User talk:JuTa/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

rename categories / redirect

Hi JuTa,

I noticed that a number of categories like Category:Chinesischer_Pavillon_am_Grazer_Schlossberg were renamed to correct German spelling. Which is of course fine by me, but this type of categories is typically linked from all kind of monument lists on Wikipedia/Wikidata. Would it be possible to leave a redirect in place? That should also help people to find the category anyway. Thanks in advance! Effeietsanders (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the named category wasn't renamed, but just complety blanked out by User:Ralf Roletschek - so no images in, no description, no categories - just blank. As such I removed it as senseless. Perhaps you talk to him to create cat-redirects instead of blanking out cats. Thx. --Ju Ta 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that explains. Thanks. Effeietsanders (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese surnames

JuTa, some Portuguese surnames are compounds the "de Santos Pereira", it's different from "Pereira" or "Santos", sometimes "de" "da" "do", shows this characteristic. If a woman have "de Santos Pereira" maried with a "do Santos Silva" her name will be "Woman de Santos Pereira do Santos Silva", sometimes they merge "Woman do Santos Pereira e Silva". It's pretty hard to see the first case, specially nowadays, but happens.

"e" means "and"
"de" "da" "do" means "of", the first one without gender, the second for feminine words, and the third masculine.

And it's hard to us, let alone to you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Conceição (surname)

Hi, Conceição is a (given name). The "de" not always divide given names from surnames, as in: "Maria do Rosário" and may other names started with "Maria", but not only. You can check in Portuguese oficial list of names allowed here

There are also some names that can be 'given name' and 'surname', like:

Rúben Neves - Ruben(given name) Neves(surname) - full name (Rúben Diogo da Silva Neves)
Maria das Neves de Bragança: Maria(given name) das Neves(given name) de Bragança(surname) - full name (Maria das Neves Isabel Eulália Carlota Adelaide Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Gonzaga de Paula de Assis Inês Sofia Romana de Bragança)
Sérgio Conceição - Sérgio(given name) Conceição(surname) - full name (Sérgio Paulo Marceneiro da Conceição)
Maria da Conceição Nobre Cabral - Maria(given name) da Conceição(given name) Nobre(surname) Cabral(surname)

So ... as you can see, Portuguese names are very tricky. If you want I can help you. Post me the list of names you want to categorize and I will help you. Regards --JotaCartas (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi JotaCartas, thx for the offer. I'll come back to you when I have cases where I'm usure. --Ju Ta 20:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Grouping Names and surnames in categories

Hi again. I think that grouping names and surnames in categories of 2,3 or 4 names is a Superhuman task. In Portugal we can have (normally) 2 given names and up to 4 four surnames. Let's look to surnames: Theoretically every surname can combine with any other surname; In Portugal we have at least different 800 surnames (list in pt.wikipedia, but there are much more) ... so:

800 * 800 * 800 * 800 = 409'600'000'000 new categories
Think a little if it's worth such a task. And this is just for Portugal; How is about the rest of the world? again best regards --JotaCartas (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, in my eyes its easier to find a specific person this way. And thats the sense of categories. We will never have 409 billion surname cats because there were/are no 409 billion (relevant) people on the world. regards. --Ju Ta 20:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Of couse you are wright (it was just a theoretical game). In reality there are about 500 different Portuguese names (given an surnames) in Commons that will need 500 categories. Furthermore, there are about 1'000 Portuguese people in Commons with 3 names that will need at most 1'000 extra categories with 2 names (if there is no repetition). That does not seem to be a big number. Be free to post me your questions, I will gladly try to help. regards --JotaCartas (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia page created but not accessible from google

Why the wiki page I created Tinno, Lahaul 4 days back not accessible from Google. It opens when searched in search bar of wikipedia. Avnish123 (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Only google knows how and when they indexing pages into their search engine. Maybe you just need a bit more patient. --Ju Ta 06:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright notice

Dear JuTa, I noticed that you put a copyright notice on my user talk page. I knew that a link must be put in so when I upload the picture, I already tried to specify that this was taken from Google Maps via its Google Street View. I already put in the link, but here it is in case you want to fix the copyright status. I admit I'm very inexperienced in putting in copyright status, and I request help for doing this. Here is the link I used where I got the image. (I took a screenshot and cropped it to size.)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/23%C2%B050'46.0%22N+90%C2%B015'27.0%22E/@23.8463233,90.2570028,3a,90y,90.9h,96.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sh9pbWXACKlMIybUT1nFNvg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dh9pbWXACKlMIybUT1nFNvg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D188.00337%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d23.846111!4d90.2575?hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info2Learn (talk • contribs) 05:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Info2Learn (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

