User talk:Srittau/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Formal request to excuse yourself from Wikisource related deletions

I hereby request that where there is a deletion of a file used at any of the Wikisources that you please leave all such deletions for someone who will take the consideration to communicate about these deletions, especially where it has been requested. If you are not to prepared to undertake reasonable requests for considerate actions, then it is best that you just leave such files well alone. Thanks. If you find that an unreasonable request then please let me know as I am willing to let the Wikisource communities know, and escalate this matter to our fellow administrators.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Request denied. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:KingArthurS.jpg

Hi, this is from a PMA+70 country, so '120 years is old enough' won't work here. Please note that the current license is invalid, it's not a USA work. No indication why this would be PD in the UK. 1895 is at least a decade too young to assume PD in a PMA+70 country. Please reconsider the closure. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: This is part of the old debate "when is something old enough that we can assume pma+70". Different people have different opinions, I consider 120 years to be old enough. We really need an RFC about that to find community consensus on this issue. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The outcome of a DR should never depend on who closes it. E.g. Jim uses 130 years. I would still consider that 10 years too young, but I have stopped nominating files from over 130 years old from PMA+70 countries, to at least have some more consistency. But 120 years is clearly too young. One could take a picture when 20 years old and easily reach the age of 80 years. Jcb (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
And Yann often keeps files even younger than this one. As you can see in my last comment, I agree with your first sentence. This is something that we as a community need to figure out. But until we have, everyone has different standards. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yann keeps files for random reasons, I wouldn't build on what you see him doing. I will try to formulate something at COM:VPC to see if we can come to some consensus. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I have started the discussion, see here. Let's hope it will lead to something. Jcb (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If I came on as overly grumpy, then my apologies

It was not my intention to take out my frustration at having to go through complex deletion processes. If I did, for that you have my apologies. I thought that I had made a reasonable request to note the closure of the DR, and to me it had been ignored. Noting again that I did not dispute anywhere your deletion of the file for copyright reasons.

I have been asking here for many years for better solutions, and progressing nowhere — given the bird — and told local problem. Such a response does not help sister wiki interaction, and has communities like ours on the cusp of not hosting djvu and pdf files here. I/We have made numbers of measures within the enWS community to better manage and resolve this, however, the deletion issue exists within Commons, and requires the tolerance and cooperation of local admins, and local community. Where enWS is alerted to this in our community we are proactively managing the transfer or deletion of the file. There are, however, limitations on who can do this wiki, and you can see from my history that I do it, though I can only do it for enWS, and I have limitations on time and space to address something less than a 7-day timetable, and to also do some of the more fun things for why I came to wiki.

Where enWS or any WS are not alerted to the deletions and as such these files are listed straight to DR — noting that often they have been hosted here for many years, and then simply given seven days prior to deletion. There is no notification to whichever wikisource it may be, often the contributor is no longer active, and then "bam" deletion, the index files are dead, the tens to hundreds of transcluded pages are no longer visible, and there is ZERO notification to the wiki, simply main namespace presentation death! These complex files are not included in a page in a standard means, so there is no physical removal. So on these smaller wikis with limited admins, often less experienced it can be a nightmare, often the relevant pages could be removed for a long period prior to coming to attention. I hope that you can see that is troublesome to these wikis, especially where a single presented work can have tens to hundreds of hours of transcription time, which can unravel with the simple pressing of a deletion key here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I really did not intend to hurt Wikisource by deleting this file. I had seen your comment and assumed you were aware of the impeding deletion and would do and had done the necessary steps. If you have a concrete proposal how to better serve other communities without making the work for us administrators more difficult, I will support it, time allowing. But I think a concrete proposal is what is lacking. (Maybe a bot that looks for usages of files to be deleted and notifies affected projects?) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Aslan Xasiyev

No, it's hard to understand the OTRS. It's not the reason for deleting. Anzor Agamirzoev registered in Flickr, I have uploaded his photos via the algorithm of uploading from Flickr, and you have no right to deleting those four files. I'm asking to restore these four files.--Soul Train (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bronze figure of Kashmiri in Meditation by Malvina Hoffman Wellcome M0005215.jpg

