User talk:JuTa/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

speedy deletion requests

Hallo JuTa,
ich bitte Dich mir Deine Löschentscheidungen zu erklären. Bei einigen m. E. gleich gearteten Anträgen (hier zwei Beispiele: File:Bad Köstritz, Julius-Sturm-Paltz, Julius-Sturm-Denkmal-001.jpg und File:Lykischer Sarkopharg.JPG) hast Du am gleichen Tag verschieden entschieden.
Beides waren offensichtliche Fehler im Namen. Was hat hier den Unterschied gemacht?
Gruß --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Baumfreund-FFM, beim 2. dachte ich, der Unterschied wäre einfach nur Groß- oder klein-jpg. Den Schreibfehler Sarkopharg -> Sarkophag hatte ich übersehen. Ist jetzt auch weg. Gruß --Ju Ta 07:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Danke für die schnelle Reaktion.

Ich habe noch zwei aus dieser ehedem abgelehnten Gruppe: File:Sarkopharg Béla III.JPG File:Lykischer Sarkopharg, Aperlai, Türkei.JPG

Ich bitte auch um deren Löschung.

Bevor ich auf die Idee kam Dich anzuschreiben hatte ich schon einen LA auf File:Landratsamt Sömmmerda - KFZ-Zulassungssiegel neu.JPG gestellt. Wie soll ich damit umgehen?

Gruß --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Auch die sind jetzt erledigt. Gruß --Ju Ta 08:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hallo JuTa, hallo Baumfreund-FFM,
seid ihr euch bewusst, dass die Löschung von Dateien nur aufgrund eines Schreibfehlers im Dateinamen gegen die Löschgrundsätze auf den Commons verstößt. Umso schlimmer, wenn mit einer Schnelllöschung am selben Tag vollendete Tatsachen geschaffen werden. Ich bin zutiefst entsetzt über euer Verhalten. In meinen Augen ist das purer Vandalismus. Offensichtliche Schreibfehler sind ein ausdrücklicher Grund, Dateien zu verschieben (request renaming), aber niemals, diese zu löschen. Ich bitte darum, dass die widerrechtlich gelöschten Dateien innerhalb einer Woche wiederhergestellt werden, damit ihr deren adäquate Umbenennung beantragt.
In der Hoffnung auf künftige konstruktive Zusammenarbeit --ludger1961 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, die waren bereits umbenannt. Hier geht es (nur) noch um die verbliebenen redirects - siehe File:Lykischer Sarkophag.jpg, File:Sarkophag Béla III.jpg, File:Lykischer Sarkophag, Aperlai, Türkei.jpg und File:Landratsamt Sömmerda - Kfz-Zulassungssiegel neu.jpg. Gruß --Ju Ta 11:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Ludger1961,

selbstverständlich verhalten wir uns regelgemäß. Wenn Du Dir meine Historie anschaust wirst Du massig Verschiebungen sehen, bei denen der alte falsche Name gelöscht ist.

Gruß --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hallo JuTa,
ein von Abgelehntes habe ich noch gefunden: File:Franz von Lenbach Portrait der Schaupielerin Fritzi Scheff.jpg. Das File gehört in die gleiche Gruppe. Ich bitte um Löschung.
Gruß --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Da muss ich sagen: Die Verwendung der Schreibweise Portrait bei einem über 100 Jahre altem Gemälde finde ich durchaus passend und nicht schnelllöschfähig. Sorry, aber diesen Redirect lösch ich nicht. Gruß --Ju Ta 08:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Es geht mir nicht um das Portrait - das sehe ich genauso, sondern um die Schaupielerin ohne s.

Gruß --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hatt ich gar nicht wahrgenommen. Also gut.... --Ju Ta 18:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Danke.

Das ist das gemeine an vielen dieser redirects. Man erkennt den Fehler kaum und stolpert nur bei der tool gestützten Fehlersuche drüber.

Gruß --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

	How Are You
	Hi. I am Jubayer. What about u? Jubayer al tawsib (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: File:Boér Elek 1872-1952.jpg, File:Csúri Károly.jpg

Thank you for your warning, I added the licences to the pictures. – EniPort (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong category

Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-G80/G85 should be erased since is wrong, correct is ...DMC-G85/G80. Since camera is officialy called ...G85/G80 Somebody made mistake. --Mile (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Ju Ta 12:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have permission.

Do not delete! I have permission:

University of Szeged (megújított engedély képekhez, 2016)--User:Pataki Márta^forrás 16:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Men by name

That's because the templates were conceived erroneusly and written very bad. Instead of having two different templates there should have been one with trigger field for the categorization as male or female. Now the best thing to do to get past the two templates and complete the unification is asking to a bot to add to those categories that have the template {{WomenByName}} an added parameter |F; same but |M for these which have {{MenByName}}. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the request. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I left some comments at the request. Currently the template isn't seeting neither Men nor Women by name cats... --Ju Ta 17:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion warnings on my user talk page

Hi,

I noticed you put two deletion warnings on my user talk page User_talk:Blueshade. With all respect, there _is_ sufficient licensing/authorship information attached to those pictures. They are both described as made by me personally and released under the original CC-BY-SA license.