hi Info2Learn. I'm sorry but google maps is not published under a free license - compare Commons:Licensing. --Ju Ta 05:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I'm still unsure with how to do it. Could you do this for me please? Or could you find someone else to help or do it for me? Thanks if you could. Info2Learn (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just dont upload google map images in future and this one, I'm afraid, has to be deleted. --Ju Ta 19:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hallo, du hast vor 10 Tagen die Kategorie Category:Tararua shelters required gelöscht; ich habe zuvor keine Warnung o.dgl. erhalten. Ich habe in der Kategorie Hiking shelters in the Tararuas hiking shelters gesammelt, und eine Liste der noch nicht besuchten shelters als diese Kategorie angelegt - vielleicht wäre eine andere Methode besser gewesen? Jedenfalls habe ich es als nicht sinnvoll erachtet für die noch nicht vorhandenen Bilder leere Kategorien vorzudefinieren, denn es kann zT noch lange dauern bis es da Bilder gibt.
Sicher weisst du eine bessere Alternative die mühsam gesammelten Hüttennamen für die künftige Definition bereit zu halten! Eventuell kann ich die Liste auf meiner Benutzerseite pflegen, wenn es ohnehin niemand anderen interessiert. Ich bitte dich, entweder die Kategorie wiederherzustellen (war sie denn so störend?) oder zumindest mir die Daten zu übermitteln, damit ich nicht erneut suchen muss. Danke sarang♥사랑 07:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, hier der Inhalt:

No pictures exist yet for
Huts:

Arete Forks Hut

Blue Range Hut

Carceek Hut

Cattle Ridge Hut

Cow Creek Hut

Dorset Ridge Hut

Dundas Hut

Eastern Hutt Hut

Kapakapanui Hut

Mangahao Flats Hut

North Ohau Hut

Tarn Ridge Hut

Bivs & shelters:

Aokaparangi Bivy

Kirwhakapapa Shelter

McGregor Bivy

Mid King Bivy

Smith Creek Shelter

Waiohine Shelter

Lodges:

Mangatarere Lodge

Roaring Stag Lodge

Am besten legst Du Dir damit eine Benutzer-Unterseite an, oder schreibst es auf Category talk:Hiking shelters in the Tararuas Und zur Erklärung: Ich gehe seit langem User:Achim55/Unused categories durch und lösche leere Kategorien, da sie in meinen Augen wirklich stören. Sie gaukeln jemanden der Bilder sucht Inhalt vor, wo leider keiner ist. Gruß --Ju Ta 08:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Danke. Jetzt ist es sicher besser gelöst als mit einer dateilosen Kategorie, und auch sinnvoller als vorher; nicht zu aufdringlich aber doch einsehbar falls es jemand wissen will. Danke auch für die Erklärung! sarang♥사랑 12:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Subgroup of Oh; Dih4 go 16; matrix.svg etc.

Hi, please don't mark a used file as a duplicate of an unused file, just because it is newer. I will make a deletion request for the older files right now. Watchduck (quack) 18:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it was not only the age. I couldnt see any green or orange in the graphic. --Ju Ta 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, you could not see anything go either. ;) The matrix corresponds to this graph. I made my deletion request, BTW. Watchduck (quack) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Bitte um Meinung

Hallo, kannst du bitte mal unter User_talk:Wdwd#Bildrechte einen Blick auf meine Frage werfen?. Danke. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge Audio white paper

Hello JuTa, The white paper was created and supplied by Cambridge Audio. it has always been copyright free and can be freely downloaded from the company's web site www.cambridgeaudio.com. It can also be found freely around the web on Cambridge Audio dealers own websites.

TY (Andburslem (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC))Andburslem

Hi, you should link on the file description page to the page with the statemment that anybody in the world can use it for any purpose. Then you should find a fitting license template on Commons:Copyright tags and use it on the file description page. regards --Ju Ta 21:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Pandurica.jpg

Hello! You have left me a message concerning File:Pandurica.jpg, that it doesn't have a copyright tag. But it does have it: in Summary/Permission, there is an OTRS ticket #2014122310000729. The ticket describes that "future" files that are uploaded by me and attributed to Anton Bakov have "future" permissions to be legitimate on Commons and that was approved by OTRS admin rubin16. A number of files was uploaded previously in this way without problems. Can you please re-revise the situation? --ssr (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi ssr, every image on commons needs a valid license tag (see Commons:Licensing). OTRS isnt a license, its a method to verify authorship and permission. If you dont know under which license Anton Bakov likes to publish this image, you should ask him or Rubin16 as the OTRS volounteer which seems to worked on this case. If the license template keeps missing on the description page the file will get likely deleted in about a week. regards. --Ju Ta 06:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I understand now, I've missed the license tag, my fault, sorry. The license is CC-BY-SA 4.0, it is stated in OTRS letter for permission (I saw it), I have added it to the file. Thank you! --ssr (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Norvega_Esperantisto_2016-02.png

