User talk:De728631/2020

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021

File:Verteidigungsminister Helmut Schmidt.jpg

Moin, die Bildbeschreibung zu o.g. Bild ist offenbar fehlerhaft, möglicherweise auch die Lizenz. Leider ist der Bundeswehr-flickr-Account, von dem das stammte, inzwischen offline und das ganze daher nicht mehr verifizierbar. Näheres siehe hier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Helmut_Schmidt#Porträt_Helmut_Schmidt Was schlägst Du vor? Gruß --UweRohwedder (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Moin, Uwe. Ich habe für das Bild einen LA gestellt und erst einmal die Beschreibung ergänzt. De728631 (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Verkaufsalter für Tabakwaren in Nordamerika.svg update

Hi, you need to update File:Verkaufsalter für Tabakwaren in Nordamerika.svg because Prince Edward Island is raising the smoking age to 21. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: Hi there. Do you have a source for this proposal to have been adopted by the legislators? I will gladly change the map once this has been enacted, but all I can find so far is news about a proposed change but not about an actual raise of the minimum age. De728631 (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong internal link?!

See again https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Pirografia_na_papierze_9.jpg. Is it really right, that internal link goes to Commons:Undeletion requests?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: Yes, it is proper to link to Requests for undeletion, even though the discussion can now be found in the archives. You are probably confusing the {{Kept}} template with {{Undeleted}}. "Kept" does usually link to the deletion discussion, but "undeleted" refers to something that has been discussed elsewhere. See also the documentation for {{Undeleted}}, which says that parameter No. 2 should be the "name of the page of the undeletion request, if it's not "Commons:Undeletion requests/" + the pagename". I have now changed the link to the undeletion archive, but it should not point to the original deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Fishing_boats_of_Norway_by_name

Category discussion warning

Fishing boats of Norway by name 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Blue Elf (talk) 09:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Wappen

Hallo Doc Taxon,

ich habe leider im Moment sehr wenig Zeit. Außerdem kenne ich mich mit
der Vektorisierung von PNGs auch nicht wirklich aus. Ich könnte
lediglich aus vorhandenen SVG-Elementen eine heraldisch richtige Kopie
der Wappen erstellen, die dann aber wohl ander aussieht, als die
PNG-Vorlage.

Am besten schreibst Du mir auf meiner Commons-Disk-Seite, dann können
wir das weiter verfolgen.

Viele Grüße,
De728631


Am 24.02.2020 um 22:13 schrieb Wikimedia Commons:
> Hallo De728631,
>
> ich kenn mich leider wirklich nicht gut genug aus mit der Erstellung von SVG oder auch PNG.
>
> Könntest Du mir hier bitte weiterhelfen:
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Wappen#aus_WP:Grafikwerkstatt_kopiert
> Oder eben hier:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Request_/_SVG_of_coat_of_arms
>
> Danke vielmals,
> Martin
> (Doc Taxon)

Hallo, ich hab den Mailverkehr mal rübertransportiert.

Kommen wir mal zum ersten:

  • 1. Coat of arms of Wasa
    1. Coat of arms of Wasa

Meiner Meinung nach sind dort die Seiten der Wappenspitze unten zu eckig. Die müssten runder zulaufen. Kannst Du das korrigieren? Doc Taxon (talk)

Also das ist nun wirklich Geschmackssache. Solange es keine heraldische Anweisung in der Blasonierung gibt, wie der Schild geformt sein soll, braucht man da gar nichts zu ändern. Ein Wappen ist eben nicht dadurch definiert, wie es aussieht, sondern wie die heraldische Beschreibung lautet. Die Umsetzung dieser Anweisungen ist dann jedem Künstler selbst überlassen. De728631 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Danke trotzdem.

  • Wappen Winkler (nach den Hemhofen)
    Wappen Winkler (nach den Hemhofen)
  • Wappen Winkler (vor den Hemhofen)
    Wappen Winkler (vor den Hemhofen)

Hierbei geht es darum, ein Wappen aus den zweien zu machen, wenn Du so nett wärest. Als die Hemhofen in das Geschlecht der Winkler von Mohrenfels eingetreten sind, wurde das kleine Wappen mit dem Dolch hinzugefügt. Ich bräuchte aber das Stammwappen der Winkler vor den Hemhofen mit Helm, Mantel und Zier (also ohne Dolchwappen darin). Ich denke, dass man das aus bestehenden SVG-Teilen zusammensetzen kann, mit PNG wäre ich aber auch zufrieden. Zu den Farben, der Hintergrund des Schildes ist weiß, der Mohr steht auf gelbem Fels. Mantel und Helmzier sind schwarzweiß. Danke vielmals, Doc Taxon (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, ich werde mal sehen, was sich da machen lässt. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Doc Taxon: Was hältst du von File:Wappen Winkler.svg? Die Blasonierung habe ich aus Wikipedia, aber das Handbuch der praktischen Heraldik erwähnt ein solches Wappen mit einem grünen Dreiberg. Die Abbildung von Tyroff (File:Winkler von Mohrenfels-Wappen.jpg) hat aber eine Schraffur für "Gold" in dem Berg. Hast du eventuell noch andere Quellen, die den goldenen Berg für das Stammwappen belegen? De728631 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
möglicherweise ist das ein Fehler. Ich hab das Wappen noch nie mit grünem Dreiberg gesehen, nur Gold. Besten Dank Doc Taxon (talk)
das Wappen sieht richtig klasse aus, besten Dank noch mal, Doc Taxon (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Ich hoffe mal auch, dass die Blasonierung stimmt, denn auf alten Wappenbildern zeigt der Mohr mit dem Zeigefinger ja nach links. Doc Taxon (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Kannst Du das hier noch irgendwie verifizieren? Zeigt der Mohr mit dem Finger nun nach links oder nach rechts (siehe einen Beitrag drüber)? Doc Taxon (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Mundi wiki.jpg

File:Mundi wiki.jpg 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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

