User talk:Zirland

/Archive1 | /Archive2 | /Archive3 | /Archive4 | /Archive5

---

Dupes

Hi Zirland,
were you aware that File:Dürer10.jpg, the other Dürer b/w image and File:Bibliothèque nationale de France night.jpg were not really duplicates as claimed? Therefore I had just started converting the wrong dupe-speedies into rfd (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bibliothèque nationale de France night.jpg, when you started deleting them. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Should I wait now, or something? Let me know when to continue deletin--Zajac Vanka (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)g. --Zirland (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they would have been (likely) deleted anyway. Only as of our policy we have to go the long way in such cases. Therefore I don't take the requesters claim of duplicate or badname for granted, but check myself, if it's really a bit-by-bit duplicate. So, go on. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Superseded

Looks like you deleted File:Dgrd abi.noe.jpg. as a dupe? Are you aware of Commons:Superseded images policy? Multichill (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... I was not aware of the policy. Every day you find something new. Thanks for notice. --Zirland (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

File:WarrenCuccurullo.jpg

Thanks for deleting the image. Could you also delete the talk page? Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Hunting Moa.jpg

Please undelete File:Hunting Moa.jpg it is not an exact duplicate of File:Hunting Moa - rotated.jpg, it is the source image, and was subsequently rotated and colour edited etc (as per description page File:Hunting Moa - rotated.jpg). Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to reply to this request? --Tony Wills (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I haven't read your request. --Zirland (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought you might have missed it :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File naming

Are you aware that using the camera generated filenames is a very bad naming scheme for your files? There is a proposed naming standard here.

File:P4120024.JPG
File:P4120018.JPG
File:P4120038.JPG
File:P4120037.JPG
File:P4120036.JPG
File:P4120035.JPG
File:P4120033.JPG
File:P4120032.JPG
File:P4120031.JPG
File:P4120030.JPG
File:P4120028.JPG
File:P4120027.JPG
File:P4120026.JPG
File:P4120025.JPG
File:P4120023.JPG
File:P4120020.JPG
File:P4120019.JPG
File:P4120017.JPG
File:P4120016.JPG
File:P4120015.JPG
File:P4120014.JPG
File:P4120013.JPG
File:P4120012.JPG
File:P4120009.JPG
File:P4120008.JPG

For animals and plants I suggest using the common name and some sequence number. Others use the scientific name, but these seem to change too often as species are recategorized into different genus categories. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware, that it is bad scheme, but you can't use common name or scientific name, unless you recognize the animal. --Zirland (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok :-). Yes I see that only a few are identified. What I usually do is just upload a descriptive name, say "Black and white Papilionidae 01.jpg". Which is still a useful name, and does not really need to be renamed even if the butterfly is later identified. Of course it might not ever be able to be identified just from a photo. It would also help people identify them if the description said where they were taken :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Moja grafika

Witaj, dlaczego usunąłeś moją grafikę File:POLONEZ 1500 słubice.JPG ? Jest to moja praca i licencję podałem "zrzeczenie się praw autorskich". FSO rozmowy kontrolowane 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Zirland. There's no such law in Poland, so this is not a basis for file deletion --Leafnode 13:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

When I reviewed the request ... I agree there was false request. Sorry for any inconvenience.--Zirland (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Dubček (foto).jpg

Hi!, The OTRS ticket was valid. Could you please help to get it restored? --Jyothis (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello :) Could you explain why this ticket was considered invalid? --Leafnode✉ 12:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks, this was a complete fake made by User:Fredy.00 who's now blocked indefinitely for constant uploading of copyright violations. This guy has sent multiple fake e-mails like this to the OTRS. --Mercy (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification :) --Leafnode✉ 13:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for correcting me. I just assumed good faith. I am closing ticket now. --Jyothis (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Freddy was blocked indefinitely? I don't think so!!! He has just uploaded the same pic again und the new name "Dubček - fair use.jpg". The only person on earth thinking that this pic is under "fair use" is Freddy himself.--84.153.200.59 21:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you provide us with a link to such a file? --Mercy (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, here is it, but I just see that he uploaded it not to Wikikcommomns, but to the English wikipedia.--84.153.200.59 23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, English Wikipedia allows usage of the Fair Use images... --Mercy (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but IS it a fair use image?--84.153.218.207 17:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the conditions outlined in en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, it can be... --Mercy (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Map_of_Ethnic_Groups_in_Afghanistan,_by_district.svg

Hi, can you please help out here. Thanks!--Officer (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Slobod gospod.jpg

Hi, please delete it once again, he uploaded it over again.--Shakko (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:World_War_II_by_country

I noticed several replacements of category:Country during World War II to category:Country in World War II before 2 week period of discussions promised by the move template used. Please pause in that effort until discussion at Commons:Village_pump#Category:World_War_II_by_country is resolved. --Jarekt (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK.--Zirland (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Hibla 188.jpg

Hi Zirland,

I was just wondering, why there was a place in the notice for deletion where one could object? and then the file was deleted without any reply? ...

I'm new to Wiki, so it'd be good to know which comments are being replied to and which neglected.

Thank you NKuprava (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting duplicates

Hello, I appreciate that you delete images from the heavy backlog of duplicates, but please make sure that you use CheckUsage before deleting them. If they're still linked, please add {{universal replace|old_image.ext|new_image.ext|reason=Exact or scaled-down duplicate}} to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. You have unlinked some images that shouldn't have been unlinked, please look here and here to see where. I'd be happy if you could restore the image links. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not know, what do you mean. I delete duplicates only when already unlinked. Do you have any specific case? --Zirland (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Please see COM:UNDEL#Podolská. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Horváthová

Příště buďte tak laskav a napřed mě informujte, než začnete neoprávněně mazat fotografie z commons. Fotografie paní J. H. mi byla s ústním i písemným svolením dána k dispozici. Zde je email na paní J. H. jessica@cinejessy.cz, kde se můžete osobně informovat, nebo mi dejte email a já Vám přepošlu korespondenci s paní J. H. To samé platí s pan Fröhlichem a panem Hernou, tyto dvě fotografie byli vytvořeny v říjnu tohoto roku a na obě vlastním ústní i písemný souhlas dotyčných osob.--Cassius Chaerea (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Souhlas zašlete do OTRS. --Zirland (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted imagery

