User talk:ChristianBier/Archives/2008/February

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.

Compact disc.svg

You deleted Image:Compact disc.svg a few weeks ago with the summary "No valid SVG". Was this a mistake? The file validated as SVG 1.1, and was even considered for "featured picture" status. What exactly was "invalid" about this image? -- Sakurambo 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

i undeleted it, i check the file after an user noticed my about problems in showing this combination of raster and vector. After I had same problems, I decided to delete it. But maybe it could reworked by someone, so that it only is a vector and no raster in there. ChristianBier 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What makes you think it needs to be reworked? -- Sakurambo 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The raster parts in the SVG have to be removed or replaced by vector parts. ChristianBier 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why. -- Sakurambo 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
SVG is a vector file type. When SVGs vector parts are combined with raster parts, it isn't scalable, because the rasterparts will show many pixels. ChristianBier 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please demonstrate this for me? At what scale do the pixels in the raster image become distinguishable? -- Sakurambo 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You're just going to ignore me, are you?
In that case, let me leave you with a few points for your future reference:
  • If an SVG file contains an embedded raster image, it doesn't necessarily mean it is of inadequate quality.
  • In fact, if an feGaussianBlur filter of sufficient radius is applied to an embedded raster image, the individual pixels will not be distinguishable at any resolution.
  • There are other images in Commons (like CIExy1931.svg for example) which are constructed in a similar way to Compact disc.svg. I would appreciate it if you could not delete any of these images without a good reason. In fact, why don't you stop whatever it is you're doing until you've read the deletion guidelines. You are an administrator, after all. I shouldn't really have to tell you how to behave.
  • Incidentally, there is nothing in your contributions log or your talk page history to suggest that anyone asked you to delete Compact disc.svg. So I don't think you gave an honest explanation above.
-- Sakurambo 00:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Karte Deutschland.png

Danke. Sollte man die Karte, da sie ja in tausenden Artikel verwendet wird und somit als sensibel anzusehen ist, vielleicht schützen? Solche "Mitstreiter", wenn auch in dem Fall aus den USA, wird es sicher immer mal wieder geben. --Niteshift 13:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Halbgeschützt war die Karte schon, was natürlich Unfug ist, denn eine IP kann ja sowieso nix hochladen. Ich hab jetzt einen Vollschutz drauf eingestellt. Damit sollten sich Probleme mit der Karte im Rahmen halten. ChristianBier 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work

Plesae don't remove the {{}} tag from images which are derived from images. These inherit the original licensing. /Lokal_Profil 12:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When a User redraw a SVG on base of an Vector-Images PNG so the SVG couldn't get the VI-Licence. In the Licence-Template is written: "This is a flag or coat of arms image", and so, this is wrong for the SVG. The SVG isn't from ChristianBier 12:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If a user exactly reproduces a VI image as a SVG then the copyright is still owned by VI. In order for there to be a new license originality is required, mechanical vectorisation is not enough. With a comment like "the original from which this was derived is under {{}}" it becomes clear that the svg isn't taken directly from VI. The reason I'm tagging derivatives is because VI images are likely to be deleted and because VI does not allow vectorisation of their raster iamges. I've also reopened the deletion request. /Lokal_Profil 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Reopen the deletion request an admin closed it with a decision is like vandalizing a page. Vector-Images didn't get any rights on the graphics. They show official insignias and flags and so, every country owns the rights for using the images. ChristianBier 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Closeing a deletion request that you have obviously not fully understod is a tad worse then reopening it. Official insignia and flags are not PD by default and individual interpretations of these are copyrightable. /Lokal_Profil 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I understood the whole discussion and I decided after reading all the arguments. My knoledge in this copyright issue is very good, because I am creating and designing COAs in my own media company. It's clear that some decisions won't be accepted by some users, but when the Template will be deleted, the users, who voted with "Keep" will protest against. I handle with all arguments and decide to keep the template. Reopening is not that easy going like you do. ChristianBier 19:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Continued on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, so that others can find it easily. /Lokal_Profil 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantasia logo deletion

Hi, I want to know what your response is to my comment at this deletion request. The image was the Fantasia 2000 logo (which can be seen at the English Wikipedia page here, and you said, voting Keep:

