User talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2013

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bilder

Hallo!

Deine Kritikpunkte haben mich durchaus beschäftigt und ich möchte daher deine Hilfe zur Klärung der Angelegenheit in Anspruch nehmen, denn getreu meinem Motto bin ich lernfähig und -willig.

  1. Dieses Logo hat IMHO keine Schöpfungshöhe (einfache Formen und Text) und ist deshalb gemeinfrei.
  2. Die Bilder des Künstlers habe ich vom Rechteinhaber, der es sich sich die Freigabe aber nachträglich anders überlegt hat.
  3. Die Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen wird nur von cc-by-sa verlangt, nicht jedoch von cc-by (Bild).

Sollte ich in einem dieser Punkte einen Denkfehler haben, bitte ich dich mir zu einer besseren Erkenntnis zu verhelfen :) Grüße --Ne discere cessa! 13:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC) --Ne discere cessa! 13:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Ne discere cessa! Vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung. Zu den einzelnen Punkten:
  • Danke hierfür, auf Commons verwenden wir hierfür {{PD-textlogo}} und {{Trademark}}. Ich habe das mal eingesetzt.
  • Seltsam erschien mir auch der ND-Zusatz, da dieser zu restriktiv ist, siehe COM:L. Aber es sich nachträglich anders zu überlegen, deutet darauf hin, dass es entweder nicht zu Beginn richtig geklärt wurde oder der Versuch unternommen wurde, etwas zurückzunehmen, was nicht zurückgenommen werden kann. Keine Frage, da gehen Dinge beim ersten Mal recht häufig schief, weswegen es gut ist, sich gleich Hilfe dazu zu organisieren. Mich irritierte hier, dass es keinen Versuch gab, das irgendwie zu klären, obwohl die Schwäbin Hilfe anbot.
  • CC-BY verlangt die Nennung der gleichen Bedingungen, siehe Punkte 4a und 4b im Text der Lizenz. Auch wenn dies sich nicht automatisch auf Deine kreativen Änderungen bezieht, wirst Du deswegen nicht davon befreit, die originale Lizenz zu nennen. Das hast Du aber zuvor nicht gemacht. Vielen Dank für diese Änderung.
Viele Grüße und einen schönen Sonntag noch, AFBorchert (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Ich habe zu danken. Danke für die schnelle und präzise Antwort. --Ne discere cessa! 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User TeleD on File:Hammo 17.JPG and uploading images on flickr

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

If you can, please tell this German user not to include an 'x' or a 't' in the flickr link as the flickr bot rejects the image and it goes into the unsourced images category...and I have to type in the right link. I don't know why he doesn't just copy the flickr link which appears on the screen. This is another example of an 'x' and a 't' in the weblink for an image he uploaded that the flickrbot said 'no flickr link.'

I don't speak German and Germany is 9 hours ahead of Vancouver/California time sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, do you know why the second attempt of the Flickrbot failed? The Flickrbot states size_not_found in his edit comment but the original size of 4022 x 2459 is available at Flickr. Perhaps the Flickrbot does not like the mismatch of the resolution in the EXIF data and the actual file. Anyway, I've reviewed this case and left a short notice on the talk page of the uploader in regard to the use of canonical Flickr URLs. I guess that these odd links origin from some context we do not have access to. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I'm afraid the flickrbot doesn't act like a rational human being. It has done this many times to other images uploaded by different people from different flickr sources. It just says 'size not found' and a human reviewer must eventually mark it sadly. Anyway, this German uploader uploaded 2 images and the flickrbot did the same thing to this image...which I eventually marked: File:Hammonasset 16.JPG Personally, while I am trusted if someone uploads 5 images from 1 flickr source, I may mark 3 or 4 images and let another trusted user mark the other one or two--just to confirm that the images were licensed freely. A second set of eyes is always better. That was why I chose not to mark the first image I mentioned to you above. Its now 12:43 AM in Vancouver and I have to go to bed. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Files deleted by Masur

Hallo Andreas, ich sehe mich leider nicht in der Lage, Permissions für Bilder, die ich vor mehr als fünf Jahren hier hochgeladen habe aus meinen Emailarchiven wieder zu finden. Ich möchte auch z.B. einen Mann wie Prof. Dr. Arne May nicht mehr als fünf Jahre, nachdem er mir die Bilder für die Verwendung in Wikipedia zur Verfügung gestellt, hat mit irgendwelchen "OTRS templates" belästigen. Kannst Du bitte helfen? (8 Dateien) Danke! - Für weitere von Masur gelöschte Dateien habe ich bereits Emails mit den Permissions an OTRS geschickt. --Friedrich K. (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Friedrich, ich nahm mir die Freiheit, Deine aus meiner Sicht berechtigten Anfragen auf COM:UDEL zusammenzufassen, um die Diskussion zu vereinfachen. Schließlich sind die alle gleich zu behandeln. Ich sehe es auch so, dass wir hier nicht mehr einen regulären OTRS-Prozess einfordern sollten und habe einen entsprechenden Kommentar abgegeben in der Hoffnung, dass dieser auch bei weiteren Admins Unterstützung findet. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Andreas, vielen herzlichen Dank für die Unterstützung, wenigstens ein Lichtblick in dieser für mich sehr frustrierenden Angelegenheit! Nachfolgend ein paar Gedanken zur möglichen Verbesserung der Vorgehensweise bzgl. der Wikimedia Common "old file deletions", aus der Sicht eines gelegentlichen unbedarften Nutzers:
  1. Ich war verreist, ohne Internetzugang und ich schau hier auch sonst nicht alle paar Tage rein. - Die 7 Tage sind bestimmt nicht nur für mich viel zu knapp für solch alte Dateien. 7 Tage wären IMHO für Neuzugänge OK, aber nicht für Dateien, die bereits vor vielen Jahren hier hochgeladen wurden.
  2. An den bereits gelöschten Dateien kann der gelegentliche unbedarfte Nutzer nicht mehr erkennen, wann diese hochgeladen wurden, woher diese Dateien stammen und welche Lizenzbedingungen, Autor, Source etc. damals angegeben wurden. Das erschwert die Antwort/Reaktion auf die Löschung sehr.
  3. Ein Bespiel dafür sind die VBM & PET Dateien. Mir war nicht bewusst, dass diese im März 2007 zuerst bei CK-Wissen.de hochgeladen wurden. Damit handelt es sich diesbezüglich IMHO nicht um ein "old files" Problem, sondern der Löscher hatte vermutlich ein Problem mit der Darstellung der GNU Free Documentation License auf den CK-Wissen Seiten? Zitat aus der template File tagging File:PET1.jpg "A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email..." - Das mit den Links ist jetzt hier erledigt, aber die waren ja auch vorher da, auf den Seiten der gelöschten Files und ganz unten auf den Seiten der Dateien bei CK-Wissen, Zitat: "Inhalt ist verfügbar unter der Creative Commons „Namensnennung, nicht kommerziell, Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen". - Das wurde im Dezember 2012 bei CK-Wissen von GNU-FDL auf "Creative Commons" geändert, war dies vielleicht der Grund für die Löschung?
  4. Der OTRS Prozess über permissions-commons@wikimedia.org braucht zurzeit mehr als sieben Tage. Dateien werden daher leider nach den 7 Tagen gelöscht, auch wenn die permission per Email bereits bei OTRS vorliegt.
  5. Wenn Dateien gelöscht werden, werden nachfolgend per Bot sämtliche Links auf diese Dateien aus den verschiedensprachigen Wikipedias entfernt. Diese Links kann man nach der Wiederherstellung der Dateien dann mühsam manuell wieder herstellen. Frustrierend.
  6. Entschuldige bitte, dass ich Dich damit behellige, bei Gelegenheit schreibe ich diese Gedanken vielleicht "ins Reine" (English), aber ich wüsste im Moment nicht, wo ich das dann überhaupt anbringen sollte?

