User talk:Mbdortmund/Archive/2010/July

Help

Hi! You promised to help with this file. Could you send me something in e-mail, so I could get your address and send you the RAW-file? —kallerna™ 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got an e-mail... --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunelately my e-mail sucks... :( —kallerna™ 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I will look fora possibility for the transfer. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

re:"Why"

I am User:AlexHe34, I took that picture with my cellphone, so it looks not satisfying. If you think it deserve keeping, it does not matter. AlexHe34 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not so bad, I decided to keep it. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buchenwald-100625-14514-Schwerte.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 High quality photo --George Chernilevsky 10:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

archivieren --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Publicity rights

I have contradicted your assertion per this history in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Testicle Cuff with Weights.jpg and this further discussion. I urge you to reverse yourself and delete the image per w:Personality rights#United States and seek the assistance of a Commons oversight administrator if the subject's name appears in other histories. 71.198.176.22 18:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please open a new DR with link to the older discussions. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-100706-15099-Riesenrad.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 Interesting compo of a ferris wheel in which name is the word "parisienne"...--Jebulon 23:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"CA"

What is "CA" in this phrase? I beg your pardon, my English is bad. --Art-top (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

CA = chromatic aberation. -- smial (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Art-top (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the photo is a really great shot in matters of composition, and lighting. I've tried to fix the technical problems, but was not successful. So I decided to ask for help in German Fotowerkstatt. Perhaps someone else can help there. -- smial (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A good man corrected CA: File:Gatchina. Statue Vigilance about Gatchina Palace-2.jpg. If the result is unsatisfactory, I will try it correct itself, the methodology found.

Smial, thanks for your help! --Art-top (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Trier Palmatiusstrasse 6.jpg

