User talk:High Contrast
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Your Flickr uploads
Hello 44Charles!
Thanks a lot for your contributions! Thank you for transferring images from Flickr to Commons! Two hints ahead:
- Always upload the highest resolution of a photograph that is available on flickr
- You can use this tool for your flickr uploads. It makes the hole procedure much easier and faster for you!
Thank you for your support! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Great tool indeed! Danke, --44Charles (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bitteschön! --High Contrast (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Flickr review needed
Hi! You do not need to check images in this category manually. We have a bot for that. It also uploads a larger version of the image if it is available. There is however other categories where humans is needes:
- Category:Flickr images needing human review
- Category:Flickr images not found
- Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images (see User:Captain-tucker/Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR)
- and of cource Category:Commons backlog. So you do not have to fear to run out of work :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know this bot. I am checking those file for flickr washing and as I do that I complete all infos from flickr and do some image crops if neccessary. Things a bot can't do. Run out of work? Here on Commons? Never...! Greets, High Contrast (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. Good. But if you wait untill it has checked the images you can save some edits if you agree with the bot ;-) Also when you fail images like you did File:Felipe melo.jpg it will have both a speedy and an OTRS pending. Probably several admins will now check the image in the speedy cat (unless someone deletes it without noticing the OTRS-notice). Personally I inform users when images fail Flickr review. Normally with a npd so they have a chance to fix it + they get an info about what is wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I always inform Users too if flickr review failed. If that was not done by me, it must have been happened accidentally. --High Contrast (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. Good. But if you wait untill it has checked the images you can save some edits if you agree with the bot ;-) Also when you fail images like you did File:Felipe melo.jpg it will have both a speedy and an OTRS pending. Probably several admins will now check the image in the speedy cat (unless someone deletes it without noticing the OTRS-notice). Personally I inform users when images fail Flickr review. Normally with a npd so they have a chance to fix it + they get an info about what is wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:MP_pic.jpg
Careful with deletion please. Pay attn: http://www.newlookmedia.ru/IDNV/Arhiv.html (Small print below: Контент доступен на условиях лицензии Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike).FHMRUSSIA (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did not delete this image, User:Abigor did it. But all in all the deletion is correct. This site maybe under a free C&C licence, but the image that was deleted, not. We call such things file washing. --High Contrast (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't get it. The writing clearly indicates that content of this section (Archive) is under free licence. What makes you think that this pic is the exception? It doesn't make any sense. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Scan of this newspaper: Pravda. Why this site has the right to publish this file under a free licence is unclear. As I said: file washing. And again, I have not deleted this file. --High Contrast (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I remember it's the scan of Musical Pravda weekly which is published by NewLookMedia and it has nothing to do with the site. It would be very nice of you to restore. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Has nothing to do with the site? Really? --High Contrast (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- As I said. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- As you said what? Be more precise, please: prove that the site has nothing to with "pravda". Is it another newspaper that is shown on the image? Is it a parody? --High Contrast (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I said that the deleted file has nothing to do with Pravda.FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are few newspapers with the very word pravda in their titles.FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Examples: Moskovskaya Pravda, Muzycalnaya Pravda, etc. Pravda means Truth. So Moskovskaya Pravda goes for Truth of Moscow City. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what file was deleted but I guess it's from Muzycalnaya Pravda (since it has letters MP in his title).FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- And one more thing I'm sure of – I would never upload file without written permission. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the file is from Muzycalnaya Pravda site. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's this one. Where exactly on this page is written that all content is under a CC-by-sa licence? My russian is not so good. --High Contrast (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Click here : see writing regarding CC-by-sa licence below (small print) for all PDF Archive. Then click button ИД "Новый Взгляд", you are here. Then right upper button with the name of this weekly Музыкальная ПРАВДА. And at last choose the year of 2008. That's it. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- But after all you can forget the whole thing. It seems like this file is NOT used anywhere. So there's no damage done for any piece of any project. I should have known better. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the case. I have just read what you have linked above. The file has been restored: File:MP pic.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please categorize this file properly. --High Contrast (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it took some time and extra lines:) Thank you. In fact it's used on one page at least. And one more thing regarding Category. What do you suggest? I mean your note "categorize this file properly". I'm not sure that I am able to do so without any advice ((( Since it's just a front page of weekly newspaper called Muzycalnaya Pravda, I've just listed some Categories as I would for the newspaper itself. I'll try to add Category:Front Page if there's such one.FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- So, I have modified and overworked the categories: it is a newspaper of Russia, so i transformed all categories Category:XY_by country to Category:XY_in Russia. In addition I have removed some categories due to COM:OVERCAT. --High Contrast (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I'll do the same with other similar files. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Very good! Thanks for your support! --High Contrast (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I'll do the same with other similar files. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- So, I have modified and overworked the categories: it is a newspaper of Russia, so i transformed all categories Category:XY_by country to Category:XY_in Russia. In addition I have removed some categories due to COM:OVERCAT. --High Contrast (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it took some time and extra lines:) Thank you. In fact it's used on one page at least. And one more thing regarding Category. What do you suggest? I mean your note "categorize this file properly". I'm not sure that I am able to do so without any advice ((( Since it's just a front page of weekly newspaper called Muzycalnaya Pravda, I've just listed some Categories as I would for the newspaper itself. I'll try to add Category:Front Page if there's such one.FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please categorize this file properly. --High Contrast (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the case. I have just read what you have linked above. The file has been restored: File:MP pic.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- But after all you can forget the whole thing. It seems like this file is NOT used anywhere. So there's no damage done for any piece of any project. I should have known better. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Click here : see writing regarding CC-by-sa licence below (small print) for all PDF Archive. Then click button ИД "Новый Взгляд", you are here. Then right upper button with the name of this weekly Музыкальная ПРАВДА. And at last choose the year of 2008. That's it. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's this one. Where exactly on this page is written that all content is under a CC-by-sa licence? My russian is not so good. --High Contrast (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the file is from Muzycalnaya Pravda site. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Examples: Moskovskaya Pravda, Muzycalnaya Pravda, etc. Pravda means Truth. So Moskovskaya Pravda goes for Truth of Moscow City. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are few newspapers with the very word pravda in their titles.FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I said that the deleted file has nothing to do with Pravda.FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- As you said what? Be more precise, please: prove that the site has nothing to with "pravda". Is it another newspaper that is shown on the image? Is it a parody? --High Contrast (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- As I said. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Has nothing to do with the site? Really? --High Contrast (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I remember it's the scan of Musical Pravda weekly which is published by NewLookMedia and it has nothing to do with the site. It would be very nice of you to restore. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Scan of this newspaper: Pravda. Why this site has the right to publish this file under a free licence is unclear. As I said: file washing. And again, I have not deleted this file. --High Contrast (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't get it. The writing clearly indicates that content of this section (Archive) is under free licence. What makes you think that this pic is the exception? It doesn't make any sense. FHMRUSSIA (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] ???
