User talk:Cecil/Archiv1

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

Contents

Please link 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 bokmål | 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!

Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on the Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlinked images of yours that I found are as follows:
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages should be used for more than templates...

...so I'm leaving this sunflower WikiThanks.png here. Even if you remove it you will not be banned from editing ;o) Finn Rindahl 10:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, how nice. And I don't even have to sneeze with this flower, so I let it stay here. -- Cecil 10:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Knöbbe und Frage

Die Belohnung

Viel Spaß mit deinem Wikipad. Ich frag mich grad, wie du im Musikbereich sortiert hast (habe schon Polar gefragt). Ich finde, Artikel sollten nur in ihre eigene Kategorie, was meinst du? Gruß, Codeispoetry 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Danke. Ich leg mittlerweile immer eine eigenen Bandkategorie an, so sie noch nicht da ist. Da kommen die Bilder rein und auch die Gallerie. Diese Kategorie sortier ich nach Land und nach Genre ein, wobei dieses Genre momentan eigentlich meist Heavy Metal ist, weil bis auf Black und Death gibts sonst noch keine. Auch die Gallerie kommt neben der Bandkat noch in diese beiden Kategorien, da lt. älterer Auskunft von Polarlys (irgendwo auf meiner de.Disku) noch nicht ganz geklärt ist, was jetzt besser ist - Kat oder Gallerie. Das müsste alles mal durchgesprochen werden. -- Cecil 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Bis auf die Galerie mache ich das genauso. Gibt es irgendeine Seite, die da Standardisierung hervorrufen könnte? Gruß, Code·is·poetry 14:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bitte entschuldige den fehlenden Pfad

Bitte entschuldige den fehlenden Pfad zu "Image:Scotland Fife Crail 20070725 0153.jpg" Hatte gestern wohl keinen guten Tag. Irgendetwas habe ich immer irgendwo vergessen odfer falsch verdrahtet. Hoffe, ich werde mich bessern! --S.Möller 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Batista

The image was replaced by the newer one on en.wikipedia.org. Did you mean here on Commons, or elsewhere? — Moe ε 11:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture you uploaded here on commons was an absolutely exact duplicate of one which existed already here and on which you then put the duplicate-tag. There was not one difference. The only reason I deleted the old one and not yours was that yours hat the better name. The old one was rather non-descriptive. But when you have to create duplicates and then ask for the deletion of the old picture you at least could check for it's usage and rename it there to your duplicate. -- Cecil 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Psycho portalde.jpg

Hallo Cecil, Du hast eines der Portalfotos aus der Anfangszeit der Wikipedia gelöscht. Hast Du dabei wirklich alle Möglichkeiten einen Autor oder Quelle zu finden ausgenutzt? Widescreen ® 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Weshalb hätte ich die Quellen suchen sollen? Das war Aufgabe des Autors, der dieses Collage zusammengesetzt hat. Er muss wissen, woher die Originalfotos wirklich stammen, hat aber auf Aufforderungen nur insofern reagiert, als dass er diese immer wieder gelöscht hat. Damit wurden die Konsequenzen gezogen und das Bild gelöscht. Ich glaube nicht, dass es zu meinem Aufgabenbereich gehört, zu erraten, wer die Personen da alle sind und dann auch noch rauszufinden, welches der vielen Bilder, die das so im WWW existieren, für die Collage verwendet wurden. -- Cecil 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Nachtrag: Wenn ihr die Collage gern weiter verwenden wollt, müsstet ihr oder der Autor (Niki K) die Originalquellen der 10 Bildbestandteile liefern. Wenn diese alle für eine derartige Verwendung freigegeben wurden, dann stell ich das Bild gerne wieder her. Falls ihr zum Identifizieren der Teile die Collage nicht irgendwo gespeichert habt, melde dich, das lässt sich regeln. -- Cecil 10:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Danke, ich habe Niki K schon angesprochen. Sonstige Collagen auf den Portalen sind offensichtlich mit besseren Quellen versehen. Wie ist es überhaupt möglich, so eine Collage zu erstellen? Welches freie Programm eignet sich dafür? Dann würde ich nämlich selber eins aus den Commons-Bildern zusammenstellen. Widescreen ® 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Collage erstellen ist eigentlich nicht schwer. Bilder mit geeigneter Lizenz runterladen und dann in einem Grafikprogramm zusammensetzen, abspeichern und wieder raufladen. Nur muss eben von jedem der verwendeten Bilder auch die Quelle und der Autor angegeben werden. Ich hab beim Kauf meines Scanners Adobe Photoshop Elements bekommen, dass für sowas reicht, aber kostenpflichtig ist. Das einzige freie Graphikprogramm, dass ich kenne, ist der GIMP. Der hat aber sehr viele Funktionen, könnte aber für einen Einsteiger ev. etwas komplex sein. -- Cecil 17:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Regattastrecke Ziel.JPG

Hello. Please restore the image. The author information was given. The pics in Regattastrecke Berlin-Grünau were all taken by the uploader. (This is the reason why bot aided no-source-tagging is not a good idea; not everybody uses Template:Information). Best regards. --BLueFiSH 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dann sollte der Autor das möglicherweise auch so formulieren, dass man das versteht. Ich hab mir die paar Wörter jetzt ein paar Mal gelesen, aber ohne deine Info würde ich das nie rauslesen. -- Cecil 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(gar nich gesehen, dass DE deine Muttersprache ist ;-) Zugegeben: Es könnte besser dastehen. Allerdings wird auch Vorlage:Self verwendet, das allein reicht eigentlich schon aus, dass man weiß wer das Bild gemacht hat. Danke für die Wiederherstellung. --BLueFiSH 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Cecil/Archiv1, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net.

