User talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2010

Datenschutz

Hallo, mir viel dieses Bild [1] auf - kannst du mal schauen ob es ggf Probleme mit den Nummernschildern gibt oder das Thema an das entsprechende Fachpersonal weiterleiten? Gruss und Frohes Neues Jahr, Alexpl (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Alexpl, Du sprichst da ein wichtiges Thema an. Leider haben wir hierzu noch keine Richtlinie auf Commons, die Nummernschilder betrifft. Ich habe mich bislang darauf beschränkt, die bei meinen Bildern unlesbar zu machen. Ich habe aber mal eine Diskussion hier eröffnet und möchte Dich dazu einladen, Dich daran zu beteiligen. Viele Grüße und ebenso alles Gute zum neuen Jahr, AFBorchert (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving a discussion to a noticeboard

I have been trying to resolve a disagreement with Lar through discussion on his talk page, and it does not seem to be going very well. What would be the best way to move the discussion to a noticeboard for additional comment from users not involved in the dispute? Should I copy the content from Lar's talk page to the noticeboard, give a link, or something else?

I have, of course, no idea what you view is of this dispute, and am just asking advice on the right way to proceed. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I decided not to wait for your reply, and have moved it to the Village Pump. I hope that is ok. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Malcolm Schosha, I do not think that it contributes to Commons to spread the debate regarding your conflict with Lar at en-wp anywhere further at Commons. In my opinion, Commons is very different from en-wp and because of this I do not think that it is helpful to reanimate old conflicts from en-wp at this site. Please also understand that I do not want to invest time in researching cases at en-wp to understand more thoroughly the background of your dispute with Lar. In regard to your discussion at the Israel disputes: If you think that COM:BLOCK should be clarified or updated, I suggest to open a discussion at the corresponding talk page and, if necessary, to refer from COM:VP to it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This will not reopen anything from WP, at least I will not do that. All I want is input on that is happening at this time between me and Lar on Commons. Also, it is not my intention to say much there, or argue over what others think. It is just a request for comment. You will notice that I have not said anything negative about Lar on the Village Pump, and do not intend to. Lar is an intelligent person, and tries hard to do the right thing; but that does not mean he is right on every point. I have made it clear that I intend to end all editing on Commons, but feel disinclined to leave while Lar is throwing insults at me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing maps on Geographica provinciarum Sveviae descriptio

Guten Abend,

ich habe die zwei fehlenden Karten (27 und 28) aus dem Geographica provinciarum Sveviae descriptio von Hanß Georg Bodenehr hinzugefügt. Wie ich wusste nicht was zu schreiben als Beschreibung und Informationen, ich habe Ihre genommen. Ich hoffe, das ist kein Problem?

Ich bin nicht registriert on Wikimedia, sondern in Wikipedia Zexzt

Danke um mir zu sagen ob es Problem ist :)

Gutes neues Jahr! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zexzt (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für das Einscannen und Hinzufügen der beiden fehlenden Karten. Das sieht recht gut aus. Die von mir hochgeladenen Karten stammten von Flickr und die Serie war dort leider nicht vollständig. Inzwischen bist Du auch auf Commons registriert, womöglich implizit durch SUL. Jedenfalls ist ein Hochladen ohne Registrierung auf Commons nicht möglich. Viele Grüße und alles Gute noch zum neuen Jahr, AFBorchert (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bootleg recordings

I cannot understand your decision to undelete. This was not background music. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not need to be background music as far as I understand the quotes. To quote from Greenman: Therefore one should interpret the word "intention" as relating to direct or indirect control over the playing of the musical work or recording that is played or that is recorded in the work. Deror avi had no control over the musical work when he recorded it. The recordings are not even cut such that they begin or end with a song. From all what I understand, this seems to me quite similar to the concept how the French law considers photographs of copyrighted art (see, for example, this photograph of the pyramid in front of the Louvre): The right to photograph or record public events or non-copyrighted buildings is balanced against the protection of the copyrighted work. If it is unavoidable to include the copyrighted work in a photograph or recording which focuses on a public event or something else that is free, then this is excempt from copyright. In this case, it does not matter how big the pyramid is on the picture or how much has been recorded from a song. Given the quoted commentaries at the end of the undeletion request by Greenman and Presenti, I understand incidental in this context as equivalent to unavoidable. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A concert visitor has no control over the reportoire either. Uploader could have chose to film the activists speaking if the message of the rally was the subject of the file. Instead he exploited a free performance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you go to a concert, you are focused on the concert. In this case, we had not a concert but the Rabin Square gay solidarity rally. This is, in my opinion, comparable to the parade in Greenman's example. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

gilt FOP im Inneren eines deutschen Rathauses??

siehe hier: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Villa Rustica Bondorf Modell.jpg - Du bist da ja offenbar Experte. Viele dieser Diskussionen über Copyrights scheinen mir wie Rätselfragen "könnte sein dass...." - ist für mich auch interessant, das Erdgeschoß meiner Arbeit ist öffentlicher Raum, und da stehen einige interessante Plastiken. Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nein, Panoramafreiheit in Deutschland erstreckt sich nicht auf Innenräume, sondern beschränkt sich auf die Dinge, die von öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen und Plätzen eingesehen werden können. Das ergibt sich sowohl aus § 59 Abs. 1 UrhG, aber auch aus diesem Urteil des BGH. Deswegen muss das Bild leider gelöscht werden. Ich hätte das sofort getan — mir fiel dann aber auf, dass niemand den Hochlader des Bilds benachrichtigt hat, so dass wir hier aus Gründen der Höflichkeit noch etwas warten sollten. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, normalerweise denke ich schon an die Benachrichtigung, aber da hatte ich sie aus irgendeinem Grund vergessen. :(

Gute Nacht! --Noddy93 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Noddy93, nunja, wir werden alle älter und vergesslicher ;) Ebenfalls eine gute Nacht wünscht AFBorchert (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Guten Morgen!, wunderbar, danke für die Klarifizierung und die schnelle Antwort. Wie gesagt, glattes Eis für mich, passt ja zum Wetter.... Gans was anderes: von der Technik der Commons her finde ich es absurd für ein zentrales Medienarchiv, dass einerseits für die Copyright-Probleme ein "Precautionary"-Prinzip gelten soll (auf Deutsch wohl Vorsorgeprinzip) , andererseits durch die offenen Hochlademöglichkeiten haufenweise Dateien hochgeladen werden, die dem letztlich nicht entsprechen, und die Admins wieder die meiste Zeit damit beschäftigt sind, diesen Copyright-Verletzungen hinterherzulaufen (wie mir neulich Turelio sagte). Nachdem es dann Jahre hier steht, wird gemerkt "Huch, doch nicht frei" und dann müssen die Artikel wieder ohne Bild auskommen. Zuverlässig als Archiv und "Precautionary" ist das alles nicht.... - aber das hat wohl keine Gruppe von Usern oder Admins zu verantworten, sondern vermutlich die Stiftung. - Jetzt wieder: einen schönen Tag noch! Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Cholo Aleman, wir haben hier leider nicht genügend Aktive auf Commons, die so etwas wie die DÜP auf de-wp auf die Beine stellen könnten, die systematisch alle hochgeladenen Bilder sichtet. Gemessen an dem Volumen haben wir auch zu wenig Admins. Und die Wikimedia Foundation kann darin wenig ändern. Allerdings würde ich jedem Wikipedia-Autor empfehlen, die Rechte der verwendeten Bilder zu überprüfen, um spätere Enttäuschungen zu vermeiden. Auf Anfrage kann ich auch gerne die Bilder zu einem Artikel durchsehen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

wieder: Guten Morgen! - naja, die Stiftung ist die Einheit, die alles betreibt, und letztlich für alle Konstruktionen verantwortlich ist (soweit ich das verstehe) - wenn es einem wichtig ist, dass Copyrights eingehalten werden, kann man nicht erst alles hereinlassen. Und es ist eben einfach heftig disfunktional, wenn in einem Archiv nach Jahren verwendete Dateien aus solchen Gründen gelöscht werden müssen. Zwei Fälle, die mir über den Weg gelaufen sind: File:DMM1.jpg und File:José Carlos Mariátegui.jpg - die Gitarre ist klar aus dem Netz kopiert (siehe Disk), bei Mariategui hat der Einsteller "Globalphilosophy" offenbar gedacht: 70 Jahre tot, das reicht. Nach Web hat der Fotograf Jose Malanca allerdings noch bis 1967 gelebt, ein argentinischer Maler, siehe [[2]] - scheint mir sehr wahrscheinlich, dass das der Fotograf ist. Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:TeslaCoil.jpg and File:TeslaGlühbirne.jpg

Hi Stifle, I am surprised to see these edits (here and here) as they are not justified by the referenced ticket. The German language ticket supports both licenses, please take a look at the last message of the copyright holder. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read down that far. Reverted. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ferns Cathedral Chancel S 2009 09 28.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 08:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Saint Patrick

