User talk:Mbdortmund/Archive/2010/April

Sam

Danke für deinen Mut. Muß man hier ja schon sagen bei so einer Löschentscheidung, so traurig das ist. Aber konstruktiv: Welchen anderen Diskussionsplatz meinst du? Eine Qualitätsoffensive für wirklich hochwertige, nützliche Bilder muß sich irgendwann auch in guidelines niederschlagen. Folglich braucht es eine breite, emotionslose Diskussion ohne "pfui" und "prüde". Wir verzetteln uns mit diesem Gewürge um Einzelentscheidungen. Ich möchte commons als herausragende Bilderquelle, wie bei den Weblinks (nur vom Feinsten), nicht als Müllkippe. -- smial (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Es gibt auch noch File:Casual Sam.jpg, File:Casual Sam 2.jpg, File:Casual Sam 3.jpg, File:Casual Sam 4.jpg und File:Casual Sam 5.jpg. Die müßten auch gelöscht werden. Und es gibt andere vom selben Flickrkonto. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

@ smial: Es gibt verschiedene Komplikationen:

In letzter Zeit gibt es zunehmend Löschanträge, die per "out of scope" und "educational use" versuchen, Relevanzkriterien der nationalen Wikis auf die Commons zu übertragen, was ich sehr problematisch finde. Damit fängt hier die unselige Relevanzdiskussion an, die in de so nervig ist. Aus dieser Sicht steht teilweise das ganze Themenfeld unter Beschuss.

Es gibt zu wenig Adminbereitschaft, Qualitätsansprüche durchzusetzen und wirklich miese Bilder - ich meine das rein technisch - wegzulöschen.

Es gibt die Mitternachtsverzweiflung, die immer mehr User dazu motiviert, miese Bilder von eigenen oder fremden Genitalien hochzuladen. Besonders problematisch ist das, wenn dort Personen zu erkennen sind. Häufig folgt am nächsten Tag Reue und Löschantrag des Uploaders....

Es gibt diesen Import von Flickr-Bildern von zweifelhaftem Nutzen und unzureichender Skepsis, ob das wirklich eigene Werke der Flickr-Uploader sind und ob die sich um die Rechte der abgebildeten Menschen gekümmert haben.

Die Bilder von Genitalien und nackten Menschen sind die am häufigsten angeklickten Fotos auf den Commons, es ist also kein exotischer Bereich. Dabei erscheinen mir die Quellen und die Qualität oft als sehr fraglich, es ist aber ein Heidentheater, das auch nur bei einem einzigen Bild zu überprüfen. Ich vermute, dass die Hälfte der gesammelten Nacktaufnahmen rechtlich zweifelhaft sind und das in ganz verschiedener Hinsicht: Zustimmung der abgebildeten Personen fehlt, Scans aus Magazinen als "own work", Kopien aus dem Netz, Werbeeinblendungen von kommerziellen Pornosites usw.

Na, sehn wir mal, den richtigen Ort, das zu diskutieren, habe ich mir auch noch nicht überlegt.

mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

@Pieter: Habe die von Dir genannten gelöscht. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Neeeee um Himmels willen keine Relevanzdenbatte. Die Relevanzkriterien für bilder haben wir auf DE ja eigentlich schon vor über zwei Jahren abgeschafft und durch DÜP ersetzt, was grundsätzlich ganz gut funktioniert. Freilich wird dort bei Zweifeln an der Lizenz oder anderen Rechten auch tatsächlich gelöscht. 14 Tage - weg, wenn es kein Ticket oder einen anderen glaubhaften Nachweis gibt. Insbesondere Persönlichkeitsrechte werden dort hoch bewertet. Hier auf commons gehen die ja eher unter - wenn ein Gesicht ein bisken verpixelt oder eine Person nur von hinten abgebildet ist, wird das als "nicht identifizierbar" gestempelt und behalten. Ich für mein Teil würde Menschen aus meinem engeren Bekanntenkreis in aller Regel auch von hinten oder ohne Kopp erkennen, die infrage kommenden MädelZ auch nackich :-). M.E. wird das hier echt schlampig gehandhabt, und ich behaupte mal, daß es kein Zufall ist, daß diese Probleme vornehmlich bei sexuellen Themen auftritt, aber auch z.B. bei Handy-Selbstportraits, die auf Klassenfahrten oder sowas entstanden sind. Und bei Fan-Cruft aller Art (Sport, Musik, Glamour, Autos...), wo halt viel im Netz zu finden ist. -- smial (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

gelöscht oder nicht ?

