User talk:Srittau

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4

Löschung Bilder Star Raiders

War deine Aktion nicht etwas voreilig? Drei Benutzer, mich eingeschlossen, haben gegen eine Löschung argumentiert. Zwei waren für eine Löschung, aber mit eher dürftigen Argumenten (a la "kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass..."). Wieso wird in einem solchen Fall gelöscht? Ich halte das für eine falsche Entscheidung. Viele Grüße, Schnurrikowski (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Löschdiskussionen sind keine Abstimmungen. Ich fand die Argumente für eine Löschung deutlich schlüssiger. Dass diese Bilder nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt sind, ist lediglich Wunschdenken. Im Zweifel gilt sowieso das precautionary principle. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Vllt. könnte ich die Erlaubnis von Neubauer, dem Erschaffer, einholen? Wären die Bilder dann ok? Viele Grüße, Schnurrikowski (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Schnurrikowski: Wenn wir die Erlaubnis des Rechteinhaber hätten für die Veröffentlichung unter einer freien Lizenz (das müsste dann über unser OTRS-System laufen), könnten die Bilder natürlich hier behalten werden. Leider sind aber die Rechtesituationen gerade bei alten Computerspielen sehr verworren. Wer hält die Rechte? Neubauer oder Atari? Und falls Atari: Ist das heutige Atari wirklich Rechtsnachfolger des damaligen? Mir gefällt das alles auch nicht, und ich fände es super, wenn wir diese Screenshots hier verwenden könnten, aber leider ist das Urheberrecht in seiner heutigen Form ein großer Murks. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Egreeni.jpg

Why have you rejected the bot review, then passed this license review from a clearly license laundering Flickr account?--BevinKacon (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Bureaucrat closures

(thread was already closed) The de-adminship policy has one crucial and easily overlooked line: "it may seek de-adminship in the same way as adminship is sought". Extending from that (a lot is extended from that), a bureaucrat closure is required per Commons:Administrators#Voting. But obviously from every word in that, the role of the bureaucrat is to determine what the community has decided and weed out votes from socks or otherwise invalid votes. As the outcome is perfectly clear (but even if it wasn't), it's highly inappropriate to start wikilawyering and continue tool use until someone pulls the trigger. There is no literal rule for this (I think), because everybody expected that nobody would realistically ever be this obnoxious. Well, everybody was wrong. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A small request

Can you please delete Category:S5 class submarine? I have moved it.-VaibhavafroTalk 06:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Already done by Tulsi Bhagat. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Calvinkulit

Please keep an eye on Calvinkulit. See [1] and [2] and User talk:Locke Cole#Regarding local files will probably result in some bad blood as well. I haven't checked his other edits since the block expired. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't looked. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for the reminder. I will. And ... yes. Not sure whether it's a very creative, skirting the edge vandal, or just a misguided, over-enthusiastic contributor. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

RFA Support

Hi. Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fitindia anymore, I wanted to thank you for your support on my recent successful RFA, Your trust and faith in my candidature is much appreciated and I could not have done it without your support. Warm regards FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Tony Ricca re upload

