User talk:Srittau/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

File:Цибулько Володимир Михайлович.tif

Dear Sebari! Please delete ALL of my uploaded files in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Quick Removal Rules. --MikeZah 14:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Military service mark of the United States Army.svg

Hello,Srittau Im asking you why you deleted File:Military service mark of the United States Army.svg if not have copyright issues and had a valid license. Also, beacause the file was loosely based on the source dosn't signify that it has to be deleted. Beacause sometimes the vector vesion has to deviate to some grade from the bitmap, beacause the bitmap is too horrible to be completely based on it. I will later start a undeletion request. But first i want your answer to this. --64.237.228.46 12:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thre reasoning was given in the deletion request. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. But beacause it looks a little diferent is not valid reason. As i say theres no license and copyright issues. I will a start undeletion request. -64.237.224.174 15:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Bildbeschreibungen

Hallo Srittau!

Ich weiß leider nicht genau, was es für Regeln bei der Bildbeschreibungen gibt. Deswegen wollte ich mich erstmal bei dir erkundigen: Bei den beiden Bildern File:J24 558 Verkehrsträgerwechsel.jpg und File:J24 557 Verkehrsträgerwechsel.jpg folgende Bilderunterschrift gewählt:

Die ehemaligen lauten und dreckschleudernden Straßenbahntriebwagen wurden von leisen und sauberen Bussen abgelöst. Die Zukunft kann kommen.

Ist eine solche Bildbeschreibung zulässig? Ich finde nämlich, da spielt zu sehr seine eigene Meinung mit und da ich ja aus der Wikipedia komme, sollte man das doch eher sachlich formulieren. Schon mal im voraus Danke für deine Hilfe! --Xxlfussel (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xxlfussel: Commons ist nicht Wikipedia und hier gilt nicht unbedingt ein neutraler Standpunkt. Ich persönlich finde deine Beschreibung dennoch deutlich besser, würde mich allerdings deswegen nicht rumstreiten wollen. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, danke! Wenn das erlaubt ist, dann will ich auch keinen unnötigen Streit anfangen. --Xxlfussel (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xxlfussel: Du hättest ja auch erstmal mit mir reden können, anstatt gleich mit dem Holzhhammer zu kommen. Bei der etwas seltsamen Verkehrspolitik des Bürgermeisters von Markkleeberg im Einklang insbesondere mit seinen Neubürgern, die in der Regel durch Ausdrücke wie »viertel vor« und dicke Pkw auffallen, sind etwas bissigere Kommentare schonmal angebracht. Es gibt bei Commons zehntausende Dateien ganz ohne oder mit ausgesprochen nichtssagenden Bildbeschreibungen und leider fördern das die Hochladeassistenten durch die Voreinstellung des Kopierens der ersten Beschreibung auf alle folgenden Dateien auch noch. Da was sinnvolles dazuzusetzen ist Arbeit für Jahrzehnte und wenn ich schonmal dabei bin, die Kategorien »streets in …« und »squares in …« erwarte ich schon unmittelbar unterhalb der Hauptkategorie jeder Kommune. Die Kategorien sollen auch und insbesondere den Nutzern von Commons helfen, sich zurechtzufinden und so, wie Du das im Bezug auf Leipzig gerade verschlüsselt hast, findet die Straßen und Plätze keine Sau. Den meisten Fotografen ist das ziemlich Wurscht, sie finden ihre Bilder über den direkten Weg, aber die Mediensammlung ist kein Selbstzweck. –Falk2 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Jfameous Jfame.png

Hi, are you able to delete this file now? The discussion has gone on 8 days, with only one vote. It is an image of myself I no longer want public.

Best, Dogbert420 (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dogbert420:  Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Hallo Srittau, könntest Du die Datei bitte nochmal schützen? Es geht schon wieder los. Danke! --Code (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Code: Erstmal nochmal einen Monat geschützt. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Danke. --Code (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandal DR

Can you delete Commons:Deletion requests/MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js/auto-errors please? It is part of the same batch from that IP. Nuke seems to have missed one. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Majora:  Done, thanks! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested updates to protected images

Hi,

You had been treating the queries on page Commons:Requested updates to protected images last month. Could you handle the remaining queries? Thank you! Thomas Linard (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi Srittau, can you let me know who uploaded File:EnhancedBriarcrestLogo.png and when? The query is related to a complaint of vandalism on the English Wikipedia. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 17:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, got it. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Logo

