User talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2017

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mmexport1448350496222.jpg

Hello AFBorchert,

The uploader has uploaded copyright violations of this building twice, that's why I have said the photo may not be their own work. Please reconsider. -- MCMLXXXIX 10:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi 1989, I just noted the missing licenses but not the copyvio. I've now deleted it. Thanks & best wishes for the new year, AFBorchert (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wie siehst du das?

Ein gutes Neues ... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rosenzweig#Was_soll_das_Getrolle.3F.3F.3F.3F --Historiograf (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Historiograf, Dir wünsche ich ebenfalls ein frohes neues Jahr! Bei den Scans fällt mir auf, dass da ein vollständiger Text von Hermann Josenhans dabei ist, der offenbar erst am 1. April 1982 gestorben ist. Auch wenn es kleinlich erscheinen mag, wäre es hier wirklich angemessen, das auf den Text von Ernst Kapff zu reduzieren. Ich kann Dir das ggf. heute abend erledigen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Das wäre sehr liebenswürdig. Ich habe bei Rosenzweig geantwortet, dass die Art und Weise, einen Baustein ohne Begründung reinzuknallen, nicht dem entspricht, was ich hier erwarten möchte. Etwas pragmatisches Augenmaß schadet hier nie. Wir unsere Projekt besser, wenn Rosenzweig seine Antipathien gegen mich ausleben darf? Ich frag ja nur. --Historiograf (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Historiograf, ich habe den Scan wie gewünscht angepasst und hoffe, dass es Dir so recht ist. Natürlich erhoffen wir uns gerade bei so idellen Projekten wie Wikimedia Commons allseits eine freundliche Kollegialität, gerade auch bei denjenigen, die aktiv und kompetent sind. Ein Problem bei Commons ist aber die gigantische Flut an Bildern, die hier jeden Tag hochgeladen wird; um die 2.000 Uploads pro Tag müssen wieder gelöscht werden. Ich gehöre hier nicht zu den Fleißigen, die jeden Tag durch die frischen Uploads gehen. Diejenigen, die das tun, fühlen sich wie Sisyphus und darunter leidet natürlich auch die Bereitschaft, eine freundliche Mitteilung zu schreiben anstelle eines einzelnen Klicks, der den gesamten Vorgang automatisiert und die Standardbotschaft auf der Diskussionsseite hinterlässt. Ich würde das also nicht persönlich nehmen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

danke, ich bin nicht gerade erfreut, dass du auch die Bilder entfernt hast. Das schadet der Forschung und nützt im Grunde nur einem theoretischen Prinzip, zumal es sich aus meiner Sicht um gemeinfreie einfache Lichtbilder nach deutschem Recht handelt. --Historiograf (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also bei dem Bild von M. Klaiber von dem „Schlößchen” zu Kapf habe ich schon den Eindruck, dass es sich um ein Lichtbildwerk handelt, da die Position sehr sorgfältig ausgesucht ist und die Bildkomposition einen sehr schönen Eindruck hinterlässt. Ich kann mir seriöse Architekturfotografie, und dazu zähle ich auch dieses Bild, nicht ohne eine entsprechende geistige Schöpfung vorstellen, die der Architektur Rechnung trägt. Hier ist auch genügend individueller Spielraum, der bei dem Bild von Klaiber meines Erachtens auch klar zum Ausdruck kommt. Anders mag das vielleicht bei dem Foto von dem „Ausfallpförtchen“ sein, da dürfte der Verlust jetzt aber gering sein. Ich habe zumindest darauf geachtet, dass die Jahreszahl lesbar geblieben ist. Ich weiß, wir sind hier auf Commons häufig unbequem, aber es gibt den entsprechenden Konsens und ich bin da gerne im Zweifelsfall auf der sicheren Seite. Das gilt insbesondere dann, wenn ich selbst etwas hochlade. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

There is a message in your mailbox that awaits your answer as a matter of urgency. Can you kindly have a look at it, please? odder (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sad