BevinKacon (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wolde

  • Coat of arms of Wolde
    Coat of arms of Wolde

Hallo! Das hier ist wahrscheinlich ein etwas schwierigerer Fall. Mehr als dieses Foto kann ich aber leider nicht liefern. Das Wappen ist blau-silber, und der Mantel ist, meine ich, schwarz-silber. Golden gekrönt.
Das Wappen kann man relativ gut bzw. detailliert auf dem Foto erkennen. Ich denke, und hoffe auch, dass Du das hingekriegst. Ich würde mich jedenfalls sehr bedanken. (Ach, ich würde gerne noch fragen, mit welchem Programm Du arbeitest. Da Du schriebst, dass Du mit vorgefertigten Vorlagen und Wappenteilen arbeitest, hab ich überlegt, ob ich das vielleicht selbst auch hinkriege. Nur habe ich derzeit sehr wenig Zeit, dass erst mal zu lernen.) Freundliche Grüße, Doc Taxon (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ich bin gerade dabei, es selbst mal zu probieren. Mal schauen, zu welchem Ergebnis ich zu kommen vermag. Doc Taxon (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Doc Taxon: Viel Erfolg! Ich habe jetzt auch eine Version hochgeladen: File:Wappen Knoop aus Bremen.svg. Das ist erstmal das kleine Wappen, da sich der Mantel nicht eindeutig bestimmen lässt.
Ich arbeite bei sowas übrigens mit Inkscape. Das ist ein freies Programm zum Bearbeiten und Erstellen von Vektorgrafiken. Zu Anfang ist das vielleicht etwas gewöhnungsbedürftig, weil das Programm nicht in Flächen "denkt", wie andere Grafikprogrammen, sondern in Zügen mit dem Zeichenstift, sog. Pfaden. Aber wenn sich einmal dran gewöhnt hat, geht das sehr gut. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Und das wäre meine Variante. Was sagst Du dazu? Doc Taxon (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Und ich würde gern wissen, wo Du die Blasonierung als Text gefunden hast. Doc Taxon (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Das ist gut geworden, gefällt mir. Allerdings ist der Mantel wohl nicht heraldisch korrekt. Es sind eigentlich immer eine Farbe und ein Metall im Mantel, also kann er nicht nur silber/weiß sein. Die Blasonierung habe ich aus der Darstellung am Haus Wolde selbst abgeleitet, aber eine Quelle wäre natürlich noch besser. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Doc Taxon: Hast du bei File:COA Knoop.svg alle Elemente selbst gezeichnet, oder hast du irgendwelche fertigen Teile wiederverwendet? Falls ja, musst du wahrscheinlich noch die einzelnen Dateien und Urheber angeben, weil einige CC-Lizenzen das so erfordern. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Ja, ich habe gemerkt, dass ich hier die Tingierung noch anpassen muss. Ansonsten besteht der Mantel aus Metall/Farbe = silber/weiß. Evtl. Wiederverwendungen (die zwar alle verändert wurden, aber das macht ja der Lizenz nichts) werde ich dann auch noch hinzufügen. Worin besteht der Unterschied in der Verwendung von argent und argent dark? Für Deine bisherigen Hilfestellungen bin ich sehr dankbar. Doc Taxon (talk)
Silber und weiß sind in der Heraldik gleichwertig. Weiß ist nur eine Darstellung des Metalls "Silber", also ist der Mantel auf dem Foto vermutlich nur ausgeblichen und hatte mal eine "echte" Farbe. Was aber das "argent dark" bedeutet, weiß ich auch nicht. @Sarang: Kannst du das evtl. erklären? De728631 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Nicht so recht; ich bin definitiv kein Heraldiker. Es ist eine lange Geschichte, sie beginnt etwa hier mit diesem Vorgeplänkel als man von mir, dem template editor, u.a. auch die Farbe Verzeihung, Tincture "dark argent" begehrt hat. Sie wird bei weitem nicht so oft wie argent, aber doch gelegentlich verwendet. Sie ist dunkler als argent, aber heller als die Stahlfarbe cendrée. Mehr weiss ich dazu leider auch nicht zu sagen, in der Wappenwerkstatt kann das vielleicht jemand besser erklären? -- sarang♥사랑 19:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Die FIAV beschäftigt sich ja mit Flaggen und Fahnen, also von heraldischen Gepflogenheiten abgeleiteten Werken. Mag sein, dass man da auch eine Art Dunkelsilber für verschiedene Schattierungen hat, aber ich habe sowas bisher noch nicht gesehen. De728631 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Images_by_David_Wilson

Category discussion warning

Category:Images_by_David_Wilson 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Verkaufsalter für Tabakwaren in Nordamerika.svg update PEI

Hi De728631, sorry it took so long to get back to you. The Canadian province of Prince Edward Island raised its minimum purchase age for tobacco to 21, as stated on their website here. The map should be updated accordingly (File:Verkaufsalter für Tabakwaren in Nordamerika.svg). Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for the link. I have now adjusted the map. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Oh, and I hope you don't mind me asking, but the the map for the minimum purchase age for tobacco in Africa (File:Verkaufsalter für Tabakwaren in Afrika.svg) needs fixed. I would fix it if I knew how to edit photos but I don't. From what I am reading, the minimum purchase age in Uganda is 21 years of age. Sources here, here, and here. Thank you ^_^ CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I see you have already updated the Africa map. Good job! De728631 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Beachte Löschdiskussion auf die Saarland-Kategorie, die das deutsche Bundesländersystem im internationalen Vergleich missachtet

@De728631:

siehe unter Commons:Deletion requests/Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Saarland

Ich habe wie folgt geantwortet: 

commons ist not wikipedia. I guess there will be a lot more pictures than articles.
there should be categories for states and at least for their federal states. For larger cities, in my opinion, there is no reason to choose a subcategory, otherwise the federal state category will be overcrowded. Why are categories deleted at this time? This crisis will probably accompany us for months or years and there will surely be countless pictures, no articles.
Saarland is a federal state of Germany. Like california of USA. I guess you then will also delete Category:COVID-19 pandemic in California ?!?
so to keep Triplec85 (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Gruß Triplec85 (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Und noch ein Beispiel für eine größere Stadt, die ich in der Bundesland-Kategorie als optional (je nach Stadtgröße/Bilderanzahl) erwähnt hatte:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Braunschweig
There are still 47 Pictures in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Braunschweig, so it would overcrowd the federal-state-category Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Lower Saxony
so to keep Triplec85 (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for violating the rules of the encyclopedia, I will not upload improper files again. I just wanted my favorite artist to have an updated image of their appearance in the article in Spanish, because my native language is that Alexismata7 (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alexismata7: Hello, and thank you for getting back to me about this. I can see your motivation for uploading these files, but please be sure not to use images that do not come with a free licence. However, we already have a lot of free images of Dua Lipa at Commons that you can use. Have a look at Category:Dua Lipa. De728631 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

File:EMDR animal.jpg

Bonjour, Je suis l'auteur de l'illustration aussi je me demande pourquoi elle est instantanément ( pourquoi si vite ) supprimée ? Cordialement[[Utilisateur:Arcane17|Arcane17]] (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Arcane17: I am sorry, but my French is too bad so I will reply in English. The group of animals you used has been published before online without a free licence, therefore our rules require that the copyright holder of this original graphic sends a permission by email. Please see COM:OTRS. If you control the website https://www.emanasso.com/annuaire-praticiens-certifies-p172043.html, you may also grant a free licence there for the animals graphic. Othwerwise we cannot host a file using this non-free artwork. Please see Commons:Derivative works/fr for more information. You may also want to request a review of the deletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. De728631 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour,
Permettez-moi de qualifier votre attitude de cavalière, désobligeante et déconcertante : une minute à peine sa création, vous supprimez l'image importée sans même un avertissement et m'otant par la-même toute possibilité de discussion. En outre, vous m'opposez la législation française sur les droits d'auteur alors que vous ne maîtrisez pas la langue. Si vous pouviez défaire ce que vous avez, à mon humble avis, "mal fait", je vous accorderai toute ma cordialité. [[Utilisateur:Arcane17|Arcane17]] (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As I have already explained to you, we have very strict guidelines when it comes to republishing material that has been published before. It is irrelevant if the media in question are subject to French copyright or that of any other nation. The problem here is also that we cannot rely on the claims made by you with a Wikimedia account as we have no means to verify your identity – even if you are in fact the original author. Therefore you are required to send an email to our volunteer team as explained at COM:OTRS. Alternatively you may put a notice at the website I mentioned to release the group of animals under a free licence.
Per the rules of Wikimedia Commons I am simply not allowed to restore your file without such additional evidence. @Christian Ferrer, Yann, and Ruthven: Could one of you please explain the matter in French? I think this might be helpful. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Arcane17: Mon collègue De728631 a parfaitement raison, et a tout a fait respecter nos règles. L'image est une couverture de livre, et comme un publication ici implique que l'image soit réutilisable commercialement, nous avons besoin de l'autorisation formelle de la ou des personnes qui possèdent les droits d'auteur. Ce genre d'autorisation ce donne par mail via com:OTRS. Il n'y a rien a discuter, ce sont nos règles, c'est tout. Si une permission valable est reçue, alors l'image sera automatiquement restaurée. Ne la recréez pas. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Bonjour. Voici une claire explication ... sauf la procédure qui me paraît être d'une complexité infinie .... tant pis pour l'illustration ... Merci et Cordialement votre ![[Utilisateur:Arcane17|Arcane17]] (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Just wanted to say thank you again for your help yesterday inregards to the DR, I was fully expecting that to go completely ignored but you come along and boom! - did more work than even I expected,

