User talk:Grand-Duc/Archiv/2011/March

Moving files without good reason

I see that you are moving files with the reason "anti-spam measure". It is not a valid reason¨for renaming a file. Contributors my require attribution. Please revert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the uploader has got attribution, in its right place in the file description. I would not object to an uploader's name as part of a file name, since it is a fine way to get a unique one, as long as it is not prolific as in the case of Schoci, where it is obviously a part of a SEO measure - I've noted that you've read the corresponding village pump thread. I think that my moves are covered by policies: COM:SCOPE, see the quote „Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: [...] Advertising or self-promotion.“, furthermore clarified by Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not a place to advertise, Commons:Watermarks also present a justificating element. Admittedly, there is no clear "go" in COM:FR, but I think that my moves constitute a legit measure against this SEO and advertising try. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What difference is there with for example Shankbone's photos? There are other examples, I believe even some admins. There is no justification in COM:FR; file names are not that terribly important. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess that you mean User:David Shankbone. Well, for the point of putting the name of the uploader in the filename, there is no difference, see my statement from above: "I would not object to an uploader's name as part of a file name, since it is a fine way to get a unique one,[...]". But here, the aim of the fashion of the file name is clear for me: publishing the own name or the own homepage URL as often as possible for advertising purposes. The whole behaviour of the user is fitting to this: only releasing quite small images (compared to the resolution of his Nikon D80), watermarking them and even stating that he do not want to release "unprotected images"! I think that there is (maybe momentarily) no need for "bigger guns" to deal with this matter like asking for a block or something similar ("maybe momentarily" because he tried this namedropping on Wikipedias [at least EN and DE] too: adding his images in suitable articles and writing his name in the image caption), but that I am entitled on the basis of COM:SCOPE, Commons:What Commons is not and Commons:Watermarks to make use of the filemover right to counter situations that I understand as infringements of those policies. Well, that may sound a little bit pompous, I agree (I miss somewhat the feeling of the language and so the ability to express exactly what I mean in Englisch), but on the other hand: are those file moves such a big deal? While moving files, I even put the initials "SG" of "Sascha Grabow" in several filenames, when I thought that there could be possibly another image of the same name, e.g. File:Cactus Flower SG.jpg. Well, I think that I thoroughly explained my reasons for those moves by now, so, may I ask you that you'll explain to me your point of view on how severely if at all I infringed on any applicable policy? I do not see a reason to revert to the "original" file names. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You are infringing on COM:FR, you are changing file names for no other reason than "I don't like it". Compare also File:2011-02-22-modellbahn-by-RalfR-19.jpg: his name in the file name, a link to his company web site, and an extensive licensing section with restrictions. What is allowed to Shankbone and to Rolatschek must also be allowed to Grabow. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware that COM:FR is the exclusive place to get justifications for file moves, I relied upon other policies and reasons named above, so it is simply not true that "I don't like" S. Grabow's file names or that this is a reason at all. Ralf does not use his full name "Ralf Roletschek" in the file name, but only a short ("RalfR") and the URL to his own homepage is in the sole place where it is legit in my eyes: in the file description in the "Author" field. In the case of a Creative Commons license, such a URL could be considered as an "attribution party" as per §4 Section C part 1 of the legal code of the CC-By-SA 3.0, so everything is fine. Neither Ralf Roletschek or David Shankbone are so overtly abusing of Commons as advertising space and SEO environment. Of course, their works do have an advertising effect by the intrinsic quality of them, but this is more than outweighed by the same (technical) quality of the provided works (high resolution and no watermarks) in my opinion. Where do you find huge restrictions in Ralf's licensing templates? He uses the License Art Libre / Free Art License, which is something like a "cousin" to the widespread CC-By-SA, made in French and having similar requirements of attribution for a similar degree of commercial usability, in contrast to the GNU licenses. It is simply not so well known as the GDFL and the CC licenses but even possibly better suited for European users, seen that there is no provision for using "any later version, published by [...]" as in the GDFL, a provision that makes it, the GDFL without any strict version number chosen, arguably invalid as per that fact that you can't agree to a contract of which you do not know the terms... Well, I'm drifting off the subject, so... What do you think about S. Grabow's behaviour? Do you conceive that his use of his name and homepage URL in every available place looks really like SEO and advertising, advertising beyond acceptable levels (as shown by Ralf and David [and Diliff, Fir002 and Noodlesnacks with their GDFL-only files in a "teasing" small resolution])? If you do not, I would put/copy our discussion here to the village pump, as I think that more opinions could be valuable. If you do, there is not really a problem left, isn't it? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Watermarks are a problem, file names are not. Not liking Grabow's behaviour is not a reason to rename. Please remove watermarks instead. If you want to copy this somewhere, that is fine with me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How about joining the discussion at Commons talk:File renaming#Author or website names in filename? Bencherlite (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Toilettenverstopfung II