Please delete the image you restored. The original decision to delete was correct as the person is not notable and it is a promotional effort by the original uploader, totally against 2.2 of the Scope rules. The uploader has a conflict of interest with the subject. Allowing promotional activity here is a dangerous precedent. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:84B3:33E1:629:5A26 05:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I consider it in scope according to COM:SCOPE. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not. It's not educational (he is NOT a former WWWF/WWF/WWE wrestler) and it's self promotional which pushes it outside the scope - the uploader has a COI with the subject. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:5460:A1D1:BB6A:5F31 22:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've renominated it for deletion for the reasons I have given. It has to go, along with the others in that category that were nominated already last month. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D9C7:5941:7D59:CD4 23:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Unprotect that image immediately please. It is not within the scope of this project and should be deleted. That is NOT vandalism. Thank you. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D9C7:5941:7D59:CD4 23:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay I get it. You allow self promotion of anybody on this Wiki. You don't uphold your own rules in other words. How dare you. I'll upload a bunch of local Australian pro wrestlers here then. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D9C7:5941:7D59:CD4 00:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Thanks for your promise to upload more imagery about Australian pro wrestlers. Please make sure their copyright status follows the actual rules of Wikimedia Commons and not whatever misguided notions you may harbour. Good photographic quality and a modicum of information about the photographed subjects is prefered. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please delete the image you ruled to keep. It's clearly in violation of COM:HOST and COM:ADVERT. 02:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.89.115 (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Stop starting those deletion requests and socking. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What socking?? I had nothing to do with that, Mr Paranoid! He made an excellent point. Or she. I thought this had dried up actually. Nice to see others are seeing this. Another provider I have no access to and is based in a different state! And OI! Reopen those deletion requests! You ar abusing your admin powers! Explain how those two links don't apply! 2001:8003:5999:6D00:8D36:209F:BC5E:B18A 21:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They don't apply because my rollback button is itching. Also, you suck at socking. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

edit

Hi Serbari. Just letting you know, Calvinkulit made edits to COM:RFR which seems to not follow the ground rules you've set. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: Thanks, I warned them again. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2019 (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!

Affected:

• File:Buddybären am Olivaer Platz 20141110 19.jpg

Yours sincerely, Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Calvinkulit

Hi Srittau, is a user page "speedy-able" if it is not created by the user themselves? If so, please delete User:Revansx. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史:  Done. 🙄 Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :) 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Prämierte Pelze in Düsseldorf, 1995.jpg

Hallo Srittau, mit der Löschung bin ich nicht einverstanden. Der Text enthält nur Sachinformation und hat keine urheberrechtlich relevante Schöpfungshöhe. -- Kürschner (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kürschner: Leider sind die Urheberrechtsschranken in Deutschland ziemlich niedrig angesetzt. Zeitungsartikel fallen in der Regel darunter und im Zweifel gilt auch das precautionary principle. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Danke für die Antwort. Trotzdem bin ich der Meinung, dass es für diese Auflistung von Namen nicht zutrifft. --Kürschner (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Die Liste der Namen an sich ist dabei auch nicht ausschlaggebend, sondern die etwas längere und durchaus journalistisch-kreative Einleitung dazu. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, bitte noch einmal kurz aktivieren, damit ich die Liste alleinstellen kann. Danke. -- Kürschner (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Das würde ich lieber nicht machen. Solche Listen gehören z. B. in Wikipedia als Fließtext oder Tabelle eingetragen, und dann wird das mit einem Zitat auf den Zeitungsartikel belegt. Eingescannte Texte dieser Art behalten wir hier aber eigentlich nicht als "Beweismaterial". De728631 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Soll ich jetzt wirklich einen offiziellen Antrag stellen? Ich meine, wir sollten das eben auf dem kurzen Dienstweg regeln. Ich kann in einen Artikel über die Leistungswettbewerbe der Kürschner unmöglich alle Beteiligten von etwa 90 Jahren aufzählen. Die müssen für Interessenten, die es genauer wissen wollen, belegt bei Commons lagern. Gib dir bitte einen Stoß - und danke!-- Kürschner (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nebenbei halte ich es für keine gute Idee auf Quellen zu verweisen, die nur mit Riesenaufwand oder vielleicht überhaupt nicht zu überprüfen sind, wenn man sie auch bei Commons hinterlegen kann. Das ist sogar Usus bei Adressbucheinträgen. -- Kürschner (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Den kurzen Dienstweg überlasse ich Srittau. Abgesehen davon belegt das Foto oder der Scan einer solchen einfachen Namensliste ohne den textlichen Zusammenhang im Original meiner Meinung genau so wenig, wie ein schwer überprüfbarer Artikel als Zitat in Wikipedia. Letztendlich wird hier auf Commons als Legitimation auch nur die Quelle genannt, und ob diese Namen tatsächlich so veröffentlicht wurden, muss man dann bei Bedarf auch erst nachprüfen. Abgesehen davon kann ich aus Erfahrung sagen, dass solche Listen auf Commons über kurz oder lang einen Löschantrag provozieren. De728631 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Das hat jetzt nur noch wenig mit dem Urheberrecht und den Richtlinien für Commons zu tun. Vor allem aber vergrault es Wikipedia Mitarbeiter. Schließlich habe ich mir etwas dabei gedacht und es kostet mich einen geraume Zeit meiner Freizeit. Ich habe kein Verständnis für solch ein Vorgehen, sorry. -- Kürschner (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Das hat was mit dem COM:Projektumfang zu tun. In der englischen Version davon werden z. B. Dateien mit Listen explizit als nicht erwünscht eingestuft, und obwohl Scans durchaus als Unterstützung für Artikelquellen und -zitate dienen könnnen, müssen diese laut Projektbeschreibung verifizierbar sein. Daher kommen meine Bedenken, diese Datei als bloße Liste wiederherzustellen. Als Vorschlag zur Güte würde ich aber eine "geschwärzte" Version durchaus als sinnvoll einstufen, in der zumindest erkennbar ist, dass es sich mal um eine Zeitungsmeldung gehandelt hat. @Srittau: Was hältst du davon, den zentralen Text einfach farblich auszublenden, so dass man nur noch liest: "Prämierte Pelze. Düsseldorfs Kürschner folgten dem Aufruf, neue Pelzmodelle zu gestalten, ... ihre Kreationen. Die Gewinner - Pelzatelier Hoffmann, Pelzmodelle Kuhn, Lipsia Pelze, Pelzhaus Schenkenbach und P. & A. Slupinski - werden die prämierten edlen Stücke ab heute auf der Pelzmesse 'Fur & Fashion' in Frankfurt/Main vorstellen." Das sollte vom Zitatrecht her abgedeckt sein, und enthält keine kreativen Teile, die man vor unbefugter Weiterverwendung bewahren müsste. Ich habe als Grafik bereits umgesetzt und könnte das nach der Wiederherstellung einfach darüber hochladen. De728631 (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

