User talk:AFBorchert/Archives/2009

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Frage wegen Verwendung und Seite

Hei, habe auch gleich mal eine Frage. Hier beim Bild File:Haithabu_Senkrechtwebstuhl_1.jpg steht unten unter Verwendung: "Keine Seite benutzt diese Datei". Dabei ist das Bild in Wikipedia unter [Gewichtswebstuhl] eingebunden. Wieso wird diese Seite dort nicht angezeigt? Gruß aus S-H --Kai-Erik (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Kai-Erik, „Keine Seite benutzt diese Datei“ bezieht sich nur auf das lokale Projekt, also die Commons, und nicht auf die übrigen Projekte. Wenn Du über alle Wikimedia-Projekte hinweg nachsehen möchtest, dann solltest Du den Reiter „Check Usage“ anklicken (ich weiß nicht, wie der deutschsprachige Reiter genannt wird, da meine Benutzerschnittstelle auf Englisch ist), wahrscheinlich „Überprüfe Verwendung“ oder so ähnlich. Da stellt sich dann heraus, dass das Bild tatsächlich auf de-wp in Gewichtswebstuhl Verwendung findet. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hei, danke für diese Info. Habe auf den Reiter "Nutzung" geklickt und dann wurde die Seite [Gewichtswebstuhl] angezeigt. Schönes Wochenende und Gruß aus S-H --Kai-Erik (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ..

...for the RFB support. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No FOP in US?

Dear Sir, Is it true that no public artwork in the US is allowed on Commons if it was made before 1923? I find this incredible since it would mean that many pictures including this scupture would have to be deleted: File:African American Civil War Memorial.JPG I have seen many important sculptures in US public parks on Commons that were made to commemorate a person's deeds in the past. In Canada, we don't have this problem. Would this be deleted too:

  • File:Chiune "Sempo" Sugihara.jpg It is for Japan's version of Raoul Wallenberg who saved up to 6,000 or 10,000 Jews and is in a public park in the Little Tokyo district of LA. He is honoured at Yad Vashem as a righteous Gentile. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, should an Admin act on this 9 week old DR I feel it should not have even started when US FOP laws are clear here....for public buildings. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, FOP, if granted and applicable, allows to publish images of copyrighted works. FOP is nowhere related to a date when a sculpture was created, published or when the sculptor died. All these dates can be relevant to decide whether a sculpture became public domain. If a sculpture is public domain due to its age, the privilege of FOP does no longer matter. In the United States, FOP is restricted to buildings but does not cover artistic works like sculptures (this is a summary, there are some fine points, e.g. when sculptures are an integral part of a building). In case of File:African American Civil War Memorial.JPG, the uploaders forgot to mention when this sculpture was created. Hence, I do not know yet whether we can keep that or not. Canada is indeed different, very much like the United Kingdom, Ireland and other Common law countries.
Thank you for your pointer to File:Chiune "Sempo" Sugihara.jpg. The original description didn't tell anything about the sculpture's location. Knowing that this image is located in LA, it should be filed for deletion.
In regard to this DR: If it is just 9 weeks old, it is still pretty fresh in comparison to those DRs of spring 2008 that are still unclosed. This DR is challenging as the US law (Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990) does not provide a definition of a "public place". I wouldn't close such a case without performing some additional research and it is a good idea to let such difficult cases run for some time in the hope that more informed opinions will be added to it.
--AFBorchert (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the US Commons laws are incredibly unwise. They eliminate any potential for good sculptures to be available here. Sugihara died in 1986 and the sculpture was designed by Ramon Velazco and erected in 2002 in LA to honor his memory. If the image is deleted, it would be a great loss to many Sugihara wiki articles. The situation is really painful. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • BTW, is this picture of Sugihara's memorial building in Yaotsu, Japan acceptable under FOP: [1]. (In my view, it is nothing special) I should stress...that the only other sculpture for Sugihara on Commons is from Lithuania here: File:Chiune Sugihara monument in Vilnius1.JPG but, according to FOP, it too is unacceptable. That means we have zero pictures of monuments for the wiki article on a person who saved thousands of Jews. This situation is sad since we can't honour the memory of Sugihara on Wikipedia from pictures that are not derivate images and are taken in good faith by other wiki volunteers.
  • I suppose you will have to consider nominating these 113 images for deletion too: [2] --Leoboudv (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed a pity that many countries do not provide a FOP that permits commercial use. Thanks for the additional pointers. In regard to these categories, we have to be careful as some of the photographed sculptures could be public domain due to their age. Unfortunately, I've to postpone that as I do not have much time right now. Regarding your problem to find images of sculptures dedicated to Sugihara: You might want to consider the option to ask one of the artists for a permission and, if successful, to get this handled through OTRS. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Ross-Verlag

Hi, following your thoughts in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lya de Putti.jpg this might be interesting for the next cases. I can assure you: On a Ross postcard, as far as I have seen, is never a note about the photographer on the reverse. The photographer is mentioned on the front side or he is not mentioned. (But there is a little chance, that the publisher has taken the photo, as he did in the beginning). Regards Mutter Erde 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mutter Erde, thanks for letting me know. Anyone who has sufficient research done for this case such that we know its author or we know for sure that it is indeed anonymous is free to reopen this case by an undeletion request. However, please note as well that you have been blocked indefinitely and that blocked users, even as IP, are no longer invited to contribute here at Commons by editing its wiki. (I know that the circumstances have been most unfortunate but you managed it to put off anyone who was ready to help and/or to support you.) In case, you have an important notice to make (beside intimidating remarks that attack other users at Commons), you are welcome to send them by email to OTRS or to me by email. It is no challenge to find one of my email addresses. My name (including middle name) is unique and my web pages are easily located through Google. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 73ae519cc7c825e73ad735f17e1061eb

... second attempt, sigh. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting File:WittRealschuleCrop.jpg and its companion pic based on unclear copyright status. I realize you Commons admins have a lot on your plate and so I stopped nagging you about it some time ago. All the more pleasing to see the pics gone now.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Deine Löschungen von Bildern aus dem Lippischen Landesmuseum

Ich habe mich in Unkenntnis deiner voreiligen Löschungen zum möglichen Procedere geäußert. Ich kann auch nicht erkennen, dass die Bilder anderweitig hochgeladen wurden. Ein Einknicken wäre meines Erachtens nicht angezeigt gewesen, falls der Hochlader Unterstützung seitens des Vereins erhalten hätte. Ich habe allerdings heute erst von der Eskalation erfahren --Historiograf (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Histo, die frühzeitige Löschung bedaure ich sehr. Ich sah mich aber zu der Eile gezwungen, weil entsprechend einer mir weitergeleiteten E-Mail des Museums an den Hochlader juristische Schritte unmittelbar bevorstanden. Glaube mir, anders wäre mir das auch sehr viel lieber gewesen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RfB and community leadership

Hi Andreas, I hope you don't mind that I respond to some of your comments at Kanonkas' RfB here at your talk - my response is not directly related to that particular request but I still wanted to give you some feedback. You are absolutely right that "the role to foster consensus and forge compromises is something which has to be filled by all of us" (what I would call community leadership) is not something that should be restricted to bureaucrats. You're also correct that "difference between actual and written policy" is unfortunate, though I would rather call it a "tradition" of "presedence" (or even "preference") when some of us stress appointing 'crats that has already proven themselves as community leaders. But we probably need to write something descriptive about that... The main reason I wanted I wanted to respond to you, however, was to thank you for your inputs in that RfB, you certainly stand by your word as quoted above, and fill your role in "fostering consensus and forging compromises" in a thoughtful and dedicated way. We came to different conclusions regarding that particular request, but I value and respect your opinions highly. Thank you! Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So do I. Please let me second Finn's comments.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments. I agree with Lar's comment that there is some "specialness" in the Commons project and I hope very much that we can preserve that even if this is an ongoing challenge in our diverse community. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong place?