Hi, you deleted the above file, after the argument provided by Christian Ferrer. His argument though cogent is tentative ("the sculpture seems not yet in PD"). Wellcome Images would not be declaring that it is copyrighted, releasing it, and offering CC 4.0 license if the underlying sculpture or image is covered by copyright and the permission was denied. Please see Wellcome Collections procedures on checking material which are still in copyright, getting permissions before putting it online, here. I wonder if Welcome Collections effort have been disputed or otherwise found insufficient by the wikimedia community/admins? FWIW, I checked the US copyright office records under this guideline, and do not find that the copyright was renewed by Field Museum after 1951. I mention just the above file, but this applies to many other useful Wellcome Collection images. If I missed a community discussion on this, please link me to it. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: External organizations donating images often make mistakes in their copyright attributions. Wellcome actually made several mistakes in the past, the probably biggest one was discussed here. In this particular case there is at least reasonable doubt that Wellcome forgot about the separate copyright of the depicted statue. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Do we have a way to contact Wellcome Collection team about this or other images, to check if they have or have not checked the separate copyright of the depicted statue? I could do it privately, but I wonder if that would help or just duplicate our efforts. A direct answer from them to wikimedia might avoid double checking. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: Can you help with that? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC) P.S.: Clarifying this would of course be very welcome, both for them (if we are right) or for us (if they were right and we can undelete these images).

The Wellcome Library are not in a position to publish all the original release information about the archived material donated to them, probably because these are considered private records which remain confidential unless the donor agrees otherwise. The Wellcome also add to the digital image collection using 'best endeavours', which is legally fine, but does not guarantee that future take-downs are impossible if someone can present a valid copyright claim that was not found applying 'best endeavours'. However, I agree with the deletion unless there were information available about whether Malvina Hoffman transferred her copyright for works at the Hall of Man. Honestly, I doubt that the Wellcome Library has any privileged information about the copyright of the statue, even if they have records about the photograph donation. So, rather than writing to the Wellcome, it would be more useful to contact the Field Museum of Natural History to confirm whether the statues are considered copyright of Hoffman's estate or whether the Field Museum are the copyright holders as they commissioned the works. If the latter, then they are now public domain (and have been for c.17 years). In the worst case scenario, the works are public domain in 2037.

In terms of risks to Commons and me as the uploader, there never was any risk to us as we relied on the release by the Wellcome for our evidence of, under UK law, "reasonable efforts" to determine copyright and could produce that evidence in court. The precautionary deletion is actually a hypothetical one, not based on a confirmed copyright claim. In practice if an academic wanted to republish these images, say for a book cover, then they would be well advised to contact the Field Museum before committing to print.

Useful links

  1. wellcomeimages.org catalog
  2. https://www.fieldmuseum.org/malvina-hoffman

PS as these were commissioned for a permanent installation, were these on display in the UK, they would fall under Freedom of Panorama; example Hoffman statues at Bush House. Should the USA ever introduce a federal equivalent to FoP (currently unlikely, but anything might happen in the next few years), the photographs could retrospectively become public domain under that reading of IP law.

--Fæ (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: The copyright was transferred by Hoffman in February, 1930 to the Field Museum. The latter then indeed became the copyright holder of all sculptures Hoffman produced, as the Museum commissioned the works. This is according to Marianne Kinkel's book on Races of Mankind: The Sculptures of Malvina Hoffman. See page 125 of this published by University of Illinois Press. I already checked the US Copyright archives and find no active copyright on these sculptures in Field Museum and anyone else's favor, which of course does not mean we are in the clear to undelete (I may not be doing the search right). The best way is what Srittau and you suggest. How do we go about contacting the Field Museum through wikimedia?; @Srittau: thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Reading Kinkel's book p125 is convincing evidence that the Copyright holder was from the outset the Field museum, by a transfer of copyright agreement. A later amendment was strictly limited to a specific number of reproductions of the works to be allowed for Hoffman alone, such an agreement would be defunct since her death. I suggest that undeletion with this evidence is considered, I doubt you will find better even after correspondence with the museum, so I would hope to save on any more volunteer time being invested in this.
@Christian Ferrer: would you please reconsider your deletion with this new evidence, or need there be an UNDEL request? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not at the orgigin of the DR nor I deleted the file, I just posted a vote on the dr with an explicative notice for my vote, so I will not undelete this image. When I click in this, that's says that I can't accesss to this page. But even if the Field museum is the copyright holder the issue stay the same because Wellcome is a third party and we usualy accept statments only when coming from the copyright holder. We need a copy of the agreement between Wellcome and the copyright holder, or the copyright holder must confirm directly to us the permission. And if Wellcome is not the owner of the 3D photo, then the permission must be for both the sculpture and the photo. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, pinged the wrong person.
@Yann: Would you reconsider the deletion per the evidence above. The single argument put in the DR is that there were doubts whether Hoffman had released copyright, this now can be verified. FYI as Christian has a problem reading the text of Kinkel's book, I have put a copy at https://www.flickr.com/photos/wikimediacommons/32747820632. --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion for deleting this file. It was obviously not a valid speedy deletion request, so I changed it to a proper DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch, Fæ, and Christian Ferrer: I filed an Undeletion Request here, mostly so we have a nice record of the discussion, in case this comes up in the future. Please continue discussion there. Thanks everyone! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion

Das hier habe ich erst im Archiv gefunden. Vielen Dank für's Zumachen, und vielleicht sollte ich mir tatsächlich einen Socken-Account mit De4711 zulegen obwohl ich mit Köln gar nicht's am Hut habe. Abgesehen davon ging mein Bullshit-o-Meter bei einigen Beiträgen zu der Diskussion gewaltig nach oben. De728631 (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@De90210: Ja, deswegen habe ich es auch zugemacht ohne auf noch weitere Analysen zu warten, bevor das komplett ausartet. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Schade eigentlich, aber mit Massenlöschungen scheinen mehrere Leute auf de.wiki schlechte Erfahrungen gemacht zu haben. Siehe z. B. diese private Diskussion vom letzten August. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You were unfair

You deleted an image without asking if I had consent or not and regardless checking if it had value, which is did. I think you were unfair and biased. How do I contest your deletion? Nesnad (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC) EDIT: In your own link it says photos of people are allowed in the case that "The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society." further his face was blurred which is no longer an identifiable picture of him. Since when is a blurred face considered recognizable? I am quite offended by this sudden rash deletion. I understand if it was a rush judgement, and I also understand you don't want to "look bad" by changing your mind, but I still think think you are being quite unfair in this case. Nesnad (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

See here for undeletion requests. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Java For 11GT 3.webm

Hey,

Why did you delete this file? Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Natuur12: My deletion reason was "CSD#9". That file was uploaded during our problems with Wikipedia Zero and embedded data. It is a 7:50 video of a text editor with a resolution that is low enough that you can barely read anything, but had a size of 416 MB. As such I suspected it to contain embedded data. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh of course. I mistook it for 9. Office action. Thanks for explaining. Natuur12 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was kinda missing the "F" in there. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Note

Hi Srittau,

I trust you are fine. I noticed that you speedy closed the discussion here that I should request undeletion over here when you in fact, speedy closed my initial request there. Well, let me recap, a user uploaded their own photo here, it was nominated for speedy deletion because the image already appeared on a website before the upload here, this was converted to DR. The user contacted the website that their photo should be credited to them, the website did exactly that, the image was credited to them. User returned to Common that their deleted image should be restored, what they got is a block threat. What else do we need from this user, other than an evidence that they own their photo? Srittau, to be honest with you, this is not cool and I am sad about the entire situation. With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wikicology: It seems the file is currently being reviewed by the OTRS team, then? So why not wait and see? That process is very reliable after all. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Ivan Kablukov (1857-1942).jpg

Hi, my friend. You deleted file used in the Russian Wikipedia. Why can't we use it in others Wikipedia? It has sources and regards to a russian scientist. Respectfully, could you respect the creation of authors and restore the file please?Claudio Pistilli (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Claudio Pistilli: You have already found the deletion request, it seems. This explains the reason why the file was deleted here on Commons: unclear copyright situation. It is possible that the file can be uploaded locally to the Russian Wikipedia, I don't know the policies there. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Category talk:Birds of Gambia

Hi. You have taken charge of the discussion on changing categories etc. and moved the discussion to Category talk:Birds of Gambia. There has been no contribution to the debate for a week. There is no clear consensus one way or the other and therefore I request that you:
1. Allow me to revert edits made by Atamari to my images
2. Ask Atamari to leave my images categorized as I upload them, though of course he may a) add valid categories (such as year of photo); b) move any image to a 'species-only' or 'location-only' category.
Thank you. Charles (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

See latest posts on Category talk:Birds of Gambia. Charles (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Please answer my request as soon as possible. 19:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Zine_amb_los_enfants.jpg

Hello, I uploaded the image with the author's agreement. She has sent two messages, one ill-formated, the other one properly formatted. OTRS Ticket # are:

  • Ticket#2017012310003821 (correct)
  • Ticket#2017012210006446 (incorrect)

Please do restore the file. Thanks in advance, Jfblanc (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jfblanc: Please have a bit of patient. Our OTRS team is quite overworked and backlogged. If the permission checks out, it will be restored in due time. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Jhony?

