User talk:Cecil/Archiv2

Admin

Hallo Cecil,
könntest du mich bitte wieder zum Commons-Admin machen? Ich hatte die Rechte letztes Jahr (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Thogo&diff=prev&oldid=50207566) freiwillig abgegeben. Und Patricia, die mir deswegen auf meine Seite geschrieben hatte, regt sich gerade nicht. Wärest du also so nett? :-) Gruß aus Berlin --Jcornelius (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Willkommen zurück. -- Cecil (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Salmonella Typhimurium Invades Human Cells.jpg/File:SalmonellaNIAID.jpg

Hi. I noticed that you removed the duplicate tag from SalmonellaNIAID.jpg - is that because the OP tagged the larger image, or is there some other difference that I'm spotting - eg. the large one is sharper? I've just gone and tagged Salmonella Typhimurium Invades Human Cells.jpg as a duplicate - was that the wrong thing to do? If so I am sorry. I had just noticed the CommonsDelinker bot swapping the large image for the smaller one on 7 WP articles. (e.g.) RupertMillard (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What's "OP"? It may only be the larger resolution, but the smaller one also looked a little bit less sharp (even after purgin). And we always keep the larger one. So it's ok now that you have tagged the small one. The CommonsDelinker already has the commond to change all uses to the larger one. On its next run he will change that (I had accidently added the replace-command to the other commands, while removing the template). -- Cecil (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• you are mistaken, you need to replace in a different order, the second to the first--sk (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the first one ist only 715 × 600, the second one is 2.100 × 1.761. The second one is also sharper and a featured picture. I definitely can't replace a featured picture by something with a lower quality. -- Cecil (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• bot replaces File:SalmonellaNIAID.jpg to File:Salmonella Typhimurium Invades Human Cells.jpg[1], but should be the other way around, File:SalmonellaNIAID.jpg - high resolution --sk (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you not read what I have written before? Both statements. Please read them again and try to understand what was written there. Because your last message here was definitely weird. One of my sentences up there mentions that the bot will(!) replace the images (as in future). -- Cecil (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the manipulation of discussions is considered vandalism. If you make an error, then correct it in the next statement. But never manipulate an earlier statement and then act in the next statement as if the one who answered to the original statement as if he is stupid. Good bye. Not welcome here anymore. -- Cecil (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Repository Entry deleted without notification

I had an article called The Bottleneck a New Perspective.pdf, that you erased back in march. I need to understand the reason for this, since it was linked to my repository in Portal:GreySmith_Institute at Wikiversity, and I have been vainly trying to get it to download for the last few weeks, thinking that it was a problem with my browser since I had tested it when I installed it in the repository. You quote Commons Scope, Yet, I was using it on Wikiversity as part of a repository of papers about a psychological memory model, This might have been confused, because, I felt I had to link directly to the upload file, since the repository is listed as having the same licensing, and the commons description file was thought to be icing on the cake, Could you please explain why you felt it fell outside the scope of the commons, so I know whether or not to use your services in the future or to modify the way that I recommend files for the repository? PDF files of articles such as this one, are not displayed when you reference the filename, instead you get the description file, is there any reason for this? or is it a problem with Wikiversity and needs to be taken up there?--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was tagged as being out of project scope by another user, the only category to which it was added did not exist (you should have seen that it was red), it had no description (so no possibility to guess about any potential usage) and the CheckUsage-tool also showed no usage in any project (I don't know how you linked it at that Portal, but it was obviously not the correct way, because otherwise the CommonsDelinker would have notified you about the deletion). This is not a problem with Wikiversity, we have a lot of files here from that project, but we also get lots of junk in form of pdfs, usually advertisement and copyvios (somebody copys a text from somewhere and just uploads it here as pdf). So without any description or mentioning of Wikiversity or something similar helpful it is impossible to differ the junk from potentially useful files. -- Cecil (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As an extra information. Linking works that way: [[:Commons:File:The Bottleneck a New Perspective.pdf|The Bottleneck a New Perspective.pdf]]. So if you tell me some category or description I will restore the file (without it will most probably deleted again very fast). But remember for the next upload: useful description, proper categorizing and correct linking. Also applies to the other files I just have seen in your project repository. You can't expect to be notified if you don't link them in a way that the tools 'see' the usage. -- Cecil (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.png

This file was NOT empty or corrupt - as it says at the top, it's the archival version of the JPG. Good restoration practice REQUIRES a lossless, archival version to be uploaded.

Furthermore, this is the lossless version of a featured picture. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe you should mark somewhere, that your absolutely perfect version deliberately can't be displayed in any way and should not be marked for deletion, even though it is completly useless for any of our projects. Because otherwise the next person who stumples across it will mark it again and the next admin who also just sees a corrupt image there will delete it again. And again and again. Oh, and no need for answering here anymore. People who scream around are not welcome. -- Cecil (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cecil, actually there's very good reason to keep this. Best practice with image editing is to work with uncompressed files. Hosting them allows collaborative editing within a wiki environment. For instance, this image is now featured based upon work Adam did upon a restoration I had attempted. He's a superior lithograph editor: because he could build upon my work it saved several hours of labor. Makes sense now? Durova (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand why the file is here. I also understood it before. But it should be marked in a better way. That is hardly visible and very badly described. That's the reason why somebody tagged it and that's the reason why I deleted it. Only people who really look for it will see it. And just because Adam does know that this marking is here, it does not give him the right to be inpolite. -- Cecil (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I may have been a little annoyed, but unless you're actively choosing to read it as someone screaming at you, I don't see how you're getting extreme rudeness out of it. From my point of view, I alerted you to a problem, then you promptly bit my head off in response. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec, to Cecil) You make a good point. Documenting these things sufficiently is very important. Would you like to review my recent uploads and provide feedback as an impartial observer? Adam and I do this work a lot, but few other people do. So I try to guess what would explain it sufficiently. Feedback can be useful there. Have been asked to create a best practices writeup for image editing. This site has had some pretty scary edits upon great Renaissance artwork that was being used live in articles; we definitely need better practices. Durova (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Adam: I didn't say "rude", I said "inpolite". And people who start screaming without actually knowing the complete background, under false assumptions, are inpolite. And maybe I should restore my talk page header again, where I mentioned that I always react in the same tone as the discussion partner. But let's stop discussing about it. I think, talking with Durova will be more productive.

