User talk:Haukurth

While you're here ;-)) there're some pics I don't know what they mean...

• Image:Processed SAM mjodr.jpg
• Image:Processed SAM rati.jpg

for ex.
And how comes the colors are so different from SAM 66 and NKS ? Thanks again, --GymnoPedia 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see those images in context here: [1] [2]

I don't know why the colours are so different! Maybe it has to do with the preservation of the manuscripts, maybe it has to do with the methods used to photograph them, maybe it simply has to do with the equipment available to the two artists at the time. Je ne sais pas! Haukurth 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to add some information when I have time (more accurate descriptions, titles, dates, locations, authors...). By the way, how do you know that some illustrations from Sander's Edda are by Jenny Nyström ?

Sigo 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite helpful and discusses Sander's Edda a bit: [3] A shame that the artist doesn't seem to have done more mythology work. I like her style. Haukurth 19:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I love the swan maidens too. Sigo 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I do not know the implications of the 'published before 1909 in USA'-rule.
--Jorunn 10:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your page for Images from the Melsted Edda is lacking the picture for the Binding of Fenrir and has two copies from the Abduction of Idunn: "Three gods trying to boil some food as related in Haustlöng." Fenrir used to be on the page before it was updated.

Cnyborg 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cnyborg 12:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cnyborg 12:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haukur, could you please check COM:FOP#Iceland? I only have that outdated English translation of the Copyright Act of Iceland to work from. Anyway, what changes were made in February 2006?[4][5] Lupo 10:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article wasn't changed in 2006 so I think your summary is still accurate. The highlights of the 2006 changes, from my point of view, are the doubling of the protection term for photographs (there was a 1981 book with manuscript photographs which I had been planning on using - kiss that idea goodbye for another 25 years) and the near-destruction of the fair-use clause by restricting it to non-commercial publications. There were also some changes to clauses on software and recordings. Haukurth 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, the main purpose of the law was to implement the en:Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Haukurth 13:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this explanation! Lupo 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Haukur! It was me who asked Lupo for some advice regarding FOP in Iceland. Thank you for help. There are less people who know about Icelandic-specific laws, maybe you could add an Iceland section to Commons:Licensing? Regards, --Polarlys 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (just returned from Iceland :-))) )[reply]

Good evening Haukur! I searched the net for a good reproduction of the map of Iceland mentioned above without result. Do you know a source? I need a small part of it, the Langjökull area. Thank you for advice. --Polarlys 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you already aware of this? [6] I don't know anything better. Haukurth 00:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you can't work with DJVU, look at the world's best collection of free images: Björn Gunnlaugsson. And also Category:Uppdráttr Íslands (1844). I only wish I had found that category earlier, would have saved me some work :-( Lupo 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can guess what the nominator says, but what does he actually say? And what does the Icelandic copyright law (and possibly the National Bank) say? Lupo 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Same here. Other people guessed, too :-) Lupo 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asked him directly at User talk:Steinninn. He appears to be able to communicate in English after all. Sorry for the bother. Lupo 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No bother. I added a translation to the latter of these instances. Haukurth 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The CBoI has a section on reproduction of bank notes here (in English): http://www.sedlabanki.is/?PageID=278 It's pretty clear that they expect the copyright act to apply, in particular they note that the moral rights of the authors of the pictorial matter can come into play. Haukurth 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The windows and the church in Akureyri were built 67 years ago...long time before you or me were born... But I took those photos that I uploaded.

--Roman Zacharij 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should not mark those images as self-made. Unless you have some reason to believe they are in the public domain we should delete them. Haukurth 06:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have photographed the windows and photographs are made by me, that is why they are self made. So I am the author of the photographs. I was allowed to take images inside the church by the local priest. And I have got his permission for that. Do you delete image of every church, window or sculpture? Absurd!

In addition to that, copyrights of window-artwork have expired after 67 years - so they are in public domain!

--Roman Zacharij 21:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, copyright takes longer than that to expire. Current Icelandic law (which is retroactive) gives a copyright term of 70 years after the death of the artist. Haukurth 23:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this relates to the original work. My pictures are reproductions, copies, photographs made by me (i.e. Roman Zacharij). You are mixing up original with the photocopy. Dont you agree that Hallgrimskirkja in Reykjavik is the work of art? It is a work of art. Is a photograph of Hallgrimskirkja a violation of copyrights? Same with windows of the church...

