User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 1

TUSC token f6c5486c51af43bb7b983de54b9779cf

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Welcome

English: Welcome to the Commons, Michael Bednarek!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Duplicates

Ah Sorry, I should've noticed. One restored. Alles gutt? Lycaon (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:ViolaML.jpg

Hi Michael, I have reverted this edit by you. You are of course free to check whether images are properly tagged. But images shall not be silently untagged in non-obvious cases just because you disagree. It is best to find either consensus with the editor who tagged it or to open a deletion request for it. In this case, the images of Marco Lazzara were not shot by himself but by professional photographers (he admitted this already elsewhere). Please consider also this already closed DR. Best regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The "no permission" tag just struck me as odd and in conflict with author's GFDL notice. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but Marco Lazzara isn't the author of these photographs, he just owns copies of them. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 686afd69b3a1a084f60d602d6f28ea0a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Removal of Interwiki links

Reg. Your edit @ File:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Don Giovanni - Overtüre.ogg

Please explain why iw links are "unhelpful" @ Commons while they are helpful in hundreds of Wikipedia editions. --Mattes (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links for pages in the "File:" namespace are pointless. Those files will appear on each and every language Wikipedia, but they exist only at Commons. You can observe this when you read the page that you get when you click on an Interwiki link: it says this file is from Commons.

Also: my edit, which you mention above, corrected a lot of nonsense in the description; even if you disagreed with the removal of Interwiki links, you should not have undone my other edits. However, as the Interwikilinks don't really have a place in File:-pages, I suggest you revert your reversal. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for sharing your thoughs. The Namespace topic wasn't my issue, I agree with that one (removed it now).

Reg. the iw

You've wrote: "However, as the Interwikilinks don't really have a place in File:-pages" --- in most cases the file names are automatically changed to the edition language. You might as well exchange the "file" with any name which is used in a certain Wikipedia" such as "de:Bild:Mozart - Don Giovanni.ogg". This might be good for further information: Commons:Language policy. I'm doing this for years now and had one or two small discussions yet. I have no idea where to discuss the issue on a broader basis. At least I would like to say this tiny iw links (and edits) do no harm. But it could be disturbing if user put them in and other users delete them and again some others add them again and there is a ongoing discussion at every user page of the user who did it. That'll be a mess. I find it useful to see at once where a particular file is used in a Wikimedia project. As I said, the other way around (Cross-Wikipedia, and Wikipedia to sister projects for example) it's OK but from Commons to Wikipedia seems not be OK with you. I'm still wondering why... BFN, --Mattes (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I haven't made myself very clear. There should be no Interwikilinks of the sort that appear in the left sidebar on any "File:" pages – the kind that you introduced in your edit; see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Oct#Interwiki linking policy. Do agree? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for defining your thoughts. Well, why are the iw linsk unhelpful? --Mattes (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

An interwiki link for a page points to a page for the same subject on a Wikipedia in another language. Page interwiki links on File: pages don't do that, because that file doesn't exist on any other language Wikipedia. Thus they are unhelpful, confusing and misleading. Have you red the discussion I pointed to? The tool to check for usage of Commons file in other Wikipedias is the "Check usage" tool. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have read the discussion you have pointed to. I don't see that it came to any consensus. If you ask me, interwiki links are not unhelpful (helps to identify the usage in Wikipedia editions), not confusing (interwiki just gives one defined answer that is: a Wikipedia uses this image/article or gallery) and not misleading (the only misleading might be that upon "clicking" you leave the Wikimedia Commons platform). As I said the other fields in Wikimedia place them as well. Now what are we doing without a consensus/policy? Should everybody delete, insert, delete, insert and delete the iw in each gallery, file and category as they please for eternity? I'd suggest, a discussion for everyone should be initiated somewhere -- and I hope that a policy comes up within weeks. I know the Check usage tool but that is not always working and it is not part of the Wikimedia syntax. Just because the tool exists, all iw links provided by the syntax are redundant? BTW Who says this tool or any other tool with that feature still operates in five years or so? --Mattes (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links on File: pages do not give "… one defined answer that is: a Wikipedia uses this image …"; a File: from Commons will appear in every language Wikipedia, whether it's used there or not. Also, Interwiki links are meant to be reciprocal, i.e. if Commons has a page with an Interwiki link to a page on xx-Wikipedia, then that page on the xx-language Wikipedia has an Interwiki link to the page on Commons. As this is not possible for File: pages, they should not have Interwiki links.