Could you please restore https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norvega_Esperantisto_2016-02.png

The Permission ticket is here: cc-by-sa 4.0 [1] Nsaa (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. I renewed the pending tag. Please complete now the OTRS task. --Ju Ta 11:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Another undeletion request

Hi, I noticed you deleted this picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_John's_Owner_Jimmy_John_Liautaud.jpg because it did not yet have an OTRS tag since November 9. The same picture was up on Wikipedia, and was taken down because there was a duplicate on Commons, but the permission letter was not sent to Commons, only to Wikipedia. Can you please re-load the picture, and the owner of the picture is going to send permission to the correct address: permission-commons@wikimedia.org. Thanks. Wineconnoisseur2016 (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, there is only one OTRS, but with different queues, for english, french, ... language. The description of the file didn't indicate that it was transfered from en: to commons. Best you ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard (and/or en:Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard) for this case. If there is a valid release, they will be able to undelete the file. --Ju Ta 08:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

2 speedy deletion requests

Hello! Thank you for your great work at Commons! I have an issue with 2 photos that I have uploaded in the past: this one and this one. I have received a request from a representative of a person pictured on these photos to remove them from Commons. Can you please speedy delete them? No other photos are concerned. --ssr (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi ssr, such cases are normally no cases for speedy deletion. Please raise a regular DR for them. Thx for understanding. --Ju Ta 16:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! I have created the requests. --ssr (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Moin JuTa, hast du meine Mail von gestern erhalten? Wenn ich öffentlich frage, hätten wir einen Streisand-Effekt. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nein, leider nicht. Ich hatte diese Mailbox aber schon laaange nicht mehr ausgerufen. Versuchts Du's noch einmal? --Ju Ta 19:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Sind einige Links drin, vielleicht im Spam-Ordner gelandet? Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Danke! Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Bandeira de Itaporanga (Paraíba).svg

Hi! I hope everything is fixed now. Thanks. --Alan Moraes (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is created before 1983: yes. --Ju Ta 22:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean if the flag was designed before 1983? Yes, it was created by a law in 1973. The file I uploaded is newer than that. Thank you. --Alan Moraes (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, designed. --Ju Ta 05:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Airbus Finkenwerder.jpg

File:Airbus Finkenwerder.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Oursana (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Editions in Coins of Alfonso IX of León

Hi! I do not understand why did you revert my edit on this category. I am just respecting the Spanish tradition of the name: Alfonso. I can't find any problem that justifies your reverting. Please don't do it again. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mhmrodrigues, you completely emtied the caetgory description - see here - leaving the cat uncatogezied. regards. --Ju Ta 04:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you already filled the category. Thanks. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Baltrum Denkmal Tjark Evers 02.jpg

Hallo JuTa! Bei der Löschung müsste eigentlich ein Fehler passiert sein. Das Bild wurde AFAIK, wie auch von User:Sabine Hinrichs hochgeladen worden sein, die selbst die Fotografin ist. Sie ist auch Redakteurin der Inselglocke Baltrum [www.inselglocke.de/2-02/2-02ib.htm]. Leider kann ich jetzt nicht nachlesen, wo der Mangel bei der Datei bestand. Wer war denn der Hochlader? Schönen Gruß, --JPF (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hochlader war User:Nicola, Fotograf und Künstler Bernd Clemenz Weber. Das Bild war OTRS pendng seit 22. September. --Ju Ta 14:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ich bin mir sicher, dass ich das Formular weitergeleitet habe, da es ein wenig - schwierig war, kann es aber nciht mehr nachvollziehen, leider. --Nicola (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Schade. --JPF (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

File:SpecialSignalPennant-Substitute4-USNSpec.svg

Hi, can you please restore the above-named file? A while ago, someone took my SVGs and uploaded them over existing, similar (but not identical) SVGs, then either they (or someone else) marked my files as exact duplicates. In this case, File:ICS Repeat Four.svg should be reverted to its previous version, not the latest version which was a simple copy of mine. I did that on a large number of these SVGs but I must have missed that one. There was no reason for the overwrite on File:ICS Repeat Four.svg, especially with the misleading summary of "color fix". Overwriting an SVG with a duplicate of an existing makes no sense -- that is the mistake which should be corrected. Thanks, Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

OK

Done. --Ju Ta 17:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cinema of Mozambique

Please undelete Category:Cinema of Mozambique, as it is no longer empty.

