This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
könntest Du bitte folgende 3 von mir angelegte Seiten löschen, ich möchte meine Nominierungen rückgängig machen (wobei ich sie auf der Nominierungsseite [1] noch nicht eingestellt habe):
[2], [3] und [4].
So sorry, I'm on my tablet following links and accidentally hit the wrong button! I guess that's my fault for using the 'desktop' version on a tablet. I've reverted my accidental rollback. Apologies again, Daniel (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nev1, thank you for your kind invitation. I've sent once a file through the valued image process which was rejected for reasons I couldn't follow. But this is no problem for me, I tend to mostly ignore the QI, FP, and VI processes. Regarding camera location: I used once the toolserver helper which is now gone. I am missing a similarly convenient tool for my earlier uploads. Fortunately, the newest version of Lightroom supports this by integrating the coordinates into the EXIF data — but without a direction. In both cases I am looking north. In case of the Armoy with a slight touch to the north-east, in case of the old church of Ballymena with a touch to the north-west. Both photos have already been perspective corrected with Lightroom. But I do not like to do this too eagerly. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's best to have a light touch with perspective correction. Looking at the Armoy picture again I was probably too hasty in my suggestion that it needs a bit more (and the Ballymena photo looks fine to me).
If you ever feel inclined to nominate either, I think they'd both stand a good chance. In the meantime, thanks for uploading your pictures and happy editing :-) Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Brave Festival posters
Dear AFBorchert, I tried to send a required mail with permission both to permissions-pl@wikimedia.org and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Unfortunately, mail delivery failed. How I can ask for permission, then, if mails we are supposed to contact with are not working? Regards, Paulina Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulina Anna (talk • contribs) 08:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Paulina Anna, how do you come to the conclusion that mail delivery failed? I see several emails in our system which were sent to us by you today. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. Please sign your posts using four tildes, i.e. ~~~~. They get expanded to your signature and date.
Dear AFBorchert, thank you for your quick reply. For every single mail I sent I got an answer back with an information about 'mail delivery failed'. Therefore, I thought that none of them reached you. Anyway, thank you for letting me know that you got my mails. I hope that they can help me to use Brave Festival posters now, but I apprieciate any kind of help or advice you have already given me or you can give me in a future. Best regards, Paulina Anna (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Paulina Anna, do you have still the bounce? Could you please forward it to me per wikimail? We are currently investigating this case. Apparently, the delivery was only partially successful. And you are not the only one. There are some other tickets with a similar problem. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear AFBorchert, I still don't get any answer about my case, so pictures are still not available. I have just forward you via wikimail a message with a request of permissien which I sent yesterday. Thank you very much for your involvement. Best regards, Paulina Anna (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Paulina Anna, there is a significant backlog (currently 736 unanswered messages in the English-language Commons permissions queue) due to which it usually takes a month or so to get it processed. Thanks for forwarding the email but I would like to get the bounce forwarded, i.e. the email that told you that 'mail delivery failed'. This would be helpful as we are currently investigating this. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich hatte die gesamten Uploads automatisiert gelöscht, aber offenbar ist dann doch eine Datei durchgeschlüpft. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Meysam, we do not judge at Commons which flags are fictional and which one are not. Please note that the decision to keep this flag refers to COM:SCOPE which states:
A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, [..]
As long as this flag is used in this Wikipedia article, it is thereby within COM:SCOPE. Whether this is justified or not must be discussed in the individual projects. There is no shortcut to decide this by filing a deletion request on Commons. But you are free to tag these flags with {{Fictitious flag}} and to elaborate this on the corresponding talk page of the file to warn possible reusers.
Moin AFBorchert, eine kurze neugierige Nachfrage für Zwischendurch, wenn du Zeit findest:
Wie lange gilt man bei Commons eigentlich als "New User"? Frage ich, weil ich mir selbst nicht besonders "neu" vorkomme und gerade entdeckt habe, dass meine letzten Uploads (Bsp.) auf den hier verlinken. Das ist jetzt zwar nicht irgendwie besonders schädlich, wundert mich aber etwas, da ich zwar nicht viel, aber eben seit ein paar Jahren schon hochlade (die ältesten von 2005, bzw. mit den per Bot hierher übertragenen (Bsp.) von 2004). Weißt du, woran das liegt? Ist es eine Frage der Frequenz der Commons-Mitarbeit - oder der schieren Menge der hochgeladenen Dateien?