I was also extremely impressed with you moving the DR to a double namespace - You certainly are one smart cookie! :), I've never seen that been done before so was very impressed :),
Thanks again for your assistance it's greatly appreciated,
Many thanks, Regards –Davey2010Talk 12:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Why, thank you Davey. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome De , Happy editing, Stay safe and take care, –Davey2010Talk 13:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
PS: I have to admit that double move was totally accidental since the namespace is automatically added. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi De, Hope all's well, Something's just caught my eye - At the DR you've replaced another users username (Minorax) with question marks yet that user wasn't the issue ?,
It was only 05F2uIhfx0Rv's name that was the issue :)
Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 01:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Erm, this is weird. All I seem to remember is that I entered the redacted parts that were later changed by Josve05a, and I wouldn't have gone through replacing single Japanese letter signatures of unrelated accounts anyway. It might have been some strange browser issue though where the unicode failed to work?! It might also be related to Minorax having changed their username from 大诺史. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah okay, Unless Minorax had themselves changed it and it simply went unnoticed maybe?,
Also sorry I wasn't accusing you or anything I just thought you'd accidentally got the wrong user as I knew it all got a bit confusing well it did for me anyway but yeah my apologies I certainly wasn't accusing you,
[Just re-read my reply and it certainly should've been better worded so my sincere apologies again]
Anyway thanks for replying - Stay safe and take care De, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 17:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Massenersetzung von Dateien

In Bezug auf die Frage des Nutzers Geographyinitiative (absichtlich unverlinkt, der scheint mir ein Man on a Mission zu sein, wo ich über den Nutzen etwas zweifele, s.a. File talk:China linguistic map.jpg#Not a good map, wo ich angepingt wurde, weil ich da mal einen Revert durchgeführt habe): Man kann das mit einem Userskript ziemlich gut, siehe User:Perhelion/justReplace.js. Zur Einbindung kann ich bei Interesse mehr erzählen (ist auch inmeiner common.js, die aber in die Irre führen kann). Ping auch an Jmabel; Joe, I know you understand German to a certain degree, if some parts here are too complicated for here, just ask. — Speravir – 22:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Speravir, und vielen Dank für die Info. Persönlich habe ich im Moment kein Interesse an solchen Massenedits, aber es ist gut zu Wissen, dass es sowas gibt. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi,

The file I uploaded was deleted although nobody checked the OTRS ticked I provided at this link. Will you please instruct me how can I have this OTRS ticked checked?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Antidiskriminator. You may ask at Commons:OTRS Noticeboard. This is where the OTRS team can be contacted. De728631 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Please check the discussion at OTRS noticeboard. It is confirmed that the ticket I presented is valid for website pogledi which is the source of the image you delete. If I am correct, please restore deleted image. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
To undelete the file, we still need to determine the correct licence, so I asked at the OTRS board. De728631 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tata várostérkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG

Dear, De728631!

I'd like to ask your help about this file. It was former undeleted based on discuss her. After undeleted we agreed these types files (permanently installed, outdoor tourist information board) are covered by FOP. I used the file on a deletion discuss here. The answer was deleted this too. Now, basicly the complete Hungarian permanently installed, outdoor tourist information board files (and these files derivatives) deleted. The argument was the tourist information board shows: text, photo, map. Do you have any opinion? Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Globetrotter19: I'm afraid that the recent deletions appear to be correct. The 2017 deletion discussion where a poster was kept was about the question whether the poster was installed permanently in a public place or just temporarily, but the content of the poster was irrelevant. Last year, however, the Hungarian legislation appears to have been changed so maps are now explicitly exempt from freedom of panorama. I.e. maps are neither fine art like paintings or sculptures, nor applied art like designing advertisements or a fancy chair. So what was correct in 2017 is now no longer valid when it comes to derivative works of maps and also text De728631 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast answer. You have probably right the content was irrrelevant for this case, so now understandable the decision. However there was at least one other undeleted file (an infobord derivative work, the file name was probably (bcoz I can not found in my uploads) File:Peregrine falcon in Bükk National Park, Bélapátfalva, 2016 Hungary) in that case I am sure the content was the reason for delete. But if you said last year the Hungarian legislation appears to have been changed than this also not relevant, because the bird file case was also in 2017 (or in early 2018). Thanks you again the answer. Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of file brügelmann

This is an official gift intended for advertisement - see the articel in the germany wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwareonkel (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User Problem - user:Chris die Seele - user:Gliwi

Moin aus Röttgersbach - leider wurde dieser Hilferuf, ohne dass ein Admin aktiv wurde, schon kommentarlos archiviert.
Was haben wir falsch gemacht?
Wie kann die Sache wieder aktiviert werden?
Als Inscape-User und Heraldry-Supporter bist Du sicherlich in der Lage, die Sache fachkundig aufzunehmen. Krd hat leider diese Kenntnisse nicht und passte. -  MaxxL -  MaxxL - talk 12:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC) talk 12:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@MaxxL: Dass sich niemand darum gekümmert hat, liegt wohl daran, dass darin niemand ein akutes Problem gesehen hat. Mehrere Benutzerkonten zu verwenden ist ja nicht grundsätzlich verboten. Blockiert werden Sockenpuppen nur dann, wenn sie gegen die Vorschriften verstoßen. Und das ist hier offensichtlich nicht der Fall, egal was man von Chris' Aktionen halten mag. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

File:The Golden and Black LOGO of JORIOLE.png

@De728631 Thank you for your response. But I still hold the hope of undeletion. Since the product has been used by millions of users , the brand itself is notable enough for them and the relevant market traders, and salers.If you asks any evidence to prove the editted content or the brnad's information, I'm willing to provide. And I really appreciate your voluntary work at wikipedia since it requires much extra energy and time. After getting to know this great project, I also was encouraged to contribute something here, since I have some knowledge of Economics and Literature and seeing the relevant items left empty here. This first unsuccessful uploading provides me the oppoturnity to learn more of the policies which i had carelessly ignored before. Back to the undeletion, I've read the Scope of Commons as you recommended, but can't find the clear-cut words of saying the brand logo is OOS, for I've seen many brand's introductary pages in the wikipedia. The purpose of this editting is not for advertising, but to give out the correct information of this, as you know there are many fabrication and fake news in the internet. And I believe wikipedia hold the mission of prodviding authenticity in the internet world. Thank you for your time and wish you have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl Stoner8 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid but I can't do anything about it since your request for undeletion has officially been declined by an uninvolved administrator. Please note also that notability for the purposes of Wikipedia and Commons is not established by popular use of an brand or product but by referencing reliable sources. So far I have not found any in-depth reports or reviews of Joriole products in nationwide newspapers or magazines. The scope of Commons requires that a media file is educationally useful, which is not the case here. Once you can provide reliable sources that do cover Joriole – and I don't mean media releases by the company itself – you are welcome to file a new undeletion request and present your evidence of notability. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Accusations

Hi, I am thankful that you have been defending me during the accusation against me of violating the copyright of my picture when it was from my own phone. However, I am upset and do not know what to do.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@NeoBatfreak: There is no need to be upset. Misunderstandings like this happen all the time at Commons and Wikipedia, and that is why we have a rule of thumb: If another editor acts seemingly weird, assume good faith. There may have been a valid reason for their edits. Nobody is trying to harm you, and Mhhossein was just doing some regular patrolling of new files. We get a lot of serious copyright violations from careless people everyday, so we have invented this templating system where short, prefabricated texts can be posted automatically at a user's talk page. These are in no way meant to be offensive, and they are not a judgment of the uploader's intention – they are just a neutral message that one of your uploads may perhaps have a problem. You were right to contact Mhhossein at their talk page and they might even have retracted their deletion tag in time. Should you ever get a message like this again, please make a statement at the file talk page, so the evaluating administrator can also check your point of view. Again, I am sure this was nothing personal, so you might want to forget about this incident and just upload more images. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo: Evangelia Charmandari.jpg