Hi. You (I think) deleted some imagery under a speedy clause without notification, under erroneous claim "no license". Whereas I understand the derived copyright claim is the current grievance that such images are now under deletion request, I'd appreciate it if you could have the images restored long enough for me to transfer them elsewhere: File:Château de Pez 1975 detail.JPG, File:Cos d'Estournel 66 detail.JPG. Thanks, Murgh (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:K Mark IIIA RFM 10208 Andy Hamilton First Class.JPG

Could you consider restoring this image? There seems to be a suggestion from CrossHouses (talk · contribs) that the person in the photo "does not wish his image to be posted on any non Chiltern Railways sites". I don't think speedy deletion was appropriate in this case though. I don't see there to be a privacy issue here. Mr Hamilton is the Managing Director of Wrexham & Shropshire and doesn't seem to have a problem with being identified on their website. I think the legitimate public interest in this company and so, the educational value of an image of its MD, outweighs a personal preference as to where an image of him appears. It would also be preferable to have something more solid than just a comment from CrossHouses about this. Could you restore this image please? If you, or anyone else still believes it should be deleted then I think it would be appropriate to discuss this in a deletion request. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked that this image be restored. Adambro (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. --Zirland (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:K Mark IIIA RFM 10208 Andy Hamilton First Class.JPG

Thank you for deleting this image. Andy is grateful. CrossHouses (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-vs-Britannica_Lidove_Noviny_161205.jpg

File:Wikipedia-vs-Britannica_Lidove_Noviny_161205.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!

Man vyi (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

File:MonteSibilla.jpg

Hi, you deleted the image MonteSibilla which is under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license (see my discussion with MGA73): could you please tell me more about your reasons? Pietro (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You deleted 3 out of 6 images nominated for deletion ...

... so why not close the DR [1]? --MGA73 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Same with this DR Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Wikipedia/Picasa Web Albums user Poetas. --MGA73 (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion because of "no license"

Hi! You deleted a bunch of file with this reason:

• 21:52, 20 March 2010 Zirland (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:GroenLinksfractie2006.JPG" ‎ (In category Copyright violations; no license) (view/restore)

That is not the best reason since the file(s) did have a license.

The problem with the file mentioned above (and probably many of the others) was that file was both on Commons and Picasa and license on Picasa was unfree. In some cases the uploader claimed own work and if it is own work it is not a problem that license on Picasa is unfree.

I checked license for many of the images in that category and my plan was to contact uploaders or Picasa users once all images of that uploader/user was checked. If it that did not help or if it was not clear that it was own work or if any permission mentioned or claimed was not valid, then I would nominate images for deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent file deletions

You recently deleted the following files:

• File:Arminius Hotel corner detail - Portland Oregon.jpg
• File:Arminius Hotel detail - Portland Oregon.jpg
• File:Charles F Berg Buidling facade detail 1 - Portland Oregon.jpg
• File:Charles F Berg Buidling facade detail 2 - Portland Oregon.jpg
• File:Charles F Berg Buidling facade detail 3 - Portland Oregon.jpg
• File:Charles F Berg Buidling facade overview 2 - Portland Oregon.jpg
• File:Charles F Berg Buidling sign detail - Portland Oregon.jpg
• File:Commodore Hotel - Portland Oregon.jpg
• File:Cotillion Hall - Portland Oregon.jpg

When you did so, did you take note of the ongoing deletion discussion regarding the licensing status of these images? While my personal inclination is for deletion, other members of the community believe that the images are validly licensed, and that the Picasa Web Albums review process that tagged them as licensing violations did not take full account of the complications in when the copyright holder granted which licenses. —Werewombat (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

BSicon KRWr+r.svg

I noticed you deleted this file, it was not a duplicate and it is used on a lot of pages. Wiebevl (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Will you please look at your user talk?

And perhaps answer some of the questions other users leave to you? If you do not answer we do not know if you have read the messages. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of scope?

Tohle se mi právě dostalo pod nos. Dost to zavání "Out of Scope". Co z toho něco promazat? --Aktron (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A nebo všechno...--Zirland (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for deleting my images taken on Deutsche Bahn property. It is a pity that Deutsche Bahn requested the deletion of another image I took (with Berlin central station and an ICE) which forced me to file deletion requests for my other railway images. When I have time I'll test a new image and ask for Wikimedia permission before uploading. Let's see what will happen then. Cheers Jochen

It is always sad when you must delete such images, but what can we done. Thank you for your effort with nriching Wikimedia Commons. --Zirland (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove MY art?

The follow art, produced by me has been deleted under the false accusation that it violates a Trade Mark. It does not! The are all works of art produced by me and protected as such under Swedish and EU Copyright protection laws. Deletion is a violation of this right and I therefore urge you to undelete and restore the images to the Commons and to their place on Wikipedia.

1. (nuvarande | föregående) 28 april 2010 kl. 12.16 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Bidrag) m (9 487 byte) ("Rotact2.gif" tas bort då den raderats från Commons av Zirland med motiveringen: In category Other speedy deletions; no license.) (gör ogjord)
2. (nuvarande | föregående) 28 april 2010 kl. 12.15 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Bidrag) m (9 539 byte) ("Newyellow200.jpg" tas bort då den raderats från Commons av Zirland med motiveringen: In category Other speedy deletions; no license.) (gör ogjord)
3. (nuvarande | föregående) 28 april 2010 kl. 12.15 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Bidrag) m (9 608 byte) ("Rye200.jpg" tas bort då den raderats från Commons av Zirland med motiveringen: In category Other speedy deletions; no license.) (gör ogjord)
4. (nuvarande | föregående) 28 april 2010 kl. 12.15 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Bidrag) m (9 672 byte) ("Rf200.jpg" tas bort då den raderats från Commons av Zirland med motiveringen: In category Other speedy deletions; no license.) (gör ogjord)

Tordelf (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion cannot be done, because the images fail to comply with Commons License policy.

