is not a specific U.S. Government source? It seems specific to me. Please direct me to the regulation on this because I'm having difficulty finding it. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk)

You are right, not every image is taken from the internet, but every image has a specific source (own work, books). But most US-Gov-images were taken from any US-military site which I think this one, too. Just stating United States Marine Corps as source is problem because it is not comprehensible if it is really an US-Gov-image. The other way round: someone could upload any image that was taken from, let's say, a British military homepage and declare this image as a file from the Marines, for example this would be copright violation and does definately go not conform with the purpose of Wikimedia Commons. Ok? So, here you have an example how you state the correctly - with the correct URL and the image-ID. Where is "your" image from? Where did you find it? Did you take it by yourself? --High Contrast (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The source of the image is the United States Marine Corps & I disagree that this is a problem. As an organization of the DoD, the United States Marine Corps is a government source & I actually believe the source is more specific than the example you have provided above, which is the higher level DoD organization. The Marine Corps has thousands of photographs in its collection, the large majority of which are not on the web. It appears to me, you are basing your logic on web-based photographs, which this is not. As mentioned on the photograph, the author is from combat camera of the 1st Marine Regiment (United States). Between the source & the author, IMHO, all the information is needed about where the picture came from, which is clearly a US-gov source. So again I ask, please direct me to the regulation on which you are basing your determination that this image needs a more specific source. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you get this image from somewhere (web site, private e-mail, etc) you should specify this source. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer to this is already covered above. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm continuing this discussion on the talk page of the image. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you are: COM:L#License_information. Read the hole breake. Everything ok? Will you now please complete the source information? --High Contrast (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Struja3.jpg

Hi, that file comes from the "great migration" from es:. It was uploaded there from en: It seems to have been deleted there (there's only a mirror of our image) and I don't know why, only a sysop there could tell us the reason. Nevertheless I have no problem if that image is finally deleted. Regards, Kordas (sínome!) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kordas! Can you ask the sysop there why he deleted this image? --High Contrast (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ok, clear case then. Best regards --High Contrast (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just asked at IRC en: channel the reason for that deleted image, and one kind sysop told me {{no source|month=July|day=30|year=2006}}, so the reason was no source. Bad news, I'm afraid. So it seems that image has a little time of life here, hehe... See you!! Kordas (sínome!) 23:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:F-22 Raptor.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-22 Raptor.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Best regards, --Karel (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your flickr review request

Hello. As a result of your request at Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers, I have added you to the reviewers list. Please see the instructions at Commons:Flickr images/reviewers if you haven't done so already. You have the option to add the userbox {{User trusted}} to your userpage if you wish. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Marines during elections in Fallujah 001.jpg

Morgen
Ich habe FieldMarine wegen des Bildes gefragt und laut seiner Antwort wird es schwer so gut wie unmöglich sein eine Webseite zu dem bild zu finden. Siehe hierzu User_talk:FieldMarine#Marines_during_elections_in_Fallujah_001.jpg
mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe die Diskussion verfolgt und habe ihn auch diesbezüglich schon vor ca. 10 Tagen angesprochen. Offenbar hat er das Bild von einem Photographen dieser Einheit - er hat es also nicht selbst gemacht. Somit müsste der korrekte, mit Commons konforme Weg folgendermaßen aussehen, dass er ein OTRS-Ticket vom Fotographen anführen, das beweist, dass das Bild von demselben geschossen wurde. Ich glaub ihm ja alles was er sagt, somit dürfte es ja kein Problem darstellen. Was denkst du in der Sache? Willst du es im derzeitigen Zustand belassen? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe auch an ein OTRS-Ticket gedacht, weiß allerdings noch nicht, ob er wieder an den Fotographen ran kommt bzw. mit ihm in Kontakt treten kann. Bei der Lizenz bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob die jetztige in Verwendung befindliche wirklich die Beste ist, oder ob gegebenenfalls {{PD-author}} besser wäre, weil (wie ich schon auf der Diskussionseite von FieldMarine geschrieben habe) ich mir nicht sicher bin, ob alle Photos generell sofort nach ihrer Aufnahme PD sind oder ob sie zuerst freigegeben werden müssen (Etwaige taktische Dinge wie Bunkeranlagen oder so könnte die Veröffentlichung verhindern, auch wenn das in diesem Fall eher unwahrscheinlich ist). Weißt du darüber mehr?

Auf jedenfall würde ich es fürs erste dabei belassen, aber das Bild im Auge behalten, damit es nicht in Commons' Sumpf untergeht.

--D-Kuru (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Löschtag trotz Freier Lizenz?

Hallo High Contrast, Du hast dem Bild: ein no_license Löschtag verpasst, obwohl bei Permissions CC-by/3.0 steht - und auch einen auf meiner Diskussion-Seite, wieso nicht bei mir und nicht beim Bildautor User:Milgesch ? Gruss HBR (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Richtig, die CC-by/3.0 steht drin. Das habe ich deshalb nicht gesehn, weil ich auf diese Datei über das gallery-tool stieß. Dort werden Dateien ohne Lizenzangabe entsprechend markiert. Nachdem ich die Infobox nicht weiter nach eventuelle Angaben durchforstete und lediglich das Nicht-Vorhandensein eines Lizenzbaustein bemerkte, setzte ich den no-licence-Baustein. Übrigens: Dieser Lizenzbaustein ist kein Löschtag, sondern in erster Linie ein Infotag, mit der Option, dass die Datei nach einer gewissen Zeit, sofern sich nichts änderte, von einem Admin gelöscht werden. Sind wir ja froh, dass beim vorliegenden Fall alles reibungslos und schnell geklärt werden konnte. --High Contrast (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Alles klar, hab jetzt auch gesehen, dass es hier beim gallery-tool-server knall rot markiert war, da hier vom Autor alte oder deutsche vorlagen verwendet wurden. Da lizenz klar ist nehme ich selber den no Licens tag aus dem Bild wieder raus. Gruss HBR (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Genau das wollte ich vorschlagen. Danke, dass du mir diese Arbeit abnimmst ;-) --High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Elefantenhaus - Tiergarten Hellabrunn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Pudelek 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sakskøbing - Vandtårnet Saksine.JPG

Please help me ! I am totally lost. I just want to have an unusable file deleted. best regards, - 11:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hubertus45 (talk)

Hello! What about this file? What is wrong? --High Contrast (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. The problem seems to be solved: Commons:Deletion requests/2009/04/02/File:Sakskøbing - Vandtårnet Saksine.JPG. Thank you for your attention anyway :-) - Best regards 19:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Hubertus45 (talk)

Ok, you're welcome! --High Contrast (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos Alena Aladka

All the photos I took of Alena are in this page: http://www.rosengurtt.co.uk/events_parties/contestant_photos.aspx?event_id=12&part_id=340 If you are interested in any of them, let me know. I am happy to provide them to you free. Best regards, rosengurtt (talk)

Thank you! Personally I don't need images of Alena Aladka, but Wiki-Commons, especially this category ;-) Greets, High Contrast (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zettelmeyer ZD 3001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Absolutely to the point, awakens greediness .. feeling like a 8 jr old boy, again :-) P.S could be a tad more brighter --Richard Bartz 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC) * It is not a loader but a wheeled-bulldozer. --MathKnight 16:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bild von der Panzerschnellbrücke 2 aus Flickr

Servus. Bist du dir sicher das es die PzSchnBr 2 ist was dieses Bild zeigt? Ich denke es ist die Panzerschnellbrücke Leguan auf Leopard 2 Fahrgestell. Vergleich mal das Verlegesystem!--Sonaz (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Du hast recht! Da habe ich Leguan und PzSchnBr 2 verwechselt! Ich werde mich die nächsten Tage um die Richtigstellung kümmern. --High Contrast (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hab ich auch am Anfang gedacht es wäre die. Kein Wunder ist das selbe Chassis was KMW da nutzt. :)--Sonaz (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

File:B-52 over Guam.jpg

Sorry but i (as the uploader) disagree to you marking this file as a dupe of File:Cope North 09-1.JPG that you uploaded. I have changed the speedy deletion to a normal deletion request. I would like to hear your comments in hereTm (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I cannot follow your thoughts. What is the purpose of your action? --High Contrast (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, to answer your question, please see my argumentation and question on the deletion request, thanks. Tm (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My question is unfortunately not answered by this. Your purpose of this DR remains unclear. The case of fact is a duplicate file. Which one is to be deleted is equal for this project. What is your problem of using a {{dupe}}-tag? Is it the childish I am the first? --High Contrast (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Es ist aus Versehen auf meiner Userseite gelandet

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilshofen an der Donau, Vilsbrücke.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments sieht doch gut aus --Mbdortmund 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Danke, fürs Nachtragen! Viele Grüße, High Contrast (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Entzerren

Das Bild habe ich mit Photoshop entzerrt. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also keine Freeware ;-( --High Contrast (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nee, leider nicht. Probier mal Ptlens (10 Bilder in der Demo), ist so ähnlich wie das Lenscorrect plug im PShop.--Richard Bartz (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Sea tractor, Bigbury-on-Sea.jpg

Why did you remove the Category:Amphibious vehicles from this image? Jolly Janner (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Because Category:Amphibious vehicles was applied doubly direct and indirect: indirectly through Category:Sea tractor. Ok? --High Contrast (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, although I think that the picture would also be very useful in the Category:Amphibious vehicles, as most of the vehicles in there are very similar, so the sea tractor would add a bit of variety. Jolly Janner (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can unserstand you, but Category:Sea tractor appears in Category:Amphibious vehicles, as stated. This is a major Commons-rule: COM:OVERCAT. --High Contrast (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say it's a rule and uses the world "should". Jolly Janner (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

the no-license tag you added to a photo's file today

The photo's filename at Wikimedia Commons is this:

File:Sphere-and-ring balance board underside.jpg

Although I forgot to specify the license when I uploaded that photo in September 2008, I added the license soon after. I shot the photo. David Maisel (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Image resolution

Thank you :) I will upload the next photos in original resolution. Ewa Dryjanska (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful and thanks! --High Contrast (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Replace

Ahoi, ich würde es genau so machen. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright-Frage

Hallo!

Bist du dir mit der Lizenzierung folgender Dateien sicher?

• File:Flugzettel Wehrmacht EinschliessungsringLeningrad.jpg
• File:Flugzettel roteArmee EinschliessungsringLeningrad.jpg

Diese Flugblätter unter einer "Copyleft"-Lizenz zu veröffentlichen halte ich für sehr gewagt.

Antwort: Nein, ich bin mir nicht sicher, welche Lizenz in diesem Fall die beste ist. Jedenfalls denke ich, dass kein Copyright mehr vorliegen dürfte, da die Flugzettel aus 1942 (vor 67 Jahren) stammen. Die Wehrmacht als Organisation existiert ja nicht mehr und die Rote Armee von damals auch nicht mehr. Falls du aber mehr Erfahrung zum Thema Lizenzen und einen besseren Vorschlag hast, nehme ich ihn gerne an.

Besten Gruß, --Bauken77 (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! Folgendes: So einfach, wie du es dargestellt hast, ist es leider nicht. Nur weil die Organisationen aus einer bestimmten Zeit heute nicht mehr existieren, heißt das nicht, dass beispielsweise Dokumente dieser Organisationen heute lizenzfrei wären. Da gibt es sogenannte Rechtsnachfolger, obschon mir bewusst ist, dass es im Falle der Roten Armee eine Sonderregelung gibt. Wie dem auch sein, bin ich mir diesbezüglich selbst nicht 100%ig sicher. Ich habe vor diese beiden Dateien in der Löschdiskussion vorstellig werden zu lassen. Eventuell werden dort hilfreiche Anregungen geäußert. --High Contrast (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, danke für die Unterstützung. Habe eine vergleichbare Datei gefunden:

• File:So wie wir kämpfen poster.jpg

Dort findet sich eine public domain Lizenz. --Bauken77 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Besten Dank für den Hinweis! --High Contrast (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea- --High Contrast (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Frage

Wer und wo wird entschieden ob ein Foto als Quality Image bezeichnet wird? Paul Hermans (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Qualitätsbilder: Es wird nicht entschieden, sondern es wird abgestimmt. Bei dieser Abstimmung kann sich jeder Mensch mit Commons-Konto beteiligen. Also auch du! Im Fälle deines Qualitätsbildes verlief es so, dass ich zufällig darüber gestolpert bin und es vorgeschlagen habe. Ein anderer User befand es den Kriterien entsprechend als "würdig" den QI-Status zu bekommen. So geschah es. Da die Benachrichtigung über die Auszeichnung von einem leblosen Bot vollzogen wird, der den Antragsteller zum QI-Bild gratuliert, wurde zunächst mir bescheid gegeben. Da du aber der Photograph bist, habe ich die Benachrichtigung von meiner Diskussionsseite auf deine übertragen. Nun hast du ein Qualitätsbild für Commons fabriziert. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Da hast du gut gestolpert :-) Vielen Dank Paul Hermans (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! --High Contrast (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete

File:Cairo International Airport.gif that`s not free. محــ سالم ــمد نشوان (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File has been deleted by User:Kameraad Pjotr.--High Contrast (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: Image:Chernobyl reactor clean-up operation.JPEG

This media was probably deleted.

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

Wikipeder (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop speculating. Source is stated and has an US-DoD-ID. That's definately enough. Furthermore if you are not sure about the file's copyright status open a deletion request. It's up to you! --High Contrast (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: "Soviet Military Power" was a publication of the United States Department of Defense in the 1980ies. --High Contrast (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Castor-Zug.jpg

Hey, ich habe die Internetadresse nachgetragen. Nur bei der Lizenz bin ich mir nicht ganz sicher. Auf Indymedia ist diese hier angegeben, passt da PD-author? Gruß --Widars Klagesturm (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ja, das sieht wesentlich besser aus und PD-author passt. Auch dass du den exakten Link auf die Fotos angibst ist den Commons-Richtlinien entsprechend richtig und erforderlich. Klasse! Kleines Zuckerl noch am Rande: Vielleicht kannst du dieselben Bilder auch in einer größeren Auflösung auftreiben (unter einer Commons-kompatiblen Lizenz). Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list#File:World Health Organisation building south face.jpg

Hello,

I followed Carol's suggestion, and added a separate edited version. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check it adequately. --High Contrast (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Good day. Have you thought about adminship here? --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello! In principle yes, but I don't know how a nomination works and what the exact requirements are to become a administrator on Wiki Commons. But surely it would be a very challenge. --High Contrast (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I can help you out with that. With that I mean as in a nomination from me, is that OK for you? I think you've got the requirements, that we look for in an admin, IMO. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that's OK for me. Thanks for support and your help. --High Contrast (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear. I'll be working on the nomination, it may take some time. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --High Contrast (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please enable mail? Thanks. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please accept here. I can transclude the request, or you can if you want. --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept the nomination - sounds good. Thank you! Can you transclude the request for me, I don't know exactly where to put it. --High Contrast (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Good luck! --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --High Contrast (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cruise ship on the Danube.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 23:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Anafree.jpg

Hallo & Danke für den Hinweis auf den fehlenden Beweis zur Lizensierung des Bildes File:Anafree.jpg. Ana Free wird in den nächsten 1-2 Tagen eine E-mail an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org schicken mit der Genehmigung und Kontaktdaten. Ich kenne nich noch nicht so gut aus auf der Wiki/Commons. Muss ich noch irgend etwas beachten (z.B. einen "tag" adden das die E-mail Bestätigung aussteht und erfolgen wird)? TB-Al-x

Hallo! Ja, es gibt einen Baustein, der darauf hinweist, dass eine Freigabe-Bestätigung folgen wird: Template:OTRS pending. Einbinden kannst du diesen indem du folgendes einfügst: {{OTRS pending}}. Bezüglich Freigabe-Bestätigung emphehle ich diese Seite (OTRS). Dort erfährst du alles... Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

mitgelesen und entsprechend markiert. --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Italian Soldier UNIFIL 2 Lebanon 2007.jpg

It's a calender/presentation published by the Army in 2007 - the link to it is: [1]
hope that helps; --Noclador (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, you can include the pdf link in each file, too. That would make it more transparent and comprehensible for everybody. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Neues Bild von defenseimagery.mil

Sieh dir mal http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=de2907206c2883c260f6da97a9a1fed6027d7f87 an. Die Autorin dieses Bildes ist "ANITA JOHNSON, CIVILIAN". Es findet sich aber dennoch kein Hinweis darauf, dass dieses Bild nicht PD ist. Die instructions in den Metadaten sagen das übliche "RELEASED". Würdest du sagen, dass dieses Bild PD ist?
mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

PD-Bild. Man könnte in diesem Fall erneut diskutieren, ob dieses Foto unter einer US-Gov-Military-Lizenz veröffentlicht werden kann, da es den Angaben zu Folge von einer "Zivilistin" aufgenommen wurde. Nachdem hier darauf hingewiesen wird, dass Bilder, die nicht gemeinfrei sind, entsprechend gekennzeichnet wurden. Da dies hierbei nicht der Fall ist, ist davon auszugehen, dass das Foto gemeinfrei ist. Auch ein Zivilist/in kann ein Angestellter des US-Militärs sein.
Hast du das Bild hochgeladen? --High Contrast (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

1) PD-USGov(-Military) würde ich nicht verwenden. Ich würde eher zu {{PD-author}} greifen. Ich habe mir in etwas das gleiche gedacht. Hochgeladen habe ich das Bild noch nicht, kommt aber noch zusammen mit ein paar anderen Bildern.