Durova. I will look into it in the next days. Maybe remind me, if I did not act on it within a week. -- Cecil (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have used italics instead of capital letters, but I did not intend to scream. It may have been a bit abrupt, but, well, if you seriously expect people not to be a little annoyed after mistakes are made that, had they not been caught, would have caused problems, you perhaps have a higher view of human nature than is justified. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cecil. The image editors have crossed wires with the photographers here a few times and perhaps things have gotten a little tense. Will look forword to your input. Best regards, Durova (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:SacredChao40px.PNG

Which tag do I use to indicate that a file is a just an automatically-generated small rendered thumbnail version of an SVG file already on Wikimedia Commons, and therefore serves no useful purpose here? AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The correct tag is {{superseded}} (see more info). And how to you define "useful"? It is in use (unless you change it now). And there are enough other usage possibilites, after all not every program is able to use the svg-format (the last time I checked MS Word was not able to import it and OpenOffice needed an extra plugin). It would be better if the png would be larger, but a non-svg-format is not useless at all. If you still want to delete it (even though it would not save any server-space) please make a normal deletion request (not a speedy one). -- Cecil (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're failing to understand the basics here -- [[File:SacredChao40px.PNG]] and [[File:Sacred-Chao.svg|40px]] display the same thing, and in addition File:SacredChao40px.PNG is rather blurry and ugly when considered in itself, so it's redundant and rather useless. I see no particular need to go through the whole baroque cumbersome deletion discussion initiation procedures (involving editing three separate pages) in order to get this useless image deleted. Furthermore, the "duplicate" tag did in fact apply, since File:SacredChao40px.PNG is exactly a scaled-down version of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Sacred-Chao.svg/594px-Sacred-Chao.svg.png generated in connection with File:Sacred-Chao.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you meant the use on w:Religious symbolism, I fixed that: the SVG is clearly superior there. Technically, though, the 40px PNG isn't an exact scaled down version, since it lacks the transparency present in the SVG thumbnails. Even so, mind you, it's still utterly useless. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I will not act against community consensus (no deletion of png for a svg) just because you are not willing to do a normal deletion request. Find yourself somebody who will violate the rules elsewhere. -- Cecil (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be reading too much into the community consensus: as far as I can tell, all the objections to deleting raster duplicates of vector images have concerned the case where the vector version is a derivative of the raster image, not the other way around. It might be interesting to ask what the community really thinks should be done with images like this one, but I can't really be bothered to start such a discussion myself; it doesn't seem worth the effort, given that these cases appear pretty uncommon to me. Anyway, I've nominated the file for ordinary deletion in the mean time, as you suggested — speedy deletion is supposed to save time and effort in obvious cases, which it clearly hasn't done here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I respect the consesus of community, that's all I have to say to that topic. There were several reasons leading to it not just the one you mentioned, one of them being the user-unfriendlyness of svg. But I'm not willing to discuss this topic again und again and again. So please now to you too, find yourself another place to rewarm old topics for the thousands time. -- Cecil (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Duplicates

Thank you for deleting those duplicate images I had tagged with badname. Jonathunder (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Restaurierung von Bildern von Wolfhard Theile

Hallo Cecil, Du hast folgende Bilder gelöscht:

• File:Wolfgang Utzt6.jpg.JPG
• File:Wolfgang Utzt9.jpg.JPG
• File:Wolfgang Utzt10.jpg.JPG
• File:Wolfgang Utzt11.jpg.JPG

Zu diesen Bildern (eine Übersicht findet sich hier) gibt es ein OTRS-Ticket (Nummer 2009031110026411), um das ich mich derzeit kümmere. Um die Freigabe mit den Rechteinhabern endgültig klären zu können, war eine Restaurierung der Bilder notwendig, selbst wenn dieses OTRS-Ticket noch nicht ganz abgeschlossen ist. Ich bin selbst erst seit kurzer Zeit Mitglied des OTRS-Teams, fand aber eine sehr weit zurückreichende Queue vor, bei der ich gerade die alten Fälle abarbeite. Deswegen folgt die Restaurierung und die weitere Klärung erst jetzt. Vielen Dank für Dein Verständnis und herzliche Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Der Fall ist inzwischen erledigt, leider ohne ausreichende Freigabe. Wirklich jammerschade bei diesen schönen Theaterbildern. Viele Grüße, --AFBorchert (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Zwischenquetsch Cecil ist grad unterwegs, es kann sein, daß sie einige Tage nicht reagieren kann. Bitte etwas Geduld. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ja, ich habe den Hinweis am Anfang der Diskussionsseite gelesen :) Dies ist auch nichts eiliges; ich gebe nur gerne einen Hinweis, wenn ich Adminentscheidungen aufhebe. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. Gerade habe ich auch die von Dir, Cecil, gelöschte Datei File:Carmen Boullosa 2002 Leoben.jpg wieder restauriert. Die zuvor fehlende Genehmigung ist inzwischen eingetroffen.

Hab endlich mal wieder Internetzugang, da am Flughafen (Dessau ist echt der Arsch der Welt, wenn man kein UMTS hat). Brauchst mich nicht benachrichtigen, wenn Dateien mit OTRS-Berechtigung wiederhergestellt werden, da geh ich dann eh immer von aus, dass das passt. Und da ich keinen OTRS-Zugriff habe und daher die Freigaben nicht auf Vollständigkeit prüfen kann, würde ich ohnehin nur nach Aufforderung durch einen OTRS-Mitarbeiters wiederherstellen, falls der denn keine Admin-Rechte hat. -- Cecil (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Frage

Hallo Cecil, habe hier eine Frage gestellt. Scheint so zu sein, daß bei anderen Benutzern die Lizenzen anders gehandhabt werden. Bitte diese von mir hochgeladene Datei wieder löschen. -- Stachel (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Das von dir genannte Beispiel wurde mittlerweile von einem anderen Benutzer hier korrigiert. Natürlich haben auch andere Benutzer bei Lizenzen keine andere Rechte, auch sie können keine Rechte beanspruchen. Und jetzt hör auf, mit solchem Unsinn meine Zeit zu verschwenden. Sowas korrigiert man einfach und fordert nicht jedes Mal eine Löschung von Dateien, an denen man keine derartigen Rechte hat. -- Cecil (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Du hast mir ausdrücklich angeboten: "Ich kann die Scans schon löschen, wenn du magst." Inzwischen habe ich mich entschieden, wenigstens diese eine Bild, das ich unter einer anderen Lizenz eingestellt habe, löschen zu lassen. Die Wahl der Lizenz war irrtümlich, aber ich wollte das Bild nur unter dieser Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen. -- Stachel (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, dein Upload ist gelöscht. Ich habe (wie ebenfalls in meinem Angebot von damals angemerkt) rein zufällig einen Scan gefunden, der rein zufällig die gleiche Auflösung wie deiner hat, und ihn hochgeladen. Für Interessierte: er ist unter File:Gewächshaus, 1779 (Zeichnung aus der Oeconomischen Encyclopädie).jpg anzusehen. -- Cecil (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"rein zufällig einen Scan gefunden, der rein zufällig die gleiche Auflösung wie deiner hat" ist nicht nur unseriös, sondern auch noch verlogen! -- Stachel (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(BK) Das Bild zu löschen und unter anderem Namen wieder hochzuladen, ist extrem unseriös. -- Stachel (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Public domain bleibt public domain. Ein einfacher Scan bringt nun mal keine neuen Urheberrechte ein, dazu hättest du aus dem Scan ein neues Kunstwerk machen müssen. Insofern agiere ich komplett im Rahmen des rechtlich erlaubten. Ob du das als unseriös empfindest oder nicht, ist mir da komplett schnuppe. Beschwer dich beim Gesetzgeber. Und ich habe nicht gelogen, ich hab es ja im Netz gefunden. Und nun, EOD. -- Cecil (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dupes

Hi Cecil, you seem to be into deleting dupes. Care to comment at {{Deletion before replace warning}}? Multichill (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How often could that template be in use? There is just a small number of admins, and they usually know that they have to replace them first. It usually just happens by accident, and then an information which files it concerned would be better than a standard message without more information than that an error occurred. Only with the names it can be cleaned up. And in my opinion the last sentence does not sound friendly at all. This one would cause more troubles than to good. But don't worry, I have stoped deleting dupes anyway. It just causes troubles because the only feedback is exactly of that nature. Deleting something as an admin usually just brings back a message like 'you created mess'. -- Cecil (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately mistakes like this seem to be happening on a daily basis. It's a first version. The final version should be nicer and have more info on preventing mistakes, that's why i'm asking you for input. Multichill (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wappen

