en User talk:Thuresson Archive1

History of Brazil

Regarding the Brazilian history series, yet it is somewhat odd. The 1945-1964 article is unfinished, along with the 1964-present article. I'll put expanding it on the top of my to-do list on Wikipedia. Thanks. 172 19:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello! Are you from Sweden? :-) Piglet 06:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair use

It is my understanding that fair use allows for any work, not just book covers or album covers or logos, to be used specifically on Wikipedia as long as (a) the work is being commented on or used to supplement a comment on an overarching topic, (b) the character of the use is educational and/or informational. I can't see why the Alucard image wouldn't be fair use, though I'm also not sure that it adds anything useful. Andre (talk) 21:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini

Hi, on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion you nominated two pictures of Benito Mussolini to be deleted since they now can be found at Commons. However, somebody on Commons has tagged them to be deleted there too, since they are not verified PD or GFDL. It is possible that Italy follows a EU copyright directive that means that the copyright is owned by the photographer, lifetime + 70 years. The two Mussolini pictures were first uploaded to Wikipedia by User:J.J. who, in my view, has made several careless uploads before. If you have time you can take a look at Commons:Benito Mussolini. Regards, Thuresson 22:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, Thuresson. I only nominated those two since they were incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion here. I don't think the Commons versions were tagged for deletion at the time. Anyway, I've withdrawn the IFD nominations. dbenbenn | talk 00:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thalía

Hi

I'm sincronizing interwikis about muses and uploaded a Thalía image on commons. The Thalia singer has no arcticle related and I don't know how move it to a Image:Thalia_(singer) (or delete it since there is a Image:Thalia Sodi.jpg ) to allow commons image appears in Thalia muse article.

Ok, I should replace image on commons do Thalia_(muse) but it would make the commons a not so common place... So... I ask for help... --Jic 21:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm watching Image:Thalia.jpg. When its deleted i'll reedit muse's arcticle Jic

Svenska användare

Tjena Thure! Jag skapade en Category:Swedish Wikipedians som vi svenskar här på en: kan lista oss i (om vi nu vill). Tycker att det var en kul idé så jag klottrar lite på några svenska användarsidor för att sprida ryktet om sidan =) För övrigt vill jag tacka dig för att du stöttade mig på Commons så att jag blev op där. // Solkoll 14:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kali image

Thanks for the note on the Kali image. I didn't see any tags on it to begin with, so is this the wrong tag to place? Please advise - how can we indicate a proper copyright status on this?jk 22:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dayan Image

Hi, Thuresson. The tag you mention is not present on w:he, where I got the image from. I know just enough Hebrew to make out it was claimed to be PD. I didn't know w:en had a copy, or I would have checked.

I'm sorry if I have caused any inconvenience. Taragui 19:45, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Abbé Pierre

Well, assuming that the picture is very old (1950s), that Abbé Pierre's foundation is an "organisation à but non-lucratif" (meaning it purely aims at helping people and not making money), and that I found it on the English wiki I just labelled it "Domaine Public" because it seemed the most appropriate category, and that's about it ! :=)

No offense, but I'm not sure there is any reason to make such a fuss about it. However, if you DO consider this as problematic, feel free to remove the picture (I've not worked on the article, I just put a picture to make it look more attractive).

Best wishes,

Manchot sanguinaire

Devil Image

Thanks for moving http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tasmanian_devil.jpg to the commons, although I didn't really like the tone of "dubious practive" regarding licenses. I'm new at this, and I'm supplying these images off my own back, and I'm only learning about licenses at present. I was under the impression that the GFDL was more applicaple to code, and changed it to CC. Fair enough - I know I can't do this retrospectively now, but maybe some links and a friendlier tone and possibly some links to further information is a better response?? Jgritz 08:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Image