2016-11-09T03:28:44 JuTa (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Cinema of Mozambique (Empty category: content was: "Mozambique Category:Culture of Mozambique", and the only contributor was "Tuvalkin" (talk))

That will reinstate a topic of categorization back in our tree, will help to normalize and de-exotify African culture, and will spare me the work of recreating the parent cats and their keys (which is important to me) and will also be a 2nd admin action added to your edit count. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, its back, but note the cat Category:Actresses from Mozambique is empty as well. In some months they will reappear on my "checklist" if they still empty.... regards --Ju Ta 16:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And instead of trying to populate those categories you delete them, and then later when someone like me causes the need for these categories to be restored, but categorizing Commons’ content, you dully restored them. And I bet you don’t see anything wrong in this process. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Ordre relativa a la posta en funcionament del Museu Marítim de Catalunya.pdf

Hi, JuTa. I get your message that this file doesn't contain enough information about the license. What is the main information I forgot to provide? This regulation is from the Generalitat de Catalunya during the Second Spanish Republic and according to Copyright law of Spain. Article 13 all legal documents/regulations/laws of public administration is in public domain. Best regards! --Docosong (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Its allready fixed, since about a month now. regards. --Ju Ta 23:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

National Action Flag (Again!)

Hi. Apparently National Action just go recognized as a terrorist group in the United Kingdom. Isn't what they created (including their flag) in the public domain now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielGGD (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

--GabrielGGD (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which image you talking about, but being a terrorist or criminal doesn't negate the coprights of them. --Ju Ta 21:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

FIL 2016 - The City Of Auckland Pipe Band - 4780.webm

Hello,

I have seen that you have deleted this file because of "No OTRS permission since 6 December 2016". But a mail was sent to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" on the 6th of November (I still have a copy of it). So is there a problem with that mail ?

--XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, The OTRS pending tag was set on October 3rd. If the permission didnt get confirmed those images falling automaticly into a "No Permission" category after about 60 days and get deleted a week later. I'm just working on some backlogs but I'm not an OTRS volounteer and cannot see/check such mals. Perhaps you ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for this case. regards. --Ju Ta 09:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

File:David_Earl,_portrait_by_Onur_Pinar,_September_2016.jpg

You left a message about this file saying that its copyright was unclear, but it is clearly licensed and approved as free to use on the image page. There is a long correspondence about this between the photographer and Wikimedia. Could you please explain what the issue is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akasapriya (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The OTRS agent, who confirmed the release, forgot to add a license template, see here. The problem is solved, dont worry. --Ju Ta 17:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming it's ok. Akasapriya (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ei burro

Ei meu querido, porque você FERROU com a página BUILD ENGINE?

~~attacks striked~~

Agora vá tomar no seu cu e trate de arrumar o meu artigo seu filho da puta. Eu quero meu artigo como estava antes. Todas as imagens foram tiradas no meu computador, usando softwares GNU seu animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.souza.silva (talk • contribs) 2016-12-22T10:35:21‎ (UTC)

Well, there was just no license template at all on the file description page. And watch your langauage please. --Ju Ta 10:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Então vai lá e coloca meu querido. Vocês ficam removendo o conteúdo de quem quer ajudar com a wiki mas não perdem 1 minuto pesquisando sobre o assunto antes de acabar com tudo. O artigo vai ficar bagunçado mesmo, não vou fazer re-upload das imagens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.souza.silva (talk • contribs) 11:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Aí me desculpa pela minha agressividade, mas eu estava nervoso. Você não merecia ler essas palavras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.souza.silva (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Daniel.souza.silva: Your unpleasant comments aside (for which you have apologised), I want to stress that JuTa did nothing wrong here. Build is non-free software. It is not published under any GNU license, but under a proprietary license. That license is restricted to non-commercial use only. We only allow screenshots of software that is published under a free license. A free license in this context is a license that allows use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas, JuTa!
	Hi JuTa, thank you for all your valuable contributions on Commons. This help fulfill the number 1 goal of Commons: To be a free, educational media repository for everyone. I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a happy new year. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2017! ;)

		*** * * * * * * Happy Holidays 2017 ! * * * * * * ***
		* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! * ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! * Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Restore category

Category:Transport in Buchach Raion. --Mykola Vasylechko 22:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Ju Ta 14:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JuTa!

Happy New Year!

JuTa, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File File:IBM 7030 Stretch circuit board.jpg for deletion

All I did was adjust the color. You need to contact the person who uploaded it. Bubba73 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Which I did. --Ju Ta 22:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Good. Bubba73 (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you are helping?

