User talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2008

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.

deprecated function in your monobook.js

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the notice. --AFBorchert 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Abbey

This Image:Kilkenny Black Abbey Ribbed Vault 2007 08 29.jpg made me curious: is it natural light through the glass-painting (the other interior image could give that impression) or have you edited/processed the photo in any way. Fascinating image! Regards, Finn Rindahl 21:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Finn, the curious violet light comes from the east window which is closest to the vault. There are some similar ribbed vaults in Ireland. This particular style came first with the Cistercian monasteries in Ireland and as far as I know, the 15-th century rib vault under the tower of Holy Cross Abbey in Co. Tipperary comes closest to it. According to Roger Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland, these vaults have a heavy, rounded profile. They have neither the steep accents of early Gothic vaults nor the flat pitch of later English vaults, when four centred arches were fashionable. Thanks for your interest and I am glad that you enjoyed this image. Regards, AFBorchert 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Good that you added that last image as well, that is also an exceptionally good image. I'm not judging it's technical merits, that's beyond me - but any image that leaves me just sitting and looking at my monitor for a full minute is a good image to me. Pity the only wikipedia article about this Abbey is at Italian wikipedia. Wish I could have visited that abbey myself (maybe some day...). Thanks, Finn Rindahl 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Rr-bicycles

Thanks for sorting that out. I'd failed to realise that Rr-bicycles weren't a make/use of bicycle. Man vyi (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Really sorry but I have put your template in a list of templates to skip instead in the right one -_-" Sorry again, now it should be ok. --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 08:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Filnik, thanks for rolling back the edits and for adapting your bot. Please note, however, that I am not the only one using user templates as you can see from this discussion. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Botbln

Danke für die Aufklärung. Lycaon (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your support...

...really means a lot to me. I don't really have anything else to say, except that I'm glad that you keep me in mind :-). --SB_Johnny talk 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Suffrage poll

Bzgl. [1]: die Abstimmung betrifft nicht Admins im Speziellen. Es geht eigentlich darum, wie hoch die Hürde für 'normale' Benutzer sein soll, um an Abstimmungen wie einem RfA teilzunehmen. Ich bin mir bei deinem Kommentar nicht ganz sicher, ob du das nicht missverstanden hast (wobei du natürlich recht hast, Admins mit wenig Edits sind ein Problem). -- Cecil (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Cecil, ich weiß sehr wohl, dass es um die Hürden für alle Benutzer geht. Das schließt sowohl „normale“ Nutzer als auch Admins ein. Meine Kommentare beziehen sich auf die etwas umfangreichere Diskussion zum Votum von Durin, der für den Beibehalt der jetzigen Regelung gestimmt hat. Ich persönlich halte Durins Begründung für wenig stichhaltig, da ich eher dafür plädiere, dass Admins mit weniger als 150 Edits im Jahr darüber nachdenken sollten, ob sie die Adminprivilegien überhaupt noch benötigen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

That was sharp of you to find that copy violation image of Thutmose I. (I have asked Mr. Maggs to delete it without prejudice!) How did you know where to find it? I must admit, I did not even know of this spam site.

  • By the way, I am still trying to grasp what the new Commons rules on 'faithful reproductions' of 2D art mean sadly as I am not an expert in this matter. I thank you for any response you can give. As you can tell, I am not a lawyer or an art expert. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, I agree with MichaelMaggs that this image constitutes no copyvio even if it has been copied from a random web site. The point is that the depicted art is {{PD-Old}} and, according to US law, a photograph or a scan of a two-dimensional piece of art does not hit the threshold of originality and is therefore ineligible for copyright. Nevertheless, I think that the name of the photographer and the source of this photograph are to be named, if possible.
Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That was the problem I had. No source or photographer was specified. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Chartres Cathedral

Thanks for your warning, and your message. I think some were already deleted. Mandy (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Grand Canyon Moran Point 2006 09 08.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grand Canyon Moran Point 2006 09 08.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Category:Monasteries of Augustinian Canons in Ireland

Hi, I have started this new category while I have realized that all Augustinian monasteries in Ireland which where in the Category "Augustinian monasteries" where Augustinian Canons. I added the old category to speedydelete so long there are no Augustinian friarie monasteries listed. --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At least I have realized that most of the mediaval augustinian monasteries are Augustinian Canons, only the Augustinian eremits where already founded in the 13th century the others in the 16th century, so I can rename almost all categories "Augustinian monasteries" into "Augustinian Canons" --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for renaming this category. They are all indeed Augustinian Canons so far, nearly all uploaded by myself. But the Irish Augustinian friars exist, we do not have images for them yet. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jakobuskirche - Hohenberg 151207.jpg