Hi Srittau--thanks for blocking that vandal. Can you look into something else for me? File:Auburn Tigers logo.svg is NOT the official logo--File:Auburn Tigers Logo.png is. Note the little white spaces between the two legs of the U and the A. Don't know if that means something is to be done, but I think that incorrect one should go. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Templates

Halle Srittauǃ Ich habe ein Template erstellt, dabei handelt es sich um Template:LLeipzigArc, und habe eines bearbeitet, dabei handelt es sich um Template:Tramtransportyear-Leipzig. Irgentwie funktionieren die beiden Templates aber nicht richtig.

• Für das erste Template musst du dier nur die beiden Kategorien Category:Architecture of Landkreis Leipzig by year of completion und Category:Built in Landkreis Leipzig in 2017 anschauen.
• Fur das zweite Template kannst du dir zum Beispiel die zwei Kategorien Category:2016 in tram transport of the Leipziger Verkehrsbetriebe und Category:2016 in tram transport in Leipzig anschauen.

Der Fehler dabei ist, dass jeweils in der ersten Kategorie nicht die zweite Kategorie angezeigt wird, obwohl sie Unterkategorie der ersten Kategorie ist. Könntest du bitte mal drüber schauen, ob du denn Fehler findest? Ich habe keine Ahnung, wo der liegen könnte. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Xxlfussel (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Xxlfussel: Sorry für die späte Antwort. Jetzt scheint ja alles richtig zu sein. Grundsätzlich gibt es bei Kategorien in Templates teilweise Caching-Probleme. Es hilft dann in den betroffenen Kategorien einen "Null-Edit" durchzuführen, d.h. einfach einmal auf "Bearbeiten" und dann ohne Änderung auf "Änderungen veröffentlichen" zu klicken. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Urheberrechtsverletzung Merkelbild

Warum hast Du die klare und eindeutige Urheberrechtsverletzung nicht schlicht und einfach gelöscht? Was sollte es da zu diskutieren geben? Wenn schon eine Vorlage aus der Dateiseite raus gehört hätte, dann die der normalen LD, denn die Copy-Vio ist einfach komplett unbestreitbar. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 13:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Die Urheberrechtsverletzung ist offensichtlich nicht unbestreitbar, denn sie wird bestritten. Darum gibt es einen regulären Löschprozess. Alles weitere bitte in der entsprechenden Diskussion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Was gibt es denn da tatsächlich zu bestreiten, außer den unsubstantiierten Behauptungen von Fae, die dieses eindeutig dem Urheberrecht unterliegende Bild als PD deklariert hat, ohne irgendeine auch nur annähernd tragfähige Begründung. Im Zweifel sollte das Bild erst mal weg, bevor es aus Versehen andere von hier als vermeintlich frei herunterladen, das sind wir den NachnutzerInnen imho klar schuldig. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 13:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Um mich selbst zu zitieren: "Alles weitere bitte in der entsprechenden Diskussion." Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Comendador Nicolau Scarpa 04.jpg

Hi. Would either you or @Ronhjones: object to me restoring this file and adding the attribution to the artist (Vilmo Rosada)? From what I understand, that should be sufficient to meet the freedom of panorama requirements. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: By all means go ahead. The missing attribution was the only reason I deleted it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, now done. Mike Peel (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks OK Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marvel Cinematic Universe logo.png

Hi Srittau,

I know that I didn't participate in this DR but I saw it and I'm a little curious as to the result. I completely understand the star field issue. That could potentially be above TOO to count. But it was my understanding that simple text, 2D or 3D, is PD in the US. I'm using this as my source for that information. Specifically page 27 section 313.4(J). Letters are considered "familiar symbols" and "Familiar symbols and designs are not copyrightable and cannot be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, either in two-dimensional or three-dimensional form."