Sorry to see the news. Commons is not the place it was however thanks for your work and regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Herby, thanks! But it was just the 'crat bit, I remain active as admin. And honestly, it is a relief as I have less time for the conflicts that came with that function. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andreas. I'm sorry to see you resigned as a crat after being part of something I put in action. I was actually surprised it was you, considering the disagreement we had a while back over Pieter Kuiper. You've got true integrity, and I was glad you had the heart to stand up to the wolf pack, and even the newly formed Commons Bureaucrat Arbcom, run by people like Odder, MichaelMaggs, and Ellin Beltz. It was disappointing that you were the only one. 99of9, Dschwen, Jameslwoodward, and EugeneZelenko deserted me quickly enough, not to mention Steinsplitter, Ellin, and other "friends" of mine... It was a good way of seeing exactly who my enemies are, though Odder was no surprise - and the same with my usual detractors. I'm happy you kept your sysop bit. Protect it like your wallet. If you put it down, you'd never find it again. I won't say too much more. I don't want to give somebody a reason to block me. I know there's more than a few people around here that would like to see me indeffed once and for all. lNeverCry 00:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk of sour grapes, @INeverCry! I am quite surprised you consider me your enemy, particularly in light of all the work we've done together in oversight-related matters over the years, but I suppose it might be a little hard for you to see my actions as nothing else but enforcing community consensus, particularly after your de-RfA and this recent situation.

If you want to blame someone for this repeated removal of your sysop rights, you can blame me, as it was I who initiated the quick poll among the bureaucrats and it was I who pressed for it to be done within as short as time frame as possible – but let it be known that it is in fact you who should take the blame; you kept dropping your admin bit and then asked for it to be restored over and over again, you kept making rash decisions, and finally you promised to do only uncontroversial admin work and then not to seek adminship again. As soon as I noticed that there was significant community opposition against your admin right being restored without an RfA, I gave you a way out but you decided to ignore it — so you should blame yourself for that, really, and not your imaginary enemies. odder (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Odder: I love how you pass right over by my re-admin which was approved by a big majority. I call you my enemy for reasons that your well aware of, including your nastiness toward me over Russavia and other situations (I wouldn't be surprised if you were discussing these things you do with Scott), and because of the way you jumped at a chance to knock my sysop bit off. You dived on it like it was pizza and beer!

Then you get together a bureaucrat Arbcom, just as disgusting as the Arbcom/ANI bullies over at English Wikipedia. I don't even merit a de-sysop because I undid a 3 month old undiscussed block of a long term editor. What a dark cloud hey? You robbed the community of somebody whose very presence has meant no backlog issues for years. You and the other crats made a bad decision. AFBorchert is the only one among you with any heart or any brain for that matter. You also stood by while the jackals tore me up. Pathetic treatment of someone who's done the work I've done for the community. And now I get moralizing from someone who wheel-warred with stewards to keep a banned user's sysop bit. You're a real example to the community Tomasz. lNeverCry 08:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

In fact, @INeverCry, I'm not aware at all of any reasons that would make you consider me your enemy; and if you really think of this collaborative community of ours in those divisive terms, then it is perhaps a good thing, after all, that you are no longer an administrator on this project — we know quite well from off-wiki world how hard it is to work towards a common goal with people one considers their enemies.

As far as you claim of my nastiness towards you in relation to @Russavia is considered, you need to provide some diffs, or otherwhise this will remain just an empty accusation; the same goes for those other situations; as I'm not aware of any clashes between the two of us; in fact, I remember very clearly some positive steps (1, 2) I took towards reconcilliation during and after your de-RfA, so I'm really surprised to see you say that. As you can see, you yourself said that the behaviour that prompted your de-RfA was wrong, irresponsible and inappropriate, that you regret it, and you apologised for it; what is more the decision to de-RfA you wasn't made by me, but by a representative part of the community, with almost 80% votes in favour of the removal of your admin rights.

I don't consider our decision to remove your admin rights following their reinstatement by AFBorchert bad at all. AFBorchert made a bad call in not allowing proper community discussion before restoring your rights; if he had followed our traditional (yet unwritten) procedure, you wouldn't have been granted those rights back in the first place given the obvious controversy that your request has sparked. If you still think this decision was bad, you can apply for adminship again through an RfA, and we'll see if the community agrees; if so, rest assured that us 'crats will process the RfA as usual.