Could you take a look at this one, it looks to me like the user posted some kind of question/statement regarding his uploads at the wrong place. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that pointer Finn, I've moved that question to the user's talk page and responded there. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I already have told the user a few weeks ago that he has to give the sources. I really don't know what to do with him anymore. Preferably I would like to just nuke his contributions. There are 4 or 5 images that are not collages and look ok, but the rest is just plain awful. The last time somebody fixed a few links for him at his gallery which resulted in him calling people several times 'Hirni' (english 'knucklehead'; like here or here). -- Cecil (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you note

Thanks for providing an accurate German translation for the use of the new image of Psusennes I's mask. You know...we have maybe 8-9 good images of Tutankhamun's mask on Commons which were taken by visitors to the Cairo museum but few people care about the treasures of the pharaohs of the 21st and 22nd dynasty (who ruled after Tutankhamun). Since February 2005, the Cairo Museum has banned all photography in their building so I had to contact several people by flickrmail to get images of these 3 king's funerary masks which they took either before the ban or on overseas exhibits. (like Nrbelex in Atlanta, Georgia) I saw only this photo which someone tried to take of Psusennes I's mask AFTER the ban in April 2006 and it was a disaster because he had to rush to take the shot without being caught:

The 3 kings funerary masks:

  • Psusennes I:
I got this other image of Psusennes I's mask File:Psusennes I mask by Rafaèle.jpg from a user in France who took it an exhibit. The resolution is incredible but the angle is so sharp that you cannot see the top of the mask. That was why I had to ask User Nrbelex if he would allow a lower resolution of his picture since it was a clear frontal view of the mask.
  • Amenemope:
I got this image from someone who took it in 2003, 1 year before the photo ban and it is my only Valued image: File:Mask of Amenemope1.jpg

Finally on pharaoh

  • Shoshenq II: This also was taken in 2004 in the Cairo museum before the picture ban by Hans from Holland: File:Sheshonq II mask2004.jpg. He is an Admin on flickr. Its magnificient!
  • Sadly these are the only 3 pharaoh's burials--other than Tutankhamun's--which were found intact by Egyptologists and not robbed by tomb looters in antiquity. These three were all found in 1939/1940 by Pierre Montet at Tanis in the Delta region of Lower Egypt just before the start of WWII...which is why so few people know about them.

With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for donating your precious shot and organizing the other valuable photographs. Just let me know whenever you need again a German translation. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Ja, das war mein erster Category-discussion-Versuch - danke fürs Nachhelfen!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

OTRS Wikimedia.svg
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our German-language image submission queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 23:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you should apply, Andreas. Personally I think you'll do great, but it's up to you. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitations and your trust. I have filed my application. Best regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mt Illampu

Would you like to add an image of Mt. Illampu here: File:Mount Illampú in May 2007 (Cody H).jpg for this article on Deutsch wikipedia: [3]

  • I tried to add it but my attempt was rejected since it was an anon IP. I don't speak German. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, your attempt was accepted but on de-wp we a system of flagged revisions in operation. As long as the new revision isn't sighted, it is not seen by default. (But you can still check out this revision by checking the history and selecting the newest revision.) I have just sighted it now. Thanks for having organized this magnificent shot. Best regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, since I don't speak German, I won't create an account on Deutsch wiki. Its a great photo of Mt Illampu with very high resolution. I had the previous (and only other) photo of the mountain deleted for failing flickr review. So, I decided to contact a flickr owner for a replacement. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you create a SUL? It is always far more convenient to be logged in than to work anonymously under an IP address. This is particularly true for projects where you don't speak the local language as a login allows you to tailor the interface language. Just put a {{babel|de-0|en}} on your user page and everyone will understand that you don't speak German. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Adapt writings.

In the keep decision summary you wrote that the image "is properly licensed"; had you read the actual discussion you would have seen that that is not the case. Please remove that line from the summary. Also, please give a rationale as to why the image is still protected; as this prevents users from fixing any of the numerous flaws mentioned in the discussion.HP1740-B (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi HP1740-B, File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG was put into public domain by its creator, Postmann Michael, using a {{PD-user}} license template. Nowhere in the two deletion requests (see here and here) was the copyright status challenged. In both cases, a deletion was seeked just because of factual incorrectnesses. As all media at Commons must be freely licensed in conformance with COM:L, I stressed this point. As soon as an image is properly licensed and no copyvio, we are usually concerned how an image fits into COM:SCOPE. According to this section we consider images to be in scope when it is used in other Wikimedia projects independent of possible disputes:
A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.
Hence I stand to my statement and see no reason to change it.
Regarding the protection: This image was protected by Samulili on 14 March 2009 after an excessive series of upload wars, edit wars, and vandalisms. If you want to challenge this decision, you are free to open a discussion at this page. I think, however, that a lift of this protection is unlikely to occur as a continuation of the previous patterns is likely given the still heated debate around this map. I suggest to enumerate the flaws (using references to scientific literature) on the talk page. As you may have noted, I have added a {{disputed diagram}} template to the image that points to the two deletion requests and the talk page.
If you want to create an improved map, please do so but upload it under a different file name. You are free to create a new map from scratch or by taking this map and changing it. As soon it is uploaded, I am willing to add a pointer to it on the image page of the disputed map. Please understand that Commons according to COM:NPOV is not a ground to decide disputes about the factual correctness of maps or other diagrams. Hence, we will not permit a different version to be uploaded over a previous version if there isn't broad consensus for it. As long at least one project requires the old variant, it has to be kept and the new variant must be uploaded using a new file name. You are free then to discuss the alternatives at the various projects such that these projects can move to the new version whenever a consensus is found for this.
Please let me know if I can be of any further help to you. And yes, I understand very well why you and others are upset about this map that subsumes Dutch among the German languages even if it is shaded somewhat differently. But I had no other choice given our policies. Best regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how you would rate the chances of getting the policy on scope changed? As it stands now, now matter how false and misleading a file, as soon as it's in use on another Wikiproject it is automatically "in scope". The problem with this is, let's say I am a native of an undiscovered Pacific Island and I upload files showing that all humanity is inferior to me and my kin, all I have to do to get this racist and false propaganda allowed is to post it on some Wikiprojects. Can this be good? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that this fundamental policy is likely to change and I personally think that there is no alternative to it. Take for example this cartoon. I dislike it as I personally think that it is an insult to all the Holocaust victims but it won actually the second prize in the 2006 Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest and is by this fact as notable as its creator, Carlos Latuff. Even worse, we host more collections of antisemitic pictures. Does the Wikimedia Foundation or we as community at Commons identify ourselves with this stuff? Hopefully not. But this is not a reason to get this stuff deleted as it might be used to document current political movements and antisemitism. In general, one of the major pillars of the WMF projects is the neutral point of view. In a Wikipedia context that means that all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. (Cited from here.) In consequence of this we have to host at Commons all media that support all sorts of biased views as long as they are notable such that they are used or likely to be used in one of the Wikipedias or other WMF projects. Hence, we host a significant number of media which would be disliked by most of us. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Brian Herrity

Many more of Brian Herrity's uploads are Irish town crests that all look like copyvios just like File:Ennisarms.gif that you already deleted. I intended to nom them for deletion but most have now been nominated even though they don't seem to come from the same source page. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, they are most likely all copyvios. I am just going through the remaining images and tagging them. Thanks for noting and tagging the first COA of this set. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I just found the urls for the last two and tagged them. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your support. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