De728631, genau das hatte ich vor, um dem Streit aus dem Weg zu gehen, s. oben (obwohl ich immer noch vermute, dass der Resttext auch keinen urheberrechtlichen Wert hat). Deshalb bat ich darum, die Ablichtung noch einmal kurz wiederherzustellen. Danke. -- Kürschner (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ich hatte dich so verstanden, dass du nur die Liste hochladen wolltest. Wie dem auch sei, da Srittau scheinbar nichts dagegen hat (sonst wären hier wohl schon Einwände gekommen), werde ich das jetzt entsprechend wiederherstellen und anpassen. De728631 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Issues regarding Flickr uploads

So you sent me a notification of possible deletion for medium number of files that I upload. There are few truths; I convinced that your images on your Wikimedia Commons account are from Flickr unsourced. Big part of the images I uploaded, I didn't know that you had these images on your account. Sorry for any inconvenience. I was shocked that commons has a page 'Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VKras'. Some files were uploaded without categories because I did not which correct categories to use. --VKras (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Corbiac photos

Hello ,

I have just had an email regarding the photos of my home where someone had trespassed. Can you please tell me when they will be deleted. Thanks . RobBoy1 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@RobBoy1: You can comment in the deletion request why you think the image should be deleted. The discussion will run for at least a week. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I comment since I’m not familiar how to do this . Thanks . RobBoy1 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@RobBoy1: I have moved your comment to the right page. You can just click "edit" on the page I linked to above. No need to go to the "discussion" page. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Photographer trespassed

Thank you RobBoy1 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"per nomination"

