User talk:Lupo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Older talk is in the archive.

[edit] Pablo Picasso

You're right. I am uploading the files at the torrent and I hadn't noticed. The three files are deleted now. Platonides (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I thought it was just an oversight. If I had seen before that someone else had already marked one of them, I wouldn't have bothered with the others, trusting that you'd remove all three anyway. Lupo 15:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the other one didn't notice me, so it was welcome.

Hehe, had deleted just a minute before :-)

Do you happen to know who this Master of the Thuison Altarpiece is?

Platonides (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He is unknown.[1] The piece comes from the Retable de la Chartreuse de Thuison (altar of the Carthusian monastery of Saint-Honoré at Thuison) near Abbéville in France and is dated to the 15th century. The Art Institute of Chicago has another piece of it.[2] Lupo 12:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's some more info on that altarpiece. Lupo 12:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] editprotected

If you have a moment, would you add update the gadget definition according to MediaWiki_talk:Gadgets-definition#Toolbox_additions_(Geocoding) ? I would be most thankful. -- User:Docu at 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zabid flickr01.jpg

What happens to images like this where the flickr owner deletes the images before it can be marked...but another image uploaded the same day by Mac9 passes review? Just curious. Do they get deleted.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment As an aside, the flickr review bot seems to have malfunctioned as it has not marked any images for more than 1 day now Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• The flickr review bot is still not working and the backlog grows. Anyway, I ask if you could make a formal comment in this DR I believe that an ex-Admin's uploaded photos could be passed by another Admin. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This DR

Someone raised a good point sadly on this DR by me. I cannot know if this person's image was licensed freely but since the uploader is Admin on Wikipedia (not Wikicommons) I gave him the benefit of the doubt...though I could be dead wrong. It is quite different to the situation with Mac9 here....whose body of work I certainly trust but who sadly did not upload images with FlickrLickr. I wish Mac9 could respond but he has left Commons since September 2008 apparently. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If possible, please make a response on the carpet DR so that the person who closes it can have some guidance. Unfortunately, the criticism by the responder is legitimate. Would an Admin on wiki know the license requirements for a photo on Commons? I...do not know what to say. Sadly, there are no other images of this carpet to replace it with on Commons. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he wouldn't necessarily. At en-WP, knowledge of copyright is not a prerequisite to becoming an admin, and neither is it at most other projects. It even isn't a prerequisite here at the Commons, but we do place a greater weight on that aspect than other projects. When it comes to copyrights, admins and other editors are on equal footing; the actions of both groups are subject to peer review, and serious copyright-related comments by non-admins carry the same weight as those of admins. It's just that many (but not all) Commons admins do in fact have a fair idea of what copyrights are and how they work because we increasingly tend to select as admins only people who have shown to have a good grasp of copyrights, but they're not perfect either.

Anyway, you posted the reminder while I was actually examining Asterion's logs. Lupo 09:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tunisian copyright update

Hi,
Thanks for your input on this issue! I have added a question in the template discussion page. Moumou82 (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Thanks for supporting my flickr reviewer request. But this situation is somewhat embarrassing to have the review bot down for days now and no one human reviewer can attack the whole pile at once. If Bryan isn't available, someone else has to be "on-call" as you state. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. You could start with my recent uploads :-) I don't pass my own Flickr-uploads, but I'll help out on the others. Lupo 07:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question on 2 images by July70/Julie Kertezs here

Dear Admin Lupo,

In this mass DR Admin MGA73 and I thought that these 2 images could be passed with a "flickr change of license" tag:

• File:WashingtonDC.jpg
• File:Parigi-la defense.jpg

They come from July70/Julie Kertesz's flickr account and were uploaded in October 2005. However, there are 57 FlickrLickr images from her account as this shows many of which were uploaded later in 2006...after Mac9 uploaded them. I had contacted Julie but she changed the license from CC BY NC to CC BY ND for these 2 photos. Now I see that MGA73 has submitted them to a regular flickrreview which naturally they cannot pass due to the ND restriction. My question is can a third party Admin like yourself pass them based on the FlickrLickr evidence...or must they both be deleted? I would note that after I contacted Julie, she made a remark noting the presence of the Washington monument on wikipedia here. The only image which she licensed right was this: File:Parigi-ristorante.jpg but even though I have asked her to license the 2 old 2005 failed photos as cc by 2.0, she refuses to do so because she has seen the other images from her account on Commons.

Someone has to make a judgment call...and the best person I can think of is you. Its either fail and delete or tag it with change of license with a note showing the FlickrLickr evidence like this: File:Fanad lighthouse.jpg? Sometimes a wayback machine can be used to pass an old image like this classic example : File:Stewart-Brown bananas.jpg Which is the best solution though for File:WashingtonDC.jpg & File:Parigi-la defense.jpg? If its delete, then so be it...but I would have thought the evidence for a keep was strong. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the archive.org trick seems to work only very rarely—it doesn't work for any of File:Fanad lighthouse.jpg, File:WashingtonDC.jpg, nor File:Parigi-la defense.jpg. I'll take a closer look at these three next week; no time right now. Lupo 07:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Please remember this case...when you have the time. At least with Julie's images, the case is very very strong. I don't know much about the lighthouse case. It looks like the "possibly unfree category" is being liquidated in future since the 480 images there have now fallen into the unfree review column. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help talk:Gadget-GalleryDetails

Hi Lupo, I left a question about one of your excellent tool on the above page. If you have a moment, .. -- User:Docu at 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] URAA question at German Wikipedia

Hi Lupo; could you have a look at the question at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#URAA regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/NPG_images_protected_by_the_URAA and maybe correct me if I've got something wrong or missed something important in my answer (or just state that this was in fact the reason for deletion)? Thanks in advance! Gestumblindi (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I said I closed that DR "as per Carl". Carl's argument was that the URAA remains valid despite the current litigation in the U.S. contesting its constitutionality. I'm not usually re-iterating the exact mechanisms behind the URAA, which you summarized correctly over at de-WP. I should add that while uploading things that are or might be copyrighted in the U.S. due to the URAA is discouraged, we do not in general delete such items. Instead we usually simply tag such items as {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} because nobody here wants to or has the guts to mass-delete all the files affected. (And the files that actually use this template are probably only a small fraction of all those that really might be concerned...) In this case, however, I also deleted those files as a courtesy to Dcoetzee, who had uploaded them, because the presence of these files just might get him into real trouble. He had uploaded them by mistake. We've now corrected that error. Lupo 06:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I paraphrased your additional comments at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#URAA and I hope that Concord's question is now fully answered :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nneka

Hi Lupo, I have uploaded this photo from Flickr. As far as I know, this file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0. and can therefore be used on Wikipedia. Can you confirm? I would appreciate your help with this.--Lara Janssen (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's rare that a first-time uploader lands on my talk page asking me a not-so-simple copyright question... you're not trying to set me up for god knows what, are you? ;-\ I think the photo is fine. The Flickr user has several more photos from that gig; I see no reason at all to doubt the photo is his. And as far as we know, photos from performances do not infringe the performers' neighbouring rights. The photographer may or may not have breached some house rules (probably not, a Canon 450D isn't exactly small—if photography had been forbidden, he'd have gotten in trouble right there, especially in what appears to be a small venue), but in any case photographers breaking house rules is none of our (the Commons') concern. And yes, the CC-BY-2.0 license is fine over here.

An automated program (a "bot") will inspect the file shortly, check the Flickr license, note the license as verified and will even upload the high-resolution version of the file.