Hallo, ich habe den Himmel entsättigt und etwas heller gemacht. Allerdings war er vorher so, wie die Kamera ihn aufgenommen hat. Ich habe nicht explizit an den Farben gedreht. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wenn ich schon gerade zugange bin... File:Trier Palmatiusstrasse 6-2.jpg. Änderungen sind im Fotowerkstattbaustein beschrieben. Manchmal ist der Himmel halt so bunt. Bei den Pentaxen kann man aus den RAW-Dateien aber meist noch deutlich mehr herausholen, insbesondere bei Unterbelichtungen wie bei diesem Bild. Ich habe bei meinen Pentaxen übrigens gute Erfahrungen damit gemacht, stumpf mit festem Weißabgleich zu knipsen, die Ergebnisse werden bei Bilderserien konstanter. Also einfach auf "Sonne" stellen. Beim 16-45 (das habe ich auch) solltest Du nach Möglichkeit nicht stärker als f/11 abblenden, bei f/19 läßt die Schärfe wegen der Beugung doch schon nach. Wenn Du (noch) nicht mit dem RAW-Konverter gearbeitet hast, kann ich vll. mit ein paar Tips helfen. Das Programm (egal ob V3 oder V4) ist ja ziemlich lahm (jedenfalls auf meiner Steinzeit-Hardware hier) und recht sperrig handzuhaben, bringt aber m.E. wirklich gute Ergebnisse. -- smial (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Den Weißabgleich fest auf Sonne zu stellen werde ich mal ausprobieren. Wenn daran denke stelle ich auch eine feste Blende ein (meist 8-13, je nach Licht), oft vergesse ich das aber auch. RAW Dateien speichere ich in solchen Standardsituationen meist nicht. Ist auch auf meiner Hardware ziemlich zeitaufwändig jedes Bild einzeln in JPG zu wandeln, egal ob mit dem Pentax Programm oder dem in Fixfoto eingebunden DCRAW. Oft muss ich auch ziemlich rumprobieren um überhaupt ein besseres JPG als die Kameraautomatik hinzukriegen. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ich knipse traditionll mit Zeitautomatik (aka Blendenvorwahl), weil ich das von meinen ollen Film-Minoltas so gewöhnt bin, und für Wikipedia dann eben meist mit Blende 8 (Sonne lacht), bzw. 2-4 Stufen Abblendung (je nach Objektiv). Dann hat man relativ sicher ausreichende Schärfentiefe für die hier überwiegend geforderten dokumentarischen Bilder. RAW-Verarbeitung ist tatsächlich recht aufwendig und es geht ja meist auch per JPG ganz gut. Dann solltest du aber eventuell über Belichtungsreihen nachdenken - bei dem Bild hier hat das sehr helle Gebäude die Messung irritiert und für leichte Unterbelichtung gesorgt. Plusminus eine halbe oder 2/3 Blendenstufen bei einer Dreierreihe hat sich hier ganz gut bewährt, man fischt sich dann das jeweils beste raus und löscht die anderen beiden weg, das geht ja schnell, jedenfalls schneller als eine fehlbelichtete Einzelaufnahme zu reparieren :-) -- smial (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ja. --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Berthold, was mir bei Deinen schönen Bildern oft aufgefallen ist, sind starke Kontraste zwischen hell beleuchteten und dunklen Gebäudeteilen oder Straßenseiten. Hier würde das RAW-Format wirklich helfen, weil Du weitgehend verlustfrei die Schatten "nachbelichten" kannst. Außerdem kannst Du ohne Gewissensnöte ein wenig unterbelichten, um ausgefressene weiße Flächen zu vermeiden, denn Du kannst ja verlustfrei aufhellen, während nachdunkeln meist nicht geht. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Vielleicht sollte ich wirklich auch generell die RAW Datei erzeugen und in meinem Script, dass Daten von der Kamera kopiert einbauen, dass die RAW Dateien in einem eigenen Subdirectory abgelegt werden. Dann stören sie zunächst mal nicht und bei Bedarf könnte ich sie mir dann immer noch holen. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ja, das hatte ich vergessen zu erwähnen: Die Bilder sind durch die Bank ganz herausragend gestaltet und vor allem wirklich informativ und nützlich. Sie stehen damit in deutlichem Gegensatz zu manchem anderen Kram, der bei QI vorgestellt wird, der zwar technisch meist nicht zu bemängeln ist, aber vor dem ich oft ratlos stehe, und dann lieber gar nicht bewerte, bevor mir ein dummer Spruch aus der Tastatur fällt. -- smial (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC) PS: @MBdortmund: Die FP-Kandidatur ist ja leider nicht durchgekommen, aber es hat ja immerhin auch ein paar pro-Stimmen gegeben. Hab das wohl beim Vorschlagen wegen Lokalpatriotismus selber nicht kritisch genug gesehen :-)

Vielen Dank für die Ermutigung. Ich laufe immer ein wenig hin und her um herauszufinden aus welcher Blickrichtung das Objekt am besten zur Geltung kommt, versuche wenn es möglich ist die Tageszeit passend zu wählen und das richtige Wetter abzupassen. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi smial, das mit der FPI-Ablehnung ist kein Problem, es ist dort sehr schwer, Fotos von Gebäuden und Skulpturen durchzubringen, wenn diese nicht sehr exotisch sind und dadurch die Wow-Gelüste befriedigen. Ich hatte neulich das oben vorgeschlagen und gleich zwei Ablehnungen gekriegt, weil der Kopp abgeschnitten wäre. Wenn ich dagegen eine eher dokumentarische Fotografie des gleichen Objekts vorgeschlagen hätte, wären garantiert "no-wow-Ablehnungen" gekommen. Manchmal überlege ich, mich der Fraktion gestitchter Riesenpanoramen anzuschließen, aber im Grunde sehe ich die eher mit Skepsis... Na, im Grunde kein Problem, es werden dort oft sehr gute Tierbilder gezeigt und Profiaufnahmen von den US-Streitkräften und dergleichen mehr, manchmal blättere ich da ganz gern herum, habe aber Abstand davon genommen, bei den Marines anzuheuern.... mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Original artwork

I agree with you that illustrations like those now under review at QIC may be considered original artwork. What I'm not sure is what Wikimedia's policy is. I also think a serious and structured discussion on the acceptance of shocking material in our image foruns (FPC, QIC and VIC) and showcases (e.g. FP galleries and POTD) should be started. But I don't want to do it myself, I've been too involved lately. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alvesgaspar,

there are two different problems, which I don't want to mingle.

