User talk:Thuresson/Archive2

Regarding Zawahiri

Zawahiri's image is a U.S. government public domain image. (http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/teralzawahiri.htm) So it can stay. WhisperToMe 00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hello Thuresson, someone in the spanish wikipedia asked me to check this Image:Ottoman small animation.gif to use it in an article there as it's public domain, but according to the summary it comes from a printed 1996 version of the Britannica, which I assume is copyrighted. Could you have a look and tell me if I'm right?. Thanks, AnnaP 02:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's a complicated matter, thank you for your quick answer and a happy new year to you as well, time goes by so fast that I already forgot we've started a year. Regards. AnnaP 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hello. You told me to check Image:Anna_mala.jpg and Image:Anna_Eurovision_1980_and_1982.jpg. According to the summery I said I made them in Adobe Photoshop. The one from Eurovision, I stayted, I got from a video capture of a DVD i own, and put them together in Photoshop, and wrote on it. And the Mala picture I got from the CD pictures and scanded them together, and made the colloge in Photoshope. Greekboy 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Me again. Am I going to get a response? I do not want these images deleted. Greekboy 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I think the best is if you post the details of the permission you received from the copyright owner on the image talk page, eg. Image talk:Anna mala.jpg. I can't delete these images, somebody else will have to decide on what to do. Thuresson 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I put the copyright info under discussion page. Can you now take off the banner on the picture page, saying it is a disputed image? Greekboy 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take off the banner on the page that you put up?? 68.45.82.68 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I dispute that User:Greekboy is the creator. The user scanned the photos off a Anna Vissi CD, and I believe that the photos are owned or licensed by the record company. Thuresson 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that, then help me find a different copyright for it. Alought of people make collage's out of pictures and put them on Wikipedia. And can you ATLEAST take the banner off of the Sceen Shot one? Oh and also, the Mala collage picture I can explain to you. The top right pic. in it, is a CD cover scan. The background I made. The left and right pictures are from a PRESS REALEASE of Mala. And the center faded picture, is a promotional picture from a year later, I put into it to make it look nicer. Greekboy 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I changed the copyright on the Mala picture, and left the one on the Eurovision picture, because it fits fine with it, since it is a screen shot. Can you now take the banners off both of the pictures? Greekboy 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats happening with the photos? Are you going to take the template out?? Greekboy 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.....Do you remeber me and the photos?? Are you gonna take down the templates? I changed the licensing, and evden someone else changed the licenses too. Please take down the templates.....I have fixed everything, and provided explanations on the photo pages.Greekboy 02:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

you deleted the image of the Oglethorpe University logo citing "fair use". How have other universities gotten their logos included? Thx. OUPetey 21:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCommons do not allow "fair use" images of any kind. Furthermore, Oglethorpe university do not allow unrestricted unlimited use of this logo by anybody (link). Thuresson 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lech Wałęsa

If you do not accept my statement then just list this picture for deletion instead of constant ignoring of my explanations and tagging it as possible violation over and over again. Halibu tt 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with the words in the template: "Please do not remove this notice while the question is being considered" Thuresson 14:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eucratides

I'm fine with the Public Domain tag, although I changed to GDFL because I was told that it is not legally possible to put anything into the Public Domain (a copyright stays, although all rights can be released). As the tag has a provision ("in case not legally applicable..."), I guess it is fine anyway. Regards PHG 23:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moro br 1.jpg

Hi Thuresson, I changed the tag into PD-ineligible and I left an additional note about why this image has no rights pending upon. It would be very fine of you if you could please check the whole to see whether my note is sufficiently clear, and if this tag is the one which better fits to this unusual situation. I also removed the "no source" tag, I hope this wasn't too much "bold"... However, please let me know if there is anything else that I should add or explain. Thank you :) --g 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ulrike Meinhof als junge Journalistin.jpg

Image needs a new tag.. PD? I have see the pic on her daughter's (Bettina?) website. If your not quick it will get deleted. Cheers -- max rspct leave a message 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Registration on the Swedish Wikipedia

Due to this ip being blocked by the Swedish Wikipedia, i couldn't ask this over there.