EugeneZelenko 14:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that all as soon as I come home from work (will need concentration). -- Cecil 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Please put a {{user admin}} tag on your user page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks and done. -- Cecil 23:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the wrong picture

Sir, please see this discussion: Commons:Village pump#Duplication--百楽兎.png百楽兎 07:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I have deleted the wrong picture. I deleted the one that is not a featured picture and that is fewer used in the sister projects. -- Cecil 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, but please recover it and don't delete it until the discussion closed.--百楽兎.png百楽兎 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
First you tell me that I made a mistake and now I should undo something you yourself asked for. When you put a "speedy delete" on a picture, there will be a speedy delete. So, no, I don't see a reason to recover a duplicate. -- Cecil 00:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
First I put a "speedy delete" on Image:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg not on Image:QingMingShangHeTu Big.jpg, but you deleted Image:QingMingShangHeTu Big.jpg, so I said you deleted the wrong picture. Second I respect your view of point and don't want to argue with you. So I will seek other administrator's help.--百楽兎.png百楽兎 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The "speedy delete" template for duplicates doesn't say which one to delete because it doesn't really matter with duplicates. And it is really farfetched to think that somebody would speedily delete a "featured picture". So either the pictures are duplicates then it doesn't matter which one will be deleted or you put a wrongful request on one of the pictures. -- Cecil 05:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Golda_Meir,_bw_photo_portrait,_head_and_shoulders,_facing_right,_March_1,_1973.jpg

Hi Cecil, please check usage before deleting images, especialle when it's just a duplicate/earlier version like this and no copyvio. I've fixed links at no: sv: nl: and de:, but I don't now how to check usage of a deleted version. Maybe you could restore it and do a check?

I don't know if this was the reason for this case, but {{badname}} is often (wrongly) used even if the usage haven't been checked...Finn Rindahl 16:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll put an undeletion request for this since I see taht you don't seem to be active right now. Finn Rindahl 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats strange. I asked the CommonsDelinker to replace the pictures before deleting. And the few pictures it told me that were a problem I removed manually. -- Cecil 16:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure how Delinker operates, I suppose you should ask Siebrand about this. Sorry for rushing to undel.req., I noticed some hours had passed since your last edit and thought you might be off-wiki.Finn Rindahl 17:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why

Hi Cecil, why you delete this image? File:Santiagoseron.JPG [[User:Dgarcia}} 23:12 13 September

Because it had neither licence nor source. Read more about it at Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags. If you tell me a useable licence and a source which confirms the licence I will restore the picture. -- Cecil 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Image:MatsLeven.jpg

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

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

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

Deadstar (msg) 14:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Borrachines Laguneros.JPG

While looking for something to use my new tools for (thanks for your support BTW) I came across this - why did you restore this just after deletion (or did i miss something here ;)? Finn Rindahl 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture has a 'PD-self'-licence, thus the source and author are not really unknown cause the uploader claimed own work. But I noticed this only after I already had deleted it. I got a bit unsure since I don't understand the description and decided that somebody else should look over it. I think the picture shows just two drunken guys and that it's not in the project scope but maybe it shows something useable and I just don't see it. -- Cecil 08:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank for your answer Cecil. I'm pretty sure this image could just as well have been deleted, but as doesn't seem to be a copyvio in any way I suppose there's no rush ;) Finn Rindahl 10:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Diamant.jpeg

Please restore that image. You may delete the duplicate Image:Diamant.png (after linkfixing). It's much bigger in KB but worse in quality. Rainer ... 13:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You Are erasing my pics

Hallo

Sorry for my english. you have erased some personal pics(made by me) that i uploaded some time ago in spanish wikipedia , Antonio_Gamoneda.jpg , La_Vega.JPG, Paso_nivel_elcrucero.JPG .All those pics are made by me, please restore them Vielen Danke Ademarista 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The next time please fill out the source. If it is a picture you made then just write own work. Then they will not be deleted. -- Cecil 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have restored them now. Please add a description (so that people know what they show) and a category (so the pics can be found). -- Cecil 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Löschung des Bildes Image:Vivian_Hsu_portrait.jpg

Das ist ok. Das Bild hatte Probleme mit der Lizenz und ich habe es durch ein anderes Bild Image:Vivian_portrait.jpg mit persönlicher Erlaubnis des Fotografen David Barker ersetzt (GFDL).--Wikihawk 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ich habs ja eh gelöscht, weil es ein Duplikat ist und nicht wegen der Lizenzproblematik. Aber eine Frage: ich seh gerade, dass das neue Bild die OTRS-Info nicht drinnen hat, die das gelöschte drinnen hatte. Wird die für das neue nicht auch benötigt? Ich trag sie sonst noch nach, wenn die gebraucht werden. -- Cecil 20:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ballroom Castle Warsaw September 17 1939.jpg

You did amazingly, your great compatriot Adolf Hitler would be very proud of you! Polaco77 10:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, until now I didn't belief that there are supremacists around here, but now you proofed it. Please stay away from this talk page. People who claim to know Hitler and his mindset good enough to know what he would be proud of aren't welcome here. I loathe racists and you obviously are one. -- Cecil 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A destructive problem

I have that problem as you delete some of my images in use. It is not fun. I had add my free licence to that. Image:10mmSpiralStay2400px-inch.jpg Image:10mmSpiralStay600px-inch.jpg when somebody build, a other spoil, and you are the destructive. haabet 08:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Chakra

So you are saying that "Philipp Roelli" is the creator of the painting (not of the photograph of the painting) and that he released the rights to his painting? Otherwise your licencing is false. --Melanom 11:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for translating Commons:Ratgeber zur Administratorentätigkeit. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not yet ready, but soon. -- Cecil 10:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Imagen del Margrave

Hola, quisiera saber por qué has suprimido la imagen del Margrave "Luis el Turco" que ilustraba el texto de la batalla de Friedlingen. Está tomada de la versión alemana de Wikipedia. ¿Es que eso está prohibido? Saludos --83.181.119.177 07:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not destructive since you once again where not able to give a source. A scanner is never a source it's just an object to digitalize the source. Just you scanning the picture doesn't make you the author, so it doesn't change anything if you add your free licence to it. This pictures will be deleted once again in 7 days if you don't fill out the real source. And just as a warning, if you once again upload it afterward once again without giving the correct source you will be blocked for some time for learning about correct licencing and not giving away the work of others as your own. -- Cecil 15:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Imagen

No he indicado la fuente de la imagen porque no sé cómo se hace. Por favor, ¿no tendrías la amabilidad de añadir los datos que faltan en mi nombre? Parece que dominas la materia y yo soy novato. Sería una lástima que faltara esa imagen. Gracias por anticipado. --83.181.119.177 07:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Without the name of the picture or the username you uploaded them I'm not able to figure out which picture you mean nor which information exactly is missing. If you could provide that information I look into it. -- Cecil 13:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Premna serratifolia.jpg