Wappen alle wiederhergestellt, Liste auf meiner Disku. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Cecil! Hier in dem Fall des Wappens von Hordorf würde ich gern diese Wappendatei löschen, denn zum einen habe ich vom LHA Magdeburg eine Wappenvorlage erhalten die ich vektorisiert und in Commons eingestellt habe. Zum Anderen ist die JPG.Version jetzt in keinem Artikel mehr eingebunden bzw. wird genutzt und ist obendrein als Wappendarstellung mehr als grottig. Damit ich in Deinen Augen beim Beantragen der Löschung alles richtig mache nun die Frage nach dem richtigen Baustein, denn badname schein wohl nicht der richtige Weg zu sein. Gruß --Ollemarkeagle (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bei jpg auf png ist duplicate ok (außer die Bilder unterscheiden sich zu sehr), es geht bei der ganzen Löschung um png-svg bzw. jpg-svg, also einen Umstieg von Vektorgrafik auf Rastergrafik bzw. umgekehrt. Wenn du in den "Einstellungen" unter "Gadgets" das Wartungshelferlein QuickDelete aktivierst, erhältst du (bei Monobook) links in den Werkzeugen einen Menüpunkt "Löschantrag eröffnen". Bei allem, was nicht unter Schnelllöschgründe fällt (oder wo er abgelehnt wurde), sollte ein normaler Löschantrag gestellt werden. Das Werkzeug hilft bei der Durchführung dieser für aus de.WP stammenden Benutzer etwas komplexen Prozedur. -- Cecil (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you informing me or Ollemarkeagle? -- Cecil (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ollemarkeagle of course. He's the one tagging things for speedy deletion, fortunately you didn't delete it. Multichill (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Benutzerbeiträge von Hkgalbert

Hallo Cecil. Was macht man denn mit den meisten Bildern, die Hkgalbert hochgeladen hat? Die sind als GIF teilweise so schlecht, dass man fast gar nichts erkennen kann. Ausserdem sind die Beschreibungen teilweise falsch, die Kategorien existieren fast alle nicht. Kann man die nicht alle auf 1 Rutsch irgendwie entfernen? --hdamm (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mayhem - Jalometalli 2008 - 10.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good for concert photo --Ianare 06:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wappen Arneburg

Hallo Cecil! Ich will die Datei Wappen Arneburg.svg löschen lassen. Die Grundlage dieser Datei stammte einmal von mir, aber als PNG.Wappen und der eingetragene Benutzer des SVG.Wappens hat dieses ins SVG umgerubelt. Doch mein damaliges Wappen war nicht das amtliche Kommunalwappen (Siehe Wappen Arneburg.png, das ist das wirklich genehmigte Stadtwappen). So stimmt beispielsweise die Schildform nicht, die Tingierung ist falsch und die Wappenfigur der Burg ist auch anders. War damals eines der ersten Wappen die ich einstellte und da war noch nicht alles richtig. Jetzt meine Frage: Wie soll ich die Löschung beantragen, ohne eine Sperrung zu riskieren? Gruß --Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Change Username

Hallo Cecil, kannst du mir da weiterhelfen - meine Englischkenntnisse reichen da scheinbar nicht. Ich habe durch den Metauser auch hier den Karl Gruber, möchte aber unter meinem bisherigen User:Kagru bei common weiterarbeiten, sonst ist der durcheinander noch größer (bei mir) Ist es möglich den de:User:Karl Gruber mit User:Kagru verbinden? --gruß K@rl (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ich hab deine Anträge auf usurp ausgeführt. Was Eugene da wollte, war ein diff-Link in deinem Hauptaccount auf de, in dem du bestätigst, dass du auf Commons Kagru bist und umbenannt werden willst. Ich muss wohl mal eine deutsche Beschreibung erstellen, ist mir gar nicht aufgefallen, dass die fehlt, sorry. Du müsstest jetzt unter "Einstellungen" => "Globales Benutzerkonto verwalten" noch mal die Zusammenführung durchführen, damit auch das Commons-Konto dem SUL angehängt wird. -- Cecil (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kafka

Hi Cecil,

• File:13 dtmontagsztg-betrachtung-a.jpg
• File:13 dtmontagsztg-betrachtung-b.jpg
• File:13 dtmontagsztg-betrachtung-c.jpg

Die drei Dateien hast du umkategorisiert zu den Erstdrucken in Zeitschriften, hierbei handelt es sich aber nicht um Erstdrucke, da alle 3 Texte schon vorher irgendwo gedruckt und veröffentlicht wurden. Ich hatte sie erstmal in die normale Books by Franz Kafka Kategorie einsortiert, da ich noch nicht genau weis, ob sich dafür eine extra Kategorie lohnt (wie bei Die Brücke, aus der 2. Auflage von Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer) und -b und -c vorher keine Kategorie hatten (-a befand sich in Franz Kafka). Vielleicht fällt dir eine bessere Lösung ein, jedoch halte ich sie dort, wo sie gerade sind, für falsch einkategorisiert. Grüße --enomil 13:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ich hatte nicht gesehen, dass du damit angefangen hattest und deshalb eine Kategorie "Prints by ..." angelegt. Als ich dann deine Kategorie gesehen habe, hab ich sie kurzerhand dahinein geworfen ohne wirklich viel darüber nachzudenken. Transferierst du nur jene Scans, die bereits transkribiert wurden oder alle? Weil da sind doch sonst sicher noch mehr Scans, die das gleiche Problem wie der Text haben, oder? -- Cecil (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Zu Commons transferier ich nur Faksimiles der EA's von textkritik und die landen dann in dieser Cat. Die anderen wurden früher einmal hier hergeladen, deswegen gibt es dieses Problem. Aber es ist nicht von mir geplant, dass ich komplett textkritik hier her spiegele, also wird es vorraussichtlich bei diesen Einzelfällen bleiben. --enomil 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for closing my RfA. I really appreciate the confidence that the Commons community has placed in me and look forward to expanding my contributions to Commons. Thanks again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Cecil how can I be someone in commons like an administrator, bureaucrat, check user, oversight?, I want to be someone like them in commons xD, well I've been using commons and wikipedia since years ago with another nickname but I forgot the password and I create this one x(, even when commons didn't exist and we have been uploading images in wikipedia for example. Please talk to me about it, I'll appreciate it so much.

Do you like? . --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 07:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

For bureaucrat, check user and oversighter you'll have to be a very active user, who is long known and trusted by most people (usually you'll have to be an admin first to present your behaviour and knowledge). Trust is especially important for the later two, since with those you'd be handling sensible data. Also the need for people with those three right extensions are limited, so unless there is a backlog with their tasks, most people would not see a necessity to add more users to those three lists.