--Friedrich K. (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Friedrich, dass der Vorgang für Dich sehr frustrierend ist, lässt sich gut nachvollziehen. Etwas mehr Fingerspitzengefühl wäre sicherlich aus mehreren Gründen angemessen gewesen. Zu den einigen der angeführten Punkte:
  • Grundsätzlich ist es möglich, irgendeinen Admin zu bitten, die Dateibeschreibungen wieder zur Verfügung zu stellen, um diese Fragen zu klären. Allgemein kann so eine Anfrage auch an COM:AN gerichtet werden.
  • Ebenso möglich ist eine temporäre Wiederherstellung. Ein Antrag darauf ist ebenfalls auf COM:UDEL möglich. Das ist aber nur dann sinnvoll, wenn noch irgendetwas fehlt, bevor eine endgültige Entscheidung getroffen werden kann.
  • Wenn es einen OTRS-Prozess gibt, dann sollten die betroffenen Dateien vor der endgültigen Klärung mit {{OTRS received}} ausgezeichnet werden. Das stellt sicher, dass diese Dateien für 30 Tage nicht gelöscht werden. {{No permission since}} bleibt nur dann stehen, wenn es keinen OTRS-Prozess dazu gibt.
  • Bezüglich der automatisiert entfernten Dateien gibt es Logs, denen nachgegangen werden kann. Häufig genügt dann ein Revert des Commons-Delinkers. Ist mühsam, habe ich aber schon öfters gemacht, wenn ich etwas wiederhergestellt habe.
  • Grundsätzlich können Anregungen auf COM:VPP oder COM:VP erfolgen.
Es tut mir leid, dass sich so wenig beim aktuellen Fall tut. Ich hätte mir noch Stellungnahmen durch weitere Admins erhofft. Aber warten wir vielleicht erst noch das Wochenende ab. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ich habe auf UDEL gerade angeregt/gefragt, ob denn nicht eine kurze Email an den Urheber (Prof. am UKE, Hamburg) einfach zur Bestätigung der damaligen Genehmigung, denkbar wäre. Also, keine komplett neue Freigabe, sondern nur informelles o.k. zur damaligen Freigabe. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für den Vorschlag, "informelles OK" klingt gut. Nach meiner Erfahrung sollte man Ärzte nicht am Wochenende anschreiben, die kommen Montagsmorgens in die Klinik und haben dann genug Wichtigeres zu tun. Falls die Dateien bis Montagabend nicht wieder hergestellt sind, werde ich Arne May am Montagabend anschreiben. Für acht weitere alte Dateien habe ich seit dem 13.01.2013 bereits die Permissions per Email an 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' geschickt, aber leider bisher nicht einmal (automatische) Lesebestätigungen dafür erhalten. --Friedrich K. (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Friedrich, die OTRS-Tickets habe ich gesucht, gefunden und allesamt abgearbeitet. Ich konnte aber leider nicht alle restaurieren, weil in einigen Fällen die Freigabe dafür nicht ausreichte (Begründung dafür ist jeweils in den E-Mails). Eine automatisierte Antwort gibt es übrigens bei den Permission-Queues nicht, das ist anders als bei info-de. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Andreas, vielen herzlichen Dank für Deine gute Arbeit! Die für mich voll und ganz nachvollziehbaren Begründungen in den Emails habe ich inzwischen sorgfältig durchgelesen und dabei einiges gelernt. Daraus folgend habe ich meine Meinung geändert und heute weitere hier überflüssige Dateien zur Löschung vorgeschlagen. Für die Wiederherstellung der PET & VBM Bilder werde ich mich nicht weiter bemühen und auch sonst niemanden damit belästigen. Dann sind'se halt fott! Vielen herzlichen Dank nochmals für Deine ganze Mühe! Viele Grüße aus dem verschneiten Köln, --Friedrich K. (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed thread

Shouldn't readers of the thread have the right to know that a former sockpuppeteer is advising Commons on how to write a policy or essay about sockpuppetry? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to your statement, you are campaigning. 1) hatting a thread does NOT deprive readers of the ability to read it, if they choose so. 2) Fae posted a comment, he did not advise Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure by what you mean by Fae isn't trying to advise Commons. He states his opinion in hopes that it would influence Commons policy. Isn't that advising? All statements regarding a possible policy, from Fae's statements to Jameslwoodward's, are advice. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Michaeldsuarez, your comment was unnecessarily personal in an abstract thread that asked for guidelines and opinions regarding the use of multiple accounts. I collapsed the subthread to avoid an ongoing disruption of that thread. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please delete a low resolution image

Dear AFBorchert,

Is it possible if you can delete this old low resolution image? It is an uploader request by me.

I hope you can help, Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, this has been uploaded in 2008 and there exists apparently no duplicate of it. While we have a couple of images of Egyptian headrests, each of them appears to be quite unique including the one depicted by your photograph. Why deleting it? If you insist, this should be turned into a regular DR as we do not speedy cases like this. Uploader requests are usually just speedied in case of recent uploads. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The quality is low and I took it in 2008 when I did not know anything about 'increasing image resolution' with an old Fuji camera. I have launched a DR on it as you suggest...but I wish you could have deleted it to save me this problem. (maybe you can vote to delete it?) This image is not unique as there are several replacement images. Unlike this pottery which is very unique for which I am not requesting any DR--because it is so rare. There are no bird shaped pottery jars in its catalogue at all. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, I do not see a single image that shows exactly the same Egyptian headrest you have photographed. And as long as there is no true duplicate, I hesitate to delete it or to support a deletion even if it is of low resolution as it is still useful. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
OK then. I thought that this or this would be a good high resolution replacement. On my userpage, I have 288 high resolution images mostly from my newer Canon camera. So, when I see an image like this with 14 other images, I think that it can be deleted. Its not rare like the bird shaped pottery. But I suppose everyone's opinion is different. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
But none of the other pictures shows the same headrest and every one of them is a significant piece of heritage which deserves to be documented. And even if we have just a low resolution image of it, we should keep it at least until a high resolution image of the very same object becomes available. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of your pictures

Hi AFBorchert,

I was looking for some images for a tourism site and came across your Carlow & Newgrange photos. I am confused by the "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" part of the Creative Commons license as it doesn't tell me how you, or anybody else would like it attributed to you. Can you clarify how I would find out what the author wants done? AND In relation to your photos, how do you want me to attribute them?