Thank you for the rapid response. I actually wrote in the footer of http://echarmandari.gr/en/cv.php "© 2020 All Rights Released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International." There's no real copyrighted material there. Everything is free for the public to use as they see fit. I hope that covers it. Will the deleted photo reappear? Vcharmandaris (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vcharmandaris: Thank you too for the quick acting. It would be great if you could just add a reference there to yourself as the photographer. CC licences like this require attribution, and so we know that your account here is actually V. Charmandaris the photographer and how to attribute your work elsewhere. When this has been done, I can restore the photo here at Commons. Oh, and thanks a lot for the barnstar! De728631 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added the following text in the html code || title="Photo of Prof. Charmandari taken by vcharmandaris" alt="Photo of Prof. Charmandari taken by vcharmandaris" || so the info on who took the picture appears on mouse over. Vcharmandaris (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vcharmandaris: Excellent. File:Evangelia Charmandari.png is now back. By the way, you might also want to adjust the Greek language version of your website. The copyright footer and mouseover haven't been changed there yet. De728631 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Thanks again. You are correct. I forgot about this. I've updated the greek version as well (both footer as well as the mouseover for the image in the header. This was a learning experience. Vcharmandaris (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for clarifying an issue about my photos already available on the web. Vcharmandaris (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Sorry, I apologize to the users that I have offended for my misconduct--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk)

@Aurelio de Sandoval, Túrelio, and Ellin Beltz: Thank you for your insight, Aurelio. I know that waiting for a response on a Wikimedia project can sometimes be nerve-racking. But that comes with a project where everyone is only doing a part-time, voluntary "job". Now let's move on and improve The Commons. De728631 (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Thanks for your responses, I will try to be more patient and less impulsive.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk)

Sauron - gorthaur.jpg is downloaded

Thank you very much, I have downloaded the image of Sauron now. You're very kind. :) :) best, --Gorthaur03 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have now deleted that file again. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, is it okay to publish this file? I'm not sure...


Book: The Races Of Europeby Stevens Coon Carleton Խալդի (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Խալդի: I am afraid, but these photos are not yet free. The copyright of the book was renewed in 1967 [1], which means that it is copyrighted until the end of 2034. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I have read more about Commons and its licenses. But I have a doubt and I don't want to take a wrong step. I would like to know if the following videos that I will mention you about If I could do a screenshot and upload them with UploadWizard as my own work, or if none of those are allowed here. I have seen users capturing frames of YouTube and uploading here as their own works. See this:

  • Lipa became a UNICEF supporter on a three-day visit to a camp for refugee children and youth in Beirut, Lebanon. Reference videos: [2] [3]


  • Lipa while accepting the Brit Award for British Female Solo Artist". Reference video: [4]


  • Lipa was part of the parade in support of the LGBT movement. Reference video: [5]


@Alexismata: Hi, this is actually a good point. YouTube allows for releasing content under a free Creative Commons licence. This is indicated in the detailed video description: If you click the "SHOW MORE" link below the video at YouTube, you may find a link that reads "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)".
  • If there is no such link, you cannot reuse the video's content here at Commons.
  • If there is a Creative Commons link at the YouTube page, you may take snapshots from the video, or even the entire clip, and upload them here at Commons. However, those are still not your own work! You'll have to credit the original author from YouTube when uploading those files at Commons.
So, I'm sorry, but none of the Dua Lipa videos you mentioned above, can be used at Commons, nor may you upload any screenshots. For more information, please read COM:Derivative works and COM:WHERE. De728631 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Dateien von KTretakov

Hallo De728631,

ich sehe gerade, dass Du Deutsch als Muttersprache angegeben hast - dann können wir das ja etwas vereinfachen.

Ich habe mir eben erlaubt, in eine der von dem Nutzer KTretakov hochgeladenen Dateien den Löschantrag wieder reinzusetzen (keinen Schnelllöschantrag, weil offensichtlich Gesprächsbedarf ist). Die von dem Nutzer gegeben Erklärung überzeugt mich nicht. Es mag so sein, dass das ©-Symbol sich in bestimmten Fällen durchaus mit CC-Lizenz verträgt, wie Du schreibst. Aber der Nutzer ist ja offenbar der Meinung, wenn er Inhalte vom WDR selber abtippt und ein bisschen neu formatiert, dass er dann das Urheberrecht darauf hätte. Der Satz "weil die Anleitung vom Westdeutschen Rundfunk Köln übernommen ist" ist ja geradezu offen zugegebene URV.

Also, nichts für ungut, dass ich da Deine Änderung quasi wieder rückgängig gemacht habe, aber da scheint mir doch noch Diskussionsbedarf zu sein. --87.150.15.114 19:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Kein Problem. Ich habe allerdings die WDR-Dokumente in dem Fall überprüft und keine Übereinstimmungen des Texts gefunden. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Ähm... wortwörtlich von hier - ? --87.150.15.114 20:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oha, warum hast Du den Link nicht von Anfang an erwähnt? Dann hätte ich die Datei sofort eingestampft. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Ganz einfach, weil ich den selber gerade erst gesucht und gefunden habe. :-)
Bevor Du davon sprachst, dass Du die WDR-Dokumente überprüft hast, war ich gar nicht auf die Idee gekommen, dass die online zu finden sein könnten. Ich war von irgendwelchen analogen Unterrichtsmaterialien ausgegangen. --87.150.15.114 20:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Auf jeden Fall habe ich mein Votum in der LD angepasst. De728631 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Danke. Sich zu korrigieren zeugt doch von wahrer Größe. :-) --87.150.15.114 20:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Übrigens, mal was anderes: Der Artikel "Kompetenzbereich Bedienen und Anwenden", für den diese ganzen Materialien dienen sollten, wurde jetzt ohnehin gelöscht. Können dann nicht diese gesamten Produkte, die vermutlich alle samt und sonders URV sind, doch irgendwie in Bausch und Bogen weg...? --87.150.15.114 20:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Im Prinzip schon, aber nicht per Schnelllöschung. Am besten schreibst Du noch einen Nachtrag in die LD bzgl. Projektumfang von Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
O.k., mache ich. Danke nochmal! --87.150.15.114 21:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the case is entirely different than it appeared to you due to lack of backgtound information. I added on the admin page a lot of proof that this photo was taken by me. Please reconsider the case, esp. in view of the material I uploaded (which is all "clean" and is valuable, i.e. should remain afterwards in any case). Thank you for your effort, Pittigrilli~commonswiki (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pittigrilli~commonswiki: Danke für die Info. Ich habe das JPG-Bild wieder hergestellt (siehe auch Admin-Nachrichten). De728631 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion

Hello DE728631, Today, I wrote to Seward Johnson Atelier to ask formally for permission to use the File:TheAwakeningAtNationalHarbor.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheAwakeningAtNationalHarbor.jpg which I took at 14:02 on 10 July 2015

I expect they will grant permission, and then I can add that permission to the metadata.

Sorry about using this medium to write to you, but I'm a novice at Wikipedia, doing the best that I can.

