User talk:Stefan2/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Hvor diskuterer man Wikitravel henne nu?

Det ser ud til at man ikke kan rette diskussionssider på wts mere og shared synes at være ret død. Så hvor diskuterer man henne nu? Jeg tænker hvor mange ser fx denne diskussion? --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vet inte. På Wts kan man redigera sidor i fil- och kategorinamnrymderna, så det föreslogs på voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub att man skulle flytta "Travellers' pub" och "Votes for deletion" till kategorinamnrymden. Det har varit några diskussioner på just voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub, men jag vet inte om det är den bästa platsen för sådant. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smart løsning :-) Kunne du lokkes til at kigge på http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Category:Images_by_Bbb i 5 minutter inden jeg flytter filerne? --MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jag ska titta på kategorin. En annan sak: om du flyttar filer från Shared ska du akta dig för filer som laddats upp av User:ImportBot. Dessa filer har kopierats från Wikitravel Shared och finns oftast både på Wikivoyage Shared och Wts. Det är bättre att kopiera dessa filer från Wts istället eftersom du då får en bättre {{Original upload log}}. Dessutom ska du inte kopiera samma fil mer än en gång. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Det er samme script so upload log burde blive ens uanset om jeg kopierer fra wts eller shared. Jeg tænkte på at flytte de fleste filer fra shared (dvs. de brugere med mange "own work" uploads) og så lade min bot markere filer på wts med "NowCommons" og så kopiere resten derfra. --MGA73 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problemet med filer uppladdade av User:ImportBot är att {{Original upload log}} får fel användarnamn, datum och uppladdningskommentar. Jämför [1] med [2]. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Titta på skidsymbolerna här. Finns det andra bilder på Commons som man hellre ska använda istället? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diskussionssida: [3]. Jag har tittat på vissa filer och alla verkar vara foton tagna av Bbb, men det var för många filer för att titta på alla. Jag har tittat på filnamn och tumnaglar och de ser säkra ut, så de kan nog flyttas till Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tak for hjælpen!
Ja det er rigtigt at importbot giver problemer. Derfor vil jeg også helst starte med at flytte de rigtige filer direkte fra kilden og så gemme de besværlige til sidst.
Ja vi har nok nogle bedre symboler et sted. Men så længe det ikke er copyvios og "kun" er under 10 filer så lever jeg fint med at der bliver kopieret lidt overflødige filer :-)
Personligt tror jeg at vi på et tidspunkt kan få problemer med FOP og statuer men det er trods alt ret få filer ud af de 2.000+ filer. --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, diskussionen på COM:VP kan leda till stora ändringar av COM:FOP. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Men jeg tænker at "Fair use bot" kan kopiere billederne til de wikier hvor man bruger de pågældende filer. Så hvis det bliver aktuelt så skulle det ikke blive det store arbejde. --MGA73 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, den roboten skulle kunna kopiera bilder. Jag har för övrigt kopierat [4] till voy:User:Stefan2/copy from Wikipedia eftersom den gamla sidan inte längre kan ändras. Nu behöver bara länkarna ändras så att de pekar på rätt projekt. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tid til en drastisk løsning?

Som du har bemærket er der flere brugere, der kopierer filer til Commons uden en original uploadlog. Jeg tænkte derfor på om det var bedre blot at kopiere alle filer med {{Move}} til Commons og så tjekke og rydde op der?

Det vil givet give et par hundrede copyvios men til gengæld vil vi få fixet næsten alle røde links hurtigt og vi vil minimere antallet af filer uden original upload log. --MGA73 (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Det kanske skulle vara bättre. Jag är bekymrad över antalet filer som laddas upp utan {{Original upload log}}; det kommer att ta jättelång tid att rätta till dem. Det skulle säkert gå mycket snabbare att helt enkelt radera alla filerna och sedan föra över filerna på nytt. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Har nu stillet forslaget på Commons_talk:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force#Time_for_a_new_solution.3F. --MGA73 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jag har för övrigt ett annat problem... Min robot säger "Pausing 300 seconds due to database server lag" hela tiden och vägrar göra några ändringar. Av den anledningen har jag inte kunnat uppdatera några filnamn på hela kvällen, vilket är väldigt irriterande. Din robot verkar dock fungera som vanligt, åtminstone på Commons. Vet du vad det kan bero på? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeg har også haft store problemer. Har nu taget min konto på toolserver i brug og det giver en noget bedre forbindelse ser det ud til. --MGA73 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nogle forslag til hvad der bør flyttes som det næste? --MGA73 (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tror du att kartor går att flytta? [5] till exempel? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dessa bör nog inkluderas i Category:Travel maps from Wikivoyage WTS to check om du försöker flytta dem. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ja lad os bare prøve... Har lige sat botten til at flytte filer fra WTS - wil lige se om det går godt før jeg kaster mig over filer fra en masse forskellige uploadere på en gang.
Har i øvrigt fået en liste fra shared og ifølge den er der 3.321 filer uploadet af Gobbler og 1.115 af Airin. Det ser dog også ud til at Bgabel, Unger, Bbb og DerFussi har uploaded mange flere filer end der er i deres kategorier. Måske filer fra fx Flickr. Det værste er dog 2.278 filer uploaded af ImportBot. --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ImportBot-filerna finns oftast även på Wts fast med korrekt historik på Wts. Dessa bör importeras från Wts istället. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Det är för övrigt opraktiskt att Special:ListFiles inte fungerar på Shared. Det är annars ett praktiskt sätt att leta efter filer från olika användare. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hej! Du har på et tidspunkt fundet en masse filer, der kom fra Wikipedia eller Commons. Jeg har lavet en kategori her med filer uploaded af Gobbler som muligvis kommer fra Wikipedia eller Commons. Hvorfor kom de ikke ud på dine lister? --MGA73 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jag sökte bara efter filer på Wts. Det är förmodligen nödvändigt att även söka efter filer på Shared och olika språkversioner, men det tänkte jag inte på. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nåe ja :-) Ja jeg spekulerede ikke på om det var wts eller shared. --MGA73 (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jag har börjat titta på den där kategorin nu. Du kanske kan hjälpa till med voy:User:Stefan2/copy from Wikipedia? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeg kigger på det senere... Så lige denne - der er faktisk en kategori med billeder fra Wikipedia og Commons på shared. --MGA73 (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jag har även skapat voy:User:Stefan2/copied from Wikipedia för filer som flyttats från Wikipedia till Commons utan att ange filnamn på Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alla filer i http://www.wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Category:Images_by_Gobbler_-_Wikipedia_or_Commons har nu kontrollerats. Ett fåtal ska flyttas till Commons. Många har fått NowCommons eller Ignore. Väldigt många behöver flyttas från Wikipedia till Commons, se voy:User:Stefan2/copied from Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved some of them yesterday (?). I also moved http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:BSBatTwilight.jpg but without an original upload log. There was HTML in the file so I had to do edit to get the file uploaded. --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to where I got the photo