In my opinion you have not done a good job deleting Image:Premna serratifolia.jpg. From the log:

  • 10:35, 29 September 2007 Cecil (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Premna serratifolia.jpg" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 17 September 2007; no license)
  • 23:50, 17 September 2007 Madhav Gadgil (Talk | contribs) uploaded a new version of "Image:Premna serratifolia.jpg" ‎ ({ {Information |Description=Premna serratifolia |Source=Indian Institute of Science collection |Date=2003 |Author=E. Kunhikrishnan |Permission=Obtained from the author |other_versions= }} )
  • 21:42, 16 May 2007 Tauʻolunga (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:Premna serratifolia.jpg" ‎ ( { {Information |Description=Premna serratifolia, leaves, flowers, young fruits; (volovalo) medicinal tree in a Tongan garden |Source= self |Date=1 may 2007 |Author=Tauʻolunga |Permission={ {GFDL}}{ {cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}}} [[category:L)

Apparently the license from Madhav Gadgil may not have correct, but the version before from me, was. In that case you should delete the offending version, not everything. Maybe Madhav had a better picture. But now we have nothing any more. Tauʻolunga 23:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's great that you have an opinion, but as long as you don't have the slightest clue what exactly is the procedure for pictures with missing information, please keep it to you. Every day there are several hundred pictures without licence. Therefor there are special tools which help the admins with the work. But naturally they don't show older versions. To check if maybe somewhere in the history there was a version which was okay is also not my duty, but that of the user who adds the missing-tag. Also it is no problem to restore old pictures, if somebody asks politely. Uploading a picture which already is on the server, just like you did now, wastes server-place. But since it is not your money you waste I'm sure it doesn't matter for you. -- Cecil 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try communicating

I'm not sure how judicious you were with the Speedy deletions. For exmaple, you deleted this image, in which the chipmunk closes its eyes while its being petted. That's pretty unique. Why couldn't you just be patient if you're going to have a deletion debate, anyway. Does Commons has the equivalent of the English Wikipedia Please do not bite the newcomers? I think you could have tried to discuss the issues with me 1st. ElC 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to come across as offensive, but do you not think there's a possibility that you were too quick to discount the usefulness of the images by speedy deleting some, seemingly somewhat arbitrarily? I've been an admin on the English Wikipedia for years and I'm not sure how administrative imperative is exercised on the commons, but your conduct did strike me as a bit heavy-handed. Also, if you're simply going to delete everything: this is the image currently on display at the chipmunk article on the English Wikipedia (see here for context), so you may wish to take that into account (if you have an English Wikipedia account; I can always upload it straight to the English Wikipedia, if that would be easier). I guess what bothers me most is that I thought people would be pleased with my donation, and actually, everyone from the Wikimedia project who has seen them, seemed pleased, so I am a bit taken a back with your speedy deletions and overall deletion opinion of it all. Sorry if this is too lengthy, I don't speak German; I hope my note is intelligible, if not concise. Best, ElC 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have restored most of the pictures, except the one with the little babygirl (sometimes I'm really glad that I grew up in pre-internet times and my parents were not able to put pictures of me unter the GNU-licence). Now the users have a change to see why I started with the deletion primarily. I'm sure you can find a use for each of the pictures I posted to the deletion request. And for the 'Welcome hand'-picture here: how should it help showing the size contrast between hand and animal if most of the body is hidden behind the hand. There are several pics in you gallery which show it much better. Same with the deleted picture of your friend/wive/???: she is sharp, the animal is just bleary. If you have to upload umpteen pics showing the same motif you could at least make a preselection if the things are recognizable. I can't see a problem in a unsharp picture if there is no alternative, but when there are several pictures showing the same it's a total waste of space. -- Cecil 08:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not following you and I find that your reply goes offtopic without being responsive to my above comments. You nominated every single picture I've ever uploaded on commons for deletion, without even an attempt at discussion. And you speedy-deleted many tens of them, again without discussion. Does this conduct not strike as a bit extreme? ElC 09:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have devoted a lot of time to Wikimedia projects, namely as an editor and admin at the English Wikipedia as well as an editor to the Foundation wiki (I would have added the Wikimedia Commons, but apparently that's in question now), and I am not accustomed to being treated in such a heavy-handed manner. I've found your conduct throughout this to have been quite hurtful. ElC 09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding: I didn't request ALL your pictures to be deleted and I already tried to clarify that in the deletion request. I just wanted them to be sorted through so that only the useful ones stay kept. -- Cecil 09:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, now you're making that clear. You didn't at the time that you announced my images have been nominated for deletion. Also, you are not being responsive enough here. I have asked you to comment on a number of issues, but you have gone offtopic. If you wish to make edits on the English Wikipedia, feel free, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. Why not let our readers/viewers enjoy these free images instead of expending an enormous amount of time on refining the notion of which image is useful? Likely, there are more useful matters that you, yourself, could attend to. Are we really that short on server-space and have so much free volunteer time? I was going to sort the images to individual galleries when I find the time. These are free images. Please just let them be; they want to be your friend, if you let them. ElC 09:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
With the word 'most' it should have been clear. I even asked somebody if he understands my intention behind it, but that's probably the language gap. And I don't know which question I haven't answered yet. I have told you in detail and example why I think that many of these pictures should be deleted. And why should I contribute at en.WP? I've never had the wish to contribute to a wiki which allows low quality articles like this (would be speedily deleted at the German WP, because of containing no even a stub). -- Cecil 09:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, if you have something against me, personally, just be straight-forward about it and let's try to resolve it like mature adults. If, however, you normally exhibit this level of tact, perhaps you should attempt to work on being more sensitive. That's unlikely a language gap. All this offtopic innuendo is becoming tiresome and is unproductive. I'm sorry you dislike the English Wikipedia and you are of course entitled to prefer the Germans. For my part, I try to ensure that articles I author are high quality. But this is unrelated on how to define useful. ElC 10:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You have once again just told me that I'm offtopic (right before you've done it yourself), but still have not told me which questions I have not answered. -- Cecil 10:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You have once again managed to ignore everything I said in my prior comment. Please just reread it. ElC 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As I've already told here and in the deletion discussion I define a useful picture as at least being able to recognize the object (and in case of an animal to be able to identify the species which is not possible if you just see a body part and the rest is not on the picture) and that there are not a dozen showing exactly the same. Probably you should reread my first answer here where I answered you in more detail. And by the way, here on this page is EOD, since it doesn't make sense to spread that discussion over several pages. Please keep your comments to the deletion request. -- Cecil 10:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting W.Siegmunds comment