Admins, on the other side, are always needed. But for that job (and be aware: it is a job, not some higher position; there is a huge and neverending mountain of work, many people will critisize or sometimes even insult and harass you for doing it; so if you are not willing to put lots of hours in the necessary tasks, don't even apply for it) you first have to show willingness to do the job and also that you have the necessary knowledge. Currently you mainly have image contributions (which is fine and always needed), but hardly anything else. What you will need to do is: start tagging problematic pictures which have no source/no licence/no permission, tag copyvios (best found through checking the recent changes, but also by cleaning up categories), inform the uploaders about their problematic uploads and why they are problematic. Engage in deletion request discussions (and also start them if you find problematic pictures), help cleaning up in the maintenance categories. Only with actions like that over a longer period of time people can judge if you know enough about copyright. With your current kind of contributions I would strongly advise you not to try a RfA. It would end in a frustrating experience for you. It would look like you just want to be admin for having a 'special position', which adminship isn't about at all. It is just a mostly thankless job with lots of critisism and 'fighting' when opinions clash. -- Cecil (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:BArch-description

Hallo Cecil, du hast ja die Berechtigung an der Vorlage etwas zu korrigieren. In der englischen Version steht richtig the German Federal Archive nur in der deutschen Version steht nur Das Bundesarchiv. kannst du da ergänzen dass es sich um das deutsche Bundesarchiv oder besser das Bundesarchiv der Bundesrepublik Deutschland - sonst kann es jedes der Welt sein. ;-) --danke K@rl (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, die Vorlage wird sehr oft verwendet und die Benennung ohne "deutsch" ist auch durchgehend im ganzen Projekt (kats, ...) verwendet worden. Da will ich nicht einfach so ohne Konsens drübereditieren, schon gar nicht als Projektexterner. Ich hab nur keine Idee, wer da Ansprechspartner ist. -- Cecil (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Das ist meines Wissens Mathias Schindler, zumindest dürfte er wissen, wer verantwortlich ist. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

File Mwengren.

Hi, I took the image from colegioamigo.com, but it´s available in, flickr.com too. --Turkmenistan (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is on flickr, it does not mean, it is free (there is a lot of flickr-washing, meaning somebody uploads images under a free licence without having the right to do so). Same for the other page. Please provide the exact link, where the image is and where it the licence/author of the image is stated so that we can check that the claim there is correct. -- Cecil (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename or Reupload

What do you think?, If I uploaded a file with a wrong name, then I should request to rename it? or reupload it with another name?. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's your upload, just upload it again with the correct name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ändern von Benutzernamen

Guten Tag

Duerch den Unified Usercode wurde mir automatisch ein neuer Benutzername auf Wikimedia Commons zugewisen. Der Neue Benutzername ist User:Les Meloures. Ist es möglich meinen früheren Benutzernamen User:LesMeloures in diesen umzubenennen.

Mit freundlichem Gruss und bestem Dank im Voraus

Les Meloures (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry für die späte Reaktion, bin gerade auf Urlaub. Die Umbenennung ist möglich, ich bräuchte nur noch eine Bestätigung durch den Account LesMeloures (also den alten Account). Bestätige doch bitte, während du mit dem alten Account eingeloggt bist, dass du die Umbenennung wünscht. Falls du es eilig hast, könntest du mit der Anfrage auch auf COM:CHU gehen, dort schaut öfter wer vorbei. -- Cecil (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Hello, please could you rename my username? I don't want to explain why publicly but I do have a good reason.

LukeVerschoyle (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually posting it here is public since everybody can read it. Mail would have been private. But yes, I can rename you, but I need to know your desired new username. Here you can check if it is still free. -- Cecil (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cecil,

Please could you rename it to LukeVers1

LukeVerschoyle (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. One question: should I remove the first version of the birth certificate? Because currently the anonymised version is still visible through version history. -- Cecil (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Danke schon

Yes please remove the first version of the birth certificate.

LukeVerschoyle (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that you recreated the full-name-account and once again are working with it instead of the old account with its new name? You now have two accounts with edits. -- Cecil (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Löschen einer Bildes

Hallo Cecil, ich habe heute ein Bild hochgeladen und dann erst bemerkt, daß ich es seitenverkehrt geladen hatte. Merkwürdigerweise ließ das System es nicht zu, daß ich die Datei überschreibe, obwohl ich es fünf mal probiert habe. Daher habe ich die Datei nun unter einem anderen Namen neu hochgeladen. Die falsche Datei

File:Porta Praetoria Pfünz.jpg

(siehe rechts) müßte jetzt jedoch gelöscht werden. Könntest Du das machen? Mediatus (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Du also auch. Paulis hatte am Nachmittag ebenfalls das Problem, dass sie einen defekten Upload nicht überladen konnte. Komischerweise hat es bei mir anstandslos geklappt. Muss mal nachforschen, was da los ist (aber erst nach dem Schlafen). -- Cecil (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die Antwort. Heute hatte ich das Problem auch beim Überschreiben eines Bildes auf den Seiten der deutschen Wikipedia. Ist sehr merkwürdig. Hängt das evtl. mit diesem Beta-Programm zusammen, das man als Nutzer z.Z. ausprobieren kann. Also ich nütze es nicht. Mediatus (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nein, es scheint ein bereits bekannter Bug zu sein: [2]. --Cecil (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Es tut mir so leid, doch mit unseren Archäologiesachen kommt es immer wieder zu Änderungen an Bildern nach Diskussionen. Ich würde Dich daher bitten die Bilder "File:Kastell Theilenhofen.svg" und "File:Theilenhofen.svg" zu löschen, da ich dafür eine neue Zeichnung mit neuesten Forschungsergebnissen geladen habe. Mediatus (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Aufgrund neuester Forschungsergebnisse muß jetzt auch die Datei File:Kohortenkastell Vetoniana.svg gelöscht werden. Auch sie ließ sich wieder nicht überschreiben. Mediatus (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Käyttäjätunnuksen vaihtaminen

Terve, pyysin lupaa käyttäjätunnuksen vaihtoon, viittisikkö uudelleennimetä sen? lisää löytyy: [3] kiitos! --Olliiiiii (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)PLEASE NOTE: If you didnt understood this message, please leave a comment on my talkpage @ commons. thanks.

See your talk page for details. -- Cecil (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian Misje

Hello. I don´t understand english. Lo comentaré en español: Las imágenes cargadas de christianmisje.no reúnen todos los requisitos necesarios para estar en Wikipedia. Yo no tengo culpa de los enlaces fallen, pues yo los copié del mismo sitio del cual los conseguí. Por si acaso añado este enlace para demostrar que todas las imágenes de christianmisje.com son aceptables para Wikipedia. http://www.cmisje.no/hits/ Cualquier imagen de esa página cumple los requistos de Wikipedia.--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find someone to translate my text into spanish. The website itself is not the problem, but your links to it all don't work. Google translation of this: Estoy tratando de encontrar a alguien para traducir mi texto en español. El sitio web en sí no es el problema, pero sus enlaces a todo no funcionan.. -- Cecil (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

File:180px-Kujau wiki.jpg

Das Bild hat sich wacker hier gehalten. Es ist eine 180px Miniatur des auf w:de:Wikipedia:Dateiüberprüfung/Schwierige Fälle/Archiv/2008/Januar#Bild:Kujau wiki.jpg diskutierten Bildes, es wurde wegen des Gemäldes von Miro gelöscht. Meine persönliche Meinung: Das Bild kurz nach der Hand abschneiden, dann ist Miró weg und Kujau bleibt. Allerdings schneide ich ungerne bei einer 180px Miniatur noch mehr ab. Ist das gelöschte Bild w:de:File:Kujau wiki.jpg größer gewesen? Als Admin kannst du es ja mal aus de.wp runterladen und wenn es größer war bitte über das 180px Bild hier auf Commons spielen. Um alles weitere - Umbennenung, Abschneiden, etc. kümmere ich mich dann. Danke und viele Grüße, --Martin H. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Recht viel größer nicht, aber ich habs mal drübergeladen. Vergiß nicht, nachher die zwei Miró-Versionen zu löschen. -- Cecil (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why interference Category:Gastronomy?