Kindly stop changing the image tag on "Image:MilChapPope.jpg". I have personally verified that this image came from the U.S. Navy Office of the Chief of Chaplains and have entered such on the images talk page and in the heading. There is no reason to say it is unverified unless you think I am being untruthful. Please assume good faith. -Husnock 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have left no explanation why this photo is a work of the US government. Who from the navy staff was on St. Peter's Square and took this photo? Simply emailing the work of a freelance photographer does not make a photo a work of the US government. That's what you need to explain. If somebody claimed it was fair use I wouldn't think twice about this image, but the PD claim creates extra work for administrators at WikiCommons. Thuresson 09:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Free use would work just as well. I have no reason to think the Priest who sent it to me was being untruthful about where it came from. He did, however, make it very clear it was offically released by his office. Hopefully we can work something out. I put all this on the page about the image dispute. -Husnock 17:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yushchenko image

This image is an official photo of the Ukrainian government. You can verify this yourself at [1]. If you came across it on Yushchenko's private site (www.yushchenko.com.ua), it doesn't mean that you have spotted a copyright problem. Sashazlv 07:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I double checked the law of Ukraine "on copyright and related rights", [2]. Below is my translation of an excerpt from Article 21 "Free use..." (I am preserving the wording as much as possible and skipping unnecessary detail):

Without a permission of the author (or other copyright holder), but with a mandatory reference of the author's name and the source, is permitted:

...

2) the use of literary and artistic works ... as illustrations in publications ... of educational nature.

My interpretation of the Article is that the image unambiguously qualifies for free use in an encyclopedia. Please, remove the notice of the copyright infringement. Sashazlv 00:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am very glad that you have changed your mind after my remark. On March 4 you claimed that the image was public domain here , e.g. that anybody could use it for any purpose. I also notice that the name of the photographer ("the mandatory reference") is still missing. Thuresson 11:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of replying to your sarcastic remarks.Sashazlv 14:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you just did, didn't you? Thuresson

From looking at the aformentioned site, the first image is written in Ukrainian as Портрети Президента України Віктора Ющенка (Затверджені офіційно). The second one, which I saw was claimed to be a previous photo of him, is also listed on this website. I do not see anything for copyright of the photos, or even who took them, except for: Представництво розпочало свою роботу 24 серпня 2002 р.

On the English page, the copyright was only from 2000-2004. I do not know what to say or do, but we should try to do some more digging. Zscout370 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this is an official portrait and I think the best would be consider its use on Wikipedia as "fair use". I think the uploader could agree to that also. Perhaps it would be the best if a third party added the appropriate "fair use" tag on the image description. Thuresson 23:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nixon 30-0122a.gif

Hey, thanks again on those images. I was going to use the photo above in the Ehrlichman article and didn't get to it apparently (or maybe I used something else) will have to look at it. --Wgfinley 05:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, that one's okay to delete, I used the photo with Haldeman instead and don't think we need more photos in that article. --Wgfinley 05:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Deletion

I have a question about it. Its about images that are both on the Commons and here, however, both have the same name. I have an example: I uploaded a file on both places called Image:KMT flag.png, the flag of the KMT Party in the Republic of China. If I had the image from Wikipedia deleted, will it affect the various pages at all? Zscout370 (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, there wouldn't be any apparent change, the image in the article would be there just like before. However, before you delete, make sure that the image description on commons has all the important information about where the image comes from, a correct license and so on. Thuresson 21:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A380 1.jpg

Taken from the French presidential website last week. I don't know if it's still there, as they update frequently. Hardouin 22:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr I-know-better, before accusing people and telling them their claims are very misleading, you should dig the subject a little more if you don't want to appear foolish yourself. I went to Law School in France, mind you!, and I remember pretty clearly that pictures of government officials taken during office, in official context (not private pictures), are public domain, such as for instance the official portrait of Jacques Chirac which is displayed on the Jacques Chirac article. The warning on the website that you copied and pasted cannot be considered legally binding, unless it refers specifically to those private pictures of Jacques Chirac or his family that appears on the website. By the way, the official portrait of Jacques Chirac also appears on the presidential website, yet nobody asked for the website permission to reproduce it. So let's stop the non-sense please. Hardouin 22:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me about French law. I don't quite understand your last sentence: By the way, the official portrait of Jacques Chirac also appears on the presidential website, yet nobody asked for the website permission to reproduce it.. Perhaps the presidential website do have permission to use it, maybe because the photographer was paid by the government? Or the presidential website paid for it?