“Because this Logo isn't copyrightable because of the simple design it's clearly ineligible and so PD. ”

and my comment was:

“I'm not sure I agree with Christian's assessment. It is still a logo, and not welcome on Commons. The Microsoft logo is simply italicized sans serif text with a notch in the O; UCLA's logo is even more simple, but they issue a whole 24-page manual emphasizing the fact that it is a logo and cannot be reproduced as a free image. ”

I want to know why you claim that that logo is ineligible for copyright. ALTON .ıl 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In my Opinion, it falls under the so called "simple design". I dealt with many of such logos in the question of "ineligible or not" with my lawyer and after his answer, I made my decision. In his opinion after checking copyright laws of the US and Germany (only for comparison) he said, that it falls under "simple design" and there is "no copyright on this work". ChristianBier 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so quickly. I question this decision because I think that there should be a provision for that kind of situation if that were true. Is there a policy saying those are okay in the Commons? Does this judgement extent to the logos I pointed out, for UCLA and Microsoft? ALTON .ıl 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Trying to wrote such a policy for logos, everybody will be interupted. Now and in the future. Problem is, that most of Users, Admins and Burocrats here, just say "no logos on commons". But there are a lot of them here. Maybe, when I speak to my lawjer next time, I could try to find a solution. Maybe we could speak to the foundation too. But the way to a policy will take a lot of time. ChristianBier 23:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(editconflict)The relevant template is {{PD-textlogo}}, if the logo is trademarked then {{Trademarked}} would also have to be added. I'd probably say UCLA is a clear case but I'm less sure about microsoft and Fantasia. /Lokal_Profil 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That is true, but if what you say is correct then it should be easier to persuade such in deletion debates. However, I specifically bring up UCLA because in the accompanying manual (p.5) they point out that it should not (I'm not sure about "can not") be reproduced with a typeface, meaning "general font", so that tag would be invalid, correct? As a corollary, just because they say so, doesn't necessarily mean it's true, it probably is just an italicized font, BUT then wouldn't this be violating their request to use only their official files to represent their university? ALTON .ıl 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, that we have to divide into Trademark and Copyright issus. Many companys, institutions and organisations only wrote in her logo manuals facts which are right in trademark issues. Usage could only be restricted by trademarking the Logo. But in Commons and Wikipedia, the first thing is to show the logos. Showing and Using are two different things, which can't be mixed up. The licence-additional-tag {{Trademarked}} gives explanations of this restrictions. But showing such logos can't be restricted when there is no chance to get a copyright on them. ChristianBier 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why, then, this issue hasn't been resolved yet with all of these logos. A number of other logos I imagine fall under this category are UCSF's, Vons', and J&J's, and I imagine, again if you are right, then you should be able to present the facts and convince the rest that these belong. ALTON .ıl 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't think that the Community will accept opinion from a german lawyer. Maybe I could try to get som court decisions from the US and other countries dealing with this problem. But I need some time to take a search together with my lawyer. ChristianBier 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, good luck. I suppose that reasoning should be legitimate, if anywhere, on the Commons. ALTON .ıl 03:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:2006-01-14 Rust and dirt.jpg to Image:Rust and dirt.jpg

Hi Christian,

What was your thinking behind requesting this image renaming? I do not think it was a very good idea. This is a Featured Picture that is heavily linked. Furthermore the old name was descriptive, the new name is less likely to be unique than the old one. Can I suggest you only rename images that have truly cryptic names such as "C45435" or other camera names. As image renaming is not properly supported in MediaWiki we lose a lot of useful links and so on with these manual renames. thanks --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The renaming was not my request, I only send it to the bot (only approved users or admins could do that at the moment). The Image was renamed, because of that dates in the first part of the name are not useful for categorization (such images everywhere get sortet under "2", but have to be sorted unter "R"). The Links to the Picture will be fixed with the commonsdelinker. For this job, the "dupe" template is in the renamed picture. ChristianBier 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW: Which information and links do we lost when the images is renamed by the bot and all links fixed? ChristianBier 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm, if the images are indeed replaced, then the backlink to Commons:Featured pictures candidates/Image:2006-01-14 Rust and dirt.jpg will exist. But {{featured picture}} is supposed to have a link to the nomination page; it makes its guess based on the image name. Obviously if you change the name the link won't work. Hm... there is a subpage paramater. Probably the bot can be told to add that. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Península_de_Jandía_SAT.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Península_de_Jandía_SAT.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Cecil 08:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Metro Warszawskie.svg

It is not ineligible. I have reopened discussion. --Szczepan talk 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Media requiring renaming

I made a little fun of it here but it was really something to see that Category with only 26 files in it. Seriously.