Following your suggestion, I have raised the matter at the Village pump. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record:

1. Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Oct#Interwiki links for File: pages
2. Commons:Image pages (diff)
3. Commons:Guide to layout/File description pages (diff)

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

... und es gibt ihn ja doch!

Vielleicht amüsiert's: &Prost!
-- das imo erheblich unterbelichtete Geschwätz 'andernorts' ging mir zuletzt dermaßen auf die Eier, dass ich mir vorläufig eine 60d-Auszeit verpassen ließ. Bis dann! ;)) -- lg, [w.] 16:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Uschi Glas.jpg

File:Uschi Glas.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!

--Wknight94 ^talk 14:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Universal danger road sign

Could you please expand on your statement? Thanks, Waldir ^talk 08:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

At the time I made that comment, the category was, (as you know), called Universal danger road signs and consisted of, well, universal danger road signs. The image Panneau A14.jpg, which is clearly French, stuck out as not belonging into that category which consisted of unviversal icons. Now, that the category has been "renamed" to Triangular warning road signs, that objection clearly no longer holds. However, this "rename" makes me wonder where an interested reader should look now for universal danger road signs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I assumed the category was based on the visual symbol, not on the actual meaning of "danger" of the signs. From what I understand, your criterion would also have File:Bordenpark07.jpg, File:Faltsignal einsatz.jpg, and File:Feuerwehr Warndreieck.jpg removed from the category, right? Let me know if I misunderstood the issue.

As for renaming the cat, I did it after reading the article on Wikipedia, which made it clear that there's no such thing as an universal road danger sign, since there are variations in shape, color, etc depending on the country. I thought "triangular warning road signs" would be a more objective name for the category (though maybe it should be further renamed to "triangular road signs with an exclamation point" to be completely unambiguous). What do you think? --Waldir ^talk 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion the files you named didn't belong into that category under its former name, either. But as I wrote above, the new category name seems to encompass these types of images as well. Do you want me to re-add the category Triangular warning road signs to Panneau A14.jpg or will you? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's done on an instant, it makes no difference who adds it. So I just did it :) Nevertheless, I'm still thinking that "triangular road signs with an exclamation point" might be the best name for this category; maybe I'll change it soon. I'll think about it some more. Do you have any thoughts on this? --Waldir ^talk 10:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really; that is an area outside my usual fields (music, arts, Germany). I only came across this category when I was looking for a suitable warning sign to insert in a message on an editor's talk page. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents 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, 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!

  — Jeff G. ツ 03:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven's Piano Concerto

Hey if Category:Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven) is "inside" Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven, it's not needed to add the second category to files that already have the first, don't? --MisterSanderson (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to follow your argument if you could provide some links to the categories, files, and edits involved.

There is no reason to have Category:Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven) inside Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven. All OGG files of Beethoven's piano concertos need to have at least two categories: Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven and Category:Piano concertos by Ludwig van Beethoven or one of its subcategories. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

MisterSanderson: Without responding here (where you started to raise your questions), you have removed the Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven from

• File:Beethoven Piano Concerto No 5 Movement 1.ogg,
• File:Ludwig van Beethoven - piano concerto no. 1 in c major, op. 15 - iii. rondo (allegro scherzando).ogg,
• File:Ludwig van Beethoven - piano concerto no. 1 in c major, op. 15 - ii. largo.ogg,
• File:Beethoven concerto4 2.ogg;

and the Category:Ogg files of music by Ludwig van Beethoven from

• File:Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 1. Allegro assai.ogg,
• File:Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 2. Tempo di minuetto, ma molto moderato e grazioso.ogg,
• File:Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 3. Allegro vivace.ogg.

This leaves those OGG files without any category in the tree Category:Ogg files and the categories Category:Ogg files of music by Ludwig van Beethoven and Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven incompletely populated.

It also created insconsistencies in that File:Beethoven Piano Concerto No 5 Movement 2.ogg is categorised in Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven, but File:Beethoven Piano Concerto No 5 Movement 1.ogg is not.

I strongly suggest you revert your edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. --MisterSanderson (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Mirobolant

Mistake when correcting my other uploads on WikiCommons!! now rectifying--Smerus (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Devoirs de vacances.ogv

Ich habe den Benutzer/Realnamen des Betroffenen aus deinem Kommentar entfernt (bzw. durch "the user" ersetzt), denn 1) geht es dabei nicht um ihn als Person, sondern um die Sache, und 2) sollte die Nennung seines Namens in diesem Kontext m.E. absolut vermieden werden, damit er nicht mit dem Thema assoziiert wird und womöglich im RL Schaden erleidet. --Túrelio (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Achim hat seinen vielzitierten Beitrag mit seinem Namen gezeichnet und darüber auch getwittert.

