User talk:Ellywa/2022

Happy new year

Happy new year to all readers of my talk page! I am looking forward to pleasant contacts on this beautiful project. Ellywa (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Vraagje

Hallo Ellywa, hier staat een kleine spellingfout: editten ipv editen. Misschien vind je het belangrijk dit aan te passen :-) Lotje (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Het is CC-BY-SA, dus een ieder die er zin in heeft mag die spelfout verbeteren. Zelf ga ik die moeite niet doen, maar bedankt, ik heb weer wat bijgeleerd, want ik zou het zo weer fout doen eerlijk gezegd. Mark my words, in de volgende editie van het groene boekje wordt het vast editten, volledig vernederlandst, net zoals kersen pitten en haren klitten gaan we dan samen zitten editten. Ellywa (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Beste Elly,
"Prediken" wordt vast ook niet "predikken". Ooit leerde ik een regel dat alleen bij woorden welke de klemtoon op de laatste lettergreep hebben de eindmedeklinker wordt verbubbeld.
Hartelijke taalgroeten,  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  09:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Zoso Jimmy Page Saturn sigil.svg

Is the "ZoSo" symbol ineligible for US copyright and free to use in only the US? George Ho (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@George Ho: On the English Wikipedia / in the USA / it is possible to host images which are copyrighted in the USA or elsewhere as "fair use". But it has to be shown there is a rationale. On English Wikipedia they can host w:File:Led Zeppelin (untitled).jpg, the album cover, and w:File:Led Zeppelin's Winter 1971 United Kingdom Tour.jpg, a poster. Both in a small resolution. On Commons this fair use is not allowed. You can read more about this on COM:Fair use. Happy new year! Ellywa (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I know generally about what you said. By telling from what you said, the logo is non-free in the USA, right? George Ho (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally think so yes. But on en: there was no consensus as you wrote on the DR. Ellywa (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Found past DR discussions: 2007, 2008–09, 2010. But I'm unsure whether they're helpful about just the US copyright of the "ZoSo" logo, but that was before the Edge decision in the UK. George Ho (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC); expanded, 03:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

As an admin, I just try to stick with the commons guidelines, and the text about low TOO on the country of origin of the logo is very clear. Untill it is shown it has come unchanged from an older version, we should stick to that imho. On w:Jimmy Page it is stated that Page's own so-called "Zoso" symbol originated in Ars Magica Arteficii (1557) by Gerolamo Cardano, an old alchemical grimoire, where it has been identified as a sigil consisting of zodiac signs. The sigil is reproduced in Dictionary of Occult, Hermetic and Alchemical Sigils by Fred Gettings. If this can be shown with certainty, the symbol can be undeleted, and you can add such request, after your own DR. But if it is a DW of an older symbol, it is the creative act of Page. Ellywa (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was planning to upload a local copy the image to enwiki (not Commons), and I also would like to copy the deleted summary to there. Alternatively, I thought about retrieving the logo from one of other sites just for enwiki, but I'm unsure whether one of them still match the one deleted. George Ho (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats fine, good idea. Please tell me when you have time for that, so I can undelete the file for a day. Ellywa (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I would like the file temporarily undeleted after a twelve-hour wait then. When I save the file and the summary into my hard drive, then you can re-delete the file please. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Done now, in case I would forget later today, please let me know when you are finished. File:Zoso Jimmy Page Saturn sigil.svg. I hope it will be accepted as fair use. Ellywa (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Necessary info and file saved into my hard drive. You may delete the page now. George Ho (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Ellywa (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Accidental deletion of File:Tiger Längsschnitt.svg

You kept the file at DR but accidentally deleted the file. Please restore. --Denniss (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, is restored now. Use on other projects appears not affected. Thanks for checking my work. Ellywa (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Coat of Arms of Grover Cleveland.svg

On the deletion request page for this file, you stated "No reason for deletion of this image. On Commons we do not decide whether an image is correct or not correct. This should be discussed on the projects. The image is currently in use on the projects". I want to thank you for your support on this and ask for your assistance to have it restored. I'm not sure of the process to discuss it on "projects".

As you know, this file did get deleted, and it looks like it was done without a decision being made and posted by a moderator. I'm not at all happy that the standard process was circumvented. Was this done unilaterally, and by whose authority? It feels like this file was targeted by someone whose objective was just out to have it removed disregarding the process and the decisions of others and I don't want that happening to my other images as well.--Glasshouse (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for mentioning. This is completely my mistake! I pressed delete, while I intended to keep the file. I will restore the image and try to find out how I can restore it on the projects. Sorry! Ellywa (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

help with vandal

Hi! Just if you are active now please help with Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism --A1 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi A1, the user is blocked by another admin, thanks for calling. Ellywa (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Uploads by GFHund

Hi Ellywa; thank you for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GFHund. It is a difficult case and I appreciate your efforts. Understandably, GFHund is disappointed by the many deletions, see my talk page, I tried to explain the outcome to him there. There's a small thing that should be fixed, I think: For kept files, you added the {{Kept}} template with the date of an earlier deletion request on the same page, 30 April 2013, e.g. at File talk:Edmund Schneidewind.jpg (maybe DelReqHandler did this automatically?). This should be changed to the actual date of the current request, which is 15 June 2021. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking my work. This is a bug of some sort in the DelReqHandler. I just clicked on the "keep" link behind the filename. It will probably occur much more often on DR's which are extended with the same name, never checked it to be honest. Maybe this should be reported somewhere. Ellywa (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I think I noticed this issue with DelReqHandler in the past, too. I'm not sure it is the best place to report, but well, I tried it now at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js#DelReqHandler_adding_wrong_date_to_"kept"_template_if_previous_DR_with_same_name_exists. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, too, again; this is a deletion request where I also already invested a lot of time into research, as you can see in the list of nominations withdrawn by the nominator Racconish (expand "Withdrawn nominations" at the top of the page) after my various arguments for keeping quite a lot of these files, so I tried really a lot to help Mr. Hund, and Racconish was also very reasonably willing to withdraw these nominations as we could assume the PD status - and you, too, acted very diligently and considerate, so I very much understand that you write that GFHunds reaction hurts you, and I feel sorry and hurt for you, too, as all we're doing is in the best of faith - and also I understand GFHund's hurt feelings as well, so this is an all-around unhappy affair, but I can't see what we could have done better, given the requirements of Commons... Gestumblindi (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly saw your hard work trying to maintain as much as possible. Its so difficult for elderly people... I'm only 67 ;-) Ellywa (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ellywa,

I've gone ahead and restored a few of those files in cases where I could see after some research that they were old enough and provide some proper years, authors etc. Please don't take this as a criticism of your decision to delete, this research is something the uploader should normally do, not the admin deciding a deletion request encompassing dozens of files. So I'm doing it kind of pro bono, donating some of my time for this. I may restore more and ask GFHund specific questions about dates etc. of certain files in the process. I hope the unhappiness mentioned above can be alleviated to a degree. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 18:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Rosenzweig, thanks for you message. I certainly do appreciate your efforts very much and I sincerely hope Mr. Hund will do the same. I do not feel critized at all, I am always happy to see images can been kept. Thanks for your effort and hard work. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Rosenzweig and Gestumblindi, I still have a question. Why appears Mr. Hund to be treated so different from other users? It seems many of his uploads are family album uploads and out of scope. Any other user would have been warned and possibly blocked. I respect old age and elderly people will require more help. But in the end they should understand the rules and act accordingly. Ellywa (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Ellywa and Rosenzweig; the Hund family is quite notable; several of the family members have Wikipedia articles in various language versions, and with good reason; for famous people, we usually like to have information (and pictures) of the wider family as well, I'd say. For example, Mr. Hund's father, Friedrich Hund, was an important physicist - en:Hund's cases and en:Hund's rules are named after him. His mother, Ingeborg Seynsche, was a pioneering female mathematician. Gerhard Hund himself is a mathematician and influential chess functionary, and his daughter Barbara Hund holds the FIDE title of Woman Grandmaster (WGM). So these aren't just any arbitrary family album images. Also, one could argue that due to the age of some of the pictures, these are historical documents in their own right, showing attire of the time and how people were photographed back then, such as File:Edmund Schneidewind Eisenach.jpg - even if Edmund Schneidewind isn't notable, it's a nice example of a formal man's portrait of the time. This also applies to historical death notices, marriage announcements etc. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, both the uploader and some of his family are definitely notable people as far as the German wikipedia is concerned and I think for Commons too. And even a lot of those files that aren't that closely related to the family (like old postcards and photographs) are in scope here as well because, like Gestumblindi wrote, they are historical documents (like a photograph from January 1846 that I restored, that's quite early for photography). So I'm looking if I can restore at least some of the files or list them for restoration in some future year. That's what I sometimes (or even often) do, if I can, when deciding deletion requests or even when filing them myself. I don't expect this from anyone else, especially not when facing a big bulk of files lacking essential information like in this case, because the onus to provide the necessary information still rests with the uploader. I'm doing it sometimes if I can and have the time, just like others are going through old deletion requests and listing them for restoration at a future date when the files are presumably OK copyright-wise. As far as warning and blocking goes, I think the deletion request and various discussions after that already were a warning. And it's not like he's continuing to upload large numbers of additional problematic files, so what would a block accomplish? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for you extensive explanation. I understand your efforts now. However, I do not think Commons is the best location to keep a family archive of this family - or any other - because everything can be changed, renamed, recatogrized etc. Enfin you know this of course. An archive would be better suited to document all inforamtion. I suggested mr. Hund to find a place were all material can be safely kept and registered, but he seemed too angry to hear. But it is of course up to you if you want to put so much effort in sorting out the copyright issues. Ellywa (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Trofeeën

Dag Elly,

Een discussie tussen Nederlanders over een Nederlandse wet kan misschien wat doelmatiger in het Nederlands worden gevoerd. In deze discussie was de conclusie van een collega dat foto's van trofeeën naar nationaal recht kunnen worden beoordeeld. Dat is ook belangrijk als we resultaten willen boeken via onze nationale lobby's voor meer vrijheid binnen het auteursrecht.

De term "panoramavrijheid" komt niet uit het Nederlands recht. Ik ben het met je eens dat wat internationaal "freedom of panorama" wordt genoemd, in Nederland valt onder artikel 18, maar daaruit volgt niet dat de reikwijdte van artikel 18 beperkt is tot de internationaal meest gangbare betekenis van die term, die zelf nergens in de Auteurswet staat. Een trofee als deze is bedoeld om permanent aan het publiek te laten zien als bewijs van een behaald succes. De maker van een trofee stemt ermee in dat die permanent op publieke plaatsen te zien zal zijn en kan redelijkerwijs niet het doel hebben inkomsten te verwerven uit licenties op verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk. Dat laatste vormt (zowel naar nationaal als internationaal recht) de rechtvaardiging om een wettelijke uitzondering op de hoofdregel van het auteursrecht te kunnen maken.

Als we zeggen "This trofee is not placed permanently in public space" wijzigen we impliciet de Nederlandse wetstekst op twee onderdelen: we laten het doel waarvoor het werk is gemaakt buiten beschouwing en vervangen dat door de eis dat het voortdurend in de openbare ruimte moet staan. Maar dat is niet wat artikel 18 zegt. Het werk moet zijn "gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst". Uit het verschil tussen het enkelvoud werk en het meervoud plaatsen blijkt duidelijk dat het werk niet blijvend op een vaste plaats hoeft te staan. De wettelijke beperking is daarentegen dat een werk dat niet is gemaakt om permanent op openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, maar daar alleen maar tijdelijk te zien was, buiten de uitzondering van het artikel valt. Trofeeën waarbij de opdrachtgever zakelijke belangen heeft bij de verlening ervan en zich in dat kader uitdrukkelijk alle auteursrechten voorbehoudt vallen onder die beperking, maar daarvan is hier geen sprake. Als ik me goed herinner was de foto genomen op een sportveld en die zijn in Nederland meestal voor het publiek toegankelijk - als er al beperkingen van de toegang zijn, hebben die niets te maken met de mogelijkheid om het werk te exploiteren.