HTH, Lupo 10:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How come you know that .ledi's real name is Andreas Lederer? Not doubting you—"ledi" as a diminutive of "lederer" seems to support that—but I don't see that info on this Flickr profile. Lupo 10:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Lupo, thank you very very much for your time and help. I found some information on the page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Blunt./flickr but I was not sure whether that method would be correct. I was a little surprised to find the name of Andreas Lederer and that happened coincidentally. I have only written a few articles for German and Russian wikipedia but unfortunately I don't have much experience with image uploading. Best regards --Lara Janssen (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chalcihuite - Javier Marín.JPG

Hello Lupo, can you please delete for me an image that is erroneously uploaded by User:CrazyPhunk as FOP is not applicable in the Netherlands for artworks that are not installed permanently. Thanks, --Gerardus (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chalcihuite - Javier Marín.JPG. Lupo 07:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Is there anything wrong with these 2 images. They look legitimate at first glance:

• File:Alberto Contador - Tour de France 2009.jpg
• File:Big Thunder Mountain Train at Disneyland.jpg

Secondly on this final photo:

• File:Shaklee Terraces San Francisco.jpg

It was uploaded by User:Solipsist who was an Admin from 12 August 2005 until 15 September 2007 when he was de-administered for lack of activity. Can the image be tagged with a 'flickr change of license' tag? Secondly, is it possible if you (as an Admin) could flickrpass it as an image of a 'trusted' former Admin? After all it was uploaded after this person became an Admin...so he should know the license. Or should the uploader only do this? Just curious.

As for the flickrowner, there is clear evidence that his photos were licensed freely in the past like this and this and this which are FlickrLickr but today he licenses his photos as ARR.

What is the right solution here? I don't see a reason why one should not trust Solipsist but don't know what to do. Any ideas? Its a bit similar to the 2 images by Mac9 but even though there are other photos from the flickrowner's account (July70/Kulie Kertesz), Mac9 was never an Admin or trusted user. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Leo, it doesn't matter much whether the uploader was an admin or a "trusted user". Even "normal" users may do things right :-) and even admins or trusted users may get things wrong. The question I ask myself in such cases is "do other uploads by that uploader check out fine?" If they do, I see no reason not to trust the initial uploader's comments that a certain file was CC-BY. If they don't, I see no reason to assume that they were right on that particular image. It's a judgement call; the reviewer needs to decide what to do. In any case, we can't just "pass" such images, but we can tag them as CC-BY, Flickr license changed, and leave the note that the image is currently licensed differently. Lupo 06:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Of course, if an image is unused, I prefer to err on the side of caution and to have the file deleted. Lupo 06:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for your reply. The image is in use. I will think about this image. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Circular 15 (25-year statutory protection) applies to foreign works?

Hi Lupo, my curiosity is perked by your remarks in Commons:Deletion requests/File:AbpCosmoLang.jpg. You said, "... copyrighted in the U.S. if it was published between 1978 and 2002 (inclusive) due to 17 USC 303(a)." It seems to me that Circular 38b (URAA) does not consider this for unpublished work before 1978 (only publication post- or pre-1 Jan 1978), and Hirtle does not seem to have include this interpretation into his chart at Cornell.[3] Might I ask your reasoning?

Side note: although I disagree with Yann's reasoning (PD-old) for closure of the deletion request, I think I would have withdrawn it eventually—the earliest "publication" I could find for this painting (thanks to your finding of its author) is that the Lambert Palace Library authorise reproduction on request in 2005.[4] Its earliest appearance on archbishopofcanterbury.org is 2009 as far as I can dig on web.archive.org. Furthermore, the painting is reproduced and sold by 1st-art-gallery,[5] although they might only be licensed to reproduce it...[6] Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning is simple: László died 1937, hence his works were copyrighted in the UK until the end of 2007. Hence they were copyrighted in the UK on 1996-01-01. Therefore, his works became copyrighted in the U.S. on that date, subject to the rules of the U.S. copyright law. The work was clearly created before 1978. If it was published before 1978, it got a U.S. copyright term of 95 years since publication; if first published 1978-2002, 17 USC 303a applies and the copyright term in the U.S. would extend until the end of 2047; and if it was first published 2003 or later, 70 years p.m.a. would apply also in the U.S. Lupo 21:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] These 5 images

Dear Lupo,

Do we take the Dutch National archives' word that this 1955 photo has no known copyright restrictions?

• File:Wout Wagtmans.jpg
• File:Wim van Est.jpg
• File:Adri Voorting.jpg
• File:Daan de Groot.jpg
• File:Gerrit Voorting.jpg

As an aside, does one pass or fail this 100 year old print with an unknown artist?

• File:Arthur Gould print.jpeg

These 6 images have been on the 'images needing human review' category for days now...but no one dares mark them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Updating the upload form

Hi Lupo. Is it possible to update the upload form so that the 'source' section is prefilled with autotranslating {{own}} instead of a 'hardcoded' string such as MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel/fr? Same question for section titles ({{int:filedesc}} and {{int:license}} instead of 'description' and 'licensing'). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the upload form can be configured to pre-fill with {{own}}. Any admin can do it. I had explained long ago at MediaWiki talk:UploadForm.js/Archive01#Own work by uploader how to do this. Note, however, that this {{int:}} trick that is used so extensively by all this autotranslation stuff is considered a bug by some. There's no guarantee this functionality will remain available. No, I cannot change the headings that get added when the user selects a license from the drop-down menu. These get added on the the server side, so you'd have to open a bug report for that. Lupo 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I passed these 2 images here:

• File:Robert Louis Stevenson 1885.jpg
• File:Madame curie 3334194920 e4014f35a4 o.jpg

In only the first was I able to verify that the author died more than 70 years ago. The second has no author. I reluctantly accept the National Archief's statement. But what about this?

• File:Amelia Earhart.jpg

There is no guarantee the author truly died in 1938 but the National Archief again says 'no known copyright restrictions.' These pictures really clog the "category needing human review" sadly and most reviewers are too scared to mark them. But if the author is unknown...what is one to do? Any ideas, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For Marie Curie, the Nationaal Archief's statement conflicts with Corbis' statement, though I'm inclined to believe the archive, as they have a larger version (shows more), whereas the Corbis version appears to be a crop.

The Amelia Earhart photo appears to have been taken at the same place and time as this photo: June 11, 1937 in a hangar at Parnamerim airfield, Natal, Brazil. The man entering the plane is her navigator, Fred Noonan. FOXNews/AP claim the date was June 18, 1937.[7] Getty doesn't know the photographer; they just give Topical Press Agency (existed from 1903 to 1957, archive then bought by Hulton) and "stringer" as the author. Whether our image was taken by the same agency/photographer is unknown; there probably was more than just one at Natal—Earhart's around-the-world flight was a big media event. In any case it's unlikely that the Dutch Nationaal Archief owns the rights to this image. Assuming this is a Brazilian work, it'd be PD according my reasoning at Template talk:PD-Brazil-media (which, I believe, is sound :-), but it'd also be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. If it's not a Brazilian work, things get complicated, and most likely the image would indeed still be copyrighted.

HTH, Lupo 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help

I saw you are familiar with the cat-a-lot funcion. Can you please read this and this and try to help? Thanks-a-lot :) --Sailko (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Ilmari Karonen already dealt with it. Anyway, I'm not really familiar with that script. Never used it, just made three minor fixes. Lupo 20:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ImageAnnotator Button.jpg

Hi Lupo. Can you reupload this screenshot as PNG? The compression artefacts make the JPG really ugly. :-) --Leyo 12:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Apparently, the JPG quality setting was wrong. I've re-uploaded the little screenshot in better quality. (Though not in PNG, I'm too lazy to change the use and then delete the JPG.) Lupo 20:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ImageNote code

[8] Is there any way to keep the code all together? (Ignore the fact that I was trying to mess it up ;) Rocket000 (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not easy, but doable. The problem in that case was that we have several scripts that just append stuff: HotCat simply appends the categories, and ImageAnnotator just appends its notes. Apparently people would prefer more structure, but that's hard to ensure in what is essentially freetext. I could try adding some cleanup attempts, for instance:

Before each save, do the following:

1. look for a line starting with "{{DEFAULTSORT", if found, store as "defaultsort" and temporarily remove it from the text.
2. collect all lines containing starting with "[[Category:" in a list "categories". Temporarily remove them from the text.
3. collect all notes in a list "notes". Temporarily remove them from the text.

   Now the text temporarily does not contain either categories nor notes.

4. sort the "notes" list by note ID
   1. if duplicate IDs are found, add a category "Images with erroneous annotations" to "categories"
5. Append the "notes" to the text
6. Append "defaultsort", if set, to the text
7. Append the "categories" to the text

Then save. Is that what you had in mind? Lupo 06:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, did you manage to mess it up? Lupo 06:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking you could just search for the last ImageNoteEnd and append directly below that. I figured it would be too hard to deal with everything else (categories, interwikis, other templates, who knows what), but if you could cleanup the page, that would be awesome.