"Urteil" muss nicht unbedingt ein Gerichtsurteil sein, es kann auch als die Entscheidung der Staatsanwaltschaft verstanden werden. Was Achim mit "Revision" meint, ist nicht klar, da er als Begünstigter dieser Entscheidung keine Wiederaufnahme fordern kann; es bliebe ihm jedoch die Selbstanzeige. Meiner Meinung nach beschreibt Achim's Beitrag im Kurier das Vorgehen der Kölner Staatsanwaltschaft und kein Gericht war daran beteiligt. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Achim hat .." Ich halte das für riskant und hatte ihm (a posteriori) zur Anonymisierung geraten. Aber das ist seine Sache; was hier passiert, ist dagegen unsere Sache. Davon abgesehen, ist der Username für die Diskussion völlig belanglos. Wenn jemand bei mir nach der Quelle gefragt hätte, dann hätte er halt das Link auf den Kurier-Beitrag erhalten. --Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Catégorisation de mes images

Monsieur, Je souhaite que l’image File:Jean-Pierre Ponnelle par Claude Truong-Ngoc 1980.jpg apparaisse dans la Category:Personality by Claude Truong-Ngoc et dans la Category:Claude Truong-Ngoc pour des raisons qui me regardent. Je ne vois pas où est le problème puisque ce sont des catégories cachées. Si vous avez une meilleure solution, merci de me l’indiquer. Bien à vous, --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

When I removed the category Category:Claude Truong-Ngoc the first time, the Category:Personality by Claude Truong-Ngoc was not hidden. That it was hidden later, when I removed the parent category again, escaped my attention. I've never seen categories like that configured as hidden categories and I don't know whether COM:OVERCAT applies in such a situation or not. Anyway, I won't revert any more if you add that category again. Regards, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Traduction par Google:

Quand j'ai enlevé la catégorie Category:Claude Truong-Ngoc la première fois, la Category:Personality by Claude Truong-Ngoc n'a pas été caché. Qu'il était caché plus tard, quand j'ai enlevé la catégorie parente encore, échappé à mon attention. Je n'ai jamais vu catégories comme celle configurée en tant que catégories cachés et je ne sais pas si COM:SURCAT s'applique dans une telle situation ou non. Quoi qu'il en soit, je ne vais pas revenir plus si vous ajoutez cette catégorie à nouveau. Cordialement, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

En effet les catégories ont été cachées après. Merci et bonne soirée ! Cordialement,--Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

SLQ Images

Great to see you categorising the SLQ images. Was wonderful to meet you the other night at the library meetup. Lankiveil (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

I noticed a poor confused soul trying to add an image to en:Petrie Terrace, Queensland, so I investigated a bit and found that there were five images that needed to be put in Category:Petrie Terrace, Queensland, and so I did. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Fanny Elssler

Wow! I am so impressed at your inserting the 'krakoviak' reference so quickly after I posted the image of Elssler in 'La Gypsy'. I'd thought of putting that in, but was unsure of the territory and so left it out. Thanks for the added contributions to the image. Kim Traynor (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Duplication

Dear Michael, I therefore have moved the picture <I6W0025 2.jpg> out of the category Burkard Schliessmann, because it's a duplicate (convince yourself ...) to the official version ("...BS in Teldex-Studio/Goldbergvariations..."), which actually is used and embedded in the Wikipages of the artist. In fact, one could delete this file entirely. All the best and thanks, many greetings, --Elvirtuoso (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That File:I6W0025 2.jpg is a duplicate of File:Burkard Schliessmann in Teldex Studio in Berlin, during the recording of the Goldberg Variations from Joh. Seb. Bach.jpg is no reason to remove it from Category:Burkard Schliessmann. I agree that it should be deleted, probably by using Template:Duplicate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree also. So, please could you delete this file File:I6W0025 2.jpg? Thank you so much! All the best, --Elvirtuoso (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for excellent collaboration and help! Sincerestly, BachChopinFavorite Elvirtuoso (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 01:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hannover