Permission to freely use the graphics in this library for noncommercial purposes is granted to all Rotary Clubs and Rotary International. Permission is granted on the sole basis that the source is mentioned in a credit line. Failure to comply with the above is regarded as a dishonest act and a mention of this can be made public. ANY AND ALL COMMERCIAL USAGE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS LIBRARY REQUIRES PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION.

--Zirland (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

-- TordelfDo you think you are clever by quoting me? Way can't I use my own art to illustrate if I choose to? Tordelf (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

-- Tordelf If you require permission in writing, here goes. I, Tord Elfwendahl, allow Tord Elfwendahl without limitations, to use my art to illustrate the Wikipedia article on Rotaray International. Sufficent? Tordelf (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. As you've already been told, anyone should have the right to use these images for any purpose, not just Wikipedia for a specific article. Permission to do so should be sent to OTRS. –Tryphon^☂ 11:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yucatán

Tohle docela smrdí imageviem... Nemá to o sobě žádné informace. --Aktron (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Imagevio

Žeby další? --Aktron (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Vy nás ale zásobujete, pane Karfík... --Zirland (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

著作権の侵害？

こんにちは、Zirland　様
Bn hosoike140.jpg
Bn hosoike200.jpg
Bn hosoike350.jpgが削除されました。

Template:Copyvionote/en に
『もし著作権を侵害していないと確信している場合は、

その理由を ファイルの説明ページに記入してください。』
と書いてあるので、

下記の様に説明ページに記入しました。

削除依頼に対する意見書

本画像は自分で作成をしたものです。
指摘を受けている、minamiaizu.vs.land.toは、
私が、制作、管理をしているサイトです。

本日、2010-05-07　01：10　JST
　 トップページに、
『　Wikimedia Commons images provided by PD　』と、

明記いたしました。

はじめての物で、良く解らず、お手数をおかけいたしますが、

著作権には、抵触していないのでは、無いかと、考えます。

また、permissions-commons＠wikimedia.orgに、

メールで著作権保有者の許可を依頼しております。

2010-05-07　09：12　JST　　Minamiaizu2

と、書きました。

私は著作権には、抵触して居ないと確信しています。
なぜ、削除されたのか、 教えて下さい。

--Minamiaizu2 (talk)2010-05-07　20：20　JST

---

PN Junction gif image

Hello ,

 I saw you deleted the PN Junction image file.
 Did you read the talk page before deletion? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Pn_band_v3.gif
 Please let me know if you have a reply.

thanks Beatnik8983

Questionable deletions

I see you deleted a large number of patent images claiming "In category Other speedy deletions; no license". These images were all tagged with {{PD-US-patent-no notice}}, which seems to still be a valid PD license tag despite someone screwing around with it recently so it no longer displays on the template page. Please review your deletions, and also review any damage CommonsDelinker may have caused. Thanks. Anomie (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The text and illustrations of US patents are in the public domain unless the patent text contains a specific notice that portions are copyrighted.[2][3] [4] The original patent contains no such notice, so its contents are in the public domain.

Source of info?

Hi, please add the source of the information of File:Baptists in Europe.svg to the image description page. —Angr 15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I just redrawed previous image from cs.wikipedia. Searching in tha deletion archives I just realized it was unsourced then. Probably original research. --Zirland (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Kirchhoff, Hans Georg - Vortrag am 2006-03-09-1.jpg

Could you explain me this??? We are the copyright-holder. Yours --Michael Reschke (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All right reserved. License is not compatible with Commons. --Zirland (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting redirects

Hi Zirland, You deleted some of the redirects I left after renaming images. Please could you comment on the discussion at Commons_talk:File_renaming#File_redirects, because you evidently do not agree with the current opinions there. Cheers, 99of9 (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK no problem. I was not aware of the discussion.--Zirland (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Si3N4rotor.jpg

You have deleted that file from Commons. Could you help me with the following: (i) get the url link for the source of the image (ii) briefly explain why it as deleted - as I recall it was a NASA image, but I don't remember what was in the image description file and haven't got a chance to see what was wrong. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

[5] Probable copyvio, credited to AlliedSignal Ceramic Components, Torrance, Calif. --99of9 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Stolen range maps

Hi, Zirland. You have removed a picture File:Chinese Pangolin range map.png. If it is possible, remove other IUCN'range maps from the contribution of the blocked ru-wiki user. To me laziness to put down references on IUCN on each page :) Ю. Данилевский (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:G20_world_leaders.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-20_major_economies This image was deleted. I am PISSED! This is not fair.

I understand that I don't own this image. But I did invest a lot of time and do oww the original tears and sweat that went to it. For every delete you make, subjectively and like a dictator, it has a human consequence. How dare you. Seriously. Why not show the courtesy and notify the author and have a respectful conversation? I find this whole going around deleting really offensive and elitest. Thanks a lot guys for making Wikipedia suck and blocking something that really could of contributed to the common good.

Wikipedia is the most frustrating thing ever and I absolute hate some of these things. HATE IT!:

1. I spend approx 5+ hours working on something like this image and then someone just swoops it and deletes it. What gives you the right to do this? This was an honest piece of work. No one made you the delete boss. How would you like it if I went and deleted all your work. Wikipedia is SO elitest. Yuck.

2. I should be notified to any changes and especially DELETES that are made to MY work.

3. I am extremely upset that the "deletion debate" happened and I was not involved. This is the most attrocious thing ever. Like a court case where the defendant and his lawyer are not present. I should of been automatically notified.

4. Tracking the history of the changes and deletions to my work was so hard. I could view all changes to a page, but I want to view all activity on my specific image and the changes made to it.

As to the merits of this "deletion debate": 1. This image was self-made. No I didn't personally photography all these world leaders. Du.

2. FYI The Obama photo is NOT a cropped version of the flickr image. It is from a different image. OverlordQ you are wrong.

3. Thank you 211.181.143.3 the file is useful and can contribute. I think it can and thus there is no harm in including it.

4. The cowboy obama in my opinion, is not amateurish but shows a unique side of obama and an uniquely american yank. Official portrati would be fine with me. The mature wikipedia thing to do would be to contact me and ask me to change or use the original image to change yourself (or ask for the alterantive .pub file).