2) Etwas anderes finde ich aber ganz interessant: Die Imaging Ethics sagen "The use of cropping, editing, or enlargement to selectively isolate, link, or display a portion of a photographic or video image is not considered alteration. However, cropping, editing, or image enlargement that has the effect of misrepresenting the facts or circumstances of the event or object as originally recorded constitutes a prohibited alteration." Ich nehme mal an, dass das eine schlichte Absicherung sein soll, falls jemand ein solches Bild kreiert. Ich finde es nur interessant, dass defenseimagery.mil auf der einen Seite sagt, dass die Bilder PD sind, aber auf der anderen Seite sie unter eine Art ND Ristriktion stellt. Meiner Meinung nach zählt diese Notiz garnichts (entweder PD oder ND Lizenz)

3) Hast du vielleicht eine Ahnung was ich bei M109 Self-Propelled Artillery.jpg machen muss, damit ein bot die Datei verschiebt?

--D-Kuru (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Ja, {{PD-author}} hört sich auch gut an. Nur würde ich bei der Verwendung dieses Lizenz-Bausteins irgendwie darauf hinweisen warum das Bild gemeinfrei ist. Immerhin stammt es ja von einer offiziellen USGov-Quelle. Zudem ist dieser Zeil: effect of misrepresenting the facts mehr als schwammig. Letztendlich liegt es im Auge des Betrachters, inwiefern durch eine Nachbearbeitung oder Bearbeitung Tatsachen falsch dargestellt werden.

2) Das ist interessant - das hatte ich bisher auch noch nicht gelesen. Ich denke ebenfalls: entweder PD oder ND Lizenz.

3) Ich hätte es dir sagen können, aber du hast es selbst zur Verschiebung vorgeschlagen, bevor ich es tun konnte. Aber {{rename}} war der korrekte Befehl. Jetzt dauerts ein Weilchen und im Anschluss ist die Datei unter dem neuen "Namen" zu finden.
Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bild ist jetzt online unter M109A6 Paladin-front ID DA-SD-03-07467.JPEG. So wie von dir vorgeschlagen habe ich bei Permission einen kleinen Informationstext dazugeschrieben. Wenn du noch zusätzliche Informationen hast kannst du sie gerne hinzufügen um die ganze Sache klarer zu machen.

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Neues Kapitel:
Vor kurzen habe ich M109 howitzer aufgeräumt. Ich wollte die original M109 in eine extra Kategorie einsortieren sodass sie von den unbekannten Versionen getrennt ist. Ein Beispiel für ein solches Bild wäre dieses hier und vermutlich auch Self-propelled-howitzer-vietnam.jpg. Ich dachte an Category:M109 howitzers für die Zusammenfassung aller bislang unbekannten Versionen. In Category:M109 howitzers by type würde ich die bislang existierenden Versionsunterkategorien unterbringen. In Category:M109 howitzer würde ich dann alle original M109er unterbringen. Wenn dir für die Überkategorie ein bessere Name einfällt hätte ich auch nichts dagegen alle bestehenden Unterkategorien im Plural neu zu erstellen. Daneben dachte ich auch an Category:M109 howitzers by Country of service als neue Unterkategorie. Wollte ma nachfragen was du davon hältst.
Ein Archiv für deine Seite wäre nicht schlecht. 95k ist schon ein bisschen groß und unübersichtlich.
--D-Kuru (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hört dich gut an. Die M109 howitzer hat bei der Fülle an Bildern ein Aufräumen und eine Neusortierung nötig. Die neuen, von dir vorgeschlagenen Kats sind sinnvoll, nur bei Category:M109 howitzers by Country of service muss ein kleines "c" (country) stehen. Ansonsten alles OK.
Archiv für meine Diskussionsseite ist in Arbeit...
Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

M109 howitzers by country of service und Unterkategorien sind erledigt. Nebenher hab ich Leopard 2 gleiches nur in Versionskategorie beschafft. Alle wie z.B. Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F073468-0007, Manöver, Kampfpanzer im Gelände.jpg oder Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F073468-0019, Manöver, Kampfpanzer Leopard 2.jpg konnte ich nicht einordnen, weil ich nicht weiß um welche Version es sich hier handelt. Ich würde eher auf A4 tippen. Wenn du es weißt, kannst du sie ja gleich in Leopard 2 by type einsortieren.

mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Anfrage zu File:Mig-29-Algérie.jpg

Hallo High Contrast, ich habe das Bild den commens entnohmen und eine neue Version geschaffen. Diese Version soll copyright etc des Vorgängers übernehmen. Über die Autorenschaft des ursprünglichen Images ist mir nichts bekannt. Der Uploader der Ur-Version ist wohl schon 2008 diesbezüglich angefragt worden. Für weitere Infos stehe ich gern zur Verfügung, eine Löschung beider Versionen aus rechtlichen Gründen stelle ich mich nicht in den Weg. MfG, --Barfuß in Rom (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! Wo befindet sich die Ur-Version? Link? Wer der Uploader und wo ist die von dir angeführte Anfrage aus dem Jahr 2008 zu finden? --High Contrast (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Ur-version (nach meinem Verständnis)-> [2]
2. Uploader: [User:Ardastos]
3. Anfrage: Sorry, habe ich verwechselt mit der Anfrage [3] (MiG-29S), es hat wohl noch keine diesbezügliche Anfrage an Ardastos gegeben. MfG, --Barfuß in Rom (talk)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mamayev Kurgan - Vechnii Ogon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK --Mbdortmund 00:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

QI

Thank you for a review of my image. --Lošmi (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No probem. I still like it ;-) --High Contrast (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Is not File:Google streetview wuppertal 01.jpg the copyright violation because of "all rights reserved"? --Hatto (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, the uploader obviously changed the licence to "all rights reserved". But when the transfer to wiki commons was done, the image was under a CC-by-sa-2.0-licence, as the FlickreviewR robot confirmed. --High Contrast (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrator

---

Ein Willkommenspräsent für unseren neuen Administrator von deinen Kollegen...

Herzlichen Glückwunsch, High Contrast! Du hast jetzt die Rechte eines Administrators auf Commons. Nimm dir bitte einen Moment Zeit, um dir die Seite Commons:Administratoren und die in Verbindung mit der Beobachtungsliste stehenden Seiten durchzulesen (insbesondere Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und Commons:Deletion requests), bevor du damit beginnst, Seitenlöschungen, Accountsperrungen oder Änderungen am Seitenschutzstatus bzw. an den geschützten Seiten selbst durchzuführen. Der Großteil der Bearbeitungen eines Administrators kann durch andere Administratoren wieder rückgängig gemacht werden, mit Ausnahme der Zusammenführung von Versionsgeschichten, die deshalb mit spezieller Obacht behandelt werden muß.

Wir laden dich herzlich ein, mit uns auf IRC Kontakt aufzunehmen: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Du findest zudem in dem Commons:Ratgeber zur Administratorentätigkeit vielleicht eine nützliche Lektüre.

Bitte überprüfe, ob du in der Commons:List of administrators und den jeweils nach Datum oder Sprache sortierten Listen eingetragen wurdest und ergänze deine Daten andernfalls.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your support and your trust in me! I will try my best to support Wikimedia Commons. Best regards. --High Contrast (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --High Contrast (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Auch von mir herzlichen Glückwunsch. Wenn ich gewusst hätte, dass du zum Admin vorgeschlagen worden bist hätte ich mich der supportreihe mit sicherheit angeschlossen.

--D-Kuru (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Danke, Danke. --High Contrast (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, bro

Hello! Yes, i'm muscovite and i was in MSK when parade had been held. But i just get homevideo of helicopters fly up in the sky near my house. Unfortunately i'm in Northern Kazakhstan now but when i'll come back to MSK in couple of weeks i'll give you the video. Hope i'll get to use Canon EOS MarkII photocam in June, so i hope to give you the photos that you need later (if actual :-) ). Write me any moment if you need any photos in MSK region, i'll try to make or get good free pics. Sasha. - Zac allan (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean write in my ru-wiki page )) - Zac allan (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem about the parade. Thank you anyway for your help! Thanks for offering your "services" for taking photos from Moscow region, too. One request ahead of time: Do you know the MAKS Air Show in Zhukovsky (city near Moscow)? Is it possible for you to take some photos there? --High Contrast (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re

I usually try too but for some reason they aren't very high.--WillC 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange edit

Hi. What happened here? Lycaon (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WOW! I do not know how that could happen. Sorry and thanks for reverting. --High Contrast (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No probs. Knowing your edits, it looked accidental :-)). Lycaon (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am quite shocked about this accident. Vandalism like this was definately not my intention. I apologize for that. Can you imagine what could happened there? --High Contrast (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, High Contrast!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Image:SSconcertcitizen.jpg is uncategorized since 22 May 2009.
• Image:Robcrow.jpg is uncategorized since 9 July 2009.
• Image:Pinback.jpg is uncategorized since 9 July 2009.

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears Sculpture

Sorry but I din't have many time for write a description.[4] --Gaston S/Kpo! 09 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I think that the picture was too dark and we don't see the details of the sculpture

Photos

Hello, tell me Have I done the right thing with the photos? The photos that told me that the source was not clara.Si not remember watching my talk page and see if there is something comunícamela and explain what you know best .Forgive my English if you see any errors.Bye --Israel soliz (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Use clear source information. Do not use "Canon Digital Camera" or anything like this. If you are the photographer use {{own}}, to inform everyone that you have taken the photo. Please correct this on all of your images. Thank you, and bye, High Contrast (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Google Street View

Thank you for editting the images about Street View, Mr. High Contrast! I don't know the way to add the data of Google Map and Earth in File:Google Street View Car in Gothenburg.jpg, File:Google Street View Car in Winnipeg.jpg. Would you do it? --Hatto (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! No problem! You can use this tool, too: http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php
With this tool you can easily create description template of flickr description pages automatically. Moreover this tool tries to find proper categories. --High Contrast (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, would you edit the images about Street View in other cities like Madrid, Milan and Málaga? Would you always check Street View images by me because I will upload them, OK? --Hatto (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad if you check my contributions and find uncompleted articles. I'm very very sorry! Would you check File:Google Street View Car in Aranjuez.jpg and non-Google car file File:Taro Aso in World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.jpg? In addition, I'd like to rename File:Google Street View in Amsterdam.jpg to File:Google Street View Car in Amsterdam.jpg. How should I do? --Hatto (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming is running. The rest will be done later this day or tomorrow. --High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the location map in both File:Google Street View Car in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.jpg and File:Taro Aso in World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.jpg in my own style. Would you fix it because it's maybe wrong? --Hatto (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, please check File:Google Street View Car in Valencia.jpg and File:Google Street View Car in Auteuil-Neuilly-Passy, Paris.jpg! --Hatto (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I already upload images in California and England's Brighton. Would you complete the articles I upload before you're said by me because I don't want to say the same things many times? I'm so glad that you complete the images in Mexico City, Geneva and Oviedo etc before I request you to complete them. I hope you positively complete. --Hatto (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you complete File:Google Street View Car in Bournemouth.jpg, File:Google Street View Car in Honolulu.jpg, File:Google Street View Car in Calabasas.jpg, File:Google Street View Car in Salt Lake City.jpg, File:Google Street View Car in Turku.jpg? I also want you to delete File:Google Street View Car in Tilburg.jpg because I accidentally uploaded the same image with File:GoogleStreetViewTilburg.jpg. --Hatto (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you see my message? --Hatto (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Note, that it was the last time that I completed one of your uploads! You can do this by your own, too. I told you a few lines above how to do! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I can only understand easy English! I don't understand and speak English perfectly. Because I'm a Japanese (I've uploaded the image of Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso). Thank you for completing the images in Bournemouth and Honolulu! I want you to complete the images in Calabasas, Salt Lake City and Turku because I cannot do excellent editting of articles like you. (For example, I don't know how to add flickr URL including at sign "@" and location dec right) OK, no problem? --Hatto (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew how to complete the articles! I'll edit the articles instead of you by my own in the future. Thank you! --Hatto (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good! Have fun! Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you delete File:Google Street View Car in Lisbon.gif because I uploaded obscured "gif" file? By the way, why is not File:Google Street View in Amsterdam.jpg renamed yet? --Hatto (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting this specific file is done. Renaming takes some time - that's normal. Only this Bot can rename files. --High Contrast (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Midvinterblot.jpg

Hi High Contrast, I have been moving quite a few files to commons from the backlog and although I am quite vigilant I imagine one or two files with issues will get through. I will have a look at the links you gave and if you have any more help you could give me to reduce any human error I would be grateful. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

BTW, I removed the copyvio notice. This seems to be created by en:Carl Larsson, who died in 1919, so this should be PD-old. I have now nominated the image for deletion, maybe I am missing something. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Moreaux-indep.jpg

hi, you have deleted this file but it was being used on 2 pages. you should replace it with the new file and not simply remove it. regards tetraktys (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello! In general: obvious copyright violations should not be deleted because they are in use. Moreover most wikis use the CommonsTicker which will notify the local wiki if an image on Commons they are using is tagged for deletion or actually deleted. Replacing images on other wikis is not a classic task for commons-Admins. --High Contrast (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Macchi_C.205.jpg

The autor of this file is unknow. The image is in public domain because photographs without creative input of the author enter the public domain after 20 years counted from January 1st of the calendar year following their first publication in Italy. See this link. --Dalmacia (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What does "not copyrighted in the US" mean? Is this image copyrighted in Europe or Russia or Switzerland? --High Contrast (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The template says "simple, documentary photographs without creative input of the author enter the public domain after 20 years" Is anywhere defined what is cosidered to be a creative input? From my point of view every image has a creative input if it's not an image which is ineligible for copyright. However, if the image was taken in the early forties {{PD-old}} is definitely the wrong template. It may can be used under {{Anonymous-EU}} in 2013.

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Google Earth images

I'm looking for clarification of the use of Google Earth images. I uploaded an image (Almondsbury IC.jpg) that you deleted based on copyright violation (fair enough). However, in the article about Google Earth there is an image taken from Google Earth! Did I not enter in enough information about the legal owner of the image?[[User:Mg169706}}

Google Earth images are forbidden on Commons - they cannot be published under a free licence. Equal if you put mor information in the description-box or not. article about Google Earth? Where? Link? --High Contrast (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The main wiki article about GE. Its full of them. That is why I thought it was ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_earth User:Mg169706 16:48, 27 May 2009 (GMT)

Ahhhhhh! I see. "For use in identifying the program." From the copyright notice attached to the images. User:Mg169706 16:52, 27 May 2009 (GMT)

Well, the Google Earth images on en:wiki are OK. There, on en:wiki, fair use is allowed, on Commons not. --High Contrast (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Fazendinha Corinthians.jpg

Hello,

I saw that you put the tag of "missing source information" on this image. but, if the image has more than 70 years old, it become public domain according to the brazilian law, it isn't? and i guess that this image realy is from the Corinthians memorial.

thanks,

tales.ebner ^¶ 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

With the 70 years you are right - think so, too either. My concerns direct to its source because the source proves not that it is from Corinthians memorial. And that's the problem. --High Contrast (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. but how can it be proved? for example, the image is there, but the image uploaded here is a photo of the original. what i have to do to prove?

thanks again,

tales.ebner ^¶ 18:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Consulting the uploader or search for the image in the WWW in order to get prove. --High Contrast (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. tales.ebner ^¶ 18:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --High Contrast (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion before replace

Dear adminstrator, you deleted Img 1377.jpg which was marked as a duplicate before replacing all usage. This made CommonsDelinker delink all usage. You should always first replace all usage. Wait for {{Universally replaced}} to appear and do a GlobalUsage to be sure everything is replaced (beware of the replication lag) before deleting the file. Could you please clean up the mess you caused? Multichill (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK  Support and  Done --High Contrast (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dunai_hidak.jpg

Hello! Could you please elaborate what was the reason behind tagging the picture in question? I mean, would you pretty please look around first? Civertan is uploading pictures for the last, dunno, 2 years now, they have their own license template, it's pretty easy to find all of their pictures, you can verify their ownership on their webpage, etc etc etc. And the picture do contain the license and the permission.

I have removed the template, and urge you to start a discussion about it if you feel that you have been mishandled.

Thank you. --grin ✎ 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Images of highway exits / Anschlussstellen?

I have taken numerous images of German highway exits, most of them with EXIF GPS data, see example.