Hi. I've asked INC, but seems that he's inactive for several days. What do you think about this? IMO has a similar behaviour pattern with a recently blocked sock of Jhony... Should I open a RFCU? --XXN, 11:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@XXN: Pretty obvious sock. I blocked the user for now, currently don't have time for cleanup. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I lied. Vandalism reverted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --XXN, 17:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete this file

Can you delete File:Placeholder male superhero c.png and File:Placeholder female superhero c.png? 118.101.202.113 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please file a regular deletion request giving a reason why those files should be deleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
How to do, because both files were misused by anonymous users at Wikipedia, thus, the files has a copyright symbol indicates that the file is copyrighted. 118.101.202.113 00:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting

Can you override Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Hilo Bay', oil painting by Joseph Nawahi, circa 1881 (cropped).jpg and delete this File:'Hilo Bay', oil painting by Joseph Nawahi, circa 1881 (cropped).jpg? I don't think it should have been closed as undelete when no one offered any support for its retention other than the admin who closed it. And when the creator and the requester (me) have requested for it to be deleted. Once the copyrighted frame has been removed from File:'Hilo Bay', oil painting by Joseph Nawahi, circa 1881.jpg, the cropped version becomes a duplicate, so it makes no sense to retain the crop version. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping to delete File:Loqfqvli.png

Sock

Hi Srittau. One more sock of Jhony: User:AManFight. Could you delete/remove the edits of this latest sock? Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 21:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: ✓ Done, thanks. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Another one: User:Ignore 17. Trijnsteltalk 19:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: ✓ Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted file

Hi, we received an OTRS ticket for a file you deleted, which seems regularly cropped for another file. Can you clarify why you deleted as vandalism Sushma_Swaraj_at_an_Indian_Diaspora_event_in_London,_UK_(cropped).jpg? Thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 12:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: File was uploaded by a LTA sock of User:Jhony jhony ha ji. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand. As a crop of File:Sushma Swaraj at an Indian Diaspora event in London, UK.jpg, I was doubious. So if he only impersonates people for fun, you suggest that the best behaviour would be just to ignore him. Right? --Ruthven (msg) 16:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I still do not get it. Sushma_Swaraj_at_an_Indian_Diaspora_event_in_London,_UK_(cropped).jpg was a good crop of File:Sushma_Swaraj_at_an_Indian_Diaspora_event_in_London,_UK.jpg, a valuable contribution from someone we might not like otherwise. Why delete it? I do not see anything in Commons:Deletion policy about such case. (@Ruthven: ) --Jarekt (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven and Jarekt: Jhonny mixes good with problematic contributions. I don't have the inclination and time to review all contributions individually. All contributions of Jhonny can be treated as vandalism, because their modus operandi includes "administrator overload". I don't have any problems with someone restoring good contributions, although they can usually trivially be recreated. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Flag of Algeria

Hi An account used a personal attack against me. We are in the presence of contributors of circumstances, who are in hibernation for months and then all come back at the same time when a discussion is revived by one of them. I take the initiative to argue but they just come to oppose without arguments. It can not go on. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

File

Hello. The problem is that all voters had good arguments and being an administrator does not make the opinion of the person a notice that is above others. There was never a consensus for the deletion. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Deletions are not based on consensus, but on admin discretion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
And how to challenge it? An admin who voted can not be judge and party. Or in this case, it was necessary to delete without debate. I do not understand anything. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Srittau, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OTRS Submitted Already

Hi, even after submitting OTRS process (27/5/2017) and showing its proof (Ticket:2017052710005511) for file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hair_Transplant_India_Ludhiana_Team.jpg, again same request is being opposed for? Greatica (talk)

@Greatica: Please be patient. The file will eventually be restored through the OTRS process if it is successful. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) Greatica (talk)

User:Albert Brum

Hi Srittau. I strongly suspect that Ignácio may be another sock of Arthur Brum. This is partly based upon what I posted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dom Luiz I of Brazil.png, but also because the user is identifying himself as Arthur Brum at both User:Ignácio on Commons and en:User:Ignácio on Wikipedia. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Manasi mal wieder

