User talk:ABF/Archive/2008/November

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

COM:AN

Hi,

could you look at the last topic over there. It is about a image i deleted. The opinion from a other admin is needed.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done abf /talk to me/ 18:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Sterkebaktalk 18:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You're always welcome :) abf /talk to me/ 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sauerland.ogg

Da ist die permission meiner Meinung nach nachvollziehbar gegeben. DU kannst ja eine del req wegen COM:PS aufmachen. [[ Forrester ]] 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Farming in Volmerswerth-Düsseldorf.jpg

Bitte mal löschen, da in de gelöscht wurde durch DÜP --Daniel 1992 (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done abf /talk to me/ 13:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Danke --Daniel 1992 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Immer gerne :) abf /talk to me/ 15:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Danke, bitte für Image:Rangsit.jpg aus selben Grund auch einmal. Grüße --Daniel 1992 (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done abf /talk to me/ 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

US electoral map

I fixed the appearance of the numbers, but it seems to have not worked. ---Noname224 (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... what is not shown correct?? I dont see any showing mistakes... S: abf /talk to me/ 13:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RFA

float
Thank you

Thank you for voting on my request for adminship. The result was unanimously in support, which really surprised and overwhelmed me. I'll do everything I can to make sure that it was justified.

-Adam Cuerden          

No problem. abf /talk to me/ 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token a18a32281843462e261fda6b9d7586bf

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account because I always forgett the old password :P! abf /talk to me/ 15:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just an edit for the archive-bot. abf /talk to me/ 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ich machte dieses Foto von mir in 2006 reinstatement on Commons

I spent a week putting all your photos in a Gallery and a Category under Japan and now it is gone for some reason. Here is my response and request to have all the photos back on Commons, Danke WayneRay (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay


Ich machte dieses Foto von mir in 2006 contained hundreds and hundreds of photos of Japan by a German Photographer who now lives there. He didn't have any of them categorized and I worked for several days to put them in a gallery. Recently a Bot came along and populated the images into Category:Ich machte dieses Foto von mir in 2006

Someone just mistranslated the title to mean I made this photo of me and deleted both the gallery and the category. Although I may have deleted the gallery and left the category after the Bot came along because of all the duplicates it created.

Either way the title means I made these photos myself in 2006. This gallery and category should be reinstated and put back up, the photographer just contacted me and is quite angry that it no longer exists. See my Talk Page.

Thanks you for your speedy response and repair WayneRay (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Please dont keep discussing on thousand pages, I already answered on COM:UDEL. abf /talk to me/ 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Auto translation

Hi! Can you add MediaWiki:Lang/pl and maybe some other? Yarl 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Pl is done. Please make a list of those who are needed in fact. abf /talk to me/ 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist

I've undone your addition of tinyurl\.com. It is blacklisted for a reason & whitelisting it is just begging to be inundated with spam. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote everyone can remove it if its not fine, so I dont know why you are messaging me, but thanks. abf /talk to me/ 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Löschung usw. ;)

Ich hab das mal wiederhergestellt, da sind OTRS-Vorlagen in den Fotos, soweit ich sehen kann. Ist das so okay für dich? Grüße, abf /talk to me/ 15:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ich weiß. Schua mal ins löschlogbuch von den Bildern. Dazu gibts noch User_talk:D-Kuru#Tramvia_di_Firenze als kleine Lektüre. Ich habs zuerst nach "Tramways in Florence" verschoben, damit das ganze eine englische Bezeichnung hat, habs aber inzwischen Rückgängig geacht, weil es auch Florence in Firenze endet. Dazu hab ich noch die Kategorie durch die existierende ersetzt.
mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Help!!