[3], [4]: Why remove Category:Saint Patrick? The man is in costume as Saint Patrick. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, these were cases of overcategorization as both pictures are already in Category:Festál Irish Festival which is in Category:Saint Patrick's Day and which in turn is in Category:Saint Patrick. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose. I think this is the kind of case where an exception is in order: the direct depiction of St. Patrick is not something for which one would usually expect to navigate down the hierarchy to Category:Saint Patrick's Day and then to a particular festival. But if you are unconvinced, it isn't a big deal. - Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, I think we have quite some files related to Saint Patrick and that it is helpful to have the main category less crowded. I am also inclined to move some of the other images into subcategories like, for example, Category:Stained glass windows of Saint Patrick. In addition, I think that your photographs are quite good illustrations of St. Patrick's day and associated costumes. But these images are in my opinion less qualified as main image of an article about Saint Patrick. We could, of course, consider a category like Category:Costumes of Saint Patrick which would be sorted under Category:Saint Patrick and Category:Costumes impersonating famous people. This way, your photographs would be just one click away from the main category. What do you think about that? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good solution. - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done --AFBorchert (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfCU

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your contributions to Commons, Eusebius, and your committment to do even more. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Was soll an dem Screenshot unfrei sein?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Twitter_Tweet.JPG&action=history Gruß --FrobenChristoph (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hallo FrobenChristoph, ich sehe kein Problem bei dem konkreten Screenshot mangels Schöpfungshöhe. Allerdings kann es auf Commons immer mal passieren, dass sich solche Dateien einen Schnelllöschantrag einfangen. Deswegen bitte nicht in Panik geraten — das lässt sich ja klären. Ich habe diese Datei auf meine Beobachtungsliste genommen und werde dann reagieren, falls sich da noch einmal etwas tut. Ferner habe den SLA-Steller ebenso kurz kontaktiert und meine Stellungnahme dazu abgegeben. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ich seh nicht ein, wieso man dafür eine Löschdiskussion führen muss. Immerhin bin ich ja als Historiograf einer der Urheberrechtsexperten in de. Gruß --FrobenChristoph (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Histo, eine Löschdiskussion mag überflüssig und unsinning erscheinen. Aber dennoch sind hier auf Commons gemäß unseren Richtlinien die sieben Tage mindestens abzuwarten, sofern nicht eine offensichtliche Urheberrechtsverletzung vorliegt, die eine Schnelllöschung ermöglicht. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Permission for use of work

Hey, I need you to verify and archive the permission for use of these followimg images in wikipedia. The website from which the following 8 images are taken is www.bollywoodhungama.com

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Success_party_of_Race_/still38625.html

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Isha_Koppikar_walks_the_ramp_for_Pria_Kataria_Puri/still48891.html

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/John_Abraham_practices_for_Mumbai_Marathon/still26864.html

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Shilpa_Shetty_Launches_Her_Perfume_S2_in_London/still19090.html

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Preity_Zinta_and_John_Abraham_felicitated_at_Giants_Day_Awards_/still23297.html

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Subhash_Ghai_announces_Hello_Darling/still27036.html

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Neil_Nitin_Mukesh_at_Narendra_Kumar_bash/still76271.html

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Globus_announces_Kareena_Kapoor_as_Brand_Ambassador/still22044.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by P6junn (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi P6junn, I have opened OTRS ticket Template:OTRS ticket for this case. I will let you know as soon as this has been verified. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done: We received a permission from the copyright holder for this set of photographs and I have updated the image pages accordingly. You added another photograph to this set which you have uploaded in the meantime. I have now asked for permission for this photograph as well. Please categorize these photographs appropriately. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletions

Hi Jmabel, I've just processed all the DRs filed by you for the uploads by Sebastian Mart. Thank you for catching this. It would be helpful, however, to get such bunches of similar DRs bundled in form of a mass deletion request. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, this started when I ran across one problematic image, looked at his other work, and was well into nominating for deletion before I realized they all had similar issues. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again and again

[5] and [6]. thnx. Lycaon (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done: I've raised the protection level of the two files and blocked the offending sockpuppet. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Confrimation of permission for use of work

Hi AFBorchet, I need you to verify and archive the permission for the use of these 2 images in the Wikimedia OTRS system.

These are the 2 images I am talking about:

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Bollywood_celebs_walk_the_ramp_at_the_Chivas_Fashion_Show/still48613.html

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/stills/partiesnevents/Zarine_Khan_at_Tennis_Academy_event/still96866.html

Thanks !! (P6junn (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

File:Triple_H_WWE_Champion_2008.jpg

hi andreas,

i'm a freelance writer looking for a picture about a wrestler, triple h for one of my blogs. and found one at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triple_H_WWE_Champion_2008.jpg

it says to be able to use it i need to contact someone with an OTRS account to obtain a ticket.

i was taken to this page and you were i think the first one i stumbled on.

hope you can help me out.

thanks!

gerald alden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.131.144 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

All Files on Commons are freely licensed and free to reuse, you dont need to ask anyone. The OTRS note is just if there is doubt or questioning about the licensing. This file is licensed under GFDL, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0, you may select the license of your choice. See the license requirements and see COM:REUSE for further information. --Martin H. (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Frage

Hallo AFBorchert, bitte um Unterstützung. Ich würde gern die Fotografie eines handgemalten Bildes eines Vereinsfreundes vom de:Werderaner Wachtelberg [7] hochladen. Er hat es mündlich erlaubt. Was muss ich lizenzrechtlich tun usw. Erkläre es mir bitte. Danke und Gruß -- Biberbaer (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Biberbaer. Eine mündliche Erlaubnis genügt uns hier normalerweise nicht. In diesem Falle müsste eine schriftliche Genehmigung unter Nennung einer ausgewählten freien Lizenz (beispielsweise der Creative Commons BY-SA-3.0-de) an unser OTRS-Team geleitet werden. Wenn der Urheber selbst über einen E-Mail-Zugang verfügt, dann wäre es am besten, wenn er selbst eine geeignete Erklärung (siehe etwa hier) an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org verschicken würde. Alternativ wäre es auch denkbar, die Erklärung auszudrucken, vom Urheber unterschreiben zu lassen und das Resultat als eingescanntes PDF oder JPG an die E-Mail-Adresse uns zukommen zu lassen. Unabhängig davon stellt sich die Frage, ob das Bild in unseren Projektrahmen fällt. Bei handgemalten Bildern wäre das beispielsweise der Fall, wenn der Urheber selbst relevant ist (d.h. er ist als Künstler so bedeutend, dass er beispielsweise in der deutschen Wikipedia einen Artikel bekommen könnte) oder er den Wachtelberg so darstellt, wie wir ihn auf aktuellen Fotos nicht ohne weiteres bekommen könnten (weil er beispielsweise eine historische Ansicht zeigt, die nicht mehr besteht) oder weil er als Beispiel für eine Maltechnik dient, die etwa in einem Wikiversity-Kurs verwendet wird. Wenn eine Nutzung des handgemalten Bilds innerhalb der Wikimedia-Projekte nicht realistisch zu erwarten ist, dann könnte sich das Bild einen Löschantrag einfangen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. Ich bitte um Verzeihung für die späte Antwort. Ich war zuerst krank und dann auf einem Wikipedia-Stammtisch ohne Internet-Anbindung.

Hallo AFBorchert, erst einmal vielen Dank für die Ausführliche Antwort, die ich erst einmal verdauen muss. Einen Versuch wäre es wert, denn die Ansicht des Weinberges ist künstlerisch verkehrt, vertauscht, dargestellt, was wohl etwas Besonderes ist in der Darstellung. Ich werde mit dem Künstler reden und dann werden wir sehen. Ich bin nicht ungeduldig und es gibt sicher spannenderes ;-) als meine Frage. Gruß -- Biberbaer (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen Steinzeithaus Riedschachen 2010 04 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments are the plane and the spotlight stone-aged too ;) ? But QI & useful for me.--Jebulon 09:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oswald Burger 2010 04 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --kallerna 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

New Israelian sock

HI. Sorry to have to bother you again, but he/she is at it again: [8] and [9]. thanks for looking into it. Lycaon (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lycaon, please pardon the delay — I'm quite busy in real life in the moment. 79.181.26.13 hasn't done anything beyond the initial three edits, and Nikkirikki looks indeed like a freshly created sock. I do not see, however, currently a need for urgent action and perhaps it is even better to continue observing this. Independent from this, I hope that some consensus can be found in this discussion and it would be perhaps helpful if you could contribute the perspective of a marine biologist why it is justified to sort Category:Animals of the Belgian part of the North Sea below Category:Animals of Belgium — perhaps with some reference to literature. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Things seem to be moving in a good direction anyway I noticed. Lycaon (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen Bronzezeitdorf Unteruhldingen NE 2010 04 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment There are some dustspots above of the "House of Questions" --Berthold Werner 10:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for noting this, Berthold. I've uploaded a new version, hopefully with no dust spots left. --AFBorchert 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Ok. --Berthold Werner 11:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Roux