May I ask you to reconcider the revert of this comment, it may not have been clear that the discussion was closed and it was certainly a very helpful and to the point remark from him. Adding Kept or Redrawn to the bottom of the del.req. page might also make it clearer that this discussion is over. Regards, Finn Rindahl 12:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please restore my comment. I composed it while the discussion was open; it was an edit conflict with your closure and Finn Rindahl's last comment, which I should have made clear in my edit summary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(BK)

Prejumpy.jpg

Veilleicht interessiert es dich ja:

  • Sort out. And by "sort out", I mean that there should stay not a half. In detail: I think, Cecil did well to put the RfD only on the user page, since it informs the contributing user and avoids mass edits. Furthermore, it is rather polite of her to restore all speedy deleted files for this discussion. It is obvious that there has to be some kind of quality limit. Thus, the question is whether the objected images do reach this limit or not. Commons:Project scope helps determining this limit by saying "This also means that files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project." This guideline, which is to be considered as our highest, specifies furthermore: "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted." Since the user is trying to work positively on wikimedia projects, this point could be left aside. However, the next one states "The quality of files should be as high as possible and should only contain the relevant content." Well. As you may see on the right, this is not fulfilled, at least not regarding all these files. In fact, I'm not sure if there even are ten usable images.
    I like to make a last point on E1C, whose work on en I do not no nor claim to valuate. However, what I read on this page is imposing: He tried to fight his pictures by every mean, like accusing Cecil of pick on him ("I'm just not sure why you're picking on me.", "Why have my pictures become some sort of cause célèbre for you, as they seem to have?") and even taking some stages of en:WP:GRIEF ("I donated these images in goodfaith, thinking they enrich the experience of those who come across Category:Tamias.", "This is the greatest tragedy in the history of petting chipmunks."). His continued editing of foreign posts is just the tip, and no, not everyone has to indent by bulleted enumerations. Regards, Code·is·poetry 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wie gehts jetzt weiter? Stellst du jetzt für einzelne RfD? gruß, Code·is·poetry 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ich warte jetzt erst mal ein paar Tage ab, hat ja keine Eile. Aber vielleicht solltest du deinen Kommentar nicht hier sondern bei ElC posten, da dort am ehesten was damit bewirkt wird. Hier will ich das erst mal auf sich beruhen lassen, bis sich der User wieder beruhigt. -- Cecil 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FP comment

You are correct - hence my intervention! They also faked another edit, regards --Herby talk thyme 16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To Cecil

Im Costarican, i dont speak english right. You erased the image of my favorite writer. What is the problem with this? Is only a image of a man who is died. Please explain it to me. THANK YOU --Mauriciol1991 00:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The source was missing. You claimed "PDArt" as licence for this picture but haven't added a source to proof that claim. This licence is just for pictures where the artist (the one who made the picture) died more than 70 years ago or that are under a free licence. In both cases you have to give a source that proves that the picture is really allowed to be published unter that source. -- Cecil 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Szwei Fragen *hicks* ;-)

Image:Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński - Maturzysta.jpg und Image:KK Baczynski.gif sind wohl eher nicht PD, oder? Vor allem das Erste ... Mache ich da NfD oder was anderes? Gruß, Code·is·poetry 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Das erste ist definitiv nicht PD sondern höchstens PD-Polish. Beim zweiten lässt sich das ohne irgendwelche Angaben nicht beurteilen. Ich würde einen Deletion Request reingeben, beim zweiten ginge ev. auch ein "No Source"-Tag. -- Cecil 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Mein Gedenke, danke für die Bestätigung. Nächstes Problem ist Image:KUKL_(GKO_e_Integrantes).jpg. Da steht „Origen: ampliamente disponible en varios sitios Webs (libre de derechos de autor).“ was grob übersetzt „Quelle: Frei herunterladbar auf vielen Webseiten (frei von Urheberrechten).“ heißt. Ich hab allerdings keine Website gefunden, die PD angibt. Was passiert damit? Missing source? Gruß, Code·is·poetry 11:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Eher ein "no permission". Laut Angabe wurde das Bild nämlich von einem der Typen drauf zur Verfügung gestellt (der fette Text), aber dann muss natürlich ein OTRS-Mail raus. -- Cecil 11:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Noch ne kleine Bemerkung am Rande, die nichts mit der Sache zu tun hat: Tobnu ist wieder da und bei den heutigen LAs sind prompt die Wrestling-Artikel wieder dabei, die, wegen denen er mir mit Sperre gedroht hat, und weil sycro gerade dabei ist, noch einer, aber der Tag ist ja noch lang. -- Cecil 11:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Danke für die Antwort. Die NfD mache ich, wenn ich meine Scripte soweit geschrieben habe ;-) Ich guck mir mal die LKH an, wir sollten uns allerdings nach Möglichkeit raushalten, hm? Gruß, Code·is·poetry 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Magst du dir mal Denis' Post auf meiner Talkpage angucken?

Xhrouet Mau

What's the problem??? Thank's to reply. the preceding unsigned comment was added by Préville (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10. Okt. 2007

If you mean Image:Lina, Mau Xhrouet, ca.1920.jpg, it had no licence. If you tell me under which licence you want to publish the picture I will restore it with it. -- Cecil 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Milestones of ancient Appia

Hi Cecil, why do you erased the two photos about Ancient Appia's Milestones i had upload the last week? What was the problem?--Luciano.comelli 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Both had no licence. If you tell me under which licence you want to publish the pictures I will restore them with it. -- Cecil 07:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I specified yet the licenses for both images, applying it under "modify" tag.
What i have missed?--Luciano.comelli 01:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't know what you tried to do, but the content of one is {{Information|Description= Milestone of Ancient roman way "APPIA", 43° mile from Rome (Forum Appii, Borgo Faiti today)|Source=self-made|Date= circa 2003|Author= [[User:Luciano.comelli|Luciano.comelli]]}}, so you can see, there is no licence. If you want to have it restored, tell me which licence you want to publish it under. Then I will restore it und you can try to figure out what went wrong. -- Cecil 09:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Åbo stads läge.png