Hi! Will you have a look at the note left by FENIX 89 on my talk page? He thinks his upload and the gallery he made doesn't look right. It looks fine to me...am I missing something? Thanks! *gives you a piece of that awesome cake I made* Brynn (talk!) 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cake :) Can you please mail me the receipt? I hope I was able to give the correct answer on your talk. :) Welcome back! :)) abf /talk to me/ 21:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks abf! :D Brynn (talk!) 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Random headline

Do you like my talk page? XD Really thanks by the way :-) --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 17:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like your page, but you dislike section-headers, do you?! ;) abf /talk to me/ 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This bloody arcive-bot does not archive this, maybe it works if i sign again.... abf /talk to me/ 18:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping

As I'm a bit confused by the whole thing, could you finish this please. Giggy (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but nl should work imho as Multichill created the page for that. Could you please ask the creator why it does not work? I am sorry, but imho I cant help :( abf /talk to me/ 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my RfA. I'm really honored to have gotten unanimous support and I hope I can live up to everyone expectations! Please let me know if I mess anything up. :) J.smith (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I am sure you will do a great job. abf /talk to me/ 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please inform users

Dear ABF, if you nominate something for deleltion please inform the user and not the tool. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am doing this using a script, I cant change and I do not even see who is messaged. abf /talk to me/ 19:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't blame the tools, you're the one operating them. You don't have to use them. Multichill (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont blame the tools, I am only to lazy to control if they message the bot or the user ;) But okay, in feauture I will try to be more sensitive with messaging users. :) Regards, abf /talk to me/ 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Diti’s RFA

Thank you for your trust

Dear ABF,
^v^
Thank you for your support on my request for adminship, here at Commons. Now that I am a new sysop, I plan on starting small, closing obvious (to my eye) deletion requests at first, getting bolder with experience as and when my contributions here intensify. As a contributor, I look forward acquiring professional photography/video skills and equipment, that will allow me, one day, to proudly help Commons to be better (I would like to obtain my Master's degree while in Antarctica, more free videos and photos of this place would be truly great). Waiting for this moment to happen, let me address you once again my warmest thanks for your trust and your support in my successful request for adminship, that received 100% of Symbol support vote.svg support votes.
I do feel the tools given to me will be useful for the project as well as, obviously, for me. And even for you: besides questions regarding templates (about parser functions for example) and licensing, I will be henceforth there at any moment to perform administrative tasks like deletions, interventions on protected pages, and the like. You just have to ask me on my talk page or by IRC at #wikimedia-commons, and I will normally be glad to honor your request.
Diti the penguin 16:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem! I am sure you will make a great job. abf /talk to me/ 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/ערן

In case you missed it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, just did it myself.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I apoligize. abf /talk to me/ 11:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean you should apologize just that they've met the editcount (which may go out the window soon, your input is welcome) - an easy thing to miss with two accounts.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Owndraw.jpg

What about the other pics?
regards --D-Kuru (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

'tschuldigung, ich idiot hab vergessen die Tasten zu drücken. abf /talk to me/ 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image: Foreskin 2.jpg

I'd really like you to reconcider the deletion of my file: Foreskin_2.jpg. I visit wikipedia commons a lot and i also see lots of low quality images on the site. That's the main reason why i decided to upload a good quality picture which can be used. Also there aren't any black males contributing in the penis section and i think that lots of people would like to see what's different. Thank you for reading this --Digitalkil (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe ther is no educational value and they we do not need even more genitalia. abf /talk to me/ 15:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but may i ask when was the last time you saw the files for those categories?? Cause if it's true what you just said to me i can show you lots of pictures that could be deleted as well. There are lots of pictures that look "the same" and don't you think that it's time to update the archive with more variation of pics?--Digitalkil (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not think we need more. I believe {{Nopenis}} says everything. abf /talk to me/ 14:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Checked the image. A real quality-image looks different to me. And looking at this image it not only is not quality in the sense of our criterias for quality images, I also got distracted by the really bad shave in the genital area. -- Cecil (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
That's ok, but i only wanna suggest that if it's true you should take a look at the pics cause i still see lots of bad quality out of focus ones. And if you wanna talk about criterias, i don't think that those stand by the criterias for quality ones. No wonder the gallery is so full.--Digitalkil (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me tell you why i did this. I was asked to investigate the uploading of images after several complaints about it. I don't need to investigate it any further, cause it's pretty obvious what's going on in here. I will put this in my report and the team will see if there's something to do about it. Can you please close this thread now, thanks --Digitalkil (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What "team"? Could you clarify that for us? Thanks. As a note I agree with ABF in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that i'm not allowed to talk about the team. We just had some complaints about the uploading of images, not only here but on several uploading sites. So it's not really about the image i posted. Some people said that their images were refused cause the gallery is full but after a couple of days some other images were approved. It seemed like some users have more rights to post things than others. That's why we did a little research. You guys do lots of good work and it's a really tough job i know so i don't get me wrong. With this said i won't be talking about this anymore. I only hope that you guys give every person a fair right to upload stuff. And keep up the good work--Digitalkil (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