I haven't found a way to trip it up yet, but I'm sure I'll keep trying if I think of things. Using {{((}} I prevented it from closing my brackets, so there's a start. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re cleanup: you're right, something like

{{SomeTemplate|
[[Category:Foo]]
}}

would make the above simple idea fail (as it's impossible to know what "SomeTemplate" might do with the parameter, maybe it might be removed, maybe not). So indeed just inserting after the last already existing note would be better. Lupo 07:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:messing up: yes, substed templates containing unclosed or wrongly nested XHTML or wikitext can mess up any page, and there is nothing I can do about it. That may or may not break the display of notes, which may disappear (consider a substed template just containing "<nowiki>") or suddenly contain funny things (consider a substed template containing an unclosed <div>). The fix in such cases is just to undo the offending edit :-) Lupo 07:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And of course you can break it by including {{ImageNote}} or {{ImageNoteEnd}} in the note itself. Hmmm. Maybe I have to add a check for this case. Lupo 08:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Done, see MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js#Three (minor) changes. To get these changes, don't forget to reload your browser's cache. Lupo 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Just curious

Does this DR make sense? I find it strange to be on Commons for 4 months. Can there be personality rights in a public place? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've commented there. Four months is nothing usual, BTW. We do have a backlog of DR's ready to be closed. Lupo 06:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for the reply on the DR. Its appreciated. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

		The Commons Barnstar
		This is for making the excellent ImageAnnotator. Thanks for all your hard work, dedication, and tireless effort to make Commons even better. You truly are an asset to the project. Rocket000 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Lupo 06:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:The Carson City Kid

Sorry, but {{PD-URAA}} is not an applicable license for a U.S. work. Please re-tag the images as {{PD-US-not renewed}} and remove the PD-URAA tag from these files. Lupo 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for saying Liorek (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The same applies of course also to other files, e.g. File:Donald Kirke in Oh, Susanna!.jpg. Please go through all your uploads and correct that. Lupo 06:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done as well. Could you please help my figure out what license tag suits for File:Roy Rogers Comic 006.jpg ? Thanks Liorek (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Other ways to annotate?

Hi Lupo,

I have started using the image annotator as a reviewer at COM:FPC to pinpoint problems in images, for instance stitch errors in panoramas, as this is a very convenient method where you do not have to upload a new derivative work indicating the problems with red circles and so on. Also the annotations can simply be removed when (if) the problems are solved with a new revision of the image being uploaded. Examples:

• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:California Sea Lions at Pier 39 August 7 2009.jpg
  • Annotations on File:California Sea Lions at Pier 39 August 7 2009.jpg
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista panorámica de Peñíscola desde el castillo.jpg
  • Annotations on File:Vista panorámica de Peñíscola desde el castillo.jpg

However, there are two things with this process which I do not particularly fancy:

1. Other reviewers have to go the the file page to see the problem areas being pointed out
2. Putting critical annotations on the file page of an otherwise very fine image may feel a little intruding for the file creator and it also gives visitors to the file page seeing the annotations an immediate bad impression, where the details being pointed out at FPC is generally nitpicking at details, which 95% of other users do not care about.

Therefore it would be better if such problem areas could be pinpointed locally on an FPC nomination page, where the image is also always rendered. A poor mans version is {{PictureComment}}, which allows to mark one area as a rectangle, but it is really tedious to set up (and actually I cannot get it to work for some cases). If we had the user interface of the imageannotator available it would be much more useful.

Can you see any way, the image annotator code could be utilized in a "local FPC comment" context? Such a local annotator could also be useful at COM:QIC, COM:VIC and Commons:Photography critiques--Slaunger (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. It was surprisingly easy to implement that; it already works with my development copy of the script. I'll test this a bit more, and if it works in all browsers (I'm not expecting otherwise, but better safe than sorry), I'll update the public script so that this is enabled. Note that I'll also have to make some minor change to {{FPCnom/Basic}}. Might take a day or two, though, I'm a bit short on time right now. In any case, unless there are problems, I'll incorporate that feature before globally enabling ImageAnnotator. Lupo 08:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I should probably tell the FPC folks what I am discussion with you in case there are any objections or further input. --Slaunger (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the FPC folks on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Interactive picture annotation tool for marking problem areas. One thing I came to think of while writing the post: Will it be a requirement that users have the gadget enabled to use it on FPC nom pages, or is it sufficient to have JavaScript enabled? --Slaunger (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if we will enable the gadget globally for anyone by default. People will not have to enable it in any way; it will be "on" for everyone by default. There will be no gadget to turn it "on". There will be, however, a gadget to turn it "off" explicitly, just in case that some people encounter problems that we cannot resolve.

Hence it's sufficient to have JavaScript enabled in the browser. Lupo 10:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! That's what I wanted to hear! --Slaunger (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Back to the original suggestion: that's done now and tested successfully on all the browsers I have at my disposition. Of course, it turned out to be a bit more difficult to do right. While making it work on nomination subpages was a snap, you'd also want to see the notes on COM:FPC, and getting that right needed a major refactoring of a part of the code. The previous code was able only to diplay notes on one image on a page, but not on several images. Anyway, that works now. For editing notes, you'd still have to go to the individual nomination subpages. I'll update the script tomorrow morning and will then enable it globally. (Tomorrow morning, because then I'll be more or less around if there should be any problems.) Lupo 20:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That is great news. Thank you for your time working on this, it is greatly appreciated. --Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

What is Commons policies for propaganda mapslike this DR? Would you care to make a comment or vote in the DR. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chaldej mal wieder...

Könntest du mal bitte hier vorbeigucken? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Was ist da das Problem? Anscheinend wird das Bild als "fair use" in der ru-WP verwendet. (Mittlerweile wurde es auch schon verkleinert.) Lupo 11:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ich wußte nicht, daß sie dort fair use zulassen...--Ralf Roletschek (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DR archiver trouble

Hey Lupo, when you have time can you see why User:Lupo/da.js isn't working for Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03? Obviously it doesn't (and shouldn't) work for the first section, but the archive links don't show up until the March 20 section and below. When you try archiving one, it goes "working..." then "removing..." and then there's a pop up saying "Nothing to archive!". No edits are made. That same popup I sometimes get on other pages, yet in those cases it actually does make the edits. Rocket000 (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The wikitext is completely borked on Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03. A monthly page should just transclude the daily listings, as on Commons:Deletion requests/2009/04, but the March listing somehow ended up transcluding most DRs directly (and some daily listings, too). Try visiting the daily listings individually and archiving there, and archive any remaining ones manually. Lupo 09:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Nevermind then. Rocket000 (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki talk:ImageAnnotatorTexts

Hi. I contacted Ianezz on his it.wiki talk page. Thank you--Trixt (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Dear Lupo,

Could you or another Admin mark this photo:

• File:Stone_well.jpg

I ordered the review and am not comfortable marking it. The flickr owner agreed to relicense it as cc by sa. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel unconfortable about passing this yourself? It's marked cc-by-sa-2.0 at Flickr, is available at the same size there, no reason to suspect flickrwashing, and the Flickr user name and the Commons user name of the uploader are the same (though not a confirmation of anything, it makes it plausible that the two accounts belong to the same person). I don't see any problem with this. Lupo 06:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes...the flickr owner did complain to me about why no one used commonsense and assumed that the uploader was the photographer just 35 minutes ago on flickr. (just after he changed the license) However...I remember one serious case where someone here pretended to be a certain professional photographer and downloaded a whole bunch of images by the real photographer. Someone asked an Admin, I think, if the uploader was truly the photographer and the Admin found an E-mail address for the real photographer from his web site. He sent a message and received a reply from the real photographer saying he never uploaded these images on Wikimedia Commons. The result was the impersonator's account got banned indefinitely and all his images deleted here. But I did not understand why the real photographer did not see this in the first place? This was a very serious case and I guess I wanted to be super cautious. As captain tucker once told me on his talkpage, he cannot believe the amount of stuff that people claim was "their work" and so maybe its better to be safe than sorry. My apologies for the inconvenience. Next time I will mark the photo myself. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  Right, name match is no proof, and if there are doubts, asking the Flickr user about it is the right way to go. But here, the image license at Flickr has been set to cc-by-sa-2.0, so there's not really a problem. (Except for the additional GFDL-now-multilicense-with-cc-by-sa-3.0 multilicense, but that's really, really a minor issue.) Lupo 06:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian (mk) translation of ImageAnnotator)

