User talk:Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly

Creators[edit]

In several DRs of yours that I closed today, you made incorrect comments:

"Atelier Dietrich" is not the creator of the work, (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adele Kern 5.jpg)
"Atelier P. Feldscharek" is not the creator of the work, (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adele Kern 3.jpg)
"Photo Harlip" is not the creator of the work, (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adele Kern 2.jpg)

In each case, the atelier (studio) named is actually the creator of the work. They often can be traced. For example, Pepa Feldscharek was born in 1899, so, as I said at the close of the DR, it seems unlikely that she died before 1947. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Sorry, English is not my native language. Instead of "creator", "photographer" would probably have been the correct word. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said above, the point is that the names you said were not the creator are the creator/photographer -- either word is fine. So, both statements

"Atelier P. Feldscharek" is not the creator of the work" and

"Atelier P. Feldscharek" is not the photographer of the work"

are wrong. Pepa Feldscharek is the creator of the work. The same is true of the other two. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Ah, now I think I get it. My line of reasoning was that "Atelier P. Felscharek" does not necessarily mean that "Pepa Feldscharek" took the photo, it could have been anyone contracted by the studio. The outcome seems to have been the same, but I should have clarified that better.
In another matter: Is File:Foto von Robert und Ernestine Auer.jpg (which you just deleted) the same file as File:Robert und Ernestine Auer.jpg? The latter was uploaded only hours after the deletion of the former and also has questionable source and licensing tags. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right and not right. While that is possible, most of the studios of that era had only one or two (often father and son) photographers. And, in cases like Feldscharek, we can establish that there was only the one person, which gave us a birth date.

As for File:Foto von Robert und Ernestine Auer.jpg, that's a good catch -- I have deleted it and warned the uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Achso...[edit]

...ein Gast aus der deutschen Wikipädia, klar. Schön, dass du so schnell hier zu QIC und dort gleich zu meiner Nomination gefunden hast. Auch wenn höchstwahrscheinlich nicht ohne fremde Hilfe. --A.Savin 16:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin seit 2011 auf Commons aktiv, fremde Hilfe war zum Finden von QIC nicht nötig. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die Info. Genauer gesagt seit 16 Oktober 2011... äh, 2016. [1] --A.Savin 16:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open![edit]

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Cropping images[edit]

I noticed your crop of File:Joachim Scharloth (2016) crop.jpg and have fixed its issues but there is a better way to crop images that avoids needing a human to review it. By way of information for the future, when you want to crop an image I suggest you use the CropTool that can be activated in your commons Preferences, under Gadgets. The CropTool then appears in the left side of your screen. It saves everyone a lot of time because it transfers all the correct and appropriate information into the cropped image, such as source, license, author, etc. It even leaves a backlink to the original and visa versa so long as the original has been positively reviewed. That way all the proper information is there and does not need to be manually reviewed by volunteers. If you are just cropping a small bit of the image like a frame you can decide to overwrite the original image but for more major crops you should upload the copped version, as you did for File:Joachim Scharloth (2016) crop.jpg, as a separate new image, but you have a choice. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about that tool. Looks like it would save everyone some needless work, so I will give it a try the next time. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Gilles Bordelais (2014).jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gilles Bordelais (2014).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick Rogel: The file contains embedded metadata (EXIF-tags, see bottom of the file page), which specify the file's creator as well as the exact license given. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of these metadata. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given[edit]

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. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]