Siehe Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amplaicion7.jpg - gelöscht, aber noch da ? Grüße und dank für Deine Arbeit Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, anscheinend daneben geklickt. Danke übrigens auch für Deine verlässlichen Angaben in den Löschdebatten. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rombergpark-100331-11493-Bachlauf.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good photo, imo QI --Skipper Michael 23:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bochum-100406-11933-Sport.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice picture for me. Useful.----Jebulon 22:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bochum-100406-11942-Ruhrtal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some minor overexposure, but good overall --Ianare 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests Lorenz Choi Cruz 5.jpg

Hi Mbdortmund. I don't understand your decision to keep Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lorenz Choi Cruz 5.jpg. (1) All three comments posted on the page were in favour of the deletion. (2) The outcome of the English Wikipedia deletion request of the related article was "delete", thus no chance remains for the image to be used. (3) The images are obviously personal images, of somebody searching self-promotion on Wikimedia projects as correctly described in the deletion request. Your argument also contains a missunderstanding: the English Wikipedia is not a "national wiki". English refers to the language of the platform, not a nationality, and in fact is just as international as Wikimedia Commons. Can you revise your decision? --Elekhh (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elekh,

my decision was based on the annoying discussions on de-wikipedia about relevance, on the commons called "project scope". The question is, if we should start to delete pictures of people, who are - from the point of view of single wikis - not important enough for an own article. When we start to do so, we would have to delete thousands of pictures. This would even be a much bigger problem, if we start to include buildings, where most of our pictures in this category are not important enough for an own article on single wikis. Should we delete them?

My position concerning pictures of people is to ask, if the photos may get useful some day or if there could be some interest in them. So there has to be a description which makes it possible to identify the person, an acceptable license and reasons that the person on the picture accepts to be presented here. I will ask other admins, what they think about my decision. I hope this is OK for you.

Yours --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. --Elekhh (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Comment - I had closed the AFD on the related article at en.wiki as delete. However, I am not entirely sure if that has direct relevance here - I mean, if it were closed as "Keep", it certainly would, but delete does not necessarily mean it is not notable across all other wikis. The decision by Mbdortmund (talk · contribs) is appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The argument wasn't that the image should be deleted because the related article failed the notability criteria at en.wiki. Sorry if I was unclear about that. The deletion request was made by Amada44 for being a personal image. Another editor, Cholo Aleman agreed with that. The article on Wikipedia was the only google match for the person (that's why I followed up), however prooved to be a self-promotion article, now deleted. It is common practice to delete personal images from commons. The image is unused, uncategorized, and of poor quality, how would it be educational? My only concerns is that the more junk is stored on Wiki the more difficult it is to find the valuable content. --Elekhh (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I reopened the DR, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lorenz_Choi_Cruz_5.jpg#File:Lorenz_Choi_Cruz_5.jpg

Yours --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, I think that's a fair decission. --Elekhh (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed it is still closed... --Elekhh (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems to be difficult to reopen the request. Can you please put in a new DR with a link to this discussion, please? --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Renominated here --Elekhh (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich bedanke mich gerne

Hallo Mbdortmund!

Ich möchte meinen Dank aussprechen für deine loyalen Worte bei der fehlerbehafteten Nomination meinerseits bei den Qualitätsbildern! Besten Dank! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Das war aus voller Überzeugung gesprochen, wenn die Zahl der eigenen Bilder groß genug ist, passiert das leicht, dass man ein Bild entdeckt und mag, das man schon einmal nomiert hat. Weiter auf gute Zusammenarbeit! --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests Lorenz Choi Cruz 5.jpg

Hi Mbdortmund. I don't understand your decision to keep Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lorenz Choi Cruz 5.jpg. (1) All three comments posted on the page were in favour of the deletion. (2) The outcome of the English Wikipedia deletion request of the related article was "delete", thus no chance remains for the image to be used. (3) The images are obviously personal images, of somebody searching self-promotion on Wikimedia projects as correctly described in the deletion request. Your argument also contains a missunderstanding: the English Wikipedia is not a "national wiki". English refers to the language of the platform, not a nationality, and in fact is just as international as Wikimedia Commons. Can you revise your decision? --Elekhh (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elekh,

my decision was based on the annoying discussions on de-wikipedia about relevance, on the commons called "project scope". The question is, if we should start to delete pictures of people, who are - from the point of view of single wikis - not important enough for an own article. When we start to do so, we would have to delete thousands of pictures. This would even be a much bigger problem, if we start to include buildings, where most of our pictures in this category are not important enough for an own article on single wikis. Should we delete them?

My position concerning pictures of people is to ask, if the photos may get useful some day or if there could be some interest in them. So there has to be a description which makes it possible to identify the person, an acceptable license and reasons that the person on the picture accepts to be presented here. I will ask other admins, what they think about my decision. I hope this is OK for you.

Yours --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. --Elekhh (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Comment - I had closed the AFD on the related article at en.wiki as delete. However, I am not entirely sure if that has direct relevance here - I mean, if it were closed as "Keep", it certainly would, but delete does not necessarily mean it is not notable across all other wikis. The decision by Mbdortmund (talk · contribs) is appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The argument wasn't that the image should be deleted because the related article failed the notability criteria at en.wiki. Sorry if I was unclear about that. The deletion request was made by Amada44 for being a personal image. Another editor, Cholo Aleman agreed with that. The article on Wikipedia was the only google match for the person (that's why I followed up), however prooved to be a self-promotion article, now deleted. It is common practice to delete personal images from commons. The image is unused, uncategorized, and of poor quality, how would it be educational? My only concerns is that the more junk is stored on Wiki the more difficult it is to find the valuable content. --Elekhh (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I reopened the DR, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lorenz_Choi_Cruz_5.jpg#File:Lorenz_Choi_Cruz_5.jpg

Yours --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, I think that's a fair decission. --Elekhh (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed it is still closed... --Elekhh (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems to be difficult to reopen the request. Can you please put in a new DR with a link to this discussion, please? --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Renominated here --Elekhh (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich bedanke mich gerne

Hallo Mbdortmund!