Who wrote the new ability for the bot? -- carol 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Belarus COA

With it being a PNG file, it will most likely be deleted anyways once the toolserver comes back up. We just need to replace all PNG uses with the SVG version. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your wrong, theres no superseeding deletion. ChristianBier 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Belarusian cities/province COAs and flags

Please revert your changes to {{PD-BY-exempt}} for Belarusian cities/province COAs and flags. Only flag, coat of arms are exempted. So cities and regions COAs and flags status are still unknown. One book about Belarusian heraldry claims official cities COAs are copyrighted by one of state organizations. Most COAs and flags are redesigned in modern times so such claims have merit. --EugeneZelenko 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find such exclusion in the law. We don't decide like its written in "books", we decide like it's written in the law text. In §9 Part 1 is well describing the problem. COAs of the citys are "official signs". It's no problem, if they are old or redesigned in the past. ChristianBier 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC) copyvios

Hi. It's good that you are deleting "replaced copyvio from", just wanted to request that you put the name of the replacing image in the deletion summary. Cheers Lokal_Profil 00:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Can you move this image over to Wikinews where it should be allowed? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikinews also only accept "free" Images. And Wikinews uses Commons and no own Images-Space. ChristianBier 09:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I'd know Wikinews' image policy, I am a B'crat on the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Also Image:Unlocked_iPhone.jpg --Brian McNeil / talk 10:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try uploading them. I've created an account yet. ChristianBier 10:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this out. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob. ChristianBier 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Restoring Image:100 3508.JPG?

Hi, could you please restore Image:100 3508.JPG? The deletion broke the winner list at Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007. Lots of templates depend on that image's name. Thanks, AxelBoldt 05:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi Christian, the image comes originally from the German Wikipedia and I copied it from there long time ago. The talk page explaining why it's PD has been deleted from the German wikipedia in the meantime, and I don't speak German so it may be helpul if you can enquire there (if I remember all coat of arms from the Canton of Zurich were PD for the same reason). Thanks --Cruccone 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I created a .svg version in the meantime, I guess that one could be used instead of the dubiously-licensed one. Thanks --Cruccone 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The SVG-Version can be used, because it's your own work. Be sure that all usages of the gif were replaced by the SVG and notice me here, so that I can delete the GIF. The Problem is, that in German Wikipedia we accept all COAs from all over the world as so called "Amtliche Werke" and so they are PD at german wikipedia. At commons this is quite different. So we only accept COAs which are own works or have an OTRS-Permission. ChristianBier 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand, we have similar problems on the Italian Wikipedia. I should have changed to the svg version everywhere (according to CheckUsage) so the jpg can be deleted I suppose. Thanks --Cruccone 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I deleted the image. Since there are Problems I could help with COA here at commons (also with transfers to commons), please ask me. I create COA SVGs too and I've got a good knowledge referring to copyright laws and problems regarding COAs. ChristianBier 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

About Ales Vesely images

Hi Christian,

Some images which I uploaded at Ales Vesely pages are made by me and some are made by Ales Vesely. I am not so skilled in using wikipedia, I inserted

Public domain I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

is it OK now?