Yes, indeed I noticed that I moved into "Gottfried von Cramm" because in cat-a-lot I clicked by mistake the "Move" on the wrong category. As for "Hannover", I simply followed the consensus emerged into a CfD about Hanover that requested the name change because in English is being gradually accepted the form "Hannover". See here -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Edliner Mozart

Why you changed Edliner's portrait of mozart from better version to an awful one? --Никита Воробьев (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's debatable whether the version you uploaded is better than the previous one at File:Edliner Mozart.jpg – which has been there since 2005 and is widely used. Your version has better defined ruffles but it is a lot darker and a bit smaller (it noticeably cuts of some bits on the left, right, and bottom). I know that there is an almost duplicate of File:Edliner Mozart.jpg at File:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Letztes Bild zur Lebzeit.jpg, but that is no reason to overwrite it. The normal course of action is to upload a new file to a new file name; see Commons:Overwriting existing files. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:Franz Werfel

Hello, Michael Bednarek. You have new messages at Gunnex's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chopin, Nocturne No. 1 in B Flat Minor, Op. 9.ogg

Hi there! I saw you overturned some of my edits. Is there something wrong with them? A piece of music is not 'defined' by a film it's used in, but who says a category should be 'defining'? Can it not be 'informational'?

Some people like to categorise all elements of paintings: the people on it, elements of the clothes they are wearing, if they are standing, sitting or lying down, statues in the background, furniture that can be seen, animals, buildings, trees, etc. Most of these elements are not necessarily 'defining' for the painting itself, they are elements that someone may be interested in.

My main hobby on Commons is categorising film info. If St Paul's Cathedral in London is used for a film, this does not 'define' the cathedral or the film, but should that be a reason not to connect them? And one actor usually doesn't 'define' a film either, nor does a film usually 'define' an actor. Must that be a reason to overturn categories that link an actor to a film? In the case of the Chopin nocturne: it is very dominant in one of the Endeavour episodes, as is the Beethoven sonata in another episode. Classical music in general plays an important part in the series. I would like people to be able to know where the music came from, and hear this for themselves. What's wrong with that? --Judithcomm (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I applied the principle of "defining categories" from en:Wikipedia:Categorization. There, just because, for example, Joan Baez sang "Plaisir d'amour", that doesn't make it a Joan Baez song. Or just because Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, has been used in the Doctor Who episode "Attack of the Cybermen", that doesn't justify categorising the work in en:Category:Doctor Who, or, by extension, the Category:BWV 565 on Commons in Category:Doctor Who. As you write, the Chopin and Beethoven pieces featured each in one episode of Endeavour, and they are AFAIK not even mentioned in the English Wikipedia's article – where readers are likely to look for that, not on Commons. Anyway, feel free to re-add those categories. I (almost) always revert only once. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I re-added the categories, but a little bit differently. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_in_Endeavour_%28TV_series%29_episodes. May I'll add the music to the Wikipedia article too, but I don't know how to work the footnote system there. I mess things up when I try to add or alter a footnote. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Lomu

Michael, I did because the picture was too small and its aspect ratio was unusual (3:4 or 2:3 are the typical). Yes I can restore the history, but wouldn't advice to keep the photo with the aspect ratio as it was presented. Your son's shoulder is a minor issue, it doesn't affect significantly the photograph. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Undo move

Category:Books (literature) in PDF was placed in Cat Books because I am cleaning up the plethera of images in there and placing PDF files in the aforementioned Cat. It is temporary and Please revert your edit. It is for my project only. It makes it a short cut instead of taking up so much time finding files and Cats Thanks WayneRay (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand COM:OVERCAT, but I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. Feel free to revert my edit – I never revert reverts (unless it's vandalism). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents 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, 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!

Nardog (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Broadway

You removed the CFD template from this category but Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:Broadway is still open. I would suggest that the category should be disambiguated and Category:Broadway becomes a DAB, even WP has it as a DAB. Commons needs more disambiguation due to things being added to the wrong cat, compare Category:Cheapside to w:Cheapside. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Both those discussions (about Category:Broadway and Category:Streets by country) have stalled within a few days in December 2014, and I thought their statute of limitations had been reached and the silence indicated no consensus to take any action. If you feel those discussions are still ongoing, restore the template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, I have supported disambiguation, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

edit summaries in cat-a-lot

How did you do that? Artix Kreiger (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Artix Kreiger: There's a little tick box in the the Cat-a-lot dialogue, labelled "Custom edit comment", below "Select • all • none • Invert", above "Preferences". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Neefe