Liebe Grüße --Rax (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Rax, die Kriterien des OgreBot für die Einschätzung, ob ein Benutzer als neu einzustufen sind, kenne ich nicht. Im Antrag dazu sehe ich keine Hinweise. Möglicherweise liegt es an dem bei Dir bislang fehlenden autopatroller-Bit oder an der vergleichsweise geringen Zahl von Beiträgen (hier sehe ich 121). Das autopatroller-Bit habe ich Dir jetzt mal gegeben. Im übrigen werde ich mal den Botbetreiber fragen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
uuh - ging das schnell - und vielen Dank auch für die Begrüßung *g*, den "autopatroller" und die Nachfrage beim Botbetreiber (ich war eigentlich wirklich nur neugierig und wollte gar nicht so'ne Welle machen). Was die Beiträge angeht - kann natürlich sein, dass das die Ursache ist, das sind sogar noch viel weniger, wenn man die Voten für Bilderauszeichnungen abzieht. Einen schönen Tag dir --Rax (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Rax, gerne geschehen. Rote Benutzerdiskussionsseiten sind hier eine Rarität, weil auf Commons jeder neue Benutzer von einem Bot begrüßt wird. 2005 gab es den jedoch noch nicht. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Der Botbetreiber hat inzwischen geantwortet: Das Kriterium für „neue Benutzer“ ist eine Beitragszahl von unter 150, wobei es offenbar keine Rolle spielt, um was für Beiträge es sich dabei handelt. Mit ein paar weiteren Bildern oder dem Sortieren von Kategorien ist das schnell zu schaffen :) Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Denniss, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich habe einen ausführlichen Kommentar beim Löschantrag hinzugefügt. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Martina, es wäre sicherlich sinnvoll, auf COM:VP darauf hinzuweisen. Eine Diskussion habe ich hier noch nicht mitbekommen. Da ich zuletzt wenig Zeit hatte, kann ich aber auch leicht etwas übersehen haben. Vielen Dank für Dein Engagement in dieser Sache und herzliche Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Darf ich dich zu solchen Aufnahmen um deine Expertise bitten? Bild 1 und 2 sind Innenaufnahmen, Bild 3 eine Aufnahme aus einem Hof von Kunstgallerien in der jordanischen Hauptstadt. Die gezeigte Kunst ist relativ jung. Dauerhaft angebracht sind die Kunstwerke wohl nicht. In meinen Augen sind die Fotos mehr als nur ein wenig problematisch.
Hallo Man77, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Die Bilder sind in der Tat problematisch, da es in Jordanien keine für uns brauchbare Panoramafreiheit gibt, da die dort auf die private Nutzung und für Bildungszwecke eingeschränkt ist. Einen Löschantrag habe ich gestellt. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Auweh. Danke fürs Klären, aber in letzter Konsequenz hieße das mit der Panoramafreiheit dann wohl, dass in Jordanien noch einiges mehr eigentlich nicht hier sein dürfte. Brücken, Flughafengebäude und so weiter gibt es dort nämlich auch :( → «« Man77 »»[de]21:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Wobei dann dort jeweils zu achten ist, dass Alltagsarchitektur oder Bildausschnitte ohne besondere architektonische Merkmale nicht zu rasch nominiert werden sollten. Wir haben bei Jordanien auch das Problem, das uns nähere Kenntnisse zur Rechtsprechung fehlen und somit bislang nur der Gesetzestext berücksichtigt wurde. Es gibt bei so etwas immer Überraschungen. Um nur ein Beispiel zu nennen: Nach US-Recht gehört zur Architektur im Sinne des Urheberrechts nur bewohnbare Architektur, also beispielsweise keine Brücken. Wir haben in Jordanien natürlich kein US-Recht, aber das Beispiel zeigt uns, dass die Bedeutung der Begriffe in den Gesetzestexten nicht immer damit übereinstimmt, was wir darunter landläufig verstehen. Nachdem was hier steht, sind die Schutzfristen relativ kurz, für applied art sogar nur 25 Jahre, wobei genauer zu klären wäre, was genau die Jordanier unter applied art verstehen. Immerhin sammeln wir solche Fälle hier in entsprechenden Kategorien. Sollte sich da in der Gesetzgebung oder Rechtsprechung etwas ändern oder wir mehr dazulernen, dann lassen sich Entscheidungen auch revidieren. Ursprünglich unterlag die Architektur in Russland nicht der Panoramafreiheit, bis dies tatsächlich gesetztlich geändert wurde, was uns erlaubte, zahlreiche gelöschte Dateien wieder zu restaurieren. Helfen würde es auch, wenn jeweils der Name des Künstlers bekannt wäre. Leider fand ich nirgends in den Beschreibungen etwas dazu, so dass die Feststellung der Gemeinfreiheit irgendwann in der Zukunft schwerfallen wird. Auch verhindert das die Möglichkeit der Kontaktaufnahme. Manche Künstler hätten überhaupt nichts gegen eine Veröffentlichung solcher Bilder unter einer freien Lizenz einzuwenden, wenn sie um Genehmigung gebeten werden. Insofern ist es immer besonders schade, wenn solche Dinge bei solchen Bildern nicht recherchiert werden. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Frey1989, thank you for pointing this out. I indeed deleted accidently the superior file, not the inferior deletion candidate. In the meantime I've restored all references to this file in the other WMF projects. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, FredWalsh, for pointing this out. I've have deleted now the older, uncropped versions of that file. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
crat candidature
Dear AFBorchert. Your name has been mentioned at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, and I'd be happy to nominate as bureaucrat. Please let me know if you are ok with that. Thank you. --Krd11:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Krd, please pardon me for responding that late. I was busy for two days and had no opportunity to drop in at Commons. I am not sure if I am the ideal candidate for a 'crat. I understand concerns in regard to my level of activity. I cannot promise any significant increase but I intend to stay around as in all the previous years. I would accept a nomination but I would be grateful if I could add some words before it actually starts. Thanks & greetings, AFBorchert (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you are a good candidate even though activity count is a bit low. Cratship is a challenging job and willing to interfere in difficult cases (as you did in many times) is more important than very active but stay away when situation demands. Please consider again, seriously. :) Jee10:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably I did not format the request very well, but I nominated three photos for deletion. You deleted only one. Taivo (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It happens from time to time that I come across two versions of the same photo, where one is not just a cropped version of the other.