Best regards, Blueshade (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Dont worry, its all OK now. End of December another admin declared {{Cc-by-sa}} without a version number as invalid. I went into this trap and marked a lot of images as having no valid license. But inbentween all (or most of) are moved to {{Cc-by-sa-old}}. regards --Ju Ta 16:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Chemické listy journal cover page image

Hi JuTa, apparently, you have removed File:ChL icon.jpg from the wikimedia. I don't know the reason - the reason, which was noted on the banner was a complete nonsense. The authorship and copyright of the image was confirmed by the owner of the copyright, the editor-in-chief Dr. Bohumil Kratochvíl by an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, with a ticket [Ticket#: 2017011610010498]. I hope the removal was done in error, but it is very anoying. Please, be so kind, and put the file back! Than you in advance. Dr. Radek Liboska R Liboska (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi R Liboska, there was no indication that an OTRS release is in progress on the file description page. Next time please place the template {{OTRS pending}} best with {{subst:OP}} to the file description page. I now restored the image and set the template. --Ju Ta 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JuTa, thank you. I had no idea I had to use such templates. The Wiki documentation is extremely complex and messy, imho. R Liboska (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JuTa, me again - finaly, the OTRS member rewieved the approval and put the "PermissionOTRS" banner on place. So I undid the bot's edit on Chemické listy pages (en and cs). Hope it is correct way, and no more obstructions will taint the future. Have a nice day. R Liboska (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Bilder Carlos Martinez Architekten

Hallo JuTa,

ich wollte nachfragen, warum die Bilder auf Carlos Martinez Architekten gelöscht wurden. Die Visualisierungen wurden vom Büro gefertigt. Bei den Bildern wurde immer der Credit der Fotografen angegeben. Zudem sind es die selben Bilder, die auf der Website offiiziell veröffentlicht sind. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.2.105.186 (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Und eben diese Fotografen müssten per mail eine sog. Freigabeerklärung an das Commons-Support-Team schicken, siehe dazu Commons:OTRS bzw. Commons:OTRS/de (auf deutsch). Gruß --Ju Ta 16:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Why that, you ask?

Because it uses the |2 parameter. Fine if it's a simple name like John, Mark, David, etc. But if the field is John Paul, Mark David, Paul Stephen, the category is red and looks like [[Category:Mark Stephen (given name)]]. Briefly, the template is no good for categorizing by first name automatically, unless you add a statement #ifexist. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you just have to create such categories - like i.e. Category:Anna Maria (given name). regards --Ju Ta 13:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong foto, wrong name

Hi Ju Ta könntest Du mir bitte helfen? I Ich habe dieses Foto File:Alte Siemensbahn Brücke .jpg hochgeladen. Aber es ist das falsche Foto und zeigt nicht die Brücke über die Spree sondern eine Überführung auf der Trasse entlang der Spree. So müsste/sollte der Titel des Fotos geändert oder das aktuelle Foto gelöscht werden.Was meinst du? Gruß --Kalima (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Kalima, bitte setze die Vorlage {{Rename}} mit den dort dokumentierten Paramtern auf die Bildbeschreibunsseite. Ein Benutzer mit den entsprechenden Rechten wird sich darum kümmern. Gruß --Ju Ta 19:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

USSR coins group renaming

Good eveninпg, Mr. JuTa! Can you rename the names of the folowing coins due to the standardization of the catalog USSR coins? The author of upload of these coins has given his consent to it (see dialog on Russian). If required, I will do the changes in the articles.

Vahe (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vahe, please place the template {{Rename}} with the documented parameters to the file description pages. A file mover will then take care of it. regards. --Ju Ta 22:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Mr. Juta. I can not understand why once rename files (1, 2, 3), and other times not be renamed (1, 2). Please, explain the reason for these dual approaches. Prethanks... Vahe (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vahe, you should ask this the people who renamed the files or declined your request. There is some room to interprete the guideline differently. --Ju Ta 17:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Both cases are absolutely identical to each other. Anyway, I will begin to upload images as new files, to avoid conflict. Vahe (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Krassotkin, plesae express your opinion. Vahe (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Such renaming is against our rules and practice. Please see Commons:File renaming#cite note-4 and Commons:File renaming#Which files should not be renamed?#2: "Commons is a multilingual project". --sasha (krassotkin) 07:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Can you rename ... has given his consent to it" - It does not matter, but the author did not give consent to rename there: w:uk:Обговорення користувача:Парус#Вечер добрый!. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