Like I said, I completely understand the star field issue. But the removal of that and the remaining text should have fallen under that section. Right? Or am I reading that wrong? I really appreciate you indulging my curiosity. I just want to make sure I'm doing things right moving forward. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: I was under the impression that 3D elements generally elevate simple shapes above the TOO, but I did not research this in-depth for this DR. So please go ahead and file an undeletion request if you feel this was a mistake. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done UDR filed. --Majora (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision-Krieg

Hallo! Ich bin gerade auf eine Art "Revision-Krieg" zwischen den beiden Benutzern Falk2 und Xxlfussel. Es geht um das Bild J24 560 Wendeschleife Markkleeberg West, Verkehrsträgerwechsel.jpg. Vielleicht könntest du dich da einschalten. --Boinae (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Boinae: Danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe die Seite erstmal gesperrt und die beiden Streithähne auf die entsprechende Diskussionsseite verwiesen. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Boring blank book cover and a blank page

Both uploaded by a bot from archive.org and of no value. They add nothing. You want to keep. You must be joking what possible policy / justification do you have to keep. There are 20 + good files in this cat already. Broichmore (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I don't care about the book covers, but the deletion requests were invalid. Please see here for how to start a deletion request properly. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Time and resource wasting Broichmore (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing that you caused extra work and wasted time and resources by not following instructions in the first place. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Image-Tmi-2_schematic-fr_Path.svg

can be converted to path again easily if required.

— https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Image-Tmi-2_schematic-fr_Path.svg

No it can't. The fonts have changed, and the changed fonts does not fit into places, therefore several fonts are used in the same file, to reproduce the behaviour of used space, but that is neither consistent, nor beautiful, and does not look as the original svg. You can delete the file, but please with a valid reason!  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 14:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

images without rights

I'm surprised by how little strict you are with those photos. Please, are photos internet downloaded uncopyright. --Parair (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the processes are increasingly difficult. --Parair (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Confusion over deleted images

@Srittau: You deleted eight images from a larger set I took and uploaded (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and the note did not really help explain why. It links to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MB298, but given these eight photos were not originally uploaded by MB298, and the conclusion of that request was to keep the files, I am curious why these were deleted. Thank you, --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 15:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Varnent: It seems these images were uploaded twice. Some duplicates have been redirected since the deletion request was opened, which caused the target of the redirect to be deleted. Nevertheless the reason for deletion is solid, these are copyright violations. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Srittau: Perhaps, but it seems the conclusion of the deletion discussion you linked to was that protest signs could be kept. Looking at some of the images you deleted, they seem fairly random out of the overall set of photos taken that day. Some of the photos you deleted include signs which are also included in photos taken by others at that event which have been kept. File:March For Our Lives 2018 - San Francisco (4055).jpg as one example seems odd to claim as including any copyright images. Can you please elaborate on the page you linked to why you deleted some despite the "Kept" status of the page, otherwise it is a rather confusing page to link to as reasons for what appear to be otherwise random deletions. Thank you. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Varnent: Oh, I'm sorry for the confusion, it seems I misclicked when closing the discussion. This was always meant to read "deleted". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Srittau: Thank you, that makes the linked explanation less confusing. :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Millican portrait.jpg

Hi, please reconsider your closure of this DR. I think Stefan2 is right. Being published on itself is not sufficient to be PD. Jcb (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

First Red Guards in Petrograd, fall 1917 palace square.jpg

Wrong. My request follows Commons rules and was GRANTED. The current rename is the one that violates the renaming rules. The request will be renewed one more time. If not speedily performed, I will take the matter into my own hands.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've taken the matter into my own hands now. Blocked for edit warring. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm

Hello, I posted a discussion about this file, and nobody replied. I am interested to keep this file. What is going now? Thank you for reply. Dgw (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

delete

OK - skoro tak mówisz--keriM (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of [my] own amusement

If you believed Elcobbola and deem now that can single-handily “bruise Incnis Mrsi's ego”, then you most likely mistake. I made numerous actions on Commons and is open to criticism. Don’t attack me surreptitiously. With such things as Revision of Commons:Village_pump you only contribute to ridicule for the Commons administration which, unfortunately, has some grounds. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Do not use sock puppets to evade a block

I do not know what you are talking about. I have not created any new accounts and I have not evaded the account block. I am waiting for the humble apologies of those involved in the incorrect renaming of the file to stay in Commons, yours included.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Antonín Janda-Očko.jpg

I want to re-nominate this file for deletion or renaming. Because it depicts another person. It shows not Antonín Janda but VÁCLAV PILÁT.

