User talk:Krd

If your question is why a specific file has been deleted or how it can be restored, please advise on initial contact that you have read COM:L and COM:VRT and why this doesn't answer your questions. Questions from users who appear to have not read the mentioned two pages will be ignored.

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day. For the archive overview, see archive.

EPLF dels

Just curious, what did the ticket say at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mediacom EPFL. ?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but it is no file permission ticket, so it's not relevant. Krd 12:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If it authenticates the account, they should be able to upload their stuff.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't know if they are copyright holder, so a permission ticket is required. Krd 12:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Felix Banaszak Bundestag 2021.jpg

Hallo, Du hast per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Felix Banaszak Bundestag 2021.jpg gelöscht. Könntest Du bitte mal unter https://www.felixbanaszak.de/presse/service nachschauen, ob das eines dieser Fotos war? Dann wäre der Upload ok gewesen, weil dort unter CC-BY-SA 2.0 lizenziert ist. (COM:L und COM:VRT habe ich gelesen), Beste Grüße, Rudolph Buch (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hallo. Ich hab die Löschung mal rückgängig gemacht. Das Foto sieht so ähnlich aus, aber nicht identisch. Bitte kommentiert das im Löschantrag. Krd 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Vielen Dank. Es ist offenkundig die gleiche Serie und mir wäre damit glaubhaft genug, dass auch dieses Bild unter CC-BY-SA 2.0 freigegeben ist (jedenfalls in Gesamtwürdigung der Umstände). Ich hab Autor, Quelle und Lizenz korrigiert und es in der Löschdiskussion vermerkt. Abgeleitetes File:Felix Banaszak Bundestag 2021 (cropped).jpg ist ebenfalls korrigiert, das hatte noch keinen Löschantrag. LicenseReview-Template habe ich gesetzt, kann selber mangels Rechten aber nicht bestätigen. Rudolph Buch (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ich würde sagen ohne weiteres eher Nein. Von der Freigabe eines Bildes auf die ganze Serie zu schließen sehe ich nicht. Man sollte versuchen eine Freigabe für dieses Bild zu bekommen, oder eins der anderen Bilder verwenden. Krd 07:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Auch ok, wie Du meinst. Rudolph Buch (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we finally delete these copyvio files

Can you please delete this file? The deletion discussion has sat empty with no responses for nearly 2 months. It's blatantly a copyvio--the file is literally Myrie's official NY Senate headshot. No other NY Senators have their official headshot on Wikipedia. How long will it take for the file to get deleted? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The current deletion backlog is 100 days. Krd 22:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:35th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

Ich habe beim Mauerjubiläum fotografiert. Die Uploads 35 Jahre Mauerfall 001 - 099.jpg fallen unter FoP-Germany und de minimis. Die Uploads 101 - 162 sind Bilder einzelner Plakate und die Dateien 201 - 396 sind Plakate auf einer Videoprojektion. Da die Angaben auf der Website zum Mauerfall etwas unklar sind (Veröffentlichung erlaubt bei Angabe der Hashtags Mauerfall35 und haltetdiefreiheithoch), habe ich am 15. November die drei auf der Website genannten offiziellen Mailadressen der Veranstaltung angeschrieben, das Anliegen erläutert und das VRT-Permission-Verfahren beschrieben. Ich habe bislang von keiner Mail-Adresse eine Antwort erahalten und gehe daher davon aus, dass diese Antwort direkt an permissions...wikimedia.org ohne cc an mich erfolgt ist und der Vorgang nun irgendwie im VRT-Prozess festhängt. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Meaning of the term "no ticket permission"

My image was deleted with the following message: Removing Shaheedi_Park_logo.png; it has been deleted from Commons by Krd because: No ticket permission since 25 October 2024.

I read both COM:L and COM:VRT but could not find out what it means. Could you please tell? I was asked to send an email to permissions-commons, and answered all their questions. What was I supposed to do? Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the ticket number? Krd 16:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning for File:(Kelly Pfaff DWTS) Foto gemaakt door publiek van Dwts 2019 België.jpg

I noticed you approved VRTS for File:(Kelly Pfaff DWTS) Foto gemaakt door publiek van Dwts 2019 België.jpg with a reference to 2024112510008541. Can you please explain your reasoning for accepting this picture? Multichill (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The permission sender stated on explicit question that they photographed this themselves, which appeared plausible to me. Krd 14:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kiev (233498509).jpeg