I'll keep an eye at it to see if the permission is accepted. Cheers. Anna (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Yemeni man1.jpg

this image File:Yemeni man1.jpg where taken in 1939 in yemen, so {{PD-Yemen}} does apply. but FunkMonk removed it. can you return it --هــشـام (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC) --Hisham (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hisham, this image deleted by FunkMonk with the rationale The image was published first in Germany, not Yemen. Do you have asked him? The main question is here where this image has been published first, not where it was taken. According to this page, the book titled The Races of Europe by Carleton S. Coon was published in 1939 in New York, USA. On this page where you got the image from, this photograph is not credited to anyone else unlike some of the other photographs. This makes it not unlikely that it was taken by Carleton S. Coon himself and that it was not published before. As Carleton S. Coon died in 1981 its PD status solely depends on whether the copyright for this book was extended or not. According to this database, the copyright was extended on 9 March 1967 such that we have to wait for 1 January 2052 before this photograph becames PD. In summary, I think that FunkMonk was right in deleting this image, albeit with apparently a wrong reason. If you still want to challenge the deletion of this image, please file this case at COM:UDEL. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete a failed flickr image with this new image

Dear Admin Borchert,

Would it be possible to delete this image which is of low resolution and failed flickr review: File:RundetaarnHelical.jpg and replace it on sites where it is used on Wikipedia with this new image I just uploaded:

It is of much higher resolution and just passed flickr review. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done : I have run a global replacement and deleted the image where the Flickr review failed. Thanks for organizing a fitting replacement. Do you have been in this tower? I've been there in 2000. You'll get a magnificent view over Copenhagen at its top. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank You. No, I have never been to Europe. I was born in Malaysia and my family came to Canada in 1989 when I was 16. I only visited the USA once in 1994...many years ago. If you are interested, I recently visited an important Museum in UBC (Vancouver, Canada) and took several images at very high resolutions. I placed most of these pictures on my userpage here I hope you enjoy European and native art. I also have other pictures of White Rock, Canada....on the sea. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This image

Dear Admin Borchert, Can this image which failed flickr review within 3 months of upload: File:Pineda de Mar.jpg be deleted and replaced wherever it is used on wikipedia with this image which I just uploaded:

It is not as good as the first image but its OK and it shows the beach. I just uploaded it. It is licensed freely. What do you think? --Leoboudv (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done : I've run a global replacement as suggested and deleted the image where the Flickr review failed. Thanks again for your help! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Weiterverwendung von Bildern

Guten Tag,

ich würde gerne diese Bilder für meine Homepage verwenden:

Diese Bilder und noch paar andere, welche die gleiche Lizenz, bzw. das gleiche Zeichen haben.

welche Vorgehensweise muss ich jetzt beachten?

danke sehr!



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierschutz (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Tom, zunächst ist mir vielleicht gestattet, Dich auf einige Konventionen in der Nutzung der Diskussionsseiten aufmerksam zu machen. Erstens sollte für neue Anfragen ein neuer Abschnitt erzeugt werden. Das geht entweder, indem oben der Reiter "+comment" (so ist es in Englisch) angeklickt wird oder in meiner gelben Box kurz darunter der Link bei "unten anfügen" angeklickt wird. Dann besteht auch die Möglichkeit, eine geeignete Überschrift bzw. ein Betreff zu wählen. Zweitens sollten Beiträge signiert werden. Dies geschieht durch vier Tilden, also mit ~~~~. Du findest auch einen Button dafür bei der Buttonleiste unmittelbar über dem Editierfenster.
Nun zu Deiner eigentlichen Frage: Wie bereits beschrieben wurden von dem Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte an diesen Bildern, PETA, die genannten Bilder alle unter eine "public domain"-Lizenz gestellt, d.h. dass PETA jedem das Recht gewährt, diese Bilder für jeden Zweck, ohne jegliche Bedingungen zu verwenden – sofern derartige Bedingungen rechtlich erforderlich sind. Unabhängig davon kann es jedoch auch bei solchen Freigaben Rechte aus dem Urheberrecht des Landes geben, indem eine weitere Veröffentlichung bzw. Weiterverwendung vorgesehen ist. Hier möchte ich insbesondere an den § 74 UrhG erinnern, auf den ich bereits in den E-Mails verwiesen habe. Siehe dazu auch § 83 UrhG, der ausdrücklich die Verwertungsrechte beschränkt, selbst wenn das Bild wie hier freigegeben ist. Aus diesem Grund würde ich es als angemessen ansehen, bei einer Wiederverwendung, soweit bekannt, die Fotografen zu nennen, vorzugsweise in der Bildunterschrift und trotz des Rechts an Veränderungen keine Entstellungen vorzunehmen, da dies sowohl die nicht beschränkbaren Rechte des Urhebers berührt als auch die Persönlichkeitsrechte der abgebildeten Personen. Auch würde ich die mit den Bildern verbundene Botschaft nicht wegschneiden, da die abgebildeten Models die freizügigen Aufnahmen ja nur für den Zweck der Werbung für den Tierschutz gestattet haben.
Abschließend sei angemerkt, dass dies keine Rechtsberatung darstellt, sondern eine unverbindliche Auskunft darüber, was ich entsprechend meinen beschränkten Kenntnissen als Nichtjurist hier beachten würde.
Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Dein Vorschlag wäre schon sinnvoll, wenn ich ohnehin nicht die völlige Löschung erreichen kann und der Vorschlag allseits akzeptiert würde. Die provokative Reaktion von Cecil zeigt jedoch, daß es auch keine Lösung wäre. Ich könnte mir auch vorstellen, das Bild mit einem verbesserten Dateinamen neu hochzuladen und von Anfang an korrekte Eintragungen vorzunehmen. Ich wollte ursprünglich auch Scans der weiteren Gewächshaus-Abbildungen anfertigen und die Dateien hochladen. Das ist aber mühsam, wenn das Original nicht Schaden nehmen soll. Diese Mühe mache ich besser nicht mehr. Vielen Dank aber für Deinen konstruktiven und vermittelnden Vorschlag. -- Stachel (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Für konstruktive und vermittelnde Wege bin ich immer zu haben, Stachel. Ich fände es sehr schade, wenn Du den Fall zum Anlass nehmen würdest, auf das Hochladen weiterer Scans zu verzichten. Ich würde Dir jedenfalls ansonsten gerne anbieten, neu von Dir hochgeladene Scans durchzusehen und, für den Fall, dass irgendwelche Änderungen erforderlich sein sollten, das in Ruhe mit Dir zu besprechen. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Manfred Schell.jpg

Looks like a strange situation. Give that the ticket is in a language that I cannot read, I must have been in contact with another OTRS volunteer who could read it. Not sure where the mix-up occurred but if you've read the ticket and there's no clear permissions, feel free to handle the files accordingly. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjd0060, thanks for your response. The permission failed to mention or confirm a free license for the two images. They have been deleted now by another OTRS member. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cinema Guido Guerra


thank you for the warning. I was surprised too seeing the procedure not concluding. So, please, could you tell me what get wrong with the OTRS of Cinema Guido Guerra and how I can fix it. It's just a misunderstanding, I guess. Thanks again. Sincerely.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Giorgiomonteforti, we need in such cases a confirmation by the copyright owner that also explicitly declares which free license is to be used. The OTRS member who processed that ticket wrote you that by email and since then nothing happened. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilder vom Eggetunnel