Euer Bot macht ein wenig Ärger ;-) Eigentlich hatte ich gehofft, das es dem abarbeitenden Admin nicht auffällt, dass das eine Bild etwas korrigiert ist. Welche Vorlage wäre da richtig gewesen? Ein richtiger RfD? Gruß, Code·is·poetry 06:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wieso macht der Bot Ärger? Das der ein paar Mal durchgelaufen ist, liegt unter anderem daran, dass ich den Auftrag mehrmals vergeben habe, weil er gestern etwas gehängt ist. Der "not an exact duplicate"-Teil kommt von mir oder besser vom Dupes-Tool, das die Bilder vergleicht (wobei es nicht ganz 100% alles als gleich erkennt, was gleich ist). Aber so ähnlich, wie sich die zwei Bilder waren, passt das schon. Wenns nicht ähnlich genug ist, wird der Duplikate-Tag eh wieder entfernt. -- Cecil 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, ich dachte der würde irgendwo hängen und nicht weiterkommen. Die Bilder sind schon signifikant unterschiedlich, aber das alte war falsch ;-) Gruß, Code·is·poetry 07:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Irgendwas geht momentan wirklich nicht richtig. Hab die genutzten Dateien jetzt manuell ausgetauscht. -- Cecil 07:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting duplicates

When you delete duplicate files you should not only look at the filename. Unless one filename is really bad, it is often preferrable to keep the older file with its file history. I don't think Image:Digestive system diagram.svg should have been deleted. That name has the complete file history, and the kept file has only the latest version. And in this case the differences in file name is very small and the kept file name is only a very minor improvement. /81.231.248.36 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The file history is something I don' see when working with duplicate deletion. I don't know if there even was a improvement because the tool told me that it is an exact duplicate. The file with the "en" fits in the naming scheme and so I kept that one, especially since the deletion was requested because of a bad name. -- Cecil 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Added the log of the deleted one: [1]. -- Cecil 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove this image and don't remove this?--Ahonc 15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the svg-image bacause there is a second one here. The jpg was not deleted because the still existing svg is based on it. -- Cecil 15:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted image had gif-format and you deleted it, and other in jpg-format you commented as different formats. Gif and svg are also different (sorry, if my English not very good:))--Ahonc 15:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the svg has the jpg as base image. -- Cecil 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Dear Cecil. Please do not delete duplicates without replacing them in all Wikimedia projects ([2]). You can use User:CommonsDelinker/commands for this. --Kjetil r 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I wouldn't have known that without you. The orange message in the duplicates-list war really not visible before. Take a look at the history of the link before writing useless messages. The uploader uploaded that picture several times and all without a licence. With what picture should I replace something when I have to delete all versions? -- Cecil 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No need to get rude. The deletion summary was '12 October 2007 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Alvomon2.JPG" ‎ (dupe of Image:Alvomon1.JPG)'. It is then reasonable to expect that the image should have been replaced by Image:Alvomon1.JPG. --Kjetil r 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why when I know that I will delete that too and a third version too. That's just an unnecessary edit. -- Cecil 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, by letting it be there, you got me to believe that you did not know about how duplicates should be deleted, leading to this unnecessary discussion. --Kjetil r 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, lets stop this discussion, before you tell me that as an admin I am allowed to restore pictures with missing information and put something of my choice under them which doesn't make them more useable than before. Until now I believed that a user has to give the missing information for a restoring. -- Cecil 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A pipe is not a pipe?

I wonder whose copyright I might have violated, by drawing a portrait of my very own Woodsman-pipe to illustrate our article about René Magritte. That pipedesign is universal, the model is definitely unlike Magrittes - plus he made a painting, while I used a pencil. I am sorry for not being able to unravel all the mysteries of how to do things rightly here on Commons - but where the copyright to my drawing is concerned - I am, or was, the owner. Or do you really mean, that since R.M. made a statement, a present-day artist is forbidden to comment on that point in h*rs own way? Please leave your comment where I may find it.--Bjørn som tegner 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously copied the picture of Magritte. Everybody who has ever seen that picture would have recognized where your inspiration came from even though you maybe brought your own aspects into it. That's exactly what Commons:Derivative works means. We had here children drawings, where it was hardly recognizable what was the original, but still those had to be deleted. Sure you are allowed to make a drawing of your pipe, but in the moment you combined it with that senctence you created a derivative. -- Cecil 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dardo Cabo

Hola, soy hendrix.

Una consulta: has borrado de la página "Juventud Peronista" la foto de Dardo Cabo. Es una foto de archivo propio, y Dardo Cabo murió en 1977 (es decir, hace más de 25 años) por lo que en Argentina es de público dominio. Tal vez me equivoqué al subirla y no aclaré esto. La subo nuevamente, pero por favor, explícame si algo esta mal. Gracias. the preceding unsigned comment was added by Hendrix (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13. Okt. 2007

The old licence-Tag (GFDL) in combination with the source-description was just not logical, but the new description is much better. It would be good if you change the date to the one when the picture was approximatively made. 2007 is not 25 years ago -- Cecil 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Falg of Orihuela (this part is in Spanish)

Hola. Me gustaría saber por que has borrado esta imagen: Bandera_de_Orihuela_(Antigua). Gracias.