Dit lijken mij voldoende solide overwegingen om de afbeelding weer terug te plaatsen, maar als ik iets over het hoofd zie, leer ik graag iets bij. --MarcoSwart (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Dag Marco, als je meent dat ik een verkeerde conclusie heb getrokken kan je om terugplaatsing verzoeken op COM:UNDELETE. Alleen op technische gronden en aperte fouten kan direct tot terugplaatsing overgaan worden volgens de werkwijze hier. Toch een korte inhoudelijke reactie: Volgens mij is zo een trofee NIET "gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst". Het ding zou direct wegwaaien op een dag als vandaag. De trofee wordt geplaatst in bijv. een kantine van een club, of in een vitrine ergens. Dat is geen openbare plaats, enkelvoud noch meervoud. Maar uiteraard weten we dat pas zeker als een rechter besluit over deze zaak. Terzijde: wat mij altijd motiveert tot voorzichtigheid per COM:PRP is dat derde partijen in ernstige problemen kunnen komen als ze argeloos het materiaal van Commons hergebruiken, tot boetes aan toe. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Met je reden voor voorzichtigheid ben ik het natuurlijk eens. Maar voor toekomstige overwegingen: een openbare plaats hoeft zeker niet altijd buiten te zijn. "Zichtbaarheid vanaf de openbare weg" komt uit de jurisprudentie op de eerdere tekst van het wetsartikel, maar bij de aanpassing aan de Europese richtlijnen is er uitdrukkelijk over gesproken dat ook locaties binnen een gebouw openbaar kunnen zijn. De kans dat een rechter zich ooit gaat uitspreken over afbeeldingen van een trofee is als de verwijderde lijkt me verwaarloosbaar, simpel omdat de belangen niet groot genoeg zijn. Die kans lijkt me beduidend groter bij, pakweg, hergebruik van een plaatje met de KNVB-beker. Als ik het goed begrijp is het verweer dan dat de foto op een openbare plaats was gemaakt. Ik help het je hopen dat de rechter daarin meegaat. Maar ik kom hier voor plaatjes in een woordenboek, niet voor wikilawyering in een labyrint van discussiepagina's. Daarom heb ik als vervanging nu gewoon maar het plaatje van de KNVB-beker gebruikt. Met vriendelijke groet, MarcoSwart (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Er zijn natuurlijk ook genoeg keren dat ik het eens ben met je juridische inschattingen. ;-) --MarcoSwart (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Commons:Stroke_Order_Project/Graphics_guidelines/Bitmap_animations

I changed Deleted to Kept: diff. I think that is what you meant. Glrx (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes thank you. I pressed the wrong button, but indeed I meant to say "kept". Ellywa (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion ofː File:Yankton Sioux Congressional Gold Medal (front).jpg

You deleted this file with no discussion and without giving a reason. The image is still being used by the en:Yankton Sioux Tribe article. It appears that you have done this before. Please undo your deletion. mcb133aco

Hi mcb133aco, the file was deleted on the basis of this request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Code Talker Medals. If you do not agree with my motivation and of the nominator you may ask for undeletion at COM:UNDELETE. Many copyrighted medals have been deleted on that and other requests. Link to file page File:Yankton Sioux Congressional Gold Medal (front).jpg. Best regards, Ellywa (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Logos of LOT Polish Airlines

Hi, you deleted File:LOT Polish Airlines.svg and File:LOT Polish Airlines Star Alliance.svg based on a mistaken comment of another editor. These are the official logotypes of an airline. I suggest reading COM:POLAND carefully:

Except as specified otherwise below, copyright expires 70 years from the author's death, or from the last surviving co-author's death with works of joint authorship.[1996–2016 Art.36(1)] (...)

• For work to which copyrights are entitled by law to a person other than the author, copyright lasts 70 years from the date of being made public (...)

(underline mine)

The logos in question were copyrighted by LOT, the entity for which they had been created; not by the author. The copyright expired in 2021. The logos are free of copyright restrictions now.

This is a situation fundamentally different from a situation, for instance, where a painting has been reproduced in a publication under a licence but the work's author still retains full copyright.

I'd like to ask you to restore the logos. Thanks. — kashmīrī 00:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: will this do? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lotje, per Commons:Transition to SVG, we should use vector graphics for such logos. Could you restore please? — kashmīrī 10:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi , I think this would need a broader discussion. I copied your request to the undeletion request page. In my country (The Netherlands), the copyright of a work made for a company by an independent designer is owned by the designer, unless they made a special contractual provision to completely transfer the copyright. However, if a work is made by somebody permanently hired by the company, the copyright is automatically owned by the company. I am not aware of the Polish law in this aspect and about the details of this particular case. That is why we have to delete images based on precautionary principles. I hope more reactions of specialists of Polish law will come to make a final decision about these files. Another admin then myself will probably take action, which is the best way forward. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment

Hi! Please verify your email account. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Mwphotography

Dear Ellywa, This deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mwphotography was closed by you as "The images can therefore be maintained". But the images seem deleted nonetheless. Or am I mistaken? Can they also be restored in the articles in which they were used? Vysotsky (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. It is so easy to click the wrong button. Thanks for checking my work! Busy restoring now. Ellywa (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

NLE

Ha Elly, ik vond deze mooie foto's die ik voor mijn artikel in wording dacht te kunnen gebruiken. Echter, na nadere bestudering lijkt het erop dat het illegaal opgeladen foto's zijn. Dus ik vrees dat het een kwestie van tijd is dat ze weer verwijderd gaan worden. Kun jij dat controleren? Groetjes Chescargot (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ja, ik vrees het ook. Ten eerste is de bron van een copyright teken voorzien. Ten tweede is er geen nl:panoramavrijheid voor moderne bouwwerken (waarvan de ontwerper nog leeft etc) in Kaap-Verdië, zie COM:FOP Cape Verde. Interessant verschijnsel, zou hier ook wel wat zijn, maar wij vertrouwen op de dijken vooralsnog. Ellywa (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Permissions for File:Franck_Gribling.jpg

Hello! I noticed you added the mark 'permission granted but not final' to File:Franck Gribling.jpg - presumably because you received the permission from Eva Westra (who took the picture) but not yet from Franck Gribling (who is in the picture, along with his artworks). I asked Eva Westra to contact Franck Gribling to get his permission recorded correctly as well, and I understand this has been completed a while ago. Could you check in VRTS that this is now indeed sorted, and if so update the tag? Otherwise please also let me know and I'll try to nudge people again. --Raboof (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Raboof, regrettably no additional permission has been received. Please ask mr. Gribling to refer to ticket:2022011110006528 in his mail message. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There's none so blind as those who will not see

All is in the title... Please take a break and consider your actions on Commons. --Desman31 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you are referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rose des vents à Toulouse Blagnac.jpg, which I closed with extensive motivation. You can request undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. But please do not insult me or harrass anybody. It will not help your arguments. Ellywa (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, you exactly did so, but undeletion was declined - see archived version. Ellywa (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DEM logotipo(2007).png

Hello, recently when discussing Commons:Deletion requests/File:DEM logotipo(2007).png user Túrelio suggested the deletion of File:Logo do Democratas até 2018.png authored by user João Vitor Bachini. However, despite his good motivations, he didn't appropriately read the description of the file in which the user explained how he digitally made that file from scratch himself based upon the original file in order to provide copyright free material to wikipedia (which is legal). Therefore the exclusion of this file contradicts Wikimedia's own work policies. I talked to Túrelio on his discussion page and he agreed with that mistake, but told me to contact you instead. Could you revert the exclusion of File:Logo do Democratas até 2018.png please? Thank your Przelijpdahl (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Przelijpdahl, if somebody remakes a copyrighted work with their own hands or software, they will not own the copyright of the result. They made a COM:Derivative work. In my opinion the logo is copyrighted (above TOO), as I motivated my decision on de Deletion request. I understand you do not agree with my decision. I am sorry to refer to still another place, but please ask for more opinions at COM:UNDELETE. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

ok @Ellywa, i am sorry to hear that. Thanks for the kind response though Przelijpdahl (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

hey @Ellywa while we're at it, could you help me delete some files that I uploaded myself in the past. I nominated all of them for deletion and explained the reason behind it, but apparently no one took interest in deleting them yet. Thanks again!

File:PSD logotipo.png / File:MDB(bipartidarismo logopng.png / File:MDB(bipartidarismo) logo.png Przelijpdahl (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. The second one was still in use on pt:, so I made a redirect. Ellywa (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Man

Please stop asking for deletion on a audio for no reason 105.101.139.208 12:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

1. I am a lady

2. There are reasons.

3. What do you refer to exactly?

Ellywa (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

deleting anthems of coutries who arent westerners or democracy 105.101.158.129 09:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment

Hello @Ellywa: . Please may you clarify @King of Hearts: please may you undelete while discussion is ongoing? Ear-phone (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ear-phone, on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iarnród Éireann Irish rail train social distancing sign - July 2020.jpg I explained why the image could not be maintained based on the discussion and on our guidelines about copyright in Ireland. If you do not agree, please request undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

File:MP v1.svg

Hi Ellywa. Did you really delete the picture "Per nomination"? The nomination was "This file was initially tagged by Stefan2 as Logo. Claimed to be PD-textlogo, please discuss.". I also wonder; if a picture is {{PD-shape}}, is it really necessary to use VRT? – GeMet [talk] 18:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi GeMet, In my opinion the flower silhouette of the logo is not a simple shape, so the template is not appropriate. If you could contact the copyright holder of the logo and show their permission using the VRT procedure the image can be undeleted... I just wanted to suggest that possibility to you. But if you do not agree with my decision and cannot contact the copyright holder you can ask for undeletion at COM:UNDELETE. Other admins will consider your argument why this logo is in PD. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I can understand if you think the flower isn't simple enough. It's really hard to know when a picture is above TOO. But neither the nominator, nor you, said anything about threshold of originality. I think it would be good to have a real discussion about it. But sadly none of User:King of Hearts and User:Stefan2 continued the discussion in the nomination. I'd like from you to either rephrase your deletion comment to match your view, or undo the deletion. Best regards – GeMet [talk] 09:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@GeMet: . I extended the motivation for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:MP v1.svg as requested. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Anne Brown

Hoi Elly,

Waarom heb je die foto van Anne Brown verwijderd uit Porgy and Bess, de foto is bijna honderd jaar oud? Hartelijke groet, Gershowitz (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Zie Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gershowitz. De foto was uit 1934 dus mogelijk nog niet auteursrechten vrij. Daarvoor rekenen we 120 jaar. Er zijn uitzonderingen maar dat was niet aangetoond. Zie bijv Commons:Hirtle chart voor de regels in de VS. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Dag Gershowitz, nog even een aanvulling, nu achter mijn PC (bovenstaande vanaf mobieltje, niet zo handig). In de meeste landen vervallen de auteursrechten 70 jaar na het overlijden van de maker. Een foto van 100 jaar oud is dus meestal niet auteursrechtenvrij, als de fotograaf nog 30 jaar na het maken van de foto heeft geleefd. Op Commons is na overleg besloten een foto van meer dan 120 jaar oud te accepteren zonder verder bewijs, zie Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template . Groet, Ellywa (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Dank voor de uitleg, Elly, helemaal duidelijk. groetjes Gershowitz (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:Praha Stodulky Metro Luziny b.jpg

Hello, you have deleted a bunch of my files per this nomination, reasoning that "FOP appears likely to be limited to outdoor places". These four paintings:

• File:Praha Vinohrady podchod Legerova Skretova Horakova.jpg
• File:Praha Vinohrady podchod Legerova Skretova Zatopek.jpg
• File:Praha Vinohrady podchod Legerova Chramostova.jpg
• File:Praha Vinohrady podchod Legerova Gott.jpg

_are_ outdoors, as I already explained on the nomination page. So please undelete them.

As for the other two, File:Praha Stodulky Metro Luziny a.jpg, File:Praha Stodulky Metro Luziny b.jpg - these are in a metro station. Physically, this is 'indoor', however, the description on the same page you referenced, COM:FOP Czech Republic, says: " Veřejné prostranství (=public space) are more precisely defined in the Municipal Act (§ 34, 128/2000 Sb.) as "all squares, streets, markets, walkways, public vegetation, parks and other areas (prostory) accessible for everybody without restriction, thus serving to public use, disregarding ownership of this area." " and in my understanding metro is such a public space. So please consider reverting that deletion, too. --JiriMatejicek (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Based on your argument these murals are seen in sort-of outside in an underpass with unlimited acces, I undeleted them. Regarding the other two, from COM:FOP Czech Republic it appears that there is no FOP in interior areas. Museums and shopping center interiors are mentioned as examples. If you still are convinced these can be published with a free licence, please request undeletion at COM:UNDELETE, so other people can voice their opinion. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Two Peru Photos

First of all, sorry for accidentally reverting your close here. I wasn't trying to revert it—just trying to copy-paste on my phone and my finger slipped. In any case, the reason I was trying to copy-paste was that I had a question about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manuel Cisneros Sánchez.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Federico roberto bolognesi y bolognesi.jpg. In both cases the subject died before 1976, so they would enter the public domain 20 years after being transferred from negative to paper. It was the 1996 law that revised this to 70 years post-creation. Is there something I'm missing here? It seems implausible to say that these were unpublished because they were official portraits of high-ranking government officials. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi IronGargoyle, thanks for checking my work. I overlooked this special case in Peruvian copyright, although you commented about it on the DR's. I restored the images including their use on the projects. BTW - the text on {{PD-Peru-photo}} is difficult to understand for a non-native speaker of English (autotranslated from the Spanish?). I do not completely understand all sentences and warnings. Perhaps not all requirements are fulfilled. Anyway, we all try to do our best, regards, Ellywa (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hello, you have deleted a some of my files per this nomination, reasoning that "Uploader did not provide evidence they are owners of the copyright".

Given the fact that the following images were first published on my website, or on my own space of a shared website. In addition to having them uploaded to Commons using "Flickr Publish", by which it is unnecessary to contact VRT as per Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team, I am pleased to inform you that I have manually sent the statement as of Commons:Email_template to VRT regarding the following media (Ticket#: 2022041810008357):

• File:Abdullah Al-Salloum Photograph Color.png
• File:Award of Youth Volunteer and Humanitarian Initiatives Forum.jpg
• File:Al-Salloum Presenting Kuwait of the Sustainability to the Prime Minister.jpg

Please consider reverting the deletion, and tagging them with {{subst:PP}} so that the permission request goes through the correct process.