Hallo AFBorchert, vielen Dank für deine beiden Hinweise auf fehlende Genehmigungen. Während ich keinen Bock habe, die nun bereits gelöschten Bilder von Schell und Weselsky nochmal zu besorgen, hochzuladen, dann die wieder die GDL anzusprechen...... bin ich gerne bereit mich um die Bilder vom Eggetunnel zu kümmern. Dazu habe ich dir hier geantwortet. Bitte spreche mich kurz per E-Mail an, was an der damals übersandten Genehmigung noch fehlt, ich kümmere mich dann umgehend darum. Viele Grüße aus Dresden, Peter --Bigbug21 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Bigbug21, die Bilder von Schell und Weselsky müssen nicht neu besorgt werden, wir können sie gerne restaurieren sobald die Genehmigung für uns nachvollziehbar fertig vorliegt. Aber das, was bei der Freigabe fehlt (siehe letzte E-Mail) muss eben noch nachkommen. Vielen Dank für all die Bemühungen. Lass aber bitte keine Tickets ungeschlossen vor sich hinschlummern, da dann die Bilder irgendwann unvermutet rasch weg sein können. Wenn es Unklarheiten gibt, kontaktiere mich einfach. Ich helfe hier gerne weiter. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Um eine ordentliche Genehmigung für die beiden GDL-Bilder zu bekommen, bräuchte ich eine URL oder zumindest die Aufnahmen (habe sie selbst nicht mehr auf meiner Festplatte). Dann müsste ich der Pressestelle nochmals die Lizenzen erklären usw. usf. Dazu habe ich einfach keine Lust.
Beim Eggetunnel ist mir noch unklar, was das Problem mit den Eggetunnel-Fotos ist. Bitte gib mir hierzu kurz Bescheid (am besten per Benutzer-E-Mail), damit ich mich darum kümmern kann. --Bigbug21 (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Bigbug21, vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung. Ich habe Dir aus dem OTRS-System heraus eine E-Mail dazu geschickt. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This image

Dear Admin Borchert,

Can you A) first pass this image which I uploaded from flickr. I had to crop it:

Secondly, can you then B) use that image which I uploaded to replace all instances where this image is used on wikipedia: File:Shabla-lighthouse-dinev.jpg It did not pass flickr review and is of lower resolution. You can then delete the second image. I hope you can help.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done : thanks again for your help. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for your kind help. I was fortunate to find that image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Images from Madeira

Hi, thanks for noticing me of that, I'm still waiting the email from Casa do Povo with the formal authorization in the terms needed by Commons. This is a difficult subject, I explain all that they have to say in the auth, but they fail to understand the details, which, as we all know, are where the Devil is. Please give me a few more time for that, I'll email them today again with the request. Many thanks, --Darwinius (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Hello, AFBorchet. Came here to ask if you could check the undeletion request I made for that image (link in this section title), and I'd like to know if there's anything wrong with my request as it's been more than a week since it was made and no conclusion so far. Regards, Mr.Yah! msg 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Hey Andreas. Do you have any thoughts on this? I'm trying to expand it, and help would be appreciated. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kanonkas, thanks for the pointer. To me this sounds like en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment, even if you have renamed it to centralised community discussion. We do not have such processes at de-wp despite its considerable size (second after en-wp) and at en-wp I have never been involved in any of these cases and, so far, not even read through one of them. Hence, I have absolutely no experience to contribute. I think, however, that centralised pages for escalated processes are useful and we have with COM:UDEL at least one such page beside the admin boards. For the beginning, I have three questions: Firstly, on which criteria we ought to decide whether we files user conduct cases at CCD or COM:AN/U? Secondly, were there any cases recently which you would like to have handled at CCD? Thirdly, how are such cases to be closed? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to your questions, in order;
  1. CCD will only accept cases where there is an ongoing conduct that is not suitable. The conduct has to be raised on the appropriate venues before a CCD can even be considered. For example the conduct of user X has to be raised on COM:AN/U, or some other appropriate venue. If to the end COM:AN/U can't handle it, and one see it's the wrong place, a request for CCD can be considered. In exceptional cases, a CCD may be the first option but in general it is not, and shouldn't be treated as such either. This is just an example, but there are many more cases. If you'd like more, please say so.
  2. Yes. There are actually a lot of cases that springs to my mind. I think we can improve our system on how to deal with disputes. A working system can do a lot of wonders. It really can, and I want to show that. However, at the same time you need people who are gentle and know how to deal with disputes. We don't have many users on that part, unfortunately. We can on the other side do the best to try with what we've got. Contributors are golden, and I want to make sure we keep productive editors like that. Not the other way, and instead lose them for some dispute.
  3. Now that's something I have been thinking on. I really don't know, but for now I do not think we should have some committee. As it may look a bit ArbCom-ish, if you understand? If you don't, feel free to point it out. For now, maybe we can try letting a non-biased (neutral) administrator or more decide the result of the case. What do you think?
If you want more info, feel free to ask. Thank you for taking your time too. It's really appreciated to get your input. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 23:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since we discussed, it's been expanded quite a bit more. Just so you know. Best regards, Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This image

Dear Admin Borchert,

Can all use of this image on wikipedia here which failed flickr review: File:Temple of Hephaistos.jpg be replaced by this high resolution image by Eusebius:

Then the first image can be deleted. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done : I have deleted it. I took, however, the freedom to replace it by another image, also shot by Eusebius: File:Hephaisteion 2.jpg. I found the other image due to its shadows quite irritating as the lighted parts of the background wall look like a second series of pillars that tilt significantly to the right. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, in this case {{PD-signature}} applies and for this reason I have removed the speedy deletion. However, it is justified to ask for the source. I posted a question on the uploader's talk page. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg 


:Thank You for explaining that signatures are not eligible for copyright. I did not know this. Anyway, I hope you can replace all use of this failed low resolution image File:Temple of Hephaistos.jpg with Eusebius' superior (and copyright secure) one here: File:Hephaisteion 1.jpg...and then delete the failed image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Permission für Dateien Schaukaeserei Affoltern 01 09.jpg bis 09 09.jpg

Hallo Andreas, da du den Eintrag der Permission bei den Bildern dieser Serie gemacht hast, gelange ich an dich. Ein Bot hat bei mir eine Nachricht betreffend der Bilder 02 09.jpg und 05 09.jpg hinterlassen. Nun habe ich, als ich das Freigabeschreiben von Herrn Lehmann nochmals durchgesehen habe festgestellt, dass ich einen Fehler bei der Vorbereitung des Schreibens gemacht habe und das Foto 05 09.jpg vergessen ging. Andererseits ist das bemängelte Foto 01 09.jpg gelistet, wurde aber nicht freigegeben. Das wurde allem Anschein nach von dir vergessen. Könntest du die Angelegenheit bitte bereinigen? Danke! -- Хрюша ?? 05:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Хрюша, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich habe bei den fehlenden Bildern den Verweis auf das Ticket eingetragen und ich denke, dass es in diesem speziellen Fall auch gerechtfertigt ist, die Freigabe auf das nicht explizit genannte Bild anzuwenden. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Danke für die umgehende Abarbeitung. -- Хрюша ?? 11:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this image

Dear Admin Borchert,

Aarrgh! Please delete this image:

I tried to upload it from flickr and something went terribly wrong. My computer received an error message but the image appears! There is no flickreview, no license, and no category. I can't even edit the image file. Anyway, I uploaded a duplicate image correctly here and hopefully flickrreview will mark this one: File:Radda, Tuscany views (2008).jpg I used the second image here

Please help delete the first image ASAP. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done : Apparently something really bad happened to the database during the upload of this image. No text was kept but the image was still referenced. I couldn't delete the image right away but when I added some text to it using create and deleted it afterwards, the image was fortunately gone as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind help. I hope this does not happen again. It would reflect poorly on my otherwise good reputation. Cheers, Fabian --Leoboudv (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Leouboudv, this was not your fault but a bug of the Wikimedia software, please take a look at this entry. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your kind words, Andreas. Let me know if I can be of any assistance! Pruneautalk 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you for the rollback rights, and I wanted to ask you if we have here on commons an automated tool like the huggle of ?? thank you again :-) Madhero88 (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Madhero88, I have never heard before about huggle — I looked it up now at en-wp and found this. I have never been myself in the practice of proactively fighting vandalism. You might want to contact Herbythyme as he is one of the leading hunters of vandalism here at Commons and he can surely tell you how to contribute best in this area. Thanks again for your willingness to help out. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


Dear Admin Borchert,

Do you think that the few uses on wikipedia of this low resolution failed fllickr image here: File:Pisa-lungarno01.jpg could be replaced by this superior image:

Then the first image can be deleted. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done : Thanks again for your efforts to find suitable replacements. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Do you have read my last notice above regarding File:Radda, Tuscany (view).jpg?
  • Thanks for your help on the Pisa image. As for that Tuscany image, I just read it. The prroblem and solution seems extremely technical and complex. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with all the codes and software on Commons. That is why I would never run to be an Admin here...maybe only a flickrreviewer in the future. (as Lupo has suggested) Thank You for the reference, though. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Dear Admin Borchert,

Concerning this image, File:Sally lightfoot crab 2.jpg, is it possible if it could be deleted and its usage on wikipedia be replaced by this image which I uploaded:

  • File:Sally lightfoot crab 2a.jpg I uploaded the original High resolution image whereas in the first image, the person uploaded the low resolution photo...with no metadata.