Hallo, Die Hohenberg-Kirche bei Ellwangen ist in der Tat im 19.Jh. sehr stark restauriert und re-romanisiert worden, so ist z.b. der Turm völlig neu, aber in der Substanz ist sie tatsächlich eine romanische Pfeilerbasilika mit Apsis. Eher sieht mensch die Substanz noch im Inneren. Darum habe ich sie zu den romanischen Kirchen in Baden-Württemberg zurückkategorisiert, siehe: Heinfried Wischermann, Romanik in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 1987. Gruss, --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ich war am letzten Sonntag in der Kirche und habe sie mir selbst insbesondere auch von innen angesehen. Da sehe ich nur Neuromanik und bei der Kirche selbst war der Hinweis gegeben, dass die aktuelle Kirche im neuromanischen Stil auf den Fundamenten einer romanischen Vorgängerkirche gebaut worden sei mit umfangreichen Renovierungen in den 70er-Jahren. Sorry, aber da ist wirklich keine Romanik vorzufinden. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Europa '37 - '39

Done:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generalne_Gubernatorstwo&diff=14235267&oldid=14235214
http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protektorat_Czech_i_Moraw&diff=14235287&oldid=13839224
http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=III_Rzesza&diff=14235306&oldid=14219364

Julo (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Julo, that was quick. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello ! I have voted at the discussion over the deletion of that image. Personally, I do not consider it a grave problem, as the descriptions in the image itself appear very briefly, so I could even barely read them :) It's not nessecary to delete the image when the proper dates and events can be written on the description below it. Therefore I have not removed it from the page, that uses it. Salutations, - Biohazard orange.svg Tourbillon 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response and your vote. My concern is just that all projects that use this map get aware of its problems and have the option to participate in the deletion request. Best wishes, --AFBorchert (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed from the Wikipedia in Albanian ([2]) due to the reported errors. I'm also neutral to the deletion. However a repair of the image will be preferred. Regards --  eagleal  15:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Eagleal, thanks for your quick response and your vote. I concur with you that a correction of this map is to be prefered. The problem is just to find someone who will do this. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A Propos Hohenberg (Ellwangen) und "Überrestaurierungen"...

... Nun, der Kölner Dom geht ja wohl noch als "gotisches" Bauwerk durch, auch wenn 70% der Bausubstanz aus dem 19.Jahrhundert stammt. Im Unterschied zur Hohenberg-Kirche ist allerdings mittelalterliche Substanz noch sichtbar (Chor und Untergeschosse des rechten Westturmes). Andere mittelalterliche Bauten sind aber wie in Ellwangen so stark überrestauriert worden, dass eigentlich nichts mehr vom Original zu sehen ist. Ich denke da z.B. an die Burg Dankwarderode in Braunschweig oder an die Kaiserpfalz Goslar. Solange diese Bauten aber wenigstens im Grundriss mit dem Original übereinstimmen, und in der gut gemeinten Absicht erstanden, das Original "wiederherzustellen", auch wenn das Ergebnis aus heutiger Sicht wenig überzeugend ist, denke ich, dass es legitim ist, das jeweilige Bauwerk der ursprünglichen Bauepoche zuzuordnen. Wie ist es heute? Ist die Frauenkirche in Dresden nicht auch ein Kirchenbau des 21. Jahrhunderts und hat mit Barockarchitektur nur noch äußerlich etwas gemein? Ich habe die Restaurierung nicht so genau verfolgt, aber wieviel moderne Bautechnick steckt da drin? Bei uns im Ort wird gerade die alte Zehntscheune an neuer Stelle "originalgetreu" wiederaufgebaut, nachdem sie vor wenigen Jahren abgerissen wurde. Augenblicklich sehe ich da nur Stahl und Beton, die Aussenwände werden dann nur mit den teilweise originalen Steinen Verkleidet werden, und der, der den "Wiederaufbau" nicht gesehen hat, wird glauben, dass es sich um exakt dasselbe Bauwerk handelt.

Dies nur als Gedankenanstoss... Gruss --Kurpfalzbilder.de (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ich sehe das etwas anders. Die Architektur der Hohenberg-Kirche bettet sich ganz natürlich in die zeitgenössische Neuromanik ein. Im Gegensatz zur Frauenkirche in Dresden wurde kein Versuch unternommen, sie wirklich getreu zu restaurieren und originale Materialien soweit möglich wiederzuverwenden. Im Zweifelsfall sollten wir uns nicht an der Bauzeit, sondern an dem Baustil orientieren und da gibt es doch erkennbare Unterschiede zwischen Romanik und Neuromanik. Bei Hohenberg fällt in diesem Zusammenhang die betont schlichte Ausstattung mit den weißgetünchten Wänden auf und die für original romanische Kirchen extrem untypische Fensterverglasung, die die Kirche zu sehr verdunkelt. Ich bin hier kein wirklicher Experte (erst recht nicht bei deutschen Kirchen), aber mir erscheint auch das Mauerwerk außen zu ungetreu mit seiner auffällig gleichmäßigen Beschaffenheit. Ebenso, das war mein erster Eindruck, erschienen mir die Kapitelle als etwas eigenwillige Variante der Würfelkapitelle zu seltsam. Ich sehe da beim besten Willen keinen Versuch einer Getreue zum Original und das wäre für einen Bau am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts auch völlig ungewöhnlich gewesen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag

Could you look at this proposal and comment please? Do you know of any cases or legal opinions which specifically say that signatures are copyright-ineligible in Germany? I am a little concerned that the current Germany text is mostly about other simple devices and not specifically about signatures. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please pardon me for answering that late, I was absent for two days. I do not know of any case in Germany where the copyright-ineligibility of signatures was challenged. And the German experts I know didn't either and searches on a German database for case law were unsuccessful. I guess that this was never brought to court because typical signatures are at best considered works of applied art where the significantly higher threshold of originality is not easily met. The page looks pretty good to me, I like the general distinction between Common and Civil law countries. I will try to look after Swiss and Austrian law, but not today. Thanks for the great work you've done and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Europa1937-1939.gif deletion

Hi, I put a pointer to the deletion discussion page in the relevant note in Japanese Wikipedia. I also made a suggestion about possible substitutes, Image:GDR.png or en:Image:Nazi_Germany.png. I prefer the latter because it vividly depicts the expansion of Nazi Germany, but we need to move it to commons in order to use it in jawp. Is there any good alternative? Thanks in advance. --Makotoy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Makotoy, I am sorry that I am answering that late. I had forwarded your question to User:Syrcro who filed the deletion request but he chose not to answer. I am unfortunately no expert of the history of Nazi Germany or World War II and consequently unable to answer this question myself. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the image in English Wikipedia was finally transferred to commons. Thanks anyway. --Makotoy (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Elias Canetti's Signature

Elias Canetti was born in Bulgaria. He settled and stayed in England until the 1970s, receiving British citizenship in 1952. For his last 20 years, he mostly lived in Zurich when he died in 1994. Please undelete Elias Canetti's signature because he never had been a Swiss citizen. --Darldarl (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Elias Canetti's Signature.jpg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Darldarl, thanks for your interest in this case. I have responded at the undeletion request for which MichaelMaggs was so kind to provide a pointer to. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Gruss Sie, Andreas!
Wenn Sie Canettis Die gerettete Zunge gelesen haben, wissen Sie schon, dass seine Familie fur kurze Zeit (bis zum Tode des Vaters) nach Manchester ging und Canetti dann hauptsachlich in Wien lebte. Man konnte annehmen, dass die betreffende Signatur aus Canettis Wiener Zeit stammt. Naheres konnten Sie ubrigens von meinem Artukel "Elias Canetti - ein osterreichischer Schriftsteller? Verwandlungen zwischen Rustschuk und Wien" erfahren.
Ich freue mich uber die virtuelle Bekanntschaft mit Ihnen!--Darldarl (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Seien Sie ebenso herzlich gegrüßt, Darldarl. Ich freue mich sehr über eine Bekanntschaft mit jemanden, der Canetti, Zweig und viele anderer von mir sehr geschätzer Schriftsteller übersetzt. Ich kam noch nicht dazu, den Artikel in Ruhe zu lesen, aber soweit ich mich erinnere — es ist ca. 20 Jahre her, dass ich das Buch las — erhielt ich aus dem Buch den Eindruck, dass Canetti insbesondere auch dank seiner weit verteilten familiären Beziehungen ein echter Europäer war, wenngleich er als Schriftsteller in der deutschen Sprache natürlich eine literarische Heimat hatte. Er fühlte da auch sicherlich ähnlich wie Stefan Zweig, der sich auch während des ersten Weltkriegs nicht davon abhalten ließ, seine Kontakte nach Frankreich (Romain Rolland!) zu pflegen und französische Werke in österreichischen Zeitungen zu kommentieren, wenngleich auch in Scheinverissen getarnt. Zum Autographen von Elias Canetti: Hier haben wir wohl leider ein Problem, solange wir nicht nachweisen können, dass dieser zuerst im deutschsprachigen Raum veröffentlicht wurde. Haben Sie in Ihrer Bibliothek vielleicht irgendeinen Autographen Elias Canettis, bei der der Ort der Erstpublikation bekannt ist und dieser im deutschsprachigen Raum liegt? Falls ja, könnte ein Scan dieses Autographen alternativ hochgeladen werden. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Einen sanften Morgen wunsche ich Ihnen, Andreas! Leider besitze ich keinen Autographen von Elias Canetti, obwohl ich 1992 mit ihm in Zurich zusammenkam und ein langes Gesprach fuhrte. Das Hauptthema war aber nicht Literatur sondern Vogelarten. Das war lange her. Nun bin ich viel mehr fur irische (Celtic) Musik interessiert. Wenn ich der Vogelstimme von Cara Dillon zuhore, fuhle ich mich wie der Schneider von Ulm - im freien Sturz. Herzlichst!--Darldarl (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Vielen Dank und ich wünsche ebenso einen guten Start in den Tag. Irische Musik höre ich ebenfalls gerne, zu meinen Favoriten gehört beispielsweise Altan. Ich danke sehr für den Hinweis auf Cara Dillon und habe mir gerade eben eine CD bestellt. Ich hoffe jedoch, dass ich deswegen nicht ins kalte Donauwasser falle. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The time has come...