Senti ho aggiunto l'immagine definita dal sito ufficiale, ho tolto le cornici. Cosa non va ora? Quella di prima è un'immagine sì ad alta risuluzione ma sgranata e fa schifo (è sfuocata). Ti prego di non rimuoverla nuovamente, stolto.Driante70 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

a) I don't like your tone; it's rude and insulting. b) The image I reverted did have a frame. That's why I reverted. I have not reverted your subsequent upload that doesn't show the frame. c) Whether your image is better than the previous one is disputable. Your image is much darker and has a lower resolution. Per Commons:OVERWRITE, you should have uploaded it under a different name. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Jiaxin Cheng and Julian Lloyd Webber

Dear Michael,

Please delete this photo. It was taken without permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vstrad7 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want an image removed from Commons, I recommend you read Commons:Deletion requests and related pages. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Julian Lloyd Webber photo

Hello, On behalf of Julian Lloyd Webber, I kindly ask you to please remove the photo of Julian and Jiaxin you uploaded on his Wikipedia page. The photo was taken without consent at Royal Birmingham Conservatoire on May 28th 2018. Kind regards, Michela Cocolin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocolinmichela (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've never been to Birmingham, so the photo wasn't taken there. If you want an image removed from Commons, I recommend you read Commons:Deletion requests and related pages. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at what the performers were wearing, we thought it was taken at Birmingham Conservatoire but perhaps it was taken on a recent classical cruise ship. Neverheless, no consent was given so thank you for taking it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocolinmichela (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Jiaxin Cheng and Julian Lloyd Webber.jpg

File:Jiaxin Cheng and Julian Lloyd Webber.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!

Cocolinmichela (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay colour Allan Warren.jpg

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gordon Ramsay Allan Warren.jpg, "He just decided to upload a black and white version of the photo to Wikimedia Commons, instead of the colour version." --B dash (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you withdraw the deletion request and contact User:Érico to get File:Gordon Ramsay colour Allan Warren.jpg restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Audio files by Sain (Records) Ltd

Thank you for your edits to File:O Soave Fanciulla - Arthur Davies.ogg and related files. Please be aware of Commons:Deletion requests/SAIN audio files, which is a vast deletion request for about half the files in Category:Audio files by Sain (Records) Ltd. I am slowing working through the list trying to identify the public domain music. If you find any PD clips in this request then please note them in the deletion request page, the files themselves have not been tagged. Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Germaine_Greer_(1972).jpg

Hi Michael Bednarek, I added a category to File:Germaine_Greer_(1972).jpg to remove it from Special:GloballyUnusedFiles and Special:UnusedFiles. I'm not sure if doing so is desirable, and I understand it was an inappropriate category to use, so I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter. Thanks in advance for your time. Mcstove (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what those special pages try to accomplish. All the files shown there are REDIRECTs, and I understand there are bots changing any use of them to their target, so the REDIRECTs are indeed unused. They are kept a) just in case; b) for external applications. That said, I strongly suspect that there are thousands of File REDIRECTs, so I'm baffled why only a few are shown on those special pages. Anyway, I doubt that adding categories to the REDIRECTs will make them not appear unused. But the more important issue is that it will add those REDIRECTs to the category pages, which is inappropriate because that makes them appear twice. If you want more in-depth explanations, you might ask at the Help desk or the Village pump. Cheers, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Co je a není Plzeň

Ahoj, tvůj revert je chybný, ale klidně mi prosím řekni, jaká část Plzně je v na obrázku zachycená. Připomínám, že Plzeň na počátku 16. století vyhořela a hrázděné domy u nás později nebyly. Až zjistíš, že v dobré víře škodíš, tak to dej prosím všechno do pořádku. Konkrétní obrázek jsem konzultoval i s odborníkem ze Zpč. muzea, ten měl v ruce i originál tohodle nesmyslu. --Adam Hauner (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(Please try to write in English.) So how do you explain the description at the image's source, http://www.saxonia.com/cgi-bin/dynfs.pl?Kuenstler_liste=/galerie/005318.htm ? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I expected Czech user based on your surname and your interest on Czech town. Description of picture is wrong. Artist probably imagined town Pilsen without visiting it. Our town hall is from 1558 and after several hundred years looks still same: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plze%C5%88sk%C3%A1_radnice Previous town hall was small building, no tower. --Adam Hauner (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Special Barnstar Hires