Ich möchte meinen Dank aussprechen für deine loyalen Worte bei der fehlerbehafteten Nomination meinerseits bei den Qualitätsbildern! Besten Dank! Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Das war aus voller Überzeugung gesprochen, wenn die Zahl der eigenen Bilder groß genug ist, passiert das leicht, dass man ein Bild entdeckt und mag, das man schon einmal nomiert hat. Weiter auf gute Zusammenarbeit! --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12367-Mauritius.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sehr schön nice colors --George Chernilevsky 15:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12365-Steakhaus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Clear QI --George Chernilevsky 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12509-Mensa.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC) --  Comment Would it be worthwhile cloning out those two birds? An easy 10 second job. --Fred the Oyster 15:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12234-Venusinsel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 17:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

*kicher* Wirst du in Nordkirchen einklich inzwischen schon am Ortseingang mit Kaffee und Kuchen empfangen? Oder wenigstens von einer Rathaus-Delegation? -- smial (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• g* Erstaunlich, was das Kaff so alles bietet, vor allem natürlich reichlich Raum für kontemplative Spaziergänge mit der Kamera. Was ich noch gar nicht angegangen habe: Erlaubnis für Photos in den Räumen.... --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-Schloss-0121a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good composition, quality and useful. --Elekhh 04:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12459-Uhr.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice. Good point of look --George Chernilevsky 05:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-090806-9313-Westflügel-Nordwestturm.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Berthold Werner 16:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12232-Vase.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Well done. --AFBorchert 06:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12272-Trinkender.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12224-Westfluegel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Berthold Werner 16:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC) )  Oppose Obvious tilt.--PereslavlFoto 18:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC) *"Obvíous" means in numbers and direction? --Mbdortmund 23:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-090806-9519-Venusinsel-Traubenmaedchen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 12:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-090806-9478.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI --Pudelek 12:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-090806-9479-Skulptur.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Also good. --Cayambe 16:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-090806-9279.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

File:Les picture-2b black & white.jpg

Please, undelete this image for some time. Image is probably ok (look at the edit descriptions in the image history, and the uploader contributions in en-wiki), and I've sent a message to the uploader. Trycatch (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

there was already a message to the uploader, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lesaucoin - perhaps it was deleted to fast (another reason for me to use the correct templates the next time....) 06:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• He is probably rarely visits Commons, I've send a message to Facebook. Trycatch (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

done (x) --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Trycatch (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... eleven days past and nothing happened. He can upload this picture again, it's quite simple for everybody. You should repair your step and repeat deletion. Julo (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, now it should be deleted, clearly he wouldn't respond. Trycatch (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

deleted (x) --Mbdortmund (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12483-Suedtor.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 06:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12324-Diana.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK.--Mbz1 16:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Speedy deletion" wegen Deutscher Bahn...

Hallo Mbdortmund, wir hatten ja schon mal Kontakt bzgl. des Bergbaumuseums. Heute spreche ich Dich in Deiner Rolle als Commons-Admin an. Es geht um ein Bild von mir, das auch als Qualitätsbild ausgezeichnet wurde: File:Berlin Hauptbahnhof, Ostseite (2009).jpg. Ein WP:DE-Nutzer wies mich heute Morgen darauf hin, dass ein Verlag das Foto in einem Eisenbahnbuch ohne Quellenangabe genutzt hat. Das brachte mich dazu, einen unerledigten Punkt bei dem Foto anzugehen. Ich hatte erst im Nachhinein erfahren, dass bei Fotos, die von Bahnanlagen aus aufgenommen sind, die Zustimmung der Deutschen Bahn einzuholen ist. Ich schrieb deshalb heute Morgen die Abteilung Öffentlichkeitsarbeit an. Die umgehende Reaktion war eben, dass mich die Deutsche Bahn zur sofortigen Löschung meines Fotos aufruft. Ich habe deshalb einen SLA gestellt. Es ist insofern etwas "heiß", als ja bereits eine kommerzielle Weiternutzung des Fotos stattgefunden hat und ich als Uploader dafür verantwortlich gemacht werden kann. – Mich enttäuscht die Wikimedia-feindliche Haltung der Deutschen Bahn, und es wird meine Einstellung der DB gegenüber verändern. Viele Grüße, Jochen --Iotatau (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

done (x) --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Danke! --Iotatau (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hamburg-090612-0139-DSC 8236-Heros-I.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 09:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10879-Burgallee-Mars.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 18:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)