User talk:Mbdortmund/Archive/2010/December

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

  — Jeff G. ツ 03:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want to decide this DR because I was involved in the discussion. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Silent Fire Temple in Shiraz. Iran.JPG

In light of the result of this deletion discussion, you may want to undelete this image as well. It may be useful in the same way, though it isn't encyclopedic. -Gump Stump (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please ask ZooFari with referring to the other decision. I don't want to overrule him. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Delamare02.jpg

Please take care about other uploads. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two photos left, did you already check them? --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I mentioned this in request explicitly. Same for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Victorian-Menthol.jpg. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Could not find a hint that the pictures on the source website are PD, so I deleted them. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please also take care about other uploads mentioned Commons:Deletion requests/File:Victorian-Menthol.jpg. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, they all had to be deleted. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Winter in Dortmund

Als Tipp, gerade frisch angelegt: Category:Winter in Dortmund. Und für Friedhof- und sonstige Tore: Category:Gates in Dortmund. -- Ies (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Danke, mach ich nach dem Upload, commonist werkelt schon. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You deleted Flickr images that was reviewed

Hi! Could you please tell why you deleted 3 images that was Flickr reviewed:File:Prague_Church_interior.jpg, File:Prague_statue.jpg and File:Prague_Castle.jpg but you kept File:Gebäude_unter_den_Linden.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is more File:Yellow_tulip.jpg - the rest can be seen on Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/12/04. --MGA73 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi MGA73,

I will check this later, my idea was to keep only the ones with a review, the deleted pictures had no review. Perhaps I missed something but I will check it next days. Best wishes --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked File:Yellow_tulip.jpg, it had no review --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked File:Prague Church interior.jpg, it had no reviw, too. Seems as if my actions were OK *g* --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. My fault - I'll explain better: All files uploaded by User:FlickrLickr is reviewed. The bot simply can not upload files if the license is not ok. We have more than 10.000 files here Category:FlickrLickr images. --MGA73 (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Some are marked and some are not. I think we need a kind of proof if the upload was correct if an author protests in such an aggressive way. Secondly most of the pictures are no real loss because they are of bad quality, e.g. the file File:Yellow_tulip.jpg. We have many much better photographs of the same object. If you think my decision was wrong please use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests for one of the pictures with reference to the DR so that we can discuss my decision with other wikipedians. If you want I can undelete one example to make it easier to non-admins to discuss the case. Thx. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason is important - not the files. The main problem (or question) was that you did not give a reason why you deleted. If the reason is "Uploader requested. File was not in use (whatever)." then there is no big problem. But if the reason is "We can not trust FlickrLickr and therefore we have to delete." then we have a big problem because then we have to delete up to 10.000 images. --MGA73 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. What exactly do you want me to do? --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Just make a clear statement here why files was deleted. Or you could copy + paste the reason to the DR's. --MGA73 (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

To make you happy: Deleted for authors request. --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

* * * :) * * *

Ich wünsche Dir fröhliche Weihnachtsfeiertage und alles Gute und ganz best im Neuen Jahr!
--George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Danke, George,

auch Dir, Deiner Familie und Deinen Freunden alles Gute fürs neue Jahr.

--Mbdortmund (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

DVC00188.JPG

Hey, this is regarding the file [[File:DVC00188.JPG]]. In the deletion discussion here, you asked me to upload another one in its place, and that you'll delete it after that. But the thing is, Commons/Wikipedia isn't allowing me to upload an identical picture in its place. My only concern with the existing file is that it contains some of my personal information, which I do not want present there.

Also, the files [[File:DVC00187.JPG]] and [[File:DVC00184.JPG]] are my own work, but bear my old username. As the files aren't being used in any article, I would like them deleted. MikeLynch (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