In any case, as I said earlier, if you want to put the blame for this on me, then fair enough, go ahead, but the person you really should be blaming is yourself. odder (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi INeverCry, it was disappointing for me to see that you could not keep your admin bit. It is still my opinion that it was justified to return the bit to you and also in the best interest of the project. We have very few admins who have the time to work through a large number of cases in the backlogs and the necessary experience for this. It was sad to see some of the opposition coming with voices that revived old conflicts. This is unfortunately a common problem here at Commons and other Wikimedia projects that occasionally a request is not judged by its own merits but through resurrections of older conflicts which have long been resolved or do not carry real significance. It is a view that divides participants in a discussion in friends and foes, a toxic process that leads to the drawing of battle lines. In this regard I find it disappointing that you consider others here explicitly as your enemies, here on my talk page and also very prominently on your user page: “know your enemies”. Nothing good will come from this, instead it will increase divisiveness. I can understand that you are still upset about how this developed and that this leaves a bitter taste to you. But I think that it is best in protecting yourself not to move in this direction but giving it time instead which helps to view things in another perspective. I thank you for your kind words above. Please do not worry about my 'crat bit. As I responded above to Herby, I also see it as a relief as I noted again in this case that I do not want to go again through certain conflicts and conflict areas that are unavoidable in that function. In this regard I would be grateful if we could close this thread for now at my talk page. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: Just before we let you close it, may I say thank you for your service as a 'crat. I'll look forward to your continued work as an admin. --99of9 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, 99of9! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nikki Phoenix

Hi there, if you read the string on this photo you would already see that I filed the OTRS that a helpful editor suggested, since I have only tried to help this situation, unlike Wolfowitz who accused me of stealing a photo I in fact did not steal. Feel free to help the situation as you like as well. Sadly, The only thing this interaction has done is make me realize why I left wikipedia years ago. --Art javier (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Art javier, Wikimedia Commons is a media archive that is dedicated to educational media that have been released under a free license or are in the public domain. Media hosted by Wikimedia Commons ought to be freely reusable not just for Wikimedia projects but also by anyone for any purpose to the extent permitted by law. Wikimedia Commons is very much different in this regard in comparison to Flickr and other media sites where free reusability is not the main concern and which usually delete media only if a notice regarding a copyright violation is coming from the copyright holders. Our community cares deeply and proactively about copyright. When a photo is uploaded that has already been published elsewhere, we consider it to be a copyright violation until proven otherwise. You should respect our rules when you are interested in using this site. It is not appropriate to get combative by uploading an image attacking the user who had legitimate concerns regarding the photo you uploaded. Instead you should focus on the problem, i.e. help to clarify the copyright status in a way that can be verified. This is in cases like this best done through the support team. So please be patient now and wait for the response by a member of our support team. And you are free to join the ongoing discussion regarding this photograph. But please do this in a civil and respectful way without any further attacks. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! AFBorchert nice to see you responded and thank you. You will be happy to note as I have already posted in the discussion string, I have sent in the original Model Release, and sanitized Photo ID shots of Ms. Phoenix from this shoot. This effectively ends any question as to who owns the rights to this photo. In addition, I am respectful, to include the polite not I left on Wolfowitz's page, the person who stated I "Cropped the photo from an Album Cover" with no proof, documentation, or evidence to support his potentially Libelous and factually untrue Claim. I note that he says, he's "been insulted here for 10 years." Perhaps he should look at his conduct and understand in life one reaps what one sows. I have stayed off wikipedia for years now because of this type of behavior by other editors. The last straw for me is someone claiming I don't own the photo I took and own. Ms. Phoenix's response to this also seems quite appropriate. I think you should make a point to place this polite warning above on his page as well, in the spirit of what Wikipedia is all about, and read my polite note I left him as well. That way you will have a frame of reference for why people feel so insulted by his comments and actions not just in this instance but apparently over the last 10 years as well. After proving ownership of the photo I in fact own, I think I will probably retire again to other pursuits since I see that little has changed here on Wikipedia.--Art javier (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Update, her Lawyer also responded confirming my ownership to the trouble ticket listed: [Ticket#: 2017012510017269] As I said previously this effectively ends and speculation on who owns this photo. Thanks again for actually responding to me! --Art javier (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! AFBorchert I noticed, no one has followed through yet with posting confirmation on the photo page, since there can be NO doubt now, with the Releases, IDs and emails I have been CCed on from Ms. Phoenix, and her Lawyer, that I in fact own the Photos, the rights and everything else pertaining to this photo layout. I look forward to OTRS completely vindicating both myself and the Photo in question. Feel free to call her Attorney who left his contact information in the email he sent to OTRS. I have a copy as well, along with the email Ms. Phoenix sent in, where she in fact verified my ownership with another picture holding another note. Thanks again for your help and input and note there is a different ticket number on the follow up emails, releases and sanitized ID shots. [Ticket#: 2017012510017269] --Art javier (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This email string was sent in to permissions as well and posted to Jim's Page, since he tried to infer that Nikki wasn't herself because she uses a gmail address and I didn't own my photo.

