User talk:Martin H.

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Martin H.}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives Older archives Jul 2011 – Oct 2011 Nov 2011 – Apr 2012 Current

Image use permissions

Hi! I saw you tagged File:EU Croatia Flags.jpg (and other Croatian government published images) requesting additional permission documentation, the permission is given on the government website itself which says "Copyright © 2007 - 2012 Vlada Republike Hrvatske. Sva prava pridržana. Sadržaji s ovih stranica se mogu prenositi bez posebne dozvole uz navođenje izvora." which translates to "Copyright © 2007 - 2012 Government of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved. Content of these web pages may be carried with no separate permit provided that its source is specified." This is mandated by Croatian copyright legislation which specifies that all information published by the government, designed as public source of information, is not subject to copyright protection - hence the notice.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(C) all rights reserved is clear, the rest is fair use, but has not much to do with free content. I.e. offering for redistribution or redistributing, selling, modifications, all this is not allowed. Taking photos from Croatian government websites and uploading here is copyright infringement, this photos are not public domain and not covered by {{PD-Croatia-exempt}}. --Martin H. (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is explicitly stated permission of use provided that the source is credited not clear too?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Besides the PD-Croatia-exempt covers the use per Article 8, Section 1, Subsection 1 as "other official works and their collections, disclosed for the purpose of officially informing the public"--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is not enough, "can be used" does not mean modification, does not necessarily mean money making or storing. Article 8 etc. refers to laws and other administrative or legal documents and collections of such documents. Documents that people must be able to read and write (without copyright fear) to participate in society. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your interpretation of the Article 8 Section 1 is arbitrary and wrong. It says explicitly "official texts in the domain of legislation, administration, judiciary (acts, regulations, decisions, reports, minutes, judgments, standards, and the like) and other official works and their collections, disclosed for the purpose of officially informing the public" - in other words legislation (as you noted), administrative and judiciary documents AND other official works disclosed for purpose of officially informing the public - if an official website is not an "offical work" serving purpose of "officially informing the public" and thus neatly falling into definition of the said article and section I don't know what is. I see no justification for your arbitrary decision that the quoted exemption covers only legislation and such (presumably administrative/judiciary) documents--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are not aware that this is expropriation of the author. Thats a very strong instrument. And thats why it is only used for such official documents, documents with a legal or administrative nature. A publicity websites with photos from news agency are not of exempted, the agencies providing the photos for publicity use are not expropriated. --Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what it is, but are you saying that the image should not be used regardless of what the applicable legislation specifically says and regardless what the website permission notice explicitly says? I'd like to remind you that the documents of legal or administrative nature are indeed covered by the exemption separately by the same article - if the legislator did not intend this there would, presumably be no "and other official works" bit. Even if they did this by mistake, that's still legally binding until revoked by a separate piece of legislation, so there's absolutely no justification for the deletion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The website notice has nothing to do with free content. The law not makes it public domain, its only some far to broad interpretation by you. There is nothing that allows us to reuse the file you uploaded on the project inside Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The said instrument is explicitly used by the law. The letter of the law is supposed to be stronger than a claim on a government website. Ultimately, the arbiter of the Croatian law is the Croatian judiciary, so can you quote a Croatian court case that ruled in favor of your interpretation of the law? I can't do it in the opposite case, but at the previous debate about this law at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2011/10#Copyright_of_Croatian_government, nobody followed up the way you did so we thought we had consensus. --Joy (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read Carls comment there. He is knowledgable on the topic. Official informing the public - you not quoted this words above but simply left it out - has the same meaning like "official texts in the domain of legislation, administration, and judiciary", it not means you can grab whatever you want just because its from .gov website. Please provide a source that describes such publications as official work with the intention to officially informing the public. --Martin H. (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

You have blocked user CPI-RUS, but he continues to use multiple accounts: Artur_Pirojkov. Could you please block also this account? Thanks! -- Ace111 (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Dandridge

ist wieder da: Special:Contributions/It's_alive!. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My Uploads being removed

Can you please state why many of my uploads were removed by you. I agree that some of them were taken from Web but majority of them, even from other sites are my own clicks. I expect a reply from you. - Metroman87 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please say what files are your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

general items

Hello, You deleted "Fafa cherry.jpg". But this picture is general items.(detergent) According to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 "In no case does copyright protection" Please think again.--Ninosan (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You not photographed detergents but a product packaging. The packeging is a graphic work and of course covered by copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

You have email. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've mailed the list. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert Wadlow

Nice shot, very impressed... Delete if you want but what's the point? --Madelgarius (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the Gallery on the french section, you can delete all the pictures. Thanks a lot for the help... --Madelgarius (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You forgot this one ... --Madelgarius (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

and that one [1]... --Madelgarius (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

add some informations, a pity we can't talk in french... --Madelgarius (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide sources. True source. For File:Robert Wadlow (1918-1940) 1.jpg you now added a link to a google search that shows File:Robert Wadlow (1918-1940) 1.jpg as a result... a circle reference to your own upload. Thats not the source.

Please provide sources, you also was able to provide sources for other uploads, for example File:Moneuse2.jpg a drawing you created entirely by yourself, File:Collégiale saint Vincent - mise au tombeau.jpg a photo created entirely by yourself, or File:Jean Baptiste Masui (1798-1860).jpg with a source although the author description is poor. --Martin H. (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki at War (War Art from the The National Archives

Hi Martin,

No these images are not available online. This is part of an ambitious new digitisation partnership between The National Archives and Wikimedia UK. Most of these images have never been digitally available before and have been photographed especially for upload to Commons. We aim to have over 300 in the first batch.

Care to help out? (I'm not very good at Creator templates, for starters!)

--Mr impossible (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. If you just give me a few moments, they'll all be looking like: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INF3-10_Air_Chief_Marshal_Sir_Arthur_Tedder_Artist_Oliphant_1939-1946.jpg

I'm tidying them up as I go along. Nearly done.

--Mr impossible (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback to Nadhika99

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Nadhika99's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Italiano | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Svenska | +/−

User Mazic

Hi there. I'd like to apologize for causing you any trouble with my recent uploads that are copyrighted, however this time, the one you have removed are uploaded in flickr by the person who have taken those photos. You see, that person attended the "Secret & B.A.P Fan Meeting" in Singapore and he have taken the pictures himself, that user is QQsmiles91. Right now, you are falsely accusing me that I was the one who uploaded those photos. I mean, how the "h-e-l-l" could I even know what camera did he use, and both of us are not very knowledgeable about flickr or cameras, he's just teenager fan just like myself. Until then, I know you won't believe me, but I'd like to hear from from you so that this will be resolved. I have learned my lessons now, but it "s-u-c-k-s" when I finally did it in honest terms. Best regards. 27.108.182.245 16:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You still operate the flickr account so the licensing still expresses your desire to have the files in Wikipedia, the license not expresses the wish of the author to have his/her photos free for any reuse including commericial reuse. Thats license laundering, the license must come from the copyright holder voluntarily, not from someone else.

Goobye. --Martin H. (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You are mistaken here. He is the one who uploaded it in flickr. I asked him to upload it in flickr with the some rights reserved copyright and he agreed. Again, you falsely accused me that I'm the one who operated QQsmiles91's flickr account. So everything else is legit and there is no laundering that is happening in here, because I simply asked "QQsmiles91"(that is his username of the international fan forum of Secret to upload it in flickr with the right copyright. Btw, he's not a teenager, he's 21. You're assuming behavior is not helping,and I'm 100% confident that he is the one, QQsmiles91, the owner of the photos who uploaded it in flickr. I expect a reply from you and hope this matter will be resolved, because I don't want our efforts especially his photos go to waste because of your false accusations.27.108.186.208 02:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you are just ignoring my replies. You call yourself an admin but you yourself do not behave like one. And do you have any proof that I operate those flickr accounts? And what desire you are talking about, when the owner of the photos uploaded it himself. Stop being ignorant, your assuming behavior is not helping. If you read this: and because it was uploaded by the real owner and the files posses the right camera details, because it is the owner who possess the real file. I don't know why you removed it, but your assuming behavior needs to stop. This is not goodbye, cause I will prove you wrong.

PS: I'll seek help from other admins because this behavior of yours needs to stop. Because you are wrong. 27.108.187.214 00:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You just a few days ago created a new Commons account to again do flickrwashing. You say "I have learned my lessons now". Have you? Obviously not. For me it is clear that you put a bunch of downscaled photos taken from elsewhere to flickr and now try to distribute this works under fake licenses. Thats what you did before, for 4 months with at least two sockpuppet accounts. Yes, you changed your sockpuppet accounts just to make sure that if someone in future will find out that one account is bad he will not directly find the rest of the uploads with other accounts. Thats simply evil, you intentionally damage our projects. --Martin H. (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously you are wrong this time. Because I did not upload it in flickr! Even if you check those files in flickr it still has those camera properties if you click on the type of camera. How can I prove that I'm not the one who uploaded it? Do I need the uploader to contact you is that it? Or message you in wiki. How? I am willing to oblige just to prove you wrong. :) As much as desperate as this sounds, but I swear to God, I was not the one who uploaded the pictures in flickr this time. I uploaded it in wiki, but the original owner uploaded it in flickr. And that person has an account in the fan forum of that artist so it's easier for me to contact him and do this little favor. Do I need to post our conversation to you? When I say I learned my lesson I mean it, because the only way for the pictures to last forever if it will be uploaded by the owner. Then I was lucky enough to find in that fan forum, the owner of those photos. If only I speak Korean I would asked the Korean fans to upload it in flickr, and most of them will not hesitate if I say some pictures are "ugly" and our fav. band needs to have beautiful pictures. I was lucky enough to find an English speaking person who had taken those pictures. So don't ruin it! 27.108.177.103 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, never knew you were this much ignorant. Anywho, I'll defintely prove you wrong, and I'm going to upload the pictures, I don't even need your consent, cause if you delete them again, which you will, I'm going to remark it as vandalism. Come at me bro. Here's also the proof of our conversation: (1) http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=2dzp3o103kn9iwk, (2) http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?8z8l6y9yk2mlxkj, (3) http://www.mediafire.com/i/?p6c1dn9c55q1gzn, (4) http://www.mediafire.com/i/?s18ui7m6bzz4kcz. Have a nice day! :) MagiKc (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You screenshots is an example of tricking someone else who only wants to "share pics on wiki" into sharing pictures for world-wide money making reuse. Its not clear if that guy agreed to a free license. Also the connection to the questionable flickr account is not clear, we have seen a lot of abuse by you before, including creating fake flickr accounts to steal other peoples work. --Martin H. (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL! What money are you talking about!? hahahaha. Sorry that cracked me up, I'm still underage and I don't give a fack about getting some money with this kind of thing. Like seriously, dude, stop being delusional. I can't even.....

"Its not clear if that guy agreed to a free license." He uploaded it himself with the correct copyright, of course he's willing to release those daMmn pictures. And that is why I'm here, to clear things up. I'm not even going to this extent, If I'm not telling the truth. Grow up, will ya! :) Until then, you'll probably see me posting here quite a few times, until I prove you wrong. Cause I don't want my and his efforts and more importantly his photos go to waste! Like I said, I was lucky enough to find an English speaking person who have attended a concert of theirs. If I have to teach him to upload it in wiki himself, I will. But then again you still wouldn't believe even he uploaded it himself in wiki. Why don't you log in secretfour.com and see his fan account. He's from Singapore and I'm from the Philippines, how can we be the same person. LOL MagiKc (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And thats why you have been blocked on Commons. Because you not know what this project his about. Free content. Free to reuse by anyone, anytime for any purpose, educational as well as commercial purposes. Free because the copyright holder wants it to be free. Not free because someone is talked (or tricked with some "for wiki" arguments) into something that they not know. Not free because someone created an account on flickr and uploaded in the name of someone else. --Martin H. (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And that is why also you are wrong. :) The owner agreed to upload it in Flickr under the correct copyright, of course he's willing to distribute it free. The level of your ignorance surprises me. You still keep on insisting that I uploaded those photos, hahahaha. What baffles me is that all of you said above is useless because it was the owner of the photos who uploaded it under the correct copyright, of course he's willing to distribute it. Free Content as you say. I even posted our conversation here. And I'm willing to oblige just to prove you wrong and you still won't cooperaate because you insist you are right. Are you even an Admin? Or just being ignorant. 27.108.186.1 01:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Mazic, without my attention no one would know what horrible editor you are and how badly you tried to destroy Wikipedia with uploading tons of stolen files with lots of accounts. You where never asked to do this. So be sure, im fully aware what is best for our projects. --Martin H. (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Flickr account ohne ID

Hallo Martin, wie füge ich http://www.flickr.com/photos/crystallifi/ zur blacklist hinzu? Irgendwie fehlt da die ID. Viele Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Schon geschehen. Die URL hat eine alphabetische ID. Die nummerische ID bekommst du raus indem du auf die Option "FlickrMail senden" gehst, dann steht die nummerische ID in der URL. --Martin H. (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! --Polarlys (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-VietnamGov}}

Hi, please see Template talk:PD-VietnamGov#Legal Documents. Tranminh360 (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León.jpg

Hello, Please do NOT delete information from a description page. The link IS the source of the image. If you think it is not sufficient, please create a deletion request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The "source" is a mirror of es.wikipedia.org... thats NOT the source. All your information you added is your own fiction. --Martin H. (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Create a DR. Do not delete the information. Yann (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Provide a source for the information that you add. This is obviously your wrong. If you not have information to add than dont add something. --Martin H. (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that it is wrong? Your accusation is stupid and not helpful, and your behaviour is bordering vandalism to me. You should help finding the information, instead of deleting the work I did. Actually the information is here: File:Diego de Alvear.jpg. Yann (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, be sure that I searched for source information and not just claim that I not did! And for your question: Is this is a serious question? Do you realy care what source you quote?? Did you even read the source??? Where you able to even access your source or is it possible that you just provide the first best google hit - a deeplink to a file on a Wikipedia mirror - as your magic source???? Make your homework! http://www.esacademic.com/dic.nsf/eswiki/350209.

And now stop inventing facts! Its one thing if we allow users to import unsourced material scanned from books. Its another and very bad thing if our own users start rewriting history, inventing author information without checking the original book/illustration/painting, inventing dates of works, giving a work a history that it possibly not has. Thats something that should never happen on an educational project. --Martin H. (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As an admin, you should behave better than this. See here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Martin_H._.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Yann (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As an admin you should not add such terrible information to a file description, and directly jump on an editor if he tries to remove false or unsourced statements with a proper reason. And call the obvious fact that http://www.esacademic.com/ ../eswiki/ is a mirror of Spanish Wikipedia a "stupid accusation". --Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you do not want to create a DR, I did it myself. Yann (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not my intention to create a deletion request. Its my intention to prevent this project from beeing a hub for invented information.

You not know that it is from "early 19th century", you just came up with this "fact" and now distribute your invented fact as the universal truth on one of the most visible websources of the world.

You not know if it is from an unknown painter, you not checked the original painting (if this even is one), you not know the museum, you not know from what book the scan is (see the letters), you not know if there is any record for the painting. You simply declare the author to be an unknown author because you not have any information at all.

You claim this information is covered by a source, but that source in fact says nothing of all this but is simply a deeplink to an exact copy of the very same file.

This means: All information you added was your own invention. Stop doing this, remove this information asap! Thanks.

--Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Martin. Just an FYI, regarding the Lonnie Bunch photo you nominated for OTRS and possible deletion. I am serving as the Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives. All the images I am uploading are either no known copyright or copyright free. I'll do my best to get permission for this image, but, we even changed permissions on the SIA website to discuss the no known copyright issue. Anyway, just letting you know, since I'll be uploading further images. Thanks. Sarah (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The website says commercial reuse requires a license. The "no known restrictions" tag is wrong for such uploads and can not be used. Ask for a free license and add a copyright tag that the copyright holder agreed to. There is known copyright restrictions, so there must be a free license release. --Martin H. (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

File deletion puzzler

You deleted File:Priyanka Chopra at India's Glam Diva.jpg as a copyright violation despite there being a Creative Commons license present on the source site - see here. Can I ask why?? Tabercil (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See the undeletion request. The license applies to "page3-parties", this is not from page3-parties. --Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

elimination of A Todo ritmo logo nuevo.jpg

Why you deleted my picture if I got to where the kick where you edit and also put it well do not understand. and you're good to delete photos you should upload your own.--CampRocks305 02:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You violated Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bulinya - Dance; Bulinya - Maasai Market

Sorry, I can't understand you about these two photos. You changed their autour. How could you know who is the real photografer? I wrote a few words about the painter, it isn't an article. It's well to know something about him, because it's very difficulte to find any information of tinga-tinga artists. And I can't see anything wrong. --Молли (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have some more question. Why did you removed the Category "Culture of Kenya"? Tinga-tinga is an art, typical of all the East Africa, and the artist is representative of this painting in Kenya. I'll be glad to reach some consensus. --Молли (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The photographer doesnt matter (so much). The copyright belongs to the painter, without the painters written permission to a free license the photographer cant publish the work under a free license because the photographer not owns any copyright on the original painting that he reproduced. For your other question: COM:OVERCAT. --Martin H. (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Todd Schaffer, who is also the author of the pictures, is the chief representative in USA of a group of artists in Kenya, named "Inside African Art". He has every right to film, to offer and to sell the paintings on their behalf. I've had a long correspondence with him and I put a lot of effort, while persuade him to agree about their publication in the Commons. One of his conditions was, that I have to write a few words about the author of the picture. And I have done it. I must be correct and that's why I'll set back my own version.

In connection with the category - I do not think that ting-tinga is a subcategory of "Culture of Kenya", because the style is more widespread in Tanzania, Mozambique, Congo, etc. I posted the category "Culture of Kenya" to be clear, that the artists are representatives of Kenyan art, not of the Tanzanian for example.

--Молли (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Has he the right to reproduce the paintings and publish them allowing anyone, worldwide, to reuse the reproductions for commercial purposes and modification? He can only - ONLY - do this if a transfer of copyright tooke place or if the painter agreed to the free license that he is using for publishing his derivative works. The copyright transfer requires the written form, this documents may please be sent to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.insideafricanart.com/FAQ.htm

http://www.insideafricanart.com/IAA/About_Todd.htm

--Молли (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I cant find were this says something about permission from the artists. Commons:CB#2D_art_.28paintings_etc..29. A license from the painters is needed. --Martin H. (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Files uploaded by DustyCoffin

Hi Martin these pictures are an obvious copyvio http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/DustyCoffin I think have a fake flickr license. Alakasam (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nur eine Info

User:Non aprite quella porta ist Jerry Dandridge. --Martin1978 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos of Kpop Idol Group Secret on Secret's Wiki page.

Hello.

I don't exactly know what is going on but apparently some photos that I took of Secret at their Singapore fanmeet on 23rd March that I have uploaded on Flickr in order to share with fellow Secret fans and for the photos to be uploaded onto Secret's wiki page have been taken down. And from what I heard it is because you assumed that those photos on Flickr were uploaded by another person who is uploading those photos on Wiki or something like that =.=

Whatever the case is, let me clarify everything.

Me, Melvin Ng, a.k.a QQsmiles, took those pictures of Secret at their Singapore fanmeet here in Singapore on 23rd March 2012. I have both the original photos without the "QQsmiles" watermark and with the "QQsmiles" watermark on the photos. I can send them to you if you need proof.

Secondly, I was asked by a fellow Secret fan, who apparently is in charge of uploading Secret photos on Wiki, if it is okay for me to upload my photos of Secret on Flickr to share with other Secret fans and also so that he/she can upload those nicer photos that I took of Secret onto Wiki to replace the older photos of Secret that are currently on Wiki.

So, to sum it all out, I don't what your assumption has been or why exactly did you take down those photos of Secret but I am the the original owner of those photos and the one who uploaded those photos on Flickr so I hope you can let my fellow Secret fan put back up the photos that I took of Secret back up on Wiki again yup.

Cheers. Melvin Ng (QQsmileS)

This will not happen. The user you mentioned created multiple accounts on this project and abused this accounts to upload stolen photos with the claim that he is the photographer. Files on Commons must not only be free for sharing on wiki or sharing with fans. Files must but free to reuse by anyone, anytime, anywhere for any purpose including commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry erm I don't really get it.... but okay. How about... Then if I want to upload my own photos that I took of Secret on Secret's wiki page, how can I go about doing it? Such that I will not cross any line or anything. The Commons thing that you mention. Such that it can be free for sharing with anyone, everyone etc etc? I already upload those photos on Flickr already in my Flickr account. What should be the next appropriate step that I can take to upload them on Wiki? - Melvin Ng

Talkback

Hello, Martin H.. You have new messages at Lovysinghal's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Italiano | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Svenska | +/−