If you're still up for it: Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/AFBorchert. You need to transclude this page in Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes and state that you accept the nomination. Good luck! Pruneautalk 11:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Mesa Verde National Park Cliff Palace 2006 09 12.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mesa Verde National Park Cliff Palace 2006 09 12.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Glückwunsch, lieber Administrator!

Ein Willkommenspräsent für unseren neuen Administrator von deinen Kollegen...
Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

Herzlichen Glückwunsch AFBorchert/Archives! Du hast jetzt die Rechte eines Administrators auf Commons. Nimm dir bitte einen Moment Zeit, um dir die Seite Commons:Administratoren und die in Verbindung mit der Beobachtungsliste stehenden Seiten durchzulesen (insbesondere Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und Commons:Deletion requests), bevor du damit beginnst, Seitenlöschungen, Accountsperrungen oder Änderungen am Seitenschutzstatus bzw. an den geschützten Seiten selbst durchzuführen. Der Großteil der Bearbeitungen eines Administrators kann durch andere Administratoren wieder rückgängig gemacht werden, mit Ausnahme der Zusammenführung von Versionsgeschichten, die deshalb mit spezieller Obacht behandelt werden muß.

Wir laden dich herzlich ein, mit uns auf IRC Kontakt aufzunehmen: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Du findest zudem in dem Commons:Ratgeber zur Administratorentätigkeit vielleicht eine nützliche Lektüre.

Bitte überprüfe, ob du in der Commons:List of administrators und den jeweils nach Datum oder Sprache sortierten Listen eingetragen wurdest und ergänze deine Daten andernfalls.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome and congratulations! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for closing this RfA and your trust. I hope I can live up to your expectations. MichaelMaggs, I've learnt a lot through your contributions and I look eagerly forward in learning even more from you. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck! I know you'll do great. Pruneautalk 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again, Pruneau, I'm humbled by the trust you put into me. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Gratuliere. Eigentlich wollte ich ja die Rechteerweiterung vornehmen, aber dann musste ich gleich nach der Mittagspause in ein Meeting und Eugene war somit mal wieder schneller (wie meistens). -- Cecil (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Vielen lieben Dank, Cecil, für Deine Glückwünsche. Ich werde mal sehen, was ich tun kann. Wie die Abstimmenden bereits festgestellt haben, gehöre ich nicht zu den extrem Aktiven, aber ich hoffe, dass ich hier doch etwas positiv bewegen kann. Sollte Dir etwas an meinen Aktionen auffallen, dann wäre ich Dir natürlich für Hinweise sehr dankbar. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ITESM Campus Morelia.jpg

Hello,

You write : This usually includes interior views of public institutes of higher education, but ITESM is "one of the (...) most important private, (...) universities" : en:Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education. Teofilo (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Teofilo, thanks for your comment. With "public" I do not mean state-owned but open to the public. If anyone can simply walk into this building (at least at some times) and take pictures than we have "public access" and this apparently sufficient to have the privileges of freedom of panorama in Mexico. Universities and other institutes of higher education are usually open to the public. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Are there no entrance examinations ? Everybody wanting to learn sciences can enter the classroom and listen to the teacher ? Teofilo (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This is at least the common practice in every university or other institute of higher education I've been at. In addition, the question is not if there is an entrance examination (or even a fee to be paid) but if everyone is free to enter the building (as in the case of museums or churches). As soon as we learn that this building is surprisingly not open to the public, this DR can be reopened. In any case, I agree with you that this photograph is a derived work of copyrighted art and given this we need either the freedom of panorama or we will have to delete it. (Because of this, I added the {{FOP}} template.) Cheers, --AFBorchert (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The Morelia campus has only two entrance doors. Visitors are allowed at only one of them. The website says : "Se realizan diferentes procedimientos, dependiendo de la persona que quiera ingresar al campus, esto con el fin de tener un adecuado control de accesos." (Different procedures are performed, depending on the person who wants to enter the campus, that in order to have adequate access control) http://portal.mrl.itesm.mx/seguridad/micampus.html . Teofilo (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional research, Teofilo, but I still do not see a problem as long as uninvited visitors can enter the building, even if they have to select a particular entrance, get searched for security reasons etc. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Valentin Galochkin article

Hi, AFBorchet, I am new to wikipedia and don't know all of the rules, as well as the technical details. Valentin Galochkin is my father. His direct heir and owner of all property and rights is Lidia Galochkina, my mother. I created the three articles in Russian, English and German on her request. The photos were scanned by me from the original photos which, I suppose, are now the property of my mother. Some photos were made by me with a digital camera from the original works, which are now, too, the property of my mother.

