User talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2014

Your photograph in Killarney Cathedral

Dear Mr. Borchert,

Your photograph of the stained glass window in Killarney Cathedral in Ireland has been included in the app Jesus Art available on Google Play and Amazon Appstore for Android. Within the app, it is under the category Young Man of Nain. Thank you for your contribution!

--MrFrosty2 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrFrosty2, thank you for letting me know. Kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Freigabe

Hallo AFBorchert, ich wollte nur mal nachfragen wann die Freigabe der von mir am 30.Dezember hochgeladenen Bilder (Rheintaler) erfolgt. Viele Grüße und noch nachträglich ein Gutes Neues Jahr Frila (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Frila, für die zuletzt hochgeladenen Bilder (wie beispielsweise File:Rheintaler-willy-brandt 35X35.jpg) liegt uns bislang keine darauf Bezug nehmende E-Mail vor. Da sollten Sie bitte nachhaken, sonst werden wir die Bilder wieder entfernen müssen. Ihnen wünsche ich ebenfalls alles Gute zum neuen Jahr. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

AN/U Fastily

Re. this. I made it repeatedly clear, that report was not about the content issue. Why you chose to ignore that and talked about it anyway is beyond me, but if you insist on talking about it, I guess I have to reply here. Note: as you seem to have ignored it, I will remind you that the following only applies to the first and second images, I had already conceded the point on the third.

If you had bothered to do even the tiniest bit of research on Flickr, you would have noticed that the name that particular Flickr user chooses for his uploads often has absolutely no relevance to the main subject of the image, and in many cases the chosen title is completely esoteric. You would have also noticed he has taken several other images of buses, none of which had titles referring to the adverts. You would have also noticed that he has no sets, galleries or other arrangements that suggest he is remotely interested in photographing buses for the adverts they carry. For those specific images, he applied geographic and bus related sets. Just like he does for his other bus photographs.

Then if you had done a bit more research over here, you would have noticed that the images were not categorised or used in any way that referred to or relied on the advert being displayed. The copyright portion can be blacked out, and there would have been absolutely no consequence on the use/usability of the file, which is to illustrate a particular model of bus in a particular setting.

Therefore, according to the actual guidance and examples in COM:DM, combined with the fact that you like Fastily appear to not be able to tell the difference between the length of the panel (full length of the bus, but not all copyrighted) and the width of the actual copyrighted portion of the advert (the photo), the idea that the whole purpose/focus/intent of those images was to illustrate a non-incidental copyright work, is totally and utterly unsupported and unsupportable.

All you can do to really support your argument (ie by actually referencing policy or some other actual evidence) is to point to the names. And the reason why I did want to dispute the content issue at AN/U was because if/when I do, I would have pointed out the fact that, as they were my Commons uploads, the first thing I would have done had I got around to properly categorising them, would be to RENAME THEM.

So, please, next time someone makes a report at AN/U and goes to great lengths to explain they're not there to discuss the content issue, please have a think before you start commenting on the content issue anyway as to whether or not you have a) properly researched the issue, and b) are in full possession of the facts (such as the proposed counter argument).

And as an aside, the next time you feel like making the claim that Fastily has explained something "kindly and patiently", why don't you have a real good think about just how little of the above was actually covered by Fastily in his explanation (hint: all he said was that DM didn't apply, and he just about mentioned relative size). And also consider just how unlikely it would be that he would ever waste any of his precious time discussing an issue to that sort of length or detail (and seriously, if you think making 1 post and then resorting to an 'I have better things to do' is being patient at all, you are totally wrong). Ultra7 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ultra7, I do not think that it is helpful to fork such debates from COM:AN/U to user talk pages. I've responded at that thread. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of pictures of user:Frank Gosebruch

Hopefully you inform all users about your decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nikon rangefinder d.jpg. --Cepheiden (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cepheiden, it takes some time to delete that many pictures and then to provide a deletion rationale. But this has been done now. Thanks and kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could make this decision more transparent. There are multiple points which don't fit to Franks story. I think this is possible even with respect to his privacy. --Cepheiden (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not make the decision any more transparent as this would violate the privacy of the OTRS correspondence. But you are free to ask other German-speaking OTRS members for an opinion. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am an OTRS member and I am perfectly able to read German. My conclusion is that the conversation does not provide any evidence that should lead to speedy deletion, surely if you take into account the evidence for the contrary as provided in the DR by Mattbuck. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the comment you quoted in the previous section? I actually thought that was an argument for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

They did have mirrors back in the seventhies. Jcb (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nikon rangefinder d.jpg" ?