accountability

At the base of my problem with the user with the warning is a desire for users of commercial software to not be "selling it" here or at other locations being managed, maintained and the success due to what started to be a license for free software.

My years with GNU stuff go back to 1997 when I first started to learn how to compile that kind of software with the free compiler.

There was a claim made of an algorythm which guarrenteed accurate color restoration to old and time aged color documents and my request for information about what caused this faith in a formulation went unanswered. Without an answer to a simple question, I am left to believe that the user believes in the magic of the claims made on the side of boxes that contain products. I also think that such users have no place in the world where people work together especially at the point where similar claims of "magic" are questioned for validity by the same user.

What do you think? Opinions of experienced people/users/administrators are welcomed by me. -- carol (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Worcestershire sauce.jpg

Why did you delete Worcestershire sauce.jpg? I made it myself with my f*** Olympus E-410 camera!!! --Moscvitch (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a derivvative work in my eyes. I now opened a regular deletion request and I restored the file for now. And by the way, Olympus are normally very good, not "f***" cameras. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 14:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm sorry. That's a good camera. I'm only was very upset, because I spent a lot of time on making this photo. --Moscvitch (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Owned photographs permissions protocols

ABF, as I've had a few illustrative photos removed from biographical sections of articles, and as I've not been able to find FAQ entries addressing this issue, I wonder if I might trouble you for some advice. The issue is this: existing permissions categories represent pictures one has taken, but not ones that one *owns*. Pictures that have been removed have been of two kinds: i) in my possession, although I didn't take them (in one case, I identified commercial photography firm, no longer in business); ii) family pictures in possession of subject's legal estate, where I have the estate's permission for use. Would you be so kind as to advise me on the possibility, and manner, for using such pictures in accord with Wiki policy? Thanks Alethe (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I do not completly understand your question, but in general COM:L will help in those issues a lot. If it does not please ask at the Commons:Help desk. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 08:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:BetacommandBot

I had that page protected for a reason. I dont want frivolous messages about image deletions regarding images the bot has moved. users refuse to read the message at the top of the page so I had it protected. I ask that in the future you dont remove protection without a dam good reason. Betacommand 04:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Betacommand! Messaging a user should not be a sysops privillege, so I removed the protection as requested on the administrators noticeboard. If you want to have the protection back please redirect it to your talk. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 08:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Why should a bot get a notice about image deletions? the bot does not care if an image is deleted. the best options here is to protect the page in the current form so that users get a notice about not being able to notify the uploader, (which is correct) instead of having users blindly tagging images without notifying the original uploaders. if you actually took the time to read the talkpage you would know my talkpage is open for discussion about issues not directly tied to the image deletion template spam. (take a look you might actually be surprised) as you tend to get faster response if you leave me a note. but users also need to get a notice that they need to properly notify the original uploaders even if a bot has renamed an image. Betacommand 11:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I have to say nothing more. abf /talk to me/ 11:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: If you insist on re-protection please ask here. abf /talk to me/ 11:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Take a look a the large red box, messages on that page are ignored, if you want I can take the same approach but that means fewer uploaders get notified. Betacommand 12:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:UPLA-logo.jpg