5. Emperor Akihito and Queen Elizabeth aren't directly relevant BUT they show the leaders and political figures of each countries. THe top 2 both head of state and president. They follow form and serve as a comparison of political figures and queens/emperors as they relate to the geopolitical environment.

6. Obama photo copyright, why delete the whole image, change the image.

Summary: - I apologize for being immature and naive. This is why I want to hate wikipedia and it really really really frustrates, offends me and makes me never want to contribute anything ever again.

- Why did people hate wikipedia? Beacause it is so difficult and the least user friendly thing ever to edit and because of elitest wikipedia editors who thing they are better than others and own this site. YOU DON'T. A person who has made 1 edit is just as important as someone who has made 1000 edits.

- The structural flaws in wikipedia (from not including me in deletion debates, to techinical difficulty such as not making specific file history clear, not notifying me of changes to my work, messiness in user interfactes etc. created this.

- Overall, you're ruthlessness and complete and utter indifference TO THE HUMAN BEING behind the work is what holds wikipedia back.

taylorluker@gmail.com

I am sorry you feel this way. The image was subject to two-months-long debate where you did not object the final deletion. --Zirland (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:10haleru1991.JPG

Hello,
Why have you deleted this image? The coin seems PD-ineligible to me, and the picture was self-made, if we believe Turkmenistans claims.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

As it has been almost a week since I asked you, I have restored the image. Should you disagree with it, please let me know.

Kind regards Kameraad Pjotr 13:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Farc

Hi; since you deleted this image, could you please check this one? I understand that this is the symbol of a private organization, and so it is not in public domain (nor it is composed by simple geometric forms). Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

possible incorrect map

Hello, you deleted File:Map_of_Ethnic_Groups_(in_Districts)_in_Afghanistan.jpg because of "incorrect map, falsified information". I just noticed that File:Map_of_Ethnic_Groups_in_Afghanistan,_by_district.svg is based in information taken from that map. Please check if the image also requires deletion, or if this one map is actually correct. For now, I have removed it from en:Afghanistan. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This map is not helpful but instead creating problems. Someone with political agenda created this map which washes away some ethnic groups and makes another group smaller and this leads to uprisings by some ethnic groups in Afghanistan when their leaders see this online. This is why deadly attacks on western forces in Afghanistan are on the rise because some of those Afghans think that they are being ethnic cleansed by the western armies. If you are a westerner, you are putting your own soldiers at risk.--Officer (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Officer: Do you seriously believe that the war in Afghanistan is affected by Wikipedia? If you do then you should probably do some serious research about it and then send the sensational scoop to a newspaper. 165.228.164.173 00:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Deletion log); 18:59 . .

Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rise and Fall of the State of Socialism.jpg" (Fair use material is not allowed on Commons) Hey, Zirland, you made mistake, this picture is allowed by licence from editorPolity Press,Cambridge, for editing a picture in Wikipedia for Slovak article Socialist State only for the Cover of Book: Lane, David: The Rise and Fall of State Socialism: Industrial society and the socialist state, Polity Press,Cambridge, 1996, ISBN 0-7456-0743-8. Why you before erasing do not search the true facts, and just hear the crazy slovak wikipedist-eraser Vasil? Could you kindly remove the picture or need I ask for it the Wikipedia Commons administration? Please, do it, NOW. Picture nr. 41F80MJ0VQL__SL500_.jpg --Zajac Vanka (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Povolení k použití díla musí být zasláno do systému OTRS. Prosím Vás o sdělení čísla, pod kterým je Vaše záležitost v OTRS vedena. --Zirland (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

File: yoshi-plush.png

Why did you delete Yoshi-plush.png? I took the picture myself so I can guarantee you that there's no copyright violation. The funny thing is you removed a free picture from a page containing atleast one, from a legal point of view, questionable image. I demand the return of plush Yoshi! I will fight for it! I AM SPARTACUS! M0hebe1006 (talk)

Derivative work of copyrighted figure. This is not allowed on Commons. --Zirland (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The picture was not a creative work. You should view it as a representation of an already published image which then could be argued fair use. How do you respond to that? As obvious from the comments on your page, you are quite trigger happy when it comes to deleting but you don't consider the pratical or judicial implications of your actions. M0hebe1006 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of duplicates without replacing images, e.g. Lake_Burley_Griffin_(53347407).jpg

Hi, it looks like you deleted the above images as a duplicate, but omitted to replace its usages.

Looking at your deletion and contribution logs, it appears that you delete tons of images as duplicate without ever replacing images. Please double check your deletions and repair any damage done. ---  Docu  at 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I only delete images that are marked by Dupe Tool as not used on any project. --Zirland (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There might be a bug in the tool you are using. To enable me to double-check, please undelete the images listed below. Each triggered the delinker. Thanks.  Docu  at 11:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Lake_Burley_Griffin_(53347407).jpg
• File:Lodekka03.jpg
• File:Le_Cours_Saleya_-_Nice.jpg
• File:HMS_Narwhal_1939.jpg
• File:Gedenktafel_Luthergasse_5_(Weimar)_Christian_August_Vulpius.jpg
• File:Granulomètre_laser_1090_-_Analyse_granulométrique_-_Granulométrie_-_CILAS.jpg
• File:Fusagasugá.jpg

Great & Little Moravia image deleted from the article Great Moravia

Hello, may I ask what exact copyright liabilities have been violated from my side? As it can be seen file http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:1986_86-01_08_Puspoki1_original.jpg is free of any restrictions and they were transformed also to commons. See The picture http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:PD-icon.svg

I would be thanksful also for explaining reason why 1995_Bowlus.jpg was deleted from commons as well. --Martin.baco (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Required assistance

Hi, I require your assistance as an administrator because I and another user have different opinion about this map. In my opinion it must show Moravian territories in present Czech Republic, so historical changes/enclaves and so on should not be included. Besides those red spots are aesthetically unpleasant, especially when they are next this and this other map. A map showing enclaves still exists here, so there is really no need to show them in a general map of Moravia. Anyway I'm not a great expert of the question, suggestions are welcome. Cheers.--Carnby (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I support your opinion. --Zirland (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Prosba o smazání