There is the opposite interpretation of the file renamers: [1]. I can't understand non-standard interpretation. Anyway, thanks for the position, I would do so as not to come into conflict with someone's interests.
P.S. Mr. JuTa, thank you for discussion platform. Vahe (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not empty

Category:May 2016 in Wagga Wagga wasn't empty, it had Category:May 2016 at Wagga Wagga Airport. The deletion has now broken the latter category template's category system. Bidgee (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee, I restored it, but it shows now up as empty as before. Something seems to be broken in the background. --Ju Ta 05:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi JuTa, thanks for undeleting. The category looks fine here, not empty. Bidgee (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Inbetween the same for me. Sonething was weird... --Ju Ta 03:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)a

Deleted File:Bracelet of human hair II.jpg

Hi, I understand that you have deleted the photo, as it - for some reason - does not have an OTRS permission. I have obviously forgotten to get one, but I cannot do anything about it now, as I do not remember which photo it was, and who the copyright holder was. How can I find this now that the file is deleted? Is it possible to restore it - once more - so I can fix this? I hope you can help. Kjersti L. 21:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it was likely File:Bracelet of human hair II.jpg. Source and author was Anna Sparr as designer and photografer. The description was

Norsk bokmål: Armbånd av menneskehår. Kunstner: Anna Sparr

. I allready restored the file in August last year for you and will not do it again. But through OTRS release process the file can be easily get restored if a valid release will appear from the copyright holder. regards. --Ju Ta 21:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I saw now that you had restored the photo in August, but I have no recollection of contacting you about that. I was not aware that one of my files did not have valid OTRS permission, but then I upload so many files, sometimes I forget. Obviously. I will try to find the file, and contact Anna Sparr. I am not sure how to do it, when the file is not there. For her it will be almost like giving me a blanco permission. Kjersti L. 21:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Lizenz angegeben

Zwei Fotos (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IMSC_Future-of-NATO_Zwez_5F3A1225.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IMSC_Future-of-NATO_Zwez_5F3A1225.jpg), die ich hochgeladen hatte, wurden von Dir zur Löschung vorgeschlagen. Diese und weitere von mir hochgeladene Fotos waren jedoch in der Mediathek der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz (https://www.securityconference.de/mediathek/munich-security-conference-2016/) unter einer Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Lizenz veröffentlich worden. Den Link zum englichen Impressum (https://www.securityconference.de/en/legal-advice/) des Veröffentlichers hatte ich bei Genehmigung gesetzt. Dort ist zu lesen: "Authorized Use: Photographs of the conference which are offered for download may be used free of charge, provided that the name of the photographer is indicated. The pictures are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany License".

Ist hier neben dem Link zum Impresseum eine weitere Bestätigung notwendig? Bei OTRS/Noticeboard#Dutch_check wurde ich auch erwähnt.--ManfredFX (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hallo ManfredFX, ich kann JuTas Löschvorschläge insofern verstehen, dass du bei den Bildern nämlich nicht die im Impressum genannte "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany License" angegeben hast, sondern Cc-by-sa-3.0. Das ist etwas anderes als {{Cc-by-3.0-de}}. Ich habe jetzt die tatsächlichen Lizenzen laut Impressum eingesetzt. De728631 (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallo ManfredFX, also ich seh auf der legal-advice Seite gar nichts mit CC, sondern: All proprietary and copyrights are reserved. Deswegen hatte ich die Bilder mit "no permission" gekennzeichnet. Gruß --Ju Ta 11:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Der relevante Abschnitt auf der legal-advice Seite ist direkt darunter, "Authorized Use". Dort werden die zum Download verfügbaren Bilder unter CC lizensiert. De728631 (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, OK. Ich hatte nach "CC" gesucht und nix gefunden. --Ju Ta 12:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Logo gelöscht

Hallo. Du hast File:ECB Company Logo.jpg gelöscht. Ich kann in diesem Logo nur Text und einfachste geometrische Formen erkennen, wie dies von Bild-LogoSH gefordert wird. Bitte erläutere mir die Löschung. --Siwibegewp (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mag sein, es war hier aber mit {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} hochgeladen. Was bedeutet dass der Urheberrechtsinhaber es unter dieser Lizenz veröffentlicht hat, was nicht der Fall ist. Du kannst versuchen es erneut hochzuladen, verwende aber diesmal {{PD-textlogo}} und {{Trademarked}}. Gruß --Ju Ta 19:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok, danke für den Hinweis. Done. --Siwibegewp (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

hätte man dies nicht einfach abändern können? Löschen, wiedereinstellen ist doch wesentlich umständlicher.--217.255.136.102 08:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Löschantrag Mützenich Wappen

Ich habe die datei erzeugt und hochgeladen. Dabei war ich mir unsicher, unter welcher lizenz das sein darf. Ich hab mich angelehnt an die vielen anderen ortswappen in wikipedia. Demnach ist

als quelle die webseite benannt, wo ich es "entdeckt" habe
es ist das ehemalige gemeindewappen, die in aller regel, zumindest in D, unter

This file depicts the coat of arms of a German Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law). According to § 5 Abs. 1 of the German Copyright law, official works like coats of arms are in the public domain. Note: The usage of coats of arms is governed by legal restrictions, independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here.