Main gallery: File:Parol, Philippines.jpg.

I downloaded and uploaded the photos from WikiTravel. The license posted on its page was CC-BY-SA 3.0. Since it was my original source, I had no reason to suspect that the uploader in Wikitravel uploaded it under a different license term from their source. So you found out that the everyphoto source was CC-BY... and the point is? I didn't exactly download this from everyphoto did I? The source I gave was WikiTravel, and the license there, as far as I know was CC-BY-SA 3.0.

You have yet to prove that any of the pictures I've uploaded were unfree. The only thing you've successfully done is claim that they aren't due to the original source of WikiTravel apparently having expired. And apparently that's enough to assume that WikiTravel thus lied about it, and then blaming me as if I had somehow anything to do with them.

Commons:AGF. If you found something I missed in the pictures I uploaded, don't assume that I did it because I had this nefarious scheme of adding copyrighted images. Of the thousands of pictures I've contributed here, from those free ones painstakingly gathered from the internet, to the PD-Old ones I cut out and cleaned from 19th century journals, to the 3d renders and other illustrations I've created myself, I would have thought that by now I would deserve to be treated with at least the respect of not being templated like a common vandal. --Obsidi♠nSoul 22:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but if you copy a file from a different website, such as Wikitravel or Wikipedia, you first need to check that the licence on the other website is correct. A lot of files on other websites list a wrong licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it's not our responsibility to trace a photo right back to where it was originally from. See COMMONS:SOURCE, and note that I complied with all of the requirements there by giving the site where I got it from (WikiTravel) along with the licensing information there. There is nothing in the rules that requires me to go beyond that. If it was posted as a freely license file in another site, unless there is reason to assume that that site is notorious for copyright infringement, you don't go hunting down the original owner of the file just so you can truly find out if it was free or not. That's paranoia, and in almost all cases, you're just wasting your time.
You, yourself, haven't found any actual proof that any of the files I got from there are unfree. You only succeeded in getting two files deleted because you couldn't anymore access the source files of my sources. Which is ridiculous in itself. Do you also go around deleting files on Commons because the pages they were originally from have expired? If that happens, virtually all the files present now would have to be deleted in a few years, as websites generally only last that long.
And why are you equating Wikipedia with WikiTravel? Wikipedia is under WMF, so we're obligated to check the licenses if we're moving files from there as it's under our responsibility. WikiTravel, despite having "Wiki" in its name, is a completely different site. I assume they already have their own personnel for checking their uploaded files, so it is not our responsibility.
You're free to check the source of the source of my sources ad inifinitum, if you're really that fanatical, but don't blame me for something another person in another site did. As I've mentioned earlier, I'm a volunteer like you. I do not do this for any personal reward. I have zero reasons to willingly violate our copyright rules. I resent being treated like a criminal and I resent being templated (wrongly I might add) like a noob. Stop it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do.--Obsidi♠nSoul 18:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And please don't post unnecessary talkbacks on my talk page. I watchlist all pages I've contributed to.--Obsidi♠nSoul 18:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, but Wikitravel says that the image doesn't come from Wikitravel but from Everystockphoto. In this case, the source you should list is not Wikitravel but Everystockphoto. Also, if you copy an image from an external website, please also tag the page with {{Licensereview}} so that a licence reviewer verifies the licence. Otherwise, files are normally deleted if the original source goes offline because there's no longer a way to verify the licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't get it from Everystockphoto, did I? I got it from WikiTravel. Why should I list a site I didn't even visit, nor the site I got the picture from? If the New York Times publishes a photo and then puts a CC-BY or whatever notice next to it, along with the name of the photographer, would you also refuse to believe NYT and hunt down the photographer so you can confirm that it is indeed CC-BY? Again, WikiTravel has given no indication that I should distrust it. Indeed the only mistake you found from them is a CC-BY getting uploaded by them as a CC-BY-SA. That's not even really a copyright violation as a CC-BY-SA complies with a CC-BY. And all of this shit over a photo that's quite easily replaceable, which I just snapped up because it was there and seemed to be a good addition to Commons. As I said earlier, delete it if you want to. Correct any errors if you have to. Anything else is just deliberately provoking me, and I'm fed up already as it is on Commons copyright paranoia. --Obsidi♠nSoul 23:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it's fairly easy to check Wikitravel's source (just click on the link to Everystockphoto), so I see no reason not to check that source. In other cases, checking the original source may be more difficult. For example, the source may be listed as a book which might not be easily accessible, and then we may have to trust a website claim, unless someone is able to locate the book to confirm. However, I see no reason not to mention the original source if it is known to us, even if it might not always be trivial to check that source. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian, your outrage is unfounded. And further comments like this one are not appreciated. I know that copyright is sometimes really hard and especially when applying copyright of 2 or more country's laws like we do at Commons, it's getting crazy. Nevertheless you could stay polite.