Hi. I noticed you warned this user on his talk page. I have started a complaint on COM:AN/U yesterday that has failed to gain an administrator's attention. Could you please review the complaint and take action? This user is indef. blocked for enwiki. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stillwaterising, I am not interested in the blocking history of Roux at en-wp. Commons is another project. And I'm afraid that you had your share in escalating this conflict, e.g. by dragging Roux to COM:CU. Roux is surely not easy-going but it is important in a heated debate that Commons:Sexual content has rised and is likely to raise further in the future, all involved remain mellow. I assume that now quite a number of admins will observe this and take action when necessary. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You actually BELIEVED SWR that the further harassment--after being told by me AND Lar to stay off my page--was unintentional? You have got to be joking. This is the person who lied about me vandalising, who dragged me off for a CU, and on and on and on... Good gravy. I am honestly at a complete loss for words. Roux (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore: This would be believable if a) he had not posted twice, with an edit summary of 'adding template to inform user'. Roux (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roux, he hit two times a link in the toolbox where he wasn't aware of the effect. It is some sort of carelessness but it appeared not to be intentional. And please tone down and come to a point if you address me on my talk page. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well, whatever, it's yet more proof that admins will only take action against the aggressor if they're forced to, and are more than happy to believe anything the aggressor says. The person being harassed? Who cares about them? Bah, humbug. Roux (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

At de-wp there is a saying that one should take a look at the first 50 edits of a user as they show in a condensed form the subsequent behavioural pattern of a user. Even this first edit by you at Commons project page shows that you are more busy in attacking others than in contributing to a constructive discussion. This wastes the time of all involved. Think about what you want to achieve here at Commons and then work constructively for it. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the actual history there. That came after over a month of Privatemusings canvassing his nonsensical censorship proposals over multiple projects and the email list. But, y'know, facts. Who needs 'em when you can just leap to conclusions instead? Roux (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I won't Roux, there are more worthwhile things to do. The expectation that admins should spend their entire time reading through endless previous threads spread over multiple archives and projects and then come up with a golden judgement that everyone involved makes happy is nonsense. Unfortunately, the wiki process tends to generate such endless fruitless discussions regularly. At de-wp we have even an archive of incredibly time wasting discussions which documents this recurring pattern. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally admitting that admins have no interest in understanding the context of disputes. Roux (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not at all what he said. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

medieval baptismal fonts

Yes I am interested and have collected 100's of photos. Daniel Keeran counsellor@uniserve.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.180.9 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Keeran, then I would like to invite you to create an account and to start uploading them. Please see these instructions for the first steps at Commons and feel free to ask me in case of questions. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soviet caucasus1922.png

Pleas read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soviet caucasus1922.png#User:PANONIAN behavior. The discussion closed because it "heavily used". It not havily used, the uploader himself post the map to 53 articles. he admit it. Geagea (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Geagea, this does not matter at Commons, see COM:SCOPE. Please proceed as suggested in my conclusion of the DR. And please note that the section you are linking to was misplaced. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If the administrators not reading the deletion discussions why to ask deletion. You are administrators, you can see the problem. you can solve it. I will do the metter of changing policy. You can see that it is not realy hevily used. Geagea (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Geagea, we admins have to follow policy and the policy is very clear in cases like this. You cannot ask for the deletion of a file at Commons just to avoid the discussions in the individual projects. Whether maps are factual correct or not is not of interest to Commons as long it is used. This holds true even if all uses in the other projects are due to the creator of the map. It is in fact a common pattern that uploaders look forward to find how their files can be put into use on other projects. If this is finally accepted is due to the other projects not us. This is not the first case of such a disputed map. In fact, we had a number of similar discussions elsewhere, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG. I still recommend to summarize the factual problems you see with that map on the corresponding talk page, best founded on reliable scientific sources, and to add {{Disputed diagram}} to its description. And feel free to create another map which you think is correct and upload it under another name. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention and patience. This makes regular users to be involved silly wars. Anyway sombody cracked the system. A loophole. Thanks Geagea (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Staub auf dem Sensor oder Objektiv

Hallo, das ist wie mit dem Splitter im Auge des Anderen und dem Balken im eigenen Auge ;-) Nach meiner Erfahrung bleiben die Staubpartikel auf dem Sensor länger an der selben Stelle haften, man weiß dann schon wo man suchen muss. So habe ich die über den Masten auch schnell gefunden. Andere haben sie auch übersehen. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cherbourg Harbour DF 40 French Customs Service Patrol Vessel 2009 08 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good.--Mbz1 17:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"realistic educational purpose" vs. "realistically useful for an educational purpose"

About this revert, please note realistically. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erik Warmelink. What is your point, please? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is that teaching the difference between adverbs and adjectives was apparently not a "realistic purpose" during the education of user:Stillwaterising. Don't you think it is somewhat strange that a single-purpose account may add grammatical errors to the proposal and after that stick the "don't change without consensus"-note back? Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erik Warmelink, you are right I've overlooked the grammatical error when I restored the previous version and I've fixed this now. Regarding the notice: I do not think that this does really matter now. The current debate seems to be poisoned now and I am afraid that this will not lead to anything constructive in the near future. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your version "works", I first tried realisticly educational purpose and that doesn't look right; after that even realistically educational looked "strange". Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw this and I feel a need to comment. First, this is not a "single purpose account". Stillwaterising is unified login and I've identified several times here that my home wiki is enwp. On enwp I've contributed to articles on medicine, technology, education, religion, policy, and of course sexology and pornography with over 4,700 edits on over 1,900 unique articles [10].

Furthermore, I had an excellent primary education and went to one of the top secondary schools in my country as well as one of the top colleges. I DO know the difference between and adverb and adjective. "Realistic" in "realistic educational purpose" is an adjective that modifies the word "purpose". "Realistically" in "realistically educational purpose" is an adverb that modifies the word "educational". There's small difference in meaning that most people won't notice. Slandering my motives or my educational status, however, is something that should receive some attention. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that your education in foreign languages seems lacking, even for primary education standards. I also note that you still do not realize that there are many "realistic purpose"s for the pictures you compulsively search. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Erik Warmelink, this baiting against Stillwaterising has to stop now, particularly on my talk page. Lar has already warned you regarding this unhelpful edit comment and your remarks about Stillwaterising's education do not help either. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jawohl. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Procedure for

Hello AFBorchert. I do have permission from Bundesarchiv for the 12 photos I was uploading (I am not finished yet, but I will stop uploading them till this is fully clarified as I am not in the mood of wasting my time if they will end up being deleted). As I have not done this before I would indeed appreciate your help in sorting this out. I have the mails I exchanged with the Bundesarchiv to order the digitalization of these 12 photos. Do I need to forward all of them to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org or is the last one with the order details enough? I would be grateful if you could let me know exactly what I need doing so that I can proceed with the uploads - or forget about wasting valuable time and money in wikipedia and wikimedia if efforts are not welcome at all...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rowanwindwhistler, you need to forward all emails with full headers to the address given at OTRS. And you've to expect that we contact the Bundesarchiv to check this back. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just have, including the images I ordered and the mail from the Bunderarchiv staff. I think everything you may need is there. If you find anything missing please let me know and I'll try and find the information. I will do nothing with these images till you (or someone else in charge of the mail) sends me the "go ahead". Is that all right? Thanks for your kind help.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rowanwindwhistler, thank you for your email you've sent to OTRS. You should have received a first response by email. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks to you for your kind reply. I hope she will be able to sort things out and allow us to enjoy these images. As I said, I will expect the final decision before upload the rest of the pictures (if the permission is finally granted). In case it is indeed granted, I hope the deleted pictures can be recovered as it takes a while to fill in the necessary form... Can they (I don't really know)?--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rowanwindwhistler, yes, we can restore deleted files and I do this regularly for files where we got permission through OTRS after the deletion. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mein Problem ist ganz konkret File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1971-039-44, Kurt Eisner.jpg. Auf gleiches Bild besteht ein Löschantrag, Commons:Deletion requests/File:KurtEisner.jpg, ich hatte den Verdacht dass Heinrich Hoffmann der Fotograf ist, dem ist nicht so, es ist Germaine Krull. Ich habe die Quelle gescannt. Wir wissen, dass das BArch in Bild 183(146 tonnen von Bilder hat, an denen sie nicht das Recht besitzen diese unter CC weiterzugeben. In diesem Fall habe ich mir mit meinen beschränkten Kentnissen und Mitteln die Mühe einer Recherche gemacht und nun wird über das Bundesarchiv das Bild ohne Recherche des Autors als Eigentum des Bundesarchivs tituliert und, mit Namensnennung des Bundesarchivs, freigestellt von einem Benutzer der meine Vorarbeit kannte und die Angabe, der Autor sei unbekannt anzweifeln muss da es de facto falsch ist?? Ist es also soweit, dass wir dem Urteil ganz offensichtlich unsauber arbeitender Archive (bzw. in diesem Fall: Archive, die meinen, der ADN der DDR besässe die vollumfänglichen Rechte an einem pre-1946 Bild, in diesem Fall 1918!) blind folgen? Gleiches trifft zugegebenermaßen für z.B. Alle Bild 183 von vor 1946 zu. Ich gebe zu, dass ich da überreagiert habe da diese Methode beim BArch offensichtlich Praxis ist, aber angesichts des Löschantrages und der dargelegten Informationen finde ich den Upload nach wie vor eine Frechheit. Ein Archiv hat die Aufgabe, die Bestande zu evaluieren. Ich musste ein Buch aufschlagen und konnte etwas über Portraits dieser Person aussagen. Das Bundesarchiv nimmt offensichtlich keinerlei Bewertung ihrer Inhalte vor. Ich habe meine Anmerkung zum Autor "o.Ang" bereits ans Bundesarchiv weitergeleitet. --Martin H. (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And I think that Martin H. is a bit frech here. Maybe the State of Bavaria owned the copyright since this photo was made. Or if Hoffman had acquired the copyright from Krull, it was confiscated when he was convicted for profiteering. The State owns it, and the Bundesarchive has received permission to license images for which the State owns the copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pieter, please do not attribute valid concerns as frech. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