Hi Jim, apparently you seem to think Nikki isn't her, since she uses a Gmail account. (odd if you looked at her signature block) But Since that's the case, and since another editor incorrectly cited My photo on Jetset Magazine as the reason I didn't own my photo, you should read the additional email sent into Permissions: [Ticket#: 2017012510017269]

But, for fairness sake, I like to make sure everyone is able to read it, so here it is..... you will note, 1) Jetset Magazine correctly lists me as the photographer for my photos now, thanks to whoever found these and was dumb enough to infer that I am not the owner of my own photos, 2) She has reached out to Jetset, and THEY have corrected it, acknowledging I am also the Photographer and she is obviously the model, as well as 3) her email in fact being actually hers. Also yes, she owns 4) NikkiPhoenixxx.com as well as her mainstream website IamNikkiPhoenix.com

In a way this is good, it found someone using my photos without credit, it ends any speculation by pundits here about Nikki's email, and it cites the problems people here have caused for her (and as a byproduct me) in correspondence with Magazines that somehow seem more legitimate to people here than the Model or Photographer. There also will be NO DOUBT that whoever looks at this trouble ticket will be siding correctly with regards to ownership of the photo, and not base their opinions on if emails are using a gmail account. Perhaps it will also encourage Editors here to be a little more unbiased, however, in my experience having been here for over 7 years, with a multi year break because of this very type of thing, I doubt it. You are however, free to publicly apologize for stating that Nikki is not herself because of her gmail account though, and I will make sure I make her aware of it.

Feel free to read the email correspondence below which has already been forwarded to permissions and feel free to leave a message on my talk page fellow wikipedian, for future reference, when people are who they say they are, and do own their photos, and know the owner of the magazine in question, it's easy for them to prove these things enjoy the read.

" from: IamNikkiPhoenix to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org CC: Art Javier, (LAWYER) subject: [Ticket#: 2017012510017269]

You will note that because someone at Wikipedia cited this site as holding the copyright to this photo instead of the Photographer Art Javier, I have now fixed that as well.

IF There is anyone else you want to try and infer owns this photo besides Art Javier, let me know and I will fix that as well. LOL

http://www.jetsetmag.com/model-search/vote/nikki-phoenix

You will NOTE this page now give full credit to Art Javier, and in addition comes from my Actual email which is a gmail account, another point someone at wikipedia made trying to insinuate I am not ME. (Really? Did you read the signature block? There's no one else that has my verified accounts, but Since the OWNER of JETSET MAGAZINE knows I'm me, That's will be good enough for Wikipedia won't it.)

From: David H. <XXXXXXXXX@jetsetmag.com> Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:12 AM Subject: RE: Hi there, it's come to my attention that you did not give photo credit to the photographer To: IamNikkiPhoenix

Hi Nikki,

Thanks for your message. I reached out to the Crow Vote team and they added the byline underneath your bio. If you’d like we can just have your profile deleted from the site instead? Just let me know.

Thanks, David

From: IamNikkiPhoenix Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:28 PM To: XXXXXXXXXXXX@jetsetmag.com Cc: Art Javier; (LAWYER) Subject: Hi there, it's come to my attention that you did not give photo credit to the photographer

On the Photos I sent in for the Miss Jetset Magazine contest, and we need to do that since we don't want anyone to infer that you hold the copyright on the photos, and that is not the case, the Photographer Art Javier does.

If you can please add:

Photos courtesy of Art Javier/Sights & Sounds Productions Inc.

Below the written copy block that will alleviate any potential problems before they become problems, as Wikipedia has now tried to infer that you are the copyright holder on a photo that he owns.