This is Antonín Janda's photo:

http://frenchfootballweekly.com/2016/07/19/pour-faire-progresser-le-football-francais/antonin-janda-tres-sport/

http://habilidadespesefifa.blogspot.com/2016/01/habilidades-antonin-janda.html?m=1

http://old.sparta.cz/img/edee/_generated/limit/u/gallery/2008/06/16/10706_janda.jpg

https://www.spartaforever.cz/ukaz_clanek.php?clanek=753

http://www.esbirky.cz/predmet/3917556

http://www.calcioromantico.com/a-spasso-nel-tempo/janda-il-gigante-da-un-occhio-solo/

And this is VÁCLAV PILÁT's photo:

http://old.sparta.cz/img/edee/_generated/limit/u/gallery/2008/06/10/10660_pilat.jpg

http://nv.fotbal.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=1818

http://www.esbirky.cz/predmet/3919750

https://www.spartaforever.cz/ukaz_clanek.php?clanek=530

On this photo they are both:

http://old.sparta.cz/img/edee/_generated/limit/u/gallery/2014/04/25/27077_jd_rok_1922.jpg

Compare it, please Брейн (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Брейн: Please have a look at COM:RENAME. Deleting a file just because it is misnamed is not the right solution. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand, thank you! Брейн (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Ilja Grzeskowitz.jpg

Hallo Sebari, vor kurzem wurde dieses Bild und auch ein paar andere, die ich vom Flickr genommen habe, gelöscht. Die Gründe sind mir nicht ganz klar und ein anderer Admin hat meine Frage leider nicht beantwortet. Deshalb würde ich mich über Deine Antwort sehr freuen. Das Bild Ilja Grzeskowitz.jpg steht bei Flickr unter freier Lizenz (Public Domain): https://www.flickr.com/photos/87311453@N03/26512557809/in/dateposted/. Warum darf man es in einem Wiki-Artikel nicht benutzen? Was soll ich beachten, wenn ich ein Bild vom Flickr nehmen möchte? Danke im Voraus, --Mrs.Snipping (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mrs.Snipping: Das Problem ist, dass die Urheberschaft auf Flickr angezweifelt werden kann. Es handelt sich um einen Account mit 0 Followern und die Bilder haben so gut wie keine Views, keine EXIF-Daten und sind verhältnismäßig klein. Es ist daher sehr zweifelhaft, dass der Flickr-Uploader wirklich der Urheber der Bilder ist. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Srittau: Alles klar, vielen Dank! --Mrs.Snipping (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Mariya Bayda

Dear Sir! Have you ever any common sense? Why did you deleted documents, related to the Hero of the WWII, Mariya Bayda?

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Mariya_Bayda

Who can be 'copyright holder' for the documents released by the Soviet Government? It's a CLEARLY public domain by the law, by the nature and common sense! I'm not familiar with Wiki's complicated copyright rules, rarely login to the wiki sites just to make somethibg GOOD! However this doesn't mean anyone should spread burocracy and vandlize pages and other's labour just to obey some formal rules. Nobody prevents experienced users to fix formal errors, mistyping, incorrect categories and statements, any incorrect info... The reason should be make Wiki better, not worse, not 'smaller' or not poorer. Wiki itself is a public domain! Rules were enforced to make Wiki better, including to prevent Wiki from copyright claims and settlements. Even for really copyrighted materials there is a "Fair Use" model which should allow people around the world have the "right to read". Rules did not provided to make Wiki poor or hide any info, or make anyone the 'famous wiki author'! Here the place where we give, not get as soon as we want to change something.

What could be the 'copyright owner' for the officially published documents of the Soviet Government? Or Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) newspaper as long as any other soviet newspapers were owned by the Soviet People/Nation and fully controlled by the Government, who was paid salaries and other goods to the authors and reserved any commercial rights for the State thus making them state and/or later public domain, and as later stated by the Russian Federation copyright laws. We have built real socialism and used to have very much goods in the public domain till the USSR fall. There was NO private properties for a 70 years here, just state (national) and personal properties. Some authors retain some rights to their objects created in the USSR times (i.e. books or music or pictures they didn't transferred rights to the State/Nation, while working for the organizations), but it is uncommon for the newspapers and any similar common labour objects and looks absurd for the Government and most other documents (excluding classified).