Er ist wieder da. Das nervt langsam, sekundierst du? Grüße, --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lohnt ein Mass DR für die ganzen Zeichnungen? Etwaige Fotos würde ich raus lassen nach den Erfahrungen beim letzten Mal, doch könnte ein informeller DR bei den VM nicht zielführend sein. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ich weiß, was du meinst. Warten wir mal kurz ab, wie die Vandalismusmeldung ausgeht. Dann - je nach Lage - starten wir wieder einen Massen-LA mit Verweis auf den letzten.

Was mich unheimlich nervt ist die Tatsache, der der Kerl nicht einmal (egal wie) reagiert oder sich zumindest wundert, warum seine Bilder immer gelöscht werden. Commons verkommt häufiger zum kostenlosen Bilderserver für jeden Scheiß (sozusagen). --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

COM:QIC

Hi Grand-Duc,
wenn du etwas wertungsunabhängig (also wenn es noch ohne promotion und decline abläuft) kommentierst, musst du den Status bei den QI-Kandidaten nicht ändern, die können als "Nomination" stehen bleiben. Denn alle Bilder, die als "Discuss" markiert sind, werden in täglich regelmäßigen Abständen ins Consensual Review abgeschoben, wo es zur Abstimmung und ausführlichen Diksussion unterschiedlicher Meinungen kommt, was ja bei einfachen Kommentaren und Hinweisen noch nicht der Fall ist. Ich habe deswegen die Status bei deinen Kommentaren wieder zurückgestellt. Noch einen schönen Abend --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AIDAblu Warnemünde 04-07-2010.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 QI --Carschten 10:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedying redirects

You shouldn't place speedy requests on redirects unless the file was moved shortly after creation. Sources providing links to the original locations at Commons, from outside Commons, require the redirects to remain for proper attribution. Wikis using the InstantCommons feature, to use Commons as their repository, will not have the links updated by CommonsDelinker either. – Adrignola talk 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, normally, I will not ask for a speedy deletion of redirects. But I strongly doubt that there were any outside media making use in the case of my speedyied ones. Do you have checked the contributions of the uploader? In his case, it's frankly more an issue of protecting Commons against some negative publicity than assuring the functionality of any external Wiki: it surely not welcome to have file names that links an innocent e.g. Bolivian child or woman to a more than strange obsession. Please check an old mass DR, read in the last third to get Toilet's MySpace profile for additional clues about it. Also, you may want to confer with the German Wiki admin de:User:Koenraad and the Commons admin User:Bdk with whom I have talked or notified about this matter. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sphinx class cruise ship AIDAblu.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - The scope should link this category in commons AIDA blu and this is enough for the name, in my view, or AIDA blu (cruise ship). Also you should put the nominated image there.--MrPanyGoff 12:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Info Using only "AIDAblu" as scope is possibly not precise enough as the shipping company operated an older ship under the same name that is now sold and known as the Pacific Jewel, IMO 8521220. Your Category:AIDA blu clearly bears the mention that the "AIDA blu" (note the space) should not be confused with the "AIDAblu", images of which should be categorised within Category:AIDAblu, where the nominated images already sits in. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  Good clarification. Anyway, I think that the scope name should be rearranged in some way.--MrPanyGoff 20:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  Please feel free to make a suggestion. :-) At this very moment, I do not have a better idea. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• In my view the scope name AIDAblu is enough. The old ship has already a new name as you say or it can be nominated in scope AIDA blu (former). Also you should be ensured that the linked category contains photos only of the new AIDAblu and not the old one or AIDAdiva or AIDAluna and so on ;)--MrPanyGoff 15:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Perhaps we should categorize ships by IMO number, only. In this case, Category:IMO 9398888. I would support promotion in that scope, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 06:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)