Ich habe absolut nichts dagegen, dass du bei Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shmidt.jpg auf "löschen" entschieden hast (als Gründe in Frage kommen sowohl OOS als auch CSD G7), wundere mich aber doch etwas über die Begründung "per nomination", denn gerade die hatte ich ja nicht verstanden und darum rückgefragt - "it doesnt upload"? Ich habe kein technisches Problem mit dem Bild gesehen. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Die Begründung war natürlich Blödsinn. Offizieller Grund ist G7 in Verbindung mit unused, allerdings hat mir das ganze auch verdächtig nach einer URV ausgesehen, war aber ganz froh, nicht weiter nachforschen zu müssen. In scope und technisch einwandfrei ist das Bild meiner Meinung nach schon. Ich habe gerade mal die anderen Bilder des Uploaders angeguckt und werde einen DR dafür starten. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, danke für die Erläuterung! Gestumblindi (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dalida Miss Egypt 1954.jpg

Hi Sebastian. Following the discussion above it will be nice if you don't presume of my mental health. Indeed I can confirm you I'm not suffering from paranoia. On the contrary regarding uploader's record and his unability to provide any proof of what he is claiming it will be logical that COM:PCP applies once again. Hence I'll put file on deletion again. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

As I am sure you are well aware, "copyright paranoia" is not a presumption of a user's mental health state. Don't create artificial drama. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Srittau. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

--Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ska Keller & Bas Eickhout, EGP candidates 2019.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/110900366@N07/46607277685/ does not belong to Euranet Plus. Its EXIF says clearly, "Copyright - © European Union 2019 - Source : EP". {{EuroparlTag}} is ND.--Roy17 (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: We can assume that a trustworthy source like Euranet Plus has the necessary permissions. EXIF data are no proof of anything, only an indication for potential problems. In this case I trust the source more than the EXIF data. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortuantely you made a clumsy assumption. https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/euranet-plus-interview-with-bas-eickhout_20190402_EP-087692A_EVD_0006_p#ssh {{EuroparlTag}} applies.--Roy17 (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what that link is supposed to prove. If you think Euranet Plus made a mistake, try to get the license on Flickr changed. Until then I see no need to discuss this further. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Credit line clearly identifies the photo belonging to European Parliament / Eric VIDAL.
2. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en/legal-notice As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words '© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament' or '© European Union, [year(s)] – EP' ) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged.
3. Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EuroparlTag confirms #2.
4. Euranet Plus is not an agency of the EP.

Do you, Srittau, have proof that Euranet Plus is authorised in any capacity by EP to relicense the photo under a different licence?--Roy17 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Zur Info

Moin! Da es um eine Löschung von dir geht, weise ich auf meine Anmerkungen unter Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Deletion of a location map hin. Die Vorlage auf de:wp habe ich absichtlich noch nicht repariert, damit alle sehen können, was passiert ist. Viele Grüße, NNW 08:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

File:CPAEG 2.229.jpg

Hi,

I'm not sure to understand, so to make sure I understand correctly: could you explain why you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:CPAEG 2.229.jpg in deletion?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Because there has been no updates since June when User:Ladnerg310 said they contacted the site owner. If there is a change in license status on the source site (which I doubt is forthcoming) we can always undelete the file in question. As it stands it's a copyright violation. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, a bit hard but ok. For me, there was no reason to doubt the free license of this institution website or at least no hurry. Should we now proceed to delete the other images from this website? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Maybe we should have a general discussion about this site at COM:VPC? And the either undelete this file or nominate the other files for discussion depending on that outcome. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Good diea, done on Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Images_from_ELIA. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:포체티노 단독 인터뷰 2편!! "한국에 가고 싶어요" (GOAL 인터뷰).webm. File:살이 안 빠지는 이유 Reasons why you are not losing weight.webm

You deleted these files because of "scope", but you seems to too narrowly interpret the "scope". these are not simple personal videos. File:포체티노 단독 인터뷰 2편!! "한국에 가고 싶어요" (GOAL 인터뷰).webm depict the football manager en:Mauricio Pochettino, and File:살이 안 빠지는 이유 Reasons why you are not losing weight.webm depicts ko:심으뜸, a south korean famous youtuber, fitness model, television personality. Puramyun31 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Puramyun31: It could make sense to extract still images or maybe short clips showing the persons in question. But the whole video is certainly out of scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2019 (TC)