Wappen Deutschlands

eingebunden sind. Ich gehe davon aus, das diese lizenz auch dann noch zieht, wenn die gemeinde ihre selbstständigkeit verloren hat und dieses emblem allendhalben vielleicht nur noch in privaten gebrauch irgendwelcher vereinsseiten in einem gebrauch steht.--217.255.136.102 08:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Um welche Datei geht es denn (bitte verlinken) und meld' Dich doch bitte an (IPs können keine Dateien hochladen). Gruß --Ju Ta 08:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

du hast mich doch benachrichtigt auf meiner diskussionsseite? Auch angemeldete user sind gelegentlich unangemeldet unterwegs, angemeldet findest du mich unter dem bild im benutzerkasten. Albert Gr.

verlinken,ok ....hm... wie ging das noch mal? Das oben benannte bild findest du als link dann unter https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%BCtzenich,_wappen.jpg?uselang=de, aber auch das sollte dir nicht iunbekannt sein, ist ja erst wenige minuten her. Bist du im allgemeinen beruflich "erzieherisch" tätig? :-)) gruß --217.255.136.102 08:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

nachtrag: Ich sehe gerade dein leistungsvolumen. Kurze nacht gehabt, wauhhhh. Alle Achtung! Gruß Albert Gr.

Hallo Albert Gr., das war ein false posivite weil {{Remove this line and insert a license instead|year=2017|month=02|day=07}} auch drin war. Hab's jetzt gefixt. --Ju Ta 09:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ich weiß, ich hab das aus der unsicherheit heraus drinn gelassen. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.255.136.102 (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

hallo julia (?) → Jutta. Danke und alles gute für dich von albert Gr. ;-)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hi, where are you fromʔ Orbitalsinium (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Fortepan

A Fortepan egy on-line fotóarchívum, ahol minden kép Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensz alatt, szabadon felhasználható. Az oldal közel 5000 fotóját 30-40 ezer, főleg lomtalanításon talált, kidobott képből válogatta ki Szepessy Ákos és Tamási Miklós. A képek ingyenesen letölthetők és bárki által felhasználhatók.

http://fortepan.hu/?view=fortepan&lang=en&img=444 IN THE FORTEPAN COLLECTION YOU MAY BROWSE AND DOWNLOAD 78929 ARCHIVAL PHOTOS IN HIGH QUALITY. USING THE SLIDER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE YOU CAN START WATCHING THE PHOTOS AT ANY YEAR OF THE PAST CENTURY: IN AUTO POSITION THE SHOW WILL BE AUTOMATIC WHILE IN MANUAL YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON THE ARROW IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER OR USE THE ARROWS OF THE KEYBOARD TO SEE THE PHOTOS ONE BY ONE. BY CLICKING ON THE NAME OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, YOU MAY SELECT THAT PERSON’S COLLECTION. TO READ THE BACKGROUND DATA (IF THERE EXISTS ANY), CLICK ON THE LETTER I IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER OF THE PHOTO, OR HIT THE I KEY. AS FORTEPAN CONTINUOUSLY EXPANDS, IT WELCOMES DONATIONS OF NEW PRIVATE OR AMATEUR PHOTOS FROM THE PAST. PICTURES ON THE FORTEPAN WEBSITE CAN BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY CREDITED FOTO: FORTEPAN / XY (NAME OF DONOR).

FORTEPAN was founded by Ákos Szepessy and Miklós Tamási in the fall 2010. It got its name from the Forte factory in Vác, Hungary: Forte was the widest spread and most popular negative film after World War II. The on-line archive first consisted of the photo collections of the two founders. The majority of the 5000 scanned pictures came from 20 years of scavenging household junk for albums and film negatives. The founders had a dual goal with presenting and sharing their findings. On the one hand they wanted draw attention to the legacy of (mainly unknown) amateur photographers. As opposed to official press photos, these pictures show another Hungary, denying or supplementing the perception that only public events took place in the 20th century: inaugurated, signed, arrested, welcomed, buried. In FORTEPAN the world consists of holidays, every day and celebratory events, travels, portraits, children and homes. On the other hand they wanted to put these historical photos in public domain. In contrast to the (often necessary) practice of public collections demanding publication of copyright fee, FORTEPAN photos are free of charge. As soon as almost right after the launch of the website, it turned out that our goals are endorsed by many. The first donors came to offer “the public” their old albums or own photos, changing the website from including only photographs of unknown authors into a repository with family collections too. --Dencey (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dencey, please link on the file description pages to a fortepan page where whis can be read. --Ju Ta 13:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

uhhh :((((((

http://fortepan.hu/?view=fortepan&lang=en&img=444

http://fortepan.hu/?view=fortepan&lang=en&img=444 http://fortepan.hu/?view=fortepan&lang=en&img=444 --Dencey (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

On the file description pages, not here please. --Ju Ta 13:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.fortepan.hu/?tags=&x=0&y=0&view=query&lang=en&q=Bakos+Ilona+%C3%A9s+Pataki+%C3%81gi+man%C3%B6kenek.