Thank you very much. --Alsalloumabdul (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Alsalloumabdul, Thanks for your message. On these three images a person is depicted with the name (Abdullah) Al-Salloum. I suppose this is you. The person who made the photo will posses the copyright. So the photographer should mail to the VRT system to give permission to publish the photos with a free licence. I suppose you will hear a similar answer from a VRT volunteer. If the photographer gives permission, the photos can be undeleted. I cannot undelete them on this moment. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ellywa. Thank you for elaborating. I followed your advice and asked the original photographers to give permission. They have already emailed the VRT system confirming the transfer of legal authority. I was wondering if there is anything else I should do. Best regards, --Alsalloumabdul (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Good morning Alsalloumabdul. The permission has been received, Ticket:2022041810008357. There is no more you have to do now. Thanks for your effort, I am glad the photos can be restored. I will temporarily undelete the images, this will become definitive when the VRT volunteer will find the time to respond to the permission and finalize this. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ellywa. All thanks goes to you for your guidance. I am very pleased we're getting this moving forward towards resolving. Regards, --Alsalloumabdul (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

JosMargry.jpg

Hi! there is a license (and a category) that we can use for this file, while waiting for its approval? Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 10:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ruthven, I am not aware wich license to use, please explain. This is an unpublished photo from an unkown photographer, dates from 1955. Will be in PD in 1955+121 years. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I was mentioning the VRTS ticket. There is mentioned cc-by-sa 4.0, but I don't read Dutch, so it's complicated to evaluate.

If the photographer is unknown and it is not a work for hire, then I agree with the deletion + undeletion in 2076. Ruthven (msg) 10:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. Dutch copyright applies, which means that works by unknown or anonymous authors are in the Public Domain 70+1 years after being made public (Dutch: "openbaarmaking"). Art. 38:1 of the Dutch Copyright Act: "Het auteursrecht op een werk, ten aanzien waarvan de maker niet is aangeduid of niet op zodanige wijze dat zijn identiteit buiten twijfel staat, vervalt door verloop van 70 jaren, te rekenen van de 1e januari van het jaar, volgende op dat, waarin de eerste openbaarmaking van het werk rechtmatig heeft plaatsgehad." Vysotsky (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Re Vysotsky, the problem is that the date of "openbaarmaking" (= publishing) has not been shown. Possibly this upload is the first instance. This aspect of Dutch law - generally used within EU - has been worded in Template:PD-anon-70-EU. For a photo from a family archive, such as this one (see comment in the history of the photo), it will be in PD 120 years after the photo was made, per community decision of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template Ellywa (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"Making public" ("openbaarmaking") is clearly distinct from "publishing" ("publiceren"). This photo is definitely not made by an amateur, but by a professional photographer. (I think I even know the name, but will go into that matter later on). The supposed 120 years cut-off date is a myth. Your source clearly was NOT a community decision, but "a discussion with a indicative preference", later followed by an inconclusive discussion. It is only natural that this discussion was inconclusive, as the complexity of copyright can not be reduced to a rule where "one size fits all". Vysotsky (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I am interested in definitions of "openbaarmaking" to shed more light on the copyright according to Dutch Law. I found some definition here, Ellywa (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct. "Making public" is a much broader term than "publishing". See also Art.12 in the Dutch Copyright Act. -- Vysotsky (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Taipei Metro Logo(Logo Only).svg

According to English Wikipedia w:en:Taipei Metro,the following is their logo from their official website [1] and it uses in English Wikipedia. It should be acceptable for the use based on the ROC’s copyright act. So, should I upload the following logo again and use it fairly in Chinese Wikipedia w:zh:台北捷運? Sinsyuan (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sinsyuan, this logo was deleted some years ago on Commons. I cannot read the "fair use" policy on zh: Wikipedia. If you think this image falls under the criteria, you can upload it directly on zh:Wikipedia, not on Commons. This appears to be the page to upload an image to zh: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%B8%8A%E4%BC%A0 . Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your instruction to me. Sinsyuan (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Car images uploaded by EurovisionNim

I need some car images uploaded by EurovisionNim. Please put all the images to the archive (ZIP/RAR) and upload to Dropbox/Google Drive so I can download all the images below.

• File:2014 Hyundai Elantra Active petrol 10.6.2021 front.jpg
• File:2014 Hyundai Elantra Active petrol 10.6.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2014 Toyota Camry Hybrid H ridesharing 05.04.21.jpg
• File:2014 Toyota Corolla RZ 29.01.2021 front.jpg
• File:2014 Toyota Corolla RZ 29.01.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2018 Kia Stinger GT petrol 10.6.2021 front.jpg
• File:2018 Kia Stinger GT petrol 10.6.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2018 Kia Stinger GT petrol front 29.09.2020.jpg
• File:2018 Kia Stinger GT petrol rear 29.09.2020.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota C-HR Koba hybrid front 22.10.2020.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota C-HR Koba hybrid rear 22.10.2020.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota C-HR Koba petrol front 08.04.2021.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota C-HR Koba petrol rear 08.04.2021.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota Yaris Ascent petrol 13.03.2021 front.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota Yaris Ascent petrol 13.03.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota Yaris Cross GX petrol 12.04.2021 front.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota Yaris Cross GX petrol 12.04.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Kia Rio S petrol hatchback facelift front 12.06.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Kia Rio S petrol hatchback facelift rear 12.06.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Mitsubishi Express GLX 04.05.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Mitsubishi Express GLX 04.05.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Camry Ascent facelift hybrid Black and White Taxis 25.06.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Camry Ascent facelift hybrid Swan Taxis.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Corolla Ascent Sport sedan petrol front 31.03.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Corolla Ascent Sport sedan petrol rear 31.03.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota RAV4 Edge petrol 10.06.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota RAV4 Edge petrol 10.06.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Ascent petrol 03.06.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Ascent petrol 03.06.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Cross GXL Hybrid 12.04.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Cross GXL Hybrid 12.04.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Cross Urban petrol 27.05.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Cross Urban petrol 27.05.2021 rear.jpg

After upload complete, give me the link via email. Thanks. Alex Neman (talk) 06.25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

These images cannot be freely used, so from Commons we should not distribute them any further. They were deleted due to copyvio. You can try to ask the original uploader if they have a copy. Take care not to cause a copyright violation. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

question about licensing

Hello, I’m sorry to bother you with a question about licensing distribution, but I wanted to check on that possibility before uploading this image to wikimedia commons.

There is an agency called FolhaPress, whose photos are frequently shared in newspapers and internet articles but always with the due information. I looked on their website but I wasn’t able to understand if their images are indeed Creative Commons, however. In their website they say this:

‘Tudo disponível para reproduções em jornais, revistas e livros, para uso em exposições, em campanhas publicitárias e em produtos comerciais.’ (everything is available for reproduction in newspapers, magazines and books, for exposition usage, in advertisement campaigns and in commercial products.) ([2])

Does this mean it is a CC 4.0? I have seen other Folhapress photos with this licensing information. For exemple File:Fotografia de arquivo do autor, de 25 de junho de 2012. Foto de autoria de Marcos Michael para Folhapress.jpg I intend to upload the first photo on this article: [3] thanks for your help Przelijpdahl (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Przelijpdahl , you are very welcome with your question of course and not bothering me at all! The words which are missing on the FolhaPress website licencing is "Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose". Files licenced with CC-BY-SA are allowed to be changed, not only cropping, but you could put a moustache on a face, or change the coloring etc etc. When publishing the new version you have to explain the changes you made.

In Portuguese the wording is like "Adaptar — remixar, transformar, e criar a partir do material para qualquer fim, mesmo que comercial.". You can read the Portuguese version here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pt

So I think you cannot use the material of FolhaPress, regrettably. Ellywa (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you very well for your kind and useful reply. Is it possible to upload it under another tag (‘non-free content’ for example)? Przelijpdahl (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Upload on Commons of non-free content is not allowed. Some other projects are using "fair use." But that has to be an exeption. My home wiki (Dutch) does not allow fair use, I am not aware of the pt wiki. The English page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria has no link to the pt version. Sorry to disappoint you about this. Ellywa (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Languages of Africa map.svg

Hello Ellywa,

I was looking at this DR by you and also at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Languages of Africa map mk.svg, which you based it on. I'm not quite sure what you (and Fæ) think is not correct in the SVG files we have. As I see it, some user(s) of Wikimedia Commons took a map of Africa (different from the one of the Huffman image PDF) and colored the regions in Africa following the example of the Huffman map. Not actually copying anything, but coloring the regions themselves. I fail to see where there is a copyright violation here. Am I missing something? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: If you zoom in on the deleted map you can note differences with the "original", look for instance for details in Egypt and Southern Africa. So the deleted map does not appear taken/derived from the mentioned source. In addition, the source website given on the deleted file page, http://www.gmi.org/, is showing a copyright sign. So I decided it is not clear who the original authors are, and whether the source was considered copyrighted. I think if somebody wants to make a new map in general - it should be based on the original data, not on an interpretation of some other existing map. Regrettably, the original uploader User:MacedonianBoy did not comment or explain, although they are still active. Therefore I deleted the file and nominated the derived versions. But please if you consider otherwise, maintain them and undelete the file nominated by Fæ. Ellywa (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are two separate arguments, one about the content/accuracy, the other about copyright.

As for the content: The first of these files was File:Languages of Africa map.svg by User:Seb az86556, who in 2010 clearly stated that it is "according to Huffman". The others, including the Macedonian one Fæ put up for deletion, are just versions with the map captions translated. Yes, there are some small deviations in the geographical distribution of the colors/languages, but some details of the file were changed over the years (see the file version history and the file talk page), and there are differences even between the two versions of the "Huffman" map at [4] and [5]. And while one might be of the opinion that maps should be made using original data, it's not a prerequisite for maps here as far as I know, and also not a reason for deletion. One could argue for deletion of grossly misleading and incorrect files, but that does not seem to be the case here. Any inaccuracies can be corrected with newer versions, and if necessary there are templates for factual errors etc.

As for copyright: Yes, the original Huffman map is copyrighted, but the SVG files are not copies of that map, as I wrote above, they are maps made using a different base map and Huffman's map as a guide for the geographical distribution of languages. I see those as non copyrightable data/facts. So I'll keep the files and restore the derived Macedonian language version as you mentioned. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear explanation. Ellywa (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing picture

Hi

Can you remove this picture: File:Kuunteluväsymys.png?

--Aguilus (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aguilus, I will nominate the image for speedy deletion. Ellywa (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you. --Aguilus (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello Ellywa, the (r) I was referring to in [6] was in the source link on page 5. I guess I should have worded my nomination better. 웃OO 04:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @100cellsman: , thanks. I revised Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laura Nyro 1968.png and deleted the image. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

NHA

Dank voor je bemoeienis. Zou je dit verwijderverzoek nog willen verwijderen, omdat er toch vele afbeeldingen wel gespaard zullen worden? Vysotsky (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

En de komende maanden ga ik met anderen de hele categorie doorlopen, want dat is de moeite waard. Vysotsky (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: . Gedaan. Wel vraag ik mij af hoe hiermee om te gaan, omdat er nog vele probleemgevallen bij zullen zitten. Het is een mega klus, 2300 afbeeldingen. Normaliter zou alles verwijderd worden per COM:PRP, om te voorkomen o.a. dat de afbeeldingen elders door argeloze mensen worden hergebruikt (met mogelijk financiële gevolgen, dat is altijd mijn zorg). Het is (voor mij en anderen die om kunnen gaan met Help:VisualFileChange.js eenvoudig te doen om op elk van de 2300 bestanden een sjabloon te zetten met een waarschuwing dat er nog onderzoek naar het auteursrecht wordt uitgevoerd, en voor het gemak van het team alle afbeeldingen in een tijdelijke categorie op te nemen, bijvoorbeeld "CAT:NHA possibly to be deleted". Na het trekken van de conclusie kan dat sjabloon verwijderd worden (als de foto kan blijven) of kan de foto genomineerd worden voor "speedy deletion". Daarvoor kan een standaard tekstje gemaakt worden, zodat het eenvoudig is voor de admins. Zou zoiets werkbaar zijn? Hoor graag suggesties. Maar wel groot ontzag dat je dit op je wil nemen - samen met anderen. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Normaal gesproken zou ik inderdaad die 2200 afbeeldingen stuk voor stuk zijn nagelopen en de licentie in de bron gecontroleerd hebben. Dat heb ik voor andere grote categorieën ook gedaan en daarmee veel bestanden voor Commons kunnen behouden. Ik had daar een speciale categorie voor gemaakt, en daar meer dan 2200 afbeeldingen in gezet. In dit geval blijkt dat checken niet meer voor allemaal nodig, want de altijd ijverige @Multichill: heeft er uit die categorie al meer dan 1500 voor speedy deletion voorgedragen, waarschijnlijk op grond van het jaar. Positief: die hoef ik niet meer te controleren, en het slagingspercentage zou toch laag geweest zijn. De overige 700 ga ik wel stuk voor stuk controleren. Vysotsky (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: was nog van plan een berichtje bij je achter te laten, maar dat ben ik blijkbaar vergeten. Ik heb alles wat gedateerd was op 1950 of recenter voorzien van een sjabloon. Als ik daar zo doorheen kijk dan valt er echt niets van te redden. Energie kan je denk ik beter steken in wat nu is overgebleven. Dat is nu een stuk behapbaarder. Multichill (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Dank aan beiden. Ellywa (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hernoemen / renaming