See also Why interference Category:Gastronomy? (Category:Gastronomy --> Category talk:Gastronomy)--Tom778 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What has that to do with me? Never seen that category before and from the few words I can't figure out what you want. -- Cecil (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Satyricon

Hello again Cecil. I look the images and I think that the next photos are fantastic for the artcicle Satyricon: [4], [5] and [6]. Please, take a look on the Satyricon´s spanish article; I re-write it completely. That´s cool? Thanks again.--Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Danke

Vielen Dank für die prompte Erledigung des Umbennenungwunsches! Gruss, Sandro (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Cecil!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Joseph P. Richter and Bozena Laglerova.jpg was uncategorized on 29 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Ortslage Philippstein.jpg

Hallo Cecil,
Könntest du bitte die doppelte Version löschen? Das Bild war noch nicht akutalisiert, deshalb hatte ich sofort nochmals die neue Version (21:08) darübergeladen, was für die History aber unansehnlich und vor allem unnötig oder gar verwirrend ist. Grüße und Danke --PTWZ (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Forum#mein Account

Dort bzw. de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Petra wird bürokratische;) Hilfe benötigt. Petra möchte User:Petra als SUL besetzen. --Martin H. (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

[w.] 10:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Zeitschrift für deutsche Mythologie und Sittenkunde, Band III.

Hallo Cecil, beim Band 3 der Category:Zeitschrift für deutsche Mythologie und Sittenkunde ist die Verlinkung <<< Vorherige / Nächste >>> schiefgegangen - die Links verweisen alle auf die entsprechenden Seiten in Band II. Kannst Du das reparieren? Gruß, --Rudolph H (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis. Ein blöder kleiner Tippfehler in der Vorlage wars: [7]. -- Cecil (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dachte ich mir ;-). Danke für's Fixen! --Rudolph H (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another in use commons deletion

So there was permission on this image that you deleted [8], it wasn't how you liked it, but it existed. Did you try to contact the site owner, or say post a message on the projects where it was in use so someone had a chance of actually seeing this was up for deletion and contacting the site owner to get OTRS permission?--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The uploader was informed in September that he has to provide OTRS-permission. In middle of December he got the last warning telling him he has two more weeks. He did not react to any request even though he still got one more month than usual to fullfill the request. It is clearly stated in our rules of contribution that in cases like these OTRS is mandatory. The uploader was here since he got the warnings so he has seen them. He knows about the existence of OTRS. And he also has quite a history of not always checking copyright to closely.

When the OTRS-people tell me to delete an image because of missing permission than I'll do it. It is their job to check out permissions and tell the admins when the provided information was not enough and an image needs to be deleted.

And to your request of being informed extra. By the time you added it in English Wikipedia it was already tagged as being problematic. It already had been tagged since three weeks. Nobody of us here can look in the future and see that in three weeks Crossmr will use the image without looking at the information it contained. -- Cecil (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He was notified on September 6, I added it on September 26, but no one did anything on the image page. I don't check out an editor's history and talk pages when I grab an image unless there is something on the image indicating there is a problem. The image wasn't marked for deletion until Dec 12, months after I added it to the article. How was anyone on En or De supposed to know there was an issue with the image?--Crossmr (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The image also got a tag on 6 September. On that day it was added that there is a OTRS-problem. From version history: (Unterschied) 19:01, 6. Sep. 2009 . . MultichillAWB (Diskussion | Beiträge | Sperren) (1.373 Bytes) (Licensing: Need permission in OTRS using AWB) So don't say there was nothing on the image page because there was as the version history of that file clearly shows. Then the OTRS-team tried for 3 month to get a proper permission from uploader and owner. Then they tagged it for deletion in December as a final warning. -- Cecil (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And maybe for your interest: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker You would just need to find a programmer who has enough time to repair it. It was working quite ok for some time on German WP. Don't know what the current status is. -- Cecil (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Restrore a picture

Hi, I saw that you deleted this picture File:Cafe Mailish Akihabara.jpg.

I sent a message to the photographer, asking him to upload the picture because I want to use it on fr:Maid café.

Here is the message he sent me

"Re: use of one of your picture on wikipedia

Hi there,

Thank you for the consideration.

I have uploaded the picture here as requested. The cafe's name is Cafe Mai:lish. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cafe_Mailish_Akihabara.jpg)

Feel free to contact me if you need any clarifications or requests.

Regards, - Farhan"

So, is it possible to restore the picture (the photographer himself uploaded it in commons). --Gdore (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The problem here is that the image was previously released somewhere else and is now easily obtainable. Sadly there had been a lot of mis-use of that (people taking images from other photographers and claiming to be the author). So there are two options: either the author changes the licence on Flickr too to the licence he selected here (meaning: he removes the non-commerical-part of the flickr-licence) or if he does not want that for some reason he would have to send a mail to OTRS confirming that it was indeed him (the flickr-user) who also is the uploader here. Sorry, that it is has to be that formal but it is for the protection of the original author and to ensure that re-users don't get problems later. If he changes the licence on flickr, tell me and I will restore the image as soon as possible. If he selects the way over OTRS the team there will restore the file as soon as they have all needed information. --Cecil (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Mikael Agricola, Pernå.jpg

File:Mikael Agricola, Pernå.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!

--A333 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fotos aus Budapest

Hallo Cecil, ich habe zwar die Erlaubnis vom ungarischen hu:User:Gyurika die Fotos hochzuladen. Mit dem Tool komme ich aber nicht zurecht, da er mir jeweils auf einen Fehler mit meinem Usernamen aufläuft

es handelt sich um die Fotos

Szabadsaghid-pestihidfo-eszakioldal-cimer.jpg
Szabadsaghid-emlektabla-eszakioldal.jpg
Szabadsaghid-emlektabla-delioldal.jpg
Vizallasemlektabla-szabadsaghidbudaihidfo.jpg
Margithid-kozepsopiller.JPG
Margithid-kozepsopiller-epitesiemlektabla.jpg
Margithid-kozepsopiller-elolrol.jpg
Margithid-alagut.jpg
Margithid-pestihidforolnezve.jpg
Margithid-pestihidforolnezve.jpg
Margithid-emlektabla.jpg
Lanchid-pestihidfo-delioroszlan-talapzat.jpg
Lanchid-pestihidfo-emlektabla.jpg
Lanchid-piller-szervizjarda.jpg
Vizrajzimeroallomas-bp.jpg

Vielleicht kannst du mir dabei helfen. gruß K@rl (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Danke es hat sich erledigt, ich habe es inder Zwishcenzeit zwar umständlcih aber doch selbst erledigt. gruß in den Norden K@rl (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Helo Cecil. I have uploaded dome photos from Wacken Open Air archive, and they were erased. Why? Can I upload photos of this page? Un saludo.--Southroad (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Concerning the Wacken pictures there was a big misunderstanding of one other user (Pred). He asked somebody of the BrightEyes-magazine to give the permission. This person gave permission but we later had to learn that he actually had no right to do so (also he restriced the use in a way that does not agree with the licence and thus invalidated it). After we learned about that other users contaced all the photographers of BrightEyes-magazine as they have the rights. Only one of them - Matthias mattness Bauer - gave permission. You uploaded pictures of Frank C. Dünnhaupt and sadly he did not react to the request to release his images under a free licence. So the images had to go. Please consider the permission at User:Pred/Bright Eyes permission as not sufficient for Commons and Wikipedia-usage.