Mohu prosit o smazání souborů File:Wikiskripta screenshot.png, File:Wikiskripta header.png a File:WikiS-WikiP.png? Děkuji, --Petrus Adamus (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nyní zase prosím o obnovení všeho smazaného. Věc spěchala, hrozilo, že obrázky pod svobodnou licencí někdo rozšíří, 25. listopadu (o den později) jsem proto o odstranění souborů požádal také správce Mormegil, který je ještě téhož dne provedl. Následně jsem pod stejnými názvy nahrál opravdu uvolněné verze dotyčných souborů (barvy, rozostření některých částí): právě ty jste smazal. Předem děkuji za vrácení a omlouvám se za vzniklé nepříjemnosti. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS ticket a české poštovní známky

Zdravím. Prosím, nech prověřit, jestli OTRS Ticket 2008092910035253 skutečně obsahuje nějaký nález ústavního soudu, který jako jediný by mohl zrušit platné ustanovení autorského zákona o vyjmutí úředních děl z ochrany autorského práva, nebo alespoň nějaký relevantní publikovaný judikát, ze kterého by bylo možné jednoznačně odvozovat, že poštovní známky, vydávané na základě výlučeného zákonného zmocnění českým státem, nejsou úředním dílem. Ovšem obávám se, že ani relevantní soudní nález či judikát, tím méně osobní přání či právní názor nějakého jiného subjektu, například nějakého úředníka, byť třeba poštovního nebo ministerského, nemá v OTRS tiketu co dělat. Případné právní výklady by měly být na Commons předloženy a diskutovány veřejně, nikoliv v OTRS tiketu. Platnost a aplikace ustanovení autorského zákona v případě úředních děl není závislá na souhlasu tvůrců takových děl ani úřadu, jehož jménem bylo dílo vydáno t. j. stanovisko těchto osob či úřadů je z hlediska autorského práva zcela irelevantní. --ŠJů (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Úřední díla jsou bezpochyby z ochrany vyjmuta, ale nevím na základě čeho usuzujete, že poštovní známky jsou takovým úředním dílem.--Zirland (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm - netušíte, z čeho usuzuji, že cenina vydávaná z výlučného zákonného zmocnění úřadem České republiky je úředním dílem? Že bych vycházel z logiky, že úředním dílem je to, co je dílem úřadu, jímž úřad vykonává svou úřední působnost? Zdá se vám to jako příliš odvážný úsudek, nebo v něm vidíš nějakou zásadní chybu?

Nechcete se raději vyjádřit k tomu, co vlastně ten OTRS ticket obsahuje? Podle toho, jak se odpovědi vyhýbáte, bych měl podezření, že to asi nic přesvědčivého nebude. Že by nějaký soud posílal své judikáty tajně do OTRS nadace Wikimedie? To se mi zdá nepravděpodobné. Nebo že by tam bylo vyjádření někoho, jehož názor má vyšší právní sílu než zákon? Jsem upřímně zvědav, kdo by to byl. --ŠJů (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Vaše logika je jistě správná a podtrhl bych, že úředním dílem je to, co je dílem úřadu v rámci jeho věcné působnosti. Známky ale vydává Česká pošta, která není úřadem. Autorem známek je pak akademický malíř. Úprava vztahů k dílu je pak předmětem smlouvy mezi Českou poštou a autorem. Nicméně známka není úředním dílem. Netřeba judikátu Ústavního soudu.--Zirland (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ano, to zde byl čísi omyl, že české poštovní známky vydává Česká pošta, a také jsem tomu v té době věřil, protože jsem byl líný si ověřit, jak je tomu doopravdy. Ovšem od té doby už někdo našel, že podle § 35 odst. 1 zákona č. 29/2000 Sb., o poštovních službách, smí poštovní známky vydávat jen a pouze ministerstvo průmyslu a obchodu (dříve to bylo ministerstvo informatiky, předtím ministerstvo dopravy a spojů), zatímco držitel poštovní licence (jímž je v současné době Česká pošta) pouze hradí náklady a má výhradní právo na distribuci, je pouze výsadním uživatelem. (Situace do roku 2000 je složitější, protože státní pošta vykonávala výhradní právo státu, tedy cosi jako přenesenou působnost, a i autorské právo bylo tehdy jiné.) Jinak lze předpokládat, že autorem každého úředního díla jsou nějací konkrétní lidé, kteří pro ten úřad pracují. A u malířů, které navrhují poštovní známky, není pochyb, že jejich návrhy musí dělat s vědomím, že navrhují úřední dílo (tedy nám tu nenastává dilema, se kterým bychom se mohli setkat, pokud je do nějakého úředního díla zařazeno jiné dílo, které samo o sobě úředním dílem není - například do úřední zprávy o vyhlášeném pátrání po ukradeném obrazu). Úřední dílo je prostě volné ze zákona - bez ohledu na to, zda a jak se úřad nějak vyrovná s tím, kdo jej pro úřad vytvořil. Teoreticky by snad mohl nějaký autor vymáhat po příslušném úřadu, potažmo státu, náhradu újmy, která by mu byla způsobena tím, že bylo jeho dílo proti jeho vůli zúředněno, a bylo by velmi zajímavé, jak by takový spor dopadl, ale to jistě není případ poštovních známek, kde grafik nutně musel vědět, co a pro koho navrhuje.

Selským rozumem bych soudil, že úřední dílo je úředním dílem i ve smyslu zákona a že existuje veřejný zájem na tom, aby byla volně šiřitelná informace o tom, jak vypadají platné poštovní známky, přinejmenším v takové míře, v jaké existuje veřejný zájem na tom, aby byly volné všechny druhy veřejných listin. Ale jistě si lze představit i něčí názor, že cenina vydávaná státem není úředním dílem, protože není v demonstrativním (neboli příkladmém) výčtu úředních děl výslovně uvedena. (Tak jako se nedávno na městském soudu v Praze našla úřednice, která zamítla registraci nadace pro boj proti korupci, protože boj proti korupci není v zákoně o nadacích výslovně zmíněn v demonstrativním výčtu veřejně prospěšných účelů a tudíž podle té úřednice "zcela jasně" není veřejně prospěšným úřelem ve smyslu zákona. Velmi bych pochyboval, že Vrchní soud to v odvolacím řízení potvrdí, ale třeba nás překvapí.)