Pictures taken during office refers to the office held by the photographer, perhaps in his/her capacity of being empmloyed by the government, not that anybody's photo of Chirac is public domain. Your interpretation would mean that this photo is public domain. Thuresson 02:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey Picture

I'm not complaining about my deletion, but I have tried e-mailing her record company about using her picture on Wikipedia, and it never sends. What should I do? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 16:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You found this album cover on a web page [3] that claims "Copyright © 2004, The Island Def Jam Music Group". WikiCommons only allows images that are licensed under a free license and can be used by anybody for any purpose, e.g. selling t-shirts with this photo. I do not think that Miss Carey's record company would ever allow that. See Licensing for more info. Thuresson 00:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mic's images

As for the images you asked about at User talk:Mic, I think it is safe to assume they are PD-old. They look like typical 19th century prints, probably illustration from some historical or biographical work (perhaps not very good ones, but many weren't). BTW, Mic hasn't edited here since Sep. 2004, and probably doesn't follow what happens on his talk page. Uppland 13:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visst, han hade varit borta länge när jag ställde frågan men det skadar ju inte att försöka. Senare hittade jag bilderna i allafall, gamla bilder ur Nordisk familjebok. Thuresson 14:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiglaf's RfA

I noticed that you had made a comment about Wiglaf's behavior at his RfA without providing any links or references to the involved parties.

It is very inappropriate to bring up disputes from other Wikipedias without providing a single reference, link or even a bare-bones summary for the vast majority of users who do not speak Swedish. For the record, the dispute brought up by you was between Wiglaf and the user 213.101 concering the articles götar and svear, and the offending party was hardly Wiglaf (even if I agree it would've been ideal if he was a bit more patient). In my experience, 213 is a user who frequently resorts to original research to support his edits and who's inability to see his own blatant POV as anything but the truth is only matched by his unprecented stubborness and lack of civility, and after reading the relevant talkpages I can assure you that this debate was no exception. Wiglaf's competence, his comments on source material and overall academic judgement widely surpasses anything mustered by either 213 or you.

Wiglaf was absolutely right to point out that you behaved inappropriate in protecting an article you yourself had obvious designs on. Admins have been RfC:d for much lesser offenses here at English Wikipedia and I know this is not the first time you have violated the expected neutrality of adminship. Just the fact that you supported 213 in this case (but failed to mention it in the RfA) seems to me as reason enough to seriously question your competence. That you do not have a better grasp of the principles of Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability or even Wikipedia:NPOV is very disturbing and I am very distressed that an elected bureacurat like yourself does not possess better judgement.

What's worst of all is that you did not even manage to get your statement of what Wiglaf said correct. Amatörforskning does not translate to the subtly pejorative "amateur historian". This is blatantly obvious from the context since it was clearly meant as a Swedish translation of original research. Try to keep in mind that even though Swedish Wikipedia is a highly disfunctional and xenophobic wiki where old-timers and admins get away with truly stunning displays of incivility and POV pushing, it is not considered acceptable behavior here at the English Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Efter att Vigleif bad om ursäkt känns hela saken utagerad. Den 18 maj kallad Vigleif IP för "amatörforskare" [4]. Thuresson 09:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: After Vigleif [Wiglaf's user name on sv] apologized I consider this a moot point. On May 18th Vigleif called IP an "amateur scholar" [5].

Please respond in English if contacted in English. I consider this to be a public issue, especially with your recent promotion as a bureaucrat as well as being a long-time admin and an experienced wikipedian. If I had wanted this to be between you and me I would've simply e-mailed the complaint.

I apparantly missed that particular comment, but only because it was Vigleif's final announcement on his user page that he had given up on Swedish Wikipedia for good. This is still after you had blatantly abused your admin privs to meddle in a debate you were partial to and had little or no competence to comment on. And the fact remains that you supported IP, a very uncivil and obstructive user who has succeeded in scaring off a competent and able editor, and you helped him do it. I assume this is not the first or last time either. I sincerely hope you apply better judgement and show more humility in subjects you know little about when discussing and editing here on English Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You petty idiot

Discussion below is about Image:Thermal Equator.jpg

It's people like you who ruin wikipedia. I go to the trouble of tracking down an image and sticklers for rules no one cares about like you think it's better to have a blank space instead.