Otherwise I'm sure we will have to remove all of them, in order to protect him, his copyright and my Wikipedia page which is being vandalized because of this now."

--Art javier (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Art javier, please do not continue to post these details to my talk page. Please explain all this to the support team you are in contact with. They can initiate the restoration of this photograph if this issue is resolved. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ag Criost an Siol Music Composer

Dear Andreas. I would like to bring to you attention and hopefully set the record straight on the composer of the music to Ag Criost an Siol. Contrary to popular belief this hymn was written in 1916 by Canon Michael Sheehan of Apologetics and Christian Doctrine fame as an expression Of sympathy for a friend whose 12 year old daughter had just died.The O' Ciarghusa family used the text on Bridin's memorial cards. Now these cards,as we know, have a tendency to roam, so this may explain how a copy turned up at an Irish course in Spiddal Co.Galway In the late 1920's.Teaching there that summer was the young Seosamh O'Reamonn who, as well as been a fluent Irish speaker, was a musician of talent. He agreed to set the poem to music and apparently some St.Louis Sisters who were studying in Spiddal that summer 'took the music back home'. I discovered this information in a hymn book my mother possesses. The composer was my late grandfather and would be most grateful if you could help set the record straight as my mother is 87 years old. The book came from the St.Louis convent in Monaghan when my aunt is a nun.

Love to hear from you.

James D Scully

Dear James, thank you for telling me more about the story of Ag Críost an Síol. I did, however, not write that Wikipedia article, I added just the photographs of the two stained glass windows. In September 2013, when I visited St. Mary of the Visitation Church in Killybegs, I noted the two beautiful windows and photographed them. Just two months ago, I uploaded these two photographs and wondered where the quoted text may come from. So I found the corresponding Wikipedia article, credited the text in the description of my two photos to Michael Sheehan, and added the photographs to the article. That's all I did.

If you are concerned regarding the Wikipedia article, you could post a comment at the corresponding talk page. The main problem, however, will be the verifiability as Wikipedia relies on available literature and does not conduct original research. Given this, it is probably best to get the record straight not at Wikipedia but through some publication (like a newspaper or journal article) which in turn can be used to correct the Wikipedia article. The problem is that Seán Ó Riada is commonly named as the one who set the poem to music. Two examples:

• Doyle, Odran. “Irish Church Music Association Summer School.” The Furrow, vol. 22, no. 9, 1971, pp. 579–582. Quote:

Special mention should be made of Seán Ó Riada's Mass which Brian Ó Dúill conducted. This setting of the Irish version of the Mass captures the special flavour of our native musical heritage and deserves our attention and effor. Translations are rarely satisfactory and while Ó Riada copes with the problems presented, he is clearly at his best in the Irish poem ‘Ag Críost an síol’.

• Irish Times from Monday, July 14, 1986 about the songwriter and composer Phil Coulter. Quote:

Coulter has a new single out at the moment called “Ag Criost an Siol”, an arrangement of a composition by Sean O Riada, who is very dear to his heart.

Kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

David H. Holtzman profile

Thank you, I will get the permission from the photographer and definitely will not try posting the photo again in the meantime. I appreciate your help with this. Regards, Annemarie — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnemarieSmith (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SeitDuDaBist.png

Hallo,

ich verstehe nicht genau wie das Prozedere auf Commons bei Löschanfragen aussieht - kannst du mir bitte kurz erläutern wie in o.g. Sache jetzt weiter verfahren wird? Danke, Willi P (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Willi P, Löschanträge laufen auf Commons normalerweise über mindestens sieben Tage, bevor sie durch einen Admin entschieden werden. Also in diesem Fall frühestens am Dienstag. Ich bitte um Verständnis, dass ich es nicht selbst tue, da normalerweise nicht derjenige, der den Löschantrag gestellt hat, ihn auch wieder schließen sollte. Viele Grüße und einen schönen Sonntag noch, AFBorchert (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, dito. 09:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willi P (talk • contribs) 09:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Bettina Kenter