--Dencey (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.fortepan.hu/?tags=&view=query&lang=en&q=HAL%C3%81SZB%C3%81STYA+Pataki+%C3%81gi+man%C3%B6ken.&x=14&y=8--Dencey (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:IMO 6508195

2016-04-20T16:45:55 JuTa (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:IMO 6508195 (Empty category: content was: "{{IMO|6508195}} IMO number : 6508195
Name of ship : TARA (since 01/01/2005)
Call Sign : UNKNOWN
Gross tonnage : 21100 (before 1994)
DWT : 6000
Type of ship : Passeng...)

Hi JuTa, Du hast Main Category deleted bzw. gelöscht, wo soll ich nun den restlichen Text suchen? Was soll das heissen? Gruss,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, ich hab' die alten Versionen wiederhergestellt und zurückgesetzt. Gruß --Ju Ta 12:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, besten Dank!--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

About deleted images by you on Game Market

こんにちわ。今日、あなたがmissing permissionとして削除されたFile:Gamemarket_2014_autumn.jpgとFile:Gamemarket-2015-autumn.jpgの2枚の画像ですが、2017年2月10日に、このイベントの主催者[2]へ連絡を取りました。「画像内のキャラクターは自由な使用が可能である」「ウェブサイトへのライセンス表記は今後取り組んでいく」という返答で、permissions-ja@wikimedia.orgへ連絡を取ったということでした。したがって、条件が整えば、削除された画像が復帰できることをお伝えします。よろしくお願いします。

Hello. Today, there are two images of File: Gamemarket_2014_autumn.jpg and File:Gamemarket-2015-autumn.jpg you were deleted as missing permission,On February 10, 2017, I contacted the organizer of this event [3]. Characters in the image can be used freely " and " In response to the license notation on the website will be addressed in the future ", The organizer said that he contacted permissions-ja@wikimedia.org. Therefore, we will inform you that if the conditions are satisfied, the deleted image can be restored. Best regards. --Focus35mm (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please ask on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard for your case. If there is a release arrived and if it valid or not. But please be aware: There are 2 copyrights in this case. One for the photgraph itself and one for the depicted poster/advertisement. --Ju Ta 12:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted images

Hi! Is it possible to restore deleted images? Recently I sent a mail to permissions-ru@wikimedia.org in order get an OTRS permission, but Wikimedia was unavailable for a few days so I couldn't add "OTRS pending" template to the image description, and all my images were deleted. Or should I upload them and sent a mail with permission once again? Thanks in advance! WrighterLafa (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, which images exactly you are talking about? Please name and link them here. --Ju Ta 08:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday I got a permission from OTRS team to publish pics, as I provided them a permission from the image owners.

Hi WrighterLafa, I restored the files. But for most there is a license template completly missing:

you should add the correspondig license temaplate of the copyright holders choice add to the file description pages. Otherwise they will get deleted again in about a week. In General: If they get a proper confirmation of the release by OTRS stuff (and a license), everthing is fine. If not, they will get deleted latest in about 2 months. regards. --Ju Ta 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! WrighterLafa (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Kategorie

Hallo JuTa, kannst du bitte Category:Natural monuments in Landkreis Wittmund wiederherstellen? Holger1959 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Ju Ta 22:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Why was my picture deleted?

Hello, this is regarding File:Makoto Sakurai in front of Akihabara Station.jpg that you deleted from Makoto Sakurai (activist) using a bot. I was wondering what you mean by "no license (since...)". I have taken the picture myself and I was the one who uploaded it. Don't I have all the rights? --Minfremi (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Minfremi, you forgot to add a valid license template to the image description page like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} or similar. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags. Feel free to reupload the image, but please use the license template of your choice this time. regards. --Ju Ta 22:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Mehrheitssprachen GR 2000.jpg

File:Mehrheitssprachen GR 2000.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

sidonius (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Mehrheitssprachen GR 1860.jpg