Should she send the following mail to

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ?

// letter start

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORKS

ValentinGalochkin_1946.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1957.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1968.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1980.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_2001.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1956_SteelSmelter.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1957_Hiroshima.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1957_Parting.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1960_Lenin.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1964_Victim.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1964_Violence.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1965_Queen.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1965_Slavery.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1969_BoundTorso.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1970_River.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Cellist.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Mermaid.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Spring.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Torso.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Torsos.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Widows.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1976_SorrowGate.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1979_BurntVillageMonument.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license PUBLIC DOMAIN.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


30 November 2008

Lidia Galochkina

// letter end — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeeALL (talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi ISeeAll, thanks for your response and thank you for making all these photographs available through Commons. Yes, it would indeed be helpful to send such a message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I have some comments, though:
  • For each of the photographs the photographer (not the one who scanned the photographs) should be identified on the image pages.
  • If one of the photographs has been shot by someone else (not by your parents nor by you), you'll need to provide an extra permission by the photographer through your email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.
  • All heirs of your father have to agree that these photographs of his works can be put into the public domain. You should list them all and include all their permissions in your email.
Once you have sent such an email, I recommend to include the {{OTRS pending}} on all image pages such that these images won't be deleted until some OTRS team member decides that the permission email is sufficient. Please pardon all these obstacles and bureaucratic measures — we just want to be sure that we do not violate any copyright by keeping these images. And please let me know if I can be of further help. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


Ok, there are a few photos, including the one from 1946 which were perhaps done by friends of my father or his parents. It's most likely impossible now to define who were the exact photographer, and chances are that these people are no longer living. What's wikipedia's policy for such cases?

As for the rest of the photos, indeed they were made by the scultor himself or by me, so that's no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeeALL (talk • contribs) 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Those few photographs where the photographer cannot be identified are unfortunately not old enough to be acceptable on Commons. Two rules applies in such cases: These photographs become public domain (a) if the photographer died more than 70 years ago (see {{PD-old}}) or (b) in case they were published anonymously before June 22, 1941 (see {{PD-Russia-2008}} and here for a summary). None of these two rules applies for even the oldest photograph from 1946. I suggest to give me the list of these photographs where the photographer cannot be identified. I would then file them for deletion. In all other cases, the photographer (i.e. your father) should be identified as such on the image pages (as author in the {{Information}} template) and these photographs should be included in your OTRS message. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, some general suggestions how to word such permission emails to OTRS can be found here. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the list of photos with unknown photographer:

ValentinGalochkin_1946.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1957.jpg


These photos were done by Lidia Galochkina:

ValentinGalochkin_1980.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_2001.jpg


These photos were done by Valentin Galochkin and are now property of Lidia Galochkina, my mother:

ValentinGalochkin_1956_SteelSmelter.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1957_Hiroshima.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1957_Parting.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1960_Lenin.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1964_Victim.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1964_Violence.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1965_Queen.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1965_Slavery.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1970_River.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Cellist.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Mermaid.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Spring.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Torso.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Torsos.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1975_Widows.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1976_SorrowGate.jpg

ValentinGalochkin_1979_BurntVillageMonument.jpg


This photo was done by me:

ValentinGalochkin_1969_BoundTorso.jpg


So, my mother should send the OTRS about all of the photos except the upper two for which the photographer isn't known and which you will delete. Do I get it right? Thanks ))

Gee, I can't understand how I change the author now. E.g. for this photo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ValentinGalochkin_1956_SteelSmelter.jpg

I wrote that I am the author and copyright holder. Were should I change that the copyright holder is my mother? She is not a user of wikipedia and doesn't know much about the internet to be able to upload the files herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISeeALL (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I think that you can send the OTRS on behalf of your mother if she consents to your permission email including the point that everyone is allowed to use these images, even for commercially purposes. (So, don't be surprised when these images appear in books, in the press, and on other web pages.) And you should identify yourself in your email with your real name. Once you have sent this image you shall tag all these images with {{OTRS pending}} such that everyone checking these images knows that there is a permission email in the queue.
Secondly, I've filed (as announced on your own talk page) the two photographs taken by unknown photographers for deletion.
Thirdly, you can correctly attribute the remaining images as follows:
  • Take for example, Image:ValentinGalochkin 1980.jpg, a photograph that was shot by your mother, Lidia Galochkina. Go to the image page at Commons and click on the "edit" tab.
  • At the top of the editable text, you will find an {{Information}} template that looks as follows:
 {{Information
 |Description={{en|1=Valentin Galochkin (1980)}}
 {{ru|1=Валентин Галочкин (1980)}}
 |Source=Own work by uploader
 |Author=[[User:ISeeALL|ISeeALL]]
 |Date=
 |Permission=
 |other_versions=
 }}
  • In the Author field, behind the "=" sign, replace [[User:ISeeALL|ISeeALL]] by the name of your mother, Lidia Galochkina.
  • In the Source field, replace "Own work by uploader" by "Uploaded by ISeeALL on request by Lidia Galochkina" or some other text which makes clear how you obtained that photograph.
  • In the Permissions field add {{OTRS pending}} as soon as your OTRS message has been sent.
  • In the Date field give the date or year when this photograph was taken (apparently 1980).
  • The next thing to be updated is the license further below:
 {{PD-self}}
  • {{PD-self}} is appropriate only if the uploader (i.e. you) put this image into the public domain. You should replace this in this case by {{PD-copyright holder|Valentin Galochkin}}. In photographs taken by your father, {{PD-heirs}} is appropriate.
That's it. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my mother will send the ORTS letter tomorrow and I will edit the images infos after that. Thanks for the help!