I would like to know your evideces for what you have deleted the image UPLA-logo? --- Thanks -> Efguerre (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2008

Please see COM:L. Commons does not allow Fair use and thats exactly what a logo is til we know about the licensial status. abf /talk to me/ 08:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bitte Bild wiederherstellen

Moin ABF, könntest Du bitte das von Dir gelöschte Bild image:Wheaton Female Seminary, MA 1844.jpg wiederherstellen? Löschbegründung war "no source"/"category:unknown", was beides nicht zutrifft. Das Bild war korrekt beschriftet, außerdem wäre "no source" bei einem Bild von 1844 eh kein Löschgrund, und fehlende Kategorien sind's ja auch nicht. Vielen Dank und viele Grüße, Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Kleinen Moment, ich muss eben noch prüfen, mit welcher Vorlage ich wiederherstelle. Bitte les' dir so lange {{PD}} durch, dann siehst du den Löschgrund. abf /talk to me/ 14:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
In Absprache mit anderen müsste es eigtl. PD-old sein. Ich habe es wiederhergestellt. Bitte informiere dich über PD-Vorlagen, damit das nicht wieder passiert. Grüße, abf /talk to me/ 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hallo ABF, vielen Dank für die schnelle Antwort und das Wiederherstellen! Mit den PD-Vorlagen habe ich etwas Probleme - was ist denn in der Praxis der Unterschied zwischen PD-Old und PD-Art? Ziemlich viele Commons-Bilder sind alte Kunst (und auch das jetzige Bild sehe ich in dieser Kategorie). Oder andersherum: Wann ist ein Bild nur deshalb, weil es Kunst ist, gemeinfrei?? Oder sollen sonst beide Vorlagen benutzt werden? Ist für mich alles etwas unklar.
Und warum gemeinfreie Dateien nicht einfach mehr als gemeinfrei gekennzeichnet werden dürfen, verstehe ich auch nicht so ganz. Gibt es da irgendwo eine Diskussion, die das erläutert? Ich meine, weitere Vorlagen sind ja vielleicht informativ, aber die alte mit der Aussage "dieses Bild ist gemeinfrei" ist doch deswegen nicht illegal. ... Wie gesagt, falls Du irgendwelche Verweise zu den Themen haben solltest - klasse! Viele Grüße, Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Die {{PD}} ist einfach zu unklar, man weiß beim prüfen den Grund nicht, warum es gemeinfrei sein sollte. Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag wird dir aber sicher helfen. Auch die Lektüre von Commons:Lizenzvorlagen ist sicher empfehlenswert. Grüße, abf /talk to me/ 17:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Bei der PD-Vorlage würde ich widersprechen - wenn ein Bild alt ist und das glasklar in "Date" vermerkt ist, ist der Fall ziemlich, hm, "glasklar", nicht wahr? Da nun Vorlagen zu ändern, finde ich etwas nervend, aber was hilft's... Jedenfalls vielen Dank für die Seite über die Kunst (klar, die Lizenzvorlagen-Seite kannte ich)... auch wenn ich noch immer nicht sicher bin, was das in der Praxis heißt. Welche Werke "Kunst" sind, finde ich extremst POV und schlicht Wikipedia-unwürdig. (Eigentlich bräuchten wir da jedes Mal belastbare Belege... :o)) Zumal das Resultat dasselbe ist wie für alte Bilder - um gemeinfrei zu sein, muß das Ausgangsbild alt sein, sonst geht gar nichts, oder übersehe ich da etwas? Also ist die Kunst-Gemeinfreiheit lediglich ein Spezialfall der Alt-Gemeinfreiheit, und zwar einer, den man mangels Definition, was "Kunst" ist, nicht einmal brauchbar trennen kann. Zumindest ich habe bisher selten Alte Meister hochgeladen, aber jede Menge alte Photographien oder Stiche und (möglichst) naturgetreue Abbildungen, wie auch auf dem Bild vm Wheaton College oben. -- Versteh' mich nicht falsch - ich weiß (vermute? :o)) schon, daß das wohl nicht auf Deinem Mist gewachsen ist und Du das auch nicht ändern kannst... aber logischer macht's die Sache trotzdem nicht.
Jetzt aber noch zu etwas ganz anderem, weil ich gerade Post über noch mehr Bildlizenzen bekommen habe (meine Güte, ist das die Jahreszeit?...)... So, jedenfalls scheint doch {{tl:PD-user-en}} noch immer eine anerkannte Lizenz zu sein, aber bei dem und dem Bild klappt das irgendwie nicht. Was mache ich da denn falsch? Ich habe zwar eh Zweifel, daß der Einsteller überhaupt irgendwelche Rechte hat, die er aufgeben könnte (hat wirklich er die Karte entworfen??? Ansonsten hat er schlicht eine gemeinfreie Datei unter eigenem Namen gemeinfrei gestellt, was ja auch Unfug ist)... aber egal... Jedenfalls will ich die Datei nur irgendwie legal auf Commons stellen, was gerade wieder nicht an rechtlichen, sondern Commons-Formatierungsgestrüpp zu scheitern droht. ... Vielleicht kannst Du mir auch dazu einen Tip geben? Herzlichen Dank, Ibn Battuta (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jog Falls undeletion