File:Mehrheitssprachen GR 1860.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

sidonius (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Aperostoma

Aperostoma has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallo

Hallo JuTa. I noticed you making corrections to my edits and aprreciate your work. Maybe I never found time to stop and say thanks, therefore I do it now: Danke schön. Indeed when I looked at your page and saw that you were also a bureaucrat I had thought of not disturbing you for anything less than complaining about the (IMHO) "not correct" attitudes of some admins, but alas, I decided to leave them to God. Or "Gott" for ease of comprehension. Let me take advantage of the occasion/visit to ask you advice or help for something that disturbs me (less :). Look at File:Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ 2009.jpg A "user" comes and "updates the image" to another photo! This means we cannot use the previous photo... Is this really "updating" an image? I thought that was cropping or cleaning an image from unwanted details etc; and not replacing a person's face picture with a new, whole body photograph. What if I like the previous pic more and want to use it? Who has a right to take it out of use? I have noticed that this is not the first time something like this happens but this time it really annoyed me. Is there a way to reactivate the previous picture, or even to "prohibit" this kind of "updates"? Why don't they simply not "upload" a new picture instead of telling us "we updated it"? Is it free to lie here? Sorry for my anger; of course it has nothing to do with you. Thank you very much again for all your good work. Auf wiedersehen. --E4024 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted for lacking source

Moved and section title added—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am new to Wikiversity, so I apologize in advance if I am misunderstanding how things work. I am a college professor teaching a seminar course where students are learning to read and interpret primary scientific articles. As a way of helping them convey their understanding, one of the assignments is to create a graphical abstract of the article they have read. I have emphasized that the graphical abstract must be entirely created by them (they may only use graphics they have created themselves or that are found in Wikimedia Commons, and any text must be their own). My coworker and I created an example of such a graphical abstract and posted it on the course Wikiversity page (Seminar in Biological Mechanisms of Aging and Cancer/Journal Club), but it was removed. The history item says "it has been deleted from Commons by JuTa because: No source since 8 February 2017." Can you explain what we need to do to correctly cite the source in the Commons so that we can be allowed to use this image that we created ourselves? Thank you! --Jlevinegoucher (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Hemerocampa

Hemerocampa has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Maria_in_heraldry

Maria in heraldry has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:December 1929 photographs

why did you delete this category?

Lx 121 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Number 8024 on vehicles

Pls restore. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Basik07

I am not often on commons, and I don't have now time to look on my pictures send to commons, if You find any of them without proper licence, please correct it. Thank You very much, for Your work and concern. Basik07 (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Borrado de la imagen Encabezado_de_evento.jpg

Estimado JuTa, creé un afiche basado en una imagen de mi autoría que usamos para ilustrar un evento en 2015, no entiendo porqué el archivo fue borrado. La imagen era:Encabezado_de_evento.jpg ahora la busqué para compartirla y no está más en Commons. Saludos # Caleidoscopic (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

Wiederherstellung

Hallo JuTa, kannst du das wiederherstellen bitte? Holger1959 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Protected landscape areas in Landkreis Waldshut

File:2007-FIFA-Sponsors.PNG

File:2007-FIFA-Sponsors.PNG 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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Undo revision

Dear JuTa,

I undid your change in File:MSR Brassard celtique 25044.jpg as user Christelle Molinié is organising the media files uploaded during a Wikimedia France event. I know that the category you removed from the file is still nonexistent, but it shouldn't last long: it's used to organise the files of the museum. Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 14:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I restored the cat and marked it as uncategorized. --Ju Ta 14:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Zemun Polje railway station

[4], [5] Can you delete old version these pictures? --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? --Ju Ta 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Error in pictures. --Kolega2357 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

They are good enough to get kept in my eyes. Maybe you ask another admin? Cheers. --Ju Ta 01:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

File:William Orpen-Ready to Start-1917.jpg

Hello JuTa,

Thank you for telling me. No problem, I took this picture in Metz in 2012.

Ji-Elle (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

But you didn't painted the painting, I fixed the source now - see here. regards. --Ju Ta 07:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

File: PSB.jpeg

Hello JuTa, sorry, I do not understand all the licence requerements. You deleted file PBS-velky-znak.gif as it might violate some user rights. The file contains emblem of recently consecrated Alt Catholic bishop for Czech republic. I have the the emblem directly from the bishop and it is available for public use. How should I label the licence to make sure it is not deleted again? Thank you Harald_cz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald cz (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, File:PBS-velky-znak.gif wasnt deleted by me, but it was missing any license information. Any image on commons needs a valid license template within its description (see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags). As you didn't ceated it yourself, you have to find a valid license template within Commons:Copyright tags, if there is any. Similar File:PBS.jpeg, which is lacking any license template too. According your decription the photo was shot by Lucie Kodišová. You have to ask her or her heirs if she is willing to publish the image under a free license ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommended). If she agrees she has to send an email to the commons support team - see Commons:OTRS. In this case you better add the license template of her choice and add an {{subst:OP}} to the decription of the file. This will prevent the deletion for about a month or until the case will be decided by OTRS stuff as valid or invalid. regards. --Ju Ta 16:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

De quel droit effacez-vous les contributions des autres?