Könntest du bitte alle unbenutzen Fotos aus der Kat. löschen? Ich hatte ursprünglich vor, daraus Material für Tutorials zu basteln, habe es aber nicht gemacht. Nun möchte die abgebilde Person, daß die Bilder aus Commons rauskommen. Wir haben ja mehr als genug Bilder von ihr, bitte! --Ralf Roleček 10:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Ralf, ich schaue mir das heute abend an. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Ralf Roleček, ich habe jetzt alle unbenutzten Bilder von Dir in der Kategorie wie gewünscht gelöscht. Bitte überprüfe, ob es so ok ist. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Super, ich danke dir! Hast was gut bei mir. --Ralf Roleček 17:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Mail

I have send you a mail. -- Geagea (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geagea, I will look into this today in the evening. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello AFBorchert, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done --AFBorchert (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

kannst du dich drum kümmern

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Genehmigung_fehlt_-_ohne_Sch.C3.B6pfungsh.C3.B6he.3F.3F

danke. leute, die was von einem deletion request faseln, ohne einen Link anzugeben, sind nicht sehr hilfreich. gruß --Historiograf (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Historiograf, wenn Du auf die entsprechende Dateibeschreibungsseite gehst, findest Du den gewünschten Link unterhalb der Notiz, dass ein Genehmigungsnachweis fehlt. Bei mir findet sich der Link hinter dem Text „Convert to DR“. Deiner Bitte folgend, habe ich das jetzt in einen Löschantrag verwandelt. Es wäre jetzt hilfreich, wenn Du den Nachweis des urheberrechtlichen Status des teilweise sichtbaren Stichs im Löschantrag bzw. auf der Dateibeschreibungsseite nachtragen könntest. Verzeihe mir bitte die verspätete Reaktion, bin zur Zeit leider beruflich sehr in Anspruch genommen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Upload des offiziellen EuroEyes Cyclassics Logos für Wikipedia DE Seiten

Hallo,

ich möchte gern das offizielle Logo der EuroEyes Cyclassics bzw. Cyclassics Hamburg hochladen, das hier bereits für den englischen Sprachraum existiert und eingesetzt wird. (allerdings noch mit falscher Bezeichnung im Dateinamen). Der Upload wird durch den automatischen Filter auf der DE Version verweigert.

Ich sehe es doch richtig, dass man das Bild aus en.wikipedia.org nicht auf den de.wikipedia.org Artikeln einsetzen kann, richtig?

Aus Gründen der Transparenz teile ich auch gern mit, dass ich Mitarbeiter des Hauptsponsors EuroEyes bin. Die Verwendung der Datei ist von unserer Seite aus aber gestattet. Es wäre schön, wenn uns der Einsatz des offiziellen Logos auch in der DE Version gestattet wird.

Viele Grüße,

Hendrik Harbeck, EuroEyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroeyesgmbh (talk • contribs) 11:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)--Euroeyesgmbh (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hallo EuroEyes, das Logo besteht nur aus Text und fällt somit unter die urheberrechtliche Schöpfungshöhe. Es kann gerne hier auf Commons hochgeladen werden unter Verwendung der Lizenzbausteine {{PD-textlogo}} und ggf. {{Trademark}}. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hallo AFBorchert, ich bedanke mich für die schnelle hilfreiche Auskunft. Es hat alles funktioniert. Viele Grüße, Hendrik Harbeck von EuroEyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroeyesgmbh (talk • contribs) 12:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)--Euroeyesgmbh (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Yuka Terasaki.jpg

Hello, AFBorchert. I have an OTRS photo needed to get permission, could you help to check? Thank you. 天馬松風 (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi 天馬松風, the corresponding ticket is already taken care of by one of my support team colleagues. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I was in the midst of inquiring as to what the heck User:2600:6C4E:7003:600:FC12:EC7D:6247:6455 was doing, when you resolved it. Thank you for doing so. They gave me a heart attack when I first saw what they had posted on my page. Then, when I saw that my actual block log had been unchanged and the individual that had posted it had done so from an IP address that had just started bizarrely posting block notices on various user pages, I was confused.SecretName101 (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi SecretName101, this was just a vandal, touring through multiple user talk pages. I've blocked the IP for a day. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I presumed as much as soon as I saw it. Confused as to the motive, and curious about their choice of user pages (my guess would be that they had been looking through the "recent changes" log and selecting random usernames) SecretName101 (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi SecretName101, we had two vandalizing IPs sharing the same Internet provider and geolocation ([1], [2]) where one of the IPs self-identified as INeverCry. More about this case can be found here. INeverCry was once a prolific and widely respected admin. It is very disappointing to see it ending this way. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference project