Jog Falls is the highest waterfalls in india, and a major tourist spot in india. There is an unecessary gallery on wikipedia, which I was shifting to wikimedia commons by creating a Jog Falls Page. Please put the page back up. Thank you --67.193.107.72 21:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please simply re-create the page with images on it. abf /talk to me/ 21:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:010331neu.png

Hi ABF,

Thank you for noticing me on my TP about tagging this image. This was, before I uploaded it here, a local image on the German wikipedia. I don't understand why you tagged it, cause the image description clearly says it was the original uploaders own work:

Original uploader was FredF at de.wikipedia (Original text : eigenens Bild (FredF))

and:

(Original text : eigene Daten)

Being "own work and data" of the uploader, another source is not necesary so I removed the template again. Best regards, Woudloper (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Because "source=eigene dateien" is just a tecnically thing. It does not necessary say the previous uploader also has _created_ the image. abf /talk to me/ 23:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Eigenens Bild means he created the image himself, eigene Daten means the content was his own work. Regards, Woudloper (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You do not know what the hell uploaders had called "eigene datei" so far, because they did not understood COM:L completely. Till they have not written "own work" or "Selbst erstellt" (german) it's in my eyes not enough, because "Source:Eigene Dateien" as I sayd, is just a technically mark. abf /talk to me/ 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like an incorrect nomination to me. On the original page: "00:55, 22 April 2007 Polarlys deleted "Bild:010331neu.png" ‎ (NowCommons commons:Image:010331neu.png)". I suggest you guys consult User:Polarlys. Siebrand 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
@ABF: What do you mean by "technical mark"? From a pure linguistic point of view, I see no difference between "selbst erstellt" and "eigenes Bild". Woudloper (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It is a big difference. I believe you can think you "own" an image, even if thats not true and you have not made it yourself. abf /talk to me/ 13:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so what you mean is that "eigenes Bild" could also be interpreted as "property of the uploader", instead of "made by the uploader", and in that case the uploader could have been wrong about owning it. Yet he also says it is a graph made from his own data (Eigene Daten). Aren't we supposed to assume good faith? Woudloper (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you understood, and I normally do assume good faith, but I don't really like to do so in license issues. Lets wait what the deletor of the category says. abf /talk to me/ 14:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)