Hi, I don't see how this DR can possible be concluded as (speedy) delete. Please undo your action. Jcb (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jcb, copyright violations can be speedily deleted. And I've now provided the rationale. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed at least this comment: Comment - File:Photographer 70ies with Linhof Technika III.jpg shows a photographer, who appears to in fact be Frank Gosebruch. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC) - this comment provides evidence contradicting your conclusion. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jcb, I will not elaborate anything of the ticket here in the public except to state that this has been addressed in the ticket. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You missed a lot - I merged some DRs in to the rangefinder one, but there are a lot left. I suggest you go to eg File:Nikon F3 AF TC16.JPG and use the perform batch task function to nuke all the rest. Please also close the relevant DRs. Oh, but avoid the Askania logo and the playbill, as those are clearly not copyvios. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck, you are right. Unfortunately, I do not have much time right now. I will do this tomorrow evening. Thanks and regards, AFBorchert (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is now done with the exception of some files where we can possibly get a permission. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

file rename

Hi AFBorchert, how do you do? Could you please see this rename request? I've waited a while, but don't know the normal waiting time, so I'm impatiently asking you. Thanks, DanielTom (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I see User:Indeedous already took care of it—thanks again, and apologies for my impatience. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, DanielTom, it is nice to see that others are quicker in processing these requests. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of pictures of user:JoshMahinay.jpg

AFBorchert: the picture that was deleted is part of a submitted article awaiting approval by Wikipedia. May I ask that you return the photo to its normal status so there is no confusion when the article is being reviewed? Thank you...PS I am an unpaid volunteer. Judy Vorfeld — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judy Vorfeld (talk • contribs) 21 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi Judy Vorfeld, as stated here, we would need a permission for this photograph which is to be forwarded to our support team, using the email address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Without such a permission, we cannot restore this photo. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. I am an unpaid volunteer as well.

Bilder Vreden

Bei den Bildern ist ein Baustein gesetzt dass irgendetwas noch fehlt. Könntest Du mir bitte schreiben was noch fehlt. Datum habe ich jetzt eingetragen. Gruß -- Frila (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Frila, bei den Bildern habe ich noch Nachfragen gestellt, die leider bislang unbeantwortet blieben. Ich fürchte, dass die Bilder gelöscht werden müssen, wenn da nicht bald eine Antwort eintrifft. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ich habe vorhin noch mit Herrn Vreden telefoniert und ihn gefragt ob er eine Nachricht erhalten hat. Er hat keine Nachricht erhalten. Könntest Du vielleicht mir die Nachricht senden, dann bespreche ich das mit Vreden. Gruß -- Frila (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Die E-Mail ging am 23. Februar heraus. Beim Wikimedia-Mailserver gehen E-Mails meiner Erfahrung nach zuverlässig heraus. Vielleicht sollte Herr Vreden mal seinen Spamfolder überprüfen. Wenn er möchte, kann er natürlich gerne noch einmal zurückfragen. Dann würde ich ihm erneut antworten. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Brücke-August-Lepper-Straße.jpg

Hi, more than a month ago you added {{OTRS received}} to this image. Could you please have another look if this ticket is valid or invalid? thx. --JuTa 08:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The same applies for File:Dipl-Ing-Werner-Vreden.jpg. regards. --JuTa 08:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi JuTa, thank you for this follow-up. The last email I sent in this case was from 7 March 2014, since then I got no reply. I have sent a reminder just right now. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi JuTa, fortunately my reminder was responded to in record speed. Now everything got clarified and both images have now been tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}}. Thanks again, AFBorchert (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your quick reaction. --JuTa 10:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

COM:UNDELETE protection

Hi AFBorchert. I'm a bit concerned with protecting COM:UNDEL for six hours. The page is rather high visibility. Might you consider dropping it to two hours? I'm hoping that things will have cooled down by then. I see no reason to punish everyone else trying to engage in undeletion discussions because a few chose to edit war. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 22:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety, well during the intended time period of my protection there is not really much going on at COM:UDEL. This time period is that with the least activity at Commons. Steinsplitter liftet my protection afterwards but there was nevertheless not a single edit until now with the exception of an archiving bot. I wouldn't have protected it for six hours during a more busy time period. But I have also no problem that another uninvolved admin lifts such a protection and fortunately the edit war was not continued. I did not react in time as I was going to bed afterwards. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing my edit on the Erie Canal file

Thanks for reverting my incorrect change. I have changed it to be under Category:Aqueducts of the Erie Canal -- is that better? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks and kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

urv

Guckst du mal. Gruß --Ot (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Ot, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich war zwischenzeitlich offline und die Kollegen schneller, d.h. die Datei ist inzwischen gelöscht. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 21.jpg