Is it burocracy raised to the absrud level to seek any 'personal copyright owner' for such the materials? Other people stated these materials even formally obey copyright law and exempted by the PD-RU-Exempt, being in the public domain. What else (would be)? Incorrect copyright notice? Just fix it as it should be. There are now too many people who prefer to destroy, not to built... Fix it too.

We should keep the memory of the WWII tragedy, keep the memory of the Heroes and provide maximum information to the further generations. Young 20yo girl, military nurse... Upon the front was broken through, she was forced to join the death battle for Sevastopol, alone and wounded to the head till the faint a few hours before, she attaked 20 fine armed men with automatic guns and mysteriously won, just to save a few wounded and captured soldiers and the officer. Can you imagine this? She was cured in the hospital for a 3 later months after the incident for she's wound and returned to fight.

And then she was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union with honours. It seems to be impossible, such an act of bravery. I do cry when I write these strings and feel the pain, desperation and courage these people experienced to protect their country and save their common spirit.

Have you any respect to the Heroes, being them Russians, Germans or Americans? I do respect Heroes like Günther Prien or Otto Kretschmer, Erich Hartmann or Johannes Bölter, and Fritz Paul Schmenkel too. In the wide meaning nor me, nor you shouldn't care who is 'owner' of the 'evidences' in the terms of the copyright and who have uploaded the 'pictures', just a bunch of bytes in the context of the feat, people should know about! We should all feel the meaning, the nature, common sense and respect people who have got their best and/or died to protect the goodfaith and other people. So, please be careful with such a materials. Please restore what we have lost. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDrive (talk • contribs) 12:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheDrive: I did not read the whole wall of text above. All arguments that were given during the deletion request were weighed and my decision made on that basis. The decision was based purely on copyright grounds, I do not care how heroic someone is. If you believe the deletion was in error, please visit Commons:Undeletion requests and state your arguments for undeletion in a short and succinct manner, but make sure to read our licensing rules before doing so. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Kenn mich nicht aus

das mit slowenien habe ich ja gelernt und auf fast alle einen sla gestellt, die eine datei scheine ich dann übersehen zu haben. da machte ich dann nach dem la auch einen sla, weil eh eine klare sache. aber warum habe ich jetzt 2 la drauf, bzw 2x die meldung bzgl la auf meiner disk und warum ist es jetzt kein fall für schnellöschung? es ist doch keine panoramafreiheit? --Donna Gedenk (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Donna Gedenk: Den zweiten Löschantrag hatte ich übersehen. Grundsätzlich sollte aber kein Schnelllöschantrag gestellt werden, wenn bereits ein regulärer Löschantrag besteht. Der reguläre "überschreibt" gewissermaßen den Schnelllöschantrag. Aber ja, ich gehe zu 90% davon aus, dass die Datei gelöscht werden muss (leider). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

ich wollte die diskussion darum abkürzen... aber gut, mache ich das auch nicht mehr so, lerne ja immer dazu :-). --Donna Gedenk (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurates Sports Complex in Katra, Jammu and Kashmir.jpg

Hi, I see that you undeleted this file. Thanks for that. Is it intentional that you remove the Flickr license? Please give your opinion on Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Dual licensing for narendramodiofficial Flickr stream. Also I think that the DR should be updated. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Please see the next change by me, where I added a license review from the government site. This seemed to be a "safer" option than a Flickr source. Instead of changing the DR, I updated the image's talk page. I feel this is a better place to collect this kind of information in one place, since obviously DRs for one file can be on multiple pages. This is probably something that we need more discussion about, and possibly also an update to our tools. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you validated the GODL, but what does make you think that it is "safer" license? To me, the Flickr license is equally valid. OK for adding the information to the talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: This was mostly because of the Flickrwashing allegations in the DR. That said, I believe now that this seems to be resolved, I don't mind someone changing it back or (maybe even better) just adding a second licensereview. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, Flickrwashing is a very strong word for the content this stream, and it doesn't reflect the reality. May be the people responsible for maintaining the Flickr stream posted a few images which were not taken by them, but the intend was not to fraud copyright. I'd like to get a consensus before undeleting the rest of the images, so that we don't have to edit them twice, and that the licenses is consistent among them. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: I agree and will comment in the discussion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about copyright images?

Hi! I've recently noticed that you took down two images that I've uploaded and have said that they were copyright violations. I'm confused on how you know if they are copyright images or not because I've found them on google photos and did not see a copyright logo anywhere. I apologies for uploading these images, I just didn't know they were copyright. How can I determine if an image is copyright or not if I don't see a copyright logo? Thanks!