To the holeinthesky-images: they are from Christian Misje and he is ok with the free licence here. He often uploads them himself, see [9]. You can see there how he wants to be accredited. But if you are uploading files for him, you'll have to change the source from 'own work' to the deeplink of the gallery. One thing you should consider though is, that if he has not uploaded them here himself that he maybe considers them not usefull enough. At least that is what I am often doing: I have a huge amount of concert photos published on Flickr but only the ones I consider the best (= most usefull ones for the project) are uploaded here. -- Cecil (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Cecil. I get this message on my discussion´s page: "Maybe used" is not a sufficient permission. It is not clear if this images are free for modification or not. --Martin H. (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC). But you say me that I can upload this images. Can you help me please?-Southroad (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:Burj Khalifa

Hallo Cecil, könntest du die gelöschten Bilder bitte nach DE:WP transferieren, dort sind sie ja wohl problemlos. Danke. --88.102.101.245 05:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nur jene, die dort auch dann tatsächlich eingebunden werden. Dieses transferieren ist elendig viel Arbeit und fürs unkategorisierte Nirwana in de.WP arbeite ich nicht. Insofern werde ich das eine bisher genutzte nachher gerne transferieren (jetzt bin ich allerdings in der Arbeit), aber der Rest ist sinnlos. -- Cecil (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ich weiß nicht wie weit die derzeitigen Bilder im Artikel de:Burdsch Chalifa noch von der Löschung bedroht sind, das wird man noch sehen, konkret fehlen tut File:Burj Khalifa 004.JPG (CommonsDelinker. Grüße. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bin endlich dazugekommen, mir den Artikel anzusehen und ich frage mich ehrlich gesagt, was noch mehr Bilder von diesem Turm bringen sollen. Der Artikel ist schon übervoll mit Bildern. Übrigens sind alle Bilder des Burj Khalifa vom Löschen bedroht, aber 32X hat Ende Februar bereits die lohnenswertesten Bilder nach de.WP transferiert. Viele sind momentan Duplikate, bis zur Löschung hier. Bei den von mir gelöschten hab ich jetzt bei ihren Versionen auf de.WP entsprechende Hinweise aktualisiert. -- Cecil (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Dubai Bild3.jpg

Additional Burj Khalifa image that you might want to look into. Thanks, ZooFari 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. IMO it's better if not all is deleted by the same one person. That leaves open more place for different opinions and viewpoints and if good reasons are brought up maybe even the restoring of the ones I deleted (which contained saadly a few really awesome pics). -- Cecil (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Few of your images

Few of your images have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them. 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!

Help

Hello again Cecil. I get this message on my discussion´s page: "Maybe used" is not a sufficient permission. It is not clear if this images are free for modification or not. --Martin H. (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC). But you say me that I can upload this images. Can you help me please?-Southroad (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you actually uploaded images from somebody else, not Christian Misje. And actually, I told you to respect the fotographers right to decide himself which of his images he wants to upload here and which not. Probably because people out there did not show the respect he changed the text on his website so that both changing them and using them commercially is not allowed anymore. The last time I visited his homepage he still had another text there. -- Cecil (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This photo was uploaded from the same web [10], but doesn´t have the delete advice.--Southroad (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I have noticed that you are concerned about my user template (and indeed I have been concerned about the mishmash across my uploads, but have reverted a revert only since the admin issue started) I would appreciate your advice as to the best resolution SatuSuro (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that somebody wants his images to have a nicely formatted licence information but I have seen too much misuse with those templates by some users. I would recommend that you try to design your licence-template in a way that you think you would not need to change in a long time and then subst all your uploads with it. The disadvantage is that you later can't rechange the design anymore for those older uploads (unless you change it for all of them separately), but latest as soon as you encounter your first licence-changers you'll have a better position in getting him to see your viewpoint about the impossibility of changing licences for old uploads. But that is just my opinion which is based on having to actually block users for this and in one case it all going to legal threats and tense personal meetings. -- Cecil (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion does matter - and indeed by the comments http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/SatuSuro made at the now suspended rfa, it had me concerned that I had such a messy user template history, but I chose not to venture into the details of the conversation there apart from simply allowing the template to be what I assumed was corrected from the issues that had caused the conversation.

Am I correct in assuming that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SatuSuro/3.0 is now compliant with issues and is what is required as a good example, or perhaps as Martin H. suggested - would a degrading to a user attribution template be even more appropriate?

At least these days there is a welcome and more user friendly interface - when I started uploading all those years ago all of this was not part of general practice here. Thanks for the advice SatuSuro (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Nude in Public.jpg

Hello. I saw an image File:Nude in Public.jpg (misleadingly named) you deleted with the tag "Does not allow for commercial use and/or derivative works". It doesn't look to have been a valuable image, but I see it was tagged by the uploader as "All permissions given. self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0", so the deletion reason tag doesn't seem accurate. I was wondering why you speedy deleted it? Thank you. Infrogmation (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The uploader had no right to upload the image under a licence which allows commercial use. One of the two persons on the picture did not give his consent for this kind of usage and licence. Because of that the uploader would have gotten a problem with this and asked it to be removed immediately. -- Cecil (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Finnair

Thank you very much for getting that picture :) - I am going to post it to the various Wikipedia articles about Finnair - You are welcome to take additional photos in the summer. I started the category Category:Finnair head office to store all of the photos. I appreciate having these ones, and I will appreciate having any nice summer shots too :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of comment

Hi,

When you deleted my comment it would have been nice to let me know (admittedly, it is not helped by the fact I am not a frequent user on Commons, so only check back here now and again - but is it really such a big deal to drop me a note on en.Wikipedia?). I come back a couple of weeks later to see what responses there had been to find my comment gone and no explanation except in the edit summary. I was almost tempted to revert your removal of my comment as vandalism, if I didn't think I would myself be accused of the same.

The problem is, when you carry out the actions under discussion and then immediately close the debate, it is almost a fait accompli and it is not obvious where one should take subsequent comments. In this particular case I think I raised a very good point to which User:ZooFari was kind enough to reply. Astronaut (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The page clearly indicates that is is an archived one. It even changed the colour to make it clear to people that it it not be edited anymore. On en.WP there is the same kind of marking archived pages. And you would not expect anyone on en.WP either to edit those closed down pages. And no, I don't see a reason for trivial stuff to run through sister projects to inform people. If it is a deletion request or other urgent matters (or a question on how to proceed) then I do it, but not for something as trivial as a (not new) statement of person who did not even read the header of a page before posting to it. FYI if you had reverted it it would have been you who would have done the vandalism by once again changing an archived page. I just restored its original state which is no vandalisms as you liked to indicate.

And all deletion requests get immediately closed after the decision. After all there was more than enough time to discuss and bring up anything before the decision. We hardly ever close deletion requests withing the two weeks. For anything else we have COM:UNDEL. Even though you liked to insinuate it we have nothing to hide. It is standard procedure and this behaviour was copied from en.WP and so is not new to you.