? It was Martin H. who talked about uploader's (and the Bundesarchiv's) insolence. I find that a bit presumptuous. It is excellent that Martin H. researched the photographer, and he can have his concerns about copyright, but to make accusations like "das Bundesarchiv nimmt offensichtlich keinerlei Bewertung ihrer Inhalte vor" is going too far. They do make assesments when releasing content. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Martin H., ich habe den Punkt angesprochen und die Antwort dazu war, dass tatsächlich in fast all diesen Fällen die Verwertungsrechte vollumfänglich an das Bundesarchiv abgetreten worden sind. Es sind denjenigen, die mit dem Transfer aus dem Bundesarchiv beschäftigt gewesen sind, mehrere Aussagen noch lebender Fotografen bekannt, die diese Darstellung bestätigen. Es hat in der Tat auch Ausnahmefälle gegeben, bei denen dem Bundesarchiv Fehler passiert sind — dies sind aber Ausnahmen. Unabhängig davon wäre es ggf. vielleicht sinnvoll, den Namen des Fotografen bei der Bildbeschreibung aufzunehmen. Im übrigen ist für mich der Fall abgeschlossen bzw. nicht mehr in meinen Händen. Ich bitte, ggf. mit Raymond diesbezüglich direkt Kontakt aufzunehmen, um das weiter zu klären. Auf Deine Zweifel habe ich ihn hingewiesen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SWR use of the term vandalism

Hi, I just endorsed your comment to SWR about use of the term vandalism and told him that as far as I was concerned, no more occurrences are acceptable. Alos, can I ask you to do me a favor and look over the last few threads on my talk page and see what you think? Your calm and reasonable analysis of situations is always helpful. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lar, when I observe the heated inconstructive debates that arose around Commons:Sexual content I am not overly optimistic that this will change in the near future. And I find this very unfortunate as I agree with you that we need to reconsider the legal situation in the United States for the WMF and as I think that it would be helpful to summarize the relevant parts of COM:SCOPE, COM:PORN, COM:CENSOR, and COM:PEOPLE in regard to sexual content to get a handy reference. However, I think that before such a process could start we would need to consider where we want to head to, i.e. which are the possible legal problems for the WMF we have to take care of, and how this could be best implemented. In the past, we've usually discussed such thinks at the Village pump and then when some broad consensus was found, someone with good writing skills moved forward to write this down. To begin with writing down the policy is, I think, more likely to raise conflicts. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me hopping in here, AF - I really do see what you mean about trying to write the policy first maybe being a bit like putting the cart before the horse. From my perspective, the alternative seems to be just another pause, followed by (yet) another thread on the village pump which I worry will simply fail to find consensus, and we'll be back to square one - it's a shame. If you have any advice about ways to best progress which avoid building tension / conflicts, it'd be sincerely appreciated.

I also noticed that you deleted a couple of pictures of sexual activity where the participants are identifiable - do you think that's a fair interpretation of current practice and policy? I definitely support such an action, but part of the problem in establishing site wide policy in this area is that, generally speaking, the community seems highly reluctant to extrude policy from practice - virtually all such deletions happen at least in part 'under the radar' (or obfuscated to a degree by a broader discussion, as in this case) - either ways, thanks for your actions there, and would you consider examining File:Fellatio_(1).JPG and File:Fellatio_(2).jpg, because it seems to me that they warrant deletion on the same rationale? Best wishes, and hope you're good regardless, Privatemusings (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

further - there seem to be other images featuring sexual activity by identifiable people, I think we're currently assuming consent rather than having any evidence of such - I guess it's worth confirming that you feel these should be deleted? - and should I drop the links in here? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Privatemusings, in regard to File:Fellatio_(1).JPG and File:Fellatio_(2).jpg I am sceptical regarding the identifiability regarding the depicted persons. Hence I do not see this like the blatant violations I've recently deleted. Another more important concern I have is the age of the depicted persons even if they are not identifiable. I am not yet sure about the process how we shall handle this. I agree with Lar that we need some sort of a proof in all doubtful cases. This would be one of the open problems I would look like to see resolved through a policy at Commons:Sexual content. One option could be to handle this through OTRS. In its current state, I'm afraid that Commons might be exploitable in regard to pictures of sexual poses of an ex girl-/boyfriend in revenge (as already noted by MGA73) and of minors which are not clearly identifiable as such. But to return to your first comment: I still believe that it is important to identify the problems first and then to move forward to resolve them. The community is indeed reluctant to anything that smells like censorship. And I think that an open discussion regarding the risks we are encountering at Commons could help. We have to make sure that we do not head for a Commons that is strictly safe for kids (which it is not) but that we want to be safe in regard to US law. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

< The idea of OTRS managing some record keeping requirements has been repeatedly raised by many a volunteer - unfortunately it seems to me to have been vetoed unambiguously by Mike, WMF's lawyer - meanwhile this community continues to avoid confronting the issue, with sexually explicit material now being deleted as 'out of scope' - much as I actually agree with the deletions - do you think there's a way to engage 'both sides' in actually working towards a workable, communicable policy here? I think the current situation is avoidably damaging for commons. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Having OTRS obtaining, and possibly storing personally identifying information (PII), such as images of state-issued ID cards or birth certificates raises all kind concerns with privacy and retention of personally identifying information. There's also the issue of consent forms and finding a way to confirm the date of when the image as taken. For the above reasons I proposed that record keeping be kept per 18 U.S.C. § 2251 because then the records are kept off-site and in the chain of custody of the photographer. If there's a better way to do this I'm open to suggestions. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Langley Twp City Hall1.jpg

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

I need a favour from you. This is an uploader request. I need all uses of the above 2008 low resolution and poor zoom image to be replaced by this image below which I just took yesterday at a very high resolution with my superior quality Canon digital camera. It also shows much more of the Township City Hall in BC, Canada. Can you please help? This is the picture that I would ask that you use to replace all images of the poor quality images above. I think....you would agree that it is a much better image too as Commons has too many low quality photos:

• File:Langley Township City Hall (2010).jpg

Please help Admin AFBorchert to then delete the old image from 2008. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 Comment: Dear Admin AFBorchert, I really need you help to replace all uses of the first low quality image from 2008 and to replace it with the higher quality 2010 image....and then to delete the 2008 image. This is a good faith request...and it is of an official Municipal City Hall in Canada. If you are my friend, please use the universal global transfer to replace all images of the old 2008 image which I took--with an inferior quality camera--with the new high quality Canon photo. I badly need your help here because I am Not an Administrator. I make this urgent request...and as you know, I seldom contact you on anything nowadays. Please help. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, we do not speedily delete photographs which are not exact or scaled-down duplicates. I agree that your new photograph is of better quality than the earlier shot. But to get rid of the other photograph, you'll will need to open a regular deletion request on base of COM:SCOPE: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality. And to the other point: I run global replacements only if the former photograph is about to be deleted. Currently the older photograph is referenced by four Wikipedia articles. Why don't you change them "by hand"? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I will do it your way then. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen Steinzeitdorf Sipplingen Haus des Töpfers 2010 04 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 06:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lille Rue Faidherbe 2009 08 29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. — Jagro 21:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Photos of Dudanginski