-- Thank you -- Jay Jacob Wind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay.wind (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jay.wind: Hi there. Please mention this also at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Awakening (John Seward Johnson II, 1980) which is not a speedy deletion but may take some time to discuss. What we need though is a free permission from the artist that allows anyone to use the photo for any purpose including commercial reuse. A permission to use the file at Wikipedia or something similar is insufficient. So I'm not sure Mr. Johnson is going to grant such a licence. Note also, that this permission needs to be sent by Johnson directly to our volunteer email team, and we cannot accept any forwarded permissions applied to the file by you. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Verified account

Hallo De728631, vielen Dank, dass du die von uns hochgeladenen Werke überprüft hast. Offenbar scheint es eine Neuauslegung bei der Frage zu geben, wie mit Uploads verifizierter Benutzer umzugehen ist. Ich verstehe die Diskussion nur so halb, aber die Konsequenz empfinde ich als gravierend. Wir haben von Gruner rund ein Dutzend Bilder hochgeladen und planen noch weitere hochzuladen. Was nun als neuer und zusätzlicher Weg vorgeschrieben wird (bei jedem Bild einzeln), ist eine derartige Mehrarbeit, dass ich überlege, die Bilder allesamt zurückzuziehen und die Mitarbeit zu beenden. Das wäre schade. Ich verstehe nicht so ganz, warum das Prozedere nötig ist und man nicht mit einem Schlag alle Bilder, die zu uns gehören, verifizieren kann. Wir sind als Verlag Gruner und Jahr verifiziert, die Werke (etwa die Cover des Magazins P.M.) sind offensichtlich Teil unseres Verlags. Ich bin gerade ziemlich überfordert. (Das von dir erwähnte Logo zum Podcast "P.M. History" ist tatsächlich ein Sonderfall, da hier auch das Unternehmen Audible mit drin steckt; ich verstehe, das dies gesondert besprochen werden muss). Gibt es wirklich keinen anderen Weg? Ich verstehe nicht, warum wir diesen Sonderweg gehen müssen, während andere Bilder einfach so als Eigenes Werk hochgeladen werden können. Ist das normale Hochladetool damit nicht obsolet, wenn es nicht mehr ausreicht, sich selbst als Urheber anzugeben? Tut mir Leid, dass ich mich mit meinem Frust an dich wende, ich weiß einfach nicht weiter. Herzlichen Dank und schönen Gruß, Gruner + Jahr (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Da vielleicht ganz klar ist, worauf ich mich beziehe: Mir geht es um diese Aufforderung auf unserer Seite: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gruner_%2B_Jahr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruner + Jahr (talk • contribs) 12:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hallo, Flurax. Ich war bisher auch der Auffassung, dass ein einmal verifizierter Account ausreicht, um einfach Bilder hochzuladen. Offenbar ist das aber nicht (mehr) der Fall, sondern es soll einzeln geprüft werden, wer hinter dem Upload steckt, und ob die Berechtigung jeweils vorhanden ist. Ich halte das auch für übertrieben, aber die erstmalige Verifizierung geht anscheinend nur noch dahin, ob das Benutzerkonto tatsächlich von der jeweiligen Firma angelegt wurde. So hat man es mir auf Commons:OTRS Noticeboard#Uploads by verified accounts berichtet. Es mag da allerdings Ausnahmen geben, darum warte ich dort noch auf Antwort. @Olaf Kosinsky: Du hast damals den Gruner + Jahr-Account verifiziert. Kannst Du evtl. etwas Licht in die Angelegenheit bringen? De728631 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Herzlichen Dank, De728631, für deine Antwort! Ich frage mich, was bei jedem Bild bewiesen werden muss: Ob a) das Werk tatsächlich dem Unternehmen gehört oder ob b) der Uploader tatsächlich im Namen des Unternehmens das Werk hochladen darf. Beides ist nicht so einfach zu beweisen. Zu a) Dass z.B. die Cover des P.M. Magazins Eigentum von Gruner und Jahr sind, müsste sich eigentlich daraus ergeben, dass sie auf einer Gruner&Jahr-Internetseite (z.B. dem Einkaufsshop) zu sehen sind, wobei selbst das kein klarer Beleg ist. Zu b) Jedes Mal zu beweisen, wer ich als Person bin und in welchem Verhältnis ich zum Unternehmen stehe (ob ich von diesem die Erlaubnis habe) ist noch mal ein ganz eigener Problemkomplex. Ich hoffe, es findet sich da eine einfachere Lösung. Ich bin auf jeden Fall schon mal sehr dankbar für die Rückmeldung, sie hat schon einiges von meinem Frust genommen. Gruner + Jahr (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Illustrert norsk Kunstnerleksikon

Illustrert norsk Kunstnerleksikon printed 1944, Janee (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've just replied at the deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Janee: I have withdrawn the deletion request. But my question remains: Why did you tag all those files with PD-Sweden-photo when they come from a Norwegian book? We need to know the copyright status in the country of origin and in the US, so what has Sweden to do with this? De728631 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sprachliches Missverständnis?

Tach, bevor das (noch mehr) eskaliert: Habe ich mich in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PastorPeitl eventuell missverständlich ausgedrückt? Es geht hier darum, dass ich meinte, man könne davon ausgehen, dass eine Ehefrau impliziert einwilligt, wenn ihr Ehemann ein von ihr erzeugtes Bild (von ihm übrigens) hier hochlädt. Ellin Beltz ist anderer Meinung, womit ich kein Problem habe, aber zieht sich nun daran hoch und meint, ich hätte die Frau als Eigentum des Mannes bezeichnet, ich wüsste aber nicht, wo. — Speravir – 23:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

War anscheinend ein Missverständnis auf meiner Seite … — Speravir – 22:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, hat sich ja offensichtlich geklärt. De728631 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Ja, hoffentlich. — Speravir – 22:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

New implementation for Template:BUser

Hi, I was successfully reimplemented {{BUser}} based on {{Userbox}}, and the new source codes can remove the white margins for Babel box templates while you see them on mobile view (see your page). The new source codes are available here, can you apply them into main template? Thanks -- Great Brightstar (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Great Brightstar: I changed {{BUser}} according to your sandbox, but have now reverted it to the previous version. Your change from a coded table to {{Userbox}} caused the text size in the language part to become too big because the {{{text}}} parameter got scaled twice: Once inside your version of BUser through the HTML division, and once again in {{Babel field}} through a dedicated size parameter. Please try to rework your code to get rid of those HTML divsions and then test it with {{Babel field}} before asking for another live implementation. De728631 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: When you are ready, please use {{Edit request}} on Template talk:BUser so your proposed change will get more attention and feedback. De728631 (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh I made some fixes in the sandbox, and I successfully submitted edit request for this. Maybe I have some missing there while I migrated to {{Userbox}}. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Information DW No Source

{{dw no source since|month=June|day=29|year=2020}}

Dear colleague. You put this advice [7] in the image i was uploading, when i was still completing the data. Now i complete it. Please check it and, if it's ok, please take off the advice. Kind Regards.--Roblespepe (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the links to the original images. I have now removed the deletion tag. De728631 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Location Gibraltar EU.png

Thank you very much for updating File:Location Gibraltar EU.png. 31.200.14.38 18:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

BHL uploads...

If you find other scans with still "in-copyright" works, please consider additional DR's, or even speedy delete. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Review of Non English works is particularly appreciated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Miniminter image

Andrew012p (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Hello, how do I then make a license for it? Should it be public license but how to do that? Please help. Thanks.

See User talk:JuTa. De728631 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Images League MX

Hello @De728631: I come to ask you a favor, that you solve this conflict and restore the following images https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:M%C3%A9xico_fc.png&action=edit&redlink=1 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:M%C3%A9xico_fc_(1).svg&action=edit&redlink=1 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Club_Santos_Laguna_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fc_Ju%C3%A1rez_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1

The matter is that the administrator @EugeneZelenko: and the User @ManFromNord: , eliminated these images that are soccer shields of the league MX, I, precisely to avoid these problems with copyrigth, I consulted it in Commons: Café, User Mazbel answered me saying that these images could be uploaded under the {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} license, in my opinion it seems reasonable to me, since the license says: it belongs to a recognized organization that operates within and / or outside of Mexico, in In this case, a sports organization that operates within Mexico, since in legal terms a soccer club is a sports organization, with all this evidence it is implied that users Eugine Zelenko and ManFromNord made several mistakes due to not knowing the Mexican laws that allow upload this type of images, even if it is unknown to the Mexican laws several of these images are uploaded by mistake in other wikipedia as non-free images, therefore with this evidence I request please the restoration of these images--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Another point in favor is that these images were to be removed for the same reason: non-free logos:
  • [[8]]
  • [[9]]

In the first, the argument that saved it was the Federal Copyright Law of Mexico, this logo of a recognized organization (soccer club) is not protected under subparagraph VII of Article 14 and indicated in {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}. The second was the one that you saved from being eliminated with a similar response: each of these clubs is an officially recognized organization in Mexico ("officially recognized organization"), so the logos are PD. So these arguments should be enough to restore the other images.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aurelio de Sandoval The proper procedure for restoring deleted files is to make a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. I cannot undelete these files unilaterally without consulting the deleting admin, and I trust the judgment of Eugene Zelenko. So if you have evidence that these images are in the public domain, please present it for public review at the undeletion board. De728631 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Pholidota (Orchidaceae)

Hallo De72863, .....mea culpa !! bei den Synonymen. Dank und beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Kein Problem, sowas kann passieren. De728631 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

NPS documents... STOP..