Many Thanks, Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visittheirish (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Will, thank you for the interest in these photographs. All photographs published by me at Wikimedia Commons should be attributed to Andreas F. Borchert as indicated in the licenses. In regard to other authors: It would be easier to help here if you could link to those photographs you are interested in. But you should usually be able to find the attribution in the licenses provided (look for Attribution:). Next you could check out the Author field in the description. Please note that many free licenses require also the license to be named and linked to. As an example you can check out some pages by tourist pages developed by Westport, County Mayo: http://destinationwestport.com/places-to-visit/towns-villages/newport/burrishoole-abbey/ They are properly attributed but Creative Commons is too unspecific, better would have been CC-BY-SA-3.0 (including the link). Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andreas, It was helpful to see your link to how to attribute a WikiCmn photo on the web, used by a site. What is your thought on how to attribute on a printed item, ] [not a web item] i.e. an art collage, that might use 'part' of a photo from WComm? It's too bad that Wikimedia Commons writes out the license / use information for images in such legalese that it makes it almost impossible to actually 'understand'. Thank you, .. you do BEAUTIFUL images!! Beautiful indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNSaint (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Will, thank you, I am glad that you like my photographs. In printed matter, it is (in case of my pictures) sufficient to add the text Andreas F. Borchert, CC-BY-SA-3.0 close to the photograph. Here is an example: the attribution is at the bottom of p. 164, my picture is the lower one on the opposing p. 165. In this case, the authors chose to use the GFDL license but this is unpractical if done correctly (would require the whole legalese to be printed). Just replace GFDL by CC-BY-SA-3.0 and it is ok for me. In general, however, if you are using CC-BY or CC-BY-SA pictures from other people, you have to provide the full URL to the legal text in case of Creative Commons licenses (see point 4b in the legalese). In case of an art collage things get more challenging. If the pictures are still clearly separated, it should be no problem. However, if you are publishing a new adapted artwork, it must be available under the same legal terms as my original photograph, i.e. CC-BY-SA-3.0. This is the viral nature of this license, i.e. the shared-alike part (SA). If you are going to create a new adapted artwork by using works with conflicting licenses, you are running into a problem which cannot be easily solved. Note that, if necessary, I am willing to relax the licensing restrictions for my pictures if I learn exactly what you plan to do. And if I know which pictures you want to combine in which way into an art collage, I can help you to understand whether that is possible and/or if this requires the consent of the copyright holders. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sign In where

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

Can you please show me the precise link where I am supposed to sign in so that if I add a picture to a Russian or German wikipedia site, I don't have to ask someone to 'sight' my edit? I notice this still keeps happening. I added a new and clearer Commons picture to a Russian site of an Egyptian Senet board game from Tut's tomb here...and it is still not approved even though I created an account on the Russian site. (Likely since I don't have enough edits there since I don't speak the language.). Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, I can summarize the rules of de-wp. I am, however, not familiar with those at ru-wp. As you perhaps know, the MediaWiki software supports user groups like autoconfirmed, those with rollback rights (at Commons or at en-wp), admins etc. All these groups can be individually configured using MediaWiki software, i.e. there are myriads of individual rights and user groups can be created that are a collection of such rights. These configurations differ significantly between the individual projects. de-wp, for example, has no rollback user group, instead this is integrated into the rights of an editor. Regarding the ability to review edits: In de-wp there exists a passive and an active variant. Both are possibly granted automatically but both can also be asked for. But for those who do not speak German, it is hardly ever given on request. Hence, you've to hope to get it automatically. These are the conditions:
  • Passive (autoreview): When an article is already in a reviewed state, it stays reviewed, if you alter something. Conditions:
    • You must be active since at least 30 days. (This is already the case.)
    • You need at least 150 in the article main space. (You have currently 17.)
    • Or, alternatively, 50 edits including in articles, templates, categories, locally uploaded files which were subsequently reviewed. (You have currently 4.)
    • At least 7 of these edits have a minimal distance of three days. (You have currently 6.)
    • At least 8 different articles have been edited. (You have currently 5.)
    • In at least 20 edits the summary line has been used. (I see 6 such edits.)
    • You have never been blocked.
  • Active (editor): You can actively review articles, templates, files, and categories or. Conditions:
    • You must be active since at least 60 days. (This is already the case.)
    • 300 edits in the article main space or alternatively 200 edits (as above).
    • More conditions (like above, but with increased requirements)
    • You have never been blocked.
As long as you do not have these rights, you can ask your edits to be reviewed at de:Wikipedia:Gesichtete Versionen/Anfragen or, ask me, if you like. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • OK. Perhaps it is better to ask you to review any edits I make on Deutsch wiki then...as these rules appear complicated. I only add images to articles. Nothing more. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, this is no problem, just post the wiki links on my talk page and will review them. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Filemover-Rechte

Hallo AFBorchert,
immer wieder treffe ich beim Kategorisieren auf grob falsche Dateinamen. Da wär' es praktisch, wenn ich die gleich selber verschieben könnte. Einen Antrag zu stellen ist mir meist zu umständlich. Kürzlich sah ich, wenn ich mich recht erinnere, dass Du ein solches Recht vergeben kannst. Wenn es schnell und unkompliziert geht, dann wär' ich dankbar, wenn Du das machen könntest. Grüße, --Gras-Ober (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Gras-Ober, das Recht habe ich Dir eben gegeben. Bitte beachte die zugehörige Richtlinie. Vielen Dank jedenfalls für Deine Unterstützung und Deine schönen Fotos! Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Vielen Dank! --Gras-Ober (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

These images

If you think these are simple images that are not copyrightable, please consider passing them. I haven't any idea.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, this was a good catch and I have filed them for deletion including some other similar uploads which already passed the Flickr review. Thanks and best regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I was tempted to pass them but I was unsure if the designer still held the copyright over the images. So, I decided to do nothing. Since no one wanted to mark them for several days (in some cases), I thought it was time to ask a more experienced Admin for help. Yes, the source would be a problem and these designs likely date to the 1950's or 1960's. Is the image a simple drawing? I don't know but a source or author should be provided. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, about these files: Zenit satellite platform shapes-01.jpg, Dnepropetrovsk Sputnik satellite platform-DS-1 DS-2.jpg, Kosmos 8 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 6 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 4-7 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 3-5 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 2 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 1 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos failed satellites shape.jpg. I have decided not to discuss about it, and waste my time in weekend creating and uploading my Paint Brush versions of each one, I have used the same names with _PB_ in the middle (Dnepropetrovsk_Sputnik_satellite_PB_platform-DS-1_DS-2.png for instance). just to release today they were all deleted with no warnings. What happens??? in fact all the paint brush files I have uploaded simply disapear. --Marcric (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Marcric, the recently uploaded files have been deleted by Ecemaml. He has apparently them deleted as derived works of the other copyrighted uploads. The point is that the recreation of such drawings using Paint Brush does not free you from the copyright on the original drawings. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

File:FJg Eskorte.jpg & File:FJgStrf HBf.jpg

Since you are from Germany, perhaps you know if these images are copyright free? One image has camera metadata. I think there is no PD-Germany tag for members of the German armed forces compared to PD-US-Army/Navy, etc. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, thanks for the pointer as most of this user's uploads appear to be copyvios. There is no exception comparable to PD-US-Army/Navy etc. in Germany. All these pictures are fully copyrighted and the copyright lasts until 70pma. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:臺灣反核四人鏈 Taiwanese hand in hand against the 4th Nuclear Power Plant.jpg

If you think this image is OK, please feel free to pass it. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

a heads-up

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that the "Twinkle" tool should be in the Special:Preferences so users can use it.It would make it easier like on the most other Wikipedia's.What do you think?Receptie123 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Receptie123, please take my apologies for my delayed response. Being caught up with my real life I was inactive for some time. I suggest to propose this at MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition where such matters are discussed. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