--Roman Zacharij 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you sell, say, postcards where Hallgrímskirkja is the primary subject then the heirs of the architecht would, according to the law, be entitled to renumeration. Check article 16 of Icelandic copyright law. Haukurth 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After deletion of those Icelandic images I have looked around commons and laws of other countries. According to that page and Finland entry Freedom_of_panorama#Finland - Image:Väinö Aaltonen 1955 När vänskapsbanden knytes.jpg cannot be used on commons and has to be removed. This message was posted to User:Kameraad Pjotr as well.--Avala (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Haukurth (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this get deleted automatically now or we have to make a deletion request every time? Is Wikimedia Commons working on precedent case decision or every case is considered (officially at least) unique? Also my personal opinion is that those laws are bad but we of course have to respect them, there can't be question about that.--Avala (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a wiki - often a chaotic and inconsistent place but these should be deleted as a matter of course. Note that the law in Iceland and Finland wouldn't actually prohibit us from hosting these images here since they are not being used for profit. However, the Wikimedia Commons general policy is to accept only free images. Haukurth (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many images are free for non-for-profit but they still can't be used here.--Avala (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the author of that image is Finnish it is placed in Sweden. Do we apply the law of sculptor or the law of the host country. I suppose the first but still I would like to hear your opinion.--Avala (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good point! I honestly don't know. I would actually suspect that it may be the host country. Of course this is all a bit arbitrary since the servers are placed in the US so US law is the only one which we definitely have to follow. But then we don't! As far as I know US law does not have the freedom of panorama needed for all these sculptures. Like I said, Commons is a bit inconsistent. There are a lot of Germans here so sometimes German law can influence Commons policy beyond what would necessarily make the most sense... Haukurth (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway here are other images to be checked for their status (Many of them modern sculptures in Finland by Finnish artists so pretty much clear situation):

• Image:Kolmen sepän patsas.JPG
• Image:Kukkolankoski statue May2008.jpg
• Image:Patsas Pietarsaaressa.jpg
• Image:Part of statue "Ajan kulku" (Flow of Time) in Oulu.jpg
• Image:Part of statue on the history of Oulu.jpg
• Image:Tanssiva tyttö.JPG
• Image:Vapaudenpatsas Oulu 20080314 01.jpg
• Image:Mikael Agricola bust.jpg
• Image:Mikael Agricola, byst i Åbo domkyrka, den 27 juni 2007.jpg
• Image:Helsinki-Folk-singer-statue-1750.JPG
• Image:Helsinki-worker-statue-1751.JPG
• Image:Kauppakeskus Kluuvi Helsinki.jpg
• Image:Vårt land.jpg
• Image:Aaro Jalkanen Memorial.jpg
• Image:Frans Mikael Franzen Oulu 2008 02 17.JPG
• Image:Franzen statue Oulu.jpg