De quel droit effacez-vous les contributions des autres? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.144.154.30 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sword Dienthoaiquangcao72 (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Siord Dienthoaiquangcao72 (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The image wa unlikely created by yourself, but copied from any other internet pages. This means you dont own the copyright of it and have no right to publish under a free license. This applies to many of your other uploads as well. cheers --Ju Ta 12:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sony

Sport Dienthoaiquangcao72 (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Спартак Плевен

Category:Спартак Плевен is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD G8 (page dependent on deleted or non-existent content)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

R'n'B (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Unanswered question about deleted image

Hello JuTa -- As far as I can tell, you never replied to my inquiry, dated Feb. 25, 2017 about why you deleted an image I had put in my learning project "Seminar in Mechanisms of Aging and Cancer." I would truly appreciate your explanation. Thanks! Jlevinegoucher (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was ill from Feb. till May. I cannot find any deleted edits or uploads from you. Please tell me about which image(s) you are talking about. --Ju Ta 22:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Attribution}} vs {{MIT}} license

Hi JuTa. I'm not sure I agree with your addition of {{Attribution}} in this edit, since the license specifically excludes some uses that {{Attribution}} would seem to allow, namely that the name of the author not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. Perhaps we need a new version of the {{MIT}} template, but I do not think {{Attribution}} works. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. But without a license template it will get marked again and again as Category:Media without a license: needs history check. --Ju Ta 12:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Code issues in User:JuTa/monobook.css

Hi JuTa, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:JuTa/monobook.css. Glad to see you coding in css! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new prettyCss issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in css writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

WARNING: invalid-value: line 3 char number 48 - Evidence: EEEEEE

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 11:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC).

Stop

Please stop inappropriately tagging my images for speedy deletion. None of them are copyright infringement as I properly attributed the source which they came from. If you noticed the value of the "source" field, it is the same URL as the URL you provided in the deletion notice. Mr. Seth (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see my comments on your talk page. --Ju Ta 23:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No licence since as minor edit

In Special:Diff/244018284 you tagged an image with "no licence since". I think there are two issues: 1) You marked your edit as minor, which might have hidden the edit for me. How am I supposed to add information when not notified about the problem? 2) There was a link to the licence statement in the Permission field and I further quoted the licence and suggested the photo may in fact be PD. I'd suppose some kind of comment when an image is tagged in spite of such information. --LPfi (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 1) its normal to inform the uploader, which I did. But thx for the hint, I consider to change my preferences. 2) Every image on commonns needs a valid license template transcluded to the file description, which was not the case here. I regularly check images with the template {{Remove this line and insert a license instead}} and mark (most of) them as having no license. There are normaly more than 100 per check for me. Another user fixed that image inbetween (see here) - so the oase seems to be fixed. Thx to User:Esquilo. regards. --Ju Ta 00:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case I was not the uploader, but the uploder had asked for advice on sv-wp, so it was on my watchlist. I suppose such cases are not uncommon. The other issue is harder. There is no licence template matching the actual licence statement (which might not have been good enough, but that is not the point here). The template gives the impression that there is no licence, while the problem is the lack of a template. It is confusing for non-seasoned uploaders. I understand that you do not want to create the template, but the uploader would neither. And some admins just delete the images after the 7 days. We need a better mechanism. --LPfi (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't delete FSPS photos

Can you please hold off on deleting the FSPS photos? As per the discussion that's ongoing at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Donated_CC-BY-SA_photos_to_be_deleted.3F. They'll just have to be undeleted anyway. Thanks. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

When the OTRS period of currently 56 + 7 days is over, I'll delete them. But I don't expect there are any more. --Ju Ta 04:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

But why not just wait? They've been here for years, and need to remain only a little while longer while I get then all downloaded. :-( — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you need them for a local download, I can temp. restore them. PS: There were not here since year. The 2 I deleted tonite were uploaded in January with a {{OTRS pending}} which were well over OTRS grace period sometimes in March. regards. --Ju Ta 04:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The real life issue of clarifying or confirming some things will need to be delayed, please understand that and allow some sort of time off having to even discuss this matter - thanks for your understanding JarrahTree (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

While I understand your reasoning, I do think this could've been handled better. Rather than deleting and saying "we'll do a temporary restore", why not allow them to be downloaded (as I can see issues of locating deleted FSPS photographs later on, even with the logs) and documented. Clearly someone at OTRS has failed to allow this to happen, when it should've been raised/addressed long ago and not now. Bidgee (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, ok, I restored the and manipulated the date of OTRS pending, to give them another about 14 days to clarify the case. See File:FSPS Arundel Street, Nos 10-12, 14-3-C, 1978.png and File:FSPS Arundel Street, Nos 9-7, 14-1-D.png. regards. --Ju Ta 08:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting them. Hopefully the OTRS issue can be sorted out. Bidgee (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! See also my reply at COM:AN. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately it has become clear in the meantime that FS never became the copyright holder of these pictures. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Files

File:Azerbaijani soldiers in Karabakh.jpg File:Азербайджанский_артиллерист_в_Карабахе.jpg