You added {{Kept}} on files; but forgot to close this. Also note the last comment by Maggie at m:User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)#Works by WMF staff. Jee 11:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jkadavoor, it took some time to finish my rationale for keeping it but now it is finished. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed closing rational; always appreciated. Jee 12:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hi AFBorchert, just send you mail. Geagea (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Geagea, thanks for the email. I will look at it today in the evening. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Geagea: A response has been sent. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze

Hallo AFBorchert,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

OTRS request

Hi, ich wurde kontaktiert wegen einer größeren OTRS Bestätigung, hier die Daten des Tickets: [1], könntest du das Ticket überprüfen und ggf. die Fotos wiederherstellen? --A.Savin 20:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hallo A.Savin, leider kann ich das jetzt nicht übernehmen. Ich habe Dir eine E-Mail mit den Gründen geschickt. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

contributions for liebesland

Hello

I choosed to contact you as admin because you have also competences in german, I haven’t so much.

Trying to categorize the few files I can, I finished to see the contributions of this user: Special:Contributions/Liebesland, who consist of pictures of a writer, replaced later by pictures with absolutely no relation, and some other stuff... Looks like a fan's work, or like some autopromotion, or like some files put here for hotlinking...

I don’t know what to do with these files...

• revert to the version in relation with the title?
• categorize according to the last version?
• ask to rename according to the last version?
• nominate for deletion? (with what reason?)
• something else I didn’t ever imagine?

Thank you by anticipation. Katastrov (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Katastrov, I am sorry but I am currently abroad with no reliable Internet connection. I cannot do much from here. Could you please ask someone else for help? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo of St Patrick's cathedral Dublin

Hi, I just want to notify you that the filename of the above photo, File:Dublin St. Patrick's Cathedral West Façade at Clanbrassil Street 2012 09 26.jpg is incorrect. The cathedral is nowhere near Clanbrassil St. The photo was probably taken at Patrick St, or the corner of Patrick St/Dean St.

If you have any queries you can contact me under the same username (hohenloh) on Wikipedia.

Regards, Hohenloh (talk)

Hi Hohenloh, you are right. Thank you for pointing this out. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Für Deine wunderbare Unterstützung und Deine Hilfsbereitschaft, die ich wirklich sehr zu schätzen weiß! Dn@lor_01 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, Dnalor01, darüber freue ich mich sehr. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Der Stern gebührt Dir wirklich! Herzliche Grüße! --Dn@lor_01 (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"Old church in Cork"

Hi - Can you help? This is annoying me :) - There are three images of this church in Category:Churches in County Cork, and all it says is "Old church in Cork". The description on Ukranian wiki seems to indicate it is in Cork City, but I doubt that as it's on a big hill. I have no access to Flickr where I am (which might hold clues), I can't find it on google: Do you recognise it? Thanks! -- Deadstar (msg) 13:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deadstar, this is St. Matthew's Church in Crosshaven, Templebreedy parish, Kilcolta townland, built probably by the Board of First Fruits for the Church of Ireland in 1778/9 in the early Gothic Revival style, following Early English Gothic style, dismantled in 1968. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks very much :) -- Deadstar (msg) 14:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Deadstar: Thanks for creating Category:St. Matthew's Church, Crosshaven; I've added a description with the literature at hand. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Waterford

Waterford has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

-- Deadstar (msg) 11:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

About Elaine King photos

Hello, this is about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Ane_wiki. I could not yet contact with Ms. Elaine King. Anyway, I want to ask you something. You say "When the photographers are unknown, we cannot keep this as we would need a permission from the photographers. Ownership does not imply copyright.", but ... that's virtually impossible. If I am giving an interview, and ask someone to take a picture with my camera because I'm alone, is he the owner of the photo? I should ask him for a contact email eventually in case that I decide to use the picture in the future?? It's illogical.

We are talking about an eventual photographer, because it is obvious that Ms. King can not photograph herself during an event.. should her need a professional photographer to follow her all the way?

Surely, most people in this case sends fake permissions from another mail, pretending to be a friend who took the pictures.

I'll tell Mrs. King that she must upload to Flickr only images taken by her husband or family.--Ane wiki (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ane wiki, the photographer is the creator of the work and thereby has the copyright unless it is transfered. This is not illogical but the law. Allow me to quote 17 U.S. Code § 201 (a):

Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.

It would be sufficient to keep an email address of the photographer which would allow us to obtain later a permission by email. But if the photographer remains unknown there is no way for us to accept such a photograph as this would violate the copyright of the photographer.

Fake permissions possibly lead to civil remedies and even in some cases to a criminal prosecution. This is serious matter. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)