No. The whole videos also depict their activities within their normal business ( File:포체티노 단독 인터뷰 2편!! "한국에 가고 싶어요" (GOAL 인터뷰).webm, he interviewed as a football manager business, File:살이 안 빠지는 이유 Reasons why you are not losing weight.webm, she provides fitness informations in the video), not depict simply private situation such as a simple private selfie. There is no restriction on Commons that a file depict a person should only depict a moment such as "extract still images or maybe short clips" as you said. Therefore in scope. removal of sounds is just in order to remove non-free music, so the removal does not make the videos useless. maybe doesn't you understand the korean language contents in these videos?Puramyun31 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk more. What does functional buildings mean?

I saw this sentense.

Indeed, photos of mostly "functional" buildings are usually accepted on Commons, even if the country in question does not have Freedom of Panorama for buildings.

What does functional buildings mean?

So can the following buildings be a functional buildings?

1. Apartment

2. Department Store

3. Museum

4. Memorial hall

5. Administrative building (such as city hall, county office, district office)

6. Office building

7. Restaurant

8. Hotel

9. Skyscraper

And what about buildings with more than one function?

--Ox1997cow (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: "Functional" not in the sense that they have a specific function, but that they are not "artworks" or are "nothing special". For example, non-unique buildings similar to those that already exist. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

COM:VP

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Village pump#Files with dubious sources. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

--Roy17 (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wikswat

Danke für die Bearbeitung des o.g. Löschantrags. Allerdings sehe ich keinen keinen Grund für das Behalten von Rossitten auf Info-Tafel.JPG und Schild Friedhof Rossitten.JPG. Es gibt in Russland keine Panoramafreiheit für Kunstwerke mit der Möglichkeit kommerzieller Nutzung. Viele Grüße --Ras67 (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ras67: Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich hatte übersehen, dass sich die Schilder in Russland befinden. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Kein Problem, immerhin war das ja mal „deutsch“, jetzt ist es halt „russisch“. Bis dann --Ras67 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Bisexual Flag of the People's Republic of China

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CHN-Bayi

Now what? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Your decision. I can delete it with reference to the DR if you want to. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It does indeed appear to be a fantasy flag by the original uploader.. Okay, delete it. I had batch-converted a bunch of fake SVG files so I didn't inspect every single one too deeply. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le Voyage dans la lune (1902).webm

Hello, I just took notice of your closing of this DR. With apologies for the delay, I beg you to reconsider, in view of the sources I had referenced at the DR.

• In an article published in October 2012 in the Journal of Film Restoration Roland Cosandey and Jacques Malthête, Méliès' great grandson considered as the best expert of his filmography, expressed the view that it was inappropriate to call the Lobster version a faithful rendition of the original. They reminded the color copy "of mediocre photographic quality" used as a reference, coming from Filmoteca de Catalunya, was likely a pirated copy for which the production date and the mode of application of the color were not known. Lobster also used a copy coming from Malthête's mother archive, in black and white, to which "color was digitally superimposed [...] in an attempt to match the hues of the Spanish print. Color saturation has been exaggerated throughout the entire film; the trembling, irregular strokes of manually applied dyes that are typical of early films have been replaced in the black and white copy by steady patches of color without extending beyond the colorized parts". The two historians consider that these alterations are "radical in their nature. Other interventions affect the shape of the frame and its aspect ratio. In essence, this version ends up hiding from view the dual origin of the original images, as well as the yellowish background of the film base (probably related to the apocryphal duplication process). Even more importantly, it conceals from view the retouching work mainly associated with the magic effects which are so important in Méliès’ style as much as for his contemporaries".
• In an article published in Senses of Cinema, Wendy Haslem called this restoration a "Chromatic Frankenstein’s Monster" and stressed the fact it is based on a Spanish coloration adjusted to the taste of a Spanish audience.
• In an article published in The Moving Image, Martin Bonnard calls Lobster's "digital reconstruction" "controversial".
• [Source not referenced at the DR] Paolo Cherchi Usai, a specialist of Méliès, writes that this version based on "pirated copy made in Spain well after the release of the film" should not be considered as "a restoration, nor a preservation projet, let alone a reconstruction", but a "remake" [3].