What do you think of the situation? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done : Thanks for noticing this broken transfer from en-wp. It is not the first case where people have difficulties in transfering images "by hand" to another project and sometimes we lose even the original without noticing in time that we have a low resolution copy. I have replaced this image everywhere where it was used and deleted the low resolution variant as suggested. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The thing was...the way the guy who 'transferred' the image here, there was no evidence the source really took the picture. There was no link to the original author...nothing. At least with a formal transfer, the proof is clear to all that the source is indeed the original author of the photograph. Thanks. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Sally lightfoot crab 2.jpg

OK, sorry and thanks ! Totodu74 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bari port

Dear Admin Borchert,

I have looked at this image maybe 4, 5 or 6 times now:

It is widely used on wikipedia but the difference between the time of original upload and the failed flickr review is only 5 months. The picture is also a very low resolution image. I just got someone's permission on flickr today to upload a higher resolution photo of the old port of Bari here: File:The port of Bari, Italy (L. Massoptier).jpg

Would it be possible to replace all the uses of the failed flickr image with this new image. Then the failed image can be deleted. What do you think? Sadly, there are almost no images of Bari port/harbour on Commons until I uploaded this image today. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done : Thanks again for organizing a replacement. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for helping out from Germany. I don't know how many times I looked at that poor failed image of Bari port in frustration....and seeing that there was no replacement image anywhere. Regards from Metro Vancouver, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi, have you received the permission by Mr Lendering and Mr Rochow for Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Ancient Depictions of Parasols and Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Category:Bridge near Kemer or ticket 2009060910035099? Please change the tag then. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this case is not yet closed. Do you have read the email I sent to you from the OTRS system? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, you wrote "We will let you know when we get a response from Jona Lendering", and Mr Lendering told me he has answered you. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot confirm that, i.e. I see no email from him. Please tell him to reply directly to my email such that the ticket number is referenced and it goes to the correct email address Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, I am off tomorrow for holidays, but I will contact him immediately. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr Lendering has told me he has sent today an email to Commons according to the specifications above. As for Mr Rochow, please be a bit patient, the permission will be coming as well. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


  • Hello! [4] - 100% autent. text. --Vizu (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This image and another request

Dear Admin Borchert,

If this image is not marked, can you please mark it:

The flickrowner requested I credit him as Luis Alberto Melograna...and not Lecuna.

Secondly, can you use the first image to replace all the other uses of this lower resolution copy of this image:

  • File:Mayan Chac Mool by Luis Alberto Melograna.jpg...and then delete this second image. The second image file is a disaster. Gyrfindor & I uploaded 5 different copies and now I notice I did not upload the highest resolution photo! This would mean there would be 6 image uploads which is at least 4 versions too many. That is why I decided to upload a brand new image file to start fresh. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
✓  Done : I just noticed right now that you changed the credit to Luis Alberto Melograna by request of him after I had changed that to Luis Alberto Lecuna such that it conforms to the credit at Flickr. As this is a critical part of the CC-BY-SA license we will need a OTRS email to confirm such a changed credit. Could you please forward your email from the photographer to OTRS? I guess this is the reason why the automated Flickr review bot rejected to confirm the license. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • All I have is a brief statement from him saying "done. please credit as Luis Alberto Melograna." He does not even refer to this image in his response...and I am not supposed to type in words that are not there." It is not worth OTRS'ing. As you know, some people value their privacy and may not place their real name in their flickr account. This person has taken thousands of images on his flickr account and it is his photo. In the source link, he says very clearly in Spanish: "Photo: La tomé en el Museo de Antropología de México."
  • This translates as "Photo: I took it in the Museum of Anthropology of Mexico."

So, the uploader is the photographer. I assume Lecuna is just a psuedonym for Melograna which is his real name. Anyway, I made one edit to the image summary to clear up any confusion. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A question: graves & plaques

I had asked Tryphon this question but he did not answer (yet). But since you seem to have been on Commons for a long time, could you answer my simple question:

  • Are modern simple grave markers like this [5] and plaques like this [6] acceptable for Commons? The grave marker is in the US. Does FOP affect plaques & grave markers. I thought they are functional rather than art. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg 


: Please delete this low resolution image after its uses are removed from wikipedia: File:El_Transparente.JPG

I have uploaded the original High Resolution photo from Commons here:

There is a major difference in quality between the low and the original high quality photo. This was another poor transfer. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the two images: I'm afraid that File:Jayne Mansfield cenotaph.jpg depicts art, even if it is not very original. The problem is not the text but the cross and the leaves around it. However, it would be interesting to know when this cenotaph was erected. As it is not the grave we cannot be sure that this was shortly after 1967. However, if it was published before 1978 without a copyright notice (I do not see any here in the picture), it is public domain. The other image, en:File:EisenhowerPierPlaque.jpg, was taken in the United Kingdom, is a work of artistic craftsmanship and falls thereby under FOP. You can transfer that image to Commons and please use the {{FoP-UK}} template in addition to the regular license template.
Regarding the low resolution duplicate: Thanks again for taking care of a broken transfer. I have deleted the low resolution variant after all its uses have been replaced. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments on grave markers. I wasn't sure here. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Can you please remove all uses of this low resolution copy: File:Bombay24.jpg and then delete it?

The uploader forgot to upload the high resolution image to Commons. I have done this here and you can replace the image with the original here:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • If you can't delete the low resolution image since it was uploaded legally, why not swap its use with the original high resolution image? Just an idea. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have asked Tryphon to look into the situation of using the high resolution image. As you know I cannot remove the use of the low resolution photo on Deutsch wiki since I have no account there. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Aghagower St Patrick Statue 2007 08 12.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Aghagower St Patrick Statue 2007 08 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

This image

Dear Admin Borchert,

Could you kindly delete this failed image after all its uses have been replaced:

I have uploaded a replacement image of this historic house and it has now been OTRS'ed here after I contacted the flickr owner:

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe, you're away. Its OK. I'll contact Tryphon about it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is a sock

Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is a sock of Wapondaponda (talk · contribs) evidence 1. They are convicted sock puppets on English Wikipedia 2. They uploaded the exact same map with the same name on commons The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, AFBorchert/Archives!
Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Sally lightfoot crab 2.jpg

Hi ! Thanks for your explanation, it wasn't the first time I did that, but now I try to take care. Regards, Totodu74 (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out and taking care. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Mesa Verde National Park Cliff Palace Right Part 2006 09 12.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mesa Verde National Park Cliff Palace Right Part 2006 09 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion

Canyon de Chelly White House Ruin Close View 2006 09 07.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Canyon de Chelly White House Ruin Close View 2006 09 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion

Kilconnell Friary View from South Transept into Nave 2009 09 16.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kilconnell Friary View from South Transept into Nave 2009 09 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Why interference Category:Gastronomy?

See also Why interference Category:Gastronomy? (Category:Gastronomy --> Category talk:Gastronomy)--Tom778 (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom778, if you want to challenge the merge of these categories, please feel invited to do this at COM:CFD. It is, however, not helpful to suppress such a proposal, particularly not in form of an edit war. At Commons, we do not attempt to enforce our opinion but to find a community consensus. Hence, if someone suggests a merge and you object to it, please open a discussion and try to convince others. Thanks for your understanding and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

Canyon de Chelly White House Ruin Close View 2006 09 07.jpg
The image has been promoted to Featured picture

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canyon de Chelly White House Ruin Close View 2006 09 07.jpg that you created has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution.