Thanks for the effort, but you also seem to be mistagging a number of works that have no connection with the category concerned. Please review ALL your categorisation efforts before continuing more carefully.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I find it way easier to categorise large quantities of files in bulk and then sort out those that are not NPS-related. Otherwise it will take ages to sort these new bot uploads. I am currently cleaning up Category:Academic theses and dissertations of the Naval Postgraduate School after populating it with new files that have already gone through various search filters. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
It would be nice if you'd left a comment on the relevant project page beforehand though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Also , I cannot see how this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Acts_of_the_Parliament_of_India_1966.pdf&oldid=433294743 was even remotely related to your bulk effort, as it's not even in a related category. Please do NOT do ANY more mass categorizations without discussing them first please. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, imho it would've been nice if any such relevant project had tagged that category as being of interest. I can't see anything on Category talk:Academic theses and dissertations of the Naval Postgraduate School or Category talk:Naval Postgraduate School that says "Don't add files here through cat-a-lot without asking for permission." As to that file you linked to, the PDF contains the words "naval" and "school" which is why it showed up in a search for naval postgraduate school -news -update pdf During a quick check I ignored files that obviously did not match the thesis pattern but some others may have gotten into that category that are reports or otherwise unrelated. Stuff like this tends to happen and would have been sorted out by me. But now I am sorely tempted to remove all the single files again from the theses category and let others categorise them if my actions were so overly disruptive. De728631 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Your actions in categorising is most appreciated, and isn't disruptive at all, now that you've provided the expal

What the (Semi) automated tools should be looking for is the string navalpostgraduateschoollibrary in the page text, there are NO spaces. ( I'd been using that to move material into Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library.) If that isn't present then the file is unlikely to be NPS related. With that information the situation should be recoverable. You just need to remove you categorisation from files that don't have the relevant string.

If it at the same time you are able to move files between Category:FEDLINK - United States Federal Collection and the more specific category mentioned above it would be much appreciated, so that effort can be concentrated on manual license review and categorization for other files in the category. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I was in fact trying to copy the files directly from FEDLINK to the "Academic theses and dissertations ..." category without taking a stop at "Documents from the Naval Postgraduate Academy". As it turned out, all the yellow booklets are actually reports of some sort from the NPS though (I'm going to make a dedicated subcategory for them) while the greenish/blue ones with the seal on top are actual theses and dissertations. All the "Calhoun" files appear to be from a Theses and Dissertations collections as well. Add to that some stray PDFs that have nothing to do with NPS at all. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: I think most files in Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library are now overcategorised because they also appear in either of the subcategories. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Right , I'm pausing so you can decide on one scheme based on my recent removals of Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library, perhaps YOU can come up with a reliable way of making the categorisation for over 6000 files consistent. It's too hard to do it even with manual tools. Let me know when you've made eveyrthing consistent again. Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I have now turned Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library into a hidden category. Since it is a "by source" category and a maintenance category rather than a topic category, I think we can ignore the overcategorisation – at least until a method for reviewing the licenses has agreed upon. Also, I have made it a subcategory of Category:Documents from the Naval Postgraduate School which seemed logical to me instead of having it the other way around. De728631 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

NPS works to be placed in a specfic 'type' category...

https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=16795470 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. 1504 is a workable size but since I'm working with cat-a-lot only I'm wondering how to use this list effectively. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=16838336 is an udpated query which is smaller in size. I'm working through it as well..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
That's it, we're down to zero! https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=16838655 Now for the license reviews... De728631 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


The next big list is https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=16849318 , as all the Items that are in an NPS "type" cateogry, should also typically be in a "Source" category. (Being Category:Documents_from_the_US_Naval_Postgraduate_School_Library or Category:Documents_from_the_US_Naval_Postgraduate_School_Library_for_license_review respectively.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the efforts, Are you reviewing the pages in the Theses/reports as well? Was finding a number of 'license review' situations by doing so. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: So far I have been sorting the categories only, but I noticed that you put some of the theses into the review category. It would be helpful if you left an edit summary as to why you think that a document's licence needs to be reviewed. E.g. I can see how theses by foreign nationals that were not members of the US Navy are problematic, but there are also files up for review that I would not have considered. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Duly noted - My main criteria for moving to review are :
  • Foreign Nationals
  • "State" vs Federal Employees.
  • Submissions to institutions other than NPS. (which need review to determine if the student had Federal research funding).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is also how I would proceed. I'm currently working on a batch deletion request for the former two points (foreigners, non-Feds). De728631 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, imho submissions to other institutions than NPS are nothing to worry about if the author is clearly credited as a member of the US armed forces. Assignments to external academic institutions are not unusual, so these publications may still be treated as PD-USGov. If there is no military rank though, more scrutiny is required. De728631 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Check the inputs before doing a massive recat?

I've just "cleaned" Category:Coasts of California. If you were trying to categorize 'Specifc' files there linked, apologies, but there were many that had no obvious link to the category topic, and it was easy to just to remove all of the recent additions, so you could re-aplly the category concerned ONLY for the files you intended. Don't worry, we all make mistakes ... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Umm, this must have been a click on the wrong link. I don't recall actively selecting this category for any action. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, when you open Cat-a-lot in Category:A bottom gravity survey of the continental shelf between Point Lobos and Point Sur, California (1973), "Coasts of California" is just above "Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library". So while trying to add the source category to some 200 files, I must've gotten the wrong line. Anyhow, thank you for fixing it. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

South Sudan border and UK in current EU maps

Hello.

Can you add the border of South Sudan in the world map section in the upper right corner in:

Maps in the same format like File:European Union (blue).svg and File:EU-Luxembourg.svg respectively already include the border of South Sudan in their world map corners.

In some current maps in Category:SVG locator maps of countries in European Union (green and grey scheme) and Category:SVG locator maps of the European Union the UK has not been removed and/or the border of South Sudan has not been included in the world map corner.

I cannot edit SVG files (I am "SVG illiterate"). That is why I asked you. I can only edit PNG and GIF files, where I added the border of South Sudan in hundreds of maps, as long as they are not sophisticated topographical and orthographical maps.

However, if you make the edits in the SVG maps, I can copy and paste them in the PNG duplicates in case they exist.

If you stumble upon current maps where South Sudan is missing and/or where the UK and Gibraltar need to be removed, can you update them?

See also Category:Maps needing South Sudan political boundaries, in case you are interested in adding missing South Sudan borders and labels.