deleted (x) --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Danke

...für das Vorschlagen einiger meiner Bilder als QI. - Gruß, A.S. 13:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Schöne Fotos, waren mir bei der unerfreulichen Debatte um das Stadtarchivbild aufgefallen. Vielleicht kommt so noch etwas Gutes dabei heraus! mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Regarding: File:Angelo Quaglio - Bühnenbild Tristan und Isolde.jpg. The artist who created this model of a stage design died in 1890, so the model itself is in the public domain, as you correctly say. However, the uploaded image is a photograph of that 3-dimensional model, in which camera angle and lighting greatly affect the results. It is my understanding that photographs of 3-dimensional works of art, as opposed to those of 2-D works of art, become derivative works with their own copyright, the status of which is not affected by the copyright status of the object which the subject of the photograph. In this case we do not have any information about the photographer or the copyright status of the photograph, although it was published in a 1995 book and could be of recent vintage. Although in a 2-D photo, the model very much has the appearance of a 2-D work of art, it is not, and one can see actual shadows cast by some of the elements in the model. These shadows are not part of a 2-D drawing, and a 3-D image of the model would clearly show that changing the viewer's position greatly alters what is seen. The uploader argues that the model consists of a collection of 2-D works of art. If these were flattened and photographed independently, the photographs would not be subject to copyright protection, which is true, but these 2-D drawings are arranged and folded to create a 3-dimensional work of art. I continue to suspect that the photograph is subject to copyright protection, although the uploader argues otherwise. I cannot presume to say what a court of law would decide. Because of this I have refrained from uploading similar photographs of stage design models, although wishing to do so. I would like some feedback from other editors who are more familiar with copyright law, as to whether these images are protected or not. Do you have any suggestions as to where I should ask this question? --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Some arguments were already given in the discussion. You say that the picture could be "of recent vintage". I don't think so, it looks pretty old, and a further hint that there is no copyright on this picture is, that the book doesn't give a source. A commercial publication would shurely name the author or copyrightholder, if they had any idea. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of specific information as to the date of the photo, the date of the photo could be as recent as the 1995 publication date of the book. I wonder whether we can assume that it is "old". It does not look old to me. Can we rely on "hints" in these matters? --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not look old? I would say it looks over 100 Years old, typical 19th century picture. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

this image is obviously pd-old --anro (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The artwork is definitely old, but the photo may not be. I don't know how anyone can determine the age of the photo just by looking at it. But if as MBdortmund says, the source book gives no attribution or copyright info on the photo, then that may provide support for the idea that the photo is in the public domain. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

One indication could be that it is in rather poor black/white quality. The 3-D modell will most certainly have been in color. For a 1995 book would they have used a black/white reproduction if they would have had the chance to do color instead?-Wuselig (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. And it shows the characterisitcs of really early black and white pictures e.g. range of contrast. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, these are good points, but in the end it is all conjecture. Printing processes often reduce contrast, and color printing is expensive, so black and white is quite common. I'm actually more curious about where the model might be, assuming it still exists. The is a similar pic of Quaglio's model for Act 1 in the New Grove Opera. In the photo credits they list the Bayerische Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, Munich. Anybody live nearby who could find out whether they have it? We could add that interesting info to the description. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Dortmund-Baumbluete-IMG_1916a.jpg

habe ich heute in der Category:Identify entdeckt. Absicht? Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ich muss irgendwann gedacht haben, man könnte das genauer bestimmen, erinnere mich aber nicht. Wenn das nicht geht, schmeiß das Bild ruhig raus. --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ich befürchte, die Pflanzenspezialisten werden das Bild unter "Identify" schlicht nicht suchen. Category:Unidentified Prunus ist es ja schon, vielleicht lohnt sich ja doch noch ein Versuch unter Category:Unidentified plants. --4028mdk09 (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hab's mal da eingetragen, Danke. --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

FlickrLickr

If an image was uploaded by FlickrLickr in the past, then it was licensed freely at the time of upload. If not, the FlickrLickr bot would Never have uploaded the image here in the first place. So, this is proof that the image was licensed freely. But as MGA73 says on his talkpage, if the image is of poor quality or plain nonsense, it may be better to just delete it since it may be out of Common's scope. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv,

you are right but that was not my question. Some of the pictures where marked with a review tag and others were not. As an admin it would be good to know since when the pictures from FlickrLickr are marked with a review tag and why some are not. I normally rely on these tags in deletion requests. Thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot could mark the FlickrLickr-Uploads with a review-tag? --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• You could ask MGA73 to do this if you wish. He may order his bot to pass them then. I suppose he did not do so because he assumed that all the Admins here know that FlickrLickr images were free at upload. However, some newbies here may not know this about FlickrLickr. Its your decision to ask MGA73 this proposal if you wish. Thank You from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)