Hoi Ellywa, ik krijg een error bij het hernoemen. Nu weet ik niet of het bij iedereen is (heb het hier gemeld. Misschien wil jij er eentje proberen (b.v. zo'n postzegel van Matsievsky?). Alvast bedankt. Mocht je niet online zijn of komen, kijk ik later nog even. Steinsplitter is maar heel weinig online, anders zou ik het hem vragen, aangezien hij de statistieken bijhoudt van het hernoemen e.d. . - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Iedereen heeft er last van, er zijn al rapporten ingediend. Groet - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Dag Richardkiwi, het was té mooi weer om achter de PC te zitten vandaag. Hopelijk wordt het probleem snel opgelost. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Modellstudie x Figge Fredriksson.jpg

Hi. In your closing statement on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Modellstudie x Figge Fredriksson.jpg you have cited the non-existant page Wikimedia Foundation Legal department/URAA Statement. As it sounds like the statement is relevant to cases like this, it would be a useful reference. Could you please provide the correct link? Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi From Hill To Shore, sorry, I forgot to add "meta". This is the correct link: m:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department/URAA Statement. I will correct this on the DR. Thanks for mentioning! Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that link. I assume that means we will have to use {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} on the file page to cover the US licence. However, that template has a clear statement that we shouldn't be retaining cases covered by URAA that were uploaded after 2012. What would you recommend as the appropriate licence in this situation or do you think that the pre-2012 restriction on {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is incorrect? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think in this case, the work’s status is ambiguous, because it was published in Sweden (in the en:Svenskt konstnärslexikon on unknown date, but in any case ultimately 1967. It is not known whether the work has ben published in the US and it is therefore not possible to determine the copyright status. According to the statement of legal, "it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice". It is highly unlikely that some heirs of this rather unknown painter (who died 1951) will protest to publishing the image on Commons, knowing the painting is clearly in PD in the whole of Europe. Ellywa (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Djabar-Askerov 2020-10-28 02-05-11.png

sorry for messing up but it is fine that we got the same conclusion :) rubin16 (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rubin, both working on old DR's, thanks. No conflict of opinion, thats a relief ;-). Trying to do our best. Ellywa (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rubin16: Together we deleted another file twice, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Informlogosmalla.gif. Ellywa (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

seems to be double check now :) rubin16 (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arms of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.svg

Hoi Ellywa, volgens mij is er iets niet helemaal goed gegaan. Wapens worden gewoon door gebruikers getekend aan de hand van beschrijvingen. Zie bijvoorbeeld File:Coat of arms of Tunisia.svg. Dat was ook het geval bij deze afbeelding. Hoe zeker ben je van jezelf? Deze verwijdering heeft een enorme impact gehad. Multichill (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Beste Multichill. In dit geval was ik tot de conclusie gekomen dat het wapen geen "oud ontwerp" is dat in het PD is en dat naar hartelust kan worden nagetekend. Naar mijn overtuiging is het een modern ontwerp, overgenomen van een website, zoals de bron op de file-pagina ook aangaf. Die bron is niet meer toegankelijk, maar wel is (een variant) van het wapen te zien in archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20201101022438/https://alemarahpashto.com/?p=188380 . Aldaar geen spoor van een vrije licentie. Ik denk dat op zowel het wapen als op de Arabische kalligrafie auteursrecht rust. Volgens Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Afghanistan (indien al van toepassing), geldt het auteursrecht 50 jaar na publicatie. Over overheidsinformatie geen woord, laat staan over dit soort afbeeldingen. De rechthebbenden zijn/waren waarschijnlijk medewerkers van "Islamitisch emiraat Afghanistan", ook wel "taliban" genoemd. Dat de impact van een verwijdering groot kan zijn, is vervelend, maar dat doet er helaas niet zo toe, dat wegen we toch niet mee? Hoogstens bij "out of scope" overwegingen. Er zijn 325 werkelijke verwijderingen uitgevoerd, de grootste meerderheid is "skipped". Maar mocht dit bestand geundelete worden (doe gerust een aanvraag daarvoor als je dat nodig vindt) dan kan dat hersteld worden. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S. ik zie dat er al snel een fair use versie is aangemaakt op en:, zie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_the_Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan.svg . Ellywa (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:RU_COA_Shehawcow_XII-90.png

You could not even to understand who was the upploader of this image! How you could make the right decision about deleting or not deleting this file? ЩЩЩ (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ЩЩЩ: Please first stay calm and don't get angry. I am just an admin trying to close deletion requests. I can make mistakes but I am willing to correct any mistakes I made. Of course, we have a language problem, and I do not speak Russian. I can understand German and French. My mother tongue is Dutch because I am from The Netherlands. If you can, please answer the following questions. If you use UPPERCASE WORDS, exlamation marks, etc. I will not answer, so please be civil to me. Here are my questions:

1. Do you think the image on this website https://gerbovnik.ru/arms/2051 is old and in public domain? Here: http://shehovtsev.narod.ru/, this image is claimed to be 350 years of age.
2. I can see the uploaded image by User:Arachn0, File:RU COA Shehawcow XII-90.png is different in color and sharpness from the claimed source. Did you make this image, which we would call a "derivative work" by yourself?
3. If yes on question 2, do you think you have created a new version with your own copyright?
4. If yes on question 3, would it be acceptable for you to release this version with the CC-BY-SA licence, mentioning you as the author ?
5. If no on question 4, would it be acceptable for you to replace the current image by the image of https://gerbovnik.ru/arms/2051 ?

I am looking forward to your answers. Thank you and please have a good day. Ellywa (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

While I wrote these questions, I note you have been blocked for a week. There is no hurry, please answer my questions when you can edit again. Ellywa (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Österreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg"

Hello Ellywa,

I just saw that in the opening statement of that DR you write that "the source releases these files with a CC-BY-SA licence". But that is not the case, there is no license at all at the source. There's only a rather vague statement at [7] saying that "Der Dokumentenserver der Oberösterreichischen Landesbibliothek beherbergt unsere digitalisierten urheberrechtsfreien Drucke und Handschriften." Could you please have a look for yourself and correct the DR accordingly? Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 17:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

All right, scrap that, I just saw that the single volumes all do have a CC license. I never saw that before, probably because one had to click multiple times to get there. But when you and the others all saw it, it's obviously my mistake. I guess I'll change my stance on those files then. While I still think they're most likely not in the public domain, I can agree to a CC license by that library. I'm sorry for all the confusion this has caused. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 09:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Thanks, while you were typing, I was adding a note on the DR. However, I do not fully agree with you on this point. How can the library have obtained permission to publish these volumes from the various authors? They should have obtained letters from the them which is virtually impossible. So I think they are mistaken. I have seen libraries and archives make mistakes on this point before. Ellywa (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I get what you mean, I've too seen completely implausible claims by several institutions before. But here, the original work was prepared/published by the Austrian State Archive. As the publisher they should still have publication rights, so the library only would have needed to ask the archive, not all of the authors. That seems at least somewhat plausible, even if we don't know exactly if that is what has happened. --Rosenzweig τ 09:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johnny-mathis-chances-are-columbia.jpg

De minimis? The CBS logos indicate authorship and identity of the distributor. There's no way "de minimis" applies, does it? George Ho (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

imho the logo is very small wrt to the complete image. The de minimis template will avoid cropping of the logo to use it on its own. In addition the logo is shown on several other record labels as you can note in Category:Columbia Records. If you insist, the logo could be blurred on this image. If you would be so kind to upload a new version with blurred microphone logo, I will delete the older versions. Ellywa (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Billy joel revistapelo.jpg

Can you please participate here, this is a copyright violation and I speculate you kept it based on the keeps linked by the uploader which are also of copyright violations. Hekerui (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hekerui: I appreciate your effort to get clarity. Recently I asked for help on URAA, because I couldn't find a clear guideline. You can find the discussion here. Based on that I have decided my line of action for DR's based on URAA alone. Ellywa (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, clarity is what I want too. The reasoning by Yann at COM:DIU does not give it, in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:落日飛車南方大唱，首日台灣祭掀高潮！.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:落日飛車南方大唱，首日台灣祭掀高潮！.jpg, 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 ([[:File:落日飛車南方大唱，首日台灣祭掀高潮！.jpg]]). 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!

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Wdwd.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Afbeeldingen geplaatst door AHospers

Dag Ellywa, deze op WPnl geblokkeerde gebruiker plaatst tig foto's op WikimediaCommons met verkeerde bestandsnamen. Ik liep hier tegenaan vanwege deze serie. Ik vrees dat dit ook het geval is met veel van zijn andere bijdragen. Wat kan hieraan gedaan worden? Terzijde: deze gebruiker heeft kennelijk mijn gebruikerspagina gekopieerd, zonder dat dit enige nut heeft. Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gouwenaar: ik zag dat er al een en ander geplaatst is op de OP van Ahospers, maar daar lijkt niet op gereageerd te worden. Dan is de volgende stap dit te melden op Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Eerlijk gezegd ken ik de regels (nog) niet voor de aanpak van dit soort problemen. Groet Ellywa (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ik ken die regels ook niet. Ik wilde eerst Natuur12 vragen om ernaar te kijken, maar die lijkt hier niet erg actief te zijn. Dit probleem is niet zomaar opgelost. Hij heeft naar schatting zo'n 5500 afbeeldingen geplaatst, waarvan heel veel met een verkeerde bestandsnaam, beschrijving en categorisering. Gouwenaar (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gouwenaar: . De paar foto's die ik heb bekeken zijn kwalitatief goed en zijn voorzien van coördinaten, dus wellicht wel bruikbaar als men daar iets mee doet, bijv met open streetmap. Maar wel jammer zonder verdere info. Ik zie niet direct een reden om de foto's te verwijderen, maar de gebruiker zou wel aangespoord kunnen worden meer moeite te doen via een korte blokkade. Commons is geen persoonlijk fotoalbum. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

De foto's zijn sterk wisselend van kwaliteit. Problematischer zijn de verkeerde bestandsnamen en de beschrijving van de foto's. Zie bijvoorbeeld deze afbeeldingen allemaal benoemd als "vuurtoren Ameland". Dat is slechts voor drie van de achttien correct. Of deze eergisteren geplaatste serie allemaal beschreven als "Lesbos castle Mitilene". Bizar. Ik heb inmiddels een melding gemaakt op Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Gouwenaar (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gouwenaar: Ik heb me ingelezen in de procedures. Voordat tot blokkade kan worden overgegaan moet de gebruiker eerst een waarschuwing krijgen. Dat heb ik inmiddels gedaan. Hopelijk helpt dat. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Dank, maar ik denk dat het probleem nog groter is. Zie bijvoorbeeld ook deze bijdragen en deze bijdragen van - zo neem ik aan - sokpoppen. Jou wel bekend van wp-nl. Gouwenaar (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gouwenaar: @JopkeB: - Ahospers ging vanmiddag na de waarschuwing door met uploaden. Nu geblokkeerd incl. 3 sokken voor 2 weken. Ook een CU aangevraagd, zie Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ahospers. Als na afloop van de blokkade de gebruiker niet begint met categoriseren, zouden de foto's genomineerd kunnen worden voor verwijdering op grond van COM:SCOPE. De foto's hebben "no educational value" omdat er onvoldoende informatie is verstrekt, afgezien van de locatie. Ellywa (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

I saw your close of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AllispossibleTech: you describe the paintings as likely not published in the US (makes sense) but then jump to using PD-old-70 per the Hirtle chart, which is not what the Hirtle chart says for non-US works. You describe Commons:URAA-restored copyrights as a guideline, but it is a licensing help not a guideline. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Reply for File:PL road sign D-26a.svg → File:Znak D-26a (1993).svg topic

Hi! I've looked at the splitting and this is exactly what I had in mind while writing the request. I'll add the appropriate categories to the splitted file.

Thank you very much and greetings! :) --Miko101 (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yw, have a good night! Ellywa (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Page1-1024px-Boekoe Peringatan dari Staatsspoor-en Tramwegen di Hindia-Belanda 1875-1925.pdf.jpg

Hello Ellywa,

I hadn't thought of the "applied art" angle. Since I don't know any precedents, I'm not sure if book cover drawings like this one would be considered applied art in Indonesia, but let's go with that, in a few more years the file will be in the PD in any case.

But what I really wanted to say: I had also added two PDF files of the whole book (in Dutch and Indonesian) to the DR, File:Boekoe Peringatan dari Staatsspoor-en Tramwegen di Hindia-Belanda 1875-1925.pdf and File:Staatsspoor en Tramwegen in Nederlandsch Indie 1875 - 1925.pdf. I guess they were too hidden in that sentence to see them. Since the book was written by S.A. Reitsma, who died in 1958, it should be protected until the end of 2028 in Indonesia. --Rosenzweig τ 19:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks, I indeed overlooked these books. The individual photos can be kept imho, but thats on the other DR. Ellywa (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Luisedwin2105

Hola Ellywa. Dado que la discusión está catalogada como cerrada, me veo obligado a escribir aquí en su página de discusión. Espero no haya problema.

En su argumentación para tomar la decisión de eliminar las imágenes, señala: From the Template: PD-PE-insignia it appears it is valid for a state authority of Peru, such as ministry or public organization. Ante ello, debo darle a conocer que el Jurado Nacional de Elecciones, que ha publicado las imágenes (aquí), es una autoridad estatal autónoma del Perú. Este dato también se consignó antes en la discusión.