Hello. These photos of Dudanginski was maken in Nazy Germany. More information about yhis person you can take here[11][12]. What liecense do we need to keep these photos here? --Interfase (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Interfase, by default all photographs taken in the Third Reich are fully copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Commons. In Germany we have 70pma, i.e. to have public domain status, a photographer must have been died in 1939 or earlier. The Bundesarchiv has released a set of photographs under a free license where it has the right to do so. This does not mean, however, that all photographs owned by the Bundesarchiv are available under a free license. Each of the images donated by the Bundesarchiv has been individually verified. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Klar. Ich habe 2 interesannte fotos aus Bundesarchiv gefunden. Können Sie mir diese und diese hier zu laden hilfen? Ich kann nicht gross Variant zu finden. --Interfase (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Interfase, wenn Sie Interesse an konkreten Bildern des Bundesarchivs haben, dann sollten Sie sich bitte an Raymond wenden, der das dann mit dem Bundesarchiv koordiniert. Sie müssen aber bei den bereits digitalisierten Aufnahmen, die nicht nach Commons importiert wurden, damit rechnen, dass die dafür notwendigen Rechte auch dem Bundesarchiv nicht vorliegen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Danke. --Interfase (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For info

I guess it is fair to say Multichill's action here concerns me. I would welcome your views. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Immeuble postmoderniste05920.jpg

Ok, let's take the long way. Imo, this case is pretty obvious and the template was made on that precise purpose. COM:FOP#France is quite clear on the matter and there is (as far as I know) no question of utilitarian character of the building. There were many DR about no-FOP in France, and closure were always straight: it will be deleted. Regards, --Coyau (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coyau, well I felt uncomfortable with speedying this — I did not claim that this photograph will survive. The outcome wasn't obvious for me and because of this I converted this into a regular DR. Another point is that such a process will give other projects time to save it into the local projects. de-wp, for example, applies D-A-CH law supporting COM:FOP independent from the location of the photographed object and would accept such shots. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Regards, Coyau (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/U Notification Policy

It's obvious to me that discussing a user without notifying them (as was done for my AN/U) is:

1. A breach of good faith
2. A breach of privacy/confidence/and trust
3. Against wiki tradition
4. Unethical

Can you put a proposal for this on Village Pump for adding the phrase "You must notify any user that you discuss" and defining the consequences for failure to do so? - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stillwaterising, such changes need a consensus first. Please open such a discussion if you want to get this changed. So far this hasn't been practice at Commons and we need exceptions to this (in case of interaction bans, for example). I would recommend notifications but not strictly require them. This looks otherwise like a new venue of wikilawyering to me. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What is an "interaction ban"? - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a ban which prohibits a user to contact another user on his or her talk page or to interact with him or her directly within a debate. You were, for example, asked to keep away from Roux's talk page but you still notified him. This was not appropriate. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If the person starting the AN/U has an "interaction ban" then the admin on duty should do a verification. This is an open project, there's no secret trials, no secret evidence or predetermined verdicts, or is there? Perhaps my kangaroo court analogy is about right? - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, please start a discussion regarding this somewhere (at COM:VP, for example). I think that this should be recommended but not enforced. But this is just my personal opinion. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, AFBorchert/Archives. You have new messages at Multichill#Hi's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Images of Brittsuza -Stillwaterising (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Around the Rings

Hi AFBorchert! I would like to ask the confirmation of the ticket 2010051210007657. Could you confirm it? Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 21:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Felipe Menegaz, unfortunately we did not yet receive a response from the copyright holder. This puts the whole set in danger. Please feel free to ask him if he has seen my email out of the OTRS system and whether he could reply to it. Kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello, can you please check OTRS? You should have received a letter from margarita@gogroupmedia.net. Can you please tell me it's OTRS number? Regards, --Gaeser (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gaeser, it's OTRS ticket 2010060610023649 and I've just sent a response to the copyright holder to get the free license confirmed. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gaeser, we have now a permission for this film and I've adapted the film's description page accordingly. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank's, can you please make it once again clear to me - the permission is only about one film?--Gaeser (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, just this film. I didn't knew that you were interested in more films. Please feel free to contact her regarding a more general permission which she can send to COM:OTRS. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Urgent message

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

Can you please order a Universal global replacement to replace all uses of this lower resolution image below with the other image which I correctly transferred--that preserves the higher resolution photo of this object:

• File:The Shabaka Stone.jpg

This photo which I tagged has now sat here for days and no one has acted at all. What a sad situation. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, I've submitted it to the bot. However, why didn't you upload the higher resolution over the lower resolution variant? This would have been the simplest approach. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done: Hi Leoboudv, I just noticed that some IP replaced the image manually at the only instance where the low-resolution variant was used. The CommonsDelinker does not appear to be active currently. Anyway, as the low-resolution is variant is no longer used on any project, I've deleted it and created a redirect for it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Magnus Manke transfer bot refuses to allow me to transfer images to Commons from wikipedia with exactly the same name. (at least this happens with my computer) That is why I had to choose a slightly different name extension. Also Stan Shebs once advised me to try to avoid uploading an image over an existing image to avoid cluttering the image file's history...and I generally agree with Stan. Thank you for your help. It is unfortunate when people 'borrow' images from wikipedia and they take the lower resolution version. It makes me shake my head sadly. This should be done properly which is what I am trying to do here with this historical object. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, you could upload it manually over the existing file. Some clutter (as, for example, the redirect) remains anyway in such a case and uploading a high-resolution variant over a low-resolution equivalent should always be fine. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• I will try and see if my computer lets me. It has been a bit 'fussy' somehow. Thank You from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Haathi parvat.jpg

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

Please mark this image if you can. I should not mark it as I transferred it from wikipedia. The license is cc by sa generic but the version is a bit is bit different (3.0 versus 2.0 on Commons) Since it is licensed freely, I thought it is better to get it marked but it is strange that the bot did not immediately pass it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Its OK. Admin Captain tucker has now marked it. But thank you for reading my message. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Magdalena neuner erdinger.jpg

Please mark this image if you can. I should not mark it as I transferred it from wikipedia. The license is cc by sa generic but the version is a bitis bit different (3.0 versus 2.0 on Commons) Since it is licensed freely, I thought it is better to get it marked but it is strange that the bot did not immediately pass it. Regards, --mato45--Mato45 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Carlow Graiguecullen Bridge House 2009 09 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 18:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OTRS check

Hi. Could you please find out if 2009050710000158 covers just the one image or all images of that user? Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lycaon, this OTRS ticket covers File:Lloydiaserotina.JPG as well. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bantry Church of St. Brendan The Navigator Third South Window He gathers the lambs in his arms 2009 09 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. Lycaon 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Permission to use two of your photographs

Hi, I am currently designing and laying out a book for a client, here in Clifden, County Galway. This book will include a chapter about the Claregalway Friary. I was wondering if you would allow him to use your images 'Claregalway Friary Living Quarters' and 'Friary Tower'? You can contact me at this address: catherine@whatson.ie Regards, Catherine Lavoie

Hi Catherine Lavoie, you are free to use these photographs under any of the given terms. I would recommend to select the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} license which is summarized here. If you plan to include these photographs into a book, you shall attribute them to “Andreas F. Borchert” and refer to the chosen license (i.e. CC-BY-SA-3.0). Please contact me by email if you have any further questions or if you need other terms: lavoie@expires-on-2010-08-26.usenet.andreas-borchert.de Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goleen Church of Our Lady, Star of the Sea, and St. Patrick North Transept North Window Our Lady of Lourdes Detail 2009 09 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --Haneburger 12:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OTRS pending as of 13 July 2010

Hallo Andreas! Für das Bild File:Cover of Germany & Middle East.jpg hatte ich am 13.07. zum zweiten Mal eine E-Mail mit der Genehmigung durch den Rechteinhaber abgeschickt, nachdem die erste E-Mail nicht bearbeitet und das Bild gelöscht worden war (vgl. User talk:Herbythyme/Arc18#Cover of Germany & Middle East.jpg). Nun habe ich gesehen, daß es bereits Empfangsbestätigungen für den 14.07. gibt (Category:OTRS received as of 14 July 2010), die Eingänge vom 13.07. aber noch unbearbeitet sind. Könntest Du hier helfen? Vielen Dank im voraus, --ThT (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo ThT, ich finde diese E-Mail überhaupt nicht. An welche Adresse hast Du es denn geschickt? Es ist jedenfalls nicht auf permissions-commons-de und auch Suchen nach dem Dateinamen oder der Rechteinhaberin bringen keine Resultate. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Andreas! Die E-Mail hatte ich am 13.07.2010 an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org geschickt (Subject: Cover of Book: Germany and the Middle East). Gruß, --ThT (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo ThT, da war einer meiner Kollegen gerade schneller und hat die erste E-Mail bearbeitet und die Datei entsprechend gekennzeichnet. Die zweite E-Mail habe ich gerade mit dem bereits abgeschlossenen Vorgang vereint. Bitte verzeihe mir, dass ich jeweils etwas spät reagiert habe — leider hatte ich etwas weniger Zeit als erhofft. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:GuernicaGernikara.jpg