As for the "templating", we unfortunately do not have always time to check each uploader's contributions. You work is appreciated; think about the templates like notifications; no one spoke about a vandal nor intends to block you. You can read and discard the messages (a polite reply [like this user] would of course be excellent) or gather arguments against a deletion request or fix a license so it is more permissive like the source indicates.

Why cc-by-sa instead of cc-by is not superior?

  1. Though, you can incorporate a cc-by-work into a cc-by-sa-work, this would actually need a derivative work.
  2. The uploader wishes to publish their works under cc-by.
  3. A re-user has more freedom with a cc-by work when creating derivative works.

Why is the original source useful? Because it helps one

  1. to find more similar photos
  2. upload the photo in full resolution (One is encouraged to always upload the largest resolution if this makes sense)
  3. to contact the photographer
  4. when doing investigations.

If this is not properly reflected in at least one of our policy pages, we should include these considerations. What are your thoughts? Thanks for your contributions to Wikimedia Commons. I wish you a wonderful Yuletide. Kind regards -- Rillke(q?) 16:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, templating has another very useful feature: templates provide automatic translations into many languages. Some users only speak Russian and some users only speak Chinese. Sometimes, I don't know what languages a user speaks, and I might not speak the same languages. However, thanks to the automatic template translation, the user can still read the message. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stefan2bot is changing images wrong - stop this pls

Hi Stefan, your bot stefan2bot is seemingly changing images at wikivoyage wrong. See here, here and here for the discussion. Could you stop/improve this, please? --Pilettes (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first case, the bot changed "Maubisse Pousada2.jpg" into "Maubisse pousada.jpg". According to this page and File:Maubisse pousada.jpg, any use of File:Maubisse_Pousada2.jpg is to be replaced by File:Maubisse pousada.jpg because the former name on the shared project corresponds to the latter name on Commons. This is exactly what my bot did. In the other case, the change was also correct: the NowCommons template tells that File:Pousada_de_Baucau.jpg should be replaced by File:Poussada de Baucau.jpg. The problem is that some people are apparently changing file links manually without checking whether there are conflicting files on the shared image project. These careless image replacements by other users need to stop: if people can't check whether there's a name conflict on the shared project, then they shouldn't replace file names since they will just introduce errors. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Stadion Wroclaw 18.11.11 (7).jpg

I was only uploading this picture on behalf of one forumer who found commons too complicated. All permissions stuff should be handled by him and author and should already be sent to OTRS. Do you have access to it and can check? If you can see all my pictures related to Euro 2012, they got OTRS stamps (from other authors that "alsen strasse 67"). I had to push for them as often e-mail to OTRS was not handled by OTRS. If you don't find it in OTRS, pls feel free to delete, I have no energy to dig so long in the past. Kotasik (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never remove sections added to a discussion page by other users! Do you want me to remove this section too? --Stefan4 (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not know how I did it. It wasn't my intention. What about checking OTRS? I believe the permission was sent +- few days after I uploaded the photo. Kotasik (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only OTRS members can check that. Try asking at COM:OTRS/N. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:葛城岩橋図(『河内名所図会』).jpgでの、著作権表示記入への御礼

Stefan4様、はじめまして。私は、吉田と申します。この度は、File:葛城岩橋図(『河内名所図会』).jpgで、著作権表示の件で御助力をしてくださり、ありがとうございました。本当になんといって、お礼申し上げればよいかわかりませんが、助けていただいて、本当に助かっております。今後もまた、ご迷惑をおかけするかもしれませんが、その際は、またよろしくお願い申し上げます。--吉田宅浪 (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ミスを修正しました。連続で投稿してすみません。--吉田宅浪 (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OgreBot and wts.wikivoyage/shared

Have you been reviewing /shared? Is it doing alright without the help of oldver? If not, I can try to cook something up. I think I'll have a day off this week (yes, really!). However, I only want to do it if it's really advantageous, i.e., there will be many images (probably 20 or more). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I've not done much work at Shared lately; I've been doing more work at WTS. I don't know how many files there are with multiple files in history at Shared. Maybe there are so few of them that it would be OK to upload them manually. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a lot of files with multiple versions when reviewing this category. The old Mediawiki version has also caused trouble to MGA73 and me when we have tried to modify pages using our bots. For example, the website's api.php doesn't support action=edit. I don't know how much you would need to change to oldver.php to make it compatible. Some Pywikipedia functions work, some don't. Although you wrote that Peachy formally requires Mediawiki 1.15, I suspect that some parts of it might work anyway, although other parts of it probably don't work. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peachy is designed to fail on startup upon seeing MW < 1.15. I will have to hardcode wikivoyage-shared in such that it ignores the MW version, and possibly add in some code to figure out the parameters it normally gets from the API. It will be difficult, but I can try. However, I cannot promise it will be in the next few days, because I have work. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; I had an hour and a half tonight, and I've slapped something together. It has bugs in formatting, etc., but much like an old beat up car, you still end up where you want to be when you're done with it. It's working. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I tried it on a few files and it seems to work. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops...

Sadly some of the files that was copied from Shared were uploaded by ImportBot. I found some here Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Airin - ImportBot. Perhaps your script can fix the original upload log? --MGA73 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filerna i Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Airin - ImportBot har rättats till med hjälp av tools:~magog/fileinfo.php. Alla filerna hade samma namn på WTS. Vet du om det finns några fler ImportBot-filer någonstans? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sehzade Camii.jpg

I took a look at other uploads and made a correction on File File:Sehzade Camii.jpg. Are you thinking this is OK now? Then In I will correct the uploads I already made from Walter 57. Further I want to ask If they only the picture I uploaded from other WV users are affected from your request or I have even to change my own work? Elelicht (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the way it should be. You should always include an original upload log, no matter who the original uploader is, since there could otherwise be problems with people claiming that images are copyright violations if the image was uploaded before it was uploaded to Commons. The instructions tell that people shouldn't attempt to move files manually but instead wait for the bot to do this since almost everyone seems to forget about the original upload log. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Bad news for me. This will take a lot of time to correct my own files. A few pictures I have also uploaded on other Sites (like Wikitravel De). Have I also add this upload log?