Now, i wanted to register an account there to discuss about the blocking of adresses used by schools, since i belive this would allow me to atleast talk in the discussion page or wikimail you, but for some reason, there isn't any registration form. Is this because the ip is blocked? If so, i'd like it if i could possibly ask you about this matter on this discussion page.--Akunaeru 10:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mauñel Azaña y Díaz.jpg

Regarding the image, it says on it's page in detail where it's from. It also has a tag.--Primetime 19:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know if you have a permission from the artist or copyright owner. Please provide more info so that others can check that it is released to the public domain. Thuresson 19:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the Possibly Unfair Images page. May I also ask what you think you are accomplishing by pressing this issue so hard?--Primetime 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody requested this image for deletion at WikiCommons so I'd like to have the question resolved so the photo can be kept. Thuresson 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left me a message regarding Image Tagging Image:Isaac Gruenwald.jpg. I have no idea how to source a Government post office in any country. Cynthia B. 20:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Thuresson 20:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! Please don't delete my image!

I got it from the Chinese Wikipedia here.

It used this template:

I just put it on the image. I imagine that the fairuse image would also apply to all the Wikipedias in other languages.

--Fox Mccloud 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morris.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Morris.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Apparently the image I uploaded has been overwritten twice, so no, I have no interest in the current image with that name. Thanks for the notification. —wwoods 07:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KWolf.png

Hi, well the link to the image appears to be broken. There is no way now for me to document the copyright status of that image. What to do?--Fahrenheit451 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to explain why "panorama rights" are relevant for the copyright status. AFAIK panorama rights allows a photographer to take a photo of a building, a square, a work of art or a statue from a public place and then decide what to do with the photo without asking for permission from the architect/painter/creator. Thuresson 23:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

Hello Thuresson I had a discussion about images from the european union Template:EU image and on commons !!! [[1]] and need some advice about the EN wikipedia policy: 1.: http://www.europarl.eu.int/guide/publisher/default_en.htm is an old disclaimer from 2000 and not updated.

/www.europarl.eu.int/ [[2]] publisher . use granted,, with mention of the source.© Europese Gemeenschappen, 2000 (older version).
/www.europarl.eu.int/ [[3]] the parlement . use granted,, with mention of the source. © European Communities, 1995-2005
/europa.eu.int/ [[4]] the portal . use granted,, with mention of the source.

Conclusion: 2005 version is the latest version, separate permission has to be stated on the page where the image is used which is not the case.

so. in the dutch version it is stated like this :nl:Sjabloon:EU-site -

Well it seems that by german law using the pictures is not granted, which is ok for the DE Wikipedia. Discussion about this can be found on [[5]].

Next to the implication of law in different countrys there is also a problem in translated pages. The EN and DE version are not the same.

Copyright notice

© European Communities, 1995-2005 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use.

Copyright-Vermerk

© Europäische Gemeinschaften, 1995-2005 Die Wiedergabe mit Quellenangabe ist vorbehaltlich anderslautender Bestimmungen gestattet. Ist für die Wiedergabe bestimmter Text- und Multimedia-Daten (Ton, Bilder, Programme usw.) eine vorherige Genehmigung einzuholen, so hebt diese die obenstehende allgemeine Genehmigung auf; auf etwaige Nutzungseinschränkungen wird deutlich hingewiesen.

Well. the germans have deciced to remove al images from their wikipedia and now the actual question: They are implicating german law on the english wikipedia by making all images of european parlement members illegal for use.

So, is use of these images granted on the EN wikipedia or not ? Best regards . Mion 13:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To tackle the first part: Malfunction of the copyright section.