You appear to be threatening to delete cc by sa pictures because they do not specify the version number - despite all versions of cc by sa being perfectly valid. You are also deleting Flickr pictures that were reviewed successfully in 2010 that some bot has now decided they cannot easily find the license for. I have fixed the one you told me about but would you really have deleted it? That would have benefited no one. I presume you have a rationale that justifies what you are doing but I fail to see it. Have a good new year Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this template edit left thousends of images without a valid license template, I found them in Category:Media without a license: needs history check. I was thinking about reverting the template edit, but the corresponding Category tells us that these images are eligable for speedy deletion since more than a year, but nobody realy cared yet. --Ju Ta 23:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to, by a change of a template redirect, render thousands of files eligible for deletion that appeared to have a perfectly valid license for years. See Template_talk:Cc-by-sa#Rationale. --dealerofsalvation 09:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you are helping? (again)

Per the above message, could you explain this? The original file at the German Wikipedia is properly licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0. So, should not be better to correct the license instead of improperly tagging? I already left a message to you for the same issue, and these kind of editions aren't really helpful (specially if the mistakes are easily correctable). --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I used Visual File Change for this. This means I don't even see the file description pages when marking the files as "no license". There were more than 1500 files within Category:Media without a license: needs history check. And since about the 8 hours since I did it the last time there are now more than 700 in again. It would simply take much too much time to indivual check each image individual. If I would open each file decription page and each history and each source it would likely take about 2-4 minutes per image. This means 3000-6000 minutes for those 1500 images. Thats 50 to 100 hours or 20 to 60 days because I'm not working on commons 24*7. For the reason why I mark them as no license, see the section above here. regards. --Ju Ta 06:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please respond at Commons:Village_pump#Another_bulk_process_to_delete_large_numbers_of_licensed_files Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:AEG MIGNON typewriter Model 4.jpg

I change the copyright. I use cc-by-sa-4.0. The change fulfill your request? --Arosio Stefano (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thx. --Ju Ta 09:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Re: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jpatokal#Copyright_status:_File:Wikitravel.png, what are you doing? The file in question clearly links to its source, which equally clearly indicates the copyright status (CC by-sa 3.0). Jpatokal (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see my answer at #Are you sure you are helping? (again). --Ju Ta 11:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That something is hard to do does not mean you should do it the wrong way. The files seems to have copyright tags and if those cant be machine read there is something wrong with the machine. Those should not be added for deleteion. --Averater (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Updated.

I have updated the images you suggested. AtelierJoly (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thx. --Ju Ta 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

It seems you run into a mess in the new year. Please take it light. Everybody do mistakes. But we can fix them. Have a nice 2017! Cheers from India! J e e 16:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Smile, thx. --Ju Ta 19:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"Eigenbau"-Lizenzvorlage

Hallo JuTa; aufgrund dieser Anfrage auf COM:VPC ist mir aufgefallen, dass du auch noch bei weiteren Dateien von Jonnie Nord eine "fehlende Lizenz" markiert hast. Diese sind allerdings, soviel ich sehe, alle mit GNU-FDL und CC-BY-SA lizenziert und dass es des Uploaders eigene Werke sind ist auch plausibel - das Problem ist nur, dass er die Lizenzen in ein eigenes Template {{Zaphod}} (sein früherer Username) verpackt hat. Ich habe nun gerade keine Ahnung, ob ein solches Vorgehen überhaupt akzeptabel ist (blieb zwar offenbar über 10 Jahre unbeanstandet, erschwert aber automatische Auswertungen sicher erheblich); m.E. steht zwar eines fest: Die Bilder können bleiben, da sie vom Uploader korrekt lizenziert wurden - aber mit dieser Vorlage? Antwort am liebsten gleich für die Allgemeinheit in besagtem VPC-Thread :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi siehe einige Abschnitte hier drüber und Commons:Village_pump#Another_bulk_process_to_delete_large_numbers_of_licensed_files. Gruß --Ju Ta 19:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, dann war es gar nicht das Template {{Zaphod}} selbst, das den Bot auslöste, sondern das darin enthaltene {{Cc-by-sa}}? Hum, eigentlich müsste der Benutzer, der letzteres Template unabgesprochen geändert hatte, aufräumen, schliesslich ist letztlich er an allem schuld - diese Änderung hat die Bot-Aktionen ausgelöst, auf die du du dann auch "hereingefallen" bist, wie ich sehe... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, jein. Bezüglich {{Zaphod}}: Es gibt diverse Layout-Vorlagen z.B. {{CC-Layout}}, wenn keine davon bei einem Bild verwendet wird, setzt der Bot die "no license" Kategorie. Er hat dort selbst einen GFDL text erstellt und {{Cc.by-sa}} verwendet. Dort sollte der Benutzer {{GFDL}} in seiner Privatvorlage verwenden, dann hätte der Bot weiterhin eine valide Lizenz erkannt. Allgemein: Ich finde schon dass wenn nicht erkennbar welche der vielen CC-Lizenzen der Hochlader verwenden wollte, sollten die Dateien irgenwie aufgeräumt werden. Sie "einfach" zu {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} zu machen, was ja gegen Public Domain geht, ist schon gewagt, find ich. --Ju Ta 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ganz interessantes Thema. Wenn man sich die Versionsgeschichte von {{Zaphod}} anschaut, stellt sich die Lage so dar: Ursprünglich war das nur {{GFDL-self}} plus Category:User:Zaphod. Später hat er dann den GFDL-Text manuell eingesetzt und im August 2006 schliesslich auch noch {{Cc-by-sa}} ergänzt. Da cc-by-sa schon damals eine Weiterleitung nach {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} war, kann man m.E. ruhig davon ausgehen, dass er die CC-BY-SA 1.0 vergeben wollte. Gegen Public Domain geht das grundsätzlich nicht mehr als die späteren CC-BY-SA-Versionen, das ist ja bloss die erste Version von "attribution-share alike", nicht zu verwechseln mit der PD-mässigen Verzichtserklärung CC0 (CC-zero). Es sieht mir eher danach aus, dass er wohl die automatische Umlizenzierung von GFDL auf spätere CC-BY-SA-Versionen nicht mitmachen wollte? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Steiger-mini.gif