Why not draw up a computerised version yourself or find a free equivalent instead of trying to have it deleted. - Diceman 15:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I should speak out when I see attacks like this.

Thuresson was in his full right to list an obviously copyrighted image for deletion. If he hadn't, someone else would have.

--Fred-Chess 18:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you can predict the future? The problem is I intended it to be used once on a fringe article only, due to the lack of free climate maps it's been used on a number of more popular articles. I don't like the whole mentality of "there's a one in a million chance someone might possibly not want an image they have copyright on used here. Let's delete it immediately and with prejudice!". My issue is when does following the voluntarily enforced guidelines harm wikipedia more than it helps it? - Diceman 11:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no excuse for blatant personal attacks and pure insults, Diceman. Ever. Copyright infringements are one of the all-out rules that are simply non-negotiable and one should not be treated to insults because of trying to uphold these principles. Please consider removing your comments or at least rephrasing it. Your aggressive and uncivil behavior is just as harmful to Wikipedia as the things you accuse Thuresson of.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Diceman, you could have tagged it Fair use. I did it for you yesterday. --Fred-Chess 14:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Fred C and Karmosin. The problem with tagging images PD when they're not is that such images eventually turn up at WikiCommons, just like this one did. Scanning an image from a book and then claiming it is public domain is... misleading. Thuresson 15:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess it was the straw that broke the camel's back, I've been civil in previous conflicts but I was fed up of being objective and polite while the other person got their way anyway. The manner in which Thuresson tried to have the image deleted wasn't terribly mature or diplomatic I might add (no explanation except a template on my talk page and "This image is not public domain. User:Diceman has confessed that he/she scanned the image from a book. See en:User talk:Diceman#Image:Thermal Equator.jpg." on the image page). If I do scan anything without any clear copyright in the future (which is unlikely) I'll be sure to add the appropriate source info and tag.- Diceman 14:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gemensam notice board for Swedish people

Hej hej.

I am doing a promotional tour for the Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board. The purpose of this is to have a common place for ideas and suggestions regarding Swedish things. If you are interested, you can sign your name, and add / modify material to how you think would serve the purpose.

--Fred-Chess 10:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ego.jpg

I understand your concern and am thankful that you are doing your best to ensure wikipedia works well and has as few problems as is possible, but, regarding this photo, I have express permission from a band member. If that is not enough, i will endevour to gain permission from the photographer, whom i know personally. Regards, Andrew Graham

Note to others: user's first version of this polite and well-written verse was: Idiot. Why in the world did you delete my image of Ego.jpg from the commons? I had express permission to use the image from a member of the band featured in the photo. You my friend are nothing but a petty moron. Go and please fornicate yourself, for want of no better words.

Sir, I apologise for my uncivil language before, but i have altered it somewhat. I also apologise for not having clarified the fact that i had permission to use this image, and will do so in the future. Thanks for your help.

P.s. I Fully deserve the mocking above, hahaha.

Che Guevara photo

Sorry for the delay in response. I added it as it might be a good idea to include an example of it in use via an image, although the lack of space could be a problem. As i'm not really following the article, whether any such photo is included doesn't concern me much. Hedley 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RIG-G172

thanks for watching out. The source copyright claim is just that, a claim: it is my understanding that images of ancient inscriptions (this one is aged some 2000 years) are fair game as per Template:PD-art. If I am mistaken (ianal), I am happy to move the image to en:, supplying an {{fairuseunsure}} tag. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that US courts allow reproductions of 2D works of art who are public domain. This stone tablet is 3D and (arguably) not a work of art. It is thus protected by copyright just like a photo of old an building, old statues or old nature. Thuresson 16:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ok, look, I'll move it to en. I don't see how a stone tablet is any more 3D than any painting, since the area of interest, the inscribed face, is "2D" as much as layers of paint are 2D. dab (ᛏ) 16:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the image again, sorry. It seems Gippert just scanned it from his source, Recueil des inscriptions galloises, vol. I: Textes gallo-grecs, ed. Michel Lejeune, Paris 1985. So his own copyright notice is irrelevant to this, and he is implicitly claiming fair use. The question remains however, if the image is copyrightable, if so, the copyright would be with Lejeune's publishers (or the photographer). I do tend to believe however, that this image is not copyrightable. dab (ᛏ) 10:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your recent removal of the image from Aleksandr Danilovich Aleksandrov