With respect, I take strong issue with your closing of this DR as "keep". You say "I think that it is safe to assume here that this replica is no copyright violation", but I see no justification for thinking that Picasso's heirs had anything to do with it. To assume that they did is an astounding reach. Whatever happened to erring on the side of caution? I strongly urge you to reconsider. Powers (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Powers, if this replica has been officially commissioned by nobody less than the city of Guernica, i.e. exactly that city that is subject and title of this artwork by Picasso, then it is hardly imaginable that this has been done without the permission by the heirs of Pablo Picasso. Our precautionary principle requires significant doubt and we do not have this here. Instead it can be quite safely assumed that a city administration checks the legal requirements before it invests taxpayer's money into an expensive copyright violation. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no problem imagining that government officials are cavalier with copyright issues. If you won't relent, I would like to take this to deletion review to get a larger set of opinions on the subject. Powers (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to do this. However, I would also suggest to keep the requirement of significant doubt in mind and so far you failed to substantiate that. Commons has already got a reputation (sometimes justified, sometimes not) for putting undue burdens on the uploader (like, for example, to obtain a clarification by the copyright holders or the city of Guernica) which raises frustration levels in other projects and turn users away from Commons. I know that this is a real problem in our relationship to the de-wp project. We need to distinguish in a well-judged manner between more theoretical doubts and significant doubts here to avoid this. Feel also free to ask User:MGodwin for an opinion. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, we also have a reputation for blithely violating copyright without taking appropriate steps to make sure our content is legal. It all depends on which direction you're coming from. Powers (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello AFBorchert. I uploaded a file File:Afro picks.jpg. The images of afro pics are released with a free license, as it is specified at the bottom of the source page. Could you please tell me, if this license should be verified by somebody, as the licenses from Flickr's images are? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, this looks good — the site, however, does not tell in its release statement which version of the CC-BY license has been chosen. I've sent an OTRS email to the copyright holder and hope to get a response. Such an OTRS confirmation is surely the best verification you can get :) Please pardon my late response. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello AFBorchert, I guess I own you some explanations. Few days ago I was asked to take pictures of some Afro picks to be used in a Wikipedia article. So, I did go to a few stores, but some did not allow me to take pictures, in others, the picks were in plastic containers, and the pictures I took did not look good. Then I found that site on Internet. I emailed them, and asked them to release the images with a free license. I explained to them what licenses should be OK: CC-BY CC-BY-SA and Public Domain, and so they did. So, if there is any misunderstanding, it is all my fault. Thank you very much for your time and taking care of this. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, there is no harm done. Instead, I'll find it great that you convinced them to put these images under a free license. But as you've corresponded with them by email I'm quite hopeful that they will respond quickly to my email such that we can fix this. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi AFBorchert. I'd like to let you know that I forwarded the email I got from the copy-right holder to permissions. I put the ticket number in the subject. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, thank you for forwarding the email. I've joined it to the corresponding ticket. Accordingly to the email they have sent a response to OTRS but I haven't seen it — their response possibly bounced as we had unfortunately for some hours an email problem at OTRS causing incoming emails to be lost. I will look further to it today in the evening (European time). Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello AFBorchert. I advised them to link the license the images were released with to the license description, and they did here. Do you believe it is sufficient to verify the license now? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mbz1, there is still the attribution missing and the restriction "for Wikipedia" has to go. I've meanwhile received an email by them through OTRS and responded to it refering to these two open problems. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Mbz1, but after the last insulting email I received from the copyright holder, I do not see how I can continue here. I had no choice but to delete the file. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, AFBorchert, I am very sorry about the insulting email. Still the editor, who asked for the picture is upset, and thinks that the image was deleted because they put into two articles. So, I would like to ask you maybe consider this solution: I will ask the copyright holder to put at his site that the images are released under CC-By with the link to the license description and without mentioning the word wikipedia anywhere. If they agree, would it be possible to undelete the image without any emails to them, and just threat the image as a Flickr image with a free license?--Mbz1 (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm not upset. Thanks for everyone's effort, and sorry for all the hassles. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1 and Anna Frodesiak, I can undelete the file if the web site is perfectly sound regarding the free license. However, we need not just to get rid of "for Wikipedia" but would also need an attribution — after all it is an attribution license. However, I got the impression that the copyright holder is quite confused regarding this release and possibly does not understand its implications. I would appreciate if not just the correct legal expression is on the web page but I would hope then that the copyright holder understands its implications. And it would be very kind if you could forward any possibly continued correspondence to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with "[Ticket#2010080210026435]" in its subject. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, AFBorchert, I just now read the email from the copy right holder, and I would like to ask you to please accept my apology for that email. That's all is my fault, as I explained in my response to the copy right holder. My email was forwarder to the permissions too. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, this is not your fault as you tried your best in getting good images for our projects. I've lots of patience in OTRS processes with people not familiar with licenses, our processes etc. but in this case I simply couldn't continue myself the conversation after the last email by the copyright holder. The email you've sent is quite good and let us hope now for the best. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi AFBorchert, sorry to bother you again. I promised to Anna Frodesiak to get an image to use in the articles, and I would like to do what I could to keep my promise. So, I found an image on the Net. The image was taken by a photographer, who died in 1941, almost 70 years ago. It is a low resolution image. Do you believe it will be OK to upload it as public domain? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, where was this photograph published first? If it is a country that applies the 70 pma rule, we would have to wait until 2012. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea, where it was published, or either, if it was published at all. I found the image at the net. It said it was taken by Zagourski. He died in 1941, and that's all I know. I guess I should leave you alone with those now. Sorry I took so much of your time. Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Casimir Zagourski (see also the more lengthy article at fr-wp) died in 1944. At least some of his photographs were published first in Belgium where 70 pma applies. Here, we would have to wait until 2015. You'll find a recent edition with some of his photographs and more reliable bibliographic information in In and out of focus : images from Central Africa, 1885-1960, ISBN 0-85667-551-2 which dedicates an entire chapter to him: 1924-1944 The Image World of Casimir. It is available at Berkeley University Library which should be in your area. Best wishes, --AFBorchert (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Library of Congress gives a different day of the death, but this really does not matter. Anyway the image cannot be uploaded now. Thank you for your research and pointing me out to the books! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Löschung eines Bildes

Hi Andreas, ich habe festgestellt, dass mein Logo, das ich vor langer Zeit mal bei Wikipedia hochgealden hatte, bei Google immer weit oben auftaucht, was mich extrem stört, da es nirgends verwendet wird. Deshalb wäre es schön, wenn du es komplett löschen könntest. Geht um das Logo: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Sunny-Sunset.svg Gruß Sandro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.110.125.41 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Sandro, die Datei liegt auf de-wp, nicht auf Commons. Damit fällt sie außerhalb meines Zuständigkeitsbereichs, da ich nur auf Commons Admin bin, jedoch nicht auf de-wp. Ich würde Dir empfehlen, für die Datei einen Schnelllöschantrag zu stellen, der in diesem Falle zulässig ist (siehe den fünften und letzten Punkt bei Dateien). Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for improving descriptions of some of my files. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Athenry Priory East Window 2009 09 13.jpg that you created has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution.

/FPCBot (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Otto_von_Steinmeister.jpg

Mail an OTRS ist unterwegs. Dank und Gruß.Karsten11 (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für den Hinweis, Karsten11. Ich habe das Bild mit {{OTRS received}} ausgezeichnet und die Hannoveraner um die noch ausstehende Genehmigung ersucht. Hoffen wir mal, dass dies bald klappt. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Francesco_Torniello_da_Novara_Letter_I_1517.png

File:Francesco_Torniello_da_Novara_Letter_I_1517.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!

166.205.5.28 20:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tsigal

Zu dem, der Künstler lebt noch. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Fernrohr, vielen Dank für den Hinweis — ich habe es eben korrigiert. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ich kann Dir auf DE leider nicht antworten, ein Commons-Benutzer hat mich dort wutentbrannt gesperrt. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Die Sperre auf de-wp erscheint mir unangemessen. Ich habe sie daher auf WP:SPP kommentiert. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI - Cuerden is requesting undeletion

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Schaijk, village_en_longeur (BHIC).PNG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Pieter Kupier. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DR

Hallo Andreas,
könntest du mal nach Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tuin Harinxmastate Beetsterzwaag.jpg schauen und diese DR abschließen. Ich bin für löschen, aber du kannst natürlich auch anders entscheiden. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ich hatte den Antrag sogar bereits auf meiner Beobachtungsliste. Aber es ist gut, dass Du mich daran erinnerst, da ich die Sache genauso sehe und es daher auch für den Betroffenen sicherlich besser ist, wenn das zügig entschieden wird. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Danke. --Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Busking

Many thanks for taking on the Busking article with the unencyclopaedic video! It was really a PITA but after a while I didn't have the nerves to pursue this any longer. What a nice surprise that it finally got resolved (even if it lasted quite a bit, which is not your fault)! --Scartelak (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

my edits

you previously removed an edit i made to the Fermoy wiki page i would ask that you keep your edits to yourself unless you actually live in Fermoy in which case you would know that the person i added is well known local figure!!!