Instead it happens that one of the two is clearly better than the other, e.g. one has a low resolution or a more aggressive compression, or uses perhaps an old format like GIF.
Is there a template one can drop in such lower-quality images, that informs the user that a better version of the same image exists, so they can make a decision about which one
to use (or even delete, if the difference in usefulness is big enough)?
Hi Lklundin, the {{Information}} template offers a field named other_versions that allows to inform about alternative versions which are possibly to be prefered. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Very good, thank you. Unless you would like to suggest something else, I will go ahead and use that apporach like this. Thanks again. Lklundin (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, Lklundin. Sometimes, a small thumbnail is given, like [[File:202nd Air Defence Brigade - MT-LB - 002.jpg|150px]]. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations AFBorchert. Please feel free to use the yellow notice at the left every time you are working on something bureaucracy-related. Green Giant (talk)19:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I just uploaded this picture from a busy street in Berlin containing one or two identifiable non-notable (as far as I know) persons. After uploading it I came to think of that I had not asked for consent, and I had a look at Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Germany, where it is mentioned that consent is required in Germany for publising the photo for commercial use. However, there are some exceptions, such as "Picture of a landscape or locality where the person is an insignificant or coincidental element (Beiwerk)." Do you think the photo falls under this exception, or should I rather nominate it for deletion? Thanks in advance. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Slaunger, per § 23 (1) 2. KunstUrhG a publication of such a photograph can be permitted if the inclusion of the depicted people is purely accidental, making this a case of de minimis in German law. In this particular photograph it appears to be helpful that the first row of people cannot be recognized as their backs are shown and they cover even partially the faces of the second row. I would suggest to add {{Personality rights}}, though, as alterations like a crop that focuses on a particular person on the photograph can be an issue. In addition, {{FoP-Germany}} should be added in regard to the depicted sculpture. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
"And finally we should not speculate about his personality." Thank god, someone dared actually say it. Revent (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Magnus MacOrristin grave slab photo
Dear Andreas,
I am writing to you from the Archaeology Section of Transport Infrastructure Ireland in relation to a forthcoming book that we are publishing this winter. The book relates to the archaeological excavation of a medieval cemetery in County Donegal and currently features a low resolution photo of the Magnus MacOrristin grave slab. I came across a photo of yours on Wikimedia in recent months, namely https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clonca_Grave_Slab_Magnus_MacOrristin_2014_09_09.jpg#metadata, and we would very much like to use this photo in the forthcoming book to replace the current image.
We would be grateful if you could give us your approval to reproduce the image and, if so, we will attribute the photo to Andreas F Borchert. Of course, if you would like us to use a particular wording for the attribution we would be happy to follow your instruction on this.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Michael Stanley
(Michael.Stanley@tii.ie)
Hi Michael, you are free to use that photo for your book with an attribution to “Andreas F. Borchert”. BTW, I had replied to your email from my university email address. Didn't you receive it? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
AN/U
Dear AFBorchert,
There is a serius conflict going on between two of our German speaking admins so I started a topic at AN/U. Could you please give a reply at the topic under this header? A solution has to been found. Thanks in advance.
Hi there - looking for your expertise once again. Uploader says on the above image that it is Graiguenamanagh/Duiske Abbey. The image was added on the en: page, but someone added a "citation missing" template [5] - and I agree, this is not the interior of Duiske Abbey. Would you have any idea what this is? Thanks in advance. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Steinsplitter, thanks for the wakup call :) I took the opportunity and have processed some deletion requests. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for noting this. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Ernsthaft: Eine gute Wahl! Gratulation!! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
2.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Double_rainbow,_Graz,_Austria,_2010-05-30.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Mond_Halo_%28Lichteffekt%29,_Graz,_%C3%96sterreich,_23._Oktober_2010.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Feuerhimmel_2.JPG){kind=link}
2.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped)_RPG-18.jpg){kind=link}
Revent (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