I wonder if you are the appropriate address to write this to, or should I put a suggestion to some wider forum about commons images deletion process current practices. You've followed the letter of the process of the image deletion, but in reality I didn't see what is going on until you have had the deletion affirmed, since I don't frequent the commons and don't have a watchlist there. (At the present time, I am a bit busy with my studies and keep a low WP profile, so I only occasionally poll the en.wikipedia). I dare say that this is the normal mode of operation of a lot of contributors to a single-language WP --- they don't monitor more than a single watchlist. Therefore, IMHO, to keep to the spirit of the peer review, you should have left a notice on the using ARTICLE'S talk page, or on my user page. In that case, I would have gladly commented your deletion request with the following: the image in question was tagged PD with a reference to a discussion on the WP Mathematics, in which several people in the know had confirmed the credibility of the PD claim. In the worst case, the tagging should have been PD-Soviet rather than PD, but this is hardly grounds to deletion. In the commons deletion logs, I see no discussion following your request, furthermore, I don't see how you explain why the above should be ignored, yet you've been granted the deletion. Thanks for watching out for dubious PD claims, but please follow up deeper next time. It would be great if you could kindly ask for the undeletion yourself — I've got no experience in this process. BACbKA 29 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)

DaTroll requested the deletion and notified BACbKA of this request on June 20. I assume that is your user page. The St. Andrews legal claim is problematic, especially their claim: However, if you wish to use them in any other way -- in "paper" publishing or on a CD for example -- we cannot guarantee that there may not be outstanding copyright problems..

All images on WikiCommons need a copyright license and a source who can verify the copyright - St. Andrews can not. Thuresson 30 June 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Legalise Cannabis Alliance Emblem

Just wondering about the deletion of this image. Why? (I know who it was in the LCA who put it in to Wikipedia).

Laurel Bush 7 July 2005 09:42 (UTC).

This logo was uploaded to WikiCommons by User:AlunB3 on March 11, without a copyright license. User was notified on June 25 that the image could be deleted without a proper copyright tag. Image was deleted by myself yesterday. Thuresson 7 July 2005 09:50 (UTC)

And what would be a proper copyright tag? I imagine I should be able to arrange that one, if I know what I am looking for. The image was created by the LCA and I know AlunB3 to be a prominent member of the same. (Sorry, I dont have much experience working with images.)

Laurel Bush 7 July 2005 10:06 (UTC).

All images at WikiCommons need to have a proper copyright tag and, if the uploader do not own the copyright, a source who can verify that this is correct. The very least one can do is add "I made this and I put it into the public domain". More details available at Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 7 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Prosthetic limbs photo

I found the image on the U.S. Army's photo archive, and have uploaded it to the Commons with source information (My commons contributions). Hope that helps, and best of luck to you. Yours, Meelar (talk) 15:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that saved me a lot of time! Thuresson

Söderköping and Norrköping pictures

Very nice pictures on Wikipedia Commons, Th.

I have added some of them to Söderköping and Norrköping (and expanded the text of the former a little). I don't know how to note the fact on Wp Commons, though. Would registering there enable me to do that? Tack så mycket in advance. -- Picapica 20:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Söderköping is a nice little town, me and my camera wad there last week and had an ice cream at the canal. About WikiCommons, you only need to register if you want to upload things, if you want to edit or change things you can go right ahead. Of course, registering is warmly recommended anyway. Thuresson 20:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Betulapendula2web.jpg

This image can be deleted. I've uploaded quite a number of photos from the website of the university of Leuven, Belgium when the non-commercial tag was still authorised. It's a pity for the beautiful pictures, but it can't be helped. So you can delete this picture. JoJan 14:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maskhadov bild

http://www.chechnya-mfa.info/bio/president.htm Härifrån. Linken bör synas också bland de andra sodana för att läsa mera i den själva Maskhadov artikeln. I fall att du vil väta eller diskutera mera om den här saken, Tjetjenien ochså vidare, var vänlig och välj mellan engelskan och svenskan, när jag inte är en medlem där på den svenska versionen.--BIR 05:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Och vidare, förstår jag din åsikt här på WikiCommons fullkomligt. Men när det konstaterar om sodana statliga figurer som flaggor, presidentter osv. vilka befinner sig i officiella sammanhang, som ovanstående linken är utan tvivel, man bör använda bilder och även texter ganska frit.