Jonesrmj (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)jonesrmj

@Jonesrmj: Thank you for asking. Photos and other works do not need a copyright logo to be copyrighted. In general, no image you find on the web (or anywhere else) can be uploaded to Commons. Please see COM:L and COM:NETCOPYRIGHT for more information. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Srittau: Ok. Do you still allow flickr images because I've seen people upload flickr images that have a liscense that seems to make it ok to use? Thanks Jonesrmj (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)jonesrmj

@Jonesrmj: Some Flickr images are ok to upload. If you look at the license on the right below the image, certain licenses are allowed. Not allowed are "all rights reserved", "non-commercial" licenses and "no derivatives". You can click on the license to get more information. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

UDR

Das hier hat auch diverse Diskussionen wieder geöffnet. War das beabsichtigt? De728631 (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: Ups, keine Ahnung was da passiert ist. Vielen Dank für das Beheben! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, wahrscheinlich habe ich ohne zu merken den Typo in einer alten Versionsansicht behoben ... Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Kann passieren. De728631 (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion

My "shitty attitude" is warranted considering your lack of competence for an admin. Admins shouldn't be deleting files based on laziness. Admin tools come with responsibility, regardless of how much work something is or if someone hurt your ego by calling you out. If you were willing to put in the work to become an admin, you should also be willing to close deletion discussions based on consensus and amend mistakes. Maybe in the future, try refraining from using admin tools if you can't use them properly and someone wouldn't have to go to Undeletion just to hear you make excuses for why you won't own up to it. Opencooper (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I can only conclude that you have no clue what you are talking about. I have no problem with someone pointing out mistakes (this wasn't one). But I do have a problem with someone with an attitude making demands of other people. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about patrolling translation pages

Hello! May I ask, how is it that an IP is editing pages such as Commons:Translation administrators/uk and possibly more to the point, how can I fix it? It doesn't properly revert vandalism to pages of Translation administrators and it also won't allow me to fix it once I find it. I've had this problem patrolling for a while now but I would like to solve this and be able to fix vandalism to these pages in the future. Thank you, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto: Unfortunately my knowledge about both patrolling and translations is pretty limited. It's probably better to ask at COM:VP or COM:AN. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Good Advice. Thank you, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Hi, you’ve protected User talk:OlegCinema, so please let him know that File:Rangpur Zoo.jpg is nominated for deletion. --85.26.232.3 12:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done De728631 (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Socks

Hi Srittau, I am a Wikipedia administrator in Portuguese and recently a user opened a suspicion that Joaopaulodasilvapoquiviqui (talk · contribs) be a sockpuppet of Brasão de Municípios (talk · contribs) or the opposite. So, I warn you since the first account is not blocked here in Commons. If the verification is confirmed, I will ask for the global locking of the accounts involved. Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:CloneZilla.png

Hi. This file was not own work. It was just a screen from GNU GPL software – uploader rights for this content are doubtful ;). And it wasn't unused – uploader removed that image from article on plwiki 10 minutes before file was removed from commons. please, reconsider your decision, regards, Piastu (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Piastu: Sorry, I was not aware of that. I restored the image and protected it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank You. I've restored it on plwiki, cheers, Piastu (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

File:MBROUE2.jpg

Hi, I have just realised that my photo File:MBROUE2.jpg has been deleted on my Wiki page (Retrait du lien MBROUE2.jpg, supprimé sur Commons par Srittau ; motif : per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MBROUE2.jpg) I guess it must be for a copyright reason. But there should not be any problem : this photo has been given for free use to me by my friend Benjamin Stora, author of "La dernière génération d'Octobre", Editions Stock, 2003 (978-2-234-06863-6), where the photo is published with copyright DR/Vincent Fournier. I'd be grateful if you tell me what I need to do to put again that picture on my page. Thank you in advance, Michel Broué (broue@math.univ-paris-diderot.fr). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Broué (talk • contribs) 10:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Michel Broué: Please have a look at COM:OTRS for a way to assert your copyright and restore the image. But please be patient, our OTRS volunteers are severely backlogged. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Apologies for mistakenly submitting a regular deletion request for File:WMMS-HD2 PSD display.jpg. Thank you for deleting the file. Levdr1lp / talk 12:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:V.W. Peters, letter, 1935.10.7, Songdo, Korea, to Father, Rosemead, California, USA (Peters 351007 letter~1).jpg

Hi, could you clarify the closure of this DR please, it appears to set a regional precedent in a way you did not intend? South Korea first came in to legal existence in 1948. In the case of this letter, this was twelve years after the letter was written. Consequently to close the DR by making a ruling that the copyright law of South Korea applies is factually incorrect as the copyright law does not retrospectively apply to works created in periods where the territory was either under the law of Japan, the law of America or the law of the much earlier unified Korea.