Hallo, ich verstehe Deinen Tag nicht. Unter meinem Avatar steht doch die generischen Creative Commons Lizens. --Steiger4 (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Steiger4, ich habe den Problem-tag entfernt.--Ju Ta 10:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Iris!

Hallo JuTa und Frohes Neues Jahr aus den weissen Taunus! Ich habe ein Bißchen geforscht und die Website auf der Waybackmachine gefunden, woher die 2 Blumen kammen. Hoffe es reicht, um sie zu retten! Mit freundlichen Grüßen, -- notafish }<';> 13:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ich hab' die Lizenz noch auf {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} geändert, so wie in der Quelle angegeben. Gruß --Ju Ta 14:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Copyright status"

Hi, JuTa,

Thanks for your help in

you added the "insufficient copyright information" tag to my photos File:PlominChurch.jpg and File:Plomin.jpg. Both photos are licensed under CC-BY-SA 1.0, as stated on their pages. How is this insufficient? --Aqwis (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you didn't used {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} but {{Cc-by-sa}} which declared another collegue as invalid. I've fixed it now. --Ju Ta 14:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sod roof

Hi, JuTa,

Thanks for saving my drawings Torvtak 1, 2, 3, and 4 from deletion by tagging them with the appropriate licence. Greetings from Lars Roede (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Ambox content.png

Hello, could you please undo your changes to File:Ambox content.png? You have deleted it then made a redirect to File:Imbox content.png. Unfortunately, like this past similar change, it can break things. Notably CSS backgrounds, which happened at least on the French wikipedia. Regards, Od1n (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Od1n, can you pls. give me an example where is broke things? At the moment I cannot realy understand the problem. --Ju Ta 21:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

See for example on this page. The orange warning band is missing its icon. That's because we use CSS to display it:

background-image: url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Ambox_content.png");

This could be fixed locally, but the technique is widely used, so unless you want to check and update all wikis…

Od1n (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, its back, though I think such type of code, which cannot follow redirects isn't perfect. --Ju Ta 21:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

File:GlobeAmarnath.jpg.

Hello, This is regarding File:GlobeAmarnath.jpg , That file is my own work. and I have marked it in the description. The license is also specified (CC-By-SA). what extra information should be there inorder to keep the file?

- Hrishikesh.kb (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just updated the license with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, ealrier it was {{Cc-by-sa-old}}. hope this is enough to keep the file.

- Hrishikesh.kb (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Thx. --Ju Ta 07:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:ETimor2006-0035.JPG

Hallo JuTa! Was ist genau das Problem bei der Datei? AFAIK hat doch der Rechteinhaber selbst das Bild hochgeladen. Schönen Gruß, --JPF (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Gleiches betrifft File:ETimor2006-0014.JPG. --JPF (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Würde mich auch interessieren. Möchtest du hier in großem Stil klar ersichtlich unter Freier Lizenz veröffentlichte Bilder abräumen, oder was genau soll das bitte? Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Siehe oben unter #Are you sure you are helping?, #Are you sure you are helping? (again), #"Eigenbau"-Lizenzvorlage und Commons:Village pump#Another bulk process to delete large numbers of licensed files. Ich bin bereits dabei dass wieder rückgängig zu machen... Gruß --Ju Ta 12:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Danke schön. Da bin ich erleichtert. --JPF (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

deletion of Category:RNV-Betriebshof Käfertal

Hello JuTa, could you please undelete Category:RNV-Betriebshof Käfertal? It’s finally not empty :-) --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Ju Ta 16:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wir leben (für immer) im Jahr 2013?