Men eller om du hade någon tvivel mera, var vänlig och kontakta Tjejenska utrikesministeriets sida och de anstälda dig självt. En annan sak är att hittills ingen stat osv. har erkänt Tjetjenien på ett internationell sätt... Kortt sagt, i detta avseende var och än bör använda dessa material såsom man vill.

I alla fall erkännar jag kunde ha väljt en annan "tag" av en mera passande typ från de talrika alternativ på WikiCopyRights listan. Kunde du föreslå en sådan?--BIR 08:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright status - suggestion required

Sir, You have removed the Emblem of Ramakrishna Mission as no information regarding copyright status was mentioned. It was me who had uploaded the image, and i was not able to give more info on copyright status as i did not know about it. I am no legal expert. Please let me know what copyright tag needs to be put to pictures which are available on books which have copyrights etc. or the pictures from the individual's collections which have been scanned. In india, copyright status in not very well known. For example, i have asked many members of the mission about the emblem. While the members gave me oral permission to use it, they were not aware who was the competant authority to issue such status - as the emblem is widely used without any restriction etc.What tag need to be put if i want to imply that the image carries religious sentiments and hence should not be used for purely commercial purposes or should not be tampered with ? Thanks !! Ramashray 06:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help you. I suggest that you upload this to English Wikipedia, NOT the image repository WikiCommons. In the accompanying information box you add {{fair use}} and the same thing you wrote me about respecting religious sentiments etcetera. Thuresson 14:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The permission

Greetings,

The "permission" letter has nothing to do with soccer (football). I cant read the middle two lines, since it is microscopic in scale. But what I can read is that it is indeed a document relating to Alvand Plastic about approving some sort of "160mm Polyethylene" hardware tool or machinery used in farming. The letter mentions nothing about pictures, soccer players, newspapers, or anything of that sort. The 3 signatures belong to agriculture, and soil mechanics authorities.

Mr. Hadi is simply trying to fool you. That is my judgement.

Regards, --Zereshk 06:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:500KMF obverse.jpg

Why did you mark this image as having an unknown copywright status? I stated that I scanned the bill myself. SDC 16:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bellefontaine, Ohio

You deleted the image depicting the city seal for Bellefontaine, Ohio. That was, and is, in the public domain, as it is the emblem of a governmental agency in the United States. In the future, if you have a dispute concerning the copyright of an image, for crying out loud PLEASE use the "talk" area. That's bloody well what it's there for. -- SwissCelt 02:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just got your message. That'll teach me to check for messages on the Commons every now and then, rather than just the English Wikipedia. Cheers, and I apologize. (By the way, I just uploaded the image to the English Wikipedia, where I understand there won't be any copyright issues.) -- SwissCelt 02:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Autumn" image no longer an orphan

Please do not delete this image. We need more old fine art, not less. JDG 17:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lulworth Cove

Two years ago, when I was first asked about this image I emailed Ian West whose website I'd taken it from about it, and he told me it was PD/copyleft. The image was apparently only tagged because somebody attaches a far too specific definition to "copyleft". I don't archive email and I really don't care about the photo, so if you want more info you'll have to email Ian West [6]. Joe D (t) 21:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Koenigsegg-CCR-'04.jpg

A friend of mine shot the picture at an autoshow... I didn't put it as I shot it myself since I didn't do so and was a bit stuck as to which notice I should've applied for it. Diego440

Stasi photos you want to delete

Suggest you take a break from your rampage and look here Have a nice day.--Fahrenheit451 21:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Image:Newmellewatertower.jpg

Fixed the copyright issue. I suggest that you inform people on their english page besides just their commons site, cause I know that I personally never check the commons. --jcarkeys 02:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Most of these people are probably not users of English Wikipedia, but the Spanish or French version. Thuresson