Dear sir/misses. On your website there is still a page (http://www.europarl.eu.int/guide/publisher/default_en.htm) which is not updated since 2000 and is in conflict with the updated versions : http://www.europarl.eu.int/tools/disclaimer/default_en.htm (1995-up) and http://europa.eu.int/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm#copyright (1995-up) Could you please update or remove the mentioned page ? Thanks in advance.

Sent today to the webmaster of the EU site. Mion 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the second problem, commons !!! [[6]] is granted by nation (depenedable on law) same as we see the creation of Common licenses by country, maybe the creation of 30 Eu templates by nation is requered. Mion 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3th problem stated by RTC was, dat the 2 latest copyright sections, did not mention anything about reproduction. According to RTC/German Law, you have to read this as . that part that is not granted/mentioned is forbidden. In dutch law it is everything that is not forbidden is granted, -- Reg .Mion 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example : [7] on the page of this picture of Camiel EURLINGS the page has a link to Legal notice on the left side which links to the modified version [8], dropping any relevancy with the old one [9]

Maybe this should move to: [[10]] because commons is also involved. ?

Your answer please on : Template_talk:EU_image .REg. Mion 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or better on Commons : [11]

Read my tags!

The images from BSTU are free to use under german copyright law as they are released for public information as official documents. I find your putting those tags on the image pages to be very annoying and want you to knock it off. --Fahrenheit451 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Template:PUIdisputed is quite clear: "Please do not remove this notice while the question is being considered." Thuresson 10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SpringfieldMass.JPG

Hi, I'm writing to ask you if you know why your user name is mentioned in the copyright license of this photo? Thuresson 20:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the guy who posted it wasn't sure how to mark an image and copied the mark on one of mine. I was unaware of the image until you mentioned it. - User:RFC1394A : Paul Robinson 18:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HLHimmler.jpeg

Were you the one who posted that the copyright was in question? The copyright belonged to the German Schutzstaffel publishing house, which has been completely liquidated, and the image can now be found in multiple National archives. It is public domain. Nagelfar 02:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. When you write that it's available in multiple "National archives", which ones? It's not available at NARA or USHMM. Why do you think that the copyright previsusly belonged to the SS? Thuresson 16:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also in the book 'Heinrich Himmler; A Photographic Chronicle of Hitler's Reichsfuehrer-SS' by Martin Månsson, ISBN: 0764312022, It was an SS photo distributed to the SS offices for use on the walls on buildings and headquarters of the SS; the SS held all publishing rights for propaganda services until it was dissolved. Nagelfar 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems user Husnock does say it is available at NARA, and has had it tagged as such since 2005. Nagelfar 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it at NARA, which is its ARC number? Which other national archives have copies? Thuresson 14:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an employee of NARA and can state for a fact that the photo in question is available on the microfilm service record of Heinrich Himmler maintained at College Park, Maryland. I've also seen the picture in a few other places around our agency's holdings. -Husnock 15:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the ARC number? How can I verify that the photo is public domain. Thuresson 16:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't know the particular ARC #, on his user talk page reply to me Husnock said, in regard to the public domain status of the photograph; …as an employee of the National Archives, I can state for a fact that the photo in question is available from our agency. I have seen it many times in many publications and it is available on the mirofilm of Himmler's S.S. service record. If the user in question wants to press it further, he can contact Archives II in College Park and they will tell him the same thing. The address is: National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001 Being that it is contained in the mirofilm along with Himmler's SS service record, it should be easy to find the ARC number in relation to that. I know the burden of proof for risk of legal reasons should lie with the uploader, though I think that is quite proof enough, I assure you I'm 100% about this one or I would not have stated it was PD on the upload, I also am fairly certain this photo is contained in the book (possibly with copyright status mentioned); 'Heinrich Himmler; A Photographic Chronicle of Hitler's Reichsfuehrer-SS' by Martin Månsson, ISBN: 0764312022. I uploaded this photograph in response to the previous colour photo for which the rights could not be ascertained, knowing that this was the free-use SS issue photo of his person & rank for public & government reference during his contemporary time in office. All other photos would seem to be more troublesome in terms of copyright (esp. with those by period photographers hired by the Third Reich whose copyright goes back to their family). Nagelfar 18:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thing has been beat to death enough. I am an employee of the National Archives and Records Administration and have stated now several times that in my professional experiance, which includes 12 years research into German records and 5+ years as a military records historian, that this image is public domain as it may be found on a public record of Heinrich Himmler's service record. Short of calling College Park and getting the exact roll and fiche number where this number can be found (which I don't intend on doing), I think that there is more than enough evidence that this not a copyright infringement. If you are still not satisifed, I can't really tell you what to do. -Husnock 03:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you and Nagelfar are leaving messages on my talk page, this is not the place to discuss the matter in the first place. I have certainly not involved you in the matter. If the SS previously held publishing rights, I assume it now lies with the German government until life+70 years. Thuresson 21:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poland related images