Hello Michael Bednarek, Do you know why File:Special Barnstar Hires.png is being rendered with a white background instead of a transparent one. I'm only asking you because you were the last person to edit the file, and your edit is the only one rendering a white background. Jerm (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why File:Special Barnstar Hires.png now renders that way. As you can see from the file's edit history, somebody submitted maliciously or mischievously a rotation request which was acted on by a bot. I then reverted to an earlier version. I have no idea why the tranparency should have been lost in that process. I have not much experience in image manipulation, so I won't attempt to fix it. Maybe you can, or you could contact the Commons:Graphic Lab for assistance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll do that then. If they can't fix it, I'll probably have to remaster it. Thnx. Jerm (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Eartha Kitt Catwoman Batman 1967.JPG

Michael - I see that you reverted the Ertha Kitt/Reactor picture back to a completely black non-image. It shows up as black on all linked pages. The picture before this is an actual picture that shows up fine, and was used to fix the black out. So - you reversed the fix, and recreated the problem, for reasons I can't immediately identify. Can you undo? PLawrence99cx (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I visited every page where this picture is used (and added it here, too), and it showed as expected. The problem must be at your end. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Briefmarken

Ich habe mir erlaubt, deine Ergänzungen auf Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review rückgängig zu machen, da sie m.E. auf einem veralteten Stand sind. Das Landgericht Berlin hat 2012 völlig eindeutig dargelegt, dass Briefmarken in Deutschland keine amtlichen Werke sind und nie als solche zu betrachten waren, womit sie nicht gemeinfrei sind (ausser etwa der Künstler ist vor mehr als 70 Jahren verstorben oder die Gestaltung ist so einfach, dass sie keine Schöpfungshöhe besitzt - was aber auf ein Architekturmotiv nicht zutreffen würde). Das uralte Urteil des LG München von 1986 kann damit als überholt betrachtet werden. Selbst wenn man die beiden Urteile als gleichwertig und sich damit widersprechend ansehen wollte, müssten wir gemäss COM:PCP die vorsichtigere Auslegung anwenden. Zumal das Urteil des LG Berlin sich ganz direkt auf Briefmarken auf Wikimedia Commons bezog und gegen die Wikimedia Foundation erging! Gestumblindi (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: Gemäss de:Amtliche_Briefmarke_(Deutschland)#Rechtsprechung folgte das LG Berlin damit auch der "landläufigen Kommentarliteraturmeinung". Das Münchner Urteil von 1986 ist damit wohl wirklich als überholte Abweichung zu betrachten, an der sich niemand mehr orientieren kann. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hallo Gestumblindi. Das war nicht meine Ergänzung, sondern von User:Peter Christian Riemann. Ich habe lediglich eine Signatur unter der Einleitung hinzugefügt, was auf meinem Missverständis über die Natur und Funktion dieser Projektseite beruhte – ich dachte fälschlicherweise, es sei eine Diskussionsseite. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Achja, man (ich) sollte vielleicht nicht am letzten Tag des Jahres auf die Schnelle noch etwas bearbeiten; tut mir leid, den Falschen angesprochen zu haben! Peter Christian Riemann ist ja nun wohl durch deine Antwort angepingt und hat das hier auch gesehen, nehme ich an. Ja, es ist eine Projektseite, eine dazugehörige Diskussionsseite gibt es auch. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Peter and the Wolf - Duck.mid

File:Peter and the Wolf - Duck.mid has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Derivative work of non-free content Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : B4531826.

And also:

• File:Peter and the Wolf - Bird.mid ( Nominator : B4531826 | Reason : Derivative work of non-free content )

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Peter and the Wolf - Wolf.mid

File:Peter and the Wolf - Wolf.mid has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Derivative work of non-free content Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : B4531826.

And also:

• File:Peter and the Wolf - Cat.mid ( Nominator : B4531826 | Reason : Derivative work of non-free content )
• File:Peter and the Wolf - Peter.mid ( Nominator : B4531826 | Reason : Derivative work of non-free content )
• File:Peter and the Wolf - Hunters.mid ( Nominator : B4531826 | Reason : Derivative work of non-free content )
• File:Peter and the Wolf - Grandfather.mid ( Nominator : B4531826 | Reason : Derivative work of non-free content )

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Sprechstimme examples.gif

Copyright status: File:Sprechstimme examples.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Sprechstimme examples.gif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 08:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdótti.jpg

File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdótti.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)