Hi Unknown, if you are refering to the Fermoy-article on :en wikipedia, you should comment on AFBorchert's talkpage on Wikipedia, not at a different project as Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

permission to use

Hi. I'm writing to you as you are first in the list of OTRS volunteers. I have a question concerning "permissions to use" for 2 files I've uploaded. Is there a standard file or format to use for this and if so where is it to be found? Many thanks for your help. Camster2 (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camster2, as AFBorchert is offline for some time, you might ask the next one on the OTRS list. --Túrelio (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Artistic merit??

What artistic merit did you see in File:Galeazzo_Ciano-473_(PD-old).jpg? I only see a very ordinary photo. Please undelete, and allow discussion of the issue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pieter Kuiper, thank you for your interest in this photograph. There is artistic merit in such photographs as there is quite some freedom given in its composition. Things would be different for, to take an example, simple portrait shots where the subject sits on a chair and where everything else is already fixed. This DR run for more than two weeks and I fail to see any ground which would allow us to keep it. The main problem is still that a source is missing. The file was tagged on 3 May 2010 and no source has been added since then, making it highly unlikely that it will be added now. Please feel free to file this at COM:UDEL if you still disagree. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

PD-Italy was just restored a day ago. The criteria for simple photographs in Italy are different from those in Germany. Why cannot you allow discussion? UDEL is not a good forum, because too few people can see the image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We have to consider EU directive 2006/116/EC, (16): The protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes. A photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account. The protection of other photographs should be left to national law. Due to the harmonizing effect of this directive we can no longer assume that the old quite liberal interpretion in regard to artistic merit in Italy holds up. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is left to national law. But why need we discuss this here? What is so dangerous or difficult about reopening the deletion discussion? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

But not in the extent it was left before. According to the directive, it is not left to local law if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality. Other criteria do not count. The required originality is in my opinion doubtless present in this photograph due to its composition. I will not undelete this file as I am convinced that this is a very likely copyvio given its unknown source and as {{PD-Italy}} does not apply in this case (and it is very doubtful whether PD-Italy will be really helpful). --AFBorchert (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So you know better than the Italians. And you are soooo certain that you are right that you do not even see that the issue is at least worth discussion... sigh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper, I value your efforts to save pictures which are open for deletion and your attempts to find some ground how we can keep them. But please accept that I cannot and will not undelete files where I have the firm belief that we cannot keep them according to our policies and copyright law — at least to the extent which is known at the time of the closure. I will not claim that I know more than others (in fact I've learnt quite a lot from others here) but so far I haven't seen anything convincing me from the opposite in this case. With COM:UDEL we have a process which allows other admins to revisit this case and to listen to your arguments and possibly those of others. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wenn du Lust hast, schau mal bei dem "Please, restore PD-Italy"-Thread auf COM:VP vorbei. Ich fürchte da wird ein recht ungenau definiertes PD-Italy durchgedrückt, was nicht nur für die jeweiligen Photographen drastische Folgen hat (nur noch 20 Jahre Schutz), sondern auch auf Commons zu endlosen Streitereien führen könnte, ob ein Bild nun unter PD-Italy fällt oder nicht. --Túrelio (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für den Hinweis, Túrelio. Das erscheint in der Tat bedenklich. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ballymote Friary W Limestone Head 2010 09 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good -- Smial 00:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have an absolute right.

All on the subject. All the time I underlined that this iz not the place to prolonged deliberations. The same your guess is as good as mine me, I said to User talk:Stellarkid . I hope that you as the administrator, will write him such itself caution as to me. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ballymote Church of the Immaculate Conception North Aisle Madonna and Child 2010 09 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments crop a bit tight, else very good --Mbdortmund 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Protecting of this nomination will prevent voting on it or even closing it. I believe it is better to unprotected it and let user:alvesgaspar to go on with his dishonest enforcement of his own rules against consensus, done only to retaliate to me personally. I will not remove alves's template anymore. This is a promise. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please accept my apology

Hi AFBorchert, May I please ask you to accept my apology for letting you down, and behaving in such a way that you were forced to block me? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, I gladly accept your apology and very much hope that we can resolve this conflict at COM:AN/U. And I hope that you understand that I prefer to keep my talk page as a sanctuary where everyone is welcomed but where nobody should be attacked or offended. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Athenry Priory East Window 2009 09 13.jpg

I like this very much. Thank you for taking it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thank you for telling me this and I am glad that you like it. It is also one of my favorites. BTW, the Dominican priory in Athenry has an amazing history. It had even the status of an university for some years. I wrote an article about it at de-wp (Google translation, but be warned, Google is quite struggling with my long German sentences). Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 again

I was one the users asking for Mbz1's unblock and applauded your initative. But I was probably wrong, as things are out of control again. Will you please take a look here? Best wishes, Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alvesgaspar, thank you for your notice. I've posted a plea on Mbz1's talk page in response as I agree that these comments were inappropriate. Am I right in assuming that the current conflict resulted from these edits? The edit, titled smells fishy at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset with Cirrus clouds at Land's End in San Francisco .jpg was not exactly helpful and likely to anger the nominator and/or the photographer. Many of these candidacies are already quite poisoned and this added just more fuel to it. In regard to the other edit: You cou please provide more background to it? I see currently just two nominations by Kooritza. And I wonder if such a closure is exactly helpful if an image is nearly through to its period. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

With this kind of statements you are condoning vicious attacks like this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not condone anything here but issued a plain warning. And as you are just visiting my talk page, I take the opportunity to remind you that comments like these were not exactly helpful either. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Images are put up for review to be featured; I try to contribute to the process. But I would like to see an apology from you to Lacaon for making Mbz1's attacks on him possible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not notice yet that your contributions at COM:FPC were actually contributing. While I appreciate your contributions at deletion requests and your efforts to save images, I do not see much worth in comments that sum up to a trollish form of I-do-not-like-it. You should consider the general image guidelines and the particular guidelines for FP candidates at the beginning of the COM:FPC page. Comments at the nominations should be done with some effort in evaluating the candidate and in respect to the nominator and/or the photographer. Comments that can be interpreted as provocations are surely not helpful there. Regarding Lycaon (please get the spelling right): I cannot undo statements made by others and will not apology for statements issued by others. I surely regret Mbz1's inappropriate comments of today as much as I regret the provocations directed at her. However, I still believe in good faith as one of the fundamental principles of the Wikimedia. This extends also to you. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC) P.S. Please avoid series of subsequent edits on my talk page. This is quite irritating and generates edit conflicts when I attempt to respond. You should know how to use Show preview.