1) sexual content

Perhaps there are legal problems in the USA and perhaps we could use a kind of template to enable parents to use a filtered version of the Wikipedia and of the Commons, I don't know, but I am not really interested in these problems. I have a little daughter and I know that the internet is full of terrible sites full of violance and brutal sex scenes and I know that she needs help and assistance to cope with the bad things she may see. Here the Wikipedia is not the real problem. Our children will have the possibility to see whatever they want about sex and violance, our task as parents is to help them to find a way trough this jungle...

2) original artwork

We had long discussions about Niabots Manga- and Anime-paintings on de-wikipedia. I'm absolute no expert concerning this topic and the quality of his paintings seems to be OK, but he doesn't accept that there is a problem when we use his paintings as illustrations for Japanese art. His line of defence is that his paintings are not real artwork but only realisations of a given style or technique. To say it simply: I am not convinced. We have got a lot of articles about modern painters without illustrations because of copyright problems. Should we start to paint pictures in the style of Joan Miró because we are not allowed to show the original works? I think we should accept only original drawings.

Another difficulty arises when we have to judge if the paintings of a wikipedian are good or not. It is obvious that our QI-criteria will not help us very much. I don't want to act as a hardliner but my personal opinion is that we should exclude such paintings from QI and FPI.

Yours --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

jump in: You should not compare an general art style with an art style of one artist. The art style of manga or anime (not to be compared with the general term) isn't ruled by one person or mind. It's an common expression/technique of thousands of artists. --Niabot (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I won't mingle the two issues though I must confess that I would use any argument to keep Commons free of pornography... I have one son and three daughters myself (from 13 to 33), I know that the web is full of terrible things but believe that the values we have passed to them will be a good enough defense. But here, in the Commons microcosmos, we have some influence and can use it to make the difference. I have not approved the last initiative of Jimbo Wales because it was blind and autocratic; but sympathize with its main purpose, which is to keep Commons free of pornography. Now for the two themes:

1. Sexual content - there are two different aspects: first, should we ban pornography from the FP, QI and VI? And two: if not, how should those images be handled in those foruns? My opinion is that no pornographic or explicit sexual content pictures should be allowed in any of the foruns. Yes, I'm no moron and know that such drastic measure will sacrifice some eventually featurable or highly valuable pictures (there are some well known artworks, for example). The question is: is the number of such pictures significant? We all know from past experience that the answer is no. The second issue is easy to solve. If pornographic content is to be allowed (I hope not), then some protective mechanism will have to be used to hide the images from any casual browsing.
2. Original artwork - I agree, we are not prepared in any of the foruns to deal with such images. The trick of considering those Manga works as 'illustrations' of Japanese art is not convincing and doesn't work either: how do we decide if they are faithfull illustrations of the kind?

Best regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have launched a poll in the FPC talk page -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

VI candidate

Guten Tag!
Please, add location (geocode) to VI candidate picture.
MfG, George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

done(x)

thx for the hint --Mbdortmund (talk) 10

36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fredenbaum-100719-15599-.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 sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 06:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fredenbaum-100719-15609-Fahrradgarage.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 Gut --George Chernilevsky 09:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fredenbaum-100719-15638-Kanadagans.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 Gut -- George Chernilevsky 09:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fredenbaum-100719-15652-Kanadagans.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 13:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Always nice to know I'm not the only one :) Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"You'll never walk alone!" *g* --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Oxford railway station MMB 07 166220.jpg

500 ISO noise in the shadows

noise as noise can :-)

Hi, regarding your view that this image should have been done at ISO 100. I don't think the camera I was using had that capability, but future ones like that should be ok as my new one I have set to auto 100-400. Thanks for the promotion. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know the Pentax but concerning my two cameras there is a great difference between 100 and 400 ISO. The last value normally produces a lot of noise in the shadows. You used 1/250 seconds, f/8 with ISO 200, so perhaps you could have reached a better result with ISO 100 and 1/125, I'm not shure because I'm only relying on the experience with my camera. You can see an example on the right where I used 500 ISO by an error.