Yours sincerely, Maphobbyist (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Maphobbyist. I think this can be done step by step. I've got a lot of things to do off-wiki but I'd like to help with these updates. Recolouring the UK is the easiest task, so I'll start with this. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, this went even better than I expected. Once I had a template for the PNG maps, I could insert the South Sudan border, and the SVGs were quite easy, too. So I think I've updated all the maps in your list. De728631 (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the updates! I have one last request. I have overlooked these maps, and they are strategic and either are or can be used across Wikipedia. Can you remove the UK (and/or add the border of South Sudan in these maps below:
That is it - and I won't bother you with a large request like this. Thank you again for all your work. Maphobbyist (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Maphobbyist: I have updated all but File:Europe location EU.svg. This SVG has an invalid internal code and even if could update the colours and borders, I wouldn't be able to upload the new version because of its bad formatting. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix this without redrawing that map from scratch. De728631 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all your work! Maphobbyist (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Maphobbyist: FYI, I have restored the previous version of File:EU28 on a globe.svg because the current EU-27 are already shown in File:EU on a globe.svg, and the former map should be kept for historical reasons (mind also the file name). De728631 (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again! Only a small request: Can you also add the border of South Sudan:
And remove the UK and add the border of South Sudan:
It may sound trivial and a fuss, however these maps can certainly be copied and uploaded with these obsolete borders and colorings. South Sudan is present in the upper left corner in File:EU–Georgia.svg which can be used as a source. Thank you again. Maphobbyist (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As I explained above, I cannot edit File:Europe location EU.svg, but I have now updated these other maps. De728631 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And sorry for overlooking the file, which you explained above. Maphobbyist (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:FEDLINK_items_for_license_review

By carefully reading more than just the IA data (such as authorship and title pages in the works concerned), this category has grown to 500 items plus sub-categories. Some additional assistance in removing items that are not of "clear" US Federal origin, would be appreciated.

In many instances the issue is one of 'joint' authorship between a 'Federal' agency and a non federal entity (working in a professional capacity) in Industry or academic research. In others it's to do with the copyright status of work 'funded' by an agency, but not undertaken by them directly.

Pre 1978 works without copyright notices, can probably be retained (with a detailed explanation.). It's unlikely anything post 1988 can be retained if it has Non Federal contributions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Photographs of Elsa Dorfman

Hallo, De… ich schreib dich mal hier an. Das Thema betrifft aber zunächst das enwiki, aber auch Commons und potentiell bildernutzende Wikimedia-Projekte. Auf der Dewiki-Startseite wird seit gestern und heute noch (nach MESZ) auf den Artikel de:Elsa Dorfman hingewiesen – so wurde ich darauf aufmerksam (übrigens Pinging @Seewolf, den das womöglich auch interessiert): Man liest, sie sei (erst) kürzlich verstorben (30.Mai 2020), und kann ein „Selfportrait" von ihr sehen: File:Elsa Dorfman (2005).jpg (wovon es noch abgeleitete Bildversionen gibt, siehe Kat. Elsa Dorfman). Nun findet man für dieses Bild wie auch für einige der Bilder in Kat. Photographs by Elsa Dorfman, dass sie ursprünglich ins enwiki hochgeladen wurden von einem Nutzer/einer Nutzerin en:User:Elsad. Soll man gutgläubig sein und auf diese Nutzerseite die Vorlage en:Template:Deceased Wikipedian setzen – samt bisher fehlendem Hinweis, dass es sich um Elsa Dorfman gehandelt hat? Oder wie sonst vorgehen? Kann man irgendwelche Erben bzw. Copyright-Inhaber anfragen? Besonders schlecht ist, dass manche der Bilder noch nicht einmal diese Herkunft vorweisen können, so dass wir sie wohl löschen müssen, wenn wir keine Erlaubnis bekommen oder anderweitig herausfinden, dass sie commonskomptibel sind. Ich hab mir noch nicht einmal alle Bilder angehsehen, aber bereits das vierte und fünfte zeigen die Probleme: File:Audre lorde.jpg (was bei Nichtlöschung aufgeteilt werden sollte) und File:Bruce Cratsley And Honey.jpg, siehe hier auch Autor in den Metadaten. — Speravir – 22:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ach so: Statt auf Deiner Nutzerseite können wir das natürlich gern auch an anderer passenden Stelle weiterdiskutieren, wenn dir das hier missfällt, nur eben wo, im enwiki oder hier in Commons? COM:VP/Copyright?. — Speravir – 23:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Hallo Speravir, zu allererst: Wir können das gerne hier diskutieren. Ich denke, das ist nicht so ganz einfach. en:User:Elsad ist seit 2014 inaktiv und ist offenbar kein verifiziertes Nutzerkonto, aber bei der Anzahl an hochgeladenen Bildern mit "self"-Lizenz kann man wohl durchaus davon ausgehen, dass das die echte Frau Dorfman war. Auf der offiziellen Homepage wird das Sterbedatum übrigens bestätigt, und ein Hinweis auf der Benutzerdisk bezieht sich offenbar auf Bearbeitungen wie diese. Wer es ganz genau wissen möchte, sollte vielleicht mal an diese Assistentin schreiben, die auf der Homepage genannt wird. en:Template:Deceased Wikipedian würde ich daher auch erstmal sein lassen, aber ich sehe auch keinen akuten Grund wegen möglicher URVs aktiv zu werden. Die Bilder sind seit 2006 im Wikimedia-Universum im Umlauf, und bis auf en:File:Guggenheim-kids.jpg hat es wohl bisher keine Probleme mit der Lizensierung/Urheberschaft gegeben. De728631 (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Es gibt ein Ticket von 2006[10], in dem sich Elsa Dorfman von einer offiziellen E-Mail-Adresse als user:Elsad identifiziert. Das hat also alles seine Richtigkeit. --Seewolf (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seewolf: Oh, das ist gut. Kannst du bitte {{Verified account}} en:User:Elsad setzen? Dann ist das auch öffentlich sichtbar. Den "deceased" Baustein mache ich dann schon mal mit Link auf diese Disk. De728631 (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Das trifft hier nicht richtig zu, wie ich bereits auf ihre Benutzerdiskussionsseite geschrieben habe. --Seewolf (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, dann hat sich das ja erledigt. De728631 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Von mir aus auch OK. Gut, dass Du im OTRS-Team bist, Seewolf. — Speravir – 21:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Seewolf: Nein, bin ich nicht?! Darum hatte ich dich ja gebeten, den Baustein draufzusetzen. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hast Du uns zwei andere verwechselt? Du meinst, Seewolf soll die Info nicht auf dei Talkseite, sondern auf die Userseite setzen, oder? Was ich ursprünglich stattdessen hätte fragen wollen: Ich weiß nicht, ob das so üblich ist, aber könnte man solche Seiten nicht auf schreibgeschützt setzen? Und im speziellen Fall des Seewolfs Beitrag außerhalb der Chronologie ganz an den Beginn der Talkseite setzen? — Speravir – 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, ja. Da habe ich euch wohl verwechselt. Die Benutzer-Hauptseite wird üblicherweise gesperrt, um Vandalismus vorzubeugen, aber die Disk lässt man eigentlich offen für Kondolenzbeiträge und Ähnliches. Auf jeden Fall ist ja die Bestätigung durch Seewolf in der Bearbeitungsgeschichte der Seite gespeichert, also wenn überhaupt, kann da nur kurzfristig was wegkommen. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, OK. — Speravir – 23:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I just finished vectorizing one of Paasikivi's maps and noticed at one point you had blocked them for copyright violations. I'm wondering if the map I vectorized is good in terms of copyright. Can you check it out? Thanks, TheAwesomeHwyh 15:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The map I vectorized
@TheAwesomeHwyh: Hello there, I think there's nothing wrong with this map and Paasikivi's original. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Inn i mørket filmplakat.jpg

Moin,

today OTRS received a plausible explanation from the uploader via TicketID=11472384#Article13804913 which imo we should accept by AGF. Since you commented in the undelete request, could you kindly please restore the file? Can you please ping me after you are done? I can then insert the release boilerplate into the file and answer to the uploader.

Thanks, cheers from the Neckarland, --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: Ist erledigt. Setzt Du bitte noch den endgültigen OTRS-Baustein auf die Seite? Grüße ins Ländle, De728631 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Meinerseits erledigt. Danke für die rasche Abhilfe! :-) --Mussklprozz (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Using contents from Government of Maldives website

Hello, thank you so much for replying under this conversation. Can you please have a look at this upload File:Niuma Silver Jubilee.jpg and check if the License is provided correctly. Do I need to include this template too under the License part? ShappeAli (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@ShappeAli: You're welcome. Your upload looks good to me, and since there is no Creative Commons licence for this particular image in the first place you don't need to add the text. De728631 (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I created - Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library/reviewed, to partition between

  • Files which have already been checked.
  • Files which haven't been checked.
  • File which 'failed' a license check (such as those by Non US nationals, civilian non federal employees and private students etc.)