Asimismo, los logos de toda organización política registrada oficialmente en el Perú deben publicarse en el diario oficial El Peruano. Véase un ejemplo aquí (o aquí).

Espero pueda tomar a consideración lo anteriormente expuesto y, de considerarse adecuado, restituir las imágenes eliminadas.

Saludos. --Luisedwin2105 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Luisedwin2105: if you do not agree with my decision, please pose a request on COM:UNDELETE. Other users can voice their opinions. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Walter Trier died 1951

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erich Kästner Walter Trier Emil 1931 Einband.jpg

You deleted the file giving this notice:

 Per nomination. Copyright holder died in 1951, see en:Walter Trier. The image will be in PD 71 years after this year and can be undeleted in 2027. Can be undeleted earlier if permission for publication with a free licence is obtained from the heirs per VRT.

Calculating 1951 plus 70+1 is giving 2022 and not 2027.

Anyhow, now I uploaded the file to de:WP avoiding this PD-US-peculiarity. Goesseln (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

my apologies, I made a mistake in the motivation. Corrected now. Ellywa (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright & Commons is so funny. A recent deletion request regarding drawings by E.H. Shepard (died 1976) was closed as kept. (I wrote a short piece about the case, so I understand the details, thank you.). And a request for deletion of a drawing by Walter Trier (died 1951), perfectly PD in Germany according to prevalent German law, was closed as deleted. Could't we consider stopping the prevalence of US law, with all its Mickey Mouse and other Zombie copyright laws? Or at least transfer this kind of images automatically to local (national) Wiki databases? Vysotsky (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

yes it is a mess. I am happy somebody closed the Pooh deletion request with keep. Local uploads would result in tremendous workload... think of the time before wikidata with all interwiki links made by hand and bots. And we all make mistakes.. you cannot expect enough copyright knowledge and interest on local wikis. A technological solution would work perhaps. Showing the image only in those countries where it is free. This is done with TV programmes. I can note when I am abroad. But we wouldnt like that would we? The best thing would be not showing EU PD images in the US. Perhaps they will then change their law for at least EU paintings and other art. Ellywa (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Paul schenk-1476385028.jpg

File:Paul schenk-1476385028.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!

2A02:A46E:7A3B:1:F4C1:E1E9:86BB:21BB 22:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Please restore File:Record Shop(Inside).jpg

The correct license for the image is both "PD-US-no notice" or "PD-US-not renewed", it was deleted because the uploader released under an incorrect CC license. The image was made public (published) when transferred from the photographer to the sitter, and there is no copyright symbol visible, and the image does not appear in the copyright registration database, nor in in the renewal database. RAN (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I am interested where I may find in our guidelines the interpretation of "publish" you seem to use. "When a photo is ... transferred from the photographer to the sitter". This would mean any photo in a private collection would be seen as published. I am not convinced of this interpretation. Please request undeletion of the photo on COM:UNDELETE, as listed on the closed deletion request. Another admin will decide. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georges Lemaître 1930s.jpg

Hello Ellywa,

thank you for deciding that. Two small things: One, I had added (quite some time later) another, newly uploaded file derived from the original file, File:Georges Lemaître (Remini enhanced).jpg. You might want to delete that as well. And the photograph actually seems to be from 1934 per the research I detailed in the discussion, so undeletion with PD-old-assumed should be possible one year earlier in 2055. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

yw and  Done Ellywa (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: The discussion about this file continues, see diff. Ellywa (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ibogaine

Ibogaine have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them. 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!

Wostr (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Noppa.jpg --Aguilus (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aguilus: , I do not see a deletion request yet of File:Noppa.jpg. Do you want this upload of yourself of 2020 deleted? Please click on "nominate for deletion" on the righthand side of the file page. After that, fill in a clear motiviation why it should be deleted. (for instance: unsharp image and of no educational value). One of the admins will consider your nomination. If no action is taken after a week, please remind me here, so I can take a decision if nobody objects. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

--Aguilus (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Duda

Porque me eliminaste la foto de la batalla de cuaspud el lugar donde ocurrió esa foto la tomé yo Hailcolombia2009 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Because you appear sure I undeleted the image, File:Lugar de la batalla de cuaspud.png. Ellywa (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, 2 questions. 1) I took the photo of Cuaspud 2) thanks for deleting and leave some of the photos that I uploaded, but now you could check the photos of the Colombia battalion and the Colombian-Peruvian war Hailcolombia2009 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hailcolombia2009: please carefully read Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Colombia and think about it before you upload new images. I did a lot of work already and I have other things to do now. Ellywa (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Émile Gilioli: Kept or deleted?

I'm a bit confused by this DR, the below summary provided by you says Kept, but the files (except the striked last one) were deleted "per this discussion", I wonder if you mis-deleted those files, or you provided a wrong summary? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I intended to keep the images after adding Template:FoP-Sweden. Must have been distracted or sleeping. Thanks for checking my work, the images are now restored (and I will restore use on projects if any). Ellywa (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Car images uploaded by EurovisionNim

Please restore some car images uploaded by EurovisionNim because the user is active again on Wikimedia Commons.

• File:2014 Hyundai Elantra Active petrol 10.6.2021 front.jpg
• File:2014 Hyundai Elantra Active petrol 10.6.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2014 Toyota Camry Hybrid H ridesharing 05.04.21.jpg
• File:2014 Toyota Corolla RZ 29.01.2021 front.jpg
• File:2014 Toyota Corolla RZ 29.01.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2018 Kia Stinger GT petrol 10.6.2021 front.jpg
• File:2018 Kia Stinger GT petrol 10.6.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2018 Kia Stinger GT petrol front 29.09.2020.jpg
• File:2018 Kia Stinger GT petrol rear 29.09.2020.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota C-HR Koba hybrid front 22.10.2020.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota C-HR Koba hybrid rear 22.10.2020.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota C-HR Koba petrol front 08.04.2021.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota C-HR Koba petrol rear 08.04.2021.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota Yaris Ascent petrol 13.03.2021 front.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota Yaris Ascent petrol 13.03.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota Yaris Cross GX petrol 12.04.2021 front.jpg
• File:2020 Toyota Yaris Cross GX petrol 12.04.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Kia Rio S petrol hatchback facelift front 12.06.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Kia Rio S petrol hatchback facelift rear 12.06.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Mitsubishi Express GLX 04.05.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Mitsubishi Express GLX 04.05.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Camry Ascent facelift hybrid Black and White Taxis 25.06.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Camry Ascent facelift hybrid Swan Taxis.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Corolla Ascent Sport sedan petrol front 31.03.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Corolla Ascent Sport sedan petrol rear 31.03.2021.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota RAV4 Edge petrol 10.06.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota RAV4 Edge petrol 10.06.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Ascent petrol 03.06.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Ascent petrol 03.06.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Cross GXL Hybrid 12.04.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Cross GXL Hybrid 12.04.2021 rear.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Cross Urban petrol 27.05.2021 front.jpg
• File:2021 Toyota Yaris Cross Urban petrol 27.05.2021 rear.jpg

Alex Neman (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Alex Neman I do not wish for these to be reuploaded again. As I requested them for deletion, only I can request undeletion. I've got significantly much better photos. I was never inactive for the period, rather on a long wikibreak as you know, life has its boundaries. I'm near the end of my studies so i figured i might as well dump all the high quality images i have to bring about a good use, and who knows, with significantly useful contributions, i could essentially have my block and topic ban lifted, like Vauxford and others :)) --Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to be done. @Alex Neman: the images have been restored temporarily especially for you, be happy. @EurovisionNim: , welcome back. Ellywa (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Always am, especially beinng around close friends like you lot :) --Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello

I uploaded other images check them if they are good you can search them as "Guerra colombo-peruana" "Batallón Colombia"please do not delete them and I will not upload more so as not to bother more.Hailcolombia2009 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hailcolombia2009, Lea atentamente Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Colombia/es y piénselo antes de subir nuevas imágenes. Ya hice mucho trabajo y tengo otras cosas que hacer ahora. Puede agregar una plantilla de licencia correcta en imágenes antiguas, para que no se eliminen.

Es bueno que dejen de subir imágenes que posiblemente tengan derechos de autor, ¡gracias! Pero no puedo evitar que las cargas más antiguas se eliminen si parecen tener derechos de autor.

(Traducido por Google) Ellywa (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

English text: please carefully read Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Colombia and think about it before you upload new images. I did a lot of work already and I have other things to do now. You can add a correct licence template on old images, so they do not get deleted. It is good that you stop uploading images which are possibly copyrighted, thank you! But I cannot prevent older uploads will be deleted if they seem copyrighted. Ellywa (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Oude foto's uit Indonesië

Elly, tot mijn schrik zie ik dat vele zeer oude foto's uit Indonesië zijn verdwenen. Een gebruiker had deze als eigenwerk geüpload. (Dat is niet slim natuurlijk, ik denk dat hij/zij deze alleen heeft in gescand) Vele van zijn foto's staan ook al hier of nog in https://geheugen.delpher.nl/ of nog elders in een Nederlands archief. Toen ik eens een foto van hem/haar nazocht bleek dat deze in een Nederlands archief aanwezig was waarbij vermeld stond dat deze foto ook in de dependance in Jakarta was. Vermoedelijk komen de andere foto's ook daar vandaan. Ik vind het heel vervelend dat deze foto's nu worden verwijderd zonder dat er echt naar gekeken is. Zie User talk:Zul muhaimin hmn, niet iedereen snapt hoe het werkt of is het Engels niet machtig. Wat nu. Ik ga eerst kijken bij de foto's die er nog zijn. Daarna per 5 terug vragen om ze goed te kijken? Zo kan het niet. Lidewij (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Tja, niet handig inderdaad. Ik zie een lange lijst met uploads. Lijkt mij verstandig om eerst Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia te lezen. Daar staat dat foto's die meer dan 50 jaar geleden gepubliceerd zijn, in het publiek domein vallen. Probleem is dat je dat vaak niet weet, of een foto eerder is gepubliceerd. En dat we bij Commons graag een bewijs daarvan zien.

Bij de namen van de foto's is vaak wel een jaartal genoemd, dat is positief. Op Commons is het beleid dat bij een foto van meer dan 120 jaar oud veilig kan worden aangenomen dat die nu in het publiek domein is. Dan is het namelijk vrijwel zeker dat de fotograaf meer dan 70 jaar geleden is overleden, een norm die veelal in Europa geldt. Die norm van 70 jaar geldt ook voor Indonesië. Het lijkt mij dus dat in elk geval de foto's van voor 1920 teruggeplaatst kunnen worden. Dat verzoek kan je doen, op COM:UNDELETE. Als het je niet lukt om die lijst eenvoudig te maken, wil ik daarbij wel helpen, dan maak je een eerste grote stap.

De andere foto's vergen dus veel uitzoekwerk, om te kijken of zo een foto ergens is gepubliceerd. Of om te kijken of de fotograaf bekend is, en wanneer deze eventueel overleden is. Wat ook kan, is de foto's met een jaartal te plaatsen in de tekst van een "undelete" categorie. Voor een foto uit 1930 dus in Category:Undelete in 2051 - want 1930 + 121 jaar = 2051.

Hoop dat dit wat helpt, schrale troost misschien. Met hartelijke groet, Ellywa (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Elly, de meeste foto's zijn te herleiden (en staan al in Commons) en veel is van voor 1920. De foto's die een datum moeten krijgen is klein. Welk sjabloon moet in dan gebruiken? Category:Undelete in 20... Wie beoordeelt nadat ik gegevens heb toegevoegd? Welke tool gebruik jij om duplicaten te zoeken? Ik gebruikte gisteren een van het net, en die vond niet wat ik zocht, terwijl ik later toch de zelfde foto op Commons vond. Ik heb de nominator geschreven, User_talk:EugeneZelenko#Deleted_photo_about_and_from_Indonesia. Nu nog het terugzetten, is dat niet een klusje was Richard kan doen? Wat bedoel je met de lijst eenvoudig maken? Met vriendelijke groet, Lidewij (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Dag Lidewij, voor de foto's die ouder zijn dan 120 jaar heb ik een "undeletion request" ingediend, zie Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Uploads_by_User:Zul_muhaimin_hmn. De nieuwere foto's zou je inderdaad in de lijst van een undelete categorie kunnen opnemen. Verder denk ik dat het veel werk is om de bronnen te zoeken en de auteur, te bepalen of de foto in PD is, etc. Een heel gedoe met weinig kans op succes eerlijk gezegd. Niet alles is mogelijk, dat komt door de strenge wetgeving over auteursrechten. Lobby om dat te verlichten heeft - binnen de EU - niets opgeleverd. Ellywa (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Dag Elly, dank voor de eerste stap, het redden van de foto's ouder dan 120 jaar. Daar kan File:Holmbreg.jpg gelijk bij. het is een schilderij van nl:Otto Carel Holmberg de Beckfelt (1794 - 1857).
Verder heb ik nog niet veel antwoorden van je gekregen. Het zoeken naar de andere bronnen is minder werk dan je vermoed. Het gaat maar over de geschiedenis van 5 suikerfabrieken. Deze moeten toch gecategoriseerd worden. Helaas is het zoeksysteem binnen Commons minder dan je zou verwachten. Ik heb het idee dat pagina's, die na de invoer nog nooit bekeken waren, zich niet laten zien. Soms begin ik er met 5 en door toevallen van een ander woord of nummer van de serie (gewoon een volgens nummer direct oproepen), kom ik na een maand bij 50. Terwijl mijn zoekwoord wel op de pagina stond, zelfs in de titel. Ook heb ik door anders te zoek op Google, wat ik nu moet doen, nog schatkamers gevonden. Bijvoorbeeld een deel van het Amsterdams archief moet binnen het archief gezocht worden. (niet alles laat zich zien via Google) Zoals Cruijff zei: ieder nadeel heeft zijn voordeel. Ik doe gewoon rustig aan.