--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, I am stunned — it wouldn't have been possible without your contribution. Thank you, Mbz1, and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your template

Dear Andreas, I've just seen File:Bundesfestung Ulm XII Wilhelmsburg Fronttor 2009 11 01.jpg and some of your pictures from this weekend. They look great. Much better than mine :(

When I looked at the photo, I also realized, that you use User:AFBorchert/Photo as template to describe your photos. Using Template:Information would increases the chance of Commons pictures being processed automatically (e.g. for maintenance). Would it be ok for you, to use that template for future uploads?

Best regards, --Flominator (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Flominator, private templates are permitted and to some extent supported at Commons even if the practice of using them is not encouraged (please note the use of the term should instead of must at the relevant policy, see also this discussion). This template allows me to extend the license (this has happened already), to organize all my photographs in a user category, and to have fields which are not supported by the {{Information}} template. When this template was created, I asked for a location field but this was declined. Hence, I and quite a number of other high volume uploaders will stick to their private templates. The relevant bot authors are aware of them. At the end it boils down to the point that Commons should make life easier for its users, not its bot authors. And please upload your photographs of the Bundesfestung as well. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Tuam Cathedral of the Assumption St Jarlath's Window Detail 2009 09 14.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tuam Cathedral of the Assumption St Jarlath's Window Detail 2009 09 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing in Domus Galilaeae church.jpg

Please restore this image immediately! Mr. Kuiper is not a lawyer, he does not speak Hebrew, and he has no knowledge of the Israeli law. He bases his interpretations on Machine translation and private interpretations of the laws of a country he never visited and never studied its legal system. This deletion is way out of line! All Israelis who had been asked, some of them are registered lawyers in Israel, said this image is okay and brought serious evidences to support their opinion. It is simply unthinkable that certain images be censored based on pseudo-legal advices. Drork (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Drork, if you think that my deletion decision was not appropriate, you are free to file an undeletion request. Please note that I am not an expert of Israeli law nor do I claim to be one. This decision was not just based on Pieter Kuiper's opinion but also on the precautionary principle which is official policy at Commons, i.e. if we cannot be sure that we do not infringe a copyright, we will delete it. Seeing the current state of the debate regarding this issue of COM:FOP in Israel, I fail to see a broad consensus that supports your opinion. Please note also that this DR was open for nearly half a year and that it was really time for a conclusion, even if it is unfortunate. If it eventually should turn out that this image does not violate the copyright of the depicted work, I would be more than happy if it would be undeleted then. Best regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep it as less bureaucratic as possible. Pieter Kuiper is not in a position to demand deletion as he did, and you made a mistake by relying on his opinion. He wondered whether in Israel FOP applied to 2D works. He was answered elaborately that his doubts were baseless. Nevertheless, he refused to withdraw the deletion request. I suspect there are irrelevant motives here, because I have no other explanation why he refuses to accept an answer which was given by several Israeli users and backed with the appropriated sources. Pieter Kuiper is acting forcefully and aggressively, and refuses to listen. I am very surprised to see that other administrations back him up like this. His behavior is not in the best interest of this project. I trust that this deletion was a mistake, and all I'm asking you is to correct it. Drork (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Drork, I've outlined the reasons for my decision. You have not told anything that allows me to revert my decision. I've pointed you to the process which allows you to ask for an undeletion. Please understand that I will neither discuss about Pieter Kuiper on my talk page nor that I will tolerate any continued bashing of other users on my talk page. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thing - your deletion of my remark after your unilateral decision to close the deletion discussion based on false opinion, is not in line with the openness and freedom of speech which this project tries to promote. I hope you understand the damage you cause by this deletion, not to me personally, but to the image of this project. Drork (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Drork, please understand that closed deletion requests are considered closed. You are free to open undeletion requests but closed debates remain closed. This revert does not suppress your opinion. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
As you might have seen, I noted your somewhat problematic behavior to the other administrators. I hope that's enough. Drork (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Drork, thank you for this late notice. Regarding your freshly opened section at COM:AN/U it could be perhaps helpful if you you could point out which policy was violated in my actions according to your opinion. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If you try to drag me into a bureaucratic debate - forget about it. Wikimedia Commons is not a court of law. I know all too well about this habit of certain users to drag others into a whirlwind of citing bylaws. This is not what the Commons are meant for. I assume your behavior was a mistake, but the fact that you are not willing to correct it is enough to notify other admins about poor judgment on behalf of one of their colleagues. Drork (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Tuam Cathedral of the Assumption Blessed Virgin Mary and the Four Evangelists by Michael O'Connor 2009 09 14.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tuam Cathedral of the Assumption Blessed Virgin Mary and the Four Evangelists by Michael O'Connor 2009 09 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

DR and a note

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

Maybe the first unfree flickr image in this DR can be deleted....since the original version is free? Its already more than 8 days old.

  • As an aside, I don't know who M. Erde is but sometimes I notice he does create some valuable cats like this one with 21 great photos by M. Harrsch. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv, the DR is closed. Regarding Mutter Erde: His constructive edits are well known and he will neither be blocked nor reverted as long he remains constructive. See here for further details. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment : Thanks for closing that DR. If an image was never free to begin with, it shouldn't remain here. As for M. Erde, his case is exceptional. It takes a lot to get banned at Commons--compared to wikipedia where all the action is--and yet he clearly reaches this threshold. His behaviour is sad but I also remember another editor here who was also banned for abusive behavious--openly threatening other contributors. I guess it is the world we live in. Luckily there is a lot less sockpuppetry here but the amount of copy vios is still high. The only law I dislike (like MBisanz) is the lack of FOP in France, Italy, Greece, Belgium and the former Soviet countries but the law is the law and one must obey the rules. Luckily, I'm from Canada which has full FOP. With kind Regards from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

3 DRs

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

I'm sorry to disturb you here but I think the DRs for these 3 separate 'unfree' photos must be closed as 'delete' and the photos deleted. The DRs are now at least 1 week old and there is no proof the images were ever licensed freely:

Thank You for your time. Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, the first two cases were already closed. I took care of the third one. Greetings from Germany, AFBorchert (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment : Thanks for acting on the third image. I remember reading a message by M. Maggs to MBisanz that Commons have a backlog of DRs which is almost 1 year long. So, dealing with the easy ones helps you Admins tackle the harder ones. Regards from Vancouver--site of the upcoming Olympic winter games next year. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Universal global replacement?

Can this image here: File:Póvoa de Varzim vista do porto.jpg which failed review be replaced by this image below which passed review:

I once contacted the flickr owner (V. Oliveira) and he was very bitter with the (mis)use of his many photos on WikiCommons by other web sites with no proper attribution to him. So, I am 100% certain he will refuse to relicense the first photo freely. But the second photo which passed review before the same flickrowner changed the an excellent replacement. If all uses of the first failed image can be replaced, then the failed image can be deleted too. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done and thanks for your kind help. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi PedroPVZ, both pictures were in COM:SCOPE. This was just a problem of a copyvio. Which image is to be prefered for a particular article in one of the Wikipedia projects is not our concern here. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Konrad Kujau