I have to think now, what is the fastest way. But first I will correct the uploads from Walter57 and complete them.Elelicht (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Bots/Requests/Stefan2bot. These files will hopefully be fixed by a bot in the near future (so you probably don't have to do anything yet), but in some cases, the information might be lost if the files already have been deleted from Wikivoyage. Getting original upload logs from Wikitravel is harder since the Mediawiki API has been switched off. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approved: Commons:Bots/Requests/Stefan2bot

Thanks for your work on the migration. Best regards. --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about your bot

The bot made this edit to a file that I am the original author of and that I have provided the source on my web site. In this case an "original upload log" is not needed since I am the original author, and I would prefer not to include one. Is there a way to modify the bot so that if the uploader name on Commons is the same as the uploader name in the original upload log that your bot does not make any modification? Also: thanks for your help with the image migration, it's very much appreciated! -- Wrh2 (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly with this edit: [6]. The file is a public domain file from the National Park service, and I've linked to the original source. Is there some way to tag files as not needing the original upload log so your bot can ignore them? -- Wrh2 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original upload logs are also needed if the one uploading it to Commons is the same as the one uploading it to Wikivoyage. Otherwise, a lot of files are likely going to be deleted by mistake. For example, a file was almost deleted by mistake at Commons:Deletion requests/File:PuenteVizcaya01.jpg because an uploader didn't provide an original upload log to his own uploads. It seems that I missed to add the 100 PD-USGov templates to the "ignore" list. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I'll keep an eye on my own files as I would prefer not to have an "original upload log" when the "original" source is specified on the image as being my own web site, but it's understandable why images that aren't hosted elsewhere on the web would need this log. As long as your bot doesn't try to update images that it has already updated then I think everything will be OK with that approach. -- Wrh2 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you have to add {{bots|deny=Stefan2bot}} if you don't want original upload logs to be re-added. That said, a link to http://www.mountaininterval.org/ doesn't seem to be very exact. How can I tell when the image was uploaded to that website? See {{Bsr}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the "when" matter? If the image states that "Ryan Holliday" is the author, my user page states that my name is "Ryan Holliday", and the image page links to a site that includes the image that is "Copyright Ryan Holliday", that should be more than sufficient to prove that I created the image. That said, the image pages such as [7] (corresponding to File:3253-pebble-rockhopper RJ.jpg) show the image with my copyright notice and the date the image was taken. -- Wrh2 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I may have misunderstood. Is your point that I should link to a more specific location on my site for each image? If so I can update the images accordingly. -- Wrh2 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thai provincial seals

All Thai provincial seals are public domain under Thai law (anything that published in Royal Gazette are PD, given as PD-TH-exempt licence). They are not related with whoever has uploaded; they can legally exist on Commons. I must revert your edits that nominate for deleting them. (Such as File:Seal Uthai Thani.png etc.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted in 2008 because no one was able to tell whether {{PD-TH-exempt}} applies or not. As far as I can see, you have not provided any new information to the copyright status, so the original deletion reason still seems to be valid. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lego

Hi. Info: I decided to start a UDEL here. --MGA73 (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filer fra Wikitravel

Mit første forsøg med at kopiere filer fra Wikitravel virkede ikke. Kan din bot lave en uploadlog fra filer fra Wikitravel? Så er det måske hurtigere bare at kopiere dem fra wts/shared og så lave en rigtig log med din bot? --MGA73 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Svar här: http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Wikivoyage:Reply_to_a_question --Stefan4 (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Takker... Har nogle her: Category:Files by Wikivoyage user JensANDMarian. Måske kan du gøre noget ved dem :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De där ska ha uppladdningslogg för Wikitravel nu. Jag antar att man kan ta bort ImportBot-loggen eftersom den inte verkar fylla någon funktion. Många av filerna verkar även finnas på en.wikivoyage-old.org, så jag föreslår att du låter din robot söka igenom det projektet efter filer att märka med NowCommons. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Har uploaded nogle fra Shared mens wts var nede: Category:Files by Wikitravel users to check. Tænkte vi kunne se om det også virkede for disse. Hvis det gør det så ville jeg importere resten af filerne fra Shared (altså hvis der er et link der virker). --MGA73 (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Det fungerar (med datum på tyska), men tar längre tid än andra filer eftersom jag måste skriva in filnamn på Wikitravel och Commons manuellt. Dessutom fungerar inte tools:~magog/oldver.php på projekt utan API, så det tar extra tid att ladda upp gamla versioner (t.ex. File:Angkor-map.png). Jag ska be att du bara laddar upp filer från tyska och italienska Wikitravel på det här sättet eftersom filer från Wikitravel på andra språk ska finnas någonstans på xx.wikivoyage-old.org. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Så nøjes jeg med filer fra de wikitravel. Vi kan næsten få klaret alle filerne på shared på den her måde. --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jag har lagt in uppladdningslogg för nästan alla filer i kategorin och tagit bort kategorin efteråt så att man kan se vad som är kvar. Tre filer ska ha logg från wts.wikivoyage-old.org eller en.wikivoyage-old.org: File:Buddha Park.JPG, File:CphDistricts.png, File:CRANE BEACH BARBADOS VIEW FROM BOTTOM.jpg. File:Trullis in Alberobello.jpg länkar till http://wikitravel.org/shared/File:Alberobello.jpg som hänvisar till "English Wikitravel". Under samma namn på det projektet har det funnits en fil med rätt uppladdare. Tror du att man kan anta att filerna är samma? Jag kopierade en rad från Special:Log och använde den som uppladdningslogg. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeg kan stadig ikke komme på wts. Men har kopieret ~150 filer flere fra de.wt så der er desværre en masse arbejde til dig. Jeg har forsøgt at undgå alt der henviser til en.wt eller andre steder.
Ja, jeg tror godt vi kan antage, at filerne er de samme men vi kunne også bare spørge en eller anden om de kan tjekke. --MGA73 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jag kommer inte heller åt WTS. Ska man kanske säga till voy:de:User:RolandUnger eller voy:de:User:DerFussi? Jag vet inte hur ofta de tittar in på WTS och upptäcker att något är fel.
Ja, jag har sett att det dykt upp nya filer i kategorin. Det var därför det dök upp en raderingsvarning för dig: medan jag gick igenom filerna, upptäckte jag ett foto på en alltför ny bro i Slovenien. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unger satte link på enkelte filer, så nu er der 3 mere i kategorien. --MGA73 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Og et par stykker mere :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
En fra it: File:Himba women 2008.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeg har flyttet lidt flere til Commons. De er ikke alle fra wikitravel/de så du må bare springe dem over, du ikke kan lave en log til. RolandUnger har tjekket filerne og har fjernet kategorien men de burde være i Category:Files by Hans Musil. Og skulle der være nogen uden review så overlever vi nok også uden :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jag har även gått igenom min bevakningslista eftersom jag lagt in några filer från Wikitravel i kategorin "MTC2" på WTS. Du missade tydligen File:Pensacola-Evenings-Olde-Seville.jpg (som kom från ett annat wikiprojekt). Jag ska be att du inte kopierar ImportBot-filer som påstås komma från Wikitravel Shared eller engelska, franska, ryska, nederländska eller svenska Wikitravel. Dessa finns på wikivoyage-old under samma namn och bör kopieras därifrån istället. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Person's Barnstar
For your work wikivoyage and Commons to make sure we get all the files properly moved to Commons.... You should have a brand new Ferrari but all I can afford is this barnstar :-) MGA73 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage images with a different name on Commons