Hoe verder met File:Theodore Lucassen by Knight .jpg File:Tine6(1).jpg File:Geulen in het bevloeiingsgebied van de rivier Simangoe bij de suikerfabriek Bandjardawa nabij Pemalang, ca 1926.jpg File:Suikermachinerie. Stoommachine B8, doorsnee 450x800, Bandjardawa circa 1926.jpg File:3 tiga(1).jpg Een deel van de Fotocollectie Stork heb ik in Commons al gevonden, mijn vermoeden is dat de rest er ook gewoon is. Lidewij (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ik meen dat ik je wel wat richtingen heb gegeven, zal ze hier nog even kort opsommen:

• Oriënteer je op de regels van het auteursrecht in Indonesië: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia
• Als een foto volgens jouw onderzoek auteursrechtenvrij is, kan je vragen deze terug te plaatsen op COM:UNDELETE. Noem daar wel de reden waarom. Dit heb ik al gedaan met de foto's waar een jaartal t/m 1900 op stond.
• Vermeld verwijderde foto's waarvan je weet wanneer die gemaakt zijn en waar nog rechten op rusten in de lijst bovenaan de categoriepagina, 121 jaar na het maken van de foto. Bijvoorbeeld een foto uit 1930 dus in Category:Undelete in 2051 - want 1930 + 121 jaar = 2051.
• Met het zoeksysteem binnen Commons kan ik je niet verder helpen. Dat is inderdaad moeizaam.

Groet, Ellywa (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Het eerste wat ik altijd in dit soort gevallen doe, is teruggaan naar de bron, d.w.z. de auteurswet van het land in kwestie. Auteursrecht is veel te ingewikkeld om zomaar 70+ of 120+ jaar toe te passen (die laatste vuistregel is in de meeste gevallen echt aperte onzin). In de samenvatting over auteursrecht over Indonesië op Commons staat dan: "The Dutch East Indies was a colony of the Netherlands until 1949, when it gained independence as Indonesia. From 1912 to 1982, copyright is governed by Auteurswet 1912 (Stbld No. 600/1912)." Dat is voor Nederlanders gemakkelijk. De paar gevallen in deze zaak die ik net onderhanden heb genomen, kunnen allemaal zonder problemen op Commons terecht. De enige kwestie is dan nog of het CC-BY is (wat Overijssel aangeeft) of CC-zero/PD. Ik ben maar aan de voorzichtige kant gaan zitten. Vysotsky (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: . Je schrijft over "aparte onzin" bij 120+. Ben je geïnteresseerd waar ik dat vandaan haal? Ik gebruik het vaak namelijk. En het werkt ook nog! Die foto's zijn geundelete. Ellywa (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Die 120+ jaar heb ik jaren geleden langs zien komen als voorstel op de Commons Village pump, maar ik hoop niet dat dat beleid geworden is. Het is volgens mij aparte onzin als regel omdat sommigen (ook admins) dat als een uitgangspunt nemen bij verwijderingen, terwijl het alleen een ezelsbruggetje is voor welke afbeeldingen in vrijwel elk geval zijn toegestaan. Vysotsky (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: Ik gebruik dat inderdaad alleen als argument om zeer oude foto's juist te behouden. Ellywa (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

BWC onderstaan de tekst niet veranderd

Dag Elly, de eerste lijst is terug, daar is nog wat werk aan. Categorieën en zo. Dank voor deze actie. Je schreef:

• Oriënteer je op de regels van het auteursrecht in Indonesië: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia

Een gedeelte laat zich vertalen in het Nederlands. Ook eerder heb ik eens naar gekeken, maar ik kan er geen chocola van maken. Niemand heeft het nodig gevonden om een samenvatting te maken, dus doe ik het met wat jij schreef.

• Als een foto volgens jouw onderzoek auteursrechtenvrij is, kan je vragen deze terug te plaatsen op COM:UNDELETE. Noem daar wel de reden waarom. Dit heb ik al gedaan met de foto's waar een jaartal t/m 1900 op stond.

Hoe kan ik nu zien dat een foto rechten vrij is wanneer ik de foto niet zie?

• Vermeld verwijderde foto's waarvan je weet wanneer die gemaakt zijn en waar nog rechten op rusten in de lijst bovenaan de categoriepagina, 121 jaar na het maken van de foto. Bijvoorbeeld een foto uit 1930 dus in Category:Undelete in 2051 - want 1930 + 121 jaar = 2051.

Over een foto die ik niet zie, kan ik geen uitspraak doen, dus ook niet melden wanneer de foto rechten vrij zou worden.

Maar ik begrijp nu, dat er een toevoeging zonder sjabloon op een categorie pagina voldoende is.

Hierboven gaf ik 5 linken van foto's waar ik een bron bij zette. Is dit zo voldoende? Wie moet dit nu controleren?

In de lijst staan nog meer foto's of foto's van schilderijen ouder dan 120 jaar. Kan ik die zelf op de bewuste pagina terug vragen?

Zoeken. Om pagina's te controleren is er een zoeksysteem dat zoek naar teksten. Ik kan me voorstellen dat er ook zo iets voor foto's gebruikt wordt. Mvg, Lidewij (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Tja, het is lastig op Commons. Als je je niet kan oriënteren op de regeltjes dan krijg je dit. Die uploader deed maar wat eigenlijk, nergens stond een bron bij voor wat ik kon zien. We kunnen gewoon niet alles oplossen. En ja, als je zeker weet dat afbeeldingen ouder zijn dan 120 jaar kan je die terugvragen op COM:UNDELETE. Geef dan een zo goed mogelijk bewijs daarvan. Als je bepaalde foto's wil bekijken kan ik die wel zichtbaar maken, tijdelijk, of toesturen, ik heb ergens je mailadres nog wel. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Elly, ik wil eerst afwerken met wat voorhanden is, wanneer ik vastloop klop ik bij je aan (zoals gewoonlijk). Samen met Vysotsky kom ik al een heel eind. Mvg,Lidewij (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Prima, fijn dat je hulp krijgt van Vysotsky! Dank allebei. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Areksha

Hi @Ellywa. Thanks for temporarily undeleting these files. I'm on way to verifying the legitimacy of permissions related to them however I have just tagged three files from them with CSD which you might want to clean off! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

has been done by Turelio. Ellywa (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Files in Category:Foulsham & Banfield DR

Hello. I see you closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Foulsham & Banfield as delete. I notice that File:Stephen Tennant by Foulsham & Banfield.jpg is from that DR request and is the only file that wasn't deleted. Did this one get missed? Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrLinkinPark333. Thank you, the file has been deleted now. This sometimes happens when a whole list is deleted by software. Such cases are solved when a category of a month of DRs is cheked. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Better to find it now than have it linger for several months :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ottobw

Hello Ellywa,

would you please have a look at the first two files in this DR, File:Watermusic, Rein Pol 2014, Olieverf op paneel 95 x 75 cm.jpg and File:De Blauwe Engel - lente, Rein Pol, 1994 Olieverf op paneel 80 x 66 cm.jpg? The DR was closed, but these two still have the DR template and are a part of Category:Deletion requests March 2022. I'm not sure if the VRT permission also applies to these two. Thanks. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 11:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: . Another painter... another ticket from february. Clarified on the DR and removed the nomination templates. Ellywa (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

About my deletion request

Greetings, Ellywa. I have just noticed that my picture about an old Syriza rally is in use in Wikipedia. There are too many faces to be blurred and I think that if I do it, the picture will be unusable. Since the picture I took (File:Syriza party rally. Panepistimiou Street, May 24, 2019.jpg) has been found its way to Wikipedia I am willing to risk the displeasure of the people depicted. So, if you do not disagree I think we should leave the picture as it is. Best regards, George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George E. Koronaios (talk • contribs)

Hi George, Yes ofcourse I agree. Your photo is considered relevant. Thanks for your message and keep up the good work! Ellywa (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Патент стр.1.png

You kept this file as "PD-RU-exempt" but license still says that is "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". This is wrong as i see. And "Referent pst" is not author of this document. Description and licensing must be corrected. Drakosh (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

When considering a deletion request, the admins only take a decision to delete or keep a file. In general we do not change the licencing on the file page. On the talk page - File talk:Патент стр.1.png a link is made to the deletion request, where all arguments are given about the reason to keep the file. It would be appreciated if you could change the licencing, the author, etc. I hope you can understand the admins are extremely busy keeping up will all DR's. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are busy, do not take admin duties. All you made is left file incorrectly licensed. --Drakosh (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you insist, I will change the licence. Ellywa (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Verwacht geen bedankje... ik geef mezelf daarom maar een schouderklopje :-). Doe goed en kijk niet om. Ellywa (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

heel erg bedankt --Drakosh (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome . Ellywa (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pzh2000 sistema.jpg

You closed this as delete saying that the source is "V. Zalatori and not Ministry of Defence". I assume you meant "Vaiga Zalatoriūtė" who is a corporal in the military and thus and employee of the ministry. Copyright for employee work belongs to the employer. Therefore, the source is the Ministry of Defence. Please undelete. Thanks, Renata3 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC).

@Renata3: Thank you for clarifying this. I revised my decision and undeleted the image. I will check the use on the projects and revert possible deletions. Ellywa (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about close

Hi! I'm looking through your rationale for a deletion and it looks like in this edit you stated that you were deleting File:Pangeran Bodrowongso.png on the basis that it will it will be in PD by 1931. By this rationale the file would already be in the public domain, since 1931 was ninety-one years ago. Did you mean to say that the file would be in the public domain by 2031? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: yes indeed, I corrected my mistake, and listed the image on Category:Undelete in 2031. I hope you agree with my motivations, it is a bit confusing, such a list of various images. Thanks anyway for checking my work. Ellywa (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Letter from MEK File:Letter from the People's Mujahedin of Iran to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.jpg

Hi Ellywa. I just noticed you had deleted a file in this discussion explicitly saying "The PD-Text is intended for logo's or short texts, not for an original letter." Thanks for your intervention Ellywa but I think the letter could be kept simply per PD-text. The template (Template:PD-text) openly reads "Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright." The file can be kept because of the lack of originality. I'd like to remind that Category:PD textlogo is different from Category:PD text with the latter containing letters similar to the one you deleted. Best --Mhhossein ^talk 18:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant to say is that the text of document itself is still copyrighted. It appears from around 1988. The template you refer to states This tag does not generally apply to all images of texts. Particular countries can have different legal definition of the “literary work” as the subject of copyright and different courts' interpretation practices. Some countries protect almost every written work, while other countries protect distinctively artistic or scientific texts and databases only. Extent of creativeness, function and length of the text can be relevant. The copyright protection can be limited to the literary form – the included information itself can be excluded from protection.. Or do you think the text itself is in Public domain as well as the handwriting? Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, what? The text is protected by what? According to the tag, the portion you quoted here, sometimes the text is protected because it is artistic or scientific depending on the country of the origin. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein. Any longer piece of text is copyrighted in general. Please ask to undelete the image if you do not agree on COM:UNDELETE. Regards Ellywa (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, so should we remove File:"The Last of the Bedu" paper.jpg? It's not short. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

yes, i think so, because the author died 2012 it is still copyrighted and it is a literary work and more then "facts only". Ellywa (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Ellywa. I noticed that you deleted this file, but then it was restored. The document is an unpublished letter from an unknown publisher, so it doesn't fall within "the Iranian copyright law" as it was said in the undeletion discussion. No evidence was given showing this work has any permission to be in the public domain, so how come it was restored? Ypatch (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: . Apparently Yann considered the motivation to undelete justified. I think you can nominate the file again for deletion. Regards Ellywa (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion nomination letter from MEK

Hi Ellywa, in this post you said that I could nominate a file for deletion again, but when I tried, it tells me I need admin permission first (because the file was undeleted). I don't think the undeletion process was done correctly, so would like to give this another try. Could you please let me know? Thank you. Ypatch (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch Indeed, it appears not to be possible to use the automated "nominate for deletion" app. Did you try to add Template:Delete with a normal edit? Please include the reason clearly and take the other steps mentioned on the template. We will see whether another admin decides for deletion. Opinions about it differ considerably. (I relocated the earlier discussion on this talk page above these lines). Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ellywa, thank you, I followed your advice and it seems to have worked to an extent. The file has been nominated for deletion, but the deletion links to the old deletion discussion (not a new one). Do you know if this is normal? Ypatch (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch, yes this is normal. All earlier discussions can be taken into account in that way. Ellywa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: . I added your motivation to the DR and included it into Commons:Deletion requests/2022/08/09. That must be done "by hand" as well. You could place the DR on your watchlist to view what happens. This may take some time. Ellywa (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ellywa. Ypatch (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Umayyad.svg

Regarding the above deletion request, it should be noted that this fabricated flag is being used on wikipedia pages in multiple languages, as well as other flags by Fardsk and their sock Tarataraq. Something needs to be done to stop this. Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are abusing Commons you can ask for a block. Ellywa (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Unauthorized publication: Image that should not be published on commons should be deleted