Sorry because I don´t speak very good English and I don´t speak German

--Ginés Sánchez 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No Marcas de derechos y enlace a la fuente: Commons:Sobre las licencias. -- Cecil 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FPC

Jo mach ich noch fertig --Simonizer 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


FP promotion

Bismarck tower Glauchau - night view (aka).jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Bismarck tower Glauchau - night view (aka).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bismarck tower Glauchau - night view (aka).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Simonizer 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Procedure

Sorry, you are correct. My mistake. Lycaon 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

image:Atlantik.jpg

Hi Cecil, The subject image was used on several wk mainpages (eg. it, ka). I believe it was a GFDL image based on another GFDL source from these images Category:Nuvola icons. Is there a discussion history to see the reason for deletion? Would appreciate. - Alsandro 16:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There was no deletion discussion. The image was marked as missing relevant information on October 7th. In this case, there was no source and author (and also no description or date). After seven days (or since we have a huge backlog it takes longer) the pictures in the Category:Unknown will be checked and all pictures which are still missing the licence/source/permission will be deleted since without that information they are not useable. If you can deliver a source I will restore it. Maybe it helps: the icon looks like a dice, half of it is transparent. -- Cecil 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It was this image:Nuvola apps atlantik.png image retouched, half transparency used to match the overall design of the mainpage. The author is the uploader user:Hill. - Alsandro 05:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Restored. -- Cecil 07:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :) - Alsandro 15:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Canonico Giovanni Spano.jpg

11:39, 11 September 2007 Cecil (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Canonico Giovanni Spano.jpg" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 21 August 2007; no source)

1803-1878!!! [3] --85.18.136.110 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes? As you can read, the picture had no source. Without a source it is not acceptable for Commons. Deliver a source and the picture will be restored, otherwise I would suggest that you remove the red link from the page. -- Cecil 19:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

travail personnel

bonjour tu as supprimer mon travail personnel (image) .. que dois-je faire ???? -- the preceding unsigned comment was added by Windows vista (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17. Okt. 2007

Looking through your deleted entries, I can't find any own work. Those were all copyright violations. But since I don't know which picture you mean exactly maybe you should ask the administrator who deleted them, because none of those deletions were done by me. -- Cecil 08:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Manoir de fournebello - cotes d arm.jpg

Hi, why did you delete this from French wikipage for "manoir?" I posted the copyright info that i made the picture. Also, you deleted it from my wiki commons gallery? Unbelievable!!! I understand the copyright info requirement and added it after 6 October warning; the upload file page was all FRENCH and I did my best to enter the correct info. Please kindly correct this ASAP. Thank you! BME 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

16 octobre 2007 à 13:14 CommonsDelinker (Discuter | Contributions) m (5 655 octets) (Retrait automatique de lien rouge vers Image:Manoir_de_fournebello_-_cotes_d_arm.jpg, supprimé sur Commons par Cecil ; motif : In category [[w:commons::category:Unknown) (défaire)

First of all I deleted just the main version of your picture, all the other instances throughout the Wikimedia-projects are automatically removed by the bot CommonsDelinker, since they are just pointers to the main picture (you would not have seen a picture there anyway, only a red link).
The picture was deleted because it was not useable for Wikimedia Commons since there was no licence-tag. In the version history of the pictures are just two edits; one was your upload and the second one was made 21 minutes later by a bot which added the missing-licence-tag. There were no further edits, neither in englisch nor in french. After 7 days of unuseability pictures get deleted. But if you tell me, under which licence you want to publish the picture I will restore it. -- Cecil 08:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cecil, thank you for your reply. I would say that the manor photo should be tagged as PD-self or PD-user (which one is most appropriate?) AGain, I made this picture and cropped it to be used on Wikipedia page. Thank you very much. BME 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Restored. Since you have an user account here, PD-user is IMO better, because it tells the name of the one who released it (which is not me who added the tag). -- Cecil 16:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:V_Huerta.jpg

Hi Cecil,

Following your message, I changed the license of this picture to PD-Old, as it is mentionned on the WP en. But I think something like PD-US would be more appropriate as it was the official photography of a Mexican President. Best regards. SalomonCeb 08:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture still misses its source, since Wikipedia is no source. That picture has to come from somewhere and at this original source there should be a reliable information about author and licence. There you probably would get the information if PD-US or PD-old would be better. -- Cecil 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, do as you please, keep in mind Victoriano Huerta died 95 years ago and that this picture was taken as he was made general before 1902, 105 years ago. SalomonCeb 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with Huerto, but with the fotographer. The guy who made that picture had to drop dead at latest 20 years after Huerto to make this picture public domain. So counting from a pretty normal life expectancy of 75 years, the fotographer had to be at 41 years at the time of the picture. If he was younger or found no other previous death then this picture is not PD. That's why we need either a proof that the author died before 1936 or a proof that it is impossible to find out who made the picture. -- Cecil 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Verona01a.jpg

I took the image in question. What other proof do you need? Please visit: link removed -- Cecil 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC) v/r
Peter Rimar the preceding unsigned comment was added by Chitrapa (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19. Okt. 2007

First, you didn't upload the picture, that was someone else. Second, this is the internet, it is anonymous. You could tell me anything but that does not mean that it is true. Therefore we have a permission-system, the OTRS. The uploader Liftarn has gotten a note with the email-address which is to contact, so please do that. Otherwise you could still leave a note on your website that you allow the publishing under the licence in question, but still an OTRS-ticket would be better. -- Cecil 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Liftarn moved most of my images as part of some Wikipedia clean up. I put the image on my blog as proof to you that I took the image.
v/r
Peter Rimar the preceding unsigned comment was added by Chitrapa (talk • contribs) 00:57, 24. Okt. 2007

It does not matter if you proof it to me, because that is irrelevant. Please once read the guideline or is that really that difficult to do? You have to proof your ownership an willingness to publish under a free licence in a way that it is obvious for Commons and that this things are proofable even in five years and more. That's why we have the OTRS-system. What is so impossible about writing a short mail that you start to scribble on picture descriptions and writing messages on non-picture-related user talk pages? By the way, putting a picture on a blog with a copyright-notice is not a proof for your willingness to publish under a free licence. And please start signing your messages or don't write on my user talk page anymore. -- Cecil 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dmitry Nagiev.jpg

Hello, you deleted the photo that i posted why ? I found it here on the russian wikipedia, why I can't use it ???