Hallo FABorchert, bin es so langsam Leid immer wieder von vorne anfangen zu müssen [Link]. Habe in den Bilderrahmen vor Konny jetzt eines seiner anderen Werke bastelt und als neues Bild hochgeladen[Link]. Kannst Du die Änderung auf der Seite [Konrad Kujau] sichten, bevor wieder ein möchtegern Urheberrechtsprofessor sein Unwesen treibt ? Gruß --Telephil (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Telephil, zunächst würde ich empfehlen, von einem Edit-War bei de:Konrad Kujau Abstand zu nehmen, da daraus nichts Positives erwachsen kann. Entsprechend bitte ich auch um Verständnis, dass ich mich nicht an so etwas beteilige. Im übrigen macht das Übertragen eines der anderen Werke Kujaus in File:Kujau-Archiv de Franz Marc.jpg die Sache nur noch problematischer. Bei dem ersten Bild erschien es plausibel, dass er mit der Veröffentlichung einverstanden war, weil er direkt vor der Kamera mit dem Bild posierte. Dieses Einverständnis kann sich aber kaum auf sämtliche weiteren Bilder Kujaus erstrecken, so dass File:Kujau-Archiv de Franz Marc.jpg nicht nur der Beschreibung nicht entspricht, sondern auch als Urheberrechtsverletzung anzusehen ist. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Clonfert Cathedral Mermaid 2009 09 17.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Clonfert Cathedral Mermaid 2009 09 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Copyright advice

Hi there. Thanks for letting me know about the speedy decline on File:Temple VI Foundry Mark.JPG [7]. I must admit that thought did occur to me when tagging it which leads me to my question.... In a country where 3-d art is not covered by freedom of panorama, at what point does a close-up of a 3-D work of art stop being a copyvio? is when the work of art is not recognisable as in the case of the foundry mark, or is it just that the foundry mark is not considered part of the work even though it is part of the structure? It would really help me to get some clarity on this as I am working through a clean up of a large number of similar images (although not necessarily of maker's marks) uploaded to commons by a class of students as part of a series of articles they created on en-wiki. Kindest regards & thanks in advance, Nancy talk 11:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, two points are to be considered in this context. Firstly, the depicted part of some artwork must meet a certain threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright. Secondly, the depicted part of some artwork which is eligible for copyright must contribute significantly to the photograph, see the concept of de minimis. In this case, we had just a foundry mark which was entirely utilitarian in its character and where its inscription did not meet a minimal threshold of originality. Thank you for helping out and kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Dear AFBorchert,

Maybe its time this barely used image which failed review be deleted. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done . Thanks for helping out, --AFBorchert (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Dear Admin AFBorchert,

This DR must be closed as delete. The flickr owner said clearly he would not allow Commercial use of his photos as I stated in the DR. I think its almost at the 1 week threshold. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done and thanks again for helping out. BTW, do you have considered to run for adminship? --AFBorchert (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks but I must decline. MBisanz did ask me in private here but I have a full time job. I also don't know most of the Admin tools. But thank you for the suggestion. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


Dear AFBorchert,

If I upload a copped image which focuses on the 2 Emmy trophies here (1959 & 1961 respectively): [8] is this new photo considered a copyright violation on Commons...or is this acceptable for the Common project? I don't think I can upload the entire image since there is a large derivative in the middle. Can you give me a response?

If its not acceptable on Commons, then it would be a non-free fair use photo on wikipedia but I don't know the right license tag there. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, this photograph is not acceptable as derived work not just of the photograph but also of the Emmy statuettes. Please be referenced to this freshly opened DR for the more detailed reasoning. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A Question

Should this DR be closed as a keep? It looks very much like Damouns own work to me. All his 100+ other photos have a link to the same WikiCommons image file but this failed review due to the NC restriction. Unfortunately, the flickr account is orphaned--no new photos since November 2007--but it looks like 'own work' which means the uploader can license it how he/she wishes. Any ideas. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, as Damouns seems to be active at Commons I've asked him to comment this DR. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope you are right as he has not uploaded images for 2 straight years now. But lets hope Damouns still remembers his flickr password. If not, this should be closed on the basis of trust and his other pictures check out. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • As an aside, can you close this DR by me as a keep. I am surprised someone missed it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
✓  Done and thanks again for helping out. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Athenry Priory East Window 2009 09 13.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Athenry Priory East Window 2009 09 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

File:Clontuskert Priory Doorway Mermaid 2009 09 16.jpg

Hi AFBorchert,

I noticed the image you had on Mbz1's talk page, and I was particularly interested in the knot pattern to the right of the mermaid. I was happy to find that, and have added it to my Knots in traditional art image gallery. If you know of any other good quality images with knot patterns that are not in the gallery, I would really appreciate it if you would let me know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

St Mura's cross slab
Hi Malcom Schosha, thank you for your interest in Irish knot patterns. Mura's cross slab at the right from the 7th century belongs to my favorites. I've limited time just right now but I will look for further Irish carvings of knot patterns later. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you about Mura's cross slab, which is one of my favorites also. I have it in the gallery. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malcom Schosha, I've just uploaded some further photographs with knot patterns that I took in September this year in Ireland:

Thanks for uploading the images. I have added them to the Irish section of the gallery, which was clearly a little under represented considering to importance of Irish contributions in this area.

The thoughts on the meaning attached to the knot are interesting. It is seldom that we know for sure what theses ancient knots symbolize, and some think they were only decorative. There are no written records by the creators from any of the diverse traditions, as far as I know. An exception is the Egyptian sema symbol[9] (the knot is in the center) which represents the unification of the two Egyptian kingdoms. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

12th century interlace pattern at the portal of Clonfert Cathedral
Hi Malcolm Schosha, you are right in assuming that there are no written records by the creators of the Kilnaruane shaft. However, the shaft is entirely iconic and, according to Colum Hourihane, the face with the interlace panel is dedicated to the purpose, solution and ideal of the religious life. As you can see on the right hand side, I've found and uploaded another interlace pattern in my recent shots. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you give me the specific publication by Colum Hourihane for that? It sounds interesting. Also, if there are other good sources you know of that discuss the the meaning of a particular knot, or of knots in general, please do let me know. And thanks for the additional image. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I just remembered that you gave the source (The Kilnaruane Pillar Stone, Bantry, Co. Cork, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society) with the image, but unfortunately a google search did not find the paper. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
8th-century Ardagh Chalice with interlace patterns
St Patrick's bell shrine, 11th century
Hi Malcolm Schosha: Well, not everything turns up with Google. But I will give you the complete reference and your local library should be able to obtain this for you: Colum P. Hourihane and James J. Hourihane: The Kilnaruane Pillar Stone, Bantry, Co. Cork, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, ISSN 0010-8731, Vol. LXXXIV, No. 240, July-December 1979, p. 65–73. Very few libraries have this journal but the library of the University College Cork provides copies in exchange of IFLA vouchers. I will try to look for more literature. In the meantime I've an interesting quote by Hilary Richardson: A phrase often repeated by early Irish writers is ‘to see with the eyes of the heart’ or the ‘eyes of the mind’, and it is a good metaphor for understanding something of the aims of artists at this time. Early Christian art in Ireland was full of spiritual meaning. It was liturgical rather than religious; an art constructed to aid contemplation and prayer. (See the article Visual arts and society out of A New History of Ireland, volume 1, Prehistoric and Early Ireland, ISBN 0-19-821737-4, p. 691.) She explains also in that article how the decoration in early Irish Christian art is usually founded on Christian numerology and symbolism. An important source for this is the Stowe Missal which links numbers to mystical meanings in the eucharist. She also writes that at the time of Céli Dé reform movement (8th century) interlace patterns were increasingly replaced by figured scenes or at least moved to less prominent places. If you look for early Irish interlace patterns, a look should be taken at the manuscripts, chalices, and shrines of the bells. Prominent examples are the Ardagh chalice and St Patrick's bell shrine (see the pictures). Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I suppose what I find surprising is the idea of good and evil interwoven, the symbolism the essay seems to support, sounds much more Gnostic than I would have expected to find in the Irish church. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Poporo by Turista Perene.png

Dear Admin AFBorchert,

Thank you for telling me about the Oscar photo. I'll upload it as a fair use photo on wikipedia instead. As an aside, can you delete the above photo AFTER you have replaced all its uses on wikipedia with this duplicate I uploaded which is 1) of much higher resolution and 2) has clear metadata:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done and thanks again for helping out. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It was a pleasure. Thank you for your kind help too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Clonfert Cathedral Chancel Arch Southern Pier Three Angels 2009 09 17.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Clonfert Cathedral Chancel Arch Southern Pier Three Angels 2009 09 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Why on earth block BotMultichill?