Du hast eine Email. --Túrelio (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Archbishop William King portrait

hello Just wondering if you have any other information on the picture of Archbishop William King from Monasticon Hibernicum i am a PhD student in Aberdeen uni, thanks

Raymond

Hi Raymond, you are talking about File:Monasticon Hibernicum 1876 Frontispiece William King.png, right? I do not know what you need to know beyond what is given in the description which provides a bibliographic reference to the source and the original caption I found in the book. There were no further informations about that picture in that work that I noticed. I do not have that volume at hand in the moment. I organized it at that time through an inter-library loan. If you are at an university, it should be easy for you to access that book as well. I unfortunately do not know who the artist is, otherwise I would have mentioned him in the description. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Gönne dir bitte auch mal eine kleine pause, lehne dich zurück, und genese ein paar Erdbeeren. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, Steinsplitter! --AFBorchert (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Kleine Bitte

Könntest Du mir bitte die 5 Redirects löschen?

Der Filename war sehr irreführend, es sind nur Kopien. Danke! WolfD59 (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Vielen Dank :) --AFBorchert (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs severe violation of Commons standards

[1] and [2] It is obvious that some people are really wanting to abuse power and cross the line. Bureaucrats have no policy based power, and the whole opening of that page was completely inappropriate. Furthermore, he was a central party, so him acting that way is really, really poor form. I ask that you try to work it out, and, if you refuses to apologize for this abuse to request to go to the next level if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

[3] Now he is making up even more rules to stifle discussion and violate our policies. He really needs to be blocked for the best interest of the community. His blatant edit warring and actions are harassment, and his making up claims about Bureaucratship to justify it is over the top disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal Standard of Norway as of 19 July 2009.svg

"We can delete something if it is obviously mistaken..."

Did you actually even bother to look at any sources? It is obviously mistaken, it looks like none of them whether the sources are mine or Roede's. Fry1989 eh? 16:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fry1989, I am not an expert but Roede is and I trust his judgement. There is no harm in keeping multiple versions of a standard and each project is free to use the variant it sees fit. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Here, a cup of coffee (tea?). Hope you're doing okay. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, DanielTom! --AFBorchert (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I was started to get worried ;) DanielTom (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Why? --AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
(I thought maybe you were ill or something.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I was busy in real life and for some days also ill. It is not uncommon for me to be inactive for some time. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course, understood. 'Later, DanielTom (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Lizenzproblem

Hallo AFBorchert, ich habe zuletzt ein paar Reliefs von Chorgestühl und Beichtstühlen von St. Gallen hochgeladen. Dabei habe ich "Licensed-PD-Art|1=PD-old-100|2=cc-by-sa|attribution=Hermetiker" angegeben. Ist das richtig, oder kann man das nur bei Gemälden angeben? Wenn es falsch ist, welche Lizenz muss ich bei Reliefs und Skulpturen angeben? Schöne Grüße --Hermetiker (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Hermetiker, {{PD-Art}}-Vorlagen sind nur für Reproduktionen zwei-dimensionaler Werke. Das passt nicht für die schönen Reliefs, die Du fotografiert hast. Hier solltest Du Deine ganz normale Lizenz anbringen (etwa {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}}) und aus der übrigen Beschreibung sollte hervorgehen, wie alt es ist bzw. welcher Künstler es geschaffen hat (soweit das bekannt ist). Letzteres hast Du aber schon dankenswerterweise in ausreichender Form getan, soweit ich es stichprobenartig überprüft habe. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo AFBorchert, Danke für Deine Empfehlung, ich habe bereits die Lizenz für die letzten 19 Fotos geändert. Schöne Grüße --Hermetiker (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

hello.

imo, that close would be a lot better if it was properly proportioned. Calling someone friend, it can be argued quite properly, is not insulting, even if it was rather cheeky. There is however nothing cheeky about claiming that an image is out of scope, it's plain old boring insulting. That said, I'll offer what I think is the major problem with the close, you can tell me to go to hell if you like I don't mind, often people don't like advice that's fair.

If you're going to name and shame one party, then NAME and shame BOTH. That's fair. If your going to skirt around it by not naming a guilty party, and just describing their actions, then do it for BOTH. If your going to show favouritism by naming just the valuable contributor in the summary and not mentioning the admin, that's unfair. I've said exactly what I think of it as it is, so you can go off and block me or get someone else to or whatever I don't care, or you could, if you wanted to, fix the close to make it fair and then you're welcome to delete my remark at ANU.

Sorry if I come across like someone who's pissed off, it's because I AM ! ;) yeah, I'm not much good at hiding it. Fair is fair. Penyulap ☏ 10:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penyulap, if you come to my talk page then please stay mellow. There was no favouritism. I hold both contributors in high esteem and it pains me to see how much drama is generated out of practically nothing. If you actually read my closure you will find that I have addressed both. It would be fair if you would spend more time with reading what others have written than with writing tons of text without much consideration of what has been written before. And you should be very careful not to derail threads on COM:AN/U as you did it right now. You should ask the closing admin before attempting to reopen a thread at COM:AN/U or consult another admin. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
So is what you're saying that if a few admins want to beat up on our best photographers, nobody should step in to stop the fight. Can I say 'bullshit' on your talkpage ? An admin, A.Savin, wanted 'intervention' because he was clearly and obviously disparaging an image up for FPC saying it shouldn't even be on the site. Exactly what do you think would have happened without me ? YOU wouldn't even balance out your statements about wrongdoing in this case, you summed up as Tomas shouldn't do this and this and this, and then didn't even name Savin in a similar sentence such as 'Savin shouldn't make disparaging remarks. If you name one, name the other. OR say 'people shouldn't call each other Komrade'. That is what I was saying, and you seem to have missed it. I don't think it's worth pursuing this until you understand my point though, so I'll leave that.
As for derailing, that's crap right there. Nobody else was going to speak the truth to one of their admin buddies is what you mean, and so my saying what needed to be said is what you're calling 'derailing'. I think you must misunderstand the workings of a single-class culture, which is the only way any volunteer community can function. You might think for some reason that an 'us and them' one set of rules for admins and one for non-admins and so on can be sustained in some fashion, the reality is the steady decline of new editors on en.wiki. It's as simple as nobody is going to stay just to be treated as second-class. It doesn't work that way for volunteers. If nobody sticks up for the actual contributors and gives them a FAIR hearing, they're gone. Same as en.wiki. You seem to think that's derailing your two-tiered class system ? fucking right it is. There is one class, one rule, and anything else is just dreaming. Dreaming like en.wiki into the oblivion that comes when a replacement appears. Penyulap ☏ 12:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Penyulap, I have stopped the fight, you reopened it. As noted before, I do not object to you commenting at COM:AN/U threads. Some of your comments are valuable and you are obviously a friend of the principle of defending each other. I appreciate that. But this does not mean that all your contributions are good. You tend to engage and engage, to respond to every comment added, and thereby contributing to a state where further discussion is simply impossible because we end up with tons of text noone dares to read carefully to find an approach how to resolve that. Please keep in mind that COM:AN/U is not some random board at Commons but one of the administrator's board to file issues where administrative action is required. In this case it is obvious that none was required. I addressed this in my summary and if you take time actually reading my closure you will find that I've addressed A.Savin for bringing disputes of FP candidacies to that board. All this wastes precious time. Finally, please mind your language at this talk page. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Well it is quite obvious that you are being deliberately deaf, so there is no use trying to help you be a better admin. I find these things take care of themselves sooner or later. You're happy not listening to what I'm saying, so I won't bother wasting my time and we'll both be happy. I also note below that Tomas sees exactly the same problem with the close, and whilst you can feign blissful unawareness all you like, you can't fool everyone else. Penyulap ☏ 05:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, your comment stating "you reopened it" is factually incorrect. I commented on the close, I did not reverse it. Penyulap ☏ 05:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Closure