Hi JuTa, wieso hast du unter

File:EU28-2013-Eastern Partnership.svg

eine Weiterleitung nach:

File:EU-Eastern Partnership.svg

erstellt? Das eine ist (bzw. war) eine Karte aus dem Jahr 2013 (z.B. für einen Artikel über das Jahr 2013), das andere ist eine Karte, die fortlaufend aktualisiert wird. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Nun, ich arbeite von Zeit zu Zeit einiges von Special:ListDuplicatedFiles ab. Die Dateien waren binär identisch. Falls es mal eine neue Version geben sollte lade die jetzige doch mit dem alten Namen hoch. Oder übersehe ich etwas? --Ju Ta 16:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Das Problem ist, dass wir dann in historischen Artikeln nur bedingt Karten verwenden könnten. Wenn ich in einen arabischsprachigen Artikel eine Karte einbaue, die sich auf das Jahr 2013 bezieht, muss ich mich darauf verlassen können, dass niemand, nur weil er vielleicht dieser Sprache nicht mächtig oder die Einbindungen nicht im Einzelnen durchgegangen ist, in Commons auf die Idee kommt, die Karte zu aktualisieren. Ansonsten müsste man in Wikipedia in solchen Fällen auf Commons verzichten und historische Karten lokal abspeichern bis sie "historisch genug" sind, dass eine klare Änderung erkennbar ist, was wahlweise ein halbes Jahr oder 20 Jahre dauern kann. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, wenn das wiki den redirect-namen verwendet, und dies, sobald es ein update gibt, durch die jetztige Version ersetzt (überschrieben) wird, sollte das Problem nich auftauchen. Aber wie em auch sei: die Datei ist wieder da. Ich hab' noch ne Winzigkeit im Source-Code geändert, so dass die auch nicht meht als Duplikat angezeigt wird. Gruß --Ju Ta 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

duplication of license

I got a notice because my file, File:Bldk-20130710-kaolengmian.jpg, seems to be lacking a license. I added the mentioned license, and now it looks like this:

should I remove the 'older' license? or is this what it's supposed to be? Bluedeck 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the "old" license was shortly desclared as invalid, but revereted later. So its a valid license. I you dont like to publish the image under the other licenses undo your edit. But you should to do that "quickly" because the licenses are normaly non-revokable. regards --Ju Ta 14:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Essential source information

To me that means a source that links to the file, not a generic domain url which is essentially useless. Is that not correct? Ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Look at the upper left corner, there is the seal (in small). But feel free to raise a regular DR. --Ju Ta 16:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks I see that but it is completely different. Anyway I see you have now tagged it again based on the uploader changing the details again. Ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Afilador de cuchillos.jpg

wath is the problem with the license cc-by-sa-1.0 ??-- Esceptic0 | ✉ ✍. 04:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing anymore. For details see some sections here above. --Ju Ta 05:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted photo file for Pierre Ribeaud

Hi JuTa,

can you please restore the file that you deleted ? This file is ok to publish as per explicit mail from the owner (French Assemblée Nationale) below.

Message-ID: <E1C163A295674742ABD21B2A31AEF86DAB03680A@exchange2.prod.assemblee-nationale.fr>

Bonjour,
 En réponse à votre demande relative à la photographie de M. Pierre Ribeaud,
 s’agissant du cliché officiel du député, publié sur le site internet de l’Assemblée nationale,
 vous êtes autorisé à utiliser ce cliché sous réserve d’indiquer le crédit photo suivant :

                « ©Assemblée nationale – année d’utilisation du cliché ».

 Bien cordialement.

Assemblée nationale
Service de la communication et de l’information multimédia
Division de la communication institutionnelle
La Photothèque

Ref: https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Ribeaud&diff=133515443&oldid=133499632 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFambe (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:LaFambe. The copyright holder has to send an email to the commons support team - see Commons:OTRS or Commons:OTRS/fr. But as far as I understand the mail above, this is not enough. Anybody in the world has to be allowed to use the image for any purpose incl. commercial uses, and not only "you". They have to choose a specific license - {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommended - they like to publish the image under. regards --Ju Ta 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey ! Thanks for replying. When I read the mail they sent, it says "you are authorized" but I do not read it as "me in person" ; I read it as "anybody" ; provided we indicate "©Assemblée nationale – 2017". But oh, well, if it is so complicated to get a French administration public photo into wikipedia, then I'll just leave it like that. Thanks for your (and my) time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFambe (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. JuTa

Hi, Mr. JuTa! Please rename the File:USSR-1983-1ruble-CuNi-Mendeleyev150-b.jpg to File:USSR-1984-1ruble-CuNi-Mendeleyev150-b.jpg because the coin was minted in 1984. Prethanks... Vahe (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vahe,

Done. --Ju Ta 07:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lohr - Batle of Nicopolis-2.jpg

Dear JuTa,

Unfortunately I made a spelling mistake in the title of this picture. I do not have file mover rights, so I uploaded it again with the right spelling, but you deleted it as a duplicate. I should like to ask you to revert this and keep the version with the right spelling ("battle" instead of "batle").