Hallo Sebari, nachdem mir im de-WP-Artikel wieder ein Sockenpuppenauflauf aufgefallen ist, habe ich hier etwas gesucht und Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Matthias Manasi gefunden. Mir scheint, die aktuell neu hochgeladenen Fotos in Category:Matthias Manasi könnten mit den bereits gelöschten identisch sein. Kannst Du das irgendwie nachvollziehen? Viele Grüße, Stepro (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

File:France Medaille de la Gendarmerie Nationale.jpg

Hello, why have you deleted this file which was used for the French Wikipedia article "Médaille de la Gendarmerie nationale"?! : File:France Medaille de la Gendarmerie Nationale.jpg What was the problem?! Regards --Sylevien (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Löschung Datei (Photo mit Metadaten)

Hallo, ich habe heute ein Photo hochgeladen und später erst festgestellt, dass Metadaten zu sehen sind, die meine Privatsphäre verletzen. Ich habe dann das Photo durch eine zweite Version ohne diese Metadaten ersetzt. Leider sind die Metadaten im ersten Upload weiter zugänglich. Wie kann ich nur die erste Version von File:Kelek.jpg dauerhaft löschen? LG boepet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boepet (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

erl. LG boepet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boepet (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

This talk page in other languages:

Dear {{subst:PAGENAME}}. 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 --B dash (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bikini-Haus bei Nacht 20140726 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JoachimKohlerBremen 18:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Cease and Desist

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbodle (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ironic. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

HUD GTASA.png

Hey, I see in my watchlist that you deleted the file "GTASA HUD.png" per my del request, however, you kept the Spanish version of it, "HUD GTASA.png", which I nominated with the same rationale. The image is of poor quality and adapts a possibly copyright-violating design (e.g. the minimap markup). The same image was already deleted previously under a different name, I don't think one should just re-upload intentionally deleted material. Should the image still be deleted? Lordtobi (✉) 06:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: I agree about the poor quality, but the file is in use on the Spanish Wikipedia, and we generally don't delete files for scope reasons if another project uses it. I don't see copyright problems, since it's only a schematic of the game's interface, it doesn't directly copy any elements. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I actually removed the image prior to the nomination, but apparently it was subsequently re-added the image's author (COI?). Anyhow, the image, due to its poor quality, adds little to the actual article, wherefore it should be excluded. This would lead to the image being unused and making it unqalified for keeping it here, right? Lordtobi (✉) 12:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
That's really for the Spanish Wikipedia to decide. But an image that is not in used anymore can be deleted, and in this case I would favor the deletion. But that would be a separate deletion request. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Himno de Galicia.ogg

Hi Srittau, I wanted to review the deletion of File:Himno de Galicia.ogg, but I can't access to the information of the file. Could you tell me the information stated at the file? Thanks, --Elisardojm (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Elisardojm: Sure, this is the last version of the file before the deletion request:
=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Anthem of Galicia, Spain}}
|date=2012-12-17 16:44:18
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Ostiudo|Ostiudo]]
|permission=
|other_versions=
|other_fields=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}

[[Category:Symbols of Galicia (Spain)]]
Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know the content of the file (I should ear it to assure that the content is correct), but I think that it should be restored but changing the license and using Template:Attribution-Xunta de Galicia/en. The official file could be uploaded from here, the license is here, and states "A información dispoñible neste Portal, salvo indicación expresa en contrario, é susceptible de reutilización, quedando autorizada a súa reprodución total ou parcial, modificación, distribución e comunicación, para usos comerciais e non comerciais" (translation: "The information availabre at that Site, except express order in opposition, it's open to reuse, authorising it's total or partial use, modification, distribution and communication, for commercial and non comercial use."). Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Elisardojm: Could you open an Undeletion Request? I can not listen to the files at the moment to compare them, and I'd like some other opinions as well, but your assessment sounds reasonable to me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course! Give me a bit of time, actually I'm involved organizing an event at galician wikipedia. Next days I'll open the request. Thanks! --Elisardojm (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Aachen Cathedral

What about the other files in Category:Choir of Aachen Cathedral (interior)? LoKiLeCh (talk)

@LoKiLeCh: Some are probably problematic for lack of Freedom of Panorama as well. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Does not qualify for speedy deletion"

Why? Just curious. I've tagged hundreds of image like this as copyvio and this is the first time that I get this response. What's different here? --Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Randykitty: It might fall below the threshold of originality as it is a pretty simple logo. Therefore it is not a clear copyright violation and a full deletion request is better suited. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You deleted my file of the Sc-76 thunderbolt rifle