Whenever there is a question about a Poland related image, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board. We are happy to find sources (ex. [12]) and clarify any problems, but we would prefer to do it BEFORE the image is deleted and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a forum for discussing deletion requests, Commons:Deletion requests. It is in my opinion not necessary with a second forum to discuss Wikicommons deletion requests. www.ww2.pl do not allow commercial use of the photos. Thuresson 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoradiograph image restored -- please insert appropriate tag

The autoradiograph image you deleted is in the public domain. I have restored it. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Autoradiograph200dpi.jpg

As I noted:

This work is in the public domain because it was published in a book that is not copyright: Iyengar, P.K. and M. Srinivasan, BARC Studies In Cold Fusion, BARC-1500. 1989, Government of India, Atomic Energy Commission: Bombay.

Many Indian AEC documents are public domain the same way many U.S. NASA and DoE documents are. Perhaps there is a "tag" that applies to foriegn government research of this nature. I am not not familliar with Wikipedia tags. If there is one that applies to this case, please add it.

--JedRothwell 21:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. You may be interested to read Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 26#Template:IndiaGov where it is claimed that works of the Indian government are copyrighted for 60 years. Also, Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/archive4#Template:PD-IndiaGov may be interesting. Hence, the image will be deleted once again from WikiCommons. Thuresson 22:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the Indian AEC gave me the book. There is no copyright it it. I have uploaded large sections of it with their assistance. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/BARC.htm. This particular autoradiograph is my personal property (a Christmas present from a researcher). It is the same as the one on the book because they made hundreds of images from that cathode. It is like making multiple copies from one negative.

How can there be a problem? This makes no sense. Researchers hand out sample data like this all the time, in every laboratory. --JedRothwell 01:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with image

Hello Thuresson, I've tried to replace Image:Colca Canyon Condor.jpg with this free one from commons Commons:Image:Condor.jpg, but there's a conflict with Image:Condor.jpg as it has the same file name. Would there be a way to solve the problem?. Thank you. AnnaP 02:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I've arranged so you can use Image:Condor flying over the Colca canyon in Peru.jpg which is the same image with a more descriptive file name. Regards, Thuresson 17:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the arrangement, the image is now linked to two articles here and Ive seen you've linked it to several wikis too, thanks for the work :). Regards. AnnaP 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso Image

Please see the discussions regarding the photo of Steven Gerrard on both my talk page and the user who recommended it for deletion. Also you should have first notified the author via the link to his flickr page. The author gives his full consent for the image to be used. aLii 08:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will mail the author today using Commons:Email templates, asking for permission. kjetil_r 10:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: aLii: I moved this discussion to the bottom of the page, discussions are normally put here

Image:Nico.JPG

I don't understand why you listed Image:Nico.JPG for deletion. Could you please tell me why on my talk page L e idi ot 02:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Guru Gobind Singh 1.jpg

Hi Thuresson

You asked: "Hi, do you know the name of the artist who died but left this to the public domain?"