Do you have a script to handle this on the local wikis? I could write one up but it would take considerable time. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the local wikivoyages are currently pointing to a Commons image of the wrong name and need to be updated asap. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a script for this. Almost all file names are up-to-date. I try to run the script once a week or so to get files which have recently been transferred by User:MGA73bot2, but almost all files are transferred to Commons under the same name, so there are few names to update. If the language is listed under Incubator:Incubator:Wikivoyage import#Ex-Wikitravel editions, then file names can't be updated yet, because the language hasn't been imported to WMF servers. The plan is to import at least some of the projects, and after that, it will be necessary to update all file names as soon as possible. See m:Requests for new languages#Wikivoyage for links to pages about the import progress for each language.
I also have a different script which can list file usage on Wikivoyage file information pages. You can see it in use here. I have so far only added file usage to files tagged with "KeepLocal" (because a user wanted to work on those files), but I could add file usage to files available on Commons under a different name if you want to delete such files. However, if it says that a file with the same name is in use on Wikitravel, then the file can't be deleted because the file name presumably needs to be updated on a project which is waiting to be imported. There is no point in trying to change any file names directly on Wikitravel: en:Internet Brands decided to switch off Special:Export in August, so changes made after that can't be imported to WMF servers. The script is very slow, so it might take several days to tag all files in that category. This is partially because Internet Brands decided to switch off the Mediawiki API on Wikitravel: I have to download the full HTML pages from Wikitravel and use some regular expressions on the pages to find file usage. Very annoying. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK... um, what does that mean in terms of when we can delete images from WV-old that are marked as a different image? Because there are 5000+ of them, which is a non-trivial amount. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If my bot tells that a file is unused, then the file can be deleted.
  • If my bot tells that a file is in use on Wikivoyage, then the file name needs to be updated on Wikivoyage. After updating the file names, the file can be deleted. There should be very few of these cases.
  • If my bot tells that a file is in use on Wikitravel, then we can't do anything yet but have to wait for actions on Meta and/or Incubator. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example, if it looks like this, then it is safe to delete. If it looks like this, then we need to wait for further actions at Meta, Incubator and/or Bugzilla before we can do anything. If neither tag is used, then my bot has not yet checked whether the file can be deleted or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filemover

Hi Stefan. In consideration of your experience and numerous valid file rename requests, I've added the filemover right to your account. INeverCry 19:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Svgz files

It seems that svgz is just a compressed file. I tried to unzip one and upload it manually: File:Paris 17th arrondissement map with listings - test converted svgz from WTS.svg.

It does not look so pretty. What do you think. Is there a bug in conversion? Or what do you think?

It would not take to long to unzip the files and upload them here but if they look like this then I'm not sure it is very usable. --MGA73 (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Det blev likadant när jag laddade upp en av dem tidigare: File:Paris 10th arrondissement map with listings.svg. Det verkar vara någon bugg i Mediawiki. Det ser bättre ut om jag öppnar den i Inkscape. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded some more to Category:WTS-svgz if you could add an upload log. --MGA73 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Stefan4 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I moved 6 more and I think they are all moved now. --MGA73 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra upload log

Hi. I found out that http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Baoan.jpg is older than the source on WTS for File:Baoan Temple Taipei.jpg so perhaps you could add an extra upload log. --MGA73 (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Og godt nytår! :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kun 90 filer tilbage på Shared

Hej.

Så er der kun 90 filer tilbage på Shared: http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Category:Images_by_ImportBot

Der er også 28 på http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Category:Images_by_Celsius men de har ingen tilladelse så dem må vi nok hellere lade være lidt.