ISeeALL (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

hew, finally got the ORTS letter sent and changed the photos infos. Thanks for help )) ISeeALL (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

These are good news, ISeeALL. Thanks for going through these procedures. The Wikipedia projects surely benefit from this donation of pictures of your father's works. Please let me know when I can be of further help and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Uno-cards.jpg‎

Perhaps you would like to reconsider your decision after reading the following :

  • The design is a geometric arrangement of color blocks banded in heavy lines. [...] If we were to accept the view that, as a matter of law the differences in the placement of geometric shapes should be regarded as trivial, we would be forced to conclude that Mondrian's creativity with geometric shapes ended with his first painting, and that he went on to paint the same painting a thousand times. This is not the judgment of art history, and it cannot be the correct judgment of a court as a matter of law. : North Coast Industries v. Jason Maxwell, Inc.
  • See also en:Piet Mondrian ; Yves St Laurent 'Mondrian' dress, 1965 Victoria and Albert Museum

Teofilo (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Teofilo, for citing this decision which indeed is a strong point for deleting this image. I talked with MichaelMaggs and after reading his comment, I have deleted it. The problem is here that the thresholds of creativity are, according to the case law, seen quite different in various countries and I am probably biased as in Germany the threshold is significantly higher than in UK or in the United States. Thanks again for your input which is appreciated and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image update

Greetings,

I saw your comment on the deletion request, and though I think it's strange to agree to have something deleted simply because it isn't translated is a tad unsavoury, I added the context for which you asked. Unfortunately, the militants seem to be Pashtun Afghans, not Afghan-Arabs, so I cannot help you on a translation of their mutterings, other than the "Allahu Akbar" heard in the background as another of the militants shoots at the rescue helicoptor (it was shot down, killing 16 more Special Forces, not included in film). Hopefully this is enough to tilt your opinion back towards a "Keep" for the file (which will be put back into w:Looting, though not as the main image, no doubt.

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kunar-looting-body-1.OGG

Sherurcij (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for extending the description, Sherurcij. Do you know someone who is able to transcribe the mutterings in the background? Was the audio track taken along with the shooting or added later on? --AFBorchert (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Imagens apagadas

Prezado Usuário - AFBorchert

Agradeço as explicações referentes às imagens deletadas no Commons.

Como usuário da Wikipédia tenho procurado desenvolver artigos sobre o tema "polícia", assunto pouco desenvolvido em língua portuguesa.

Quanto às imagens carregadas, por serem oriundas de material de divulgação das instituições policiais, acreditei que pudessem ser utilizadas.

Algumas fotos são da minha autoria e podem ser vistas no meu álbum no flickr - "Cyro A. 2008", que estou iniciando.

Penso que, por falta de experiência no Commons, não forneci as explicações adequadas para essas fotos.

De qualquer forma, a única finalidade das mesmas era ilustrar os artigos que escrevi. Penso que a sua retirada não ocasionará significativo prejuízo para o artigo.

Cordialmente EUDOXIO 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eudoxio, thanks for your comments and please pardon me for responding in English. Those photographs which were indeed shot by you and which do not constitute derived work (obra derivada) can be restored. Just give me a list of these photographs and I will look into this. In all other cases, a permission is required which has to be sent to our OTRS team. Please let me know if I can be of any help. Cordialmente, AFBorchert (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Zhg40 bingemer skizze2.jpg

Identisches Problem (Copyright) wie Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zhg40 bingemer skizze1.jpg. Kann man das mit Hinweis auf die andere Löschdiskussion schnelllöschen?--84.58.123.44 12:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für den Hinweis auf den gleichgelagerten Fall. Ich habe ihn gerade eben gelöscht. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Pier oder Pillar für "Pfeiler"?