Hello Lupo. Could you have a look at my much troubled Macedonian translation at MediaWiki talk:ImageAnnotatorTexts? I found it hard to understand what exactly is required, so at the end I did my best by using the previous translator's method. Can you have a look there and see if everything is allright and as required, or there is something else to be done or corrected. NB: It seems that two lines in my translation shifted into the line below, while it didn't happen in the previous translator's text. Is everything allright there or? --B. Jankuloski (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh I see it's all fine at your edit description. Thanks for that. By the way, when will this translation actually appear in the ImageAnnotator interface? --B. Jankuloski (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Slight correction

Thanks for implementing it, it looks wonderful! There is something however, I noticed mistakes in two places in my translation. I would much appreciate if you can update the contents of these two messages with the corrected content that I am writing here beside them:

• MediaWiki:ImageAnnotatorDrawRectangleMsg/mk - updated ---> Нацртајте квадрат на сликата (притиснете го левото копче на глувчето, потоа повлечете и пуштете го).
• MediaWiki:ImageAnnotatorHelp/mk - updated ---> [[Image:Gtk-dialog-question.svg|16px|Помош за прибелешки на слики|link=Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator]]

Can you also tell me when you've done this? (so that I know that it's finally ok and I can tell the users at mk.wiki to have a look) Thanks a lot! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! Much appreciated. As I said, in intended to advertise the fact about this new tagging on mk.wiki, but it seems better to announce in as a notce up on the header (top of mk. wiki). I don't know how to do that... --B. Jankuloski (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello Lupo. This wasn't quite clear to me, so I thought I ask. Is this image annotation going to be personal for one's own account only, or every annotation that each user does will be shown for everyone? --B. Jankuloski (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you've decided on this one, but it seems to me that it will create such a fuss on pictures. Maybe I'm not right, but I'm sure that I'm not the first one to make this comment. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean fuss because of the tags and squares on pictures. I meant a visual and functional "fuss" or distraction, rather. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] QuickDelete trägt Dateien nicht mehr auf Log und Uploader-Talk ein

Hallo Lupo, seit einiger Zeit funktioniert bei mir manchmal das Eintragen eines Löschantrags auf den DR-Log (also COM:DR/YYYY/MM/DD) und das Eintragen der Warnung auf der Diskussion des Uploaders nicht mehr. Hast du eine Ahnung, woran das liegt? Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hat sich schon erledigt. Hatte Firefox neu installiert und vergessen, eine Popup-Ausnahme für wikimedia.org einzutragen (d'oh!). Sorry für die Störung. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ImageAnnotator

is awesome! Great work!

		The Commons Barnstar
		For work on ImageAnnotator, I award Lupo The Commons Barnstar. --ragesoss (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Lupo 23:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Upload form thread

FYI... COM:AN#Upload stupidities. Wknight94 ^talk 09:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this in a few days. Maybe the upload script indeed should to consider this possibility. Even if Adam's way of doing things is rather non-standard... Lupo 11:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This DR

Can this DR be closed especially since I withdrew my nomination given MGA73's clear evidence. I'm surprised no one has acted. Thank You,--Leoboudv (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] upload form bug

He lupo I believe you worked on most of this JS. On this upload form I have two "categories" sections when I use Safari 4. Could you look into that ? TheDJ (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done I think it's fixed now. Don't know why HotCat didn't use this type of double-inclusion protection, which I use successfully in other scripts. The problem was that HotCat got loaded twice, once as a gadget, and once through importScript from within the upload form script. The first load initialized and apparently ran on Safari. Then the second load came along, overwriting everything and running again. On other browsers, it appears that either only one of the two load hooks was executed, or both, but only after the second load had overwritten things, in which case the hotcat_loaded flag prevented mischief. Lupo 13:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Skriptfehler

Hallo Lupo. Es ist tatsächlich so, dass für viele IE Benutzer kein einziges Skript auf Commons läuft. Ich beobachte es bei den neusten Uploads: Es ist möglich Bilder ohne Lizenz und Text im normalen Uploadform hochzuladen, eine Prüfung ob eine Lizenz eingegeben oder eine Quelle angegeben ist findet nicht statt. Ich habe es unter File:TEST1.jpg mit dem zweiten Upload selber ausprobiert nachdem ich mich über die vielen Uploads neuer Benutzer "ohne alles" gewundert habe. Ich kann den Fehler mit dem Kompatibilitätsmodus des IE8 simulieren, es beschweren sich aber auch IE6 und IE7 Benutzer im VP. --Martin H. (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC) p.s.: Ich bin ja nunmal recht aktiv hier, daher kann ich die Zeit des Auftretens genau eingrenzen. Es muss am Do zwischen 13 und 16 Urh gewesen sein 11-14 UTC), dazwischen war ich draussen. Ilmaris edit war der einzig passende. --Martin H. (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ist korrigiert. Browser-Cache neu laden (evtl. vorher explizit leeren, im Menu "Internet Options→Delete temporary files"), dann sollte es wieder gehen. Das Problem war ein Komma am falschen Ort, das Ilmari aus Versehen eingebaut hatte (ist in diesem Edit). Er hat dieses Problem nicht bemerkt, weil andere Browser diesbezüglich etwas "kulanter" sind und ein solches Extra-Komma akzeptieren. IE8 ebenfalls, aber halt nicht im "Compatibility"-Modus, und ältere IEs auch nicht. Lupo 06:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Super, danke vielmals. Im Kompatibilitätsmodus ist bei mir wieder alles ok. Danke für die schnelle Behebung. --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FOP

Should this image be deleted. Martin H. was unsure about it and I think I should ask you before the rename goes through. Its a modern building in Kazakhstan. I don't think FOP applies to any of the former Soviet states. Do you agree or are there exceptions beyond DeMinimis? De Minimis can't apply here.

• File:P8250027.JPG

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this has to be deleted. It's a shame, but Kazakh copyright law allows only non-commercial use of such photos; for commercial uses, one would need the consent of the architect (or whoever owns the copyright on that building). Lupo 06:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• That was what I suspected too but I wasn't sure. It seems only some Admins are fully knowledgeable of FOP. Others tell me it is not their are of expertise. Anyway, I will file a standard DR request. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Lupo, can you please start a deletion procedure against 4 images uploaded in category:Mauro Staccioli. The 2 images in Germany are FOP, the other 4 are not (Italy, Belgium). Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not answering my request?? It is a serious copyright violation or not??? Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I have other things to do. Why don't you file DRs yourself? Lupo 08:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I think I am not capable to do so, that's why I ask others and you are, in my view, an expert in FOP questions. You could have answered my question and did not because you are annoyed. Well, perhaps you are right! Still I repeat my request. Anyhow, thank you for your time. Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed, but I really have other things to do. When I have some time and don't forget, I'll look at this. Feel free to file DR's yourself, the discussion will then determine whether the files may stay or have to go. Lupo 09:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Uploadform.js

It looks interesting, but what is Uploadform.js? I could not find a description page for it. Thanks! Nasa-verve (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the Javascript to turn the standard upload form into a form having separate input fields for the various fields of a {{information}} template. Upon submit it automatically constructs such a template from the inputs and sends that to the server together with the upload. Other features include a preview of the image page before actually uploading, and a built in help system with fully localizable help texts. Lupo 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: it is activated automatically for all users here at the commons (though there are ways to switch it off). Lupo 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S.: documentation is linked at the top of MediaWiki talk:UploadForm.js... Lupo 20:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Upload form preferences

I'm confused why there's three different options in my preferences for the upload form. We have a gadget (the first one listed) and the two at the bottom of the Editing tab. The latter are labeled "Use new upload form logic" and "Use new form layout", which isn't really clear what they do or why you would want one and not the other. "Use new form layout" doesn't even mention it's related to the upload form (an option regarding gallery widths comes next so it can't be implied it's still talking about the upload form).