By the way, how could I get the right to rename a file with mistaken title? It would save some work if the problem arises again, and I could help in renaming many files with obviously mistaken titles.

Thanks in advance for your help--Szilas (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Szilas,

Done. --Ju Ta 07:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Danke schön!--Szilas (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Church clocks in Staffordshire

Hi. I have just reinstated this just-deleted category. It took very little effort to provide enough examples to make it viable. I may start other categories for English county church clocks, examples of which are legion. Perhaps you might like to help ? Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thx, I just work from time to time on User:Achim55/Unused categories. regards. --Ju Ta 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi Juta, Could you do me a favour please?, Could you delete File:Strood community hub - aka library (23791751373).jpg and redirect it to File:Strood community hub (23791751373).jpg, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I marked it as {{Duplicate}}. Another admin will take care shortly. regards. --Ju Ta 21:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Okie dokie thanks for your help, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop redirecting exoplanet comparison images

Pease stop merging exoplanet comparison images. These images are not duplicates. They may appear to be nearly identical to you, but they are programmatically generated images kept in sync with the latest published data (as near as I can) and the merges permanently break the ability to keep these images up-to-date. Please immediately restore you're merges and redirects, and refrain from any further merges. Aldaron (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, they ARE binary identical and listed on Special:ListDuplicatedFiles (otherwise they wont be listed there). I now viewed about the half of the images out of Category:Exoplanet comparison graphics and didn't find one where you updated the size of a planet because of new scientific results. And in case there will be realy a need to update a planet in future you can redo my action at that time as you allready did twice without a current need to. regards. --Ju Ta 23:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my request. I'm asking you to be helpful rather than disruptive. Is that too much to ask? I don't spend enough time editing here for it to be worth my while to seek out and revert (it's not easy) redirections. Your interference is likely to just grind updates (already to infrequent) to a halt. Aldaron (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I try to be helpfull here by i.e. reducing some backlogs like the one on Special:ListDuplicatedFiles. May I ask you to be cooperative and only revert my actions if there is an actual need to? thx. --Ju Ta 23:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what it means to be helpful, both to readers and to editors. Your robotic edits are making it confusing for the former and disruptive for the latter. You're failing to think about the underlying data graph behind the edits your making: a currently coincident value is not the same as semantic equivalence. But I sense I can't persuade you to be helpful. One last try: when these files are updated, it's a big task, involving many files. I have a workflow for doing this that you have now broken. Any future updates will either require a complete reworking of that workflow, or a new tedious (and error prone) manual step of checking what files have been corrupted by you and manually (again) repairing them (doing it now is the result of an "actual need to" in order to at least eliminate the first step). Of course someone else can always create and maintain these files, but — "I try to be helpful here". Aldaron (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not happy, because its now breaking my workflow, but I now undid the redirects and recreated the duplicate files. There is no guarantee that any other admin could pickup and progress those file anytime in furture, but I keep them on my exception list. regards. --Ju Ta 17:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Honesty, you've surprised me with your reasonableness. (I'd not expected it, so shame on me for assuming the worst.) Much appreciated. I'll try to set aside some time soon to do a full update of all the explant figures! Regards! Aldaron (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For taking the trouble to listen; and to do the extra work it takes to respond. Aldaron (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:GP_C9.jpg and others

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GP_C9.jpg and other files

I'm on my Wiki inactive. All of these images were recorded with the process of OTRS. I do not understand what you want. --Ivob (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this was a misunderstanding of mine. There are no problems with those images. Sorry for the trouble. --Ju Ta 20:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Pan-Slavic flag.svg‎

As previously discussed at User_talk:Sreejithk2000/Archive_10#File:Pan-Slavic_flag.svg, and attempted to be explained on the image description page itself, the Pan-Slavic flag emerged from the 1848 Prague pan-Slavic conference, or interpretations of the resolutions of the conference, while the Kingdom of Yugoslavia didn't exist until after WW1, so the files have a very different meaning (even if a visually-identical appearance), and should not be merged. That's why we have File:Flag of the Ba'ath Party.svg separate from File:Flag of Palestine.svg, even though the two are basically visually identical. Please undo the deletion. AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi I restored it and uploaded a new version with a slightly different source code to differ the 2 files from each other. This will not be marked as duplicates by the software anymore. regards.--Ju Ta 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

There is a message in your mailbox that awaits your answer as a matter of urgency. Can you kindly have a look at it, please? odder (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder about this e-mail as I see you have edited Commons since I left the message above. odder (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What should I say. The grant of right was "accidently": So they should be removed and he should reapply. --Ju Ta 21:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)