The letter exists extra legem, and consequently no claim of copyright is possible for such a work where any claim of copyright would be automatically dismissed from any existing court of law in any possible modern legislature. By default, such works are public domain. However should you be aware of a legal ruling for retrospective South Korea copyright law, I welcome it being added to COM:CRT so that a general rule for all future Wikimedia Commons uploads can be adopted. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: It's an interesting case. I was under the impression that nation states generally apply their copyright laws to works created on their territory, even before the inception of the nation state. For example, the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany are applied to works created during the Weimar Republic, which had a different (although similar) copyright law. The situation might not be comparable, though. I think this merits broader discussion to find a consensus. Would you mind bringing it up on Commons:VPC? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I was about to go to VPC, but came across Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/05#A_guide_to_Korean_copyright which was fairly recent. In that discussion the focus is on later works and the relationship with the URAA. However @Clindberg: confirms that the changes to copyright terms in South Korean IP law are non-retroactive. This makes me suspect that the same law cannot apply to works before 1948 either.

In that discussion there was no mention of works created under the Empire of Japan (pre-South Korea), so far I don't think there is a definitive discussion about those specifics for literally people who cannot be described as South Korean artists as they were living at the time within the Empire.

Okay, I'll raise the possibility of defining a rule for extra legem works, in this case created under Empire of Japan law before South Korea existed, but as this is such a technically difficult area, I suspect it will get muddied unnecessarily with people talking about things like the URAA which should be irrelevant...

Created at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Extra legem works - e.g. works created in the region of modern South Korea under Empire of Japan rule --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

“Getty images is known for occassional copyfraud”

Hi Sebari,

I'm inclined to believe that. But I'd be interested, as far as your experiences are concerned, how and in which areas of photography such a fraud takes place frequently. So far I also use gettyimages occasionally to verify copyvios from other sources (as recommended here, by the way). --Jotzet (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jotzet: The most prominent recent case was that of Carol Highsmith, who got sued over the use of her own public domain photos. There have been other cases where Getty Images have claimed copyright over public domain images. If I had to guess that is due to Getty buying various image collections with varying standards of attribution. Generally with historic photos relying on their claims alone is not sufficient, although it is an indicator for possible infringement. Current photos are usually a different matter. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thx, now I know what you meant by that phrase. --Jotzet (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jotzet: the case with Carol Highsmith actually revolved around Alamy. There are connections between Alamy and Getty, but afaik they are ultimately not the same company. And Alamy is, in my opinion, far worse than Getty. Some Alamy users just download public domain content from Commons and upload it to Alamy without attribution to make a quick buck (read the indefblock message of that user for a laugh). As for copyfraud by Getty.. It can be complicated. For example, say you have a photo from Italy that is covered by {{PD-Italy}} as a "simple photograph" and {{PD-1996}}. Assuming Getty has licensed the image from the copyright holder, they can perfectly sell you a license to publish the photo in France. Getty may also be able to provide or guarantee some non-copyright rights are in order (like personality rights). In case of paintings and drawings, some countries consider scans ({{PD-art}}) to be copyrightable. If you have to deal with that, Getty could legitimately sell you a license for that. Commons doesn't care about any of these things, so some images that Getty sells can be uploaded here without problems. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Image restoration

Please restore the images that didnt say violation or licensing because they belong to me, I am 100 serious and they are my own work. If they will be restored I will refrain from vandalism and all negativity, and abide by all rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HutheMeow (talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is likely a Wikipedian puppeteer SamuilKrasavtsev – see File:Gherman Titov marker drawing.JPG (hist • logs • abuse log). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Bad writing of the word "Reserve"

The erroneous spelling of "Reserve", isn't reason enough for deleting the Category:Historical images of the Laurentides Wildlife Reeserve?