I lack the technical ability, but I would love to move some of the "gadgets", that aren't really gadgets at all, to their logical place in the rest of the preferences interface. It's also kinda backwards in that six of them are to disable things to make things the way they are by default (MediaWiki default anyway). Rocket000 (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

About the upload form gadget and the two options in the "editing" part of the preferences, please ask User:Dschwen. I only wrote MediaWiki:UploadForm.js and enabled it. IIRC, it was Dschwen who then added various means to switch it off partly because of complaints of power users.

About the "disable" gadgets: I don't like that either. But there is no way we can switch on a gadget for all logged-in users, let alone all users (including IPs). So, anything that we want to enable for anyone (like ImageAnnotator, or the upload form stuff) is included in MediaWiki:Common.js, and we need to add "disable" gadgets so that at least logged-in users have a chance to switch the feature off if it causes problems for them.

Lupo 18:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How easy would it be to move some "gadgets" to the other tabs? The whole preferences interface has become quite messy. Things aren't where you would logically think to look for them (well maybe to us Commons regulars since we're used to it). The following is what I would do if I could:

Sharing this with you in case you ever have any desire to cleanup the interface or maybe point me in the right direction so I can figure out how to do it. Or let me know you're aware of some great difficulty in doing these seemingly easy tasks. If you're too busy with other things like ImageAnnotator, don't worry about it. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-ordering the gadgets and introducting new sections is easy, just edit MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. Moving the "use upload form logic" and "use new form layout" checkboxes to the "Misc" tab could probably be done by setting in MediaWiki:Common.js the tab number from 3 to 7. Moving the custom Ajax suggestion box width up on the search tab is probably not possibly without major code changes in the JSconfig stuff (written by Dschwen). Ask User:Dschwen about the last two; he's in charge of JSconfig. Lupo 06:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This DR

Please feel free to give a vote to keep or delete in this DR here...as a respected Admin. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: As an aside, I tried 2 or 3 times to transfer this image to Commons with my TUSC account with no success. (the image does not show up on Commons) Would you like to try transferring it here by yourself--its a very high resolution and first rate image. Commons certainly needs more of these images of mummy masks. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Lupo, Is the 'movetocommons' bot malfunctioning right now? I moved this image here to Commons and yet the image does not appear on WikiCommons. There is even a link to the non-existent Commons picture. Please give a reply on the problem. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, it appears it's not working well right now. Discussion (in German) at Commons:Forum#UploadBot defekt?. Lupo 09:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, I don't know German. Do the the participants propose a solution such as using the tool server bot instead or is the system for transferring images just not working at present? Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help on ignored undeletion Request

Hi Lupo, I am writing you again with regards to the undeletion request you had suggested I do (and subsequently updated you about it). Unfortunately, the request has been sitting there for over a month, untouched (I'm not sure how long these requests are usually fulfilled). What's worse, the page itself was deleted because it had no media (the very media I'm trying to get undeleted). Given that this was a deletion that caused by a simple mistake, I would've thought this would've been taken care of right away. Anyhow, I could really use your help in finding the right people to get this issue quickly resolved. I'm also going to leave a comment on Tryphon's talk page. Thanks! --Stux (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki_talk:Edittools.js#Changing_default_subset

Hi Lupo,

I'm handling the editprotected category once in a week and the above request is there now for a few months, I don't feel secure to edit this page because I don't know what will happen and I don't want to break Commons and get in a fight with Brion and Tim Starling :)

Could you take a look at the request and see if it needs to be done so the category is empty again?

Best regards, Huib talk 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain in the ass but could you take a look on this request also, I don't really understand what he wants and German is your native language. Huib talk 09:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Both  Done. Lupo 06:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I've left some comments at the discussion... (just for the case you're not watching it...)

Have a nice week! =D Heldergeovane (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Now that it is working, I don't understand why this code works, because at the source code of this page we have the user script being loaded after the main Common.js script:

<script src="/w/index.php?title=-&amp;action=raw&amp;smaxage=0&amp;gen=js&amp;useskin=vector&amp;urid=239az2"></script>
<script src="/w/index.php?title=User:Heldergeovane/vector.js&amp;action=raw&amp;ctype=text/javascript&amp;urid=239az2"></script>

So, the value variable shouldn't be available for the EditTools script when it checks its existence... Do you know what I am misunderstanding?

By the way, I have another suggestion at MediaWiki_talk:Edittools.js#Changing_default_subset. Heldergeovane (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please link images

BotMultichillT 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:GalleryDetails TableView.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:GalleryDetails PopupView.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:GalleryDetails PopupView2.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:GalleryDetails Link.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

[edit] Shizhao's image

Dear Lupo,

Would you like to type a flickr pass in this DR for Shizhao and close the DR as well as clean up the image description. Its a real mess here Maybe he doesn't know how to do this...and I don't know how to fix the corrupted info template. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] E. Bieber

Hi Lupo, hab gerade gesehen, dass Du die Fotos vom Studio "E. Bieber" freigegeben hast http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:E._Bieber . Gilt das tatsächlich bis 1938? Gruss Mutter Erde 92.229.116.55 22:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nö, das gilt natürlich nur für Bilder, bei denen wir davon ausgehen können, dass sie nicht von Emil Bieber (1878-1962) stammen, d.h. Bilder, die vor 1902 gemacht wurden. Oder vor 1897, wenn Du ganz sicher sein möchtest. Lupo 09:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem mit dem Kategorisieren im Upload-Formular

Hallo, Wir suchen unter Commons_talk:Upload#Category-bug_in_upload_form einen Techniker, der sich dem seit Wochen bestehenden Problem annehmen könnte, dass im Upload-Formular zwar Kategorien eingetragen werden können, sich diese dann aber nicht im hochgeladenen Bild wiederfinden. Im Commons:Forum wurde gesagt, du würdest dich vielleicht damit auskennen. Sag mal bitte bescheidt, wenn du wieder da bist, ob du das Problem reproduzieren kannst. --Kolossos (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ich schau's mir diese Tage 'mal an. Lupo 09:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Das Problem gibt es scheinbar immer noch: User_talk:Multichill#Upload-probleempje --Kolossos (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Das Problem besteht immer noch, habs grad (mal wieder) ausprobiert. Normalerweise lade ich ja mit dem Commonist hoch, aber in letzter Zeit testweise mehrmals per Uploadformular. Irgendwas im Zusammenspiel zwischen Hotcat und Uploadformular ist da faul, denn beides geht ja ansonsten. Lad doch probehalber selbst mal was hoch und schau, obs da klappt, oder lass uns wissen, wie wir behilflich sein können, um das Problem einzugrenzen. Gruß, --X-Weinzar (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ich hatte schon 'mal auf Commons_talk:Upload#Category-bug_in_upload_form um weitere Informationen gebeten, da ich das Problem bis anhin nicht reproduzieren konnte, aber keine erhalten... habe mich nun halt ohne weitere Hinweise dahintergeklemmt und habe tatsächlich etwas gefunden. Das Problem sollte nur aufgetreten sein, wenn die Vorschau-Funktion verwendet wurde, und auch dann nur, wenn die Vorschau oberhalb des Hochladeformulars angezeigt wurde (und nicht, wie auf diesem Konto, in einem Popup). In diesem Fall, den ich nun endlich mit meinem Testkonto User:Lupo Test reproduzieren konnte, wurde HotCat durch den am 18. September 2009 in der Vorschau eingebauten Kategorien-Balken irregeführt, und die Kategorien gingen verloren. Wenn die Vorschau nicht verwendet wurde oder in einem Popup dargestellt wurde, klappte alles bestens.