Since the people who were in charge of the project (Tom Burton, quoted in the DR, who said :"We used a palette of restoration and visual-effects specific digitai platforms, including Digital Vision Phoenix/DVO, MTI and After Effects. Our restoration team rebuilt shattered frames into new, full-frame re-creations of their original state. The black-and-white material was then digitally painted to replicate the original color frames where the original colors had not survived" quoted by Robert Birchard in American Cinematographer Oct. 2011.) as well as the specialists of the subject (including Filmoteca de Catalunya [4] [5] [Sources not referenced at the DR]) claim it is "more a visual effects project [...] than a restoration project" and it is a well known fact that the Lhuillier original coloration is lost [6], I do not understand how we can decide ourselves otherwise. — Racconish ^💬 09:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC) completed 11:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would much rather leave this kind of thing to WMF legal. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: You are right. The opinion of the film critics means that at least the PCP applies. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 16:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent deletion

You left this redirect behind File:Georgia-guidestones sharealike-sa2.0 flickr.com photos viryakala 15210145398.jpg after deleting File:Georgia_Guidestones_2014-03-18_03.jpg per the deletion discussion. Perhaps you forgot, or did not realise it. Ww2censor (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thanks, deleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Schweden, "Buildings may be freely depicted"

Hallo Srittau; zu deinen Behaltensentscheidungen hier und hier: Vielleicht hast du die Darstellung der FoP-Problematik in Schweden nicht ganz aufmerksam gelesen? Die ganze Liste der Fälle, in denen in Schweden Panoramafreiheit gegeben ist, darunter "Buildings may be freely depicted", wird ja eben durch die im letzten Absatz geschilderte Problematik für unsere Zwecke entwertet. Die Sache ist doch die: Schweden hätte eigentlich Panoramafreiheit praktisch genau wie Deutschland (einschliesslich "Works of art may be depicted if they are permanently located on, or at outdoor location"), aber die Gerichtsentscheidung von 2017 hat festgehalten, dass diese ganze Panoramafreiheit nicht für Veröffentlichungen im Internet gelte. Das ist das Problem, das wir gerade mit Schweden haben und das ich in meinen Kommentaren zu den Löschanträgen angesprochen habe. Die hier mehrfach diskutierte, recht absurd erscheinende Situation in Schweden scheint nun zu sein, dass man zwar durchaus Fotos von modernen Gebäuden oder Skulpturen machen und diese gedruckt veröffentlichen darf, z.B. sogar in einem kommerziellen Bildband - aber nicht im Internet, nicht in einer Datenbank wie Commons! Gestumblindi (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Vielen Dank, das habe ich in der Tat überlesen. Ich habe es im Text jetzt für die Zukunft deutlicher hervorgehoben. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! Es ist zwar nicht so, dass es hier auf Commons schon einen allgemeinen Konsens gibt, solche Fotos aus Schweden zu löschen. {{FoP-Sweden}} ist ein furchterregender Warnbaustein, aber irgendwie hängt hier seit 2017 in der Luft, wie die Community nun eigentlich damit umgehen will: "The implications of these decisions on Commons' ability to continue to distribute this and other depictions like it are currently under analysis" laut Baustein, aber ich sehe nicht, dass gerade noch irgendwo "analysis" am Laufen wäre. Vorerst scheint aber die Entscheidung von 2017 doch gültig zu sein und es sieht auch nicht so aus, als habe Wikimedia Schweden Berufung gegen das Urteil eingelegt. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:9 Pułk Strzelców Konnych (II RP)

Thank you for closing the discussion. The Category has been created ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Malachite, dal congo (coll. adalberto giazotto).jpg