erledigt !!! :-) --Neozoon (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Done perfekt. --High Contrast (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] User talk page
I don't mind you leaving borderline-harrassment messages spamming up my talk page, but when I remove them to keep my talk page clean, please do not revert me in my own userspace. Sherurcij (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you willing to correct your mistakes ((here and here))? --High Contrast (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- They're not mistakes, there's nothing wrong with how I uploaded the files. You're free to add the template you added, you're free to fix the urls to display how you want them to display, you're even free to start a Request for Deletion for the images. Please do not consider yourself free to stalk every single one of my uploads to say I spelled a word wrong, didn't categorise it well enough, you'd prefer if I gave a different source, or the grainy pixels annoy you. That is harassment. Sherurcij (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, this is not ment to harass you! It is very important to inform the uploader about what is going on with her/his file. Therefore it is necessary to leave a message on ones talk page. All further things are anchorless, Sherurcij: Nobody stalks you because of your uploads. Fact is that you have uploaded many file with lots of them having severe licence problems. It is highly likely that one stumbles over some file you have contributed. Besides, exact links on files (like your xyz.jpg-links) do not disturb me personally (to tell the truth I don't care), but there is a wide consense on Commons that such file sources are no valid source as requested in COM:L. Far be it from me to harass some User. --High Contrast (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- They're not mistakes, there's nothing wrong with how I uploaded the files. You're free to add the template you added, you're free to fix the urls to display how you want them to display, you're even free to start a Request for Deletion for the images. Please do not consider yourself free to stalk every single one of my uploads to say I spelled a word wrong, didn't categorise it well enough, you'd prefer if I gave a different source, or the grainy pixels annoy you. That is harassment. Sherurcij (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Better source requests
I don't understand what you mean by "Better source request" for the images I am uploading from Official United States Government websites - which I link directly to. These websites are copyright free and the images I am uploading from them are clearly identified as United States Government imagess and are in the public domain. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Of which images are you talking exactly? Basically images on US-Gov sites are automatically not in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Quality Image Promotion
 |
Congratulations! Image File:Sonderpädagogisches Förderzentrum Bajuwarenstraße.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. |
[edit] File Tagging File:ELG_webcam_daylight_capture_at_09-09-13_08-00-00-32.png
I have left a long reply at User talk:84user#File Tagging File:ELG_webcam_daylight_capture_at_09-09-13_08-00-00-32.png; in brief I maintain the image is ineligible for copyright and so no permission is required. -84user (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why should this image be ineligible for copyright? You refer on this? --High Contrast (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I understand from the discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive 22#Live feeds, surveillance images are not considered to have copyright. The reason given is that there is no creativity involved. Copyright of images requires a minimum of creative input. If someone had held the webcam and pointed it deliberately at something, then, some countries might consider it copyright. Here, the webcam is in a fixed position and it automatically streams images. Look at the reply by Yann: "For a copyright to exist, you need at least 3 things: originality, fixation, and author." Yes, we have fixation (recorded in an archive), but there is no originality, and Yann questions whether the person setting up a camera can be an author. If this is not clear then we could ask for more explanation at Commons_talk:Licensing. -84user (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Quality Image Promotion
 |
Congratulations! Image File:Schaufelradbagger, Tagebau Schleenhain.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. |
[edit] File:Knuth Homeboy.jpg
Hallo ›High Contrast‹, vielen herzlichen Dank für Deine Hilfe beim Upload dieses Bildes!
Mal sehen, ob ich es auch irgendwo in der Wikipedia sinnvoll einbauchen kann … allerdings würde ein eigener Abschnitt über Knuth’s Humor in der deutschen WP wohl wahrscheinlich wegen der Relevanzkriterien gekippt werden – obwohl es da ja durchaus noch ganz andere Sachen (Zahlensystem zur Basis 2i, potrzebie-Größensystem, Popsong-Komplexität) gäbe ;-). --Frakturfreund (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