 Done Jedenfalls ist dieses Problem nun behoben. Wenn Du auf dem Hochladeformular Deinen Browser-Cache neu lädst, sollten danach Kategorien nicht mehr verlorengehen. (Aber das musst Du unbedingt auf der Special:Upload-Seite machen. Anderswo wird das Upload-Skript gar nicht geladen, und ein Cache-Refresh würde Dir die Korrektur nicht aktivieren!) Falls das Problem doch noch weiterhin auftritt, bitte melden und mir mitteilen, welchen Browser, welche Skin, welches Formular verwendet wurde und was genau gemacht wurde: Vorschau verwendet? "Warnungen ignorieren" eingeschaltet oder nicht? Lupo 22:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ja hat bei mir jetzt funktioniert. --Kolossos (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ja, es funktioniert wieder. Bin sehr erleichtert. :-) --Paulae (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Tooltip.js on french wikipedia

Hello,

Just to let you know that the gadget that uses the Tooltip.js on french wikipedia loads the script from a permanent link, that is you can change anything you want on your script without any risk. .:DS (shhht...):. 17:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

He, cool. Thanks for telling me! (I forgot the name of your tool, so I didn't dare change a lot, since I couldn't check if I might break something.) Lupo 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SEAT Logo deletion in 2007

Hello, can you tell me why you´ve deleted the file SEAT.svg in the Spanish WP Commons, in 2007, and you have not deleted the same file in English WPCand in Greck WPC ? ..can you restore it, please? I need it, for insert in the SEAT article in Spanish WP. Thanks you ..Bielasko (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

fair use is not allowed at the commons, but it is allowed at the English Wikipedia, and apparently also at the Greek Wikipedia. Lupo 12:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Annotator feature request

Hi, I was wondering what you thought of this request Help_talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Choice_of_Note-sets. -- User:Docu at 13:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I had completely overlooked that one. Hmmm. What would be a convenient user interface to select a "layer" (or "note set")? How would one create a new layer? How could one best select multiple layers for display? Or select all but one? Should everyone have the ability to create a layer? That's the stuff I'll have to think about before I could commit to this. I'll put it onto the to-do list so it doesn't get lost again. Lupo 14:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The style attribute could be used for that. Sometimes fully detailed notes aren't desirable. It seems to trouble some of the elders ;). At Commons, a tab on the file description page would be an easy way to select them. At WP, it would probably be in the template that is used for the annotations in articles. BTW, is there one where the new feature is already active or will we have to wait until some live experience here is gained? -- User:Docu at 14:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the style parameter of {{ImageNote}} could be used to store the layer. Unless people would want to associate additional information with each layer, such as a caption. But the tricky part would be the user interface, not so much the storage.

I have my own test page at User:Lupo/FPCtest for all the "display notes on images in articles" stuff. Other than that, I guess these new features will be used only slowly here at the commons. We don't have that many thumbnail uses (galleries are excluded anyway from this feature).

If no major problem crop up in the next two to three weeks, I'll contact someone at de.wikiversity who had expressed interest in this feature. If they're still interested, that smaller project might serve as a test bed before this gets deployed at larger wikis.

Lupo 14:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's see how it develops. The input part to define the applicable layer could be a checkbox on the edit field. BTW I was puzzled why there were no notes on Barcelona#Panoramas, while the image at the top of the page displays them (yes, thumbs, but not galleries). -- User:Docu at 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Lupo, schaust Du mal bitte zu diesem Thema dort vorbei. Gruß --Asio 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gemeinfreie Schweizer Fotos in Deutschland

Hallo Lupo; ich habe in den Urheberrechtsfragen der deutschen Wikipedia eine Frage gestellt (Beitrag von 20:58, 27. Okt. 2009 CET), die sich auf die urheberrechtliche Situation von Fotografien von Schweizer Urhebern in Deutschland (und anderen Staaten der EU) bezieht, welche in der Schweiz aus anderen Gründen als dem Ablauf der Schutzfrist gemeinfrei sind (namentlich Gemeinfreiheit mangels Schöpfungshöhe nach der "Meili"-Entscheidung des Bundesgerichts). Historiograf hat in diesem Zusammenhang den Schutzfristenvergleich ins Spiel gebracht, allerdings weiss ich nicht, ob dieser in einem solchen Fall zur Anwendung kommt. Näheres im erwähnten Beitrag drüben in der deutschen Wikipedia - vielleicht kannst du dort etwas dazu schreiben? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nochmal hallo und ich bitte um Entschuldigung für die Aufdringlichkeit; zwar hatte sich Historiograf inzwischen im entsprechenden Abschnitt nochmal geäussert (nun im Archiv), aber die Frage ist wieder aufgekommen. Gerade weil meiner Erinnerung nach du und Historiograf in der Vergangenheit in urheberrechtlichen Fragen auch schon recht unterschiedliche Auffassungen vertratet, würde mich deine Einschätzung als weitere Stimme hier doch sehr interessieren... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ich weiss doch auch nicht, ob ein Schutzfristenvergleich zur Anwendung kommt oder nicht. Schliesslich geht dieser Schutzfristenvergleich davon aus, dass es überhaupt Fristen gibt, die zu vergleichen wären. Im vorliegenden Fall jedoch gibt es im Ursprungsland gar keine solche Frist, da das Foto dort gar nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt ist. Die Berner Übereinkunft sagt diesbezüglich in Artikel 5, Absatz 2, dass der Urheberrechtsschutz in einem anderen Land unabhängig von jenem im Ursprungsland ist und einzig auf den Gesetzen des Landes beruht, in welchem der Schutz beansprucht wird. Es heist auch noch "apart from the provisions of this Convention"; ob bei diesen Bestimmungen der Konvention nun auch der Schutzfristenvergleich in Artikel 7, Absatz 8 angewendet würde, weiss ich nicht, denn wie gesagt, es gibt ja keine Fristen zu vergleichen. Die Berner Übereinkunft sagt leider nirgends klipp und klar, ob Werke, die im Ursprungsland gar nicht geschützt sind, auch in Drittländern gemeinfrei sind. Wenn der Schutzfristenvergleich zur Anwedung kommt, dann ist das Foto wohl auch in der EU gemeinfrei, auch wenn das der Inländerbehandlung, die ja sonst von der RBÜ vorgeschrieben wird, widerspricht. Andernfalls aber würde das Bild rein nach deutschem Recht evaluiert, und dabei käme wohl mindestens ein Schutz als Lichtbild zur Anwendung.

Eine weitere Komplikation ist, dass ich nicht weiss, ob es nicht irgendwo bilaterale Verträge der Schweiz mit Deutschland gibt, die diese Frage regeln. Mir ist zwar keiner bekannt, aber es gibt schliesslich eine Unzahl solcher Verträge zwischen der Schweiz und EU-Staaten, und auch alte Verträge können durchaus noch gültig sein. Wäre 'mal abzuklären...

Auch in den USA ist der Status dieses Bildes unklar. In en:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. kam ein Gericht in den USA zum Schluss, dass für die Bestimmung der Schutzfrist zwar alleine US-Recht gelte, jedoch für die Beantwortung der Frage, wer denn überhaupt der Inhaber der Copyrights ist, ausländisches Recht anzuwenden sei. Nach Schweizer Recht jedoch hat niemand ein Urheberrecht/Copyright an diesem Bild. Somit wäre auch niemand überhaupt klageberechtigt, um eine US-Schutzfrist auf diesem Foto in den USA zu beanspruchen. Hingegen ist es bei weitem nicht klar, ob ein US-Gericht im Fall dieses Fotos tatsächlich so argumentieren würde, denn nach US-Recht wäre die Fotografin ja wohl klar die Inhaberin des Copyrights. Hätte sie also nicht dummerweise in der Schweiz geklagt, sondern in den USA (oder in Deutschland oder, da der Kontrahent die BBC war, in England) wäre sie dort wohl unzweifelhaft als Inhaberin der Urheberrechte anerkannt gewesen und hätte meines Erachtens wohl auch bessere Chancen gehabt, die Schutzfrist durchzusetzen.