With regards to the close on AN. A Savin is the one who started the thread. To what end? He clearly accuses me of harrassment, when all I did was to clear up a negative vote according to etiquette in the proper page. Yet I see no reccommendations for him! Nothing would have happened even if he had ignored my request! But he chose to make a big deal out of it. To suggest that I was harrassing him in AN is harrassment itself! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tomascastelazo, please take a look at my closure that explicitly states: I strongly suggest not to bring disputes of FP candidacies here to COM:AN/U unless there is a serious problem requiring administrative action. This was obviously directed at A.Savin as he opened that thread. You complained that he made a big deal out of it. Please do not try to do the reverse now. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
As above, feigning ignorance of the problem and suggesting that everyone must assume the same thing from your vague and sloppy partisan close won't fool everyone. You may like to call all commoners fools but I do think a great many people can read your remarks here and at ANU and see precisely what you're doing. Have fun ignoring everyone trying to assist you to improve. Multiple editors have now tried. Penyulap ☏ 05:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I strongly agree on the not to bring disputes from FPC to AN, however, why not make that suggestion directly to A Savin directly, for he is the one that did it, in the same way that you suggested to me directly no to call him komrade? Why make the suggestions to me directly and not to A Savin since he is the one that initiated the whole mess? I agree with your closure on the issue of irrelevancy, but I am still bothered by the way admins get treated deferentially compared to regular editors. His post in AN amounts to harrassment clearly, yet nothig is said to him? And btw, I did not object his out of scope comment, there is a forum for that. I asked him to explain his negative vote and his response was to accuse me of harrassment in AN. Is nothing going to be said about that? Had I brought up the ridiculous issue myself would probably had resulted in a block. It happened before. An editor brings up an issue to AN about an admin will catch a lot of hell, but is an admin brings up an issue about an editor the editor catches hell. There is something wrong here. All I did here was to upload a picture. Maybe it is time to move on and forget about Commons. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tomascastelazo, this suggestion was intended for A.Savin at my closure as he had opened that thread. I thought this is obvious but apparently I failed to make this clear enough. For this I apologize. I have no intention to treat anyone differently because they are an admin. The objection to A.Savin's out of scope remark came from Penyulap on your talk page. In my response I tried to address that as well. In my closure I addressed also the point that you asked him to explain his negative vote and that he took you to AN/U: To follow-up an opinion at a FP nomination with a question seems legitimate to me. Likewise it is legitimate to chose not to respond to it. This was followed by my suggestion to A.Savin not to follow-up such encounters with threads at COM:AN/U: I strongly suggest not to bring disputes of FP candidacies here to COM:AN/U unless there is a serious problem requiring administrative action. Again, I am sorry when this was not clear enough. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
The Special Barnstar is awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation when there is no other barnstar which would be appropriate.

Thank you for your hard work. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Steinsplitter, it is appreciated and I consider myself fortunate to have the company of fine fellows as you on this project. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

+1 Thanks for being super-mellow when others are having fun throwing rocks. Such quiet work is quietly appreciated. :-) --Fæ (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Fæ, for your kindness. It is appreciated even when I obviously and utterly failed in my attempt to close one of the rock-throwing parties. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

AN again

Another attempt to put up fake charges and then complaints by his friends when I respond. What is with these people? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ottava Rima, I have commented in that case. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
How have you been, by the way? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Heard anything from Salzburg

Hey there, have we heard anything from the photographer in Salzburg? I have forgotten the OTRS ticket #, so if we haven't, perhaps it might be a good idea for me to delete the photos now, and if he should respond in future we can undelete them. Cheers, russavia (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry found it. No response as yet. Perhaps give it a few more days, and then delete? What do you think? russavia (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Russavia, please give it at least a month. People in Europe have long vacations and August is a popular time for vacations. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

how to crop

Hi AFB, I would like to crop the picture File:RomanVirgilFolio001rEclogues.jpg to only include the illustration and the first line (in red). How do I do that? (Maybe the attribution should be made to the original uploader, with a note "cropped by User:..."?) Thanks for the help ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi DanielTom, in this case we should first try to find the source for this image. The folio carries prominently a stamp of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, i.e. the Vatican Library, and is apparently from the Vergilius Romanus, i.e. Cod. Vat. lat. 3867. But this tells not yet from where the image was taken. Perhaps from one of the books showing illuminated folio of this manuscript. The uploader is Dsmdgold, a former en-wp admin who is inactive since December 2011. The problem is that we should not upload any derivatives of this file until we have a documented source as this is a requirement at Commons. One possible candidate for the source is the book by Erwin Rosenthal: The Illuminations of the Vergilius Romanus: A stylistic Analysis, ISBN 3859511157. Perhaps you can access it through your library. The actual cropping, if it needs to be done from this JPG file, is best done lossless, i.e. with a specialized tool like jpegtran. Alternatively, it could be scanned from scratch into a lossless format like TIFF or PNG. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Vatican Library has already digitalized some of its manuscripts but Cod. Vat. lat. 3867 is not yet in this list. Hence, it appears indeed most likely that this has been scanned out of some book. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I suppose scans of works in the public domain are still copyrightable, but the picture itself is already embedded with a visible attribution (the stamp you mention). Is that not enough? If the source is that important, I can try to do some research on it. The Illuminations of the Vergilius Romanus would be an interesting book to look at, but I don't think there is any in my area (judging from online libraries' catalogs). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi DanielTom, if the original work is in the public domain (like a 5th-century manuscript), a scan of it is also in the public domain as scanning by itself is not eligible for copyright according to US law. See here for a general discussion of this legal question. Nevertheless, we are at Commons not just interested in the copyright status but also in the specification of its source. This is a requirement even if we are already sure that it is in the public domain as it is good scientific practice to acknowledge sources. It helps also to understand the quality of a scan. It is a difference if we have a scan from the original or from a printed book. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, maybe we can find the source. Thanks for your help and explanation. See you soon ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