Can you consider moving/categorizing the documents you think meet commons requirements to this category?

Naturally you should already be aware of the category containing works that need to be reviewed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this is what I've been doing since I came across this category. I am also actively reviewing files in this category for a valid licence options, so I'm not quite sure what your message is about. I haven't been very active lately though for that matter. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: On a second look, the "reviewed" subcategory is actually new to me. In my first reply I was somehow thinking of "for review", but the other one seems like be a good idea given the masses of files that have come with these bot uploads. So, thank you for notifying me. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

PAS and license reviews

I noticed your review of File:Middle Bronze Age Palstave (FindID 994675).jpg which made me think a bit. I would discourage LRs for the PAS collection because there's far too many for human review, and if we ought to update licenses, then that's something we can handle at a system level. Originally the update to add Internet Archive links on every image page was to get around the temptation for a LR process.

As a "counter-case", the file File:Medieval Coin, Penny of Edward III (FindID 237458).jpg is cc-by-sa-2.0, which at the time of upload would have been correct as the original record at PAS shows the audit trail of being created 12 years ago, a few years before cc-by-sa-4.0 existed. However the current page at PAS shows v4.0 because this looks like it's the default link being used when generating the pages, not because the photograph has actually been released on that license version at the time of being made public.

I'll ponder what to do that would be sufficient and if it can be neatly farmed out to Faebot on the WMF cloud. If PAS is using v4 retrospectively across its entire database, then legally speaking, there's probably no harm in mass changing our records. To be extra certain, this might usefully build-in updates to the archive link and to ensure that the PAS latest page is updated at the Internet Archive. However this does mean we would be tied in to doing the same thing all over again if they have another "central" change of license.

BTW, there is a large 'refresh' from PAS running. I may swap to v4 for the new files within a day or so; perhaps after a little soak test to ensure that the assumptions about the live PAS database are backed up by the fact.

--Fæ (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: Yes, I think you should use the latest licence version available, or else these uploads will be prone to confusion. As to reviewing them, I agree that it's not feasible to mark each and any of them, but since I changed the original licence for this one file, I thought I'd slab a review tag on it, too. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Now done some investigation, update at User:Fæ/Project_list/PAS#Copyright. My assumption was wrong, there are files released under cc-by-2.0 which are still under that license. In testing the theory, I've started to write up a housekeeping task which will double check the licenses. That same check will have to then be added to the upload/refresh process for future PAS images. Unexpected, but better to be technically correct, rather than have later confusion about whether the right licenses are in use. PAS itself has not stated how license updates are supposed to work, and they probably don't have the staff to engage with technical questions during the pandemic, so this is something to exercise our judgement on. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
That's good news, and thank a lot for your effort. If it can be fixed, please go ahead. And yes, PAS are certainly not the only ones that don't take their licensing too serious for one reason or the other. Anyhow, all that counts is that we can have a decent and verifiable upload process, so keep up the great work. De728631 (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:D'Arch

Hi. I think this edit of yours was a mistake. I wasn't trying to speedy page User talk:D'Arch, I was notifying user User:D'Arch of my attempt to speedy page User:D'Arch.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Oh, right, thank you for notifying me. That was the message template. I've undone the edit. Too bad only that D'Arch left in anger. De728631 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for undoing it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Redundant categorizing

Hi there. I'm curious why you made this kind of edit to all the B-52s, when they were already sorted into the serial number category? That's the whole point of {{Usaf serial}}. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: Hi, Huntster. Actually, {{Usaf serial}} does not categorize the aircraft type, as in Boeing B-52. So, there is no redundancy. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: Meh, you're right. I guess this happened because I created a lot of new B-52 categories without using the template and then just added Category:Boeing B-52 by serial number to all the others. The good thing is that it doesn't hurt the categorisation process. I shall try to remove those redundant entries. De728631 (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey, it's no big deal, just wondering if you were seeing a problem that I was not. The template can be finicky at times, requiring a bit of trial and error to get best results. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I like it so far. Just before you noticed me I had discovered it while sorting the C-5 Galaxies. The only backdrop seems to be that Cat-a-lot doesn't recognise the category entries as being "occupied". De728631 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

File:An autumn tour in Spain in the year 1859 (IA autumntourinspai00roberich).pdf

Hi..

Is there a template that says " Do you know the lifetime or date of death for this author?", so books with absent information can be tracked and the authors eventually added to Wikidata?

If there isn't could you provide a translateable one? Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi ShakespeareFan00. I couldn't find a template like this, so I made {{Lifetime needed}}. It will automatically sort a file into Category:Public domain files with no author lifetime information. De728631 (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The next logical template I can think of is one for marking periodcals and journal articles of non US origin with a message saying "As this work was published outside the US, the authors (and lifetime thereof) may be need to be determined for indvidual submissions to the journal, magazine or serial publication concerned."... I am not sure Commons has a template for this either at present. I hope you don't mid me trying to get processes in place to improve metadata to library catlog grade detail (grin)
Can you think of any other 'useful' catalog management related tags Commons is missing? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know of any such author template either. In the worst case, however, this would amount to {{Author missing}} which is very unspecific though. As to other tags, I can't think of any useful additions to existing templates like {{Category diffuse}} or the sorting into review categories. De728631 (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Conr. Gesneri Tigurini, medicinae et philosophiae professoris in Schola Tigurina, Historiae animalium liber II - qui est De quadrupedibus ouiparis (IA ConrGesneriTiguIIGess).pdf

We are starting to get catlog processes happening. Slowly but it happening. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Anyway with the above file, can you suggest a way to tidy up the actual authors from the 'provenance' info (i.e former owners)? Still data to retain, but not in the author field.. Where to stick it though.. Hmm....ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I scrolled through Conr. Gesneri... just to make sure the former owners did not add any extensive comments which would earn them a mentioning as 'author'. This is not the case, so IA in fact botched their assessment by adding the provenance into the list of authors. I guess we could use a custom {{Information field}} in |other_fields= like "Provenance", although this will not be translated to other languages. De728631 (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This does work though with regards to translation of the field name: User:De728631/workshop. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Listauthors

Based on comments made by another contributor I figured there was a need for a low-priority version of checkauthors, that could be used to encourage the addition of author lifetimes, on stuff that was clearly PD.

I tweaked the language a little, and downgraded the mbox to a 'meassge' type rather than a warning. but it's not final, and you are welcome to amend further.

I would suggest that if possible, someone comes up with a low priorirty {{Lifetime needed}} as well. The intent here is to encourage addition and identification of prominent authors, not to find copyvios. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that' a good idea. Last night I was checking this Australian journal and halfways through the list of contributors it occured to my that it was a government work, so copyright has expired by default. Still, it would be nice to have a list of authors for jurisdictions that do not follow the rule of the shorter term etc. I'll have a look at this new template to get it into translation mode. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion would be something like {{Lifetime desirable}} would be reasonable.
Also considering if we need something like the license reviewed template that was {{Bookchecked}} to say the book had been both "harmonized" and checked for potential copyright issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure. {{Lifetime desirable}} would be the optional version of {{Lifetime needed}} to be sorted into the "/low priority" subcat. As to {{Bookchecked}}, I think that one's very optional. As long as the files are not in any of the maintenance categories, they are supposed to be alright, so I don't think we need a positive status template. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
{{Bookchecked}} was so I could have a template or cat to use for Petscan, so I don't end up evaluating a file multiple times.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Well that makes sense then. De728631 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
{{Lifetime desirable}} created. You might want to check I've set it up correctly, and that the wording is okay before translation. I've taken your view about the other template I suggested above into consideration. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Looking good. I added a German translation. Keep up the good work, and Merry Christmas! De728631 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:De728631/2020&oldid=587461733"