As I already highlighted and striked off in the deletion procedure you just closed, this picture is only a piece of rock crystal, not a work of art, so please undelete it. It is not part of an artistic display or meant to be a part of a sculpture, it was only displayed with some more as an example of the beauty of nature. Thanks for a quick undeletion. --Sailko (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sailko: Are you sure about that? I wonder why it was part of an art exhibition. But if you confirm it to be really nothing more, I will undelete it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can see the category of the exhibition with more crystals. The theme was "From the cave..." so they included some beautiful stones ;) --Sailko (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

neue Kategorie Schupmann-Kandelaber ergänzt

Hallo Sebari, Du scheinst Dich ja mit den Berliner Lampen und dem Kategorie-Konzept gut auszukennen. Magst Du bitte mal einen Blick auf die von mir neu angelegte Kategorie Schupmann-Kandelaber und die dort begonnene Disk werfen? Wäre es sinnvoll, sogar zwei Kategorien anzulegen ? Danke und Gruß --Dieter Weißbach (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Shulgin1934.jpg

You keep the fake photo as being in use. It is not in use anymore, and there were no objections to its removal from Wikipedia pages.--Yellow Horror (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yellow Horror: Could you please open another deletion request? Seems fine to delete now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Falk2

Hi Srittau. Bezüglich der Unbeschränkten Sperre von Falk2 habe ich folgende Anregung. Da wir mittlerweile die technische Möglichkeit der partiellen Sperren haben, wäre es vielleicht an der Zeit, ihn/sie für den Datei-Namensraum freizugeben, damit er/sie seine/ihre Fotos wieder direkt auf Commons hochladen kann. Derzeit wird das sowieso über den "Umweg" der deutschen WP und des Bots gemacht, was ja das Gleiche ist bei mehr Aufwand, also nicht sehr sinnvoll. Gegen eine Freigabe für andere Namensräume bin ich nachwievor und mehr denn je, wenn man bedenkt, dass seine/ihre Beleidigungen und Hasstiraden in der deutschen WP gegen mich (nein, nicht gegen dich sondern einzig und allein gegen mich) bis zuletzt munter weiter gingen und vor ein paar Tagen ein Kommentar gar versionsgelöscht wurde und eine Ein-Monats-Sperre verhängt. MfG --A.Savin 14:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Da habe ich keine Einwände. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Kannst du es dann so umsetzen? Danke. --A.Savin 15:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Ich habe es nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen umgesetzt. Kannst du bitte nochmal drüber schauen, es ist das erste mal, dass ich Namensraum-Blocks durchgeführt habe. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Rollbacker rights

Hi. You removed my rollbacker rights a couple of years ago. Is there a reason why you have decided this is a permanent action? Is there an appeal process? Many thanks, Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: If I remember correctly, you used your rollbacker rights during an edit war, which is considered an abuse. I'd recommend to just re-apply for that right at Commons:Requests for rights#Rollback, linking to this discussion. I have no objections, just be mindful of using the right for its intended purpose. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wegeta

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wegeta, I was going to open a deletion request until I saw this discussion. What evidence do we have that these sockpuppet users are the artist himself? Is it not customary to have a COM:OTRS request for copyright release, to prove ownership and licensability? Elizium23 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Sorry for the late reply. I think I was not aware that this was a sockpuppet at that time. I can't really remember what my exact reasons for keeping the files were, except for what I have written in the DR. Please feel free to open a new DR, if you think there are additional reasons for deleting these files that I didn't take into account when closing. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Category without evidence

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Klopstockstra%C3%9Fe_(Berlin-Schlachtensee)&action=history - where is the evidence that that street is in "Berlin-Schlachtensee"? 89.12.44.240 18:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

File:BVV Steglitz-Zehlendorf Beschluss 1040-V.pdf. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Dubious redirect

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Spanische_Allee_(Berlin-Zehlendorf)&diff=511215336&oldid=193136271 - redirect Zehlendorf to Nikolassee? Where is the evidence for that? 89.12.44.240 18:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Same as above. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it to redirect to Category:Spanische Allee (Berlin-Schlachtensee). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear Srittau

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Srittau,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear Srittau. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you -- CptViraj (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Westpark (Berlin-Marzahn) vs Category:Seelgrabenpark