AN

This is the third time darkweasel has proclaimed the same lie. I think it is time to hand out a block. These people think they can just violate all of our policies and disrupt so much. It is so incredibly disgusting. I don't understand why they were tolerated here for so long. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Fruit of the Spirit are helpful in heated debates, i.e. love, joy & peace, longsuffering, faith, gentleness, goodness, meekness, and temperance.
Hi Ottava Rima, some of this remembers me to Hosea 8:7. With all due respect, you cannot expect them to stay calm when you are asking them to be blocked or banned. The only venue where this can be requested is COM:AN/U and you are currently restricted from opening threads at administrative boards and it is not helpful to circumvent this by telling this on user's talk pages or at the decrat discussion or even now at my talk page. See, Ottava Rima, I respect your opinions about the future development of Commons and think that they are worth to be heard. However, your voice will not be heard or welcomed if people feel attacked. The participation in these discussions requires collegiality, politeness, and respect even if you disagree with them, if you think that they are misrepresenting things, or if you are of the opinion that someone's contributions are a net negative. The general rule for collaborative and open projects like this is that you will be successful in heated discussions when you counter aggressive demands, false claims, rudeness and wrongdoings in general with patience and calmness, where possible, with kindness, and, where necessary, with firmness, and when you do not expect that this works the other way round. While I am writing this, I noticed that the thread at AN/U was already closed and your account indeffed. I regret the speed of this closure. I have seen such speedy closures at en-wp but hoped that Commons would be different in this regard. But please understand that I will not challenge this now as I have currently no time for opening any serious debates. You know why. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Verschiebereste

Hallo AFBorchert, kannst du die Verschiebereste bitte noch löschen, wo der Bot die Weiterleitungsziele entfernt hat?: [4], [5], [6]. Also File:Sanfranzisco19874.jpg, File:Sanfranzisco19877.jpg, File:SanFranziscoAquarell1987 1.jpg. Danke. --Typokorrektör (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Der Bot sollte lieber Löschanträge auf Weiterleitungen ohne Ziele stellen, statt die Weiterleitungsziele aus den Weiterleitungen zu entfernen. --Typokorrektör (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Er macht das regelmäßig so und hinterlässt leere Seiten: [7]. Oder unvollständige Sätze: [8]. --Typokorrektör (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(BK) Hallo Typokorrektör, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Die Verschiebereste habe ich soeben gelöscht. Die sehr gute Anregung habe ich an den aktuellen Betreuer des Bots weitergegeben. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Danke schön. :) --Typokorrektör (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
In diesem Falle ist der Edit des CommonsDelinkers übrigens korrekt, weil das Bild eingefügt worden ist. Der Fehler war hier, dass nicht ein Link auf das Bild (mit einem Doppelpunkt vor File) eingefügt worden ist, sondern eben das Bild selbst. Abgesehen natürlich davon, dass es sich um Vandalismus handelte, den Du netterweise korrekt ungeschehen gemacht hast. Vielen Dank! --AFBorchert (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Stimmt, dann müsste man eigentlich noch einen Doppelpunkt davor setzen, oder? --Typokorrektör (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Ja, das wäre gut. Vielen Dank! --AFBorchert (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hab ich dann mal gemacht. In der Datei File:Falta_imagen.svg ist übrigens auch noch eine vorgestern erst als URV gelöschte Datei. Das hört wohl nie auf. :) Soll die auch herausgenommen werden? Im Quelltext steht sie nicht, wird in einer Vorlage versteckt sein. --Typokorrektör (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hier: Template:Cargar imagen, warum war der Bot nicht dort? --Typokorrektör (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Scheint auch Vandalismus gewesen zu sein, vom 7. Oktober 2012! Gesichtete Versionen könnten helfen. :) Aber warum hat der Bot es stehen gelassen? Und warum fällt das in einer Vorlage fast 1 Jahr lang niemandem auf? --Typokorrektör (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Typokorrektör, solange die Datei noch existiert, gibt es für den CommonsDelinker keinen Grund, aktiv zu werden. Ein Löschantrag dafür läuft aber bereits. In jedem Fall Hut ab für das Finden dieses versteckten Vandalismus. Warum hier das nicht auffällt? Das Problem ist, dass Commons unglaublich viel Material hat, aber vergleichsweise nur wenige aktive Benutzer und Admins, die darauf achten. Umso erfreulicher ist es, wenn Du hier jetzt offenbar recht aktiv wirst und auch gleich so sachkundig handelst. Das ist im besonderen Maße willkommen! Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Nun, mal sehen, was sich machen lässt. :) Ich bin hier nicht ganz neu, habe aber zwischenzeitlich aus diversen Gründen hier lange Zeit gar nichts mehr gemacht bzw. nur sehr wenig, da einiges hier nicht besonders gut läuft und sehr abschreckend war. Es ist leider auch mindestens ein sehr hilfreicher und engagierter Admin hier dauerhaft vertrieben worden, das ist sehr schade. :( Aus vielem sollte man sich besser ganz heraushalten. Ich mache jetzt nur noch, was mir zufällig auffällt, wenn ich etwas zufällig finde. Und jetzt nur noch mit diesem Konto. Ich sehe es somit hier als Nachfolgekonto an und versuche, mich aus vielen Dingen herauszuhalten, da es anders hier nichts bringt. Eigentlich hatte ich Commons schon längst ganz abgeschrieben. Ich wollte das alte Konto hier sowieso schon lange nicht mehr verwenden. Aber zum Glück gibt es hier auch noch Leute wie dich, und noch ein paar andere Leute. :) Ich glaube nicht, dass wir uns schon mal irgendwo über den Weg gelaufen sind, aber wer weiß? Manchen Benutzern geht man aber besser völlig aus dem Weg, das ist mit einem neuen Konto auch sicher einfacher. --Typokorrektör (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Ich meinte jedenfalls File:Tim Hamilton 1.jpg und nicht File:Tim Hamilton.JPG (und auch nicht File:Tim Hamilton.jpg, es gibt hier einige solche Dateien). Vielleicht ist es auch alles dieselbe Datei. Da nur noch eine davon übrig ist, kann ich das nicht sehen. Den Dateilink hätte auch der löschende Admin vorgestern schon aus der Vorlage entfernen können. Oder der Bot. Irgendwas geht hier schief, wenn beide es stehen lassen. Andererseits wäre der Vandalismus nicht aufgefallen, wenn der Bot nur den Link entfernt hätte, es ging ja auch Text verloren. Dagegen sollte man irgendetwas machen. Beispielsweise Vorlagenänderungen besser oder gezielter prüfen, das sind doch wesentlich weniger Edits als in Dateien, nur 50 in den letzten 12 Stunden. Kann man aus Vorlagen und jetzt auch Modulen wirklich nicht gezielter den Vandalismus heraushalten? Bei Hilfeseiten sollte es noch einfacher sein, bei Commons-Regelseiten schwieriger. --Typokorrektör (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Die Hinweise auf die beiden anderen gelöschten Fotos waren gut. Es stellte sich heraus, dass die bis eben noch überlebende Fassung ein Wiedergänger einer bereits 2009 gelöschten Fassung war. Die habe ich dann auch gleich mal entsorgt. Zu Deinen übrigen Hinweisen: Prinzipiell hast Du da recht. Etwas Unterstützung gibt es da auch noch durch diverse Abuse-Filter. Aber ich muss auch zugeben, dass ich nicht an der Vandalen-Front stehe. Ich selbst gehe also nie die jüngsten Edits in irgendeinem Namensraum durch. Ich reagiere natürlich, wenn ich darauf hingewiesen werde und Zeit habe. Aber aus meiner eigenen Initiative heraus bin ich als Admin normalerweise bei Löschanträgen, bestimmten urheberrechtlichen Fragen und OTRS-Fällen aktiv. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Das ist ja auch in Ordnung so. Es kann nicht jeder alles machen. Eine Idee wäre, dass man eine Seite irgendwo anlegt, wo man Links auf die letzten Änderungen in bestimmten Namensräumen anlegt, die gesondert geprüft werden sollen, und man eine Gruppe von Leuten hat, die täglich die Änderungen durchgehen und dort abhaken, damit man sehen kann, wo bereits geprüft wurde und auch wer das gemacht hat. Dann könnte weniger Vandalismus in solchen Vorlagen oder derartigen Seiten durchgehen. Wenn das immer so wenige Änderungen täglich sind, müsste es doch machbar sein, dass man sich dabei abwechselt und dann beispielsweise auch weiß, dass nicht monate- oder jahrelang irgendein Blödsinn in einer Vorlage steht, die in diversen Dateien eingebunden wird. Oder auf einer Hilfeseite Unsinn steht.
Ich verstehe übrigens nicht alle Namensräume hier. Mit Creator, TimedText, Sequence, Institution, Campaign weiß ich nichts anzufangen, mit Modulen auch nicht, und die beiden heute neu angelegten Seiten im Namensraum TimedText TimedText:Hava_nagila.ogg.en.srt und TimedText:Toilettenspülung_01.ogg.en.srt kann ich auch nicht von Vandalismus unterscheiden. Etwas nicht zuzuordnende Musik ohne Text und eine Klospülung. Wozu ist das gut? --Typokorrektör (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In TimedText:United_States_Navy_Band_-_Sweden.ogg.en.srt steht auch eine Menge Unsinn drin, aber zumindest sinnvolle Musik, wenn auch ohne irgendeine Lizenz, und welchen Sinn macht TimedText:Roomba_video.ogv.en.srt? Sieht aus wie Spam oder ein YouTube-Clip, und ich dachte, das hier wäre Commons und nicht YouTube. Da zweifle ich doch gleich den Sinn des Namensraums an. --Typokorrektör (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(BK^2) Vorschläge können auch gerne beim Forum eingebracht werden. Es gibt wie gesagt auch die Abuse-Filter, aber da muss auch jemand die Logs durcharbeiten und ich befürchte, dass das auch nicht konsequent verfolgt wird. Der Creator-Namensraum wird für Creator-Vorlagen verwendet, die einen Künstler kurz darstellen und bei Dateibeschreibungen aufgenommen wird, bei denen die Datei ein Werk des Künstlers zeigt. Hier ist ein Beispiel: Creator:Frederick Settle Barff und hier ein Beispiel für die Benutzung: File:Ballinasloe St. Michael's Church East Window by Frederick Settle Barff 2010 09 15.jpg. Institution ist ähnlich, aber für Galerien oder Museen, die ein Kunstwerk austellen. TimedText dient offenbar Untertitelsequenzen in einzelnen Sprachen, passend zu einem hochgeladenen Film. Mit den anderen Namensräumen hatte ich noch nichts zu tun. Ich weiß auch nicht alles, deswegen ist es gut, in das Forum oder die Village Pump zu gehen. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Ach so, dann habe ich mich verguckt und dachte, TimedText wären Audio- und Videodateien mitsamt dem Text. Wenn man dann einen urheberrechtlichen Untertiteltext dort einstellt, müsste man doch auch eine Lizenz oder Freigabe eingeben können. Seltsam. Wenn das aber so ist, dann ist der Text auf jeden Fall Vandalismus. Und dieser ist Unsinn und passt nicht mal von der Zeit her zur Datei. Und auch der Text ist ziemlicher Blödsinn. Da hatten wohl einfach ein paar IPs ihren Spaß beim Ausprobieren.
Und die verschiedenen Vorlagenarten hätte ich alle im Vorlagennamensraum eingeordnet. Dann gibt es also mehrere Vorlagennamensräume. :) Na gut. --Typokorrektör (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Typokorrektör, die drei seltsamen Untertiteltexte habe ich allesamt gelöscht. Du bist ansonsten eingeladen, selbst direkt Schnelllöschanträge für so etwas zu stellen. Der Vorteil mehrerer Namensräume liegt darin, dass diese in den Abuse-Filtern unterschiedlich gehandhabt werden können. Im Prinzip kann jedes Projekt soviel Namensräume bekommen, wie es möchte. Abendliche Grüße, --AFBorchert (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Ach, deshalb. Danke fürs Löschen, ich schaue dann mal wegen SLAs auch auf so etwas. --Typokorrektör (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Janevzoo