[4]

MArilyne the preceding unsigned comment was added by Gothmarilyne (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24. Okt. 2007

The description of the picture was missing the copyright-tag and was thus not useable for Commons. And now that I see from where you have the picture, I have to tell you that even with a copyright-tag it will not be useable. Commons just allow free media and this picture was not published under a free licence (can easily seen from the red copyright-sign at the Russian wiki). -- Cecil 20:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Copyvio

Hello, Which page do you mean? I did that following this page Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. And I copied some candidates result informations. Because I didn't know how to use featured picture tag, like this (Featured picture|subpage=Image:Terrace field yunnan china.jpg). I shouldn't have done that? Did I do something wrong ? I'm not so good at English then please use easy English. --Laitche 05:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the two FP-candidates discussions. Please do not copy anything without its history, because that would mean a violation of GFDL. Besides if someone would have looked at the nomination he would have seen a lot of votes but looking at the history just your one edit which would have looked like a fake. I deleted the two pages and relinked the two pictures, so no harm done. But if I have overlooked a third copy, please tell me so I can let it disappear. -- Cecil 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I think I copied two pages. And I think you already deleted those pages. --Laitche 06:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beograd-Qwd.jpg

This is a Copyvio; uploader was not copyright holder (OTRS ticket). You are the only admin on now I see in recent changes. Can you please delete the file? -- Avi 04:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Cecil 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry to trouble you. I will eventually request admin privs here in commons (again) for this reason :) . -- Avi 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing own deletion requests

Hi. Is it common practice for Commons Administrators to close deletion requests that they created? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the case. It is not ok to open a request and then make the decision and delete/keep the file. But I can't see a problem closing it when you have withdrawn the request. Why? -- Cecil 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you consider this edit to have been a withdrawal? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The deletion request had formal problems. I didn't want to request deletion for all of this pictures just for the worst one. And that was not able to be done with just one request. So there is now a page at Finnrind, where each of the pics get reviewed on their own. -- Cecil 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Wikinews Main Page June 16, 2005 0318 UTC.png

Hi. You recently deleted the image Image:Wikinews Main Page June 16, 2005 0318 UTC.png saying it had no source. Although I have not seen the image, I feel that the source is fairly obvious as being a screenshot of Wikinews. The license would be PD for Wikinews text content (all text on wikinews at that time was Public domain), GPL if any mediawiki interface was in there. And the complicated bit, so the images are the wikinews logo (which is copy by wikimedia) a weather image map which was GFDL, A bunch of wikimedia logos, copyright WMF, Image:Breaking.png, image:Special.png, and a local wikinews image which has since been deleted (n:Image:House of representatives.jpg that might be a problem). Anyways, is it possible to undelete it (or transfer to wikinews)? Thanks. Bawolff 04:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I hardly ever look at the picture itself as long as I don't have to check if the licence really fits to it (pd-old, pd-art). I have restored it for now, but it still needs source and author. So please add a {{information}}. -- Cecil 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou. Bawolff 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually i was looking more closly and found that some of the images included in it wern't free, so i've moved to wikinews (en). Feel free to delete. Bawolff 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nachfrage

Hallo Cecil, kannst du mir bei etwas weiterhelfen? Ich habe die beiden Bilder Image:ParkKultKolc1.JPG und Image:ParkKultury1.JPG gefunden. Beide wurden von der gleichen Person hochgeladen, allerdings mit unterschiedlichen Lizenzen. Was tun? Grüße, --Svens Welt 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Duplikate haben wir relativ viele, da ist dann eines Schnelllöschmaterial. Einfach in eins der beiden {{Duplicate|Image:Name des anderen Bildes}} reinpappen und es wird entsorgt und bei Verwendung entsprechend ersetzt. Meist ist es auch relativ einfach, zu entscheiden, welches bleiben soll, weil besserer Name, höhere Auflösung, usw. Wenns nicht so einfach ist, schau ich normalerweise aufs Alter und nehme das, das als Erstes da war. Hätte in diesem Fall neben dem besseren Namen auch die für den Autoren günstigere Lizenz. Gibt da nicht wirklich eine Regelung und liegt damit ein bisschen in der Verantwortung dessen, der das Duplikat meldet. -- Cecil 04:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Womrath

The image Womrath.jpg wasn’t the same as Womrathwappen.jpg. Confer the description in the gallery on Wikipedia:Womrath. -- 84.169.23.80 14:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The images were exact duplicates. That even was confirmed by a tool. Oh, and they had the same description too. -- Cecil 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Gerade auf de nachgeprüft. Dort war es wirklich ein Ortsbild, aber hier war unter dem selben Namen nur ein Wappen und zwar das gleiche wie bei Womrathwappen.jpg. Und es wurde auch definitiv hier nicht überschrieben, war nie ein Ortsbild. Da dürfte der Transfer schiefgegangen sein. Uploader hier war Redline is courtage, auf NowCommons in de hat de:Benutzer:Prankster de gesetzt, gelöscht wurde es von de:Manecke. -- Cecil 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Found it: At Image:Womrath001.jpg is the picture you thought should be at Womrath.jpg. -- Cecil 15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank You for searching. -- 84.169.23.80 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Link

Can you tell me why the image Monumento à Independência in the featured pictures candidates is beeing red linked?

Thank you Danilo P 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Was already repaired by Leandro Prudencio. -- Cecil 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kennst du ...

... das hier? http://tools.wikimedia.de/finddoubleimages/index Das spuckt mir im Moment die ganzen Duplikate aus. Ok, man muss noch kontrollieren, aber es erleichtert die Arbeit. Übrigens sind die Datensätze anscheinend vor kurzem auf den neusten Stand gebracht worden. Grüße, --Svens Welt 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also das würde natürlich erklären, warum ich seit einigen Stunden regelmäßig alle als Duplikat gemeldeten Bilder alle lösche nur um kurz danach schon wieder eine überquellende Liste vorzufinden. Ich arbeite nur mit dem Dupes-Tool von Magnus. Das Ersetzen von sich in Einsatz befindenden Duplikaten und anschließende Löschen braucht trotz CommonsDelinker schon genug Zeit, ich muss mir die Arbeit nicht noch extra suchen, die kommt ganz allein zu mir. -- Cecil 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Hoerschbach images

Hi Cecil,

Thanks for taking care of copyright issues. However, I do not at all understand what you're trying to tell me. All the images I uploaded have clearly visible author and source information, in all the right fields. If there's anything specific I should do about the images, please let me know. -- Ssch 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, source and author are there, but no licence. The pictures you uploaded where from german Wikipedia, where the user uploaded all the pictures without any licence. Only later some IP added a licence. That's why the pictures were deleted at german WP as missing essential information. -- Cecil 22:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... as far as I can see, the images have been on the German Wikipedia for more than a year without any trouble until about an hour ago, when I uploaded them to Commons and marked them as "NowCommons" on the de.wiki. The original uploader, Fipsinger, made no further contributions since uploading the images, so I doubt he'll be available for comment. Anyway, all I wanted was to remove them from an article with lots of photos, but still keep them around somehow, hence the creation of a Commons category. If there's a problem with them, too bad, but there's nothing I can do about it. -- Regards, Ssch 22:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The admin at german Wikipedia noticed the irregularity in the version history because of you adding the NowCommons-template and before deleting them he contacted me to see the problem for myself. -- Cecil 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete the picture again i restored. there are some duplicates. And I agreed with siebrand that I will fix it the correct way. Have a look at my an User talk:Siebrand talk pages. This page is part of a book with more than 400 pages. If we fix errors we will do it the right way.