Vraťme se tedy k tomu, čím jsme začali. OTRS tickety jsou určeny, pokud vím, k tomu, aby v nich byly souhlasy držitele autorských práv s uvolněním díla (které jinak ze zákona volné není). V OTRS snad nemají co dělat něčí právní výklady či právní názory, ty by se měly předkládat k diskusi veřejně. Je opravdu nutné takto důsledně tajit, co se za ticketem 2008092910035253 vlastně skrývá? Je-li tam vyjádření nějakého poštovního úředníka, tak takový OTRS ticket je zralý rovnou na smazání jako naprosto bezpředmětný. --ŠJů (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Už se to nějak vyřešilo s tím nezvěstným OTRS ticketem neznámého obsahu, ke kterému se nedostanou ani lidé s OTRS právy? Mimochodem, jistě jste už na Commons i na Wikipedii zaregistroval odpověď, kterou dostal Dendrofil od České národní banky na dotaz ohledně autorské ochrany mincí. Odbor komunikace ČNB v něm jasně říká, že

• A) z hlediska bezpečných reprodukcí platidel je grafické vyobrazení mincí (na rozdíl od bankovek) zcela volné,
• B) z hlediska autorských práv není Česká národní banka oprávněna se právně relevantně vyjadřovat, nicméně
• C) podle zřejmě převažujících právních názorů je mince úředním dílem a tudíž její reprodukce nevyžaduje souhlasu autora.

Myslím, že v případě poštovních známek je, přinejmenším od roku 2000, úřední povaha díla podobně nesporná. Určitou komplikací může být jen § 21 odst. 1 přestupkového zákona, který označuje za přestupek neoprávněnou reprodukci cenin - avšak neexistuje žádný právní předpis, který by oprávněnost a neoprávněnost reprodukce cenin upravoval. Navíc formulace tohoto ustanovení přestupkového zákona předpokládá, že přinejmenším některé ceniny jsou veřejnými listinami (a ty jsou z ochrany autorského práva vyloučeny zcela výslovně) - to by nepochybně platilo v první řadě pro ty ceniny, které vydává stát. --ŠJů (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfree frame delete

Hi, I use this template constantly. There was a discussion about this on the talk page. You deleted it without discussion or an edit summary. May I ask why? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 20:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Now it's better...--Zirland (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all, thanks for the quick reply. I accidentally lied to you, the discussion regarding the deletion of the template is on my talk page, not on the discussion page of the template (my error!). Do you think I could ask a favor from you, since it's been on my mind to do this anyway? Could the {{Non-free frame delete}} page be deleted to make way for a move, and {{Unfree frame delete}} moved to "Non-free frame delete" instead? I actually use the redirect more often (it's sort of a "sequel" template to {{Non-free frame}}), so may as well move the whole template there. If this is out of the question for any reason, this is okay, I'll simply tag the pages for deletion/move at some later point. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much Zirland! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 20:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Pulau Tekong BMTC.JPG

Hi, I noticed you deleted "File:Pulau Tekong BMTC.JPG" after it had been replaced universally by "File:Pulau Tekong BMTC-crop.jpg". However, I think that the original file should be retained since the cropped image is an improved derivative version of it. Could you please undelete the original file? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Thank you for deletion of the File:Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, vol. 8.djvu. Pikinez (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified helicopters

Zdravím. Nějak jsem nepochopil tvoji hurá akci s vyprázdněním a následným smazáním kategorie Category:Unidentified helicopters se zdůvodněním "empty, unnecessary (helicopter is an aircraft)". Ano, vrtulníky jsou druhem letadel, ovšem oproti letounům velmi specifickým a snadno odlišitelným druhem. I laik tedy může rozlišit vrtulník od jiného typu letadla. Jaký tedy vidíš přínos v tom, že jsi neidentifikované vrtulníky, které měly v rámci neidentifikovatelných letadel svoji podkategorii, namíchal znovu mezi neidentifikovatelné letouny? To bys rovnou mohl vyprázdnit i kategorii Category:Unidentified aircraft se zdůvodněním "unnecessary (aircraft is a vehicle)" a pak smazat i Category:Unidentified vehicles se zdůvodněním "unnecessary (vehicle is a machine)" atd., až bys smazal celý kategorizační strom neidentifikovatelných objektů. Myslíš, že touhle logikou prospěješ jejich rychlejší identifikaci a zatřídění? I pokud by sis to myslel, tak by snad bylo lépe přinejmenším kontaktovat zakladatele kategorie a probrat to s ním, pokud tedy ne rovnou použít standardní proces CfD. Ale abys kategorii sám bezdůvodně vyprázdnil a hned poté ji smazal s odůvodněním, že je prázdná a neužitečná - to je trochu nefér postup. --ŠJů (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Views of Prague from Church of Our Lady in front of Týn tower27.jpg

when moving an image, please make sure you fix all links on all wikis. especially if its just that tiny change in the file-name (which imho isn't covered by COM:FR) globalusage --Akkakk (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This was covered by COM:FR under the section 1 - Uploader request. I assumed the uploader will fix the links then, well I was obviously wrong. I made it myself now. Thanks for letting me know.--Zirland (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks --Akkakk (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps of Moravia and Czech Silesia

Could you please stop Kirk reverting all changes to maps of Moravia and Czech Silesia in present Czech Republic? The maps he's referring with those red areas are already present (here and here) on Commons, these one are simplified maps reflecting present situation, not historical ones (and in fact they are used in Wikipedia articles dealing with present Czech situation). Regards--Carnby (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know, problem is that he is right in some part. You can see the difference in the region borders, those reflect current situation of the Czech Republic. So if you are annoyed by red areas in Kirk's map, I can suggest you to "greenize" them on Kirk's map and reupload. Then I will defend your new map to the end of the world I promise.--Zirland (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and quick answer. The problem I notice is that there are some overlapping areas in these two maps (this and this). Does it mean that these areas belong to both Moravia and Czech Silesia?--Carnby (talk)