Kennst Du Category:Irena Janev? Schau mal auf diesen Edit. Die Hundebilder in der Kategorie wurden alle umkategorisiert. Da fallen dann noch ein paar mehr Socken auf. Ich mag nicht selbst etwas tun, mein aktives Englisch ist schlecht und ich kenn die Gepflogenheiten hier auf Commons nicht gut. Gruß Anka (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Anka, vielen Dank für den Hinweis auf die Kategorie. Als ich den CU-Antrag gestellt habe, kannte ich die Kategorie und die damit verbundenen Hochlader noch nicht. Ich sehe hier User:Gaga999 und User:Gaga007, die beide zu den Socken gehören, die ich zwar in meinem Antrag noch nicht genannt hatte, aber von dem CU INeverCry in Folge meines Antrags entdeckt und gesperrt worden sind. Mir geht es jetzt zunächst um die Aufarbeitung der hochgeladenen Bilder des Sockenpuppenzoos. Einige der Bilder mögen davon vielleicht sogar selbst aufgenommen sein, ein Großteil aber eben auch nicht, so dass wir diese löschen müssen, solange uns keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Ich fing mit Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janev000.JPG und Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Gaga0000 an und werde mir jetzt die Hochladungen der weiteren Benutzer ansehen. Wenn Dir da noch mehr Bilder oder hochladende Benutzer auffallen sollten, bin ich für Hinweise dankbar. Im übrigen kannst Du Dich hier auf Commons immer auch gerne in deutscher Sprache beteiligen. Das ist nicht en-wp, sondern ein internationales, mehrsprachiges Projekt. Es gibt genügend deutschsprachige Admins, die sich darum ggf. kümmern können. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Danke. In der Kategorie sind drei Bilder, die laut Beschreibung Janev zeigen und von Janev aufgenommen sind; sehr unwahrscheinlich, wenn auch nicht ausgeschlossen. Interessant an der Sache, dass über diese Bilder die Behauptung aufgestellt wird, dass hinter dem Sockenzoo Janev selbst steht. Anka (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Ich halte es für sehr wahrscheinlich, dass das aus dem Kreis der Familie Janev kommt. Sich selbst bzw. seine Familie in der Wikipedia darzustellen (und das auch noch mit Hund!), ist bekanntlich eine starke Motivation. Dafür spricht auch, dass es sich um eine solche Vielzahl von eher privaten Bildern handelt, die wohl teilweise auch aus den Familienalben eingescannt worden sind. Aber auch da sind Urheberrechtsverletzungen häufig anzutreffen, weil nicht darüber nachgedacht wird, wer die Fotografie aufgenommen hat und wer dann als Urheber die Genehmigung dazu geben müsste. Ich schaue mir das heute abend mal weiter an. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Foto (File:JAGDSCHLOSS SANKT MEINOLF in Stockum Ortsteil der Gemeinde Möhnesee im Kreis Soest 1.JPG) auf Wikimedia Commons entfernen

Hallo Herr Borchert,

bitte das folgende Foto: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/JAGDSCHLOSS_SANKT_MEINOLF_in_Stockum_Ortsteil_der_Gemeinde_M%C3%B6hnesee_im_Kreis_Soest_1.JPG aus rechtlichen Gründen löschen.