tha answer is "yes" and the artist was Bhai Sobha Singh. I hope this help. Keep in Chardikala --Hari Singh 11:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - glad it helped. Best wishes with the Swedish Wikipedia and it's great to know that you are spreading the Guru's message to the Swedish people - keep up the good work!! --Hari Singh 16:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian copyright law

Hi, I see you quoted two paragraphs regarding Croatian copyright law. However, the paragraphs do not contradict the other paragraph, which is for IMAGES specifically, it is just the general provision that applies always. Please mind that the copyright law in question is available online, and that the provisions for photograps were quoted, they are verifiable and clearly state that expiration for photographs (and some other media) is 25 years. Maayaa 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KWkhan.jpg

Hi I am not sure how I can correct the KWKhan image what info can I provide? The pic shown is a standard one with no known copyright issues and widely available in Pakistan. It's not been attributed to any photographer to my knowledge either.. --Zak 16:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted image

Hej da, You deleted the image of Brenda Smith Myles as you said there was no license. Perhaps that section was not filled in, but the image was provided by Brenda Smith Myles herself, with her consent, via her publisher, who took the image, Asperger Autism Publishing Co. I went to a lot of trouble to arrange the image from the publisher and Brenda herself (she emailed it to me). Perhaps you could have emailed one of us to warn us in advance before you deleted it. Pokey2006 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Hey, tack sa mucke. (Jag har familj i Stokholm). I didn't know what to fill in under copyright and license. Perhaps you can explain what that means so I can fill it in correctly? Til nastan, Pokey2006 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

appreciation

Thanks for finding the original source for Image:VanessaAHudgens545.jpg on the PUI page, I'd looked for it on Google Images but couldn't find it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ariel Upper campus.jpg

Hi. First, please don't attack me, I'm not a criminal. I'm not such experienced user and may make mistakes. As I understand all files copyrighted from ru.wikipedia is GFDL if there is no other license. If so it is my mistake & I will fix it. As for Image:Ariel Upper campus.jpg: it is "CopyrightedFreeUse" I'm sure, I've studied there. What kind of licence should I use when I'm loading it from wikipedia? GFDL? Shmuliko 15:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'll fix those immages lisence very soon. Please don't remove it. Shmuliko 15:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Republicanguard.jpg

hi. the photo in question is from the Iraqi News Agency, which was a government run news agency before the iraq war. since saddam's government no longer is in power, i assumed all the copyright claims became null. is this inaccurate? i apologize if i assumed too much. how can i rectify the situation? Anthonymendoza 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at WP:PUI. Thuresson 02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like your help with this image's licensing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:J_B_Aristide_AP.jpg Thanks Atavi 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the license and correcting it. Appreciated!Atavi 08:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

Hello, how does one go about getting a logo fit for Wikipedia? I notice that many university pages have logos but the logo for the University of Navarra was deleted by you? - user:ilovespain

Thank you for your message. When you uploaded the logo to WikiCommons, you did not provide any information about its copyright status, except that it is not licensed under GFDL and that you assumed it was a trademark. On July 2, I left a message on your talk page commons:User talk:Ilovespain asking about this. WikiCommons do not accept trademarked logos. Since you did not reply to my questions for 4 weeks, I had the logo deleted. Thuresson 16:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 8 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isabella Maria of Bourbon-Parma, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Alphonse Mucha image copyright

Sorry about the copyright, please delete the image. Thank you. Rshu 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost -- Interwiki Report

Hi,

It's really great to hear that you've volunteered to write the Report. You can start writing here.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any help or advice.