Have you any idea how fast Commons will brake down if that bot does not run? If you think of edits like that [10] the problem is that the template was substed. You could just have fixed the template manually. --MGA73 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi MGA73, the bot was malfunctioning even in cases where {{delete}} was not substituted. This problem was already noticed by EugeneZelenko days before without any reaction. Next, there is no summary of activities given at the bot's user page, just the hint if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it without any further warnings or qualifications. I just followed these instructions and I see no big deal in blocking a bot if the maintainer is able to unblock it, which already happened. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes every bot has this notice and if it really messes up (like 10 or 100 bad edits per minute) then it should be blocked. But if the bot does thousand of correct edits and a few bad edits per day whats the harm in waiting af few days? All files that might be messed up should be in Category:Deletion_requests_-_No_timestamp_given and p.t. there is only 45. So it should be possible to fix manually. I did a quick check and found only 4 images like [11] and [12].
It is almost impossible to create scripts that can handle every possible combination that the users of Commons can think of. And as you can see from the unblock description Multichill does not want to spend the time it would take to make the bot figure out how to handle cases like the two examples above. Anyway I would have prefered that the bot was running - even if it makes unnessecary edits on a few images instead of we now have to fix them all manually. --MGA73 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)--MGA73 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi MGA73, the bot continues to run – so what is the issue now? I still fail to see what is unusual with the {{delete}} template in the above case and what there ought to be "fixed". Anyway, I still think that it is not unusual to suspend a bot when a bug notice remains unanswered for multiple days and I still think that bot's user pages shall have a proper documentation about all the tasks they are doing such that the consequences are better understood. Currently, BotMultichill is not even mentioned at Commons:Bots and at Commons:Bots/Requests/BotMultichill just the transfer of images under human review from nl-wp to Commons is mentioned. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
In one example the template was substed and in the other one there was a template within the template - easy to fix for a human :-) As I see it he got the notice at 22:39 and less that one hour later it was blocked. I just thought it was to fast and for to little to block. But nevermind. And yes the bot is running but not this task anymore... Cheers! --MGA73 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi MGA73, the initial notice was on 15:45, 10 December 2009. My block came at 22:41, 12 December 2009 in conformance to our policy. I just noticed that there were multiple cases of such broken edits. Yes, I noticed that Multichill appeared to be upset and told that he will not let the bot continue this task. I think, however, that it should no big deal to fix this bug (a regular expression alone doesn't do it, you need to count braces) and to resume this task. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

If you can please delete these 2 images. One of the two is a copy vio while the second image of the Spanish Empire is totally wrong--the kind of information which gives wikipedia a bad name:

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Can you help here? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
✓  Done , i.e. the copyvio has been deleted. The Spanish Empire, however, has to wait as the uploader wasn't notified – see my comment at the DR. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment : I thought the original nominator had told the uploader here. I guess this will take 1 more week then at least. The map is so wrong that I thought POV or NPOV rules also applied here because some people create maps to further a cause even when its factually wrong. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
POV/NPOV rules do not apply on Commons, see here. Wrong maps have their place here as well if they are of educational value. Then, however, it needs to be more than a sloppy random creation but something that is based on relevant publications. It can be used then, for example, to document how a map was used or misused or debated on in the real world (i.e. outside of Wikipedia and Commons). Hence the debate at the DR should focus whether this map falls into COM:SCOPE, i.e. if it has some educational value. I think, that a disputed or inaccurate map which is nowhere used and which is not based upon sources tends to be outside of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request für eine US-Gedenktafel

Hallo AFBorchert, danke für Deine substantielle Wortmeldung bei dem Deletion Request, ich habe das auch im Admin-Noticeboard angefragt, siehe [13], es hätte absurde Folgen, wenn Durova recht hätte. Grüße Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Cholo Aleman, gerne geschehen :) Ich bin übrigens durch das Admin-Noticeboard auf den Fall aufmerksam geworden. Momentan fehlt mir die Zeit, all die neuen Löschanträge durchzugehen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Something went wrong with this [14] upload. How do I get rid of it? Your help would be much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm Schosha, I've deleted it for you. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Santa Barbara dei Librai - facciata - ilmungo.jpg

Can all uses of this low resolution black & white photo above which failed flickr review be replaced with this colour image of higher resolution and secure copyright below:

What do you think? Its the same church as the category & name shows but much better photo. There is no need to tell the uploader of the failed photo as he says his account here is closed Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  • What do you think of my suggestion AFBorchert. It seems the only solution since the uploader of the failed photo is now gone. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The black/white image is no longer used [15] so if that is what you wanted problem should be solved. Delinker has been acting wierd lately so it can take some time. --MGA73 (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Some hours ago, the toolserver appeared to be defunct, i.e. check usage inquiries timed out and the delinker was inactive. However, meanwhile it's done and I've now deleted the black/white image. Thanks for helping out, AFBorchert (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you AFBorchert here. The second photo was much better too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Donegal Friary Memorial Slab Elizabeth M Kirnan 2009 09 23.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Donegal Friary Memorial Slab Elizabeth M Kirnan 2009 09 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Happy Holidays!

Thank you, AFBorchert, for unblocking me before my time has ended. It requires a real courage to do it for such a bad behaved editor as I am :) --Mbz1 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Thank you, AFBorchert, for unblocking me before my time has ended. It requires a real courage to do it for such a bad behaved editor as I am :) --Mbz1 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Last week, you've got mail

That is by no means a "waiting for answer" posting but just to make sure you got my message. I'm very busy in the moment anyway. Best regards, --Admiral Graf Spee (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Admiral Graf Spee, the last email I've received from you is from 5 December 2009 and I replied to it on the very same day. Did you miss it or did you send another email I've missed? Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you answered the first mail of that day very quickly and with interesting details, thank you very much for your immediate and friendly reaction. I replied, however, the very same day, some hours later, and that one sees to have been lost.
Just in the moment it is even for me somewhat late and I have been working for 23 hours continously. So please understand that I may come back to you with a new message by tomorrow - no, today, but during daylight hours ;-) Wikipedia tends to undermine civilized working hour schedules. Best regards, --Admiral Graf Spee (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Admiral Graf Spee, unfortunately I still haven't received another message from you. Please use GrafSpee AT, if all else fails. Best regards, AFBorchert (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I sent a test mail to you again. If that does not work, I will try usenet. Maybe I'm just not clever enough for these modern electronic-computer-web things ... --Admiral Graf Spee (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The test message was received and responded to. I will look forward to your email then. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't received anything yet. Did you already send it? Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - no. I am feeling in the moment like my alter ego must have, after surprisingly running into Vice-Admiral Sir Doveton Sturdee's HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible at the Falklands ... with too few time to do all the things that should be done before a major challenge simply is going to overwhelm you. Modern life has made X-mas day an omnipresent deadline for a thousand things, not less lethal than the 12-inch guns of the Royal Navy's battlecruisers. May I come back next week to you? Merry Christmas and many promotions for your excellent photographs. --Admiral Graf Spee (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Aollo 12 cue card.JPG

Ich hoffe, du kannst diese verunglückte Datei kurzerhand löschen, da ich sie unter einem um das fehlende p ergänzten Namen mit identischer Beschriftung gleich nochmals hochgeladen habe. Gruß: --Gerbil (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done . Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama pic

Could you please take care of the Barack Obama pic here: Commons:Requested updates to protected images

Thanks Nasa-verve (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

✓  Done . I am sorry for the outcome but we have unfortunately no other choice as long as the high resolution variant is not available under a free license. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)