Begründung (Auszug aus der E-Mail an info-en@wikimedia.org) : ...The owner of the castle gave me the permission to upload this picture. His condition was, that I have to garble all the license plates of all cars shown in the picture. Now I noticed, that I have done bad work. You can still read the licence plate of the red car. The owner of the castle is very pedantic and I really don't want to get in big trouble. ...

Ich habe diesbezüglich bereits eine E-Mail an info-en@wikimedia.org geschickt. Als Antwort habe die ich die Auskunft bekommen, dass nur Admins die Berechtigung haben Dateien zu löschen. Ich werde im Rahmen des diesjährigen Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments ein neues besseres vom Besitzer des Schlosses freigegebenes Foto auf Wikimedia Commons veröffentlichen.

Gruss Wikimatze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimatze (talk • contribs)

Hallo Wikimatze,
Andreas ist eine Weile abwesend. Ich habe mir das betreffende Foto mal genau angeschaut und dann die KFZ-Kennzeichenschilder komplett geschwärzt, so dass wirklich nichts mehr zu erkennen ist. Schau es dir selbst an. Würde das für erste ausreichen? Außerdem habe ich deine ursprüngliche Bildversion versteckt, so dass nur noch Admins (und höher) sie anschauen können. Hinweis: wenn du auf das Bild klickst, wird momentan u.U. noch die alte Version (erkennbar am gelblichen KFZ-Schild) angezeigt; das ist ein bekannters generelles Problem; für die Versionsaktualisierung der Anzeige benötigen die WMF-Server erstaunlich viel Zeit. --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Wikimatze und Túrelio, vielen Dank an Túrelio für die Korrektur. Damit sollte das Problem in der Tat gelöst sein. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. Ich bin wieder da...

Permission to use image of Raymond le Gros by Daniel Grose

I have completed a novel set in the 12th Century on the Norman-Welsh invasion of Ireland under Strongbow ("They Served the Devil's Brood.") Raymond le Gros is a major character. I believe the copy of the painting by Daniel Grose of the effigy once at Molano(?) is under Public Domain. Wikimedia Commons directed me to this site to confirm that the image can be reproduced at the end of the novel. Yours, Warwick Grace

Hi Warwick,
AFBorchert is currently absent and offline. In case you want a copyright evaluation of a file on Commons, you should mention/post the filename. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Warwick, you are refering to File:Raymond le Gros Tomb Effigy at Molana Priory by Daniel Grose.jpg, right? The original drawing is in the public domain as the artist died in 1838. The reproduction, however, from which this has been scanned is also in the public domain in the United States and some other legal systems. In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, however, the public domain status of the reproduction is an open question due to the sweat of the brow doctrine. I am not a lawyer and cannot give you any legal advice but I would recommend to be extra careful when your book gets published in the United Kingdom or in a Commonwealth country (like Australia) and perhaps it would be wise to ask for a permission by the publishers of the book, i.e. Roger Stalley: The Antiquities of Ireland: A Supplement to Francis Grose. The Irish Architectural Archive, Dublin 1991, ISBN 0-9515536-5-8. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Block review

Thank you, AFBorchert, for the support in the block review, and your sense of justice, and for having finally unblocked me. It's not pleasant at all to be blocked without a good reason (as the stated one has been shown to be false). --Eleassar (t/p) 08:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ulm

Hallo AFBorchert, ich habe heute einiges hochgeladen, was in User:AFBorchert/Historische Bausubstanz Ulm noch nicht bebildert ist. Soll ich die Bilder da nachtragen? --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Andreas, ja bitte, das wäre mir sehr willkommen. Ich freue mich, dass das ergänzt wird und hoffe, dass wir irgendwann die historische Bausubstanz in Ulm vollständig haben. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. Dafür dass ich völlig unsystematisch nur ein bisschen in der Gegend herumgelaufen bin und dies und das fotografiert habe (ich kannte die Liste leider noch nicht), dafür sind doch ein paar hübsche Zufallstreffer zustandegekommen. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Wenn Du das nächste Mal in Ulm vorhast, „unsystematisch“ herumzulaufen, würde ich mich über einen Kontaktversuch freuen. Dann können wir das auch gerne mal zu zweit machen. Vielen Dank jedenfalls für die Ergänzungen. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Enniskillen Cathedral of St. Macartin Regimental Colours Fifth Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards 2012 09 17.jpg

If you are going to claim the right in Wikipedia to publish and refer to my former Regiment then at least do us the courtesy of referring to us correctly!!!!

We are not the 5th Royal Inniskillen Dragoon Guards, we are the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards. Your ignorance is astounding!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Enniskillen_Cathedral_of_St._Macartin_Regimental_Colours_Fifth_Royal_Inniskillen_Dragoon_Guards_2012_09_17.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.38.195 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I am grateful that you took the time to notify me about this accidental misspelling. I have right away fixed the name of the photograph and its description. Please take my apologies. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Brueckeremagen 35x35.jpg

Mittlerweile ist die Datei gelöscht worden, könntest Du mir mal mitteilen was an dem Eintrag noch geändert werden muss damit ich das eventuell mit Herrn Vreden besprechen kann. Warum die Datei gelöscht wurde kann ich nicht nachvollziehen da ja eine Freigabe vorliegt. Gruß Frila (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Frila, die Datei wurde gelöscht, weil ein Löschantrag existierte und eben die Freigabe noch nicht abgeschlossen war. Die Angelegenheit ist noch offen, aber ich bin optimistisch, dass es bald abschließend geklärt ist. Dann werde ich die gelöschte Datei wieder restaurieren. Ich bitte solange noch um etwas Geduld. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Herr Borchert, ich verstehe nicht, warum jetzt auch die Aufnahme "Brücke von Remagen" auch gelöscht werden soll. Ich bin Urheber des Rheintalers, Urheber sämtlicher Rheintaler Entwürfe, Meine Lebensgefährtin, Frau Asia Rauf hat die Grafik umgesetzt, und ich wiederum habe die Fotos sämtlicher Rheintaler-Medaillen gemacht und bearbeitet. Die Freigabe haben sowohl Frau Rauf als auch ich gegeben. Woran liegt es noch? Martin Vreden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.162.193.48 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frila (talk • contribs) 09:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Herr Vreden, die Freigabe von Frau Rauf fehlt immer noch. Bitte richten Sie sich an die Hinweise, die ich in der letzten E-Mail vom 2. Dezember genannt habe. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 18:25, 10 December 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) 13:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Avocato, this is appreciated. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays!
G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Frohe Festtage

wünscht Dir --Hermetiker (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting image usage permission with a different license than the provided one

Dear Sir, I write to ask for permission to use the Mungo Man image(from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mungo_Man.jpg). My usage cannot comply to the current licence, Creative Commons Atribution-Share Alike 3.0. Is it possible to grant me permission that does not require share alike? If you wish to know more about my usage feel free to contact me at tqmonaathotmaildotcom. Thank you for your time! Sincerely, Mona Tang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqmona (talk • contribs) 02:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mona Tang, this is not a photograph that was taken by me but by Prof. Bowler (as indicated in the description of this media file). You can find and contact him here. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2013&oldid=303764931"