If you reffer to red areas, those are in Silesia, governed historically by Silesian authorities, but they paid taxes to Moravia. That was the only difference.--Zirland (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a great difference, to be honest. Anyway, I made a new version of the maps (this and this). Are they right now (at least right enough not to make Kirk angry:-)) or should I make some other changes? Regards and thanks again for your help.--Carnby (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to delete the "red" areas from Moravian map and leave them only on Silesia map.--Zirland (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I decided for a "compromise": I used different shades of green and gray. The areas still exist but they're not disturbing while browsing these images in Wikipedia pages (for the highlighted images there are the ones I indicated you). I uploaded them (here and here); I would be glad if you check the Czech spelling of colours on the description pages. Regards and thanks again.--Carnby (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Logolibelsmall2.png

Is the file File:Logolibelsmall2.png the same as the en wiki file en:File:Sas-libel-2.png. I am unable to move the en wiki file to commons because I am getting this error. If the files are the same, can you restore the commons file you deleted because I believe the file is under {{PD-textlogo}} --Sreejith K (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The image was the same, but it was licensed as Fair Use, which is violation of Commons Licensing Policy and image was deleted in line of the rules. If you feel that image should be restored, please open the undeletion request. --Zirland (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have raised a request --Sreejith K (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

delete File:Giggles.jpg?

Giggles is a copyrighted character from Happy Tree Friends. That's why you deleted File:Giggles.jpg. Please give me more info? Thank you. ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That's right. Please see COM:DW for more info. --Zirland (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Velke Karlovice CoA CZ.jpg

File:Velke Karlovice CoA CZ.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!

-kloin- (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:E59-CZE.svg and others

Hi, I came across to dozens of images you recently deleted including File:E59-CZE.svg and File:E50-CZE.svg and wondering if it was really appropriate. I suppose they are deleted because they are superseded by the versions you created as this diff suggests. However, per our policy, superseded images normally have to go through deletion discussions. I'm all for replacing images to better ones on Wikipedias, but I don't see a necessity for deleting obsolete ones without consulting the Commons community. That being said, I don't know if you had other reasons to justify the speedy deletion. Could you clarify if there was a particular reason? --whym (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Better version was the only reason. Is it possible to discuss more files in one request, or you believe I would open request for every file separately? --Zirland (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would suffice to open a big deletion request page listing them all, and add {{Delete}} to each image linking to the request page. Please be sure to undelete images for the sake of convenience of non-admin discussion participants. Cheers, --whym (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You might want to consider using Help:VisualFileChange.js. It could reduce the workload greatly especially if the images were in the same category. --whym (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Blue sky film blue X.jpg

Ahoj. Žádat o obnovu tohoto souboru nebudu, nicméně zdůvodnění "Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons" se mi zdá poněkud matoucí. Navíc, pokud vím, tak licence Creative Commons je neodvolatelná (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/cz/legalcode, odstavec 7b, což odkazoval už Mormegil tady). --Harold (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

V případě logotypu, který za normálních okolností spadá pod fair use, bych v případě toho, že se držitel práv "rozmyslí", nedělal zbytečně vlny. Obrázek navíc nebyl nikde v projektech použit. Domnívám se, že tento případ neleží pouze v autorskoprávní rovině, ale také v oblasti ochrany průmyslových práv. --Zirland (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, v pohodě, ale spíš jde o princip - jednou jde něco smazat, když si to dotyčný rozmyslí, proč by to nešlo i v jiném případě? Jinak ale použit právě že byl. --Harold (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Jamy CoA CZ.jpg

File:Jamy CoA CZ.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!

Maxx (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

My photos

Hello. You have deleted several of my photos:

File:MetroNizami3.jpg

File:MetroNizami4.jpg

File:MetroNizami5.jpg

But I have lost them. Could you restore them so that I can get a copy? Then you'll delete them again. --Interfase (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You can download photos here --Zirland (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Interfase (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Ahoj, můžeš se prosím podívat na ticket:2013062610006026? Esperantem nevládnu a ty jsi tam uveden jako možná osoba k dořešení. Díky. --Harold (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Povolení jsou v pořádku, podepsaní autoři uvolnili fotografie pod CC-BY-SA-3.0 Unported --Zirland (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Zmazanie

Ahoj. Zmaž prosím všetky nahraté súbory od Ouverture. Na sk som mu to vysvetlil, z článkov sú odstránené, ešte ich treba zmazať. Ďakujem. Vasiľ (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Zirland (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Radostov CoA CZ.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Radostov CoA CZ.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. 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!

Jcb (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikipedie v Reflexu.jpg

File:Wikipedie v Reflexu.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Vera (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear Zirland, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2014 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Vazany nad Litavou CoA CZ.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Vazany nad Litavou CoA CZ.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. 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!

Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

De-adminship

Dear Zirland,
it is with a regret that I inform you that, following our de-adminship policy, you had your administrator rights on Wikimedia Commons removed today by a Wikimedia steward.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank you for your efforts and contributions in making Wikimedia Commons what it is today. If you'll feel like doing so at some point, please feel free to re-apply for adminship at COM:RFA. Again, thanks for all the help you gave us, and (hopefully) see you back soon! odder (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contributions and hopefully you will return soon because it is a pity to lose an admin who can speak a language other than English. Green Giant (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Velim CoA CZ.gif

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Velim CoA CZ.gif, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. 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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Why delete my file?

For what reason, I am suggesting to delete my work signs:

I do not accept your request because it is about my work and your brand are fictitious and unreal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisky007 (talk • contribs) 2015-05-28T10:06:09‎ (UTC), edited 2015-05-28T10:07:23‎

Pánové, možná byste se domluvili lépe česky, pokud jste oba Češi, ta angličtina není zrovna dokonalá a navíc ještě diskutujete o českém tématu. Pokud byste oba dva řádně uváděli zdroje svých obrázků, ani zde žádný spor nemusel vzniknout – bylo by jasné, že jde o dva různé obrázky (ono je to ostatně jasné na první pohled), nemusela by být otevírána zbytečná diskuse o smazání a nemusela by padat zbytečná obvinění, že některá podoba značky je fiktivní nebo nereálná. --ŠJů (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dopravní značky

Zdravím. Díky za kvalitní svg verze vzorů dopravních značek.

Aniž bych chtěl ostatní nutit, aby všechno dělali přesně stejně jako já, přesto mě trochu štve, že většina z těch, kdo rádi a dobře pracují s grafikou, celkem kašle na "nudnou" faktografii. Svého času bylo dokonce několik desítek nekvalitních reprodukcí značek, avšak s kvalitními a úplnými popisy a kategorizací, smazáno s odůvodněním, že jsou nahrazeny svg verzemi (které však měly popisy těžce odfláknuté). I tobě bych doporučil bych uvážit, abys do názvů i popisů souborů uvedl nejen zkratku státu a nynější kód dopravní značky dle poslední aktuální vyhlášky (nebo dokonce jen podle některé z verzí návrhu vyhlášky – v konečné schválené verzi vyhlášky může nakonec to označení být klidně úplně jiné), ale pokud možno i oficiální název té dopravní značky (jde-li o značku, která je zavedena českou vyhláškou, pak nejlépe doslovný přesný název v češtině). Kódové označení značky by mělo být vždy vázané ke konkrétnímu roku, resp. konkrétní vyhlášce: v předchozí nebo příští vyhlášce nebo třeba i jen po některé novele může mít tatáž značka jiné číslo. Číslování dopravních značek vždy procházelo pravidelnými obměnami a i když se tvůrci a navrhovatelé značek v poslední době snaží o jistou míru kontinuity číslování (na úkor logického pořadí značek), stejně pokaždé dochází i k přečíslování některých značek nebo celých skupin značek.

A druhou věcí je uvádění zdroje: jednak je i z výše uvedených důvodů (a také z důvodu encyklopedické informační hodnoty popisu obrázku) vhodné vždy uvést, které z vyhlášek daná verze značky odpovídá, respektive odkud byly grafické variace převzaty, pokud nejde přímo o podobu značky vyobrazenou ve vyhlášce. A za druhé, pokud nejde o tvoje tvůrčí autorské dílo, ale pouze o "řemeslné" co nejvěrnější převedení vzoru do svg formátu, tak je zavádějící, abys to označoval za své vlastní dílo. I když je s tím určitě spousta práce a člověk musí třeba i věnovat nějakou invenci k tomu, aby doladil možné nepřesnosti oficiálního vzoru, podle mého názoru tuto práci nelze považovat za autorský vklad a výsledek dle mého názoru není a nemá být dokonce ani odvozeným dílem, ale je a má být prostě reprodukcí (popřípadě rekonstrukcí) původního díla, které je vydáváno jménem ministerstva dopravy. Naštěstí jsou u nás všechna úřední díla autorsky volná, takže s tím nemáme problém (horší je to třeba s drážními značkami podle předpisu SŽDC, protože podnikové předpisy by za úřední dílo nemusely být považovány).

Do budoucna bych rád zpracoval tématiku vývoje československých dopravních značek - zrekonstruovat barevnou podobu značek podle černobílé vyhlášky z roku 1938 může být trochu složitější (zatím jsem do Commons nahrál alespoň verze "vystřižené" z vyhlášky), z Protektorátu je dostupné Vládní nařízení č. 242/1939 Sb., pak máme ve Sbírce zákonů dostupné vyhlášky 141/1960 Sb., 80/1966 Sb. (s dálniční novelou 1971), 100/1975 Sb., 99/1989 Sb. Před rokem 1960 vyhlášky vycházely jen v Úředním listu a tedy by pro ně člověk asi musel někam do knihovny, protože na internetu asi nejsou (vyhláška č. 145/1956 Ú. l. s novelou 197/1958 Ú. l., a tam ve zrušovacích ustanovení by se člověk musel dopátrat čísla předchozí vyhlášky, až k té těsně poválečné, která akceptovala protektorátní značky). Já se asi pokusím opět napřed nahrát alespoň obrázky jednoduše narychlo vystřižené z printscreenu vyhlášky, ale pokud se ti chce si pohrát s svg zpracováním, určitě si vybereš aspoň některé zajímavější značky, které by stály za kvalitnější zpracování. --ŠJů (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ricany CoA CZ.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ricany CoA CZ.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:Ricany CoA CZ.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!

Jcb (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:ROU AB Alba Iulia CoA.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:ROU AB Alba Iulia CoA.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:ROU AB Alba Iulia CoA.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!

Jcb (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Klucenice CoA CZ.gif

File:Klucenice CoA CZ.gif 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!

Jcb (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Skalice (Hradec Kralove) CoA CZ.jpg

File:Skalice (Hradec Kralove) CoA CZ.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!

Jcb (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Solenice CoA CZ.jpg

File:Solenice CoA CZ.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!

Jcb (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Zirland, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Belcice CoA CZ.jpg

File:Belcice CoA CZ.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!

Jcb (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Flag of Bezno.svg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Flag of Bezno.svg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. 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!

And also:

• File:Flag of Bohatice (Ceska Lipa).svg
• File:Flag of Brandenburg (1945).svg
• File:Flag of Bubenec.svg
• File:Flag of Dobruska.svg
• File:Flag of Domazlice.svg
• File:Flag of Horni Briza.svg
• File:Flag of Horni Pocernice.svg
• File:Flag of Hradcany.svg
• File:Flag of Hrensko.svg
• File:Flag of Karlovy Vary Region (simple).svg
• File:Flag of Klucenice.svg
• File:Flag of Kunvald.svg
• File:Flag of Martin (Slovakia).svg
• File:Flag of Prague New City.svg
• File:Flag of Prague Old City.svg
• File:Flag of Pribram.svg
• File:Flag of Strelske Hostice.svg
• File:Flag of Turcianske Teplice (Slovakia).svg

Yours sincerely,   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 05:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bobruvka CoA CZ.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bobruvka CoA CZ.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:Bobruvka CoA CZ.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!

Castillo blanco (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Cermna nad Orlici CoA CZ.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Cermna nad Orlici CoA CZ.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:Cermna nad Orlici CoA CZ.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!

Castillo blanco (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Chotysany CoA CZ.png

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Chotysany CoA CZ.png, 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:Chotysany CoA CZ.png]]). 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!

Castillo blanco (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)