Thanks

--LBM1948 (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@LBM1948: It is, I hadn't noticed and deleted the category now. For future reference, please use {{Bad name}}, or in include the reason in the {{Speedydelete}} template. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

O.K. --LBM1948 (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Warning

"Do not revert administrative actions. Consider this a warning"

Warning me for reverting an extremely ill-considered bureaucrat action and shredding the comment I added in the process? You have balls. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Permission question

May cropped version photos of original photos that are from wikimedia be uploaded on other websites?

AN/U close

"There is no consensus that User:K.e.coffman did anything wrong."

Can you clarify whether going to remove file use in the Norwegian (and reverting local editors), Dutch, Ukrainian and Chinese Wikipedias to help his deletion requests at Commons was also OK? --AnEvenBetterSpot (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@AnEvenBetterSpot: That seems like an issue over at those Wikipedias, and possibly a cross-wiki abuse issue, but unrelated to Commons. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Radical Party Ukraine.png

Hello, Could you please have a look at the section about this file in this page? Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

DR

Hi, admin. I will have to make a small correction to a DR closed by you, because someone's edit changed the user name of someone else, the uploder, and the uploader now looks like he/she was doing sockpuppetry at the DR. If you wish I stay away and you do it. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@E4024: No objections in general for maintenance work like this, although I'm not sure what you are referring to in this particular instance. But I guess I will see it when you make the edit. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Markfree123, the uploader of the deleted item, is not 2018 Markfree123 which does not exist. More than permission I was asking you to make the correction, because I'm not very sure how it is done. Tyvm. --E4024 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I made it! --E4024 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

De-adminship warning (Aug 2019)

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/Aug-Sep 2019 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. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ahmed Naaim

As you agreed with the nomination where is the flickr account blacklisted and where is the proof of flickrwashing? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: flickrwashing is pretty likely, considering the low number of views and followers for an "official" Flickr page. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

STOP

My edits in ANU have been moved against my will. This is IMPORTANT, yes. Do not change the Truth. Now false text appeared signed by me. LIES -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment to closed discussion

Hi Srittau. I didn't mean to add them to a closed discussion. It took a while to fetch the diffs and my submit didn't get an edit conflict so I didn't see it was closed already. No problem with you removing them, though your edit summary referred to my additions yet moved a lot more stuff about at the same time. Perhaps it would have been better to make several simpler edits, while you had the page locked. -- Colin (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Colin: I figured that that is what happened. The revert just restored the state one edit after my closure. Unfortunately, Basile Morin had changed the page a lot after your edit. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw your reply on my watchlist anyway. Btw this sort of edit doesn't cause a ping. You need to make it part of a post where you sign. I think if you had removed your existing signing and added ~~~~ to make a new one, then it would have worked. -- Colin (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of photographs of exterior of mosque

I am not aware of any rule against photographing the outside of a mosque in Morocco. I believe that you have made a mistake. Please explain yourself more clearly. Bengt Nyman (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bengt Nyman: Please have a look here. Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Morocco. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Srittau: I already told you that neither of these photographs are panoramas. Panorama: An unbroken view of the whole region surrounding an observer. If you have other reasons to object to these photographs please seek deletion on proper grounds. Arbitrary deletions are not acceptable. Bengt Nyman (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Just read the linked article or en:Freedom of panorama. The deletions were correct. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Cleveland Union Depot

Hi - I'm curious why you closed this discussion as keep? The fact that the plans for the building were abandoned sometime in the 1920s, and that the logo was used sometime in the 1910s, is not clear evidence of publication before 1924, whatsoever. ɱ (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I find that highly unlikely. See Eureka Lott's arguments in the discussion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw their arguments, and replied to them. Likelihood is not a condition or criterion, it either has evidence it's PD or it doesn't. ɱ (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

As the closing admin, I consider the evidence presented enough to safely assume this image to be in the public domain. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well I am going to have a deletion review. I've had images deleted for far less than this, there's no real evidence here. ɱ (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Plan of Salvation

Please explain me on my talk page why my images were kept. Please make a detailled explanation on my talk page.--Broter (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Broter: I will respond here to keep the discussion in one place. The images were kept because there is no copyright violation (single words don't count as such) and the images are used in Wikimedia projects. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)