Fazit: ich weiss auch nicht, wie mit dem Foto zu verfahren wäre. Es scheint eine Grauzone zu sein. Lupo 23:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank! Mir scheint, dass es aufgrund dieser Ungewissheit problematisch sein könnte, irgendwelche "simplen" Fotos von Schweizer Urhebern unter Berufung auf diesen BGE in der deutschen Wikipedia hochzuladen (auf Commons würden sie ja wohl eh nicht akzeptiert?). Auch darum, weil es im Einzelfall schwer abzuschätzen sein kann, ob ein Schweizer Gericht nun nicht doch eine individuell geprägte Wahl des Bildausschnitts o.ä. sehen würde. Für den Fall, dass das trotzdem jemand machen möchte, habe ich in der dortigen Diskussion mal einen Baustein vorgeschlagen. Das Meili-Bild ist insofern ein Sonderfall, als der nicht bestehende urheberrechtliche Schutz für genau dieses Bild in der Schweiz ja ganz sicher ist, aber aufgrund der gewissen Schwammigkeit der Begriffe scheint es mir etwas schwierig, sich für andere Bilder auf die Entscheidung zu stützen. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Einverstanden. Die Meili-Entscheidung ist in der Schweiz selbst ja auch umstritten. Diese Entscheidung per Analogieschluss nun auf andere Bilder auszuweiten dürfte ein Spiel mit dem Feuer werden. Da ist Vorsicht angebracht, auch weil die Kriterien ja ziemlich unklar sind, denn es gibt ja auch die "Bob Marley"-Entscheidung, in welcher andersherum argumentiert wurde... ich hatte dazu hier schon einmal etwas geschrieben. Ob das dort erwähnte Kriterium in der Praxis brauchbar wäre, weiss ich aber auch nicht; es könnte letzlich auch auf Konfrontation mit Nachrichtenagenturen hinauslaufen. (Es stammt übrigens nicht von mir sondern, soweit ich mich erinnere, von Sandstein, aber ich finde gerade keinen Link, der dies belegen würde.) Siehe des Weiteren auch en:Talk:Swiss copyright law#The Meili image, wo ich schon 2006 die Meinung vertrat, dieses Bild sei ausserhalb der Schweiz geschützt. Mittlerweile tendiere ich eher zu "geschützt sein könnte" (siehe oben), wegen der Formulierung "apart from the provisions of this Convention" in §5(2) der RBÜ. Ohne diese Formulierung wäre es ganz klar, dass Dinge, die im Ursprungsland gar nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt sind anderswo durchaus geschützt sein können. Lupo 07:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Damit ich das alles endlich 'mal an einem Ort beisammen habe: ob die obenerwähnte Itar-Tass v. Russian Kurier-Argumentation in den USA tatsächlich gültig wäre (work uncopyrightable in source country → no copyight owner → nobody who has standing to sue → de-facto PD in the U.S.) ist fraglich. In Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc. (780 F.2d 189 (2d Cir 1985)) kam das Gericht zum Schluss, dass im Ursprungsland nicht urheberrechtlich schützbare Spielwaren in den USA durchaus ein Copyright hatten. Vgl. en:Rule of the shorter term. Da der Fall "pre-Berne" (für die USA) war, meint en:William F. Patry, das sei eine falsche Entscheidung gewesen. Er erwähnt aber auch, dass nach den Regeln der RBÜ die USA per Artikel 5(2) tatsächlich dazu verpflichtet seien, auch im Ursprungsland nicht schützbare Werke in den USA zu schützen (sofern sie die US-Regeln erfüllen, natürlich). Siehe hier, Abschnitt III.B.1, und Fussnote 73. Lupo 00:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sowas schon mal gesehen?

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung&oldid=66358580#Benutzer:Johnny_Controletti_.28erl..29 Diskussionsseite zum "neuen"Artikel nicht vergessen :-). de:Friedhof Dahlem übrigens die gleiche Sauerei. Leider kann ich zur Zeit keinen SLA mehr stellen.

• So sieht das dann aus: de:Kirchhof_der_Evangelischen_Kirchengemeinde_Dahlem_und_Friedhof_Dahlem-Dorf. Mutter Erde 78.55.151.117 12:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Liebe Mutter Erde, wenn Du einfach 'mal die Devise "Assume Good Faith" beherzigen würdest, könntest Du Dir einiges an Aufregung ersparen. Soweit ich sehe, ist die Versionsgeschichte inzwischen ordentlich zusammengeführt. Einen SLA wegen dieses Problems zu stellen ist wohl kaum das probate Mittel, um dieses Ergebnis zu erlangen. Gibt's denn nicht irgendwo auf de-Wp eine Seite, wo man ganz einfach und ohne "Vandale" zu schreien einen Admin auf das Problem aufmerksam machen kann, auf dass dieser dieses dann behebe? Lupo 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Nö, wüsste jetzt nicht. Vielleicht auf Deiner? :-). Wie Du ja siehst ist meine aktuelle IP auf de gesperrt. Das hat man dann davon, wenn man auf sowas hinweist. Kümmert mich aber nicht wirklich. Am 5. Nov. ist die große Autorenkonferenz. ME ist auch dabei, aber unten auf der Eisenacher. Da werden wir doch mal Tacheles reden über diverse wp-Sauställe. Gruss Mutter Erde 78.55.151.117 16:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Probier's 'mal da (wenn Du denn wieder eine neue IP hast): de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen. Zumindest wird diese Seite auf de:Hilfe:Artikel zusammenführen als Anlaufstelle für solche Fälle angegeben. Übrigens nützt es herzlich wenig, wenn Du mit solchen Problemen zu mir kommst: ich bin auf de-WP kein Admin und kann somit auch nichts unternehmen. Lupo 16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Danke, aber ich lass das erstmal bis nach dem 6. Die fehlende Versionsgeschichte von Friedhof Dahlem, pardon die Disk-Version :-), ist naürlich genauso hanebüchen. Natürlich hab ich Dich gefragt, weil Du eben n i c h t in den de-Kämpfen drinsteckst. Aber das würde mich noch interessieren: Was hättest Du denn mit diesem Jonny Controletti auf en gemacht? Oder allgemeiner: Darf dort ein gut begründeter SLA einfach revertiert werden? Gruss ME 78.55.151.117 17:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Ja, hätte ich auch. Auf en hätte ich mich, wenn ich die Zeit dazu gehabt hätte, wohl an eine ordentliche Versionszusammenführung gemacht. Ansonsten hätte ich auf dem dortigen Admin noticeboard eine Notiz hinterlassen, auf dass sich ein anderer Admin darum kümmere. Das eigentliche Problem ist ja nicht, dass die Artikel irgendwie schlecht wären, sondern dass irgendwer beim Auslagern geschlampt hat. Das sollte so gut wie möglich korrigiet werden. Übrigens kann man meines Wissens eine Versionsgeschichte nicht duplizieren, d.h. der einer der beiden Artikel wird mit einer auf die Diskussion ausgelagerten alten Versionsgeschichte leben müssen. Lupo 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Geht übrigens schon heute weiter. Erwischt! :-) Gruss ME 78.55.8.38 17:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bert Roberts

Hi there,

Thanks for tagging the Bert Roberts images with a Creator tag, I will email my friends at QM and ask them to include that in future uploads. Just a point of clarification, the Bert Roberts I'm talking about was "Albert Edward", not "Albert Edwin", and was born in 1855, not 1878. I understand he died during the 1930s, and I'll try to get some more specific details for you on that. Some of the other details are right though (he was born in Birmingham), and he was a motor dealer.

I have a brief biography of him with me that QM has written but it's not published anywhere yet to my knowledge, but I'm happy to throw you any info that you might need. Regards, Lankiveil (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

I just saw your notes and references in the original one. Good work, as I'd not found these two particular pieces of information. The graves are interesting, upon further reading of my material here, Albert Edwin (Bert) Roberts was the photographer's son; and the birth dates seem to match up. It was common at the time and place for fathers to have the same names as their sons. Explains neatly why they were both born in Birmingham, too!

