User talk:ChristianBier/Archives/2008/September

User:BrunoMe

Well, I have to say that an indefinite block is a severe punishment for uploading unfree files after warnings, especially as the user got only one (!) warning on his user talk. Is there some specific reason ? Regards, →Christian.И 15:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a short reply. Regards, →Christian.И 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked and watchlisted him until further notice ... I guess he deserves a chance. →Christian.И 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

EUSL Logo Copyright

Hi ChristianBier I have seen a logo of EUSL was uploded by a user S.Sathayan and it has now deleted by you.I think this may be a due to the Copyright problem which was not taken in to account.I agree with the action that you have taken.Since the university logos are protected by the Copiritht law the logo of Eastern University should also has the Copyright licence. But can you please breifly explain how to upload a picture with copyright licence? This refers to the logo of EUSL. Tahnks Balasugumar (talk)

It's very easy to say: Don't upload Logos to Wikimedia Commons. ChristianBier (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Austrian stamps

I must say that I was really surprised at the language you used to reply to my post about the deletion of an Austrian stamp that you have now archived here.

Firstly you wrote: "Such deletions won't be discussed, because it's known for everybody", that seems like a very rude way to reply to anyone who asked you a polite question about a deletion you made. IF it is known to everybody then I would never have to ask you a question about the deletion in the first place. Obviously it is not known to everybody and is not clear. That is what prompted the question in the first place. Perhaps the copyright of Austrian stamps was already discussed somewhere else because it has not been discussed on the Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain page, in which case I would appreciate if you could point me to that discussion so I can read it for myself.

After that you wrote: "Austrian Stamps are not PD and {{PD-AustrianGov}} doesn't match." What does that mean? Perhaps, being a German speaker, you are expressing something in English in a way that I, as in English speaker, don't understand. Would you please explain what you really mean because it does not make sense to me.

Later on you wrote that only those countries listed at Commons:Stamps/Public domain have stamps that are PD. This is untrue because several country's stamp are PD after a certain amount of time, such as, Ireland after 50 years. There are a few countries that override the PD-old licence, so that seems inaccurate to me. You then went on to make a very sweeping statement: "Stamps of all other countries aren't PD and so they have to be deleted as copyright violations." Well if you delete stamps on that basis you WILL be deleting stamps that are PD, PD exempt, or have a country specific licence.

Finally you said that: "The stamps which are still in the category you mentioned, are PD because of their age. They are PD-old." That is of course not true either because if you look at the stamps in the category you will see stamps like Image:Stamp Austria 1964-1193-UPU.jpg which is not old enough because it is only 44 years old (there are more of that same age set showing up there). Many other stamps showing up in the category seem to have incorrect licences that are not PD-old that you claim is the only licence available for Austrian stamps. There are, self made PD licences (e.g. Image:Flugpostmarke.jpg), ineligable licences, PD-AustrianGov (e.g. Image:Austria-roses-1937.jpg), all of which seem to be incorrect to me, even if the stamps are in fact PD, so are improperly tagged. Some of those stamps claim to have author permission but there is no evidence shown on the image, or image talk page, such as Image:Flora Paul 08.jpg.

It seems to me that there needs to be more clarity in the introduction text on the Category:Stamps of Austria and that each entry on that page need to be reviewed carefully to see it complies with the proper licence. Ww2censor (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gilipollas

Tú eres un hijo de la gran puta, aparte de ser una de las personas más gilipollas que he tenido la desgracia de encontrarme. Cabronazo, ¿por qué borras el escudo oficial de Melilla? Mel Illa (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't speak and understand Spanish. ChristianBier (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to block that user if s/he leaves more messages of this type ... →Christian.И 19:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Source unclear

Gibt es dazu Hintergründe? Ich sehe leider kein OTRS-Ticket. ---jha- (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

mein Fehler. Hab die Mail falsch übersetzt gehabt die ich wegen dem Bild bekommen habe. ChristianBier (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Foto gelöscht

Hallo ChristianBier, Du hast File:Mannheim-Adler-Logo.jpg gelöscht. Wo finde ich die dazugehörige Löschdiskussion? Grüße --Frank (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Es gibt dazu keine Löschdiskussion. Leider war dieses Logo auf Commons nicht behaltbar. Du hast zwar korrekterweise auf Panoramafreiheit hingewiesen, jedoch ist dies aus der beschnitten version nicht ersichtlich. In dem Falle war aus dem im öffentlichen Verkehrsraum aufgenommen Foto ein normales Logo geworden was wir leider nicht behalten können. Du hast aber eine Möglichkeit, nämlich das Ursprungsfoto ohne Nachbearbeitung hochzuladen. Ich stell dir das Logo dann wieder her und du verlinkst beide Bilder (bei dem Logo nimmst du dann das Originalfoto als zusätzliche Quellangabe). Wäre das machbar für dich? ChristianBier (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Du beliebst zu scherzen. Wenn Dich an einem meiner Bilder etwas stört, kannst Du mich ansprechen, oder die Disk-Seite des Bildes benutzen oder einen Löschantrag stellen. Gerade dieses Bild hat bereits eine Löschdiskussion hinter sich. Der Hinweis auf die Panaroma-Freiheit in diesem Bild kam übrigens nicht von mir, sondern von einem anderen Commons-Admin(!). Wo steht die von Dir beschriebene Vorgehensweise, dass das Bild nur mit einem Zweitbild haltbar ist. Wenn man meinen Angaben ohne Zweitbild in Bezug auf Panaoramafreiheit kein Glauben schenkt, warum dann z.B. die des Fotografen? Der nächste Admin zweifelt dann an, dass nicht ich der Fotograf bin und löscht es daher. Deine Vorgehensweise des diskussionlosen Löschens ist inakzeptabel. --Frank (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nachtrag: erkläre mir diese Diskussion. Zitat ChristianBier: "Sicher gibt es auch Logos auf den Commons, aber wenn jemand dort wieder Amok läuft (könnte jetzt auf Anbieb 3 Admins nennen, die dort gerne mal bei den Logos wildern und einfach draufloslöschen)". Was für ein falsches Spiel treibst Du hier? --Frank (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bezgl. der Löschung deines Logos kannst du keinen Bezug auf den Disk-Beitrag machen. Vergleiche doch mal dein Logo mit den Logos, um die es in der Diskussion ging: Einfach hier mal ein paar anklicken. Auf Commons gehen nur reine Textlogos sowie Logos mit einfachen geometrischen Formen. Alles andere muss auf DE bleiben. Du kannst dein Logo gerne auf DE hochladen. Dort passt es zund würde auch sicher nicht gelöscht. ChristianBier (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Licence

This images are:

Image:Ricardo_Landum_1.jpg - Public domain

Image:CFBelenenses_87_88.jpg and Image:Jogos_Pan-africanos_Argel.jpg - own work

so please remove the tag Xesko (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you created only the scans or are you the designer? ChristianBier (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)