User talk:H-stt/Archives/2009/

Administrator

---

Ein Willkommenspräsent für unseren neuen Administrator von deinen Kollegen...

Herzlichen Glückwunsch, H-stt/Archives/2009! 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) 14:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Von mir ebenfalls herzliche Glückwünsche, h-stt. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Auch von mir herzlichen Glückwunsch! Hab gar nicht mitbekommen, dass Du kandidiert hast. Dann könntest Du mich ja gleich für's rollback freischalten ... :-) Gruß, --Aconcagua (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, danke für die freundlichen Worte und die Rechte hast du auch. So darf eine Woche anfangen ... Grüße --h-stt !? 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our German-language image submission queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories Oregon

Hi. Thanks for noticing my work. I believe I have already made those categories consistent. Category:National parks of Oregon is now a subcategory of both Category:Parks in Oregon and Category:National parks of the United States by State. Consolidation with Category:National Monuments of Oregon is inadvisable since national monuments, both nationally and in Oregon, may or may not be administered by the National Park Service (i.e. may or may not be "national parks"). National monuments that are NPS-administered should show up in both the "National parks" categories and the "National monuments" categories (e.g. Category:John Day Fossil Beds National Monument); national monuments that are not NPS-administered should show up in only the "National monuments" categories (e.g. Category:Newberry National Volcanic Monument). —Werewombat (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I understand how it works for the categories you mentioned. But I am unhappy about Category:Fort Vencouver National Historic Site, which is categorized in Washington except the McLoughlin House, that is categorized as Category:National parks of Oregon. I think that is wrong, because the NHS as such is in both states and should be categorized in both. And unfortunately we don't have any category for en:Lewis and Clark National Historical Park yet. This one is on both sides of the Columbia River as well. Greetings. --h-stt !? 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying. While I have a preference that Category:McLoughlin House rather than Category:Fort Vancouver National Historic Site be placed in Category:National parks of Oregon, I don't feel strongly about it. My thinking is that it's technically accurate but a bit confusing to put Category:Fort Vancouver National Historic Site under Oregon, because Fort Vancouver per se (as opposed to Fort Vancouver National Historic Site) is exclusively in Washington. (McLoughlin House was in fact a separate National Historic Site until just a few years ago when Congress merged the two under the Fort Vancouver NHS name.) That said, I find the categorizations I chose to be somewhat dissatisfying for exactly the reasons you give. So if you want to change them around, I certainly won't object. —Werewombat (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, forget it. I've gone ahead and removed Category:McLoughlin House from Category:National parks of Oregon, and added Category:Fort Vancouver National Historic Site in its place. I resolved my concern simply by adding a description to Category:Fort Vancouver National Historic Site clarifying the different locations of the two different units. —Werewombat (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - looks fine. --h-stt !? 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons talk:Licensing#File:VB-stubbie.jpg

I've taken the closing of File:VB-stubbie.jpg to Commons talk:Licensing#File:VB-stubbie.jpg for a wider community view on there thoughts and whether it's copyrighted or not. Bidgee (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Fishermen (Phylakopi cylinder).JPG

Hi. I didn't write it in the description because of the categorization in "Cycladic_Collections_in_the_National_Archaeological_Museum_of_Athens"...but now it's done. Salut.--Phso2 (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Deutsch | Español

Dear H-stt/Archives/2009/. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you

While I am technically still on holiday, I'll resolve this immediately. --h-stt !? 13:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Licensing Greece: Monuments and antiquities

By removing this subsection you are not making the paranoid situation in Greece any better. This is a page about copyright restrictions and users of pictures stored on Commons must be aware of any possible problems. If you have a reference about the policy of WMF on the subject, please state it in this subsection. Sv1xv (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you found the applicable Commons policy yourself. Let's see if anyone is going to discuss on the talk page. greetings. --h-stt !? 12:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not exactly applicable, it is the nearest thing I could locate in Commons policies. I agree that pictures should not be deleted on this basis, but a note for reusers is useful. Sv1xv (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact it is: Because the decree is not a law, but simply a claim by the owner of the antiquities. This is exactly the same situation as in a museum. Do you plan to add the equivalent claim by Italy as well? --h-stt !? 13:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I know these crazy things happen in Italy too. I don't know if Greece copied Italy or the other way around. However I have no access to all details for the Italian paranoia so I leave it to somebody else. I believe COM:L should contain warnings for such local problems.

About this ministerial decision (not decree, I shall explain shortly), things become more paranoid if you read the original greek text. It states the term "Copyright", which is not defined in Greek law. The text is not well written, it is not clear if the claimed copyright is on the antiquities themselves or on the photo. As I stated in a photography forum last year, this particular decision is the result of greed and ignorance.

An important difference between presidential decrees and ministerial decisions is that decrees are reviewed by the Legal Council of the State, while ministerial decisions are not. As a result the latter often contain rubish. Sv1xv (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks, for pointing me to the difference between a decree and a decision in the Greek legal system. I can decipher Greek road signs and understand a few basic words, but Greek legalese is way beyond my abilities. Regarding Italy: I'd say let's ask an Italian speaking Commons sysop to add a similar sentence. I'll find someone. --h-stt !? 15:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the major difference between the decree and the decision is this: The decree is signed first by the Minister and then by the President of the Republic and it is a kind of legislation. It is publushed in Gazette Issue A, together with laws passed by the Parliament. The decision is signed only by the minister and is published in Gazette Issuee B, together with other administrative acts of the civil service. It is, in essence, a circular published in the Gazette. Sv1xv (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Abarbeitung von NC

Hallo H-stt, könntest du bitte auch in die Versionsgeschichte von Dateien schauen. Die Lizenz die zur Zeit dort steht ist nicht unbeding identisch mit der die ursprünglich erteilt wurde. Danke --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tricky. Selbst wenn man auf die alten Lizenzangaben zurückgreift bleibt immernoch das Problem mit dem Logo. Fällt dir dafür was ein? --h-stt !? 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Im konkreten Fall, stellt imho das Logo kein Problem dar, da es auch auf Commons keine SH hat. (Vielleicht gilt es auch nur als Beiwerk?) Imho hat auch die gesamte Abbildung kein SH, aber das ist Graubereich. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons ist "paranoid" was Logos angeht. Bitte sprich die Logofrage in der Löschdiskussion an. Und lass uns dort weiterdiskutieren. --h-stt !? 14:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)