Selvom de er besværlige så ville det være dejligt at få afsluttet et projekt. Skal nok tjekke de næste lidt bedre - kan jo se at du har fundet lige lovlig mange "junk-filer" på det seneste ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hov. Glemte lige spørgsmålet: Kan din bot tjekke om og hvor billederne er brugt? Hvis filerne er ubrugte så er det jo ikke nødvendigt at bruge for meget tid på dem. --MGA73 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Det finns också mängder av ImportBot-filer som har märkts med {{Ignore|Old imports from WT shared}}. Dessa ska finnas på WTS under samma namn, men man borde ändå gå igenom dessa filer någon gång för att se om de ska ha {{NowCommons}} eller något annat kopierat från WTS. Jag tar och undersöker ImportBot-filerna och ser vad som kan flyttas till Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allt som jag stoppar in i http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Category:Checked_files kan föras över till Commons. Många filer i kategorin behöver uppladdningslogg från tyska Wikitravel. Har du försökt göra något åt http://fr.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Quirk-MTC ? I så fall blir vi av med några filer som kopierats till WTS från franska Wikivoyage. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nej havde ikke gjort noget ved fr men det har jeg så nu :-) se Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Quirk. --MGA73 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bra! Några av dessa finns även på WTS, så det skulle vara bra om du kan se var det går att lägga till "NowCommons" där. Jag ser att du använde "NowCommons", så jag rättade det till "Wikivoyage:NowCommons". --Stefan4 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ja det er standard for botten. På sv tilføjede jeg en ekstra, så der var begge skabeloner. Der er nu kun 19 tilbage på shared :-)
Jeg tror at sv er den letteste at gøre færdig nu. Der er ikke mange filer og vi kan nok bedre svensk end fransk og nederlandsk :-D --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nu finns det en massa uppladdningsloggar för filerna. Jag tycker att det är viktigare att föra över så mycket som möjligt från engelska Wikivoyage och WTS innan andra tagit bort alla röda länkar på alla sidor och bytt ut mot andra bilder. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tydligen har folk på svenska Wikivoyage redan börjat plocka bort filer från sidor om länkarna är röda, så jag gjorde en snabbkoll av filerna. Större delen av filerna är flaggor och kartor som dessutom är oanvända. Kvar finns fyra filer som behöver föras över till Commons. Kan du föra över dem? Sedan behöver vi gå igenom alla sidor och stoppa in bilderna i dem igen. Längst ner står det var de användes i november. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De er flyttet - men det har du jo allerede set :-)
Hvis ikke de resterende filer kan bruges til noget, så kunne vi vælge bare at ignorere dem. På et tidspunkt bliver de jo nok slettet eller hjemmesiden lukket. --MGA73 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Det verkar inte behövas göras något mer. Det finns sju filer i http://sv.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Kategori:All_files_on_WTS_-_NowCommons_-_Non-existing_target men de verkar inte vara användbara. Commons har bättre filer och ingen av filerna används någonstans. Svenska Wikivoyage får anses vara klar, tycker jag. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ja så godt at de havnede der fordi "nogen" lavede dette trick Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files moved from sv.oldwikivoyage to Commons requiring review. Men ja, sv er klaret nu. Hurra! --MGA73 (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forresten så er mit bedste bud vedrørende File:Sanfrancisco fishermanswharf map wv.svg at jeg slog api fra nogle sekunder mens botten arbejdede fordi jeg i et andet vindue skulle lave noget på shared. Måske fik det botten til at lave denne fejl jeg ikke har set før eller siden. Kan du rette loggen? --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Det finns redan en rättad uppladdningslogg längst ner. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kvar på Shared hittar jag två DSB-kartor: [8] och [9]. Det står att personen som laddade upp filerna hade tillstånd att göra detta, men skulle verkligen Commons godta dessa utan OTRS? Dessutom är kartorna inaktuella, men de kanske ändå kan vara intressanta ur ett historiskt perspektiv. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enig... Se User_talk:Elgaard :-) --MGA73 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

xx.wikivoyage

Kan du trylle lidt med File:Carbondale.svg? --MGA73 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denne er fra wts men kan også godt bruge en upload log: File:Windmill panorama 2.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hvorfor er denne http://fr.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Fichier:Mus%C3%A9eNationalNan.jpg ikke blevet erstattet på fr? http://fr.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Nan henviser stadig til det "gamle navn". --MGA73 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jag hade missat att söka efter lokala filer på det franska projektet. Nu har en massa filnamn uppdaterats.
Hur gör vi för övrigt med filer från spanska och portugisiska Wikitravel? Det finns några stycken:
Filerna verkar inte finnas på något Wikivoyage-projekt. Det innebär att det finns två problem med dessa. För det första finns det inget MediaWiki API på dessa projekt, så det är mycket svårare att köra robotskript där. För det andra kommer förmodligen inte Internet Brands att tillåta att vi märker filer med NowCommons, vilket gör det svårare att veta vad som är kvar och var på Commons filerna finns. Vi får börja med övriga projekt och försöka komma på någon lösning senare... --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Godt spørgsmål. Men ja, jeg tænker også at vi flytter så meget vi kan fra Wikivoyage. Når det så er gjort kan vi altid se om vi kan finde noget brugbart på wikitravel. Vi kan evt. nøjes med at kopiere dem manuelt og så nøjes med at lave et "licensereview" og så lade være med at have en upload log. --MGA73 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Se http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Wikivoyage:Accessing_missing_projects --Stefan4 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this won't work category is also added via the license template. --MGA73 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Det missade jag. Jag försöker sortera filer så att det är lättare att hitta filer med licens. På så vis går det snabbare att kopiera många filer till Commons. Nu lägger jag till en extra kategori: "Category:PD-self files 2". --Stefan4 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

photography or images of aircraft

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dusanbasic.