--Avala (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, I see. I'm not an admin, though, so I can't directly delete anything. Haukurth (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I informed Kameraad Pjotr, we will see if the erasing is automatic or not. Then if not we can make deletion requests because of the formalities. --Avala (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note above about file deletions. Have you considered applying to be an admin? You've been doing really excellent work on DRs and on various copyright issues. I'm more than happy to propose you if so. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm flattered. I do know a thing or two about copyright and I've been an admin on enwiki for a couple of years. I would find the admin tools on Commons useful and I could help out a little. On the other hand I haven't been a very high-activity contributor to Commons. I would be happy to accept a nomination if you think it would have a reasonable chance of success. Haukurth (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have a very good chance, particularly if the new tools might tempt you to become a higher-activity contributor ;) There's a lot needing doing, and your copyright knowledge would be extremely useful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any more thoughts about this? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, let's just go for it :) I've been active lately and the backlogs could certainly use some work. Haukurth (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Can you go to Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Haukurth and accept the nom? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Om nom nom! :) Haukurth (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haukurth, I was wondering if there was any possibility of reconsidering your opposition to my proposal. Considering how fruitless all of the debate has been thus far, I honestly think this is our best chance to resolve the current disparity between our de facto and de jure licensing policies. I admit it is only piecemeal, and it will certainly not end all debate on the issue, but will allow us to say we agree to disagree for the time being. Having read over the relevant legal opinions, I agree that it is likely that a UK court would side with the NPG in this case, but it is not certain. Indeed, if it were certain, I believe the NPG would be pursuing legal action (as they don't seem to care that much about their public image, IMO). That bit of uncertainty should allow us to err on the side of inclusiveness, especially considering the cost of what we would be giving up (a significant portion of the artistic and cultural history of Britain). I think Godwin's opinion dovetails quite well with the WikiMedia Foundation's goals (as well as those of the community) and it would be a pity to ignore the foundation's opinion simply so we can pat ourselves on the back for being legally air-tight. Also, I would certainly be interested in pursuing the inclusion of other currently-excluded countries should this proposal successfully establish a precedent (including Iceland). Let me know your thoughts on the matter. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with allowing 2D reproductions here but it has to be with both eyes open, it must not be based on some sort of wishful thinking or misinformation about UK law. And it's critical to distinguish between legal problems for the WikiMedia Foundation (probably small) and legal problems for reusers in the UK (probably large). Haukurth (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I appreciate that you are trying to solve the problem in a constructive manner. Haukurth (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the template that Pruneau and myself have mocked up. Hopefully it would serve as a good warning to reusers, and would certainly be an improvement over continuing to allow people to tag NG and NPG images as simply PD-Art (which we are in the habit of allowing, albeit with voluminous debate, even though it violates our current policies). Kaldari (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interesting: Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#A_little_more_on_PD-Art Kaldari (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 07:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful informations, eh? Anyway, I added the template. Haukurth (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry I wasn't able to help in time. =) By the way, you know who I am on en-wiki, right? Initials S.H, don't want to give the full name because of search engines? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do now :) I was actually in Edinburgh last week - should have knocked down your door and taken a look at that book ;) Haukurth (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about my belated reply, I've been on vacation. Of course I don't presume to know more than Sander does about the image. It should be redescribed and renamed. --Ranveig (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this? Useful? Good idea? Bad idea? Dangerous? What else should be mentioned? Other examples that should be mentioned? Or better delete it again? Lupo 08:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad at all! I think we could add hints on how to get the highest possible resolution out of Google Books. I find the most convenient way to be to zoom in to the max and then go Tools -> Page Info -> Media in Firefox. There you can find the jpg and save it. Haukurth (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about this. So by all means, add it! Lupo 08:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I don't get no zoom capability in Google books. I have to download the PDF and extract images from there. Can you zoom here? Lupo 09:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The thing I'm unsure about is when this zoom-interface appears. I get it when I visit Google Books directly but if I go through a proxy I get a different interface which doesn't allow me to zoom. I don't know what most of the world sees or if there's a way to switch between these. Haukurth (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I can here: [7] Can you? Haukurth (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there I can zoom. Though it doesn't tell me when I'm at 100%. The highest zoom level appears to be more than 100%. Extracting this image from the PDF, it's (unrotated) 498×788px. Zooming in to the max in Google books and cropping the JPG gives me an image of 735×1134px, but it's blurry. If I upscale the image from the PDF by 150%, I get an equally blurry image. Maybe still better to download the PDF and extract from there? Lupo 09:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, I admit I hadn't tried that comparison. It could still be more convenient to do it my way if the PDF is big and you just need one image. Haukurth (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haukurth, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Also consider joining #wikimedia-admin, the cross-wiki coordination channel for Wikimedia administrators. Any member of the channel can invite you in temporarily, but you need an invite exemption from a channel operator to get in whenever you want. Please come to #wikimedia and ask for an invite. Any admin from any project is welcome.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thank you :) Haukurth (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Easy job number 1: write a new Commons policy for anonymous works ;) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! You voted me in as admin, not as wizard :) Haukurth (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haukurth! As you maybe know, Foteviken museum is a reconstruction of Viking settlement. So none of the items there on display are old or original. The sculpture of God Wodan was - as far as I can remember - nailed to wall of one of the reconstructed Viking houses. If the installation of reconstructions in open air museums is a reason for deletion, you have to rethink the whole open air category. With regards Xenophon 14.30 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haukurth! Thanks for the advice. I have added the recommended template and did a more precise description of the item that should be sufficient in that case. If not, please write! With regards Xenophon 14.55 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for the trouble! Haukurth (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I just thought you were absent in a long term and didn't know when and if you were coming back so I moved it to Kameraad Pjotr's page. If you want you can see them there and post a reply on his talk page if you acted.--Avala (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Haukur. I happened to be a bit clumsy when uploading a couple of images, and forgot to add "(1901) by Arthur Rackham" to the end of the file names. Is it possible for you to fix this? The files in question are Image:There_broke_forth_a_wailing_and_a_lamentation.jpg and Image:Hymir rushed forward and cut through the line.jpg. I'd be grateful! Holt (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there and thanks for doing all this useful sorting! I don't know of any magic admin way to rename files - I think you just need to reupload them under a new name and then we can delete the old one. In this case I don't actually think there's anything wrong with the current names. Haukurth (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like doing this kind of sorting, and I think I'll work a bit on it the following days, now that you and Bloodofox have been uploading in a frenzy. Good job, you two! I suppose you don't mind if I start moving all images to the appropriate, Norse category titles? If you could just follow my trails and delete the categories that are left empty or something. Give me a note if you get any ideas for better organization, I'd be glad to do some work on that. Holt (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely, it would be great to have more consistent category names, I'll gladly help. You've done some great uploads too - I love the Olaus Magnus stuff. Haukurth (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up after me :) A few categories for deletion — Category:Wagner's Nordisch-germanische Götter und Helden. Category:Animals in Norse mythology Category:Heimdall Category:Sol (mythology) Category:Ull Category:Norse heroes. Any comments on the categorization? I have stuffed a few characters I am uncertain of into Category:Figures in Norse mythology. Holt (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things are much clearer than they were before! Haukurth (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hello, Haukurth!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Membership in Ásatrúarfélagið.svg is uncategorized since 5 May 2009.