--Mbdortmund (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, my new one chooses 100, 200 or 400 depending on light. Not convinced by it yet, but I don't have all the settings sorted yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ISO200 is lowest setting with your *istds, and noise is imho not disturbing with this setting, ISO400 under all circumstances still acceptable. Every digital camera has some noise, the most expensives also. And if you are looking for real noise... see image :-) -- smial (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC) ps: What's your new camera? Again Pentax?

Not bad in small solution, but real noisy with 100% --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a Pentax K-x, still with the Sigma 18-125mm lens from the old one. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@mattbuck: Good choice, though you'll find some small issues in a while. Beware of loosing the batteries, the cover of the batterie compartement could have a better lock... But I like mine very much. Compact and MUCH faster operation than my old *istds. @MBDortmund: Noise ist significant lower with the k-x than with *istds, K10D, or K200D, and many other Cameras with similar resolution. In this image I accidently used ISO1600, and noise is still acceptable. -- smial (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I used 1600 the other day by accident, and though the photos were awful the noise was surprisingly low. I'll have to take it out for some night photography sometime. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kategorie

Hab deinen request hierher: Commons:Bots/Work_requests verschoben; da schauen die ganzen bot-leute regelmäßig drauf--DieBuche (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Danke Dir. Merkwürdig, dass wir dafür keinen Standardbot haben. --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bitte um Bothilfe

Zur Archivierung kopiert vom Forum.
_______________________________________________________________

Kann jemand per Bot alle von mir hochgeladenen Bilder in eine Userkategorie "Photographs by Mbdortmund" packen? Es sind einfach zu viele, um sie mit dem Gallery-Script zu verwalten.

--Mbdortmund (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bitte den Kategorienamen ueberdenken. Es sollte User:Mbdortmund sein! --Dschwen (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Du meinst Photographs by User:Mbdortmund? Es gibt auch sehr viele in der anderen Form. Was wäre der Vorteil? --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wüßte ich auch gern. Hab ich nämlich auch nicht gemacht. Userseite in die Photo-Cat find ich eleganter.--Sarkana _{frag den ℑ Vampir} 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fast keiner benutzt hier User:xxx für die Kategorisierung und die Kategorie Photographs by author scheint eher für die «echten», denn für die WP-Fotografen zu sein.. -- Хрюша ^?? 06:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Die relevante Kategorie ist Category:User categories und die zugehörige Richtlinie findet sich hier. Die Benennung der benutzerspezifischen Kategorien erfolgt recht uneinheitlich und es ist auch kein bestimmtes Namensschema vorgeschrieben, wenngleich das Beispiel in der Richtlinie die Verwendung von User:Mbdortmund nahelegt. Leider weiß ich keine Lösung für den Wunsch nach einer Bothilfe — möglicherweise wäre hier Bedarf für einen neuen Botdienst. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dieses CatScan-Resultat listet Kategorien, die in Category:User categories und Category:Pictures by author einsortiert sind. In den meisten Fällen ist wohl eine der beiden Kategorien falsch, oder? --Leyo 09:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Zur weiteren Verwirrung gibts auch noch Photographs by author]. Mir ist diese Inkonsistenz nicht wichtig, meinetwegen können verdiente Wikifanten in beiden stehen, ich brauche die Kategorisierung zum Aufräumen meines wertguten Werkes, was mit dem wertguten Toolserver eben nicht mehr geht, nicht zur externen Präsentation. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Habe auf Village Pump Hilfe gefunden. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

*Mit dem Bottich schümpf!* Ich hätte nicht gedacht, soviele Bilders von dir auf miener Beobachtungsliste gehabt zu haben :-) -- smial (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for help by a Bot

zur Archivierung hierher kopiert
____________________________________

Could someone please sort my uploads into a category "Photographs by Mbdortmund"?