Dear Sir Stefan As you suggested deleting files series aircraft it is my duty to warn you: There are two types of images is a fine art photography and documentary photography of the other. Our (Serbian) copyright law as public domain is covered by documentary photography and presented to the license concerned. Photo documentary photography of the aircraft such as photographs, events, people, works of art, documents, artifacts, buildings and the like. If you can cite numerous examples. Mr. Mick is a dental student and his interpretation of the matter is unprofessional. We in the Serbian Wikipedia because we have problems and therefore come here. Best regards Dušan Basić--Dusanbasic (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim that the images are in the public domain, then you need to show why the images are in the public domain. Currently, the files have been tagged with a nonsense licence tag. The files were previously deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ikarus IO 2.jpg because you failed to show that the images are in the public domain before the discussion ended. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stefan! Photos concerned the public domain because it has made the Royal Yugoslav Air Force, which does not exist since 17.04.1941. year. How to get a confirmation from them? By markings on the aircraft can be seen that this is a fact. Please consult about a team of aviation experts familiar to you. Arckraft "Resava" is owned by the Yugoslav Royal Aero Club can be seen in the Register of Civil Aircraft of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. JKAK also does not exist since 1941. Thank you for your work and kind regards. Dušan Basić

The copyright expires in Serbia 70 years after the death of the photographer, not 70 years after the organisation which created the photos becomes defunct. Also, in the United States, the copyright often expires 95 years after the photo was first published, and these photos hadn't even been taken 95 years ago. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"everything else will be postponed. "

Since you are single-handedly destroying pretty much of the Commons right now, without the slightest pressing reason, I hope that you indeed will postpone everything else (i. e. deleting my and other's years of work). --FA2010 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ikoner fra Wikivoyage

Hej

Der er en række filer på Wikivoyage der henviser til "Áki G. Karlsson". Jeg fandt http://en.usenet.digipedia.org/thread/12847/772/ men jeg ved ikke om vi kan bruge det til noget.

--MGA73 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Var har du de filerna? Det låter som att filerna är {{PD-author}} om de postats på "the sodipodi-list mailing list" av Áki G. Karlsson. Går det att se om filerna postats där eller ej? Går det att koppla breven till avsändaren på något sätt? Jag ser ingen avsändaradress. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Du kan se nogle af dem her. Jeg har desværre ikke kunnet finde filerne på det link jeg gav dig først.
Har du overblik over, om der er nogle filer nogle steder, der kan kopieres? Der er nogle på en og wts der har "move" skabelon men jeg synes ikke, at de var flytteklar (der mangler fx en licens ellet et link til originalfilen). --MGA73 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jag tror att det är säkrast att inte importera ikonerna, även om vissa förmodligen kan laddas upp som {{PD-ineligible}}. Jag tittade lite på e-postlistan men hittade inga av bilderna där. Det finns säkert många liknande ikoner på andra ställen.
Många av de återstående filerna på projekten saknar licens. Jag föreslår att vi kategoriserar alla filer efter vad de har för licens så att vi lättare hittar filer som går att flytta. Sedan får vi se vad som är kvar efteråt och om några licenser kan läggas till med hjälp av voy:Wikivoyage:Archive of wts-old license upgrade. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nummer 12

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nummer 12 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 project page, 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.

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） ∙ +/−

Nummer 12 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New File

Main gallery: File:Yuri Gagarin.jpg.

Hello! I've received the notice, that File:Yuri Gagarin.jpg is missing evidence of permission. It says: "Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit grant of permission that complies with the licensing policy". Here is the pdf file that contains photo www.federalspace.ru/download/video/docs/Press_bull_3.pdf And there is a note in Russian (in the pdf file), says: "The Bulletin is recommended to use by press media without mention the source". It also has an e-mail adress: orgkom50@roscosmos.ru. Is it OK? Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KIX4U (talk • contribs) 2013-01-15T21:29:18 (UTC)

Commons is not the press. Also, a licence which only applies to the press is insufficient. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you explain this photo: File:Titov, Khruschev, Gagarin 1961.jpg? The same archive has my photo as well. Maybe it's possible to trace the licenses? ~ KIX4U (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, answer! KIX4U (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I forgot. It says that File:Titov, Khruschev, Gagarin 1961.jpg was taken by nl:Anefo. According to this page, the Dutch nl:Nationaal Archief has published 140,000 images by Anefo under a Creative Commons licence. Are you saying that your photo also was taken by Anefo and that it is included in the 140,000 images? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I don't see the right license on the above photo, "PD" nor "CC" signings. Where's it? KIX4U (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded new photo (from http://gallica.bnf.fr) using license on this one. Is it OK? KIX4U (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Titov, Khruschev, Gagarin 1961.jpg is fine if it is part of the 140,000 images. I don't know how to find out if it is part of those 140,000 images or not. Maybe there are other images in that archive which aren't covered by the Creative Commons licence. Someone seems to have questioned whether the image is freely licensed and nominated it for deletion. At File:Croiseur russe Askold.jpg, it says that the French national library has determined that the image is in the public domain in France. It says "Copyright : domaine public", so the licence looks correct to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License reviewer

Hvorfor er du ikke license reviewer? Tænkte, at det ville være smart, at du selv reviewede nogle af de filer du alligevel har tilføjet en upload log til eller har tjekket :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jag har skapat en förfrågan där nu. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Drfop}}

I'm glad to see this is catching on -- I hope it will ward off some of the lack of understanding that in the absence of FOP, you can't upload photos of copyrighted works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very useful template. It provides a quick explanation of what FOP means and avoids extra questions about why you can't take photos of buildings or statues or whatever. I suppose that it should be translated. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Translation, yes. I figured that once it got some traction with half a dozen editors beyond me (and now you), that I might put a request up on the Village Pumps in several languages. Of course, if you want to do Swedish, go to it.... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished

None of the Kassal images are mine. I was simply cleaning them up and moving them to the commons. Seemed pretty clear and easy to me. The WWII pictures are 70 year old photos from the army, etc. Thanks for systematically eviscerating all those images. Oh well. Evrik (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per COM:EVIDENCE, the images can only be kept if it can be verified that they were indeed taken by the United States government. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what EVIDENCE says. Let me quote: "Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified. (Note that in the case of files found on the Web, this should not be the URL of the file, but the URL of the page containing the file, so that Commons editors can find background information when required)." I just got an email from the original uploader. It seems that these were all scanned from the private collection of Mr. Kassal. Mr. Kassal identified the source of the photo, and that is what was put on the picture. None of these photos existed on the internet prior to being uploaded on en.wiki. The original uploader was acting in good faith. Evrik (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read the previous sentence: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence." For example, at File:Kennedy and Kassal.jpg, it just says "White House photo", without any way to verify that it indeed is a photo taken by the White House. Thus, the uploader has obviously provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the file is in the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status på Wikivoyage filerne

Hej!