Best regards,
Kpjas 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the Report you've written. I have one comment though. Don't you think that it'd be better to give inline links to sources rather in the footer (this is the usual in journalistic style I think). All the best,
Kpjas 22:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marshall Plan.png

Yes, it is mine. People should be careful to copy the comments when uploading a page to commons. - SimonP 00:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for a wonderful report on the Swedish Wikipedia. Would you like to do it again? ForestH2 t/c 03:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US government portraits

Greetings. Back in May, you commented at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. The issue has lain dormant for over two months, and is still unresolved. I have attempted to summarize the findings of fact, in the hopes of resolving this debate. Your comments here would be welcome. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Pais Image

Ummm yeah, the image is orphaned because you removed it from the El Pais article to use a Wikicommons image and it was being used in compliance with fair use. [13]--Jersey Devil 22:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the image back in the article while keeping the Commons image in the infobox. I understand the usefulness of commons images on Wikipedia in that they are not bound by copyright issues but I think the cover in itself is notable to have in the article because it is the cover directly after the March 11th attacks and El Pais is widely regarded as the newspaper of record of Spain. I would ask that next time should this happen, be it with me or with any other user, that you please tell the user that you removed the image from the article instead of just saying it was "orphaned". Thank you.--Jersey Devil 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, next time I'm not going to bother to notify anybody before changing images in articles. Thuresson 09:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrreview

Thanks for answering my question. I'll see whether I can contact the creator of the photos on flickr. How long after attaching that note of you will the images be deleted? SportsAddicted | discuss 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do that, thanks. SportsAddicted | discuss 04:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fälldin 1980 photo by Björn Roos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fälldin 1980 photo by Björn Roos.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 21:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will leave it to others to decide if this photo can justifiably be kept. Thuresson 00:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Himmler Photo

I updated the page for you, giving the address of the building where I got it from. It is one of several pictures of him that you can get by going to the Archives II building in College Park. LAst time I was there, the SS records and photos were on the 3rd or 4th floor. I don't have a phone number at this time and am actually out of this site. I just updated the iamge since a bot dropped off a message that the photo was up for deletion. Thanks -Husnock 08:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that interested in the physical location of one particular copy of the photo, but the copyright status of the photo. NARA claims: "However, not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain. Some materials have been donated or obtained from individuals or organizations and may be subject to restrictions on use." Thuresson 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I got it it was free and I was told I could copy and distribute as I wished. It only cost me 45 cents for the copy charge and I hae the original photo at home. I would hate to see a perfectly good photo deleted from this site. How about listing it as a possible unfree image and then others can deciede. Thank you! -Husnock 02:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Aberystwyth Wales.jpg

The image was uploaded on April 12, 2004 by User:The Singing Badger. At least that's the earliest entry in the (deleted) page history. Hope that helps. :) --Conti|✉ 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Äänekoski bus disaster 2004.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Äänekoski bus disaster 2004.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –mysid ☎ 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Levnie

Commons:User:Andrew Levnie is an impersonator. He even copied my Commons user page and talk page. I strongly recommend a block. Andrew Levine 02:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE : Image:Iflex51.JPG

The image was taken by my friend, Mr.Bala Murali, who is my collegue. We took this picture, when we were working with that company. I've got more pictures of the same building, taking with my camera.-- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magdolna Rúzsa

Don't replace a picture if the other isn't better! Take it to thumb, as I did, see current version Magdolna Rúzsa. Thanks --Beyond silence 12:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham Jab

I own these pictures. You could have discussed before tagging them as you did. I hope you're not trying to provoke. Jaber777 13:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment required

Hi there, as a fellow contributor to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images I was wondering if you'd take the time to comment on the proposal I've made on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Proposal for an addition to the page introduction. Thanks. Madmedea 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dag Hammarskjöld june 1959.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dag Hammarskjöld june 1959.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png

Hi Thuresson

I see that you've expressed concern regarding the copyright status of this image. I agree that the GFDL tagging was incorrect, and that this image is tricky since it is the work of an unrecognized administration, but I nevertheless think that would make sense to consider this image to be in the clear, since both Armenian and Azerbaijani copyright law exempt official insignia from copyright protection (see: commons:Template:PD-ARM and commons:template:PD-AZ-exempt). The same is the case for all nations that formerly belonged to the Soviet Union and as I understand from a few debates on Commons, the Soviet copyright law said the same thing. Just my thoughts. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]