Sorry, but this is only okay, if the picture was made by yourself. For pictures made by Ales Vesely we need a special permission mail. And only the licence is not enough. You have to provide further information like a description, the source (e.g. "own work"), author (e.g. your username) etc. ChristianBier 11:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Lieber Christian.
In den letzten zwei Tagen sind uns zwei von dir falsch entschiedene Löschanträge aufgefallen, welche mit den "fair use" - Richtlinien auf commons zusammenhängen. Diese sind hier viel strenger als aud de:. Bei dem zweiten dieser beiden (die Datei wurde grade gelöscht) hast du nichteinmal auf die Meinung der comminuty gewartet. Wir hoffen, dass diese beiden einfach nur Fehler waren. Wenn du aber weiter solche falschen Entscheidungen treffen solltest müssen wir leider ein de-admin-Verfahren gegen dich anstrengen. Grüße, abf /talk to me/ 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC) und --Szczepan talk 14:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ich bin verwundert, denn auch auf Commons gibt es in den Lizenzbestimmungen eine Freigabe für Logos im Sinne von Text und Geometrischen Figuren. Ich entscheide solche Sachen alleine nach diesen Lizenzbestimmungen, die unter Commons:Licensing#Simple_design festgehalten sind. Wenn wir uns nach diesen Richtlinien nicht richten wollen, sollten wir diesen Passus aus den Lizenzrichtlinien hier löschen und Logos komplett verbieten. Wäre die Frage ob wir das wollen? Denn dann fliegen auch Microsoft, AT&T usw. als Logos hier raus. BTW: Ein subjektiv entschiedener LA (Schöpfungshöhe ist generell subjektiv! Und ich entscheide immer auf Grundlage der dort geschriebenen Fakten!), ist ein ziemlich schwacher De-Admin-Grund. ChristianBier 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Images to be deleted

Hello ChristianBier,
You have reverted my edition here, the uploader asked me to delete all those images last night because they are duplicated, have a bad quality and they do not have a coin to compare sizes (as it is usually done with fosils). The user has already uploaded new better images, therefore, I tagged the page in order to get some help from any other admins as there are quite a lot to delete. What is your reason for the reversion? Cheers. Anna 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When the Author wants to delete his images, he has to tag every image. And he has to do it by his own. So we, the admins, could trust the deletion requests and delete the images. If any other user make such a mass deletion request, it also could be vandalism. ChristianBier 08:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Congratulations! It has bot status now.

Please add link to you page on User:BierBot, so other will know who need to be contacted in case of emergency.

EugeneZelenko 15:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Montescaglioso Image

I've the cd-rom with all image of montescaglioso,and i've an autorization from author Franco Caputo

Please send the authorization (=permission) to . So we could check it. Thank. ChristianBier 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Image deletion warning Image:159_5920.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you enforce the deletion of factual valid relevant blazoning information on image Image:Wappen Groemitz.png‎??

I've added information about heraldic dimidiation to dozens of image description pages, but until now I've never come across the truly bizarre situation of someone objecting to the addition of such factual valid relevant blazoning information to a page. AnonMoos 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "dimidiated" eagle in Heraldry. This fact was nonsense. If you want translate the blasoning, please do it correctly. And removing of categories, which are correct, is vandalism. Also in fact of that "Edit-War" I blocked Image description page to prevent more reverts. ChristianBier 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you seem to be the one who's spouting "nonsense" here. If you don't have a deep knowledge of heraldic terminology, then please don't try to enforce your ignorance on others. For information on dimidiation from reputable sources, see and . Any blason of Image:Wappen Groemitz.png‎ according to the customary traditional conventions of English blasoning would include the words "eagle" and "dimidiated" -- and if you claim otherwise, then unfortunately you simply don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, the category "Eagles in heraldry" seems to have been added for the sole purpose of suppressing factual valid relevant information about dimidiation, so please don't get on too high a horse about it.
You know, in over two and a half years of editing on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, this is the most truly bizarre situation I've been involved in. (There have been other situations involving far more obnoxious behavior, but in most cases the motivations for such behavior were relatively easy to understand, while this situation involves behavior which is quite strange and inexplicable to me). Since I don't have any idea at all as to what the motivations of User: Geograv and you have been (I certainly don't see the slightest factual grounds for any type of legitimate dispute whatsoever, and your fact-free dogmatic assertions have not enlightened me as to what such grounds could be), it's hard for me to assign any other motivation than some desire to suppress factual valid relevant blazoning information. AnonMoos 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Christian. I think that you are mistaking; Debian software is under GPL, not its logos; could you please read this page? I quote:

Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest

This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project.

Note: we would appreciate that you make the image a link to if you use it on a web page.