Nu er Wikivoyage officielt online, og som forventet blev ikke alle filer tjekket/flyttet inden da.

Mange af filerne har ingen licens. Hvad fandt vi egentlig ud af? Var det ok at tilføje en licens på alle filerne med henvisning til MediaWiki:Uploadtext? Hvis ja, så kunne man sætte en bot til at gøre det på alle filer uploaded efter en bestemt dato. Evt. med en speciel skabelon af hensyn til dem, der skal tjekke filerne (Fx "Denne licens er tilføjet med bot ud fra upload datoen. Tjek venligst grundigt, om ...").

Hvis du har nogle filer eller kategorier, der er tjekket, så må du gerne give mig et tip. For det er lidt svært at følge med over det hele. --MGA73 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Licens från MediaWiki:Uploadtext är en komplicerad sak. Generellt kan man dela in alla filer i tre kategorier:
  1. Gamla filer: Dessa måste ha en licens angiven, annars är de olicensierade.
  2. Nyare filer: Dessa är licensierade under {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} om ingen annan licens valts.
  3. Ännu nyare filer: Dessa är licensierade under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} om ingen annan licens valts.
Problemet är att MediaWiki:Uploadtext ändrats flera gånger och vid olika tidpunkter på olika projekt. Exempel:
  • voy:Special:PermanentLink/2076834: Det står att "All images must be compatible with our licence" men det står inte vad som sker om bilden inte är det. Om bilden laddades upp när det stod så på sidan, antar jag att filen saknar licens om ingen angivits.
  • voy:Special:PermanentLink/2076838: Det står att "All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0, if you are the original creator and you don't select a license" men det står inte hur man ska välja en licens. Om man skriver {{PD-self}} har man valt en licens, men man har även valt en licens om man skrivit "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" i kommentarsfältet. Eventuellt har man även valt en licens om man skrivit "all rights reserved" där. Här får man vara försiktig så att man inte gör något misstag. En robot kan inte se om någon skrivit något om en licens i en kommentar.
  • voy:Special:PermanentLink/2076848: "Please select a compatible license from the pulldown menu below. Otherwise all uploads are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0" Detta är enklare: har man inte valt en licens i listan på uppladdningsformuläret, är filen automatiskt licensierad som CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Tänk på att olika regler kan gälla på olika projekt. Om filen laddades upp i april eller maj 2007, säger MediaWiki:Uploadtext på WTS att filen är licensierad som CC-BY-SA 1.0, medan MediaWiki:Uploadtext på engelska Wikivoyage säger att den är olicensierad. Man måste tänka på vilket projekt filen laddades upp till.
Man kanske kan låta en robot lägga till en mall som säger att filen eventuellt är licensierad som cc-by-sa-1.0 eller cc-by-sa-3.0 men att det behöver bekräftas. På grund av alla underliga och varierande formuleringar är jag dock inte säker på att det är en bra idé att lägga in en licens automatiskt. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, man skal passe på. Men botten kan jo tjekke datoen for upload (hvis man kan finde ud af hvordan) og så kan man ud fra det definere nogle regler for om der kan tilføjes en licens eller hvilken. Men man bør tjekke hver enkelt wiki for sig selv, da de kan have forskellige tekster ved upload.
Jeg tænkte at komme filerne fra wts skulle i http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_without_a_license_tag og jeg har lavet et forslag til skabelon. Du er velkommen til at forbedre teksten. --MGA73 (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jag föreslår att vi börjar med filer som har en licens så att vi kan kopiera så många filer som möjligt innan alla filer bytts ut mot andra på Wikivoyage. Sedan föreslår jag att vi skapar tre mallar som läggs in av en robot: "ingen licens enligt MediaWiki:Uploadtext", "eventuellt cc-by-sa-1.0 enligt MediaWiki:Uploadtext" samt "eventuellt cc-by-sa-3.0 enligt MediaWiki:Uploadtext". Slutligen får vi gå igenom alla dessa filer och se vad som går att föra över. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ja vi kan jo ikke nå det hele på en gang så vi må vælge. Du har sat nogle af de vigtigste filer i en kategori for Priority files og de haster vel mere end dem, der er ubrugte. Så dem kunne vi jo se på først.
Så vidt jeg kan se, så er der i øvrigt kun få kategorier som http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_uploaded_by_Meltwaterfalls hvor der muligvis kan tilføjes en licens på en masse filer forholdsvist let. --MGA73 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Har skrevet lidt om status på WTS om hvordan vi slutter projektet. Du er meget velkommen til at supplere og rette. Jeg spekulerer i øvrigt over hvorfor du lavede denne ændring? --MGA73 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jag har kommenterat där. Jag fick nyligen robotflagga på voy:pt: och håller på att uppdatera filnamn där. Efter att namnet uppdaterats tar jag bort uppgifter om filanvändning på portugisiska Wikitravel. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Jeg undrede mig bare over at du rettede i stedet for at slette :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kopierede i øvrigt nogle filer fra Flickr selvom du havde sat ignore på. Se Commons:Deletion requests/File:Belize City, May 2010.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kunne du tilføje upload log fra shared (File:CheoungEk1DerFussi.jpg)? --MGA73 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Og denne File:Semeru Bromo Temple.JPG ? --MGA73 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan2/Archive_3&oldid=176658095"