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request for maps

Dear AFBorchert, could you please review my undeletion request for maps you deleted almost year ago. Somehow it appeared not so easy to prove those maps are not derived work. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Mi5

Hi, are you trying go make my job harder? I know nothing about complicated stuff on commons so and instead of fixing the description you are flagging the file to be removed. How rude of you!--Bololabich (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bololabich, the source link in File:Mi 5.jpg is invalid. Unless we have a valid source we cannot verify its copyright status. Please follow COM:L in your uploads and life at Commons will be much easier. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's GIMP-edited photo from here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xiaomi_Mi_5.jpg and clearly editing is allowed: "You are free:

to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix – to adapt the work"--Bololabich (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bololabich: Ok, I understand that you have uploaded a derived variant. This should be done properly using the {{Retouched picture}} template in the source field and making sure that the license is correct. I have done this for you. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I'll use it as a reference in the future :)--Bololabich (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal request

Here is a copyrighted photo to be removed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A1_phone.jpg Can I somehow flag these?--Bololabich (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bololabich, File:A1 phone.jpg is not eligible for copyright as it consists of text only which has no literary value. I've added the {{PD-text}} template to it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Xiaomi_Mi_Pad_1.jpg

Could you remove incorrect removal notice? It is obviously the same file https://i.imgur.com/VgCddiO.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bololabich (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bololabich, in cases like File:Xiaomi Mi Pad 1.jpg you should upload the original file first which in case of Flickr can be verified automatically and then upload a derived variant using the {{Retouched picture}} template as above. Even in case of free licenses that allow modifications you must make sure that it remains transparent how the original file looked like and the extent of the modifications. It is wrong to attribute a modified version to the original author without any indication of the modifications. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded the original here File:Mi_pad_before_edit.jpg so can I edit the description of retouch? I mean since moderator Elisfkc left the notice. --Bololabich (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Port of Akrotiri

Hi, AFBorchert, its me again; I've uploaded three free pictures from flickr. Could You please have a look at them, if everything fits? Sadly I am not yet very expierienced with that matter.

• File:RFA Sir Geraint (L3027), Akrotiri Mole 1977.jpg
• File:RoRo-Ramp, Akrotiri Mole 1977.jpg
• File:RSA Sir Geraint -L3027, Akrotiri Mole 1977.jpg

thank You very much, --Foreign Species (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Foreign Species, I would have liked to help you here but Elisfkc was faster. They look good now. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: Thank You; this might bring a little more colour into my latest writing :-) --Foreign Species (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Sperrung Hoppmann - Gegendarstellung - Vandalismusvorwurf gegen Benutzer:Gleiberg

Hallo AFBorchert!

Da mir soeben die Möglichkeit genommen wurde, auf Wikipedia zu den haltlosen Vorwürfen gegen mich Stellung zu nehmen, gebe ich auf diesem Wege meine bereits editierte Stellungnahme ab, mit der Bitte um Weiterleitung an zuständige Stellen, Veröffentlichung, Diskussion und Korrektur. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Jürgen Hoppmann --Jürgen Hoppmann (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Eine längere Stellungnahme, die hier nicht hingehört, wurde entfernt. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

--Jürgen Hoppmann (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Jürgen Hoppmann, ich bitte um Verständnis darum, dass meine Diskussionsseite auf Commons nicht für eine Sperrprüfung^2 auf der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia vorgesehen ist. Die Sperrprüfung in der Wikipedia ist abgeschlossen. Die einzige noch offene und letzte Instanz in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia ist das Schiedsgericht. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dateie muss umbenannt werden

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaiserswerth_2017_034.jpg -> Duesseldorf_Alter_Hafen_2017 Danke --Historiograf (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Historiograf, Dein Wunsch wurde erfüllt: File:Düsseldorf Alter Hafen 2017.jpg. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Danke --Historiograf (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nicht korrekte Lizenz

Mehrfach heute verwendet z.B. https://twitter.com/VLA_Bregenz/status/932579425346031617, aber klar PD statt CC: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S%C3%BCtterlin-Ausgangsschrift.jpg Gruß --Historiograf (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Historiograf, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich habe es korrigiert. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)