But since you like to insinuate us to be bad for you not being able to read even a header, let me say it like this: I expect at least a little bit of good faith and as you do not have it you are not welcome on this talk page anymore. If you would have been from one of the projects which deal with del.reqs. in a different way you would at least have an excuse for not knowing what an archived page it and how del.reqs. are handled, but since you are from the one project on which our procedure is based your inpoliteness has IMO no excuse. -- Cecil (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Hi Cecil! I just wanted to let you know that Astronaut thinks that you handled this issue in a wrong/bad way click here.

I have not checked the background of this debate here - I have only read this thread and did a quick scan of the DR mentionen.

As for the issues mentioned: If an image is kept we can reopen a DR but if it is deleted I agree we should start a COM:UNDEL. We can not demand that users are informed on their "home wiki". If a user makes a comment somewhere we expect that they add the page to their watchlist. We can use {{Talkback}} as a service.

But to me it seems as if Astronaut was trying to explain a possible misunderstanding in a polite way. Personally I would not have reverted edits like that but left a small answer. If we spend a few moments explaining what we do then the risk of "sad faces" is smaller.

I hope you two can find a solution to this minor thing :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have told him before he is not welcome on this talk page. I consider his ignoring my home right not only as impolite, but rude. And after I have told somebody that he is not welcome I don't read his contributions anymore, just revert them.

And honestly, I don't think spending more time explaining him would bring anything. For the other person must first be willing to read. And considering that he both ignored the "do not edit archived pages", and now two times ignored the "not welcome here" it does not seem as if he is willing to read anything at all unless it fits in his concept. Also he already got his answer on the archived deletion request but it seems he prefers to ignore that too, and he also was already told about UNDEL and other pages too. A first time "not reading" may be an accident, but twice definitely isn't anymore. If he posts here one more time I will consider it harassment. No more good faith for this user. He spent that by first posting sneaky suspicions here and then not respecting my home right on this talk page. -- Cecil (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sad to hear... Well it seems that this is not the only disagreement you two have had. I can't (or won't) demand you two to like eachother and I doubt that anyone will.

I can only hope that you both accept the fact that you two do not get along and that you both will try to stay away from eachother then. --MGA73 (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hope he finally stays away. Don't know why he can't stay away, but don't want to know why. And please no more writing on this topic. I want it to be archived so that I can forget that guy. -- Cecil (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Bow Wow.png

Sorry, Tim. But that image is more than obviously a copyright violation. Please don't be so gullible to believe every licence you see on flickr. There is the more than well-known fact that people collect images and many of them upload those they like best for others to see them. Flickr-users are no exception to that. But when you see a picture that is too good to be true than don't switch your brain off and take the easy way. No, you first check. In this case even a little check at the other contributions of that Flickr-user would have made you notice that the uploader is a teenage girl (my estimate is 16 years old) while the image was a professional shot. And if nothing else then this fact should have made you thinking. But for that you would need to be interested in actually wanting to see a copyright problem. -- Cecil (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for you to be so rude. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just stating the facts. It is great when people try to illustrate Wikipedia articles but it seems that many of them do that no matter what and try to ignore all the signs. See a good image, one minute research and upload here. And later they tell it was not obvious. Sorry if you consider the truth as rude but maybe if you would have done any research you would not have to encouter it. -- Cecil (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, characterizations like "gullible", "switch your brain off", "need to be interested in actually wanting" are not "just stating the facts". Those are judgements of my character. It is disappointing to see an administrator so cavalier about the Wikipedia guidelines on avoiding personal attacks and assuming good faith. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to understand them as judgements of your character then it is your own problem. But don't tell me about AGF, if you don't have it yourself. And honestly, and yes, now I tell you personally, maybe you should do something for your self-esteem. It seems to be extremly low when you each time when you see someone write something always interpret it not only direct at you personally but also in the worst way to interpret it. Ask Polarlys to interpret it for you. His self-esteem is ok and he understood it correctly. -- Cecil (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

One note: the "gullible"-part really was directed at you. But that's what you are: leichtgläubig. And is not an attack, it is the truth. If you would not have been gullible you would not have taken that licence as a fact without doing at least a basic check. -- Cecil (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Poznański Palace

Hello! I ensured the creators of these works of arts I have took photos are already dead +70 years. Best wishes, Patrol110 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Her Husband's Trademark.jpg

It is so difficult posting any images on the wikipedia that I know many who don't bother. If Wikipedia (which is where I posted it and not the Commons) says an American image is out of American copyright if before 1923, I do not expect someone to come along and THREATEN to delete a 1922 image. You are supposed to know your job which you obviously don't, like so many others on Wikipedia. I have just had to complain to feydey who seems to think a 72 year old image is within the 70 year EU copyright. Don't they teach any of you mods basic maths? Or is it that you think you know better than the Wikipedia copyright rules so can change them at will? You make a hard job even harder and your bluster about rudeness does not cover that up. (Cyberia3 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

Well, there is a huge difference between English Wikipedia and Commons and too many pictures there that are not suitable. In this case it is quite simply that on English Wikipedia this image has a fair-use-rationale and as fair-use is not acceptable here we have to be careful. And that 70-years-copyright in EU means 70 years after the death of the author, not 70 years after the making of the picture. There is a huge difference. 72 year old picture means that the author would have to drop dead withing the next two years to make this image free. The only images that would be 70 years after making are anonymous ones, meaning those where it is impossible to figure out who made them, but a movie poster by a huge company is definitely not anonymous. So much about you having a clue about European right (or about the difference between English WP and Commons). -- Cecil (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Namensänderung

Hallo Cecil,

ich hoffe, ich bin bei dir richtig (Bürokratin, und du sprichst deutsch :-)

Mein Benutzername auf Commons lautet bisher Gertha - auf der deutschen Wikipedia An-d. Wenn ich zwischen beiden wechsle bleibe ich im "falschen" Namen hänghen und muss mich mühselig aus und wieder einloggen. Daher meine Bitte:

Sei so lieb und ändere meinen Namen "Gertha" auf Commons auch auf "An-d". Der bereits bestehende An-d auf Commons läuft auch auf meine Person und hat das gleiche Passwort. Dieser User ist bisher aber praktisch kaum aktiv gewesen und könnte mit den Gertha-Daten vollständig überschrieben werden - ich hoffe du verstehts, was ich sagen will.

Herzlichen Dank für deine Mühe und viele Grüße

Gertha (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) (demnächst An-d)

Ist erledigt. Deine Beiträge finden sich jetzt unter An-d. Die beiden Accounts sind umgedreht, die wenigen des alten An-d-Kontos finden sich nun unter "Gertha" wieder. -- Cecil (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Das ging ja superschnell - ganz herzlichen Dank! Hab eine schöne Woche!

Viele Grüße An-d (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian currency image

Hello,

You recently deleted the File:Nova Cedula Real - 100 - frente.png, but, differently of what is being said in that wrongly translated text, the file is under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5, but not because "it was published by Brazil", but because it was published by w:Agência Brasil, which publish all of it content under CC 2.5, as described in the page's footnote:

Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 2.5. Brasil.