Yes. Maybe we should create a template from this explanation as a benefit for all those, who want to upload similar artworks. With kind regards, --Polarlys (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) BTW: I just noticed that I missed your candidature. Add one (mine) imaginary support vote to your fine result! :)[reply]

Thank you for the vote of confidence! Unfortunately I've been much less active as an admin here than I had planned on. Hopefully I'll be able to remedy this sometime in the future.

I think we could definitely use some solid guidelines and templates on artworks similar to the one on Boyle. For comparison see Rama's images at User:Rama/Personalities drawings - the old drawings there are problematic since they're usually based directly on single photographs. The more recent drawings don't have that problem. Unfortunately it's all a bit underdocumented. (When I brought this up with Rama he told me he was aware there were problems with the old images but didn't feel it was his place to comment on them.) If we could get together a guideline with some examples of what's acceptable (and what's useful) that would be great. Haukurth (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haukurth. You have new messages at Abigor's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Huib talk 09:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to obtain permissions from the specific authors of the photos. All the answers I've received till now are affirmative. --Ycco (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Haukur,

I am working on a book on Scandinavian names, and I would like to use the picture of Thor's Wedding-feast, which you have adapted for Wikipedia, as an illustration for a chapter on names taken from Norse mythology. For my purposes I need to have a scan of high resolution, and I wonder if you can help me. The file on Wikipedia is too small.

Thank you, Nancy L. Coleman coleman@online.no

I'm afraid I can't help you - you'll probably just have to obtain a copy of the book and make a better scan. I was working from the Google scan, I haven't personally scanned anything from the book. Haukurth (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You edited this image and left a note at the uploaders talkpage. I want to inform you that the image was previously deleted - it was exactly the same, see the log. You where heavy involved in the case Commons:Deletion requests/Series by Nyo. --Martin H. (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - even today I'm still trying to clean up categories and images added by Nyo. I have no idea whether the stuff at Category:Heathenism in art is really legit, for example.

As for our recent contributor, he does seem to have legitimately acquired some licences so I didn't want to shoot first and ask questions later - but I think it's highly likely that the pictures I'm asking him about will need to be deleted. By the way, I left a note at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Eccentric_uploads_from_User:Ycco. Haukurth (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep it on AN, thanks for the information. --Martin H. (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have a moment, could you please translate Template:Potd/2005-03-02 (is) properly? Regards, Thuresson (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now? Haukurth (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haukurth,

Since you're a member of the Islenska Asatruarfelagidh and/or participate in their activities (at least I think so) I was wondering if you could ask the permission for these photos (http://www.asatru.is/Starfsemi/Ljosmyndiatenglar.htm ... among which there are also some of those I uploaded here, now deleted) directly to their authors (if you know them). I already asked the authorization to the Islenska Asatruarfelagidh itself, but later they answered that they couldn't give the permission since the copyrights are held by the specific authors. They also said that they would have forwarded my emails to the authors, but since then I've not received any further answer yet. --Ycco (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I do hope to continue to add images to Category:Ásatrúarfélagið - both my own and those I can get permission for from other photographers. It's possible that I could eventually get permission for some of those you selected but I can't make any promises. I appreciate your zeal in adding images of pagan activities, you have added many interesting photographs. Haukurth (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch | Español | Italian

Dear Haukurth. I am writing to you 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 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 Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 08:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Haukurth,

could you please mention the exact link for this File? I mean, "sagnanet.is" is not really specific, and it would be good to have directly the link of the picture. Greetings, --Trollhead (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haukurth. I am sad to tell you that your adminship has been removed in acordeance with our inactivity policy. If you'd like to be a sysop again, I'd kindly ask you to request so at COM:RfA. Sorry to tell you this bad news, abf «Cabale!» 15:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad news, it's natural and I knew it was coming. I've mostly just moved on to other things and I was never a very active admin here to begin with. Haukurth (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valkyrie and raven.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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ ��еларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

I nominated for deletion because of having uploaded a much better version Levana Taylor (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in getting these words extracted? If so, i can do it. I'm only asking since it's been so long since you asked for it BumpySlug (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a blast from the past :) I see I did read these words back in 2006 but apparently another contributor asked for splitting up the file so I guess you could ask them.[8] Haukurth (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]