Thx! --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there are too many to do it with CC (7500+).

If it's done, you might need to double-check the result and move/remove some images (e.g. images of other authors you uploaded or images where you just revert someone else) or add other images (e.g. images reuploaded by rotatebot).  Docu  at 11:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the hint, I know that there are a lot of pictures only retouched by me, I will correct that. --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Working on it now... If someone has edited your image I'm not sure it will show up on the list I made. But it's a start :-) See Category:Photographs by Mbdortmund. --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Mbdortmund in Filenamespace gets good results. You could use the list tool in AWB to cross check. --  Docu  at 15:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

At first thx to MGA73, that' really helpful! Could you say how long the bot will work, at the moment it has marked about 2.838 files?

At docu: Is it possible to generate a request of some kind finding "What links here" minus "the files marked per Bot"?

Thx for your help --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Mbdortmund. I found 8 thousand images so it should be done in a few hours. I plan to create a list of "What links here" in a few moments and I can make my bot work on these images also. It skips images allready in the category so you should wait with the cleanup untill the bot is finished... Otherwise it might add the images again :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bot is now finished. Perhaps the bot could help you remove the category or to change it to "Images edited by Mbdortmund" by editing all images that does NOT contain a specified text like "Mathias Bigge" or "M. Bigge" or "User:Mbdortmund". However that would also remove images uploaded by you as PD-old etc. --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with the AWB list module. Once search has updated, this should work too, just filter for media.  Docu  at 05:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thxx, docu, and all other helpers, I would have needed weeks without your support to fill this category. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for help by a Bot

kopiert von Bot-request zur Archivierung
______________________________________________

Could someone please sort my uploads into a category "Photographs by Mbdortmund"?

Thx! --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there are too many to do it with CC (7500+).

If it's done, you might need to double-check the result and move/remove some images (e.g. images of other authors you uploaded or images where you just revert someone else) or add other images (e.g. images reuploaded by rotatebot).  Docu  at 11:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the hint, I know that there are a lot of pictures only retouched by me, I will correct that. --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Working on it now... If someone has edited your image I'm not sure it will show up on the list I made. But it's a start :-) See Category:Photographs by Mbdortmund. --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Mbdortmund in Filenamespace gets good results. You could use the list tool in AWB to cross check. --  Docu  at 15:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

At first thx to MGA73, that' really helpful! Could you say how long the bot will work, at the moment it has marked about 2.838 files?

At docu: Is it possible to generate a request of some kind finding "What links here" minus "the files marked per Bot"?

Thx for your help --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment You might want to follow my talk page User_talk:MGA73#Not_a_photograph for a few days :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

License on images

Hi! I noticed that some images are licensed GFDL 1.2 only, some GFDL 1.3 or later, some CC version 2.5 some version 3.0. Is it on purpose you use different licenses or would you perhaps agree to a change so your images in Category:Photographs by Mbdortmund are licensed {{self|author=[[User:Mbdortmund|Mbdortmund]]|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or whatever you find ok? --MGA73 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi MGA73,

I started to use "GFDL 1.2 only" when the big license migration started and I found no way to opt out without editing thousands of pictures by hand. I didn't like this way to change licenses without asking the author. For me the license is a kind of contract between me and the commons which cannot be changed without my agreement. Therefore I choose GFDL 1.2 only, which seems to be acceptable for all Wikis and was the only license which needs clearly the allowance of the author to be changed. I had a lot of discussions after that decision because some people thought that this license may be a problem for other users but I don't believe that this is true. You can find pictures of me all around the net and in printed publications and most of them don't care about any license at all...

So thank you for your proposal but at the moment I want to leave it as it is. Perhaps I can ask you for your help when I rethought that problem and found a better way to deal with the license problem...

Thx again for your help, it makes things much easier for me. --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Feel free to ask me any time. By the way you can opt out like this {{GFDL|migration=opt-out}}. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I know, but when the procedure started I had no overview of my pictures and did not know if this could be solved per bot. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry :-D Well yes we have done it with a bot for some other users that wanted to opt-out. --MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)