Puteri Indonesia 2006 Winners

this is unauthorized publication, this captured image should not be published here, because the license is not even a free common use, it is just a captured youtube browser image. please deleted this non-free common picture. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: source does not hold copyright, therefore CC license does not apply Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Thalialioo (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Thalialioo: . Please click on "Report copyright violation" on the file page. On a computer screen you will find this at the left of the image. Reporting is highly appreciated! Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleting file File:Bahá'u'lláhs anlete by Nahib.jpg

This image is supposedly in the book "A Year Among the Persians". But when I looked it up it's not in the book. I believe this is a modern work, seems like it's made in a computer program. So it can not be in the Public Domain as stated in the description. Would you be willing to reconsider your decision as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bahá'u'lláhs anlete by Nahib.jpg. AprilDass (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@AprilDass: I agree this looks modern. I found that the image is a deriviative work of the image I am showing here, which is old. Indeed, made by photo editting software. I decided that the maker of this image does not has obtained a new copyright with the editting. So therefore decided to keep. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Bahá'u'lláh (Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí) in 1868.jpg File:Bahá'u'lláhs anlete by Nahib.jpg

What if the person who uploaded it doesn't give the correct source and doesn't say who made the edit. --AprilDass (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Original 1868 work

Derivative work with probably photo editting

Hi AprilDass, because the image is in PD you can do anything you want. But if you do not agree, please nominate the image again for deletion. Ellywa (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ticket:2022010310002412

Hi. Can you please review this? I'm not sure to fully understand, even with Google. Thanks. Ganímedes (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ganímedes, sorry for the delay in answering your post. I reviewed the ticket. Indeed, we did not receive final confirmation from the copyright holder, although I initially uploaded the image File:Marcel huizing directeur dirk van den broek-1641202962.jpg to Commons based on the ticket. According to the following emails in the ticket, it appeared that the uploader (through the website Wikportrait, see Category:Wikiportrait uploads), did not possess the copyright. So therefore I changed the template on the file on 12 February 2022, awaiting final permission, with apperently did not come. Now this file, and its cropped version, File:Marcel huizing directeur dirk van den broek-1641202962 (cropped).jpg are both deleted, which is fully justified. I will write to the original uploader to remind them, thanks for notifying me. Ellywa (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by InspecdahBall

Hello Ellywa,

just a hint because I saw that you closed this: You closed it per FOP Sweden. But I think that the photos were taken in the en:Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen, Denmark. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Rosenzweig. Thanks, you are right, as always . As two of the images were used on their userpage on sv:Wikipedia, I thought they would originate from Sweden. According to COM:FOP Denmark, reproductions of art cannot be used for commercial purposes, so the CCBYSA licence cannot be applied. Perhaps not all of the images in the list on the DR are from Denmark, but I think they should be deleted now per PRP. I will revise my decision, thanks for checking my work. Ellywa (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't really "checking", I just looked at that day's archive page and this was the latest entry ;-) Interesting case though, Swede takes photos in Denmark and publishes them here. Then we, in our local capacity as amateur copyright judges, have to decide which country's law we try to apply in accordance with our own, self-made rules. It comes with the territory I guess. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 11:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That is what I think too. At one time my photo of a Walt Disney statue was deleted, made in France. While I live in the Netherlands, where we have FOP for 3D art, luckily. So I think the location of the object is important, not the location of the artist or the photograpers. In Germany, we can drive faster with our car (at least we could in de past, haven't been there for a long time) then in the Netherlands, due to different rules, and German people should stick to the limited car speed in the Netherlands. So I think the local rules are valid. Frustrating sometimes (frequently actually). But the Swedish FOP is not as free as it seems. Ellywa (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6211 stamp (World Cup Soccer Championships, Italy. Referee and players. The emblem).png

Why you deleted this file? --Matsievsky (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Matsievsky, the file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6211 stamp (World Cup Soccer Championships, Italy. Referee and players. The emblem) small resolution.jpg. This similar file has been maintainted: File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6211 stamp (World Cup Soccer Championships, Italy. Referee and players. The emblem).jpg. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ellywa. I didn't understand the reason. Return the file back, it cannot be deleted. --Matsievsky (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I will undelete it and nominate it for deletion, so you can comment on the request. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And undelete another deleted Russian files today too, please! --Matsievsky (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Matsievsky, if you think I made a wrong decision about deletion of other files, please think about your motivation and ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. Another admin will decide on the matter. It is appreciated if you ping me, so I can get new insights. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Your refusal to urgently restore files that could not be deleted, if only because they were referenced by pages, led to bots starting to delete these links on pages, here is your "new insights". --Matsievsky (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is the usual procedure. Can be reversed by using https://commons-delinquent.toolforge.org/ if the file is undeleted. Ellywa (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CME 2021-08-27 from SDO (AIA) and SOHO (LASCO) running difference.gif

Hello Ellywa,

reading the rationale, I guess you meant to delete the file, but you actually kept it. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rosenzweig, indeed, several similar SOHO images were deleted, I suppose I pressed the wrong link in this case. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Guido den Broeder, 2017.jpg

Hoi Elly, hierbij wens ik je nog eens afzonderlijk te bedanken voor de inzet bij de behoud van dit werk, je initiatieven daarbij en je bemiddelende rol in het hoogopgelopen conflict daarom heen. Ik kan wel zeggen dat ik oprecht opgelucht ben door de gang van zaken. Met enkele aanpassingen aan de beschrijving bij de file hoop ik de laatste puntjes op de i te hebben gezet, wat op de overlegpagina nog verder is toegelicht. Mocht ik daar nog wat gemist hebben, dan hoor ik dat graag, mvg. -- Mdd (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

graag gedaan. Ellywa (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Bedank. Bij nader inzien zou ik op prijs stellen als je op de overlegpagina kort vermelden, dat je akkoord met de doorgevoerde wijzigingen. Zo'n file is toch een soort digitaal contract, wat jij heb bekrachtigd en ik daarna op basis van de overgeleverde informatie heb gewijzigd. Achteraf gezien is het wellicht toch een hele bijzondere situatie, dat daar drie partijen bij betrokken waren. Mvg. -- Mdd (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Het enige wat geldt is de inhoud van het ticket. Iedere VRT collega kan dat controleren indien nodig. Het is niet zinvol dat te interpreteren en de inhoud mogen VRTagenten niet openbaar maken. De afbeelding is CCBYSA met de door mij vermelde naam. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Bedankt voor je feedback, en uiteraard kan je het er ook niet mee eens zijn. Mijn excuses als ik hierbij de fout in gegaan ben, maar ik handel hierbij naar hoe ik de situatie heb begrepen. Zelf heb ik de fotograve gevraagd het standaard toestemming in te vullen, zoals hier vermeld, en daarin staat niet nader gespecificeerd dat ze "in tijdelijk dienstverband werkte." Het kan zijn dat ze dat wel zo heeft geformuleerd, maar dan is er volgens mij weer sprake van een andere copyrightsituatie, zoals ik op het overleg hier heb aangegeven. Als dat inderdaad zo is, dan heb ik dat niet met de fotograve doorgesproken en kan ik dat verder met haar overleggen. Maar ik zal eerst het verder overleg afwachten. -- Mdd (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Nogmaals, de schoen blijft wringen bij de uitdrukking "temporarily working for." Als ik dat nog een keer op zoek op Google, dan kom ik met de eerst hit op werk.nl (zie hier) weer op het tijdelijk dienstverband. In zo'n situatie is, zoals werk.nl stelt: "The company where you work is responsible for supervision and instruction at the workplace." Bij fotograven die in dienstverband werken gaat het copyright naar de werkgever, en dat geldt ook bij tijdelijke contracten.

Nu lijkt daar wat mis gelopen. Indien er sprake was van een dienstverband moet de opdrachtgever toestemming geven. Daar heb jij onder VRT ticket:2022090510008256 naar gevraagd. Op mijn verzoek heeft de fotograve toestemming gegeven onder Ticket:2022090910007768, en onder deze ticket is de file permission vrijgegeven. Als er sprake was geweest van een dienstverband, dan had de opdrachtgever toestemming moeten geven. De zaak had dan gesloten moeten worden onder de eerste ticket, en niet de tweede.

Mochten we hier verder zelf niet uitkomen, dan stel ik voor dat we dit bij het https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Response_Team overleg aankaarten. -- Mdd (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Bij nader inzien is me toch te binnen geschoten, dat ik dit onderwerp expliciet met de fotograve heb besproken. De fotograve heeft dit ook expliciet met DuPro besproken en die hebben teruggeschreven:

"Ervan uitgaande dat er geen sprake was van een vast dienstverband bij DCA, rust het auteursrecht bij de fotograaf, tenzij anders overeengekomen met de opdrachtgever. In het geval dat je de algemene voorwaarden meestuurt is er geen discussie over wie de auteursrechthebbende is. Dat betekent dus dat DCA niet in de positie is om een gebruiksrecht op de foto te verlenen..."

Nu lijkt ondertussen Guido zelf er geen punt van te maken, zie hier, en je kan ook stellen dat "temporarily working" niet hetzelfde is als "vast dienstverband" dus lijk ik voorlopig de enige die zich hier druk over schijnt te maken. -- Mdd (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Update

Zoals je wellicht heb gezien is in de beschrijving van de file door Guido een wijziging doorgevoerd, waardoor het gezegd "in tijdelijk dienstverband" is verwijderd. Aangezien je daar niet meer op hebt gereageerd, neem ik aan dat dit je stilzwijgende instemming heeft. Nu ben ik daar verder met Guido in overleg, waarbij het ook gaat over normalisering van aanverwante zaken. In dit kader zijn eigen categorieën en sub-categorieën op Commons ter sprake gekomen. Hierbij wil ik je informeren, dat hierbij ook jouw representatie hier op Wikimedia Commons als voorbeeld is opgevoerd. Dit ter kennisgeving, mvg. -- Mdd (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mdd: . Dank je voor de update. Voor de duidelijkheid: de file staat niet op mijn volglijst. Mijn rol als admin en VRT-agent in relatie tot de deletion request is afgerond. Ik geef geen stilzwijgende instemming, helemaal nergens voor en ook nooit, niet hier en niet in het echte leven. Wat ieder toevoegt of weghaalt is voor diens eigen rekening verder, ik ga niet kijken of het goed is of niet. Wat goed is staat in het VRT ticket. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hoi Elly, bedankt voor je reactie. Het heeft mij wat tijd gekost om deze reactie van jou te laten bezinken. Het gaat me hierom w:nl:stilzwijgende aanvaarding en ik was verbaasd dat je hier zo fel over was, en niet over dat andere wat best gevoelig ligt. In dit kader heb ik dat begrip stilzwijgende instemming zonder bijbedoeling laten vallen, maar in het geheel van m'n eigen ondernemen en ook het delen van m'n werk hier op Wikipedia met de jaren speelt dit een grote rol. Het volgende wil ik je slechts ter informatie delen:

• Zelf ben ik dit jaar dertig jaar ondernemer, en sinds een jaar of vijftien beheer ik op Flickr een relatief klein fotobestand van 10.000 foto's. Nu ben ik daar met de jaren de nodige keren de mist in gegaan, en vele zaken zijn daar nog steeds niet goed genoeg geregeld. Ik ben me echter wel bewust, dat elke copyrightovertreding strafbaar is met een flinke geldboete en zelfs tot gevangenisstraf kan leiden.
• Al die jaren heeft copyrightbeheer aldaar mijn volledige aandacht gehouden, en dat geld evenzo voor de foto's die ik daaruit gedeeld heb hier op Wikimedia Commons. Nog steeds heb ik daarbij echter zelf voortschrijdend inzicht en merk ik dat ik hier en daar zaken te voorspoedig heb ingeschat. Dit is wellicht inherent aan deelname aan zo'n progressief medium als Wikipedia.
• Nu heb je wellicht ook wel gezien dat ik werk aan de opbouw en uitbouw van de Category:Artists with their artwork in the Netherlands en de galerie Artist with artwork in the Netherlands. Veel van die foto's zijn van professionele fotograven en levende kunstenaars, waarbij je kan twijfelen aan de rechtsgrond voor vrijgave. Nu wordt wellicht een deel gedoogd, maar voor het grootste gedeelte werkt dit volgens mij op basis van w:nl:stilzwijgende aanvaarding.
• Nu kan ik hier nog wel iets verder in juridische details over treden: De auteurswet schrijft voor dat hergebruik alleen rechtsgeldig mogelijk is, indien er sprake is van een overdracht van copyright of de uitgave van een licentie. Daarvoor moet een overeenkomst zijn opgesteld. Zo'n overeenkomst moet op schrift gesteld worden, maar kan ook mondeling... en het kan zelfs per w:nl:stilzwijgende aanvaarding. Het Precautionary principle schrijft voor dat we dit vooraf dienen na te gaan, en bij serieuze twijfel dienen te onderzoeken en bij verzoek te bewijzen.