Image:Betulapendula1web.jpg

This is probably one of the last non-commercial photos left that I've uploaded when this was still allowed. You can remove this photo, because there is no way the copyright holder will change his position. JoJan 19:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ParlTriangle.JPG

I have added copyright an source data. You might want to chack that I have included everything I need to and not left anything out. I'll let you remove the deletion request templates if you are happy with it. Adz 02:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Image:The Scream.jpg

I think you may be mistaken about the copyright status of "The Scream", which I noticed you marked as copyrighted, fair use. I believe to it be in the public domain under U.S. law: please see the flow chart at [7], from the website of U.S IP lawyers Bromberg & Sunstein LLP. -- Karada 16:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I made the following assumptions: Since Edvard Munck is a Norwegian artist I assume that Norwegian copyright law is relevant. Munck has not been dead for 70 years, hence his works are protected by copyright. Thuresson 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Wikipedia Foundation is based in Florida, I would assume that Florida law is most likely to apply. In your comment on my talk page, you suggest (as I understand it) that binding treaties exist for countries to respect one another's copyright laws, and that these act to establish the most restrictive copyright terms possible in all jurisdictions. As far as I am aware, this is not the case. If it is, could you please give me some references to the applicable treaties, laws, or terms in the copyright conventions which have this effect? -- Karada 22:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind was the Uruguay Round Agreement Act signed by president Clinton in 1994 that restored copyright to foreign works that were in the public domain in the United States. Now that I have had reason to study the act again I must admit that The Scream is too old to be protected since more than 95 years has passed since the painting was painted.

The United States Copyright Office has published a circular that explains what the act means: copyright.gov. My understanding is that foreign works created in 1910 or later may be protected. I have also changed the tag at Image:The Scream.jpg (Munck has not been dead for 100 years) to {{PD-art-US}}.

Thuresson 06:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

I, paul klenk, hereby award this **Babel Barnstar for Translation** to **Thuresson** for his excellent work and kind attention translating my Swedish user page from English to svenska. Oct. 2, 2005

Thuresson, it was very kind of you to translate my page! Thanks for your help. I couldn't read your Swedish talk page, but as it was blank, I supposed you might use an English page instead.

If you look at my English user page, you will see that a remarkable number of my fifteen non-en wikis have been translated in just over two days.

Please do let me know if I may return the favor; I am available to you at any time.

Kind regards,

paul klenk ^talk 20:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image source/licensing for Image:Buddhist monastery.jpg

The image you uploaded, Image:Buddhist monastery.jpg, has no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 13:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your bot is playing up

Sorry, the bot is rather still experimental. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me to provide the source.

I've already provided the correct source for Byron Long. user:HansChung

I provided myself as the source where appropriate and will try to document the other cases accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. -Widosu 07:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image:Mariev.jpg

Oops! Thanks for the heads up. It's not unprotected. Sasquatch 21:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the David Crutcher sound file

I am extreamly dissapointed you did that, I provided everything in regards to where that came from, who to contact about permissions to use that, and how it was made, and why I put it up there and the value of the subject matter to the article. There was no reason to delete that. And I was ignored at every turn. If you delete my sound file then you should delete every sound file. --Cloveious 15:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Galaxy.m74.arp.750pix.jpg

Hi, you uploaded this photo in 2003. Later, it has been uploaded to WikiCommons. One user at WikiCommons claims that it is not public domain and that the copyright owner only allows non-commercial use. Feel free to leave any comments you might have at the image talk page.