Acknowledge the thing about them being PD - obviously if the photographer had died in the sixties then they would not be eligible as ((pd-old)). As for the photos that Bert himself is in, I can only say that I brought up the same thing myself when I was at the Museum, but I was assured by the Museum staff that all of the images were freely available (they are selling prints of the photos at the exhibition, so I assume they researched themselves thoroughly before doing that, lest they get themselves sued). Given the age of the photos, I would argue that it the most plausible case is that the copyright has expired, unless they were taken by a very young child, perhaps. Lankiveil (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Well, the PD thing is really not that important, and in Australia the photos are PD no matter what (created before 1955), modulo a possible publication right, but that is covered by the CC release from the museum. Lupo 10:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, my understanding is that Albert Edward Roberts (born 1855), was the father of Albert Edwin Roberts (born 1878), who was the father of George Roberts (born 1908). The chap taking the photographs was the one born in 1855, not his son born 1878. I'll see if I can get an exact date of death for the elder one, and I'll try to add coords to a few photos as well (I'm not an Ipswich local, but I've been reading up a fair bit on the place in recent weeks!). Thanks, Lankiveil (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

If the photographer was Albert Edward, then the QM themselves made the same error: they claim also that the photographer was born 1878, and that can only be Albert Edwin. I do think you should double-check that with them. There seems to be some confusion going on. (BTW, according to all my sources, George was born 1909.) Lupo 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the 1878 birthdate on File:Bert roberts r.jpg is definitely an error on QM's part; if he was born on that date, then that means that his business moved into new premises on Brisbane and Limestone Streets when he was 13, which sounds pretty implausible. If you can send me your email address I'll be happy to forward on the biographical info that the museum has compiled on Roberts, which to my knowledge they haven't published separately online yet. Lankiveil (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

It was Albert Edward who founded the business of "A.E. Roberts". I don't see any evidence of them moving; George's grandfather bought in 1891 an existing shop. See "oral history", p. 17-2, where they call the Brisbane and Limestone the "first premises". But none of this says anything about who the photographer of these pictures was. Lupo 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem mit Uploads

Hi Lupo, es scheint ein Problem mit dem Uploadform zu geben, es werden massig Bilder ohne Lizenz hochgeladen, auch von erfahrenen Uploadern, das Skript(?) das prüft(?) ob eine Lizenz im drop-down ausgewählt wurde ist scheinbar nicht aktiv(?). --Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, ich ziehe das Wort "Problem" zurück. Das größte Problem auf Commons sind willkürlich ausgewählte Lizenzen, hat also was gutes, dass Uploader nicht zur Lizenzwahl gezwungen werden. Wenn jemand im Nachhinein eine Lizenz hinzufügt wird er sich die Warnung in {{subst:nld}} durchgelesen haben und vielleicht den Hintergrund verstanden haben wer etwas lizenzieren darf und wer nicht. Hoffe nur, dass nicht zuviele (neue und alte) "gute" Uploader versehentlich keine Lizenz auswählen. --Martin H. (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ich kann das nicht reproduzieren. Sowohl auf IE6 als auch FF3.5 ist das Skript sehr wohl aktiv und lässt uploads ohne Lizenz nicht zu. Mit IE8 kann ich's erst am Montag testen. Lupo 10:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ach so, da hat jemand in dem Skript herumgehackt, und natürlich prompt einen Fehler eingebaut. (Das diff zeigt die Korrektur, die Multichill dann vorgenommen hat.) D.h. für einige Benutzer wird das Skript nun für die nächsten 30 Tage nicht laufen. Sorry, da kann ich auch nichts dafür. Lupo 10:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This image

This image may or may not be PD here It is suspicious that there is no source for a recent upload and this is the uploader's only photo here but it should not stay in the 'not found' category for 2 weeks now. It should either be deleted (safer option) or passed under a PD license. What do you think? I have no idea what to do and other reviewers have avoided it like the plague. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering, just stumbled across this question... if the map is indeed from 1822, it is certainly PD. And it looks old enough to be from 1822 (not just the map style; e.g. it's using the long-outdated length unit "Klafter" - could still be somewhat newer than 1822, but 1822 is at least very plausible). The scan in itself is not eligible for copyright. Therefore, I'm going to add PD-scan and, confidently, PD-old-100 - even if both of the map's creators ("Prohaska u. Müller") were only 20 years old in 1822, they would need to have reached an age of more than 107 years to have died less than 100 years ago. To be on the extremely safe side, one could use PD-old-80 instead (in case of, say, a young genius of a map creator, 15 years old in 1822, reaching an age of 103, dying in 1910...) - but I think such a case is too unlikely. However, if you want to change it to PD-80, feel free :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. Yes, Leo, if a work is more than 150 years old, you may safely assume PD-old-70. With a work from 1822, even PD-old-100 is OK, as Gestumblindi explained. Lupo 07:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PD-Look

Hi, I noticed the discussion was archived. I made some changes in the text of the template. I hope you agree. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question about MediaWiki:Notifier.js

Hi Lupo, please reply only if it doesn't cost you too much time to get to the answer, it is not vital.

In this script, the object notification_definitions defines the various kinds of notifications that can be used (copyvio, nosource, etc.). My question is : is it possible to call Notifier.js with a custom version of this object? If I want Notifier.js to send a user-defined notification? Or do I have to branch my own version of the whole script to define my own notifications? Thanks in advance for your enlightenments. --Eusebius (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the script could be modified to take into account a user-defined object similar to notification_definitions and aggretage the former to the latter? --Eusebius (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I've made a little change to allow that. To add your own templates, just do the following in your monobook.js or other skin-dependent user js file (or in some other js file):

if (typeof (notification_definitions) != 'object') // Just in case Notifier.js loads later
  var notification_definitions = {};
 
notification_definitions.mystuff =
  { img_template  : 'something'
   ,talk_template : 'something else'
   ,img_summary   : 'summary 1'
   ,talk_summary  : 'summary 2'
   ,prompt_text   : 'optional prompt, can be referenced as $1 in the others'
  };
notification_definitions.otherstuff =
  { img_template  : 'something else again'
   ,talk_template : 'yet something else'
   ,img_summary   : 'summary 3'
   ,talk_summary  : 'summary 4'
   ,prompt_text   : 'optional prompt, can be referenced as $1 in the others'
  };

Note that Notifier.js doesn't add links to invoke its functionality, you'll have to do that yourself or call the Notifier.mark function directly. There is also the function Notifier.notify_user that may be handy in some cases. Lupo 20:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's wonderful, thank you very much! I'll test later, not much time right now, but I will definitely use it. --Eusebius (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't make it work... When I simply use the QuickDelete gadget, it works as expected, but if I instead use a quasi-duplicate from my userspace, even without user-defined notifications, no link is added to the page. I don't really know why User:Eusebius/tools.js won't work, and I'm not very good at debugging JS, I guess I miss the right tool for that. If you have some time to look at it one day... :-\ --Eusebius (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

All right. Take a look at User:Lupo/demo.js, written specially for you :-) And it even does something useful... Lupo 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I will. Thanks again for your help... --Eusebius (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just noticed that your test didn't run because the object QuickDelete is already defined, and there's a big fat if-statement around it all that says "if there is already a QuickDelete, then don't do anything". Which is my way to guard against double inclusions. You really don't want to overwrite the standard QuickDelete. Lupo 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] These DRs

Dear Lupo and other experienced Admins,

Can you please take a close look at this DR and this DR please? If it is really the photographer's own work, either the name of the photographer should at disclosed OR OTRS permission is preferable (if the uploader wants to be anonymous) though this is only a suggestion. If not, people (like me) will wonder if the uploader is really the photographer since he/she would be in his/her late 70's or 80's today.

Or was I wrong in not assuming AGF? I always remember what Admin captain tucker once told me: "it is incredible the amount of stuff that people claim they took" and then upload here. I can see photos from the late 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and onwards being own work but from the 1940s? It is hard to imagine this...but maybe I'm wrong. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kümmern

Hi Lupo, magst Du Dich darum kümmern, das dieser Undeletion request wieder an die richtige Stelle kommt? Es gab gestern einen kleinen Edit-War mit 2 Kanonkas-Heinis darum. Danke. Ansonsten bin ich derzeit beschäftigt, fürs web eine Fundgrube zum unterirdischen Niveau auf commons (aber nicht nur hier) zusammenzustellen. Das Problem ist dabei, dass es zuviel Material gibt. Kostproben hier. Gruss, Mutter Erde 78.55.203.250 10:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)