That lycaon man does not deserve an apology., but you, AFBorchert, you do. So once again please do accept my sincere apology for letting you down, for kuiper harassing you know because of me. Please do satisfy the users, who want me blocked, and please forgive me. Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Info @AFBorchert: thanks for your help. When I made that comment and used the unfortunate expression of smells fishy, I was really convinced that something wrong was going on (as I still am). I was right, as Mbz1 has confirmed that some of the users helping with her pictures in FPC were "recruited" (should I say canvassed?) from the English Wikipedia. Also, one of the new user's accounts supporting the nomination was clearly created with that specific purpose. As for the use of the FPD template, the FPC rules clearly state: that only two active nominations by the same user are allowed (rule 11); and that only the same picture (with variations in crop, color, contrast, etc) can be considered as an alternative version of a nomination (Rule 12). In the light of these rules, the new poster presented by Kooritza cannot be allowed while the two other nominations are active. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alvesgaspar, thank you for your response. The problem, as always, is to distinguish between any suspicions you might have and the actual comments you are posting. Even if some patterns are monitored it is difficult to see the background but easy to insult someone. We should consider in this particular case that Mbz1 is well known at en-wp and at Commons, that many sympathize with her, and that it is indeed possibly that some of them might be inclined to support her even if they are otherwise not familiar with Commons. And I notice just two votes by relatively new editors at Commons (but both of them were active before this photograph was submitted to COM:FPC, and one of them is a long-standing editor at en-wp. I do not see a canvassing here and I do not think that your comment was helpful. (The form of the response was not appropriate but I guess that Mbz1 felt attacked in her honor.) Regarding the use of the FPD template I am still struggling to understand your rationale (perhaps this is due to my lacking familiarity with the FPC process): I saw just two nominations by Kooritza, one of them presenting an alternative. I would be surprised to see the alternatives counted as separate nominations. And I am still surprised to see FPD used shortly before the end of a voting period. And so far I do not see any other regular of FPC who supports your rationale. Regarding the use of FPD, I would expect it to be applied only in obvious cases or in consensus shortly after a third nomination is filed. And perhaps it would be helpful to get the rules more clarified in this respect to avoid future conflicts of this kind. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, AFBorchert, May I please ask you to take a look at this oppose vote which was made by a new user, whose only contributions so far were participating in FPC. Alvesgapar apparently has no problems with that vote. May I also ask you to notice that I have never supported any of my images myself although I had all the right to do it. Alvesgaspar continue claims that it "smells fishy" really smells fishy and is very offensive. May I also ask you to explain to me what account was created with the purpose of supporting the nomination as alvesgaspar claims? Do you see any? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, it is correct that Hetpaardindegang was just created on October 24th and its first edit was the vote on your picture. However, the rules permit this and edits like this and this suggest that this user is quite inexperienced. Not much can be said from five edits in total (no activities in other projects) but I do not see yet a sockpuppet in this. Alvesgaspar never told exactly which accounts he suspected. But his comment is below the support votes of Luckymelon and Jiujitsuguy. Both have not much activity at Commons. Please note also that Alvesgaspar now considers his comment smells fishy as unfortunate (see above). It is my hope that both of you, Alvesgaspar and you, Mbz1, can return to mutual good-faith assumptions. I am surely not familiar with all the interaction you have had at COM:FPC as I am not a regular there but I have the impression that your relationship to Alvesgaspar is not as worn out or poisoned as your relationship to Pieter Kuiper or Lycaon. Even if unfortunate things have been said, it should be possible to move forward and to start freshly. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi AFBorchert, I have no problems with the oppose by Hetpaardindegang. I am assuming a good faith about the user. I used the example only to show that a few new users voted on the nomination. I have not a slightest idea who is Luckymelon. I believe I met Jiujitsuguy on English wiki, but I have never asked them to vote here. But Alves claims that one account was made in purpose to support the nomination. He wrote: "Also, one of the new user's accounts supporting the nomination was clearly created with that specific purpose" I'd like to know what one he means. I am afraid you are mistaking about my relationship with alves. It is now more worn than with lycaon. Anyway... Sorry I took your time. I asked alves this question about the account. Maybe he will respond. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Info @AFBorchert: let me try again to clarify the two issues. Concerning my suspicions, it is relevant to note that Mbz1 was not the nominator of this picture, Kooritza was (I suppose she was blocked at the time). I also made clear in the nomination section and in a message that I sent to her that "it never crossed my mind that she was involved in any kind of less ethical behaviour". Obviously, the comment was addressed at the nominator, not at Mbz1. Until now, and as far as I know, Kooritza never commented this issue. Second point: the rules concerning the type of pictures allowed as "alternatives" were clarified recently, after a previous drama over an identical issue where Mbz1 were also involved. So, it is difficult for me to believe that she is not perfectly aware of its exact meaning, as well as any other regular contributor to FPC. I reproduce here Rule 12: "A nomination should contain a single picture. A different version of the same picture (with variations in crop, color, contrast, etc.) is not considered as a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version. I apologize if I seem to be a bit irritated but the mood is justified by the circumstances. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roggenburg Klosterkirche Orgel 2010 10 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good.

Santa Teresa

Thank you for openning and contribution on the Santa Teresa images issue.
As Simonxag agreed on moving the images, and I am a bit new in here. Could you please help me in doing that?.
I would not like to make a mistake and exasperate administrators or others. I would appreciate.--Carmelo Seglar (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carmelo Seglar, I've just done it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.--80.58.205.105 14:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roggenburg Klosterkirche Hochaltar Immaculata 2010 10 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice --Carschten 16:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bildprobleme

Moin AFBorchert, ich bitte Dich mal einen Blick auf meine Wikidiskseite [13] zu werfen. Ein User hat mich angesprochen und ich bin mir nicht sicher in Sachen Urheberrecht. Deine Meinung zu den einzelnen Bildern, auch gerne in Kurzform, wäre mir wichtig. Gruß -- Biberbaer (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ich bedanke mich für die Anmerkungen. Ist ja auch ein Lernprozess für mich. Gruß -- Biberbaer (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roggenburg Klosterkirche Orgel 2 2010 10 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments FP IMO. Thoughts about a little crop left for symmetry ?--Jebulon 12:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Administrator Barnstar
		I award you this Administrator Barnstar for always being unafraid and fair administrator!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mbz1, this is the very first barnstar I got :) --AFBorchert (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Embassy of Turkmenistan

Hallo, ich habe fälschlicherweise die oben genannte cat angelegt. Richtig heißt es Category:Embassies of Turkmenistan. Kannst Du die falsche cat löschen? Ich finde die Stelle hier nicht, wo ich derartige Anträge stellen kann. -- Clemensfranz (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Clemensfranz, bei mir bist Du da schon richtig :) Ansonsten müssten Kategorien durch COM:CFD. Ich habe die fälschlich angelegte Kategorie soeben gelöscht. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Danke für die schnelle Bearbeitung. -- Clemensfranz (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

  — Jeff G. ツ 04:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of OTRS :)

I've replied but could you also take a look at these. The images appear to suggest that OTRS is pending or received but I have some doubts. Many thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Herby, I share your doubts. I see no ticket in any of the permission queues related to these uploads. I've removed the bogus {{OTRS received}} at one of the uploads and tagged two of them with {{No permission}}. In the remaining cases, we have {{OTRS pending}} which is ok even if a ticket is not immediately found. If everything proceeds normally, they will get a date attached to it, and the files will be moved to the appropriate sub category of Category:OTRS pending where they will eventually be speedied if nothing happens. The unfortunate point, of course, is that the use of {{OTRS pending}} will even in cases where never a ticket gets opened grant a surviving time of at least about a month. However, the circumstances speak against this user. If you take a look at zh:恒宇智联科技, you will see that zh-wp considered his or her new article as a suspected copyright violation from here where you'll find also the set of pictures uploaded to Commons. In summary, this could be someone attempting to create an advertising article about this company. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks and appreciated. I did look at the zh page and deleted the Commons one (twice!) on that basis. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roggenburg Klosterkirche Altar der Skapulierbruderschaft Altargemälde St. Laurentia 2010 10 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Needs maybe ein bissschen Luft rechts und links, but I suppose it was a picture difficult to take. QI and useful.--Jebulon 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo not shown on Deutsch wikipedia

It is strange that the photo of the actor Robert D. McNeill does not show on his German wikipedia article here I thought someone 'sighted' it. I originally uploaded it to Wikicommons with the copyright owner's permission. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, hm... I see the photo in that article. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK then. Maybe my computer just doesn't show it on Deutsch wiki. But if you see it then that's fine with me. Than's for checking anyway. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roggenburg Klosterkirche Hochaltar Martin Kuen Himmelfahrt Mariens 2010 10 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Thoughts about a perspective correction ? --Jebulon 17:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC) --  Info This is already slightly perspective corrected. Stretching this any further does not improve the image as the columns are at different depths. --AFBorchert 23:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Oh yes, you are right. Thanks for answering. QI, despite the unfortunate cropped angel (I suppose) above--Jebulon 23:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Our Lady's Island Church of the Assumption West Aisle Window Nativity 2010 09 26.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quite good. -- Alvesgaspar 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DRBot

Ich weiß zwar nicht warum, aber jeder von mir gestellte Löschantrag landet automatisch auf meiner Beo. Nach administrativer Entscheidung, dem aus dem Ruder gelaufenen DRBot und dank Deiner Reverts hatte ich jetzt mindestens dreimal die Gelegenheit festzustellen, dass ich mal für eine Stunde hier scheinbar fleißig war. ;-) Ich hoffe, irgend jemand fängt den Bot demnächst wieder ein. Herzliche Grüße, --4028mdk09 (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hallo 4028mdk09, der Bot ist zur Zeit gesperrt. Da er aber ziemlich wichtig ist, bleibt zu hoffen, dass das Problem möglichst bald korrigiert wird. Dass die Beobachtungslisten dann auch damit geflutet werden, ist natürlich ein ärgerlicher Nebeneffekt. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen Bronzezeitdorf Unteruhldingen SO 2010 04 10.jpg that you created has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear AFBorchert, congratulation with a new FP you took! I'd like to wish you a Marry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I'd like to wish you to have more exiting trips, and to take many more great images!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, this is quite some surprise to Christmas Eve. Thank you! I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year as well. And I am similarly looking forward to see your great images from your coming journeys. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)