But I put in proper licensing? MORNINGSIDE (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. You can not just upload images from the internet. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is from the internet. but that is exactly why I put in a OTRS tag letting know I have received permission to use it from the website. Did you not bother to read the licensing?
(User:MORNINGSIDE– aka Sritta yes it is from the internet. But that is exactly why I put in a OTRS tag letting know I have received permission to use it from the website. Did you not bother to read the licensing (talk) 24 March 2018
(talk page stalker) You added the wrong template to the file. {{OTRS}} may only be used by authorized editors from the voluntarily email permissions team but never by the uploaders themselves. You should have used {{OTRS pending}} instead so as to indicate that an email was sent but has not yet been processed. Anyhow, Ankry has restored the file and marked it as lacking a verification of the OTRS email. This is because there is currently a serious backlog in the queue of OTRS emails. The file may even be deleted again but it will be restored once the permission email has been checked and approved. De728631 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 支那魔鬼習近平

I am from Taiwan. I have trouble asking for reservation because the content of the picture is very meaningful. Thank you! --223.136.64.242 04:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Srittau. Can you clarify whether the file you deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vodafone Albania.svg is the same one being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vodafone 2017.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for asking, I answered in the the DR. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Datei Hotel in Berlin Joachimsthaler Straße

Hallo Srittau, du hattest 2014 die Datei File:Art'otel bei Nacht 20140926 4.jpg hochgeladen und dabei angegeben, dass dies ein art'otel sei. An dem angegebenen Gebäude befindet sich nun aber die Bezeichnung "H10 Hotel", siehe z.B. hier. Hat da inzwischen der Betreiber gewechselt, oder kann es sein dass du das damals verwechselt hast? -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gerd Fahrenhorst: Ich glaube du hast recht. Es befand sich ein Art'otel in Nummer 29 (bei Street View noch zu sehen). Das hier ist aber offensichtlich das Backsteingebäude Nummer 31/32. Ich ändere das einmal. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Closed discussion

hello, can you give me the answer to the question on the subject that you consider closed? thank you. Camulogene77 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Camulogene77: The discussion was open for quite a while, no administrator saw any need to intervene or add further comments to it. Obviously no administrator action is forthcoming, so there is no need to keep this discussion going artificially. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
this is exactly what I am trying to denounce, your burying of heads in the sand. thank you for your rewarding participation. Camulogene77 (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

specifically

why? Doesn't change the fact that I need the autopatrol flag for uploading a lot more. OceanAtoll (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@OceanAtoll: The reasoning has been given in Commons:Requests for rights. I do not consider you trustworthy. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Patrizio Parrini.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests

The picture is mine, authorized by the tennis player. No violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriano.disabella (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adriano.disabella: Please add your comment to the deletion request here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

What else?

Dear Sebari, Srittau; I may not have known at first what was necessary to opt for the flag and that for a serious personal problem I did not have the care that I had to have more than a month ago, but at present they have approved me many applications and they will continue doing it because I know what what I do and I do it well I would just like to know what else I have to prove or do to get the flag, since I didn´t really get any negative comments on this occasion. Sincerely MONUMENTA Discusión 17:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Abusal of the term vandalism

Your reverts are emotionally driven and do not judge the reverted content. You are actively hindering progress without second thought. And you prefer illogical edits over reasonable ones when carrying out your actions. I doubt your fitness for the job as a commons admin. You disguise your actions by labeling them as a counter-vandalism measure, but the result of your work is vandalism itself. 'vandals' would have done a better job judging. --84.133.68.72 16:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The rollbacks are not emotionally driven and indeed do not judge the reverted content. You are banned indefinitely on Commons, so all your edits are subject to be reverted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Musentempel, agra-Park, Markkleeberg, 1708230931, ako.jpg

Vielen Dank für den Seitenschutz, aber ich denke, Du hättest vielleicht vorher noch den letzten Edit rückgängig machen können, oder? Jetzt haben wir dort wieder ein Overcat-Problem und ich kann es nicht beheben. --Code (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Code: Meinst du wirklich obige Datei? Da habe ich den letzten Edit reverted und du solltest sie auch ändern können. Ich habe die Dateien eigentlich alle nur für anonyme Benutzer gesperrt (und wenn nicht war es ein Versehen). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, mein Fehler. Danke nochmal. Ich verliere langsam den Überblick. --Code (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srittau/Archive_3&oldid=367116054"