The author's name seems to bei Karl Friedrich Ludwig Goedeke and not Goedecke but i will check this first before deleting pages. This will take some time.

  1. 17:11, 12. Nov. 2007 Cecil (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) hat „Image:DE GOEDEKE 1 1 030.jpg“ gelöscht ‎ (Dupe of Image:DE GOEDECKE 1 1 030.jpg)
  2. 16:57, 12. Nov. 2007 Joergens.mi (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) hat „Image:DE GOEDEKE 1 1 030.jpg“ wiederhergestellt ‎ (2 revision(s) and 1 file(s) restored: siebrand something has gone wrong, I think you got the wrong one)
  3. 14:23, 12. Nov. 2007 Siebrand (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) hat „Image:DE GOEDEKE 1 1 030.jpg“ gelöscht ‎ (Dupe of Image:DE GOEDECKE 1 1 030.jpg)

Greetings --Joergens.mi 19:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted it because there was a duplicate-template in the picture and the other picture looked the same. Or do you really think I check the version history of each pic if maybe someone has restored it and just forgot to remove the SD-request? Or should I first check all the talk pages if there is somewhere a discussion about the picture? Next time if you restore something maybe you could also remove the request. Otherwise you do not need to wonder if it gets deleted again. -- Cecil 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but where missed I the request. I didn't se a remark on that page. I've checked it the correct filenames are the one with Goedeke see here Google Books-USA* . I will restore the page again, because it has the right name and delete the other one with the typo in it.

But I've seen it now, by the second restore. My screen was to small. sorry --Joergens.mi 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Löschung Image:Akrotiri minoan town-2.jpg

Hi, du hast dieses bronzezeitliche Fresco gelöscht. Es braucht keine Quelle, weil es PD-Art ist. Das Fresco ist 3600 Jahre alt und durch die fotographische Reproduktion eines 2-dimensionalen Wandgemäldes entsteht kein Urheberrecht. Bitte stelle es wieder her. --h-stt !? 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Alles braucht eine Quelle, auch PD-Art. Wenn es ein Foto ist, dann gehört rein, dass es vom Original abfotografiert ist. Wenn es Scan ist, dann gehört rein, aus welchem Buch es abgescannt wurde. Wenn es von irgendeiner Bibliotheksseite/Museumsseite im Web ist, dann gehört rein, von welcher. Herstellen werde ich es wieder, sobald ich die Quelle kenne und diese dann auch im Rahmen der Wiederherstellung einfügen kann, sonst nicht. Wenn du noch mehr quellenlose Bilder hast, würde ich die an deiner Stelle aktualisieren, weil es ein paar Leute gibt, die gerade sämtliche Kategorien durchgehen und solche Bilder taggen. Nachdem ich zu diesem Bild keine Quelle im Netz gefunden habe (obwohl das Suchen eigentlich nicht meine Aufgabe ist), musste ich es nun mal löschen. -- Cecil 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
PD-Art braucht keine Quelle. Wirklich nicht. Ich kann dir natürlich eine Webseite nennen, wo es verwendet wird, es ist mir aber völlig egal, ob wir das Bild dort kopiert haben oder die von uns. Habe ich es eigentlich damals hochgeladen oder vorgefunden? Und du hast es gelöscht, obwohl es noch an neun Stellen in fünf Projekten verwendet wird. Bitte entlinke sie jetzt nicht, sondern stelle es bitte wieder her. Übrigens bitte auch die Version ohne die -2 am Ende. --h-stt !? 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC) PS: Ich habe da ein ganzes Bündel an Bildern von den Frescen zusemmengesucht und hochgeladen: Category:Akrotiri.
Falls du wirklich glaubst, dass PD-Art keine Quelle braucht und du deshalb den Bildern keine Quelle gibst, wirst du erleben, dass sie nach und nach getaggt und dann gelöscht werden. Dazu brauch ich auch gar nicht suchen oder mir deine Kategorie ansehen, weil das machen auch genug andere Benutzer. Ich such mir nicht extra noch Arbeit, die Wartungslisten sind schon lang genug, in denen diese Bilder auf Löschung warten. Und ich entlinke hier auch gar nichts, das passiert ganz automatisch mit der Löschung, da es natürlich einen Bot gibt, der den Lösch-Log "im Auge behält". Die Einsatzmenge in anderen Wikiprojekten hat da auch nichts mit zu tun, Bilder, die nicht ordentlich mit den relevanten Informationen versehen wurden, werden gelöscht, egal ob sie 1000 mal oder gar nie verwendet werden. Neun Stellen in fünf Projekten ist nicht viel. Ein Duplikat, und genau das ist entweder das Bild mit der -2 am Ende oder das ohne, würde ich übrigens nie wiederherstellen. Aja, und bezüglich des Weblinks: die Seite ist lange nach dem Upload hier entstanden und lässt zudem keinerlei Rückschlüsse auf das Bild selbst zu. -- Cecil 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Was soll denn der Nutzen einer Quelle bei PD-Art sein? Die Bilder darf ich hemmungslos von überall kopieren, also ist völlig egal, von wo sie stammen. Es handelt sich auch nicht um ein Duplikat, sondern um eine in der deutschen Bilderwerkstatt optimierte Version. Und gibt es irgendeine Seite, wo über diese Policy gesprochen wird? Oder soll ich die Mailingliste benutzen? --h-stt !? 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
COM:ART, wobei dort nur steht, wann diese Lizenz eingesetzt werden kann. Unter Commons:Lizenzen findest du in der Einleitung den Rest: Die Information auf der Beschreibungsseite muss es anderen ermöglichen, im Zweifelsfall die Berechtigung der Lizenz zu überprüfen. Auch wenn eigentