Jump to content

User talk:Martin H.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.236.134.144 (talk) at 22:56, 25 January 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Martin H., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Khoikhoi 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at List of Igbo people

Hi there. Your edits in the List of Igbo people article do not adhere to wikipedia guidelines concerning lists: "Difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus". If you want to challenge the notability of a person who is already listed, please go to the main article and challenge the notability there (e.g. via Prod or AfD). Do not remove the entry of the person from the list as long as the person has a BLP article in Wikipedia. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can hardly say, that a person adding himself with a reference to his own website meats the criteria to include him, so judge it a revert of the inclusion and not a removal. --Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See here on what to do to get fast results on this issue. Amsaim (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Uploads

All of them are mine I took them by my camera.And if you do delete them I will just upload them back.Nascar1996 (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block tanner1996 that is me I was going to choose Nascar1996 but someone else is using that name??????????Nascar1996 (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are using the name yourself. http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Nascar1996. Mistakes may happen, but I dont like lies. "took them by my camera"... well, the history on Commons shows, that this is a lie. --Martin H. (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My commons page was created yesterday and the day before.Ohh my Gosh I just notice that i did have an old one when I was new to Wiki ohh now I know what you was talking about.Oppps.Nascar1996 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the image File:2010jimmiejohnson.jpg.I believe it is okay now.Nascar1996 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not ok. It is simply stolen. --Martin H. (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh well I will upload another and if you block me I do have another computer so.Nascar1996 (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC) The other one has got deleted too you beat me,ohhh pooo.LOLNascar1996 (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And given this threat you now think I will say: Oh, in this case I would not prevent you any more from stealing and lying and acting here in an completely inadmissible way? You either mix this educational project with some kind of funny web forum where everyone can post everything no matter who created it and whats the legal status is or you know the rules and completely lost the track. Stop this, stop copyright infringement and turn back to normal editing. --Martin H. (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will not have to worry about me I will only upload my copyright photos like File:JeffandJimmie.jpg.Thank You for teaching my lesson.Nascar1996 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you havn't noticed, I now understand Wikipedia's basics. I also believe that I am a improved editor on both Wp and Wikimedia Commons. --Nascar1996 01:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

If you know an administrator please let them deal with this vandaliser for typing this The Pacific Ring of Poo Tards (or sometimes just the Ring of Poo) is an area where large numbers of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur in the basin of a Pacific Ocean. In a 40,000 km horseshoe shape, it is associated with a nearly continuous series of oceanic trenches, volcanic arcs, and volcanic belts and/or plate movements. The Ring of Fire has 452 volcanoes and is home to over 75% of the world's active and dormant volcanoes.[1] It is sometimes called the circum-Pacific belt or the circum-Pacific seismic belt." on the Pacific Ring of Fire.His talk page is User talk:137.164.225.235.Thank You. - Nascar1996 03:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report such people at WP:AN so that an admin can intervene and block that vandal. --Martin H. (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you Martin H. - Nascar1996 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image message

Hi, I noticed that you left a message on User_talk:Ambrosius007 about the file File:Pacelli12.jpg. User Ambrosius007 was active on Wikipedia for about 2 years and I wrote several articles together with him. Then he suddenly stated that he was ill and stopped logging into Wikipedia. Based on various detailed he contributed to several articles, and what he said, I am almost certain that he personally knew Pius XII - and that is relevant because that was an indication of his age. I do fear that he is not active in Wikipedia because he is not active in the world, for he left some things he obviously cared about unfinished. Now, regarding the image, he specifically stated on the page and on his talk page I recall that he "owned" the original photo because it was given to him. So given that he owned, scanned it and uploaded it, there should be no problem with the copyright. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:OttoRehhagel1.jpg

I have removed the Files for Deletion tag from File:OttoRehhagel1.jpg, because you didn't create a nomination for it at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 24. If you still think it should be deleted, feel free to renominate it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your edit of internet art

hi Martin

it's noticeable in the InternetArt article, for those of us who are involved, the vast removal of a lot of important links in this page modification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_art&diff=339732986&oldid=336599556

there you removed a list which you are right to say included some spammy links, but also important references and i'm not just speaking for myself.

right now the InternetArt article looks like it's missing quite something, i hope you will find the time to run some researches online about those who are stated, maybe ask the intervention of an expert, and fix the problem

thanks for your attention to details jaromil (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked who included the links and found, that various self-promoters, who wrote articles about themself, added their name to the article claiming themself a "notable net artists and net art organisation" worth to be prominently linked as an example of notable artists or even as an artist worth listing as one of the most notable artist in that scope. The section was pure POV and has nothing to do with educational listing or a referenced selection. For a listing of all internet artists (or people who claim themself something like that, there is a whole lot of spam around in that section and Wikipedia obviously attracts unknown artists to do some spamming here) there is Category:Digital artists. --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burnumburnum.jpg

Restored. Is the transwiki incorrect because it should really be fair use? Doesn't look like it should be public domain and GFDL/CC at least (as commons version says). Peter 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the comment 'I scanned and edited it from a flyer so now Im the copyright holder'... I tagged it for speedy deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna Ciccone.jpg

Please take a look in this file and see if the licensing is correct. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rational The image is in public domain since the subject passed away in 1963, ie between 1929 and 1977 and is deemed to be in public domain is strange because it gives no evidence and circles around a persional interpretion based on circumstances, not on legal facts. You must provide (the first/approved by copyright holder) publication and demonstrate, that THAT publication fulfills the requirements stated by the license template. This is not done at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Idf_soldier_treated.png

Would you care to explain why you reverted the license information for File:Idf_soldier_treated.png? It is properly licensed in Flickr. What do you exactly mean when you say "that account is bad"? --386-DX (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

they are not the copyright holder and not allowed to license it. See the deletion request on Commons, this file comes from the initially written source and was not published by the copyright holder on flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz talk 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

User:Hentzer

I think you may be mistaken Martin, my goal is to put images worthy of wikipedia pages because the pages in English in Brazil are much to be desired, and if I wait for her willingness to legalize images I will die earlier if materialize, then stop behaving like the terrible Adolf Hitler, deleting images that I had work to find, try and be more rational and try to help republish them according to law, because I do not know in which category I place the images, because I am not an employee of wikipedia, but a contributor, and has made great contributions to quality texts, which you should consider.

Summary: try to resolve the leadership instead of behaving like a dictator in Brazil hate this behavior typical of poorly educated, what we like and seek to resolve all based on reason. Then format the images as it should be rather clear.

Wikipedia is a Free content project - that means the copyright owner MUST agree that anyone (not only wikipedia but any person or company on this planet) can reuse their content anywhere, anytime for any purpose including commercial reuse. Thats not given for all your uploads. You have not "searched" them - you have grabbed the images from other webistes and claimed them "entirely your own work" - wrong - and claimed that the copyright holder (you.....) gave anyone the permission to reuse this image as free content as long as the reuser attributes you as the copyright holder - also wrong. Its nothing about leadership, im a simple contributor here too, the only difference is that my contributions are about copyright and the spirit of this wiki - free content and correct information instead of false claims - not about the blatant infringement of copyrights and the careless uploads of non-free content with false claims on authorship and source. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now read the Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images please. Is the photo your work? No - although you make the false claim that it is. Did the copyright holder licensed it freely? No, its not free content. Is it public domain? No, copyright in Brazil expires minimum after 70 years, the photos are far to recent. So why do you upload, why do you give false author and source information, do you think that this is accurate editing? --Martin H. (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.s.: My impression changes. You not did this accidentially but from some images like File:Concordeclubfloripa.jpg you removed the watermarks to hide your stealing. --Martin H. (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arab League images

What ended up happening here? Also, thoughts on this? Enigmamsg 03:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stay with what I said last. The uploader explained the source, so we should (1) delete all photographic contributions except userpage images, (2) check the information provided with the Logos but (3) keep the maps. I however have to mention, that my qustion at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Arab League#Arab Atlas and other maps, my last commment, isnt fully answered, he not explains the source of the maps or what software he uses, but I dont see the copyright problem that big for the base maps, so its ok for the moment. Additionally I wounder why this user was never forced to rename, its a redicolous to have some boy naming himself after an organization and creating the impression, that the Arab League is editing on Wikipedia. For me the biggest problem is, that it realy hard to search his contribs on Commons as MER-C already said ;) --Martin H. (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The issue seems to have died there, so maybe it should be brought up again. Enigmamsg 14:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caprivi-escort.jpg

The most recent version of the page had {{coord|18|5|30.22|S|21|40|10.1|E|display=title}} --B (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, transfered that information. --Martin H. (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: File:Jc thong cu.jpg

Hello Martin H.. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Jc thong cu.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im not wasting more time in searching where that vandal has stolen the files from. Have a good life with the stolen images here on Wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC) P.s.: For File:Jc thong fb.jpg it was simple, please use your time for the other image, it is obvious! --Martin H. (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne, Florida

The Melbourne, Florida article has an issue with an anon editor (Using the 97.102.12x.xx IP range) and looking back at the history it has been on going. The editor is also socking on Commons (User:Drummerboy37 is one of them) so the only thing we can do there (Commons) is to block and delete the images (which are always copyvios and some even from other editors on Commons itself claimed as Own work). Not to sure what could be done with the Melbourne, FL article though. Bidgee (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only revert the edits, dont know what to do with that article either. Obviously that guy not knows how to use Template:Clear too prevent images from going in the next section, he instead uses linebreaks (that however depend on your own browser and monitor size and will have different results for different viewers). Stupid. Also that he needs 4 edits to add one linebreak... I confirmed your sockpuppet findings on Commons and agree with deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paulini article

Hi, I've noticed you've redirected the Paulini article back to Paulini Curuenavuli. The reason why i changed it back to Paulini is because she's known just as Paulini in her career. For example, the singer Ciara doesn't have her full name on it's article title. ozurbanmusic (talk)

The reason why I changed it is a copyright breach you created. Copy&pasting is the worst thing you can do on this wiki, with copy&pasting you claim the entire article your own writing!! Note the edit box saying "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License " - you are allowed to copy other peoples text from Wikipedia but you must attribute all authors! Therefore we use the "move" button to move an article and not copy&paste. (1) Ask for a consensus to rename the article (2) use the move button, not copy&paste. --Martin H. (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried the Move button a lot of times but I can't because the article, Paulini has already been created. If your an Administrator, can you please help me by moving the article to Paulini. ozurbanmusic (talk)

Thats another sign that you have to ask for consensus first. If you have consensus you can point an admin to the debate and he will delete the old article and redirect to make place for the move. --Martin H. (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by consensus? Do you know any good administrator/s I could request this move to? ozurbanmusic (talk)

Read Help:Moving a page please. --Martin H. (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of 62.171.194.0/24 range

Hi. I'm a sysadmin at the school where this IP Range is used and I'm trying to upload two images for a new article on the new school we've had built (from Filton High School to Abbeywood Community School) the school logo and a photo from the lobby area. I was going to upload it to Commons but you've blocked the IP (and fairly, too) so how would I go about getting these images online? I would have posted this on your commons page...but I'm not allowed :P Many Thanks, Tb2571989 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the account and sent you the pasword via email. --Martin H. (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much Appriciated. Any advice on what license to put the pictures on? (One photo and one logo) Tb2571989 (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The license that the copyright holder - the creator or the employer in case the exclusive copyright was transfered - preferes. Wikipedia often recomands the use of a duallicensing with GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0, see commons:Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codewit

Hi Martin,

In case you missed it, you got a mention here. –Moondyne 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I felt a need to answer. --Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting A Photo of two Stamps issued By Germany in 1985 for the celebration of European Music Year 1985

Hi, you just deleted a photo European Music Year 1985 depicting two stamps without discussing the matter first. Would you please explain your action to me why, these stamps were not relevant or rather "Unrelated" as you put it? Thanks a lot. Fusion is the future (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an explanation in the edit summary as well as in the deletion log. No reason to upload a low quality redundant version of File:DBP 1985 1248 Georg Friedrich Händel.jpg and File:DBP 1985 1249 Johann Sebastian Bach.jpeg with bogus licensing and wrong author claim. --Martin H. (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you called another user a liar.User talk:Martin H. - Image Uploads I kindly remind you, this is strictly against the principles of Wikipedia.

  • "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."
  • Making mistake is a common thing. If I did so, you can/must explain it to me in a civil manner and help me do it right. (Licensing and author claim.)

Agreed?

Having said that.

  • Millions of people have these stamps issued by Germany in 1985 and they all are free of use since copyright law does not apply to them.
  • You still did not answer my specific question: Why these stamps were unrelated, as you described them in your edit summary?

You reasoned in your edit summary exactly such as: "stamp, that's unrelated"

Sincerely best. Fusion is the future (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I find someone intentionally lying to me I will call him so and due to my limited abilities to speak English I use exactly this words. Care about your own business and don't play teacher here with reminding me of some policies. Thanks.
The stamp is unrelated to the artist. A stamp is an artistic work. Is the artist related to that work (stamp designer)? No. The stamp illustrates the contribution of Germany to this event as well as the 300th birthdays of Händel and Bach, both born in 1685. Is is the artist related to this contribution of Germany? No. Is the artist related to either Händel or Bach? No. Is he related to both composers 300th birthdays? No. The only relation is that the artist is related to that event but from a different country with a different approach, Germany celebrated 300 birthdays of Bach and Händel, Denmark did something different. Does this very marginal connection between the stamp and the artist justify to include the stamps into the article, an article that really not lacks images but that rather looks like a random collection of images? Obviously not, there is no connection between the stamp and the artist, so the image is just necessary. The consequence is simple, the file on Commons was deleted because of bogus author and license claims and redundant upload of something that we already had on Commons. The images are not replaced in the article with their high quality duplicates as usual but removed because they don't provide any illustrative value to the article. --Martin H. (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binahian

Hi there, just a note, the article Binahian, which you proposed for deletion, has been restored after its deletion was contested. If the article still merits deletion, please initiate a discussion at WP:AFD. Thank you. — ξxplicit 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons block

Hey Martin H., I'd like to know why you keep on blocking me. Sorry, I do not speak english so well (I'm brazilian), but I'm working on article Cher in the portuguese wikipedia and I had so much headache to find pics that do not own any copyright, like the old ones, and I noticed that you deleted all pics, including the ones taken in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s that clearly do not own any copyright. Other pics were taken by the fans on live shows and posted on the Cher Gallery (I sent an OTRS permission and I was waiting for a reply until you deleted them).

I mean, last year I had another account named Djosci and I didn't know any of the Wikipedia rules, and I apologize for that, but now I know. And is devastating when some work that you spent so much time on it is simply deleted without any explanation. Please reply me, because it's impossible to talk to you on Commons. Thank you. Lordelliott (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"not own any copyright" will require evidence of first publication in the U.S. at that time without complience to the requirements of copyright of that time. That was not given with any upload, the files are just a little bit older, thats all. Aditionally: I not blocked one sockpuppet of you, I block half a dozen. I not found your sockpuppets because I like to search, I found them because of lots of recent copyright violations related to that artist - all coming from you. Your comment above is not even half of the truth. --Martin H. (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the sock puppets - it was a disastered way to avoid that all pics were deleted at the same time only by my historic in Commons. I thought that you could help me with the licenses and all these burocracy. I really wanted to know how to proceed to improve the article, but it seems impossible, so I'm giving up. Thank you. Lordelliott (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Write articles, you are better with that. --Martin H. (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football logos

Thanks for definitively help me to upload files which can't be removed without pitiless and give me my first steps. Thanks and excuse me a thousand times. All forgotten by my side --Raul-Reus (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ontthb.png

About Ontthb.png. It was six years ago! I can't really remember, but I suspect that I copied it from Ontwel.png, just filling a different section in red. It was listed as GFDL. I say that it probably came from Ontwel.png because that is an image which highlights Waterloo Regional Municipality, Ontario, which is where I live and where I have done some editing. I can't say definitively where it came from though, because it was so long ago. --  timc  talk   00:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian helmet/stub

Hi. I saw to put the Dacian helmet for deletion and removed it from Dacia stub. I think this is one of the best pictures on Dacia topic. Not sure who uploaded and I am not clear what are you suggesting and implying here. If there is a better one to use, I am for it. But it would be a pity to lose it altogether. Which copyright does it break and who do you think owns the picture? I can go ahead and try to contact the original author, if you think you know it. Also which copyright laws apply to pictures of ancient artifacts? Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright applies to the photographic work only. Quite obvious the images uploader isnt the photographer, that matters, the source and author is wrong, the license is wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what solutions are you suggesting? I saw you provided this link [1]. Is that image ok, if I get in touch with the owner of that site and get his permission? In other words, I am trying to have a picture with the helmet respecting the copyright laws, but I am not clear what's the best approach as I am new to this. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a scan from an exhibition catalogue, ISBN 9783882703252, the copyright owner on the photographic work is the photographer (there is no transfer of copyrights in Germany, so the publisher is only a licensee). I dont have a copy of the book, the photographer is named there maybe. Maybe the publisher - the Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt who also made the exhibition from January 1994 to April 1994 - can help with knowing or contacting the photographer. Another solution would be to simply go to the museum in Bucharest where the object is located today. --Martin H. (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for clarifying and for the detail. I contacted also the owner of this blog [2]. I think he might have taken the pictures at the museum plus he seems involved in the reconstruction of the broken helmet. Regarding pictures taken in the museum, if my understanding is correct, it is ok to post them in Commons, even if the museum discourages the taking of pictures? --Codrin.B (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he can offer an alternative image for free use, looks promissing. --Martin H. (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so to. But just to clarify, what is the policy regarding pictures taken in museums. They are ok, right? --Codrin.B (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The musum may forbid commercial reuse of the photos, but thats not a copyright restriction. commons:Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#.22House_rules.22. --Martin H. (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thanks for pointing me to the link. Very helpful! Cheers! --Codrin.B (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images and graphics per PD-RO-1956

Hi Martin, I have a question since you are very experienced with these licenses. I am wondering if commons:Template:PD-RO-1956 applies to images and graphics from a Romanian book from 1929 as is Getica by Vasile Pârvan, made available by the Romanian government here: [3]. I hope this license or others apply to this content, as some of the archaeological artifacts depicted were destroyed during World War 2, are lost or maybe in some obscure museums or private collections, making it impossible to create newer photographs. Thanks a lot!--Codrin.B (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask commons:User talk:Alex:D --Martin H. (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I posted the question to Alex. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Martin H please upload eva Larue4.jpg please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.236.134.144 (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UserFind12313143 Hi Martin H please Block User Gohe007 reason Vandalism

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martin_H.&oldid=410059156"