Moin, Du hast die Category:Crossing Pier eingeführt, also Vierungspfeiler. Beim Kategorisieren gotischer Architektur würde ich auch gerne eine Kategorie für "Pfeiler" einführen. Du hast die Kategorie unter "Columns" kategorisiert, was nicht ganz exakt ist, denn ein Pfeiler ist ein Pfeiler (gemauert, rund, rechteckig, kreuzförmig, polygonal, mit oder ohne Vorlagen, Bündelpfeiler, auch monolith) und eine Säule ist eine Säule (monolith oder aus Trommeln zusammengesetzt, immer rund, nie mit Vorlagen) und niemals ein Pfeiler und ein Pfeiler niemals eine Säule (Rundpfeiler ohne Vorlagen sind der einzige Grenzfall, wobei es auf die Dicke ankommt). Bevor ich also die Pfeiler durchkategorisieren will frage ich Dich erstmal welches englische Synonym besser ist: Pier oder Pillar, ich neige zu letzterem. Gruss --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pier wäre durchaus als Oberbegriff korrekt und die Kategorie Crossing Pier war ursprünglich auch ein Sonderfall von Pier. Das ist erst kürzlich zu Column geändert worden. Das Problem ist hier, dass es auch als Begriff für Bootsanleger verwendet wird. Deswegen müsste das dann ggf. aufgesplittet bzw. qualifiziert werden, etwa mit Pier (architecture). Der Begriff pillar ist nicht falsch, dürfte aber in Bezug auf gotische Architektur deutlich ungebräuchlicher sein, jedenfalls verwendet meine entsprechende englischsprachige Literatur durchweg den Begriff pier und nicht pillar. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Corbels

Hallo Andreas, ich habe gesehen dass du die Kategorie 'Cobels' eine andere Stelle gegeben hast. Ich denke aber dass es auch diese Dinge auf andere Gebäude als Kirchen und Kathedralen gibt. Deswegen denke ich dass es vielleicht besser wäre um es in die ehemalige Kategorie zu behälten. Was denkst du davon? Herzlichen Grüssen, --Satrughna (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Satrughna, ich fand die Kategorie in Category:Church elements eingeordnet vor und gleichzeitig in Category:Architectural elements. Daraus machte ich dann Category:Architectural elements of churches. Aber Du hast recht, Kragsteine gibt es auch außerhalb von Kirchen und daher habe ich die Kategorie nach Category:Architectural elements verschoben und hoffe, dass das auf Deine Zustimmung stößt. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Grossartig! Darin kann ich mich total finden. Grüssen, --Satrughna (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Piers (architecture)

Hallo, Ich habe Deine kategorieeinschränkung auf "architektonische Kirchenelemente" wieder Rückgängig gemacht. Zwar sind momentan ausschliesslich Kirchenpfeiler in dieser Kategorie aber grundsätzlich gehören wie bei der Säule auch alle anderen Pfeiler dazu, bis hin zum Brückenpfeiler... Gruss, --Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Du hast die Überkategorisierung durch den Revert wiederhergestellt. Mir ging es primär um Beachtung von COM:OVERCAT. Aber das lässt sich auch auf anderem Wege lösen und ich hoffe, dass Du mit der jetzigen Lösung leben kannst. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, AFBorchert. Thank you for supporting me in the request for adminship. Although it hasn't done successfully, I proud that twenty-nine trusted contributors -including you- voted for me. Thank you again for your trust.--OsamaK 14:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that it didn't work out this time and hope that it works better next time. I would certainly look forward to see you as a fellow admin. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sailko's response to this comment

I thought it was already finished after a while... the problem is that Commons deletion process is way too long... you admins are lazy or what? I dunno. --Sailko (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)--Sailko (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment, Sailko. We have indeed some backlogs and many of the open deletion requests are even significantly older. We need more qualified admins and applications for adminship are very much welcome from all editors who are already active, familiar with Commons policies, and have sufficient knowledge about copyright law. I just became admin myself rather recently and I am currently in the process of closing some of the deletion requests from October. Please note however, that all this is voluntary work. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Lion key Augusta Raurica 3.JPG