Do you think that this logo is under GPL? Here over there are the use terms; commercial purpose and derivative works are not explicitly allowed. On,, and this logo is under fair use or trademark (and this is correct). So, please delete the images, otherwise please tell me, so I go through regular deletion. Thanks--Trixt 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to go through regular deletion. The Copyright only is for the Trademarking of the Logo. I could add {{Trademarked}}, when it's needed. But when the Software is GPL, the Logo also is GPL. Trademark restriction is clear, also when tagged as GPL. And please notice: If you make a deletion request on the logo after an admin decide to keep them after speeddeletion request, then some could interpret this as vandalizm. Do what you want, but other admins won't decide in another way. ChristianBier 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Do what you want, but please read this page: Commons:Deletion requests/Debian logos.--Trixt 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Deletion of image Armoiries_Boulonnais.png, as duplicate of Blason_Courtenay.png is absolutely wrong, because the user interested in heraldry should be able to find the coat of arms of the french county of Boulogne, with the name Armoiries_Boulonnais.png and he couldn't know that the Blason_Courtenay.png has the same image (and the same blazon: or, three besants of gules). Now, after your deletion, it is impossible to find the required image (county of Boulogne): is possible only find the coat of arms of the house Courtenay. In heraldry the name of the holder of a coat of arms is necessary as the image and the blazon (description of the image). So, please, reload the image Armoiries_Boulonnais.png, because it is not a duplicate of 'Blason_Courtenay.png, but it another coat of arms whit the same blazon. Bye Massimop 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

COA Aasiaat

The COA of Aasiaat are really cool! Great work - weiter so! Greets, Saippuakauppias 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama

I'm afraid it only applies to "publicly visible buildings and sculptures", but not to promotional banners and such. Regards. --Dodo 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In the paragraph of german law is written: "It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance." This also applies to promotional banners, because more than one court (also the highest court, the Bundesgerichtshof) decide that a work, which is on public places for his "natural lifetime" (= time for ad-campaign) also is under freedom of panorama. Please undelete the images. ChristianBier 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you give a proper source for the second part of your argument? The first one speaks only of "works permanently located", and I wonder why such an important detail has been omitted at Commons:Freedom of panorama: in fact, all the logos shown in banner at German streets would be freely reproducible! :O --Dodo 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's only located in German Wikipedia Article under de:Panoramafreiheit, which says: Unter Juristen bestehe Einigkeit darüber, dass das Merkmal „bleibend“ jedenfalls dann zu bejahen sei, wenn sich ein Kunstwerk für seine natürliche Lebensdauer an einem öffentlichen Platz befinde, befand der BGH in der genannten Entscheidung.. In English it is: The lawyers are clear about that, that a work is "permanent", when its on public places during it's natural life-time, so the BGH wrote in his decision. ChristianBier 10:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No source of that statement at the German article, as far as I can see. I clearly collides with the rationale behind Commons:Freedom of panorama, which does not apply to promotional banners. --Dodo 12:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Retaging of some Vector-Images images

Plz, stop. This is very very bad idea. We can't put {{PD-RU-exempt}} or others tags solely. Plz, read Commons:Deletion requests/ proposed new template content. The simple link to is not enough. Alex Spade 10:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean with "simple link"? The source is granted also. But the template ist replaced because it's not needed. We will delete the template after the second request, which is still running until all were replaced, but we could save some images, because they are PD, because of the exempt-tags. ChristianBier 10:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Simple link" means http-link for It's not enough.
As I said, we cann't put on respective images PD-exempt solely. made some distortion in its variants of official COA. Such distortion can or can't be copyrighted. You couldn't save some images by such replacement, because they are PD. They are not PD - they are quasi-PD - without basis, which was included in - they are enough copyrigted.
Moreover the discussion is still active. Your actions are very thoughtless. Alex Spade 10:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/ (2nd request)#Proposal for the most appropriate solution‎ Alex Spade 12:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons prohibited file names

Hallo Christian, Rocket000 hat die neue Vorlage {{Prohibited name}} erstellt. Die erleichtert ein wenig das copy&paste und kategorisiert die Bilder automatisch, das sperren muß natürlich weiterhin jeder selbst machen. Ich werde mich jetzt mal an das hinzufügen weiterer Sprachen machen. --GeorgHHtalk   14:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

feine Sache. ChristianBier 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Guten abend

Vous avez effacé Valaques.jpg qui est ma traduction en français de la même image en Anglais dans Commons. Cela m'oblige à recommencer le travail de traduction. Schade ! --Spiridon MANOLIU 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)