Thanks for your question. Unfortunately that user is correct about it being non-commercial use. At that time I was fresh to WP and had no idea such images could not be used. I have put dozens of astronomical pics onto WP so there may be many more. So I guess it has to be deleted. - Adrian Pingstone 09:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Thanks for letting me know; this image has been used in Hack (technology slang) since I uploaded it. --SPUI (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katanga flag image

Regarding Image:Flag katanga large.png — I'm not quite sure what the current copyright tag means, since I'm not the one who put it there. I'm the one who created the image, and as far as my permission is involved, the image is released to the public domain, although there might be other legal issues regarding flags as well. -- Vardion 07:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haring (and other peoples') artworks

How in the world did you arrive at the conclusion that Image:Keith_Haring_-_Untitled.jpg is unlikely to be licensed under the GFDL? I took the picture, released it under the GFDL, provided an accurate description. That's all there is to it. I have also uploaded pictures of paintings and silkscreens by Warhol, Lichtenstein and other artists. I have access to originals of all those artworks and don't see a reason why taking pictures of them and adding them to Wikipedia would be a violation. I think it's fair use in Wikipedia's case, and of course I should have tagged it as such... Mstroeck 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL is not fair use. You can not license other people's work at a license of your choice. The copyright to Haring, Warhol and Liechtenstein's work are actually owned by somebody. Only the copyright owner can license the works under GFDL. Thuresson 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UBB logo

Hi Thuresson, I have seen that you deleted the UBB logo from WIkiCommons (UBB_logo.gif). To be honest, I do not fully understand the reason behind this action. I would like to have this logo back in two articles, namely Babes-Bolyai University and its Romanian version. The gif file is from the University's official webpage and it is a logo. I have initially specified that the image is a logo, (by including the logo format), but apparently that was not enough. My question is what should I do in order to upload the image to WikiCommons. Should I follow the Univ. of Cambridge shield example (GFDL+a fair use notice) or the Univ. of Oxford example (the logo format, without GFDL)? --Alex 19:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Commons:Licensing you'll see that WikiCommons accepts neither fair use images or logos. The reason is that companies, organizations and institutions usually are very careful about who can use their logos and do not allow others to use their logo for any reason and any purpose. If you can clearly show that the university indeed does allow this, I suggest you upload the image again with an explanation and use the tag {{Attribution}}. Thuresson 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am still missing something. Why would I need to include the {{Attribution}} tag? If you have a look at the University of Cambridge crest from WikiCommons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cambridge_University_Crest_-_flat.png) you can see that it has a GFDL licence. In that case it was taken from the English Wikipedia, where it was uploaded from the University of Cambridge official website and was attributed a GFDL licence with the addition of a fair use notice. I cannot see why I could not use the same procedure for the UBB crest? Or is the Univ. of Cambridge crest going to be deleted as well? --Alex 20:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't really know much about English Wikipedia or can answer about English Wikipedia's image policy. The Cambridge university seal is from the 16th century, hence not protected by copyright law. If you want to upload a university seal you should make sure that it is either released by the copyright owner under a free license or is old enough not to be protected by copyright. Thuresson 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COA of DRC

hi Thuresson,
I reverted to Image:ArmsDRCbig.gif which is a scan of the real COA. The one you put is somebody's artwork from the few sentences discribing the COA in the constitution of the transition. It's purely somebody's interpretation not the actualy COA being used by governement officials.---moyogo 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien/Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration

13:19, 28 October 2005 Thuresson (Image deleted from WikiCommons, no license) - Sorry, thanks for the clean-up of the killed picture link. However, someone killed my pictures without even asking. Instead of a text edit, I now have to upload the pics again. They should have informed me ... but it's neither your problem nor your responsibility. So sorry to bother you. Cheers JCB, 18.12.05

Images with unsure copyright status

Would you mind confirming a copyright status for these three images below? Adnghiem501 07:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on User talk:RachelBrown#Image:Karl Pearson.gif

I thought it pertinent to note that the above user has left Wikipedia for good, and that they will never return, especially given the (ridiculous) indefinite bans of sock puppeting against other users claiming that they were all RachelBrown in disguise. If you are interested in what happened, I have compiled a page to document the events here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Suffice to say that RachelBrown won't be answering your query. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hero of the USSR

Where did you see any "Ad hominem"? This was indeed a criticism but nothing even close to an attack. Be careful with accusing others in attacking you when they simply critisize your action.

Please see the rest of my response here. --Irpen 08:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Swedish provinces

Riksarkivet has recently explained they have copyirhgt of the coat of arms (e.g. here). I've created some of my owns, (See sv:Landskapsvapen) and intend to upload them to replace the current. Just checking if you have any objections? / Fred-Chess 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Thuresson/Archive1