Example of highway exit image

Are they within the scope of Wikimedia Commons? Thanks in advance! --Iotatau (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Iotatau! Du kannst mich auch auf Deutsch ansprechen.
Ja, deine Fotos befinden sich innerhalb des Projektrahmens. Das auf meiner Disk.-Seite gezeigt ist recht gut, sogar, wie es sich gehört mit retouchierten KFZ-Nummernschildern. Warum zweifelst du an der Relevanz? --High Contrast (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Danke für die rasche Antwort. Ich wusste nicht, ob es zu exzentrisch ist, irgendwann 50, 100 oder noch mehr Bilder von Anschlussstellen auf Commons zu haben, was vielleicht für eine unnötige Serverlast gehalten würde. Mich persönlich interessiert das Thema – wenn es auf Commons nicht unerwünscht ist, freut's mich. Schöne Pfingsten! --Iotatau (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Alles ok. Bei sauberer Kategorisierung ist das mehr als in Ordnung. Unnötige Serverlast ist das bei Leibe nicht. Viel Spass beim Werkeln und besten Dank für deine Beiträge. Wie bereits angedeutet erfährst du hier mehr über den Projektrahmen auf Commons. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete image changed to deletion discussion

Hello. I noticed an image you tagged for speedy deletion, File:Jennifer Walcott-E.jpg. The link seems to be significatly newer than the Commons upload, so I changed it from a speedy to a deletion discussion. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jennifer Walcott-E.jpg. Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's ok. Let's see what comes out. Thank you. --High Contrast (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delink images

I have never been an administrator here at commons, never read the guidelines for the neither but I do know that when images are deleted they most commonly are removed (Delinked) by the bot user:CommonsDelinker. When you recently deleted the file Counter-Strike text logo.svg you forgot, or did not care, to set the bot to remove the image from the articles were it were used. If you could do so in the future that would be perfect. //Sertion^t|c 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sertion, the delinker is an automated process. If an admin deletes an image, all usage will automagicly be removed. So High Contrast didn't forget anything, the bot just didn't work, probably just a hick up. Multichill (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so thats how it works. I'm so sorry for my faulty accusations. And I hope that in the future the bot will do it's work as it should. //Sertion^t|c 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Uni Regensburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ugly building, nice composition --Ianare 09:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you erase this photo? There was no copyright violation as the copyright tag was imported from an existing image in en.wikipedia and it was not fair use or likewise. --MartinHansV (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation: the stated source: http://www.mclellansautomotive.com/sales-lit/bysub/recreational/campers/index.shtml is copyrighted Copyright © 1997-2009 . --High Contrast (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The respective file version in en-wikipedia contains within the copyright tag the text: "The material was released into the public domain by the publisher - the work is marked in writing Copyright Free." Like this, for me, it is clear that there is no copyright violation, unless this statement should not be true. If this should be the case but, the file has to be removed from en-wikipedia as well because copyright violations are not allowed in any part of wikipedia. I but believe in what is stated in the respective copyright tag. Please explain further if I should not be right or transfer the photo into wikipedia commons again. Many thanks in advance. --MartinHansV (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Renault M 210 Midliner.jpg

Dziękuję :) Zwiadowca ²¹ 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proszę bardzo --High Contrast (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:Equipamneto vmer.jpg

The author has declared that site as the source, please see summary. Otherwise, the image itself shows the URL. Isn't it a kind of publicity? Yanguas (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, what is there publicity? This weblink in the image? There are numerous file with watermarks - although that is no optimum. Revert all your copyvio request or find a valid reason that proves that this file is copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:"English Wikipedia"

Hi High Contrast. I know about that, but I've based on its licence. If you wish, you can see the original licence at English Wikipedia: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide... He put "self-made" as souce, then... Regards --Mwaldeck (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Imge:David Gilmour Crisis Gig 2009-1,2,3,4.jpg

Hi,

Please, take this pictures back, because I have the author's permission (I asked for it by email):

Please feel free to use the image you indicated, I am really happy that you liked it and that it can be shared in this way. No worries about the license, it is a long story why all rights are reserved.

I would only like to ask you for a reference and a link to the original, as the attribution-share alike CC license describes.

and

Hello David,

I thought you were referring to all other photos. You can use any David Gilmour photo (or from the gig in general) for the article. Thanks for the link, I can hardly understand anything though!

Regards, Ilias

--BluesD (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ilias!
Excellent and thank you for your contributions! But send your permission to the OTRS-team: Here find all the information you need. When the permission was stated, contact me again and I will restore all the images. We have a quite stringent procedure for this, but it is necessary. Greets, --High Contrast (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my name is David. :) I've sent the author's (Ilias) permission to the OTRS-team. --BluesD (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good! Give me the links of the images that I should restore when the permission is verified. --High Contrast (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:David Gilmour Crisis Gig 2009.jpg, File:David Gilmour Crisis Gig 2009-1.jpg, File:David Gilmour Crisis Gig 2009-2.jpg, File:David Gilmour Crisis Gig 2009-3.jpg and File:David Gilmour Crisis Gig 2009-4.jpg. Can you rename the first one for "David Gilmour Crisis Gig 2009-5.jpg"? Thanks, --BluesD (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, renaming process is running. Can you re-upload all of the David Gilmour images in the highest resolution available on flickr? If, of course, the permission is given for these versions. --High Contrast (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I re-upload, because the author doesn't wrote that "only just in small". --BluesD (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done What is this delete template on this picture? --BluesD (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt314 is deleted this image above! But I've spent the permission about this pictrue. --BluesD (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done restored. --High Contrast (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

File:LybMi-8_(clipped).jpg

I'm not the author, this file is only a cropped version of File:LybMi-8.jpg. --Sorruno (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The state as source the file on Commons. By the way using transferred from (any) wikipedia is no source, so please do not use this as source. Thanks in advance. Have fun in contributing Commons. Bye, High Contrast (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Ralf Roletschek

Unfortunetaly I dont speak german so good to explain stuff with the licensing. I saw that you'd started conversation with that user. Could you pls explain him that licencse CC-NC-ND is not valid for Commons and he needs to change it for some valid license, otherwise his files will be deleted? Thx. Masur (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I know is licencing policy and his application of CC-NC-ND-licencses. Many other users contacted him because of this, but he is arguing with Multi-licensing. He claims that he uses free licences like GFDL-1.2. If you still have concerns, try to contact him in English. --High Contrast (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:nintendo.svg

Hi, could you do me a favor and undelete that image so I can upload it onto enwp or could you do it for me? Thank you.-- penubag  (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure but I think other projects were using that image. After you undelete it, I would like to do a check usage and fix that problem. Thanks. -- penubag  (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I opened an undeletion request for it.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

..and your efforts were a success! Congratulations! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Obama Leaning.jpg

Thanks for the re-upload here at the higher resolution! The picture looks great. I happen to like the image a good deal. :) Vicenarian (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem! But, please, always remember to take the highest resolution of an image on flickr. --High Contrast (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don˝t have File:.Ships.jpg in larger resolution. Sorry--Valentina96 (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hotel in Regensburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Seems ok to me. Maedin 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kategorien-Verschiebung

Warum dieses? Ich habe mich beim Upload im Commonisten vertippt... bin also der einzige, der diese Kategorie befüllt hat... wie bekomme ich die denn jetzt "herüber", ohne das alles manuell zu reparieren? ---jha- (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ein Kategorie-Redirect ist hierbei falsch - meinen Revert nicht perönlich nehmen. Im Prinzip hatte dein Vorgänger-Bearbeiter schon Recht. Ich kümmere mich darum - morgen, spätestens dieses Wochenende. Ist das in Ordnung für dich? --High Contrast (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I said the Plus 44 wasn't a picture I took. I get that, but the other pictures are mine, that's why if you were to look for them, you wouldn't be able to find them. I don't see what difference it would make anyways. But, no one owns the copyright to the picture...

File:Shavit_Ofek7a.jpg

File:Shavit_Ofek7a.jpg

What source missing? -- WonRyong (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You did NOT state a valid source. Wikipedia is no valid and utilisable source (More information to be found here). --High Contrast (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

CDU pictures

Hi High,

come down. I contacted Mr. Guido Speiser from the CDU-Bundesgeschäftsstelle he is the head of Marketing und Interne Kommunikation. he allowed me to use these pictures for wikipedia.

9002redrum (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dann setze dich mit COM:OTRS auseinander. Dort muss deine Erlaubnis eintreffen. Du musst nämlich beweisen, dass Guido Speiser dir die Erlaubnis erteilte das Material zu verwenden. --High Contrast (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Eine Fristsetzung wäre gewiss die demokratischere Lösung gewesen! 9002redrum (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Struktur cdu.svg War meine eigene Leistung. Welche Art von Verstoß wir mir deines Erachtens zugeschrieben? 9002redrum (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Das ist natürlich kein Verstoß. Bei der Löschung kann es sich nur um ein bedauerliches Versehen gehandelt haben - anders kann ich es mir nicht erklären. Zu deiner Beruhigung habe ich die Datei wiederhergestellt. Bei Urheberrechtsverletzungen mit Fristen zu arbeiten hat sich in der Praxis als nicht hilfreich erwiesen und wird deshalb in eindeutigen Fällen nicht angewendet. --High Contrast (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, High Contrast!

Guten Tag, High Contrast!

I have questions:

1) About the copyrights. I the professional programmer, also have more than 80 certificates on professional skills. I have received it 1999-2009 years. Some already have become outdated. Can i load the scanned copies of these documents? The certificates Brainbench.com RetraTech, Moscow technical university and Oracle. It can be a free images?

2) If these free images, the high resolution is possible whether or not? The probable problem exists: the swindlers can use it.

Informations:

1) I have loaded a little part of photos from a museum, and will proceed further.

2) I like to make military models in scale 1:35. Part of my models: [5] [6] [7] [8]

Models i make with historical research and accuracy. Therefore i know much about World War II and i have the large library. Any questions, specification You can address to me. I ready to help in

• Portal:Technik
• Portal:Sowjetunion
• Portal:Militär

Regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem

How come are you not aware of the fact that pictures from www.wp.mil.pl are allowed to be used freely? It has been established over 4 years ago. We even have the original email from the Polish Ministry of Defense information center stating that the pictures can be used freely. How come you need to check them again? - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Send the permission to COM:OTRS. There are definately no incidents that prove that these files are free in the sense of Commons! All images from the Polish Ministry of Defense will be deleted if no valid permission is sent. --High Contrast (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So I just have to send that email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and tell them "hey this permission was used for four years"?

Also, how come there was no problem with this for FOUR YEARS and then suddenly BAM! - you're deleting everything? - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

All information you need can be found here: COM:OTRS - in polish, too. --High Contrast (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that but I just want to know why is this coming up now and not for example four years ago? - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Overwrite

How can I overwrite an existing image using Commons Helper. Somebody stoled my image and says he's the author. --Cezarika1 (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Which image is stolen? --High Contrast (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DET-250 tractor.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good. Yann 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio-Serie

Hallo, ich sehe gerade, du hast eben File:GalerijaPS12.jpg gelöscht, das ich getaggt hatte. Danke für die schnelle Reaktion. Es stellt sich heraus, dass das ein Serientäter ist: fast alle Uploads von Ukulelea (talk · contribs) sind letztlich von derselben Website. Zum Beispiel sind die folgenden und viele andere alle von [9]:

• File:The Fountain in Strumica.jpg
• File:The Fountains in Strumica.jpg
• File:GalerijaPS13.jpg
• File:GalerijaPS15.jpg
• File:GalerijaPS9.jpg

Auf en-wiki sind auch noch jede Menge. Könntest du mal durch sein Upload-log gehen und alles löschen? Schöne Grüße, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Auf den ersten Blick hast du vollkommen Recht. Ich muss mir das aber nochmals genauer anschauen! Vorab schon einmal besten Dank für die Unterstützung! Gruß,High Contrast (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Klar, kein Problem. Falls noch Fragen auftauchen, erreichst du mich am schnellsten drüben auf en-wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nur ne kleine Nachfrage - schon mal Zeit gefunden, dir den Fall anzuschauen? Wenn du keine Zeit hast, kann ich das natürlich auch auf eins der Noticeboards bringen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Doch, bin das ganze schon durchgegangen, aber ich wollte noch bis Ende dieser Woche - sprich spätestens Morgen (Samstag, 19.06.09) - warten, ob eine Reaktion (Richtigstellung, o.ä.) des Benutzers folgt. Wenn nicht, dann wird alles entfernt. OK? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, natürlich, kein Problem. Die einzige Reaktion, die ich bisher von ihm gesehen habe, war, dass er nach einer Löschung und Warnung auf en-wiki [10] dasselbe Bild einfach hier noch mal hochgeladen hat (File:Global Mall, The Palms and Fountains and the City Park.jpg), scheint also eher noch uneinsichtig zu sein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So, der Großteil ist gelöscht wegen Urheberrechtsverletzung: Folgende Dateien sind erhalten, da sie nicht auf dieser Seite zu finden waren und/oder EXIF-Daten enthielten: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Wenn du Indizien hast, die für URV sprechen, dann bescheid geben. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[Switching to English, if you don't mind. Just in case somebody else wants to follow this.]

Uh-oh. Macedonian image uploaders are a never-ending source of amazement. File:North Czar's Tower in Strumica, Macedonia.jpg and File:Roman Bath near Strumica, Macedonia.jpg were previously uploaded at mk-wiki by a different user, mk:User:Тиверополник (Tiveropolnik, also signs as Астрион Astrion) as their own work under PD (as mk:Податотека:Цареви кули во Струмица.jpg and mk:Податотека:Римска терма во Банско.jpg). Those uploads superficially look okay, but then again, Tiveropolnik/Astrion also uploaded mk:Податотека:Sportska sala strumica.jpg, which is again from the strumica website, and a long series of apparent copyvios that were earlier deleted on mk-wiki, among them mk:Податотека:GalerijaPS16.jpg, which judging from its title was from the same series as the above. So, honestly, I wouldn't trust any of these. I'd suggest deleting the rest; if you don't want to speedy it, I guess I'd list them at Deletion requests as likely copyvios. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ownership specification

Hi, I want to clarify a certain issue with an admin. My Commons contributions recently started with an invitation to allow the transfer of one of my Flickr images to Commons. It was uploaded to Commons by somebody else crediting me with my real name. I later substituted the original authorship declaration with my Commons user name, see diff. Should I additionally prove my authorship through OTRS or some other mechanism? Thank you in advance! --Iotatau (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! Ich gehe davon aus, dass du Deutsch verstehst, nachdem du einen Verweis auf de:wiki auf deiner User-Seite gesetzt hast. By the way: Hübsches Foto! Prinzipiell ist der Verweis auf dein Commons-Benutzerkonto zu bevorzugen, aber es spricht nichts dagegen auch auf dein flickr-Konto zu verweise. Das kann auch etwas kleiner ausfallen, wie z.B.: Jochen from Berlin, Germany. Am flickr-Link als Quelle würde ich nichts verändern, sprich den Verweis auf flickr stehen lassen und diesen nicht durch {{own}}, o.ä. ersetzen. Die Nachvollziehbarkeit sollte in diesem Falle gewahrt bleiben, da das Bild von einem speziellen flickr-Bot hochgeladen wurde. Noch offene Fragen? --High Contrast (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Danke für die Antwort! - Die vielen englischen Beiträge lassen mich ins Englische verfallen, dazu kommt die "Höflichkeit", das Thema auch für Nicht-Deutsch-Kundige lesbar zu machen. - Dann lasse ich das Bild so, wie es ist. "Werbung" für meinen Flickr-Account ist mir nicht wichtig, vielleicht wird sogar langfristig Commons mein Schwerpunkt. Dokumentation interessiert mich mehr als der Wow-Faktor, den man bei Flickr braucht, um vorne mitzuspielen. - Vor einer etwaigen Nominierung des Bildes als "Quality Image" wollte ich einfach sicherstellen, gegen keine Richtlinien verstoßen zu haben. --Iotatau (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wenn es um eine QI-Nominierung geht, so hast du sicherlich Recht, da ja flickr-Bilder nicht bewertet werden (dürfen/sollen). Deinen Schritt in Richtung Commons ist begrüßenswert - gute Beiträge sind stets willkommen! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Image: HUGY.jpg

Why was this file deleted? This is a book cover image generated by the publisher (for whom I work), freely released and available. It is going to be used in the book's wikipedia article. Thanks for your time, ElsevierTim

Are you the author of this cover? Do you have the rights to publish it under a PD-self-licence? What about the book publisher Elsevier? They would have the rights for the cover. --High Contrast (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Zolnierze_8_DZ_z_gen..Głódziem.jpg

I am autor the foto!!!--keriM (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear. But state the authorship MORE CLEARLY in your uploads! Thanks in advance. --High Contrast (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My english is not good............ File:Gluszczyk w 29 BZ.jpg - date.... ok...make--keriM (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --High Contrast (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Schema_tramway_irkutsk.jpg