Dit alles in een notendop. Daar zitten een heleboel haken en ogen aan. Maar dat gaat voor mij wel ergens over. Dit wilde ik je in ieder geval ter informatie mededelen. -- Mdd (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Mijn felheid werd veroorzaakt doordat ik naar eer en geweten de juiste attributie op de foto had geplaatst, gebaseerd op de correspondentie op VRT, en dat anderen dat dan gaan wijzigen, zonder van die correspondentie op de hoogte te zijn. Alle correspondentie op VRT is namelijk geheim. Mogelijk bestaat er wel zoiets als stilzwijgende toestemming, maar dat lijkt mij alleen van toepassing als er kennis is genomen van hetgeen voorgelegd is. In dit geval was dat niet zo, en is er dus ook geen stilzwijgende toestemming verleend, ik heb dat hierboven benadrukt en bij deze nogmaals. Evenmin is er sprake van een gedoogbeleid op Commons. Alles wat maar enigszins riekt naar een vermoeden van copyrightschending wordt verwijderd, zie COM:PRP. Echter, het is puur niet bij te houden, wat er allemaal op Commons staat en dagelijks bijkomt. Dat zou je het project kunnen verwijten, hoe hard we ook werken. Ik vind persoonlijk dat er meer bronbeleid moet zijn bij aperte copyright schendingen, meteen zorgen dat het niet wordt geupload, maar dat zal wel een brug te ver zijn. Het enige wat op Commons gedoogd wordt voor zover ik weet, zijn situaties waarbij het copyright in het land van oorsprong vervallen is, en in de USA nog niet, op grond van de "restauratie" op grond van de URAA. Die afbeeldingen zouden verwijderd moeten worden van de Amerikaanse servers, maar dat gebeurt niet (gelukkig), want het zou heel veel verlies betekenen van waardevol materiaal. Wat betreft foto's van kunstwerken, daar heb je dus inderdaad vaak van twee rechthebbenden toestemming voor nodig om die te publiceren (hier of elders). Dus ik vrees dat veel van die foto's verwijderd zouden moeten worden. Ik hoop dat je daar zelf ook actie voor onderneemt, in het kader van het voortschrijdend inzicht. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. De juiste spelling is fotografen. Zie Onze Taal.

Joop Wouters aan het werk (1988).

Wat ik graag zou willen zien, is dat er discussie komt over de juridische grondslagen omtrent het copyright van werken zoals van Joop Wouters aan het werk (1988). Dit mag wat mij betreft ook gaan over de bewering die je hier doet:

Wat betreft foto's van kunstwerken, daar heb je dus inderdaad vaak van twee rechthebbenden toestemming voor nodig om die te publiceren (hier of elders)... Ellywa, 15:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Nu weet de Joop Wouters, de opdrachtgever de woningcorporatie K77, Fotodienst GAU en het Utrechts Archief zelf van de vrijgave van de foto door het Utrechts archief. In mijn ogen bestaat daar ook een tweezijdige toestemming. De kunstenaar Joop Wouters heeft namelijk zeer waarschijnlijk zijn stilzwijgende instemming gegeven, en dat is volledig rechtsgeldig. Jij lijkt hier echter te impliceren, dat die boel niet klopt. Dat er sprake is van een copyrightschending. De implicatie daarvan, en dat heb ik ook elders al trachten duidelijk te maken, dat je daarbij impliciet al de betrokken partijen (Joop Wouters, de woningcorporatie K77, de Fotodienst GAU en het Utrechts Archief) zelf in opspraak brengt. En waarom...!? Omdat jij de aanwezigheid van de w:nl:stilzwijgende aanvaarding niet doorgrond, of accepteert, of ik weet niet wat.

In het kader van het voortschrijdend inzicht, ben ik daar al jaren actie tegen aan het ondernemen... maar heb ik jarenlang geen grip op de situatie kunnen krijgen, en het ook niet kunnen/willen zien: Er is op Wikipedia een praktijk dat er op basis van een soort framing allerlei partijen in opspraak worden gebracht. En dat probeer ik juist beter te doorgronden. Nu heb ik het de laatste tijd ook gehad en zitten denken over eerlijk behandeling, en waardering, niet wegkijken bij miskenning, sociale uitsluiting, en wat al niet meer.

Er is mij duidelijk geworden dat er, naast vermeende copyrightzaken, juist zaken als eerlijke samenwerking, integrale kwaliteitsborging en organisatie van wellicht groter belang zijn. Zelf probeer ik hier juist afstand van te nemen, maar dat blijft me lastig vallen. Ik zal dit elders nog wel eens wat duidelijker proberen te maken. Mvg, -- Mdd (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Goedemorgen Mdd, dank je wel voor je inzichten, dat maakt het voor mij wel duidelijker wat je bedoelt. Ik heb er twee vragen over:

• Geldt die stilzwijgende toestemming volgens jou ook voor een publicatie onder een CCBYSA licentie? Immers, die maakt ongelimiteerd hergebruik mogelijk, inclusief commerciële toepassingen, en inclusief wijzigingen aan de afbeelding. Naar mijn ervaring op VRT zijn niet alle kunstenaars en fotografen genegen om hun werk onder die voorwaarden vrij te geven.
• Je spreekt over framing en dat allerlei partijen in opspraak worden gebracht. Ik herken dit in dit verband niet. Waar doel je dan precies op?

Zie uit naar je reacties, groet, Ellywa (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by NGCZ

Hi Ellywa, thanks for undeleting File:Daniel Seghers - Kytice ve sklenene vaze.jpg. I thought I would drop the link to the original deletion. As a National Gallery, I would assume each of these files pass notability requirements, whether or not they are used in Wikidata. It appears someone claimed they were "stolen" which is utter nonsense for paintings that have been in the collection for centuries and published multiple times along the way. I would like all 5000+ undeleted, although some may be by artists born after 1952. Just the metadata would be valuable to add to Wikidata! Like I said, now and then I come across these but of course I have a strong bias for Dutch 17th century art. I am sure Czech Wikipedians would like to reuse "their" rijksmuseum images for all sorts of other things. Jane023 (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jane. Thanks for the explanation. Can you show me the Deletion request(s) for these paintings? Ellywa (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Ohh... sorry, staat in de kop. Merci. Snap waarom het zo gegaan is. Er is altijd nog zoiets als copyright op een database. Een voor een terugzetten en vervangen door een betere kan denk ik wel. Of zijn de gegevens bij de afbeelding ook ontleend aan die database? Ellywa (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

De gegevens zijn ingesloten in de bestanden, helaas! De website heeft maar een deel van de complete set. De group van 5000+ is ook niet een sluitend database trouwens - het museum heeft veel meer, maar dit was destijds het deel dat gedigitaliseerd was (waarschijnlijk ook aanwezig in het museum, met ontbrekende dingen opgeslagen in depot). Jane023 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Split File:Mort.jpg → File:Unknown stained glass with Jesus Christ.jpg

Hello, in splitting process File:Mort.jpg → File:Unknown stained glass with Jesus Christ.jpg the Commons Delinker got active and moved some (or all?) file uses to the newly created file, though very probably the other file was the displayed version before (in en:Death (personification) I am sure). In the instructions for admins under COM:SPLIT there is the hint “In case it is a file, you have to open the Move & Replace link in a new tab or disable AjaxQuickDelete in your preferences”. — Speravir – 23:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Add: Fixed this one (en:Special:Diff/1115052803/1115535903) and all other uses where possible for me. — Speravir – 23:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Speravir, Thanks for all your effort, this has been a lot of work. It seems all is solved now. And thanks for the tip. Ellywa (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem. — Speravir – 21:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RicHard-59

So... What do we do about the rest of the PEGI images? Trade (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Trade, these files were not included in this DR and were uploaded after the original DR was created, per [8]. An additional DR would be needed imho; they are based on http://www.meku.fi/ikarajat/ and could be in PD, that has to be considered; I did not look into these cases, they appear of far more simple design and this has to be checked against COM:Finland. You can take that action and make a new DR if you think these should be deleted as well. Ellywa (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to join again. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PEGI classification by type)--Trade (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LL-Q809 (pol)-Jest Spoczko-fadżr.wav

The recording is clearly incorrect, it's "fadr" instead of "fadżr". It's obvious for any Polish speaker like me. You may ask anybody speaking Polish. We have a bot in Polish Wiktionary, which adds the pronunciation from Commons to the dictionary entries. The author of this recording added it to the bot's blacklist, blocking in this way import of his own recording of "fadżr", and adding in the edition comment "fadżr nie przeczytam" (I won't pronounce "fadżr"), while correcting a lot of other mistakes: here. The problem with the invalid recordings on Commons is that there are other bots that import the recordings to various Wiki projects (for example user:DerbethBot, and user:Lingua Libre Bot), which won't use this blacklist. In Wikipedia it would be obvious that typos should be immediately removed by any user. However, I can see it's an uphill battle to remove any similar error from pronunciation recordings here. Olaf (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I now found this is an arabic word transliterated to Polish, and I can understand it is difficult to pronounce for a native speaker of Polish . If the uploader @Jest Spoczko: would agree with deletion, I will revise my decision. Ellywa (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Notgeld Sorau N.L.1921.jpg

Hello Ellywa,

I have now found what the hS initials stand for: de:Heinz Schiestl, 1867–1940, see Category:Banknotes by Schiestl, Heinz. So now that we know that this 1921 banknote is in the PD both in Germany and the US, would you please restore the file? I could just do it myself or go to COM:UNDEL, but wanted to ask you first because you closed the DR. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: How smart you found this, very convincing. The file is undeleted now. Has not been in use on the projects it seems. Ellywa (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

File:The Song of the Twenty-Ninth Division.wav and File:The_Song_of_the_Twenty-Ninth_Division.webm

Hi, I just noticed that back in July, you deleted a video and recording of "The Song of the 29th Division", which I uploaded earlier this year. I don't routinely check my articles, so am just seeing it now. Just so you are aware, there are four elements to this production.

The first is the music itself. It was originally published in 1918 by Boosey & Co. to support the (WWI) war effort with the proviso that “this song may be sung in public without fee or license.”

Secondly, with regards to the performance itself, I commissioned (and paid for it) with all three artists having given me their permission (in writing) to publish the recording online and to cite their names, which I did.

And finally, the video I produced myself, with all photo sources credited.

Would be grateful, therefore, if you would undelete.

Thanks. JPS2012 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi JPS2012, great to read you have permission of the performing artists. It will be possible to undelete the file if some things are fixed.

1. the copyright of the music should be checked against the COM:Hirtle Chart. Performing without fee is not the same as public domain. A difference is that anyone can change the music at will in case of PD or CCBYSA.
2. please send the permission of the musicians to the VRTsystem. The procedure is described on COM:VRT. The VRT agent will request undeletion probably when permission is convincing.
3. Regarding photo credits. I do not remember now, but the images you used should also be in PD or licensed with CCBYSA. Please check this. Only crediting is not sufficient. The first file has WAV format. So there are no images associated. This is only necessary for the video.

Hope this will be helpfull. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi JPS2012, on the VRT system your email has been received, Ticket:2022111110008169. I suppose one of the agents will answer. Please be a bit patient, because we are receiving very many messages. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. No rush on my part; as I noted, I wasn't even aware the music had been taken down until recently. Best, John JPS2012 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#MRC_National_Institute_for_Medical_Research_photos

Per this, could you undo the Brigid M Balfour deletion, and all related files? Really, all of the SHopkins uploads probably should be undeleted, but we can start there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Adam Cuerden, in my deletion motivation Commons:Deletion requests/Brigid M. Balfour photos I wrote that these photos were the last few of a long list of deleted images (in 2018), and that "the whole bunch can be reconsiderd for undeletion". Your last statement, "But it's also some evidence that they were acting as a MRC employee" is insufficient evidence to show these photos are in PD. My suggestion would be to discuss all deleted images uploaded in 2013 by User talk:SHopkins1 on COM:UDR. The list can be seen here. I think you can copy the discussion of the Village pump to the UDR page, to avoid uneccessary work. On COM:UDR one of the admins will decide on this. Could be me, could be someone else. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Сгоревший вагон Д1-657-3.jpg + File:Пожар в вагоне Д1 657-3.jpg

The images were taken from the page https://rv.dsns.gov.ua/uk/news/nadzvicaini-podiyi/12815. At the bottom of the page there is a link to the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. -- Олександр М. (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Олександр М., thank you for providing the link to the source page, which is indeed showing the CCBYSA4.0 licence. On this basis, I could undelete the files, and I restored them on ru:Участник:Олександр_М./Черновик/1. I corrected the source and licencing on the file pages. The original source page is not available, https://rv.dsns.gov.ua/ua/Nadzvichayni-podiyi/12815.html and the original license is not valid for images. But CCBYSA4.0 is valid of course. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MojahedEnglish-No4.pdf

Hi. Regarding that discussion, I wanted to mention that this work will be subject to the second condition mentioned in Article 16 (Template:PD-Iran: "work belongs to a legal person or rights are transferred to a legal person"). So any work, regardless of its medium, will be in public domain 30 years after publication if the copyright holder is an organization (it doesn't have to be a picture). Also, we have a consensus that Iranian law only protects text that is "knowledge, art or innovation". [9]. Best regards, HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@HeminKurdistan: Please note the text on the top of this page about my decisions about deletion. And if going for an undeletion request, think how you would show evidence who is the holder of the copyright of this text. This is not clear at all imho. Ellywa (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Je VRT-werk

Uitstekend en snel gehandeld met de permissies betreffende foto waarvan ik de upload heb gedaan. Hele fijne jaarwisseling!  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  11:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Graag gedaan Klaas! Jij ook een fijn uiteinde van 2022 gewenst en een goed begin van 2023. Ellywa (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)