Please restore these files. The source is Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti Ensiklopediyası. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The source given in the file descriptions was public domain, which is in fact no source. And what is Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti Ensiklopediyası? Is it a printed book or w webpage. In first case we would need a ISBN number in second case a deeplink to the page where the images are shown and a deep link to the license they are published under. regards. --Ju Ta 01:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't understand what do you need. If you ask about licence - photographs was made in 1920, so it's public domain. If you want the reassertment that the description of photo is historically correct I will provide you with that source. p. 131-132. John Francis Templeson (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the source is the place where you got the images from. You got them from the "public domain" is a bit vague. Thats compatible with I got the from anywhere in the world. But the link you provided here is a valid source. So I restored them and corrected the source and license (the {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is not a valid license in this case. Thats used for recent works where the creator is known, because it reuires to name the creator.) See here and here. --Ju Ta 20:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Swedish spelling

There are thousands of words on Commons with Swedish letters å, ä and ö as well as German letter ü and Danish-Norwegian special letters. Are you saying that all of those thousands of names are sorting wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. If you look i.e. at Category:18th-century portrait paintings at half length the Category:Äbtegalerie (Marienkapelle Isny) is sorted at "Ä" (behind "Z") and not under "A". --Ju Ta 00:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is correct in in Swedish, å, ä, ö last. If we are to have strict English sorting on Commons, which I could support, then you are right. Problem is, in the case we disagreed about, that "Gasterfalt" comes out almost insulting as a Swedish name (like "the case of someone screaming"). We should have English sorting (å & ä under a, & ö under o) but be able to leave the umlaut markings, for the sake of feasible pronunciation in the original languages. And we should establish English, in general, as the preferred language at Wikimedia Commons. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should have or get to english sorting. And its only visible in the source code. So that a normal reader will never see it. regards. --Ju Ta 13:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Aldo maldera(1).png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Aldo maldera(1).png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ju Ta 01:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

They were all already imported into Italian wikipedia and they all come up as "Labelled for reuse with modification" under a google search, so they are all fine thanks. --Rcclh (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rcclh, then please add the corresponding license templates to the description pages like {{PD-Italy}}{{PD-1996|Italia|1 gennaio 1996}} and similar. Otherwise the files will likely get deleted in about a week. regards. --Ju Ta 12:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would you want to delete them when i have said they are legal? Go on to Italian wikipedia if you don't believe me. It's clear they are fine to use so just leave it be --Rcclh (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The uploader is responsible to provide valid license information. If you wanna keep the files, you should take the time to add the corresponding license templates to the commons description files. See also Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags. --Ju Ta 20:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rcclh. I saw you removed the problem tags without realy fixing the problem. Dont do that again please. That could lead to a block. Because of that I now checked every single image and corrected the description pages. I took more than an hour for that. (As said above its normaly your task) Please look at the history of the images to view what I changed and try to do so yourself next time. --Ju Ta 21:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much more positive. I will certainly strive to put these tags in as you have done with subsequent uploads now i know what they are, sorry to have taken up your time. --Rcclh (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello JuTa, 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)

Stop

Same here, stop deleting randomly for NO REASON! You deleted my photo for NO REASON, you didn't even write the reason! Plus my image is perfectly ok, as it comes from Aviation Week Magazine. This image is given to Aviation Week by Boeing Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimitz Zhang (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nimitz Zhang, you have plenty of notofications on your talk page about problems with your uploads. Please read them and the corresponding links - i.e. Commons:Licensing. In short your uploads were simply copyright violations, because you copied images from other websites where they are protected by copyright. regards --Ju Ta 15:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk:JuTa/Archive 37

speedy deletion requests

Hello!

Re: File:Boér Elek 1872-1952.jpg, File:Csúri Károly.jpg

Wrong category

I have permission.

Men by name

Deletion warnings on my user talk page

Chemické listy journal cover page image

Bilder Carlos Martinez Architekten

Why that, you ask?

Wrong foto, wrong name

USSR coins group renaming

Not empty

Deleted File:Bracelet of human hair II.jpg

Lizenz angegeben

Logo gelöscht

Löschantrag Mützenich Wappen

A barnstar for you!

Fortepan

Category:IMO 6508195

About deleted images by you on Game Market

Deleted images

Kategorie

Why was my picture deleted?

Hallo

Deleted for lacking source

Category:December 1929 photographs

Basik07

Borrado de la imagen Encabezado_de_evento.jpg

Wiederherstellung

Undo revision

Zemun Polje railway station

File: PSB.jpeg

De quel droit effacez-vous les contributions des autres?

Sony

Unanswered question about deleted image

{{Attribution}} vs {{MIT}} license

Code issues in User:JuTa/monobook.css

Stop

No licence since as minor edit

Please don't delete FSPS photos

Deleted Files

Swedish spelling

Copyright status: File:Aldo maldera(1).png

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Stop

Navigation menu

Search