Qu'est-ce que vous voulez de moi? C'est mon propre travail!Kail sazerland (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not want anything from you, but a .svg-version of this file! --High Contrast (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Esc-ce que c'est obligatoire? Pouriez-vs me renpondre en francais? J'ai cre/e cet image \a l'aide de Microsoft Visio c'est-a-dire c'est *.vsd. Esc-ce que ca convient? Kail sazerland (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Non, ce n'est obligatoire: voir ici Help:SVG/fr. --High Contrast (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

File:WrestlingBulldog.jpg

Hello ! I don't quite understand the automated message I received from you about this file. I uploaded a new, enhanced version of this file. It appears that it was originally from wp:en ; the original author and source seem to be provided, and furthermore, since I don't have a clue where this picture is from, there's nothing I can do to specify it. Please let me know if I did something wrong when uploading the new version of this pic. Thanks ! --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I'm trying to upload images for the university that I work for and they keep getting deleted for copyright violation. I'm licensing them with the creative commons license and yet they are being deleted anyway. How do I prove they can stay? AUGWC (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Notify uploaders please

You should always notify uploaders when you delete their images. You seem to have forgotten this at User talk:Eva open and User talk:Ukas. Multichill (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I do so usually. Does a special template exist, that can be put on the talk page of user whose image was deleted? --High Contrast (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Titania.jpg

You deleted File:Titania.jpg. But according to the image description and also according to the page it was copied from the picture was taken by Voyager 2. As Voyager 2 is a NASA employee, the image should be PD, shouldn't it? --Slomox (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for telling me this mistake. There was a copyvio-tag at this file which stated this similiar image on this site: See http://www.solarviews.com/cap/uranus/titania.htm . Obviously I have overlooked the NASA source, which is of course the most important in this case. I will restore this image immediately. ---High Contrast (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. File:Titania.jpg is a copyvio. The image was obviously copied from 'solarviews' and downsized—its resolution is exactly half the resolution of the image from 'solarviews'. As to NASA image, it is very different from one on 'solarviews'. Of course, the latter may be a processed version of the NASA's image, but still it is not in the public domain. Ruslik (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you have concerns about it, then open a DR-discussion. But keep in mind: equal where an image of Titania appears, it was taken with "Voyager 2", a NASA vehicle. --High Contrast (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Chandra images were also taken by " a NASA vehicle", but all of them are copyrighted. Obviously, "taken by a NASA vehicle" != "public domain". Ruslik (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ralf_Roletschek/gallery#Flemming

Bei den Flemming-Bildern sind einige Schauspieler zu sehen. Ich weiß nur dummerweise nicht, wie sie heißen. Ich war dort als Komparse engagiert, sollte die wilde Presse spielen und fotografieren was das Zeug hält ;-) Ich ahbe auf FzW schon gefragt, da wußte nur einer den Namen eines Schauspielers, lediglich http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Finzi wurde identifiziert. Übrigens Danke, daß du mir hinterherkategorisierst. Das polizeiauto ist übrigens kein Polizeiauto: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfz-Kennzeichen_(Deutschland)#Kennzeichen_in_Filmen Gruß Ralf Roletschek (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! Da wurde mit dir als Komparse einen Volltreffer gelandet! Mit der Kategorisierung der Schauspieler kann ich auch nicht weiterhelfen - ich habe keinen erkannt. Leider ist mein Wissen über Film/Fernsehschauspieler, national und international, begrenzt - ich kenne nur die Mainstream-Darsteller. Die Sache mit dem Polizeiauto war mir bewusst: Auf diesem Bild ist eine Anzeige (auf dem Autodach) zu sehen, wo verdeutlicht wird, dass es sich um spezielle Film-Farhezuge handelt. Aus diesem Grund habe ich mich entschlossen, dass ich nur dieses Foto entsprechend kategorisiere. Wie dem auch sei, sollte jemand Einwände dagegen haben, kann der/diejenige es wieder rückgängig machen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Adultsharpei.jpg

Hi, I noticed you deleted File:Adultsharpei.jpg. I requested this deletion because it showed a Copyright notice in the original image that was uploaded. As a result of my request User talk:Denisrw re-uploaded the image without the copyright notice. Now that the file is deleted this user reuploaded the same image as File:Adult sharpei.jpg, claiming it is his own picture although his username differs from the authorname Yana Mishina. He uploaded some additional pictures as well. How should we deal with this? Is Deniswr Yana Mishina? Could you have a look at this? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

else Hodža

Thanks for Alaska map rescue, and now, what with "http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soubor:HODŽA_druhá_míza.jpg" ? Im added source, and author (Hungarian fotografer) --Fredy.00 (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is the author? Is he the copyright-holder? Do you have permission? --High Contrast (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Author is: Forrásjelölés Hasonló, and im got his premision to re-upload file (hungarian upload dont workt in czech and polish wikipedia) --Fredy.00 (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)--Fredy.00 (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do you have the image from? --High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

from Hunagrian wikipedia... it isi uploaded by author to use on hunarian wikiepedia --Fredy.00 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Give a link (deeplink!). Username of the author. When you know everything that I told you go there. GOODBYE, High Contrast (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fájl:Enver_Hoxha_04.jpg - hier it a source of file. im got premision of author in text form (from ICQ dialog)

Very good. Obviously you have a permission for this image. Now, you must send a ticket to OTRS: here is the link. --High Contrast (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Palestinian_Youth_With_Sling.png

Explain the deletion of this file as a CopyVio since (I believe) I gave the proper citation of it being released into the Creative Commons? I just logged in to see the photo I uploaded last night has been deleted. Sherurcij (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I see the summary. Much thanks. Sherurcij (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You can ask anyway. --High Contrast (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Änderung der Stimme bei Böhringer-Bild?

Hallo, Du hattest ja im Bild File:Vorderhopfreben Üntschenspitze.jpg zu Recht die schwarze linke untere Ecke kritisiert. Mittlerweile hat der Autor sie korrigiert. Ändert sich dadurch Deine Stimme beim Consensual Review? Danke! --Iotatau (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nachhilfe: Prohektrahmen

Hallo!

Ist irgendeine Datei, die in irgendeinem Wikipediaprojekt verwendet wird automatisch im Projektrahmen? Verfolgen diese Dateien [15] und File:Michele Merkin 1 ad.jpg edukative Ziele? --High Contrast (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Laut geltenden Bestimmungen ja, die Bilder sind im Projekramen. Grund dafür ist der, dass man - wenn die Datei verwendet wird - davon ausgehen kann, dass sie dort zu einem bildenenden Zweck verwendet wird. Das dem nicht immer so ist und das auf en.wikipedia Dateien verwendet werden weil es "kinda cool" ist habe ich schon mal zur Sprache gebracht - wurde aber - wie sehr vieles andere auf Commons - konsequent unter den Tisch gekehrt (mit einem durchaus plausiblen Grund: Wir sind die Datenbank, was die Projekte verwenden wollen ist nicht unsere Sache)

Das Bild ist bei den exzellenten Bildern auf de.wikipedia verwedet. Scheint mir einfach so eine Art Scherz zu sein wie Chicken Ball February 2009.jpg auch. Das rennende Huhn ist für mich noch als educational content erkennbar, wieso das Bild mit dem Ball aber jetzt auch zu solchem bildenenden Zeug gehört ist mir nicht ganz schlüssig.

Um es kurz zu machen: Obwohl es keinen (für mich erkennbaren) bildenden Wert hat würde ich es nicht löschen. Grund ist der, dass jedem Autor ein gewisses Maß an nutzlosen Bildern erlaubt wird (z.B. Bilder von sich selbst um sich vorzustellen). Wieviele Bilder nutzlos sein dürfen habe ich auch schon mal nachgefragt, habe aber keine brauchbare Antwort erhalten. Es gibt gute Argumente das Bild zu löschen und es zu behalten. Meine Erfahrung nach ist die Mühe einer Löschdiskussion es nicht Wert, da dabei nichts rauskommt. (Meine Einschätzung wäre in etwa "kept because in use". Wenn du das Bild weghaben willst kannst du es ja trotzdem versuchen. Vielleicht sind die, die alles un jedes behalten wollen gerade in Urlaub.

PS: Ein Archiv für eine Diskussionsseite wäre nicht schlecht

mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Traurig aber wahr. Ernüchternd, dass jedem Autor sinnlose/nutzlose Dateien gestattet sind, aber ich habe auch schon bemerkt, dass ein Vorgehen dagegen zum Scheitern verurteilt ist - leider. Mein Versuch ist gescheitert, die "Behalter" waren offenbar nicht im Urlaub. Die Mühe dieser Löschdiskussion war es wahrlich nicht wert, zumal mich das Verhalten einiger derart gegen den Strich ging, dass ich mich ernsthaft damit auseinandersetzte, ob ich mein Engagement einstellen sollte. Zumindest für eine drastische Reduzierung meines Wirkens hier, habe ich für mich beschlossen. Auch für mich ist der educational content bei meinem angeführten Fall nicht nachvollziehbar. Ein Spaß-Bildchen, das auf de:wiki sinnfreie Witzchen bildtechnisch untermalen sollte. Zumal die abgebildete Person nichts mit den hirnlosen Statements im Bild zu tun hat. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe auch schon öfters drüber bnachgedacht wieso ich hier etwas mache wenn doch nichts weitergeht, weil es immer wieder Leute gibt, die alles blokieren nur weil man die einzelnen Wikiprojekte nicht einschränken will. Diese "ist mir doch egal was du machst, aber gelöscht wird das Bild nicht"-Mentalität kann man als hindernis als auch als Vorteil sehen. So kann man relativ ungehindert einfach mal machen; beispielsweise Vorlagen erstellen und inkludieren, die vorher in einer Diskussion als nicht notwendig abgestempelt wurden jetzt aber dennoch verwendet werden. Auf de.wikipedia wäre soetwas undenktbar. So habe ich mich letzendlich dazu entschlossen diesen Unwillen etwas zu verändern zu meinem Vorteil zu nutzen und alles etwas lockerer zu nehmen

--D-Kuru (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian Air Force Museum

Hi, High Contrast!

I have finished uploading in Category:Ukrainian Air Force Museum in Vinnytsya. Total 310 files.

Also i nominate Commons:Valued_image_candidates/AS-16_Kickback_2008_G1.jpg.

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello George! Thank you very much for uploading all your (very rare) images! They all a great contributions for Wikimedia Commons! But all in all I like this image the most :-)
Greets, High Contrast (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka1 uploads

I have read the legal limitations of the site, some photos are labelled "Nutzung: freie Nutzung". It is very clear. Koalorka1 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Freie Nutzung" does not include no information about commercial use. Do you understand German? --High Contrast (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Russian... MAKS-2009.. remember?

Hey camrade, i'm still trying to understand if i can visit MAKS-2009 in Zhukovsky. In case if i can't, pls find someone else... or it's better to say WE will look for someone else. I'll try to find some non-wikipedians with good camera and good skills who will be able to make some pics. Anyway - let's keep in touch! (When decide to come to Moscow - just say :-) ) - Zac allan (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and your attempt to find someone to photograph the stuff standing around at the MAKS show! I'll keep on asking some other users. --High Contrast (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, i've found guy who is my firend and wikipedian from Moscow also. He did a good job to give us some illustrarions from MAKS2009. See his contribution page in commons

Thank you. --High Contrast (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Terranview screenshots

Hi. You have removed the files uploaded by User:Rudgen. Their description claimed that there was a permission. Maybe it would have been better to put {{Npd}} on them and wait a bit? Or is there a good reason I’ve missed? Thanks. --AVRS (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the permission for these certain files? If the uploader is able to bring it, the images can be restored. But I doubt that anything will come. Or am I wrong? --High Contrast (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Sir James Scudamore

I noticed you flagged some of these photos for deletion that I have uploaded. Sorry if I did not source them properly; I am in the process of organizing the official permissions to upload the files, so that I can hopefully not have them deleted. I do have permission to use the images from the man who took the photos; it's just a matter of getting the Flickr website license set up properly. The portrait of Scudamore at the top of the article is in public domain and has no copyright - I found it in a geneaological report by one of the man's descendants. http://www.skidmoregenealogy.com/images/OccPap_no._29_revised_20080508.pdf Golden Hound (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Info

Per your earlier block on a very similarly named user - odd but goatse nonetheless by the look of it. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. How did you find this out? --High Contrast (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have CU rights & will always check long term, known vandal blocks (when I see them) - to me it is the main use for the tool. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Just curious:

Do you think these 2 DR's here: [16] and here: [17] qualify as speeedy deletes. They look like clear copy vios. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right: a curious case. In my view both images can be speedily deleted, especially the flickr-review failed and an OTRS-permission is obviously not stated. What's the next step? --High Contrast (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I thought an Admin like yourself could delete them after 1-2 days if no one asks to defend them and they failed flickrreview. So, its your call. If not, I guess it will go through the 7 day process before someone deletes them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

One image deleted. The other one remains in discussion - the alleged author released a message on the talk page of the image. --High Contrast (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks. If this person changes the license on the second image, then it should be kept. Only time will tell. I have made my comments on the license. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Time will tell - if nothing is to be changed, the image will be deleted soonly, too. But we must consider that it might take some time because only an anonyme IP stated the comment concerning the licence change. So we do not know exactly if she/he is informed about the most recent events. --High Contrast (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Images as posted in Infantry Division (South Africa)

I recieved a notification from you that some of the images I have uploaded to Commons (as posted on above page) did not contain full information for copyright purposes. The following images refer:

• SidiRegezWesternDesert1941.JPG [18]
• MoyaleEastAfrica1941.JPG [19]
• MegaEastAfrica1941.JPG [20]
• HobokEastAfrica1941.JPG [21]

All of these images come from the publication: Klein, Harry. Lt-Col (1946). Springbok Record. Johannesburg, White House. It was published in 1946, making it (and the images) 63 years old. In South Africa, copyright prescribes after 50 years. To prevent any future copyright queries, I have:

1. added the source and year of publication for each image.
2. set the permisison tag for all of them as { {PD-South Africa} } - some were incorrectly tagged as { {PD-South Africa-Exempt} }

I trust this resolves the issue. Farawayman (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for your support. Post your written text above here as well, so others can be informed about it. --High Contrast (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Minimed_Paradigm_RT_522-722_on_torso.jpg

I'm thinking that you pulled the trigger too fast on File:Minimed_Paradigm_RT_522-722_on_torso.jpg

This file, which is one of five photo set, is part of a free media kit available to be used in the public domain (owner waived all rights). The other four files are: File:Minimed_Paradigm_RT_522-722.jpg; File:Minimed_Paradigm_RT_522-722_PC_upload.jpg; File:Minimed_Paradigm_RT_522-722_sensor.jpg; and File:Minimed_Paradigm_RT_522-722_with_onetouch.jpg.

These can be seen together in my talk page. Henry Delforn (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please prove that these images are in the public domain. If it is correct what you have stated, the deleted image will be restored. --High Contrast (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you go to the url specified in the "Source" for each of these five files, you will find that the photo owner has dedicated a webpage for image download as part of the media kit. A "media kit" is a customary way for a source to release material to the public (i.e. - as public domain). This is standard operating procedure in the media (press). In these webpages the phrase "Courtesy Medtronic, Inc." is just that, a courtesy to the press to supply images for publication. Also please note the phrase "This information is intended for media professionals and investors". Henry Delforn (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I cannot follow you - I cannot find any verifications for the public domain status on the source given by you. Nevertheless I have restored the deleted file with a "no permissions"-tag. --High Contrast (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, let me try using our own resources to explain. Check out the Wikipedia article on Media kit. Think of Wikimedia as a "newspaper", Medtronic as the news source, me as "reporter", and you as "chief editor". Let's go to print! Henry Delforn (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the press kit implies a limited license for a specific type of use, not a free license. Unless, of course, the company explicitly grants anyone the right to use the material in the kit in a commercial product (not only a newspaper/magazine article), and to modify it according to their needs. Sv1xv (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sv1xv and Henry are correct. Unless the website says "public domain", we cannot publish them here as public domain. Sorry. I responded in full at COM:DN, -Andrew c (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And my statement is wrong? --High Contrast (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To many names starting with "H". Please accept my apologies. I meant "High Constrast", not "Henry". -Andrew c (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I just was confused --High Contrast (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem user

Hi. Allow me to draw your attention to the following user: User:Sherurcij. This editor has been consistently adding copyrighted images, which he then insists are not copyrighted. What sets his images apart, however, are that he (at least in the case of this image) gives them racist names to boot! This editor is clearly not adding images in good faith or being honest about his sourcing. Could we do something about this? Middayexpress (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my attention to this user. I have noticed that most of his inappropriate images are discussed in DR - files with racist filenames, copyright violations etc. uploaded by this certain user will be deleted - that's principally the first step how this is handeled. If he keeps on uploading such files he will be blocked. BUT you must consider, that this user has made uploads that seem to be ok. We will see. --High Contrast (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:CAFE-INNEN.JPG

Hi, the marketing manager of Jetline selected this Picture, so it is clear and i can upload it. I was at JETLINE for one week and there I had to make an entry into Wikipedia for them. So i asked the manager for the pictures and uploaded them from there PC.

Nevertheless you need a written permission of him (for all Jetline-images)! What you must do you can read on the link I have placed on the image-site. In addition give clear information for all of your uploads, like description etc. --High Contrast (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Bsr

Hello. I've read it but i cannot understand what is wrong with it or where is should apply it/ to it.... Does it have to do with a photo of mine? If you want me to translate it in Greek i 'll be happy to do so. Thanks --Alaniaris (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Altairisfar

Hi. I notice that you indef blocked User:Altairisfar, and that Altairisfar has requested unblocking. From my quick look at Altairisfar's edit and upload history, I'm inclined to either grant the request or at least change the block to short term rather than indefinite, but I wanted to get feedback from you first. Certainly the edit you linked to was completely inappropriate, but I note that the user has apologized, and Altairisfar otherwise seems to have a history of mostly constructive edits and uploads. I'm inclined to consider this a temporary lapse in judgement or hothead moment from an otherwise acceptable contributor, who has been duly chastized and apologized. However I wanted to ask you if there are other relevent issues which I might have missed first. You can reply either here or on my own talk page. Thanks much. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to a short term block and left some advice on Altairisfar's talk page. I hope we'll just be seeing the constructive side of the user in the future. Thanks for your comments. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Delphic Images

You nominated images of Delphic Games for deletion. But they are under GNU License, which is specified on the site. Here you can see (in the left side block) that the content is under GFDL GNU License. Sir, please, stop the deletion :) Иван Москалев (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not see this. It's ok. Please remove all "copyright violation"-tags of all images. Is that possible or should I do this? --High Contrast (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

+Sorry!+ High Contrast (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I'll do it myself. Thanks :) Иван Москалев (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Bridgewater Causeway Crop 2.jpg

Can probably be deleted, along with File:Bridgewater Bridge bushes crop.jpg, both being crops from the originals used to create File:Bridgewater Causeway.jpg. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's let them exist, these images are in use. --High Contrast (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Fleming and hampson.jpg

Why? It was marked as Creative Commons license at flickr. --Shcootsn (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly it was copyrighted movie screenshot that was unauthorised licenced under a CC licence (Commons:Flickr washing). And secondary it was a Creative Commons, that did not allow commercial use, this is not accepted on Commons. Please do not upload any copyrighted images from Flickr again. --High Contrast (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me a flickr-file that suits all conditions? Just as an example --Shcootsn (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here you have two, with Commons compliant, uploaded files: File 1 and File 2.
File 1 is under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 and File 2 is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0. Both licences are allowed on Commons. NOTE: Any Creative Commons Noncommercial and No Derivative Works are not allowed. Files under such licences are not allowed on Commons - they are not free. Thank you for your interest! Have much fun with the (correct) Flickr-work. --High Contrast (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Shcootsn (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

One tipp ahead: By using this tool you can upload Flickr-images easier and faster. --High Contrast (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:M770_BRS_Antarès.jpg.

I received the notification about M770_BRS_Antarès.jpg. Net marine vice president Guillaume Rueda gave authorisation to upload photo under GFDL. Many photos from netmarine are already uploaded in wikicommon. Here is a link to licence (In french). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rama/NetMarine-licence

PontusAL

Ok, thank you for your help. I have removed the "no permission"-tag. But please use in the future this tag: {{NetMarine}}, which contains all relevant information for an image coming from http://www.netmarine.net/ . Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For general information: as indicated on the template in question, the permission to upload content from netmarine.net unto Commons as been revocked. The licence of images uploaded before the revocation is not in question, but image uploaded after are in violation of copyright and should be deleted on sight. Rama (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ballylumford.jpg

Hey, I do not understand why you have tagged this file for deletion. I've uploaded many images from geograph.org in that way and I've never had a problem as all the images on that site are listed under this license. However, if something needs put to rights let me know what it is and I'll do it. Fintan264 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your image upload is OK - the image was published under a free CC-licence. I have removed the "no permission"-tag. But, please, check the categories of your uploaded files in future carefully. Thank you in advance and happy working on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fotos FAC

Perdon pero no escribo bien el ingles si ud pudiera ayudarme a cambiarlo seria formidable de antemano gracias --Angel paez (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

???? Unfortunately I do not understand spanish. But I have corrected the wrong description of you by now. As I said, just write (good) descriptions in spanish - that is enough, too. --High Contrast (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:USS Nimitz (CVN-68).jpg

I'm not sure how the source can be more clear. The image came directly from a U.S. government website and take by a sailor. But, I linked another page from the same website that explains the picture more. Neovu79 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered here. --High Contrast (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! A rank of terracotta soldiers.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments --Cephas 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Error?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Air_France_Flight_447_Empennage_removal.jpg

See link. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Upload sources

I've just changed the source url on the 23 files I've uploaded today -- I think -- there's no obvious way to make sure I got them all.

I completely understand your reasoning, but the change isn't really helpful. I found images of USCG assets on a USCG web site; it's a reasonable assumption that they are official USCG photos, particularly since they're B&W and all over thirty years old, many much older. There's nothing on the parent site to confirm or deny the assumption and the parent site appears to be an orphan (orphans, actually, one for each state that has lights) -- no way down to it from the uscg history site.

May I suggest a change to

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=fromgov

which says "When uploading a government work, always link to the source webpage..." to, perhaps, "When uploading a government work, always link to the url of the source webpage, not the url of the media file..." or something like that?

While I understand the distinction as you made it in your note, I'm an experienced web person and it never occurred to me that the instruction was drawing a distinction between the file url (which is a web page, of sorts) and the url of the parent or parents. I think most newbies try to follow the rules, but need words of one syllable when doing new things.

While I'm making suggestions -- I don't really understand the protocol for communication, some people talk on one talk page, others reply on each other's. I find the former more logical, but it means you have to watch more pages. You say (above), however, that I should reply to your comments on my talk page, but your note said to do it here on yours. Jameslwoodward (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Dragon_1_of_Palm_Beach_County_Fire-Rescue_1.JPG

As image description says: "The original uploader was LangAM at en.wikipedia", so you should probably contact him/her. I am just a person who removed a watermark.--Jarekt (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just seen it - missed it previously. Can you organize a better version of that image? --High Contrast (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Very fast deletion

I've just spotted Commons:Deletion requests/File:M10 Wolverine of 628th TDs in Dreux.jpg, which you closed earlier, and I'm a bit annoyed.

I am the uploader; I was notified of it being listed for deletion this morning. I spotted the message this evening, and went to leave a comment on the discussion page, only to find it was deleted twelve hours after being listed, before I was able to discuss my reasons for the way I listed the license.

I agree entirely we need to be cautious about copyright, but I think we're leaping to conclusions in this case. When I uploaded it, I gave some thought to the matter of the probable author, and concluded that on the balance of probablities, it was taken by another soldier in the unit. If we look at the rest of the photographs in the set, almost all of them are very clearly taken by soldiers, and so it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume this one was as well. The argument about Roosevelt disliking the Free French seems completely irrelevant, to be honest.

Would it please be possible to undelete this image? Thanks. Shimgray (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the argument about Roosevelt disliking the Free French is completely irrelevant, but this was not the reason why I deleted this image. You must proof that it was taken by an US-Gov-employee - most likely, very clearly or I think is just speculation and is not sufficient (see COM:L for more information). --High Contrast (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Shimgray here. The normal procedure is 7 days so people have the time to comment. You had no reason to rush this. I undeleted the image so the 7 days can be completed. Multichill (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's have the same result in 7 days. --High Contrast (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fehlendes Bild - was tun?

Hallo, ich bin zufällig auf diese Datei gestoßen: File:Rothsee_(1260627178).jpg - eine Bildbeschreibung, zu der das Bild fehlt. Gibt es zur Kennzeichnung ein Template? In Category:Images_for_cleanup habe ich keine geeignete Kategorie gefunden. Danke im Voraus! --Iotatau (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mir ist keine Vorlage bekannt. Soll ich die Datei löschen? --High Contrast (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mein Votum: ja. Wenn der Autor sein Bild auf Commons haben möchte, kann er ja einen Account anlegen und es direkt hochladen. Das erspart späteren Aufwand bei der Klärung der Autorenschaft. Ich spreche da aus eigener Erfahrung, siehe mein Suurhusen-Bild, das ich für QI nominiert hatte... --Iotatau (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Offenbar hat bei diesem Upload der Flickr upload bot versagt. Wie dem auch sein, die Datei habe ich gelöscht und die entsprechende Datei von Flickr nach Commons transferiert. Die beste Lösung bei diesem Problem. --High Contrast (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Danke! --Iotatau (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you pointing that out, I'll look to using that for the dozens of other images I plan to upload this weekend. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. This tool really makes uploading easier, have fun with it! --High Contrast (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

File:T-18-Kubinka1.jpg

Hello, would you mind checking history before adding the missing license template? There might be vandal edits. Thank you in advance. Claymore (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I will NOT check file histories if there are any grievances. You better check your watchlist constantly. --High Contrast (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Milk_Float_13-11-2004.jpg

File:Milk_Float_13-11-2004.jpg has my name as the creator, plus copyright notice.

Sorry if it is not in the correct format, but this was over four years ago! Gordo (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Schuman Declaration.ogg

Greetings. I saw that you deleted a file I uploaded. Im new in Wikimedia, actually I am an editor from ru.wikipedia.org and I am currently translating that article Schuman Declaration and trying to upload to wikimedia those files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schuman_Declaration.ogg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schuman_Declaration.jpg because without it I cant use them in the interwiki. I copy/past all information about those files from english page, and you delete them... I must be done something wrong. Please help me.

Both files cannot be transferred to Commons because both files are tagged as "Fair use"-files. Please keep mind that "Fair use" material is not allowed on Commons. So please do not upload the to Commons. You can transfer them either to ru.wiki. As far as I know Fair use is accepted there, but I do not know this for sure. Thank you that you contacted me first instead of uploading these files. --High Contrast (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Question Can you geocode this image? Generally you have to geocode images for VI status (criteria 5).

Originalwana (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I can only say, that I took this image in Volgograd Oblast, Russia. More is unfortunately not possible. According to criteria 5 it is helpful to state some coarse location data in the description field - as I did. Sorry, more geocode-information cannot be provided, it cannot be exact enough. --High Contrast (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Coarse location data (as you have provided) is acceptable when an exact location needs to be avoided (criteria 5). You could get the coordinates for Volgograd Oblast, IMHO that would be sufficient. Originalwana (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Added the coarse location data of Volgograd Oblast. --High Contrast (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Best image I could find for this scope Originalwana (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm not fully convinced that it is a proper VI scope. --Eusebius (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Galerie

Hi High Contrast, seit einger Zeit gibt es die Registerkarte "Gallery" auf der Benutzerseite nicht mehr. Woran liegt das und kommt sie vielleicht wieder einmal zurück ? Viele Grüße, Jivee Blau (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mit Hinweis auf Commons:Village pump#Tabs missing: Zur Zeit haben einige IE Benutzer Probleme, nicht nur der Gallery tab, auch alle anderen Funktionen scheinen bei einigen verschwunden zu sein. --Martin H. (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gute Antwort - mehr hätte ich auch nicht angeben können. Danke Martin. --High Contrast (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis Jivee Blau (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:IVT ZK 101 industria veicoli torino 4x4.jpg

Io non ho caricato quel file, ho solo cancellato la scritta sule portiere del camion [22] (i have not loaded the file, i have unblanked; sorry for my english) :-) --Pil56 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling. Well this notice is applied automatcally. Sorry for that. --High Contrast (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Michele Merkin

Why did you remove the michele merkin category from photos of her? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

These images have nothing to do with her and should not be pulled together. The text written on both images is nonsense. Have you arguments for leaving it in the cat? --High Contrast (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That it's a picture of her? That's generally a good reason to have something in a category. And from what I understood, the text was meant to be rubbish, as an example. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In general you are right, that if someone's shown on picture, this certain file shoul be categorized in that certain categorie. But the images we are talking about are hardly within the scope and offer a visitor of the "Michele Merkin"-category a distorted impression. Your argumentation does not convince me. Moreover I think your way of acting is quite strange. It would be nicer if you had contacted me before you have execute your revert. --High Contrast (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right about that, and I'm sorry. I agree that the MM category is rather biased towards bikinis at the moment, but that is not a reason to remove images of her from the category. Instead, more photos should be added. If the images are not in use, then I encourage deletion on grounds of uselessness, but if they are in use then they are in scope and should be correctly categorised. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

According to your logic I have categorized this file. --High Contrast (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ka-52 at MAKS-2009.jpg

Please, restore file and read the license and description carefully. vlsergey (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Restored the file myself, and given vlsergey a few ideas as to how to make his images look less like copyvios. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Flickrbot

The flickrbot is not marking images regularly (it marks a few & stops). So, the backlog is large. If you can, please mark a few images. I mark many but have other things to do too. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I will help out, of course. I do what I can, but I am really busy the next days. --High Contrast (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Type90.jpg

Why did you tag this file as having no source? It was already tagged Own- which was done by a but from its previous source of self made?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This image has the best requirements for a possible copyright violation: small image size (typical web resolution), no EXIF data and last but not least an uploader who has only made very few uploads and did already some copyright violations. More over he did not react on the "no source" information on his talk page - this is definately not the right way to deal with it in this case. All in all, "own work" seems to be very doubtful. --High Contrast (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Su-25_attacked.jpg

Zerg85 (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)File:Su-25_attacked.jpg

Come from: http://s45.radikal.ru/i109/0809/48/ffd44ad3ecaf.jpg

This source is not informative as well. You must prove that this image is free in the sense of Commons. Otherwise this image will be deleted soonly. --High Contrast (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Better source request for Image:Iraqi AF King Air 350.jpg

I don't know if there is a "better source" for photos on http://www.af.mil The the descriptions appear dynamically when you move the mouse over a thumbnail, possibly using some javascript code. It's not like the US Navy galleries, where there is a brief description page. Sv1xv (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

National Museum of Military History, Sofia

Hello. I have made photographs of almost all the objects in the museum, and I'm about to upload them. Problem is, I haven't made any notes as to what exactly the pictured equipment is, so I may need some help in naming the objects. If you have the time, you're welcome to give me a hand :) - Tourbillon 19:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the images. Of course I can help - as far as I know what is shown! --High Contrast (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL Thanks for the QIC Nom

It seems you nom'd my picture of a canoe for QIC, and it was accepted. This humors me greatly because I had no idea. All of a sudden I got a "Congratulations!" notice on my talk page. That was a pleasant change of pace since normally I submit things, it takes a month, and they shoot them down for pedantic reasons. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear thing - good files must be promoted! Sorry for not noticing you. Next time I'll inform you - as far as I don't forget. --High Contrast (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bahnhof von Grafenau.jpg

Hallo High Contrast, ist das angegebene Datum das echte Photodatum oder nur das Uploaddatum? Ich frage, weil jemand in einer Bildnotiz dazu angemeckert hat, das sei seit langem ganz anders. Kannst ja mal schauen. --Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio! Also, beim Datum handelt es sich nicht um das Uploaddatum, sonder um das Datum der Fotoaufnahme. Da ich nicht aus dem Ort Grafenau bin, weiss ich nichts um den Status des Bahnhofs. Ich habe das Bahnhofsgebäude fotografiert, weil es als solches auf einem Hinweisschild ausgeschrieben war. Soweit ich mich erinnere, sah der Bahnhof nicht verlassen aus. Richtig ist, dass der Bereich um dieses Bahnhofsgebäude neu gestaltet ist.
Wie dem auch sei, ich kann diesbezüglich auch keine weiteren Informationen geben. --High Contrast (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to Air Force photographs

With all respect, your note on with respect to several files that I uploaded to commons, which I provided the source DIRECTLY FROM THE AIR FORCE LINK, are clearly sourced as UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PHOTOGRAPHS, taken from UNITED STATES AIR FORCE WEBSITES.

In particular, http://www.travis.af.mil is Travis Air Force Base (note the .mil) So I am very unclear why the note was left, along with the bot notes (whom I am unclear is responsible for) are resquesting better sources.

I don't know what better souce could be than the origional photograph taken from a UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WEBSITE, which are PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Warmest Regards Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the tag carefully and all your questions can be answered yourself.
In short: Only stating the direct link to the jpg-file is not sufficient because it is not possible to control if the image is in the public domain. And obviously you do not know, that many images that can be found are NOT in the public domain because there were NOT taken by an US Air Force employee. Accept that! In future, you will state a link on a af.mil-site (or whatever) that contains valid source information. This is what is ment by "image source". --High Contrast (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that all United States Air Force images are United States Government Images and ARE in the public domain Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The Images are also are on a United States Government Website....

Are you not able to understand or do you not want to understand? Give your uploaded images valid sources or they will be deleted. For gods sake read this carefully and understand it finally: This image has source information, but it either links directly to the image or is a generic base URL, or is not an Internet source for an image that was likely found on the Internet. Source information should be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. It is requested that a better source be provided to make determination of the copyright information easier. Please provide a URL to an HTML page that contains this image. See Commons:Licensing#License_information for more information. --High Contrast (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Source request

I have absolutely no idea on the source, I was merely copying source info from the original file (linked in the template under Other Versions). I imagine the OTRS ticket goes into it, though. Staxringold (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm fully aware of what you meant. Again, all I did was cropped the original image, provided in the "Other versions" link. I have no idea where that image came from originally. Staxringold (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Image source

It was emailed to that address (as verified by the OTRS ticket) by the subject/copyright holder. I'm not sure what further sourcing information you want? J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The image was emailed to us (the Foundation) through the established channels. The email was sent by the person listed. That was the email address used. Honestly, I don't know what else I can give. What do you want? J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, then it is okay. I did not know that people send images to Commons per Email. Ok, learnt something new. Thanks. Sorry for bothering you. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Books in Prague

Hello. I would like to ask you for concrete reason(s), why did you deleted 3 images of book tunnel in public municipal library in Prague. You only wrote "Copyright violation: it shows a work of Matej Krén, similar to this one: http://www.matejkren.cz/cs/book-cell/" - but if I remember, I wrote in description that that object is work by Matej Krén (but image of that object is my work, of course). Could you explain me better, why you think it is copyright violation? If I made some error, I would like not to repeat it - and this is the reason, why I ask you for more detailed reason(s) of deletion.

• File:Mestska knihovna v Praze tunel od vchodu.jpg
• File:Mestska knihovna v Praze tunel uvnitr.jpg
• File:Mestska knihovna v Praze tunel od satny.jpg

--Ludek (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I only deleted the image. I did not tag it as copyright violation. Thus the deletion reasion does not come from me. User:Rudoleska tagged it as copyright violation. Discuss with him about the reason. If the images are free in the sense of Commons, then tell me and I will restore these three files. --High Contrast (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your answer is wrong (I mean: "I only deleted the image. I did not tag it as copyright violation."). Before deleting you *must* check if that tag is correct, if it is not vandal's act. You can't be a machine deletor. There can be written some bot for automatic deletions - but this is not case for automatic deletion. You deleted = you are responsible for it, not the tagger. These snaps were on commons for several years, so very probably they don't violate copyright. In such cases you should contact some sysop from proper country (sysop from the Czech Republic in my case). And in the time of summer holidays the term of 1 week for autor's reaction is too short.

As you could see, I contacted Rudoleska 2 weeks before I wrote you. Unfortunatelly, Rudoleska didn't answer. So this is the reason I contacted you. Finally after 2 weeks some IP address (probably Rudoleska) answered me yesterday - 2 hours after your answer. --Ludek (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You want my help with such accusations? Contact the tagger. I will not restore no file with a clear statement, that these files meet the Commons licencing criteria. --High Contrast (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the first post I wanted explanation, why did you delete it - and your answer was not satisfactory. I am able to understand that you delete some pages/files that were tagged by persons you believe them because they are active. But how can you believe user, who has 19 edits on commons only? Maybe he is right, maybe not.

As I wrote you and as I give you links, I already contacted user Rudoleska. In August. Two weeks ago. He didn't answer for 2 weeks. You can read about it on this page, several lines above your post. I don't understand why do you write me again to do something I already did. And you were informed I did it.

I need your help only in this post: could you send me by e-mail the complete descriptions of those images? There should be description in 3 languages (English, Czech and Polish), license, "own work", categories etc. Thanks in advance. --Ludek (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dateibeschreibung File:Vakuum-Kondensator.jpg

Hallo High Contrast, es tut mir leid, dass ich Arbeit mache. Zur Sache: Das Bild wurde von mir hochgeladen, da m. E. die Bezeichnung falsch war. Gemäß Anweisung (FAQ - Hilfe) soll man das so machen. Das Originalbild File:Vakuum konsensor.jpg wurde bereits gelöscht. Vom gleichen Autor gibts noch: File:Vakuum konsensor offen.jpg, das ich genauso behandelt habe. Weiterhin habe ich die Bildbeschreibungen ergänzt. Was ist jetzt noch zu tun? --El-Bardo (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Riding_the_windhorse_by_reurinkjan.jpg

Thank you for notifying me that the above file was removed because of a copyright violation. I apologise if I did anything incorrectly. This was the first file I had attempted to upload from flickr and I found the whole process very complicated and difficult. I probably made some mistake. If so, would you please tell me what I did wrong (or how I can tell if images on flickr are not available because of copyright restrictions) so I don't make the same mistake again? Many thanks, John E. Hill (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question US National Museum of Naval Aviation

Today I received the following mail from the Emil Buehler Library of the National Museum of Naval Aviation:
Message: Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:21 AM; To: ebuehler.navalaviation@mchsi.com; Subject: Photograph collection. (Text) "Dear ladies and gentlemen, I would like to know, if all pictures available online of your collection are under US Navy copyright, for example also these of the Robert L. Lawson Collection. Thank you for your concern."
Answer: "LIBRARY RESEARCH" <ebuehler.navalaviation@mchsi.com> 11.09.09 16:26:09 Good Morning, Our photographs are public domain, with very few exceptions which you do not need to worry about. However, if a photograph is used in a publication we request the image be labeled "Courtesy of National Naval Aviation Museum". Roger Mott- Library Volunteer 9/11/09."
I hope this now clears the issue. Thank you for your concern.--User:Cobatfor 21:30, 11 Sep 2009 (UTC)

Very good! That sounds good. Can you send this permission to Commons:OTRS, please? --High Contrast (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded the mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I hope that this procedure is correct, as it refers to 350.000 or so pictures in the end and not just only one. If another procedure is required, I would be glad of your assisstance. --User:Cobatfor 09:36, 12 Sep 2009 (UTC)

Nachdem eine positive Rückmeldung zu erwarten ist, wird diese per Email eingetroffene Erlaubnis im OTRS-System archiviert. Dieser Erlaubnis wird ein Code zugeordnet, mit dem ein entsprechender Baustein kreiert wird, der bei den in Frage kommenden Dateien eingefügt wird. Genauere Info bzgl. des Setzens dieses Bausteins erfährst du ausführlich beim OTRS-Team: Commons:OTRS/de. --High Contrast (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbird I categorizing

Aye, just wanted to ask if it was really your intention to leave out category Missiles of the United Kingdom from Thunderbird-MKI-back.jpg, Thunderbird-MKI-Tuusula.jpg‎ and Thunderbird-MKI-back-detail.jpg‎ but leave it in place for Thunderbird-MKI-side.jpg‎ and Thunderbird-MKI-front.jpg‎?

A side question, as a starting member, I've tried to avoid COM:OVERCAT, but on catting these images I've obviously failed. If people have found a nice way of categorization, I'd be happy to hear more.

One more thing, could the upload form warn if you try to add a category that's either sub- or super-category of already added existing category? It doesn't have to deny adding, but a warning would Really Nice, though.

I've been practising image stitching with hugin, have quite a few panoramas to add shortly.

Cheers, --Rayshade (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rayshade!
First of all thank you for your contributions - your uploaded files are definately useful for Commons. Thanks for noticing me: I have removed the category Missiles of the United Kingdom from Thunderbird-MKI-side.jpg‎ and Thunderbird-MKI-front.jpg. I have only checked your Thunderbird-images and there, I removed all superfluous categories, which already appear in the main category. The removal is due to COM:OVERCAT, as you already mentioned. The categories appeared doubly: in the image and in the "main category" of the image. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oopsie - you're right. Didn't check the English Electric Thunderbird category....duh! Thanks for making things right, --Rayshade (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Idea about bots?

Hi!

You suggested I put "own" tag on my pics. Do you know if there are any bots that can check for / put that on all the pics I have in category:PD by G®iffen at time of writing this note? I just checked and confirmed that I shot all the photos myself. G®iffen (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no bot for this case you were answering for. But there is a bot that can transform things like "own work" or "Eigenes Werk" and so on into {{own}}. --High Contrast (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Northern Diversity

This is the best photo I currently have. I may, however, take new ones. Cheers. --Orlovic (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating your archives. --High Contrast (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Maps

Wich license should i leave for a Google maps image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian77 (talk • contribs)

Google maps CANNOT be uploaded to Commons, equal, which licence you choose. All re-uploads will be deleted, too. Screenshots from Google Maps are not free in the sense of Commons. Photos taken by yourself are highly appreciated. --High Contrast (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

About the File:Interamericana 1994

"18:21, 16 September 2009 High Contrast (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Interamericana 1994.JPG" ‎ (Copyright violation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qt5ZFhVWCU)"

Video information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qt5ZFhVWCU

Copyright Video: Free Authorization for ArchivoUC in Flickr and user Seth Garden in Wikimedia Commons, Bedteseri (Author), License for Archivo UC and Seth Garden: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en_US

--Seth Garden (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Send this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and re-upload this file. For further questions ask there: Commons:OTRS. --High Contrast (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright: Unknown is not anonimous

Archivo:David Arellano.PNG

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:David_Arellano.PNG

Ley de Propiedad Intelectual (Chile) Nº 17.336, sobre Propiedad Intelectual, de 2 de octubre de 1970 (Copyright in Chile, October 2 1970) is not public domain:

1-if the author is Unknown, but not anonimous, the work is not public for 70 years after author die. What said the magazine article?

2- or is a work of photography team Los Sports and the chilean law (Ley de Propiedad Intelectual) said: is public domain 70 years after the last member of the photography team is dead.

File:David Arellano.PNG

other illegals files:

File:Colocolo1937.PNG

File:Alexis Sánchez.jpg (Copyright: Diario El Mercurio)

File:Colo Colo Campeón 2006.jpg (Copyright: Diario El Mercurio)--Mamushka (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ich weiß nicht warum dieser Beitrag hier geschrieben wurde, aber bei den letzten beiden Bildern möchte ich mal wiedersprechen da ich Bilder dieses Flickr Benutzer schon häufiger kritisch beäugt habe und jedesmal gesehen habe das die Metadaten recht konsistent sind und das bei Bildern zu verschiedenen Themen. Ansonsten lasse ich dich mit dem obigen Kommentar wieder alleine. --Martin H. (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Spanish or english, please--Mamushka (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Good morning High Contrast,

1. I got your name from Billcat.

2. I work at Public Affairs Office (PAO) E-3A Component Air Base Geilenkirchen. I have been updating the NATO Air base Geilenkirchen and would like to upload photos to support the text.

3. I/PAO have all the rights (we own the photos) to the photos and I would like to upload them to the NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen page.

I tried to copy the photos in this text - I didn't wotk.

Could you please help me proceed,

V/r

Efteraar71!

First of all you must create an account. Then you can upload the images. Are they in the public domain? If that can be proven by a website, you can start uploading the images. If not, you must send an email to OTRS: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. More information can be found here: COM:OTRS. --High Contrast (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WOW you are busy but left me a message

Hi, High Contrast. If you look, you'll find me begging for help for the last couple of years here. Would you help me, or help me find someone who can explain how to upload photos, place uploaded ones (I uploaded over 100 easily using Bryan's Flickr upload, and now, manually since it seems broken. However, it appears there's a better way, with your note to me. I want to, and CAN help a lot here on Wikimedia, I've been editing en.wikipedia for the last few years (first with an IP address and then by the same username as here) but need someone who will tell me how to establish a gallery, upload better, and communicate with people here! Please help. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grundschule Vilshofen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 09:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Comment ... although tight crop and no perspective correction. Put a wide angle lens on your Christmas wish list :-) --Iotatau 11:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Klosterkirche Maria Himmelfahrt.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good now. --Cayambe 08:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Leopard 2 Prototyp P15 T05 105mm.jpg

Kannst du mir mal helfen beim umbenennen. Der Dateinamen sollte Leopard 2 Prototyp PT15 T02 105mm.jpg lauten. Hab das T vergessen und die 5 muss eine 2 sein.--Sonaz (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Am einfachsten und schnellsten würde es über die Bühne gehen, wenn du die Datei einfach neu hochlädst. Wenn das geschehen ist, kannst du dich erneut bei mir meldet, dann entferne ich die Datei mit falschem Titel. --High Contrast (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Richtig. Hätte ich auch darauf kommen können. Ist hiermit erledigt. Neue Version ist File:Leopard 2 Prototyp PT15 T02 105mm.jpg. Links sind auch schon berichtigt. mfg--Sonaz (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfekt. Gerade habe ich die "alte" Datei File:Leopard 2 Prototyp P15 T05 105mm.jpg gelöscht. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Garibaldi OR - bay.jpg

Hello High Contrast,

I got mixed up on the upload of that file so the bot couldn't review it. Just explained that on the file talk there. As I see you are a reviewer, maybe you could have a look at it. Thanks in advance, Grüße --Jonesey (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done--High Contrast (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoooops. That was quick. Vielen Dank nochmals!! --Jonesey (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Kein Problem. --High Contrast (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-commercial speedy delete

Thanks for the hint. Which note template do you recommend to notify users when I mark non-commercial photographs for speedy delete? edward (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

KFOR pictures

Hi, pictures File:Czech_KFOR_(1).jpg and File:Czech_KFOR_(2).jpg have licence on the page which is written there like source. I will cite for you: “Fotografie, které přinášíme v této rubrice jsou v tiskové kvalitě, a jsou určeny k volnému využití s tím, že jako autor snímků bude uvedeno Ministerstvo obrany České republiky.” (In eglish is: Photos, which are in this parts are in press quality, and are for free use if you write like the author of this pictures Ministerstvo obrany České republiky).

I also wrote email to them before I uploaded and it was OK. I don't think so that we need OTRS premision for this cases, but if yes, please write to user:Mercy, he will be able check it.

Thank you for your work on the field protect commons! --Chmee2 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Scs-1972-image01.jpg

File:Scs-1972-image01.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!

--Marcd30319 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A little background regarding the image in question, an artist conception of the Sea Control Ship (SCS). The SCS was a proposed helicopter carrier from the 1970s. The SCS program was never authorized by the U.S. Congress, nor funding procured, nor construction contracts signed as reported by GlobalSecurity.org. Thus, the image in question was generated by the U.S. Navy, and not some third party. In fact, this image was shown on page 44 ("Sea Control" by Lt. Cmdr. Paul N. Mullane, USN) of the March 1973 issue of Naval Aviation News magazine, a joint U.S. Navy publication of the Chief of Naval Operation (CNO), the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), and the U.S. Navy Recruiting Command (NRC). Therefore, the image in question is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. I have updated this image information to reflect and clarify this fact.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance!Marcd30319 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Silly?

I brought up your block of Liftarn on the administrators user problem board. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Aha, so läuft das jetzt hier offensichtlich! Ich habe nicht vor mich ausführlicher mit diesem Vorfall zu beschäftigen. Diverse Vorkommnisse im Zuge dieser "Diskussion" stimmen mich nachdenklich. Zuerst, ich werde zu dem Vorfall gar nicht gefragt. Zweitens, die "Diskussionsgrundlage" stellen gegenstandslose Spekulationen dar, die mit dem Sachverhalt nicht verknüpft sind. Drittens, es werden haltlose Vorfürfe eines Selbstdarstellers formuliert, der offenbar nicht die Fähigkeit besitzt, mir den Ort der "Diskussion" genau mitzuteilen. Ein derartiger, in dieser unflätigen Art vorgetragener Versuch, basierend auf Spekulation und Anschuldigung, des Vertrauensbruches überschattet mein konstruktives und positives Wirken auf Commons in unwahrer Weise. Scheinbar nur wenige befassten sich mit dem Kern des Problems und zogen eine Diskussion in Erwägung. Dieses Verhalten vieler stellt einen tiefen Einschnitt dar. Die Community zeigte wohl ihr wahres, mir bis dato nicht bekanntes Gesicht. Dem freiwilligen Engagement wird mit Hohn und Spott begegnet. Ich werde mein Wirken auf Commons sehr genau überdenken müssen. --High Contrast (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Works by Galileo Chini

Could you please take a look at the following situation? A user uploaded several photos of theatrical sceneries for various performances by italian painter Galileo Chini (the author died in 1956). The uploader indicated that he was a copyright holder of these works but this raises some doubts. He may turn out to be a heir of the painter but more likely he ment that he had made these photos by himself. But that doesn`t make him the copyright holder of the original works, and there is nothing on these photos but the works of Chini. So I think this may be a copyright violation, and in that case the situation needs attention. --Shcootsn (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

W76NeutronTube

Hi. I need picture published on this web page for my article. According to description of photo:

Neutron pulse tubes for the W76 undergoing testing and certification at Sandia National Laboratories
as part of the stockpile life extension program (LEP).

this picture has been taken in Sandia National Laboratory, which is US government institution. So, this picture seems to be in public domain. What do you think about it? --Matrek (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problematic thing is that this file is published on secondary website (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org). It is very often the case that images, photos, etc. are falsely quoted, so http://nuclearweaponarchive.org is a quite bad source. If you can find this certain file on the official homepage of the "Sandia National Laboratory" with a public domain image notice, the you can upload it. Always remeber, not all US governmental institutes release their work in the public domain! In addition it is very often the case that copyrighted images appear on official (public domain) sites of US governmental websites. So the appearance of an image on a such websites does not automatically mean that all images from such sites are in the public domain. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The image is at http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN01-15-99/W76_story.htm but Sandia says "all rights reserved". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good, Pieter! --High Contrast (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

Hi. You may remember me from this post from a while back regarding a Commons image (a screenshot) with a racist file name. Well, that file is still stored on Commons' servers all these months later. The deletion cases regarding this image and other related screenshots that were simultaneously uploaded by the same user are also still open. However, there finally appears to be a break-through. The uploader has indicated that the footage these images were taken from was shot in Somalia, but he has been unable to prove that this video was first broadcast there as well. On the contrary, this detailed paper indicates that the footage first aired in Canada, where it caused a major scandal when publicly broadcast. This is significant because the screenshots fall under the Berne Convention, which stipulates that anything first published in Canada is protected under Canadian Copyright law, regardless of where the film they were taken from was initially shot. Some more experienced Commons users have written about this in greater detail here. I think it's therefore time we did something about these copyright-violating images, especially the one with the unjustifiably racist file name. Middayexpress (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I can remeber to this case. First of all, it is normal that such deletion debates take some months. The best would be if you post what you have written above on the deletion request discussion page. --High Contrast (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. The information above was already posted by two other users on the images' main discussion page. I just repeated it here as an update of sorts. I am not sure what else there is to discuss regarding the images since it has already been shown that they are in breach of the Berne Convention (1, 2). The uploader has also been unable to refute this. If you don't mind my asking, how much longer do you think this case will remain open until an administrator at least takes a look at it? I'm wondering specifically how he or she will even find it given how far back in time it was first opened. This case dates back to July, and most of the cases from then have already been closed and archived. Shouldn't the pic with the racist file name at least have been deleted by now? Middayexpress (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cornelis Vreeswijk press photo 1967.jpg

Have added more clearification for Cornelis Vreeswijk press photo 1967.jpg. //Mr Bullitt (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now. Thanks for helping! Please always remember to give valid sources with clear permission for usage. Thank you. --High Contrast (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Image:Levering Smith.jpg

This page now looks unavailable, although picture is still visible even through google browser second page, second position at the top (domain: ssp.navy.mil). I have no idea, what can I do, now. --Matrek (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Probleme beim Hochladen einer Datei

Hi High Contrast, ich habe Probleme beim Hochladen einer Datei. Ich will sie mit folgendem Text hochladen, trotzdem wird immer wieder angezeigt, dass die Lizenz fehlt.

 
* Beschreibung: Die Turnhalle des Wormser Rudi-Stephan-Gymnasium und seiner Ganztagsschule in Rheinland-Pfalz (Deutschland)
* Fotograf: Wikimedia-User [[User:Jivee_Blau|Jivee Blau]]

[[Category:Rudi-Stephan-Gymnasium]]
[[Category:Buildings in Worms]]
[[Category:Sports venues in Germany|Worms]]
[[Category:User:Jivee Blau]]

== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}

Viele Grüße, Jivee Blau (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem hat sich soeben erledigt, Gruß Jivee Blau (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wunderbar. Hätte gerne geholfen. --High Contrast (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem mit Video

Hi High Contrast, ich habe ein neues Problem ;-): Ich habe gerade ein Video hochgeladen, mit dem irgendetwas nicht funktioniert. Ich würde gern ein (S)LA stellen, weiß aber nicht genau wie dies in den Commons funktioniert.

File:Lampertheimer Bahnhof- auf Bahnsteig zu Gleis 3- ICE 3 passiert 24.2.2009.ogg

Viele Grüße, Jivee Blau (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

{{speedy|GRUND HIER EINGEBEN. --~~~~}}. Die Benachrichtigung kannst du dir schenken, da du der Uploader und der Löschantragsteller gleichzeitig bist. Ansonsten müsstest du einen Hinweis auf der Benutzerseite des Uploaders posten. --High Contrast (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, werde ich gleich machen. Gruß, Jivee Blau (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

bessere namen für dateien vergeben

Wie lang dürfen denn die Dateinamen sein - und was sollte alles im Namen enthalten sein?

File:Tatu at VivaComet 2008.jpg permission problems

Hi High Contrast, I just wanted to query you regarding the {{No permission}} tag you added to File:Tatu at VivaComet 2008.jpg. Whilst the source image on plwiki has been deleted, so cannot be verified directly, the image was moved using the Commonshelper tool, which would have verified the license and shows in the original upload log that it was so licensed by the original uploader:

• 2009-07-13 06:37 Czechu90 700×452× (389250 bytes) {{Grafika | Opis = zespół tatu na viva comet 2008 | Źródło = własne archiwum | Data = 02.10.2008 | Autor = Adrian Czeszyk |Warunki udostępnienia = '''{{self|cc-by-3.0}}''' |Inne wersje = }}

I would have thought this sufficient, or is the problem that there is reason to doubt that the original uploader was actually the author? AJCham 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that the "missing permission template" is some kind of mistake. This file was transfered from plwiki, where it was tagged as own work (under CC) of Czechu90, who is stated as an author (any other relevant data is kept in the file description as well). The status of this file was confirmed by me (I'm an admin at plwiki) before transfering it to Commons. Do you agree and can I remove the template? Masur (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that this file is own work of User:Czechu90: Low image resolution, no informative EXIF data and the fact that Czechu90 did less than 10 edits on pl.wikipedia. Classical aspects that speak for copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest in that case that you list the image at Commons:Deletion requests to enable a wider discussion? Naturally, you will want to list the cropped version that I uploaded in the same request, as any decision will of course affect both files. AJCham 22:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Del req is the place where we should discuss. Pls start the deletion request for this image. Masur (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I think you could not have checked this photograph more than the facts that were given by the uploader, I suggest now to leave this file on Commons. All in all, we won't get to any solution because our arguments are both quite vague. --High Contrast (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Supression of the Canal Académie logo

Bonjour, Je suis l'auteur de l'article sur Canal Académie. Je vois que vous avez supprimé un logo de la station en indiquant violation de copyright. Je vous informe que la directrice de Canal Académie m'a autorisé l'usage de ce logo sur Wikipédia. Vous seriez bien aimable de rétablir le logo, car je n'ai violé aucun copyright. Avec tous mes remerciements. David89 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour!
=> Commons:OTRS/fr: Après ca, recharge l'image avec la permission de la directrice de Canal Académie et tous sera bien ;-) --High Contrast (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

new fotos

I uploaded new photos in Category:Military rolling stock of Russia. Please, check Summary box and Category. --Sergeev Pavel (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

GREAT! Thank you! --High Contrast (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Factsonlywillstay

Hi, user User:Factsonlywillstay previously uploaded several photos of Daria Strokous as can be seen from his talk page and failed to present evidence of permissions, now he uploaded again some pictures of same person. Some are from this persons account on Flickr, like File:Daria Strokous 2009.jpg from [23] or File:Daria Pic BStage.JPG from [24]. Can you please take a look of newly uploaded users images and compare with deleted one Special:Contributions/Factsonlywillstay--Justass (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just deleted the flickr copyvios. The other images are claimed to be own work by that user. --High Contrast (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Source Info...

Added a precise URL for this file. Rammstein15 (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! This is essential according to COM:L. --High Contrast (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

File:SALA DE JUNTAS.JPG

There was a source indicated in the original image summary for the picture above. I checked it out and the photo on flickr was still there on a cc by sa license. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you for your help. --High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How to restore "Official_w00tstock_poster"

Hello, High Contrast,

After obtaining permission from the copyright holder, Len Peralta, I uploaded an image of the w00tstock concert poster. It appears that a bot, Polarlys, deleted the image due to questions over copyright and/or licensing.

How can I upload and tag an image so that it will not be deleted? I believe I had categorized the image as being permissible for use by the copyright owner. I obtained permission from the artist via an exchange in the comments section of his blog: http://jawboneradio.blogspot.com/2009/10/wootstock-art.html.

Any guidance you might provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

--Calixton (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Afghan images

You deleted File:Segera Afghanistan.jpg and File:Celebrating Internation Womens' Day in Kandahar.jpg.

The individual who tagged the images for speedy deletion told me the images were "obvious copyright violations". I pointed out to this individual that Afghanistan is not a signatory to any international copyright agreements, and has no domestic copyright law. Given the lack of copyright protection in Afghanistan I think it is a serious over-reach to call these "obvious copyright violations".

It is routine for some wire services and some freelance photographers to treat images taken in Afghanistan as if they were undiscovered gold-mines, and all the intellectual property rights to them belonged to the first individual to race to publish them outside of Afghanistan -- without regard to who took the images.

Wire services and freelance photographers can't even be relied upon to correctly credit images that weren't taken in Afghanistan. There are lots of DoD images that are sometimes republished correctly credited to the DoD and sometimes republished improperly credited to a wire service or freelancer.

What I have noticed is that some newspapers don't print a credit if an image is PD. I wrote to the photo editor of the Miami Herald, asking for the correct attribution of an image that was not credited, but which I suspected was a PD image from the DoD. She told me she had no way of looking up the source of that particular image -- even though it had been published two weeks earlier. But that they always credited images unless they were taken by Miami Herald staff, or were in the public domain. My theory as to why wire services are credited with PD images is that the photo staff at a second publication plans to an image that they know was previously published by a first publication. It is simpler for them to republish the image, credit the first publication, planning to claim "fair use" if it were challenged, and not bother to inquire further to see if the image was originally PD.

I've repeatedly suggested the wikimedia foundation consult an intellectual property lawyer, and get their opinion on the copyright status of Afghan images. I have been told that, although the wikimedia foundation does retain a lawyer, he is not an intellectual property lawyer. This surprised me.

I am going to repeat my main point. I do not believe the copyright of these images was clearcut, and I don't believe they were candidates for speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not of interest what you think, but what the facts say:

• Firstly, I did NOT delete this image: File:Segera Afghanistan.jpg. It was User:Abigor. Please, look a bit closer.
• Secondly, this File:Celebrating Internation Womens' Day in Kandahar.jpg was deleted by me because of flickr washing. If you take a look at the flickr source page. You can easily read below the image: Photo by Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images. The flickr uploader is "♪_Lisa_♪", here she claims to be female, so she is not "Marco Di Lauro". Consequently she is not the copyright holder of this image. Thus copyright violation (Flickr washing). --High Contrast (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Minimized Image

Hey, I only minimize some images so it comes out better/clearer on some article as a thumb (170px). --JoeJohnson2 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Airport crash tenders of Portugal

Copied from my talk page here

Hi.

I´am sorry to tell you, but despite my best efforts and searchs, it seems that flickr doesnt have any images of Airport crash tenders on Portuguese airports. I´ve search with english, spanish and portuguese words (like airport, aeroporto, autotanque etc) but by not knowing the technical tranlation of "Airport crash tenders" to portuguese, it limits my efforts. Despite this i´ve still not given up, and so if i see any image related to this subject i´ll upload it. With best regards. Tm (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:JP_Pietersen.jpg

Hi, picture with JP Pietersen was cropped the same day from the same photo as File:Alesana Tuilagi.jpg. I can't proove it "more" because photo was deleted from Flickr, but, as you can see, I had uploaded 8 photos of Samoa-RSA match. All of them were made by Fabien (?), all of them were left on the same conditions, all of theme, excluding this one, were checked. Arvedui89 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me things I do already now . The problem is, as you can read, the source: You stated link redirects to yahoo! --High Contrast (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To bad the original file was not uploaded on Commons. Then there would have been no problems. Images that fail flicker review more than seven days after upload should not be speedied but checked further. As you can see here there is a lot to look at. We have differende categories to these files ([[could put it in ex: Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR and Category:Flickr images not found-old) so we can check then carefully before they are deleted. If this file should be deleted i suggest a deletion request. --MGA73 (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There was, and there is, no point in "doubling" every nice photo, that can be used here. If the pfoto was deleted link redirects to yahoo. You can't blame me for it... Date is the same, camera is the same (#Metadata), author is the same, photo is the same. In Metadate there is even something like Unique image ID: 0da288,364,684f61a453b74cc9afe7,276. For both photos (1, 2) the same. Arvedui89 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Uploading original images is a good idea. But the most important is to request Flickrreview. That way images will get "secured". --MGA73 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I passed it now because of the same ID --MGA73 (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Luftwaffetornado.jpg

http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=DF-SD-07-01102&guid=6897362fed04648e26f243cabab300e581b680ef

Mit Bezug auf .... Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Hirundo tahitica.jpg

You marked this image with no source. It came from Flickr and it was reviewed. Wonder why this edit [25] was made... --MGA73 (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Show me where you can find the image on this source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/64684201@N00/229538668/ --High Contrast (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That is why we have Flickrreview. Once file is reviewed there is no problem if file on Flickr is deleted or license is changed. --MGA73 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have understood something wrong. Before I tagged the image it was not reviewed. I could not review the image due to the lack of source, so how could the flickreviewer manage to this? Have you tried the stated source? --High Contrast (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the file history you can se this "00:07, 3 January 2007 FlickreviewR (Talk | contribs | block) m (FlickreviewR: PASSED cc-by-2.0) (undo)" and the bot even uploaded original version. It only does that if license and source is ok. More than two years after the review was removed "11:38, 29 June 2009 Lillolollo (Talk | contribs | block) (272 bytes) (undo)". --MGA73 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly was done falsely by me? Not investigating the file history if there was a positive review result? I ask you again: what can you see on that source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/64684201@N00/229538668/ ? --High Contrast (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When I noticed that FlickreviewR was the uploader i suspected that somthing was wrong. My message to you was just to inform you that image probably was ok. I have seen similar problems before. Image is ok but then someone removes info and later it is tagged and deleted.

I did not have acces to OTRS when I wrote first time (there was an OTRS notice on the image). That's why I did not fixet at once. I checked OTRS later and it was no good.

I see nothing on the source. --MGA73 (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well a misapprehension. As you can surely imagine I did not want to disturb the activity of your bot. In my view it is clarified. --High Contrast (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there is no problem. Except perhaps the permission. If it is valid for ALL images or just some of them. That is why I reverted to the FLickrreview to avoid that problem. Perhaps not the best solution but it was easy. I later found out that there is other images with same permission so I need to check the permission anyway. Well you cant win them all :-/

And thank you for helping to review Flickr images... Good news is that my bot has finished finding images and that FlickreviewR has checked all images. So now there is only the cleanup left! --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Message

Yes I am--Pubdog (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. --High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Flak-20-mm IG.jpg

servus. Mein englisch ist da nicht gut genug für einen LA um das zu begründen. Die Lizenzen passen überhaubt nicht. Da ist garnichts nachvollziehbar. Das Bild kommt zu 99% auch aus keiner ZDv. Viele übertragen anscheinend das public domain der US-Armee auf die Bundeswehr. Edit: Ich sehe dir ist der Benutzer Gonzosft nicht unbekannt.--Sonaz (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Servus! Ja, Gonzosft ist mir ein Begriff. Du hast absolut Recht, was diese Bilddatei angeht. Ich werde das Bild löschen. Gruß und Danke für den Hinweis, High Contrast (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

fyi

You recently separately nominated a dozen images for deletion that were all connected with the fight on 2002-07-27.

Three of those images had previously been nominated for deletion. All of those deletion discussions explained that the images in question were listed in the OC-1 CITF witness report.

Is there a reason why your deletion nominations didn't inform other contributors that the images had previously been nominated for deletion? Shouldn't your second nomination have supplied some additional justification beyond that offered in the first nomination?

I wrote in those dozen deletion nominations that I thought it was unfortunate that you didn't read the OC-1 CITF witness report thoroughly enough to see it listed all of the images you nominated for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of this "OC-1 CITF witness report". "CITF" = "Criminal Investigation Task Force", a US DoD construct, ok. That points in the right direction. But the source is still quite vague - where do you have those images from? Can you provide a link to "OC-1 CITF witness report" with all the images that are in discussion? In addition according to this here, that was uploaded by you on WikiSource, "this document is not to be released outside your Agency": does PD-Us-Gov-US-Army apply for classified files, too?
What does "fyi" mean? --High Contrast (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• "fyi" is short for "For Your I nterest".
• Yes, I uploaded OC-1 CITF witness report to wikisource. Clarification please -- did you mean to imply there was something wrong with my uploading of this document? Did you mean to imply that there was something wrong with my wikilinking to the document after uploading it?
• If you want to see the list of images, please just read to the end of the document.
• There is a long tradition of leaked classified documents being published and recognized as being in the public domain -- the Pentagon Papers are a high profile example.
• Michelle Shephard, the Toronto Star journalist, who published the image strong image of Khadr's gaping chest wounds, in the Star, and in her book, Guantanamo's Child, described how the OC-1 CITF witness report came to be released. Shephard was the first reporter to give an account of a Kafka-esque incident that occurred several years ago, and shortly before the the Toronto Star republished this picture.
  1. A bunch of reporters showed up to observe one of Omar Khadr's pre-trial hearings.
  2. The clerks in charge of copying and distributing the evidence screwed up. They were supposed to make two copies of the evidence. The Commission members and the lawyers were to get the unredacted, classified versions. The suspects, and the reporters were supposed to get redacted versions.
  3. The five page document OC-1 CITF witness report was distributed to reporters in unredacted form.
  4. The Kafka-esque portion of the incident is that after the suspect and Commission members left the court-room officers told the reporters that, before they were allowed to leave the courtroom they would have to return the unredacted documents that had been given to them in error.
  5. The reporters showed back-bone and declined to hand the documents back. They were not allowed to leave. A tense 90-minute standoff followed. Eventually a compromise was arrived at -- the reporters were allowed to keep the unredacted version of the document -- provided they agreed not to publish any of the names in the document.
• My theory is that the 27 attachments mentioned in this document, including the photo of the exit wounds in Khadr's chest, were among the 27 attachments to the OC-1 report. I don't know, for sure, how the photo of Khadr's massive exit wounds, came to be released. But I strongly suspect that that photo, and the others you nominated for deletion, were among those which the prosecution intended to remain classified, but which they lacked the leverage to seize back from Shephard and her colleagues with backbone. But, without regard to whether this is how the photos came to be released I don't think there don't believe there is room for the tiniest iota of doubt that these photos are the official work of DoD personel, and in the public domain on that basis.
• It is my opinion that the wikimedia and wikipedia's deletion procedures are in need of reform. While we try to cultivate a culture of civility, collegiality and consensus seeking in our discussions a sub-culture of incivility and non-collegiality has taken sprout in the deletion fora. Lapses from the assumption of good-faith and from the prohibition on personal attacks are so routine they pass without notice. And it is extremely rare to see participants openly acknowledge that they realize they were mistaken, and they have changed their mind. It is much more common to see those who were presented with compelling counterarguments to simply fade away -- or to abandon civility and descend to abuse. I do my best to acknowledge when I realize I have been in error. I think I do a pretty good job. I admire those who do likewise. I think it is particularly important for administrators to work to set a good example. In the specific instances of these images I encourage you to consider whether their provenance has been definitely established, and if you realize it has been I encourage you to withdraw your nominations for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Grumman TBM 3E Avenger 20

Dear High Contrast,

You caught me in the act. I have uploaded 4 photos of teh Avenger. On one of them I have filled in all fields. On the others I didn't. If I upload more than one photo of the same subject, I upload one with all information, then I edit the page, inserting all code from the first photo I uploaded. Your message came in between uploading the files and editing them. Please take another look.

Mit freundicher Grüssen,

Ad AdMeskens (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Answered here. --High Contrast (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:File:BRA vs. USA women's basketball Rio 2007.jpg

Fixed. Thank you for warning. Filipe Ribeiro ^Msg 12:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That was no warnung, but a hint. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rick Schroder.jpg

Hello, you left a Better source request for Image on my talk page for this photo. The USAF website gallery where info on that photo can be found is this, it might however change as more images will be added and page 14 might move to page 15, 16 and so on. I have added the link on the photographs description but please check it yourself and if everything is alright remove the template, or change whatever i've done wrong. Thanks in advance --Alaniaris (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I know about this problem. Therefore it is often gelpful to search the hole af.mil-page to find a "Air Force news page", or the like. I have found this news-site and added this one instead. This site is considered to be static and will not be removed the next few days. Thank you anyway for your support. --High Contrast (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Supression of File:Ria-de-Ferrol-entre-castillos.jpg

Bonjour, Je viens d'importer cette image de Flickr, je vois que vous l'avez mise en attente pour être spprimée en indiquant violation de copyright. Je vous fait remarquer que cette image me parait conforme aux directives de Commons par l'auteur et autorisé l'usage sur Wikipédia comme tant d'autres. Je vous prie s'il vous plait d'avoir l'amabilité de la rétablir, car à mon avis je n'ai violé aucun copyright. Avec tous mes remerciements. Basilio (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

S'il te plaît, voir ici Commons:OTRS/fr. Ici tu va trouver tous les informations que tu as besoin. Merci. --High Contrast (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Merci pour tes bonnes informations. Je vois un peut plus claire maintenant, je promet de faire plus attention la prochaine fois. Encore merci. Basilio (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pas de souci! --High Contrast (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token b3b8cb41551b139f38c3d5db3bde2faf

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Komatsu WA500.jpg

Hello High Contrast, thanks for providing the higher resolution picture. I missed that one, I thought that I got the highest resolution available. Best regards from germany --Neozoon (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Kein Problem. Ich helfe wo ich kann und ich tue das gerne. Besten Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Why you marked File:Transponder on an Afghan satellite dish.jpg as a Category:Satellite dishes (residential)? What makes you think it is a "residential" dish? Todd Huffman, a geek who is an aid worker in Afghanistan, has uploaded other images of this disk, and other contributors have assumed those were of a residential site. It is, in fact, an internet dish in a successful guesthouse that caters to foreigners. There doesn't seem to be a category for data dishes, or industrial dishes. Geo Swan (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of that problem you were talking of in your statement. This was thought to be a temporary move to Category:Satellite dishes (residential). I planned to create a new category, but I abandoned a such a creation because of the fact that there are probably not enough images for such a category and which category tree would apply perfectly. I was still thinking about what to do next. What do you suggest? Which category apllies best? --High Contrast (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Mitchellandfriendleaving.jpg

You deleted a photo that the girl in the photo emailed to me, upon my request for use in the page Mitchell Wiggs. He also has a croped and edited version of that picture on his Facebook page (which you posted the link to). Let me know what i need to do to be able to keep that photo on wiki, for it has no copyright.

MitchellWiggs (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Flickr uploads

Hello 44Charles!

Thanks a lot for your contributions! Thank you for transferring images from Flickr to Commons! Two hints ahead:

• Always upload the highest resolution of a photograph that is available on flickr
• You can use this tool for your flickr uploads. It makes the hole procedure much easier and faster for you!
  

Thank you for your support! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Great tool indeed! Danke, --44Charles (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Bitteschön! --High Contrast (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Flickr review needed

Hi! You do not need to check images in this category manually. We have a bot for that. It also uploads a larger version of the image if it is available. There is however other categories where humans is needes:

• Category:Flickr images needing human review
• Category:Flickr images not found
• Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images (see User:Captain-tucker/Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR)
• and of cource Category:Commons backlog. So you do not have to fear to run out of work :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this bot. I am checking those file for flickr washing and as I do that I complete all infos from flickr and do some image crops if neccessary. Things a bot can't do. Run out of work? Here on Commons? Never...! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Good. But if you wait untill it has checked the images you can save some edits if you agree with the bot ;-) Also when you fail images like you did File:Felipe melo.jpg it will have both a speedy and an OTRS pending. Probably several admins will now check the image in the speedy cat (unless someone deletes it without noticing the OTRS-notice). Personally I inform users when images fail Flickr review. Normally with a npd so they have a chance to fix it + they get an info about what is wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I always inform Users too if flickr review failed. If that was not done by me, it must have been happened accidentally. --High Contrast (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

File:MP_pic.jpg

Careful with deletion please. Pay attn: http://www.newlookmedia.ru/IDNV/Arhiv.html (Small print below: Контент доступен на условиях лицензии Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike).FHMRUSSIA (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete this image, User:Abigor did it. But all in all the deletion is correct. This site maybe under a free C&C licence, but the image that was deleted, not. We call such things file washing. --High Contrast (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't get it. The writing clearly indicates that content of this section (Archive) is under free licence. What makes you think that this pic is the exception? It doesn't make any sense. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Scan of this newspaper: Pravda. Why this site has the right to publish this file under a free licence is unclear. As I said: file washing. And again, I have not deleted this file. --High Contrast (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I remember it's the scan of Musical Pravda weekly which is published by NewLookMedia and it has nothing to do with the site. It would be very nice of you to restore. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the site? Really? --High Contrast (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As you said what? Be more precise, please: prove that the site has nothing to with "pravda". Is it another newspaper that is shown on the image? Is it a parody? --High Contrast (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I said that the deleted file has nothing to do with Pravda.FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are few newspapers with the very word pravda in their titles.FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples: Moskovskaya Pravda, Muzycalnaya Pravda, etc. Pravda means Truth. So Moskovskaya Pravda goes for Truth of Moscow City. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what file was deleted but I guess it's from Muzycalnaya Pravda (since it has letters MP in his title).FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing I'm sure of – I would never upload file without written permission. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the file is from Muzycalnaya Pravda site. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's this one. Where exactly on this page is written that all content is under a CC-by-sa licence? My russian is not so good. --High Contrast (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Click here : see writing regarding CC-by-sa licence below (small print) for all PDF Archive. Then click button ИД "Новый Взгляд", you are here. Then right upper button with the name of this weekly Музыкальная ПРАВДА. And at last choose the year of 2008. That's it. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But after all you can forget the whole thing. It seems like this file is NOT used anywhere. So there's no damage done for any piece of any project. I should have known better. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the case. I have just read what you have linked above. The file has been restored: File:MP pic.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please categorize this file properly. --High Contrast (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it took some time and extra lines:) Thank you. In fact it's used on one page at least. And one more thing regarding Category. What do you suggest? I mean your note "categorize this file properly". I'm not sure that I am able to do so without any advice ((( Since it's just a front page of weekly newspaper called Muzycalnaya Pravda, I've just listed some Categories as I would for the newspaper itself. I'll try to add Category:Front Page if there's such one.FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I have modified and overworked the categories: it is a newspaper of Russia, so i transformed all categories Category:XY_by country to Category:XY_in Russia. In addition I have removed some categories due to COM:OVERCAT. --High Contrast (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll do the same with other similar files. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks for your support! --High Contrast (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

???

erledigt !!! :-) --Neozoon (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done perfekt. --High Contrast (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk page

I don't mind you leaving borderline-harrassment messages spamming up my talk page, but when I remove them to keep my talk page clean, please do not revert me in my own userspace. Sherurcij (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to correct your mistakes ((here and here))? --High Contrast (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not mistakes, there's nothing wrong with how I uploaded the files. You're free to add the template you added, you're free to fix the urls to display how you want them to display, you're even free to start a Request for Deletion for the images. Please do not consider yourself free to stalk every single one of my uploads to say I spelled a word wrong, didn't categorise it well enough, you'd prefer if I gave a different source, or the grainy pixels annoy you. That is harassment. Sherurcij (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not ment to harass you! It is very important to inform the uploader about what is going on with her/his file. Therefore it is necessary to leave a message on ones talk page. All further things are anchorless, Sherurcij: Nobody stalks you because of your uploads. Fact is that you have uploaded many file with lots of them having severe licence problems. It is highly likely that one stumbles over some file you have contributed. Besides, exact links on files (like your xyz.jpg-links) do not disturb me personally (to tell the truth I don't care), but there is a wide consense on Commons that such file sources are no valid source as requested in COM:L. Far be it from me to harass some User. --High Contrast (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Better source requests

I don't understand what you mean by "Better source request" for the images I am uploading from Official United States Government websites - which I link directly to. These websites are copyright free and the images I am uploading from them are clearly identified as United States Government imagess and are in the public domain. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Of which images are you talking exactly? Basically images on US-Gov sites are automatically not in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sonderpädagogisches Förderzentrum Bajuwarenstraße.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very good quality --George Chernilevsky 08:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File Tagging File:ELG_webcam_daylight_capture_at_09-09-13_08-00-00-32.png

I have left a long reply at User talk:84user#File Tagging File:ELG_webcam_daylight_capture_at_09-09-13_08-00-00-32.png; in brief I maintain the image is ineligible for copyright and so no permission is required. -84user (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should this image be ineligible for copyright? You refer on this? --High Contrast (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand from the discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 22#Live feeds, surveillance images are not considered to have copyright. The reason given is that there is no creativity involved. Copyright of images requires a minimum of creative input. If someone had held the webcam and pointed it deliberately at something, then, some countries might consider it copyright. Here, the webcam is in a fixed position and it automatically streams images. Look at the reply by Yann: "For a copyright to exist, you need at least 3 things: originality, fixation, and author." Yes, we have fixation (recorded in an archive), but there is no originality, and Yann questions whether the person setting up a camera can be an author. If this is not clear then we could ask for more explanation at Commons_talk:Licensing. -84user (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schaufelradbagger, Tagebau Schleenhain.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 18:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Knuth Homeboy.jpg

Hallo ›High Contrast‹, vielen herzlichen Dank für Deine Hilfe beim Upload dieses Bildes!

Mal sehen, ob ich es auch irgendwo in der Wikipedia sinnvoll einbauchen kann … allerdings würde ein eigener Abschnitt über Knuth’s Humor in der deutschen WP wohl wahrscheinlich wegen der Relevanzkriterien gekippt werden – obwohl es da ja durchaus noch ganz andere Sachen (Zahlensystem zur Basis 2i, potrzebie-Größensystem, Popsong-Komplexität) gäbe ;-). --Frakturfreund (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kein Problem, helfe gerne. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Notwist - Your Choice Live Series

Hi High Contrast, could you please put back the cover photo or explain what´s missing regarding the legal shit? Permission has been given (http://www.ycr.diehl.ws/news.html (See #4) and will be duly appropriated. Best, Party diktator (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Um welche Datei handelt es sich genau (genauer Link)? --High Contrast (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Notwist-live-album-cover.jpg - auf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Choice_Live_Series_020 - Besten Dank, Party diktator (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Offenbar hast du das cover zwischenzeitlich erneut hochgeladen: File:Notwist-live-album-cover.jpg. Bitte beachte in Zukunft COM:OVERCAT. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect tagging

Have removed your tags from two of my uploads. The author is the Central Intelligence Agency, which makes these PD-USGov. The source is the Library of Congress. Both the author and the call number were provided with the original upload. Please communicate any remaining concerns at user talk, rather than templating. Thank you. Durova (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The tagging must have been done accidentally. The source seems to be OK. --High Contrast (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the swift reply. It's not often we get PD material from that era. :) Cheers, Durova (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Razt.jpg

[26]: According to you what would be a good source for a PD-user-w image? --Спас Колев (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you have never read COM:L. Under "License information" information you can read that "Transferred from Wikipedia" is generally not considered a valid source. So, do not tease others due to you own nescience. Besides that, organize a higher resolution of that image. That low photo resolution and the lack of proper EXIF data makes this file suspicious for copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Unknown_Montefortis'_relative_at_Follonica_on_1947.jpg

Hi and thank you for your remark. But I Giorgiomonteforti the uploader I'm the copyright holder of all the material that is in the family archive and, as collective family decision, we are scanning and uploading all the material we have in our warehouse to Commons. Because all those picture related to Monteforti, Palagini, Mugnai and Dini Family were taken by members of the family or someone else, but always under the family provision (when the pictures were made by a professional, as in other pictures, the author were noted on the rear), I know perfectly the copyright status of the pictures because I'm legally the copyright holder of Monteforti Family Archive and I have always taken full responsibility for that statement. If the license is not appropriate please suggest me how to apply properly the appropriate license for those pictures. For sure, and evidently, there isn't any suitable license in the upload form. I would have used it, I'm not so unexpert about licensing as you can see on my gallery. Thank you.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --George Chernilevsky ^talk

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freisinger Tagblatt Gebäude.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good photo --George Chernilevsky 06:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fotos

Prezado,

Infelizmente não fui atento a regra de direitos autorais da Wiki em relação a alguns arquivos de foto, assim todos os que foram marcados que ainda não foram apagados estarei observado e os que ferirem serão apagados. Contudo, peço desculpas pelo inconveniente mais deixo aqui a minha indguinação sobre a sua frase, pois a imposição de ameaçar a apagar a minha conta na Wiki não é o melhor meio democrático de chegar a algo, não é por que você detem deste poder de excluir contas que você deve sair ameaçando os voluntários da Wiki, que pra mim veio como uma ofença. Como voluntário neste projeto, reafirmo a intenção de apenas colaborar e enriquecer as informações postadas.Deiwyd (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• só uma pergunta, como eu faço para apagar fotos minha no Wiki?Deiwyd (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand spanish sufficiently. --High Contrast (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wallerdorf Dorfplatz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments a little noisy, but enough for QI --Pudelek 22:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

File:41st Paris Air Show in 1996.JPEG

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done; there was a "-" too much. --High Contrast (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears

What is wrong with this photo?[27]--Wiinner:) (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You have cropped out your uploaded photo from this image on flickr. The image can not be transferred from flickr to Commons because it was not published under a free licence ("all rightse reserved"). --High Contrast (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good finding. --Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Man spricht Deutsch ;-) Vielen Dank für das Lob. --High Contrast (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)