In English:

Every content from this website is published under Creative Commons Atribution License 2.5. Brazil

This footnote, as well as the image, can be verified at this link [11] and in higher resolution [12]. Could you please undelete the file? --Luizdl (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reason was, that Agência Brasil does not really have the right to put this image under a CC-licence. They violate the law of their own country by doing so. Do never follow too trustfully a well known website and their licences, not on Agência Brasil, not here on Commons, nowhere. Mistakes can happen everywhere and here they made one. But that does not mean that we should do so too, so no, I will not undelete a file which violates the Brazilian law. -- Cecil (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lizenzfrage

Hallo! Karl hat mir empfohlen mich an dich zu wenden: Ich hab im österreichischen Eisenbahnforum einen User gebeten mir ein Bild vom Bahnhof St. Pölten für Wikipedia zukommen zu lassen. Das hat er auch gern getan. Nachdem ich das Bild in zwei Versionen hochgeladen habe, habe ich eine Warnmeldung wegen Lizenzproblemen bekommen. Karl hat gemeint, dass ich eventuell den dortigen User fragen könnte, ob es für ihn in Ordnung wäre wenn ich das Bild unter Angabe von mir selber als Autor hochladen würde. Er weiß aber nicht ob das auf den Commons okay ist. Ansonsten sollte ich User:AleXXw bitten Bilder vom Bahnhof St. Pölten zu machen.

Hier die beiden Bildversionen um die es geht:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Temporaer (talk • contribs)

Also wäre ich der betroffene Benutzer, würde ich dem nicht zustimmen und es wäre moralisch auch nicht wirklich ok. Beide Lizenzen verlangen Attributierung und statt dem wirklichen Autor würdest dann bei jeder Weiternutzung du genannt. Wenn du schon Kontakt mit dem Benutzer hast, dann bitte ihn, ein Mail an COM:OTRS zu schicken, mit der Erklärung, dass er der Autor ist und das Bild unter dieser Lizenz freigibt. Er kann das Mail sonst auch an dich schicken, damit du es an das OTRS-Team weiterleitest. Beispieltexte für eine Erklärung findest du unter Commons:Emailvorlagen (Abschnitt 'Einverständniserklärung'). Natürlich kann der Text auch frei formuliert werden, er sollte aber neben dem Bildlink auch die gewählte Lizenz enthalten und den Fakt, dass man diese verstanden hat (Lizenz ist nicht widerrufbar, ...). -- Cecil (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo! Das Problem hat sich jetzt eh schon gelöst, weil User:AleXXw zugesagt hat am Bahnhof St. Pölten zu fotografieren. Danke für die Mühe. lg --188.45.30.230 09:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (Temporaer unangemeldet)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Cecil!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Gauguin - Landschaft.jpg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Versionslöschungen

Limes in Nordungarn

Limes im Odenwald

Hallo Cecil, ist es möglich, die alten Versionen meiner links und rechts gezeigten Dateien zu löschen. Auf Commons brauchen die nur unnötig Platz. Die Dateien werden laufend auf den neuesten Stand – es handelt sich um Landkarten zu römischen Grenzverläufen – gebracht. Mediatus (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oha, seit wann krieg ich keine Mails mehr bei Nachrichten hier. Sorry für die verspätete Reaktion.

Versionslöschungen sparen gar nichts. Alles "Löschen" hier ist nämlich in Wirklichkeit nur "Unsichtbar machen". Als IP oder Benutzer ohne erweiterte Rechte siehst du die Sachen nur nicht mehr. Auf Commons wird nie etwas gelöscht, alles was mal raufgeladen oder getippt oder was auch immer wurde, bleibt hier für alle Zeit (hat unter anderem Lizenzgründe). Insofern bringt eine Versionslöschung für den von dir angestrebten Zweck nicht wirklich was. Gemacht werden die normalerweise, um Urheberrechtsverletzungen zu verstecken oder auch bei Persönlichkeitsrechtsproblemen. -- Cecil (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Adminwahl

Tut mir leid, wenn ich Deinen Ärger noch weiter angeheizt habe. Tasse Tee?

Hallo Cecil, irgendetwas ist mit der Zeitschiene bei der aktuellen Adminwahl schief gegangen. Ich bin zu ungeschickt zum Reparieren, schaust Du es Dir bitte einmal an? Danke! --4028mdk09 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ich komme mir gerade extrem verarscht vor. Das ist KEINE Adminwahl. JCornelius hat seine Rechte bereits. Ich hatte diese Rückgabe seiner Rechte mit ein paar Bürokraten besprochen und dann hier nach Vollzug noch publik gemacht. Und dann kommt da wer, der anscheinend die Nachricht nicht mal gelesen hat, und macht diese völlig unnötige schwachsinnige Adminwahl daraus. Nochmal: JCornelius ist Administrator, er brauchte keine Adminwahl. Für die Zukunft: danke fürs Lesen der ganzen Nachricht und nicht nur der ersten Worte. --Cecil (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, also ver... wollte ich Dich wirklich nicht - aber offensichtlich war ich nicht der erste, der da wohl irgendwie nicht von Anfang bis Ende gelesen hat! Nix für ungut - danke, dass Du dem durch Sperrung der Seite ein Ende bereitet hast. Herzliche Grüße und trotz allen Ärgers noch einen schönen Sonntag! --4028mdk09 (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Das weiter unten geht nicht gegen dich. Wenn mal eine RfA-Unterseite da ist, erwarte ich auch, dass die Leute auf dieser abstimmen und davon ausgehen, das die Vergangenheitsform einfach nur durch schlechte Englisch-Kenntnisse entstanden ist. Du hast im Grunde wie all die anderen, die abgestimmt haben, nichts falsch gemacht. Mein Ärger richtet sich allein gegen Docu, der sich nicht nur nichts bei dem Wort 'Notiz' gedacht hat, sondern meine Kurznachricht auch noch so verändert hat, dass sich auch sonst niemand mehr etwas dabei denken konnte. -- Cecil (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wird ihm wahrscheinlich in Zukunft nicht mehr passieren - und Fehler: die machen wir doch alle hin und wieder, oder? LG, --4028mdk09 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Cecil, is this really necessary? If you put something on the request for adminship page, people will start voting. That's the purpose of this page. We create sub pages for votes so that's what docu did. If you didn't want people to vote you should have put a note on one of the noticeboards. Multichill (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we have done short notes before. But somehow I wonder why after all these years on Commons I still expect people to use their brain. If there is some kind of ritual then they just follow it without any previous usage of their brain. No brain wave starts to do its work at something that starts with the word note. No brain wave wonders why somebody with crat-rights did not use sub-pages. That's one of the reasons I am so sick of Commons. People don't think, they just follow their rules from step 1 to step x and everything that does not look exactly like they are used to does not exist. So thanks for just confirming the stupidity of people with your sentence number two. I am not a shepherd and I am not willing to ever be one. If the rest of Commons wants to behave like sheep then they can do so without me. I prefer to use my brain and I'll just do it somewhere else. -- Cecil (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Verschieben

Hallo! Könntest du bitte die Kategorie Category:Bahnhof St. Pölten Hauptbahnhof auf Category:St. Pölten Hauptbahnhof verschieben? Ich hab nicht die erforderlichen Rechte dafür. --Temporaer (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cecil hat die aber auch nicht. ;) Das einzige, was wir Admins in der Richtung machen können, ist das, und das habe ich gerade  erledigt. abf «Cabale!» 15:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Passt danke für die schnelle Reaktion. ;-) --Temporaer (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File has source

File:Mattilahde.JPG has source in picture that has been deleted as duplicate, you can ask from some finnish administrator, so it's information are Okay.--Motopark (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is NOT ok. Everybody must be able to confirm a licence without first finding some person to ask the needed information from. -- Cecil (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just checked your contributions. You are not even new here so how could you work here without even knowing the most basic rules? Especially considering that even in Wikipedia-project there is the rule that WP is not a source. -- Cecil (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)