Hallo Srittau, ich hatte vor kurzem die Kategorie:Seelgrabenpark erstellt und leider erst später gesehen, dass du dich bereits mit dem Park beschäftigt hast und eine Kategorie:Westpark (Berlin-Marzahn) erstellt hattest. Ich bin jetzt nicht ganz sicher, was das beste ist. Westpark scheint ja den westlichen Teil des Seelgrabenparks zu bezeichnen. Die Bezeichnung Westpark ist allerdings laut meiner Internetrecherche nur bei einer Ankündigung zur Erstellung des Parks zu finden. Woanders habe ich die Bezeichnung Seelgrabenpark / West gefunden [7]. Und für den anderen Teil Seelgrabenpark / Nord. Hast du eine Idee, wie wir die Kategorien am besten zusammenführen können? So richtig eindeutig scheint das ja alles nicht zu sein. Gruß Singlespeedfahrer (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Singlespeedfahrer: I muss zugeben, dass ich keine Ahnung mehr habe, warum ich die Kategorie damals so benannt habe und mein Wissen über Marzahner Parks ist auch sehr begrenzt. Ich denke die beste Lösung wäre es, die Dateien in Category:Westpark (Berlin-Marzahn) nach Category:Seelgrabenpark zu verschieben und eine Weiterleitung anzulegen. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok gut, ich schau mir das nochmal an und werd mich da mal dranmachen die Tage. Gruß Singlespeedfahrer (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Singlespeedfahrer:  Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Report

Hello, please take a look at this report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Files named with meaningless/disruptive names (motivated renaming was reverted without any valid reason) as these are serious everyday violations of the Commons rules and protection of meaningless names (in this case, Kalumny which translates as Columns). User Kazimier Lachnovič with filemover rights constantly performs violations of the Commons rules, creates instability issues and protects meaningless names, thus creates confusion. His Commons admin rights previously were lifted, but it is clear that it is not enough. -- Pofka (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Screenshots and originals

Hello, you wrote about in 2019, after marking for its deletion, uploading the original of a photo instead of a screenshot if I was the owner of that photo. Here's some basic knowledge for you, the original isnt always available, because editing photos and screenshotting ones you have so you can edit them in a different way if it wouldn't allow you to with the original is actually very common. Unless you recieve a COPYRIGHT CLAIM there is absolutely no reason for anything to be taken down for copyright. I took that photo, I own it, I have SOLE legal rights and authority to it and there were NO copyright claims to it that I saw. So please stop deleting photos that nobody is claiming through copyright, and the content of photos (should they not show graphic content) is a moot point due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and upholding United States Supreme Court rulings. (At least when applied to users within the United States, pictures taken within the United States, and pages that may be displayed to the United States)

Thank you. Elyon127 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elyon127: Please read COM:L and COM:SCOPE to understand why your photo had to be deleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

De-adminship warning (Feb 2022)

Dear Srittau. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your admin rights and also additional permissions (bureaucrat/oversighter/checkuser/interface-admin), if any, on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2022 before 11th March, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose their rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you! -- 4nn1l2 14:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Wegeta

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wegeta

Hello Srittau, in this discussion you decreed Keep for all files, except you haven't repaired their licensing. Ostensibly the master works should be Public Domain by now, but Wegeta has claimed them all as "own work" with the audacity to relicense as Creative Commons which is, needless to say, unnecessarily restrictive and confuses the legal terms of potential reuse. What is the proper and appropriate way for us to repair these licenses and place the files in public domain or appropriate copyright notices? Elizium23 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2023 (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!

Affected:

• File:Liebensteinbahn.png

Yours sincerely,   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

De-admin warning

Dear Srittau. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your admin rights on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2023 before 13 March, and also to make at least 5 further admin actions in the following 6 months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose their rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you! -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

File:U-Bahnhof Deutsche Oper 20141110 1.jpg

File:U-Bahnhof Deutsche Oper 20141110 1.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!

Lukas Beck (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)