Hi, I by no means would like to "heat up" any troubles with user:G., but I do think that "self" does not at all explain wherefrom this picture was taken, and if taken in a museum where photography is disallowed such would oppose COM's policy, wouldn't it? See G.'s note on user talk:Herrick#Image:Lion key Augusta Raurica 3.JPG, on thisone. Best, [w.] 08:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, for Commons it doesn't matter whether the museum allowed photographs to be taken or not as this question does not touch the copyright status of these photographs. Cheers, --AFBorchert (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This is completely new to me.
Question:
If I'd take a photograph on a "disallowed" place (=, e.g. some museum in my home country) of some three-dimensional object, [no question about paintings!] could I be pursued by law, whilst COM delivering my identity on official request made by the pursueing authority? [w.] 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You could get yourself into trouble, yes, for violating the rules of that museum. (They may, for example, ban you from entering that museum ever again.) However, if the copyright of the depicted art has already expired (this is independent from any question whether this is two- or three-dimensional art), neither you nor Commons violate any copyright by publishing that photograph. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased to read this.
So, in my very last days on this planet, I might like to visit a couple of those museums around where they disallow to take photographs, shoot what feels "interesting", upload it and may decede in peace whilst being ascertained that COM can keep all that stuff? I hopefully will not tremble all-too-much, concerning sharpness/resolution of those pics ;)))
On the other hand, I recently read some talk about {{FOP}} and seemingly serious issues going along with it. Does that match? [w.] 11:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merke erst jetzt, dass Du ohnedies de=n bist, was für mich die Kommunikation erheblich vereinfachen würde. ;))) -- lg, [w.] 11:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Ja, natürlich können wir gerne auf Deutsch miteinander reden. Die Panoramafreiheit ist nur relevant bei Kunst- oder Bauwerken, die noch urheberrechtlich geschützt sind. Und hier kommt es auf das jeweilige Land an, da Panoramafreiheit nicht überall gilt und sehr unterschiedlich gehandhabt wird. Es gibt hier nur sehr wenige Länder, die im Rahmen der Panoramafreiheit auch Bilder innerhalb von Museen einschließen. Mexico oder Irland gehören hier zu den wenigen Beispielen. Ansonsten, ja, die Vorsätze für die letzten Tage sind reichlich gut und ich werde mich selbstverständlich dafür einsetzen, dass solche Bilder uns erhalten bleiben :) Weihnachtliche Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

hi there,

thanks for your concern. I just received an email from the museum in Augusta Raurica explicitly stating that photography is allowed in the museum, just as I thought. I think some users are still not familiar with the Commons rule Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. Merry X-mas. Gryffindor (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal SPAM.

Hi, I'm aware that Christmas greetings are more-or-less to be considered to be SPAM, but I can't help:
Here is one more, which is from me.
Although I might have [and might in the future] disagree with you, I'd like to ascertain you that I respect and love you. Believe it or not. [w.] 16:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die weihnachtlichen Grüße :) --AFBorchert (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfair ;)

Zwar ist es vielleicht unfair, während der Feiertage anderen Arbeit aufzuhalsen, aber auf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vincent Willem van Gogh 033.jpg harre ich seit geraumer Zeit einer Antwort. Kannst Du irgendwannmal dort vorbeischauen? Der Original-Upload ist mit Sicherheit eine Replik, noch dazu eine schlampige, und wohl auch ein Copyvio. Ich wüsste gerne, ob mein Vorschlag vom 20. eine Lösung für solche Fälle darstellt (dzt. 2 betroffene Files). Gruß, [w.] 07:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dieser Löschantrag ist noch taufrisch gemessen an den leicht angegammelten Anträgen aus dem Oktober, die ich mir gerade ansehe. Wir haben hier sogar noch Anträge herumliegen, die über ein halbes Jahr alt sind. Ich habe gerade einen ersten Blick darauf geworfen, kann es aber noch nicht behandeln. (Bislang habe ich aber nur feststellen können, dass die schlechte Fassung eben sehr schlecht ist vom Licht und damit den Farben her, von den viel zu schwach zu erkennenden Details und auch weil es nicht wenig am Rand beschnitten ist. Löschen können wir das sicherheitshalber trotzdem.) Eine Versionslöschung ist kein Problem, ich müsste nur darauf achten, dass in dem heiklen Moment dazwischen das Bild nicht Opfer des Commons-Delinkers wird. Das wäre ein Gau, weil das Bild recht häufig verwendet wird. Deswegen benötige ich schon zur Abklärung dieser technischen Feinheit etwas mehr Zeit. Einstweilen wünsche ich frohe weihnachtliche Feiertage, AFBorchert (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Danke für die prompte Antwort. Wie der Delinker funktioniert, werde ich in diesem Leben wohl nicht mehr richtig schnallen, hatte aber vermutet dass derjenige ihn aufruft der die Seite löscht. Mir persönlich ist's nicht sonderlich wichtig, ich überschreibe jetzt mal das zweite File mit einem Bild vom echten, und werd' vielleicht sogar ein besseres File knipsen -- es ging mir eher um die vermutete Copyvio, wenn der Maler der Replik noch leben sollte und sie in der WP findet -- oder könnte der gar keine Ansprüche stellen? [w.] 08:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Betr. "angegammelt" -- unlängst kam mir die Löschung nach einem nicht hinreichend diskutierten Antrag aus, glaube ich, Juni unter ;) lg, und frohes Irgendwas, [w.] 08:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, noch ne kleine Frage (da ich heute auf Guernica zu sprechen kam): Ich habe kürzlich die dortigen FairUse rationales "gründlich aufgeräumt" -- kann's da "Haue" setzen?

Thanks for the Christmas review!

Rayon de soleil et hirondelle 2.jpg

Hi AFBorchert/Archives/2008. I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in my request for adminship, and for the time you have taken to review my profile. As a Christmas present I've just been given the admin tools, for which I'm thankful as well. I have understood all the remarks that have been made during the review period. I will take them into account and begin using the tools with much care, until I gain more experience and self-confidence. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)