So, what is the violation?? Do they know if the author of the buildings still has authority over them? The age of the buildings? None of that was provided, so you deleted it without argumentation. In a war zone, preserving photos is a must. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 16:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware that the Ukraine government has suspended copyright. If there is such regulation, please point to it. --Krd 17:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As the nominator, the photo depicted the Independence Monument of Ukraine, which was erected in 2001 by Anatoliy Kushch (info per enwiki). --A1Cafel (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Juguetoon.png

Hi, Krd. What country's TOO did you determine was at issue in regard to that logo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The logo is not own work of the uploader (or it required ticket permissions), and while everybody is free to provide additional information, the onus of investigating which is the source country or what other PD reason could be constructed is not on the closing admin. The corresponding article has been deleted as advertising. Krd 03:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So it was deleted for a different reason than the nomination, not per nom. That's OK, and I don't dispute the deletion, but then why didn't you specify the actual deletion reasons? And in my opinion, the person who requested deletion should have tried to find out what country the logo was from if they wanted to argue it exceeded COM:TOO, because that would have depended on which country it was from. And if you had deleted it per nom as you claimed, I do think the onus would have properly been on you to investigate what country it was from. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The nomination was synonym for "no permission", and the file has been deleted for no permission. Asking a question on a DR and putting on the closing admin to elaborate on the answer is not how it works. Please feel free to determine the source country; I'm happy to restore the file if it turns out to be pd-ineligible. Krd 03:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a nice offer, but why would you restore the file in that case if COM:TOO is not the real deletion reason? I'm confused. But I don't care about this file, specifically; I only care that people who request deletion per COM:TOO should know which country's TOO is relevant in cases in which that could be the deciding factor (especially when they are very experienced deletion requesters like A1Cafel, who makes loads of good deletion requests but has also made wrong assumptions about which country was relevant repeatedly in the past and didn't address it in this case) and that the deletion reason be specified in the admin's closing remarks. I don't think that's a really arduous request. If you do, why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's also not up to the nominator to inverstigate which could be a reason to keep the file when all claims of the uploader are wrong and the uploader didn't provide any useful information at all. The "TOO" is a courtesy hint to the uploader and closing admin, the nomination is to be read as "not own work, no permission", which is the deletion reason. I fail to see what is the problem here. Would you prefer less nominations of files without permission, and/or slower processing? Krd 07:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

How many seconds more does it take you to state the real reason than to give "per nomination" all the time, even when that's obviously wrong and even counter to policy? And as far as not own work, no permission is concerned: it doesn't matter if a logo is uncopywritable but in scope. Then, all that's needed is to fix the source and author fields. Also, to any reader except you and maybe some other people I don't know about, the given deletion reason is the deletion reason, not something else they didn't state - unless the closing admin gives another reason. You can't expect anyone reading to think "no, it's not deleted per nom, but for some catchall reason we're supposed to know." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess it increases processing time by factor 4. It least the same as if I asked you to always provide a reasonable summary when editing my talk page, instead of using the reply feature that just puts "Reply" into the summary. Krd 08:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the X (formerly Twitter) of the company, it seems to be based in Spain. So, per COM:TOO Spain: A work must have the characteristics of "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" to qualify for protection, and I think that the stylized letter "O" exceed the threshold. Hope this can respond to Ikan's concern. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, A1Cafel, appreciated. I should say, I'm confused about how Spanish TOO is actually adjudicated, but that's certainly a reasonable take.

Krd, I think that even if it takes 4 times as long, when "per nomination" is not accurate in that you are not deleting because of the reason stated in the first post of the deletion request thread, it really would be better if you would take the time needed to say why you are deleting, and you can probably reduce that time by putting some common reasons on a page of your sandbox, ready to copy and paste when needed - I'll be glad to type some up myself on a subpage of my user page and share the link if that would help; just let me know. We all know there's a long backlog in dealing with deletion requests, but I don't think that makes speed more important than accuracy. And quite often, no reason is stated at all, just "already deleted by [name of admin]," which is really uninstructive. I don't expect you to agree with me, but if you don't, expect more questions from me and others from time to time about the real reason you deleted a file and more objections to seeming to endorse false deletion reasons, especially when they were debunked in the thread (not the situation in this thread, but it's happened a bunch of other times that we've previously discussed). I'm not asking for perfection, but some additional effort in this direction would be appreciated, if you decide to make it.

Thanks for being patient and discussing this, and all the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

JarrahTree

The mailing list was bureaucrats-commons at list etc. Its on the Comm:Bureaucrats as the emergency contact for the team. I thought it would be urgent to get the bit removed before the announcement went and change his user pages. Cheers for fix it up Gnangarra 12:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason it could be urgent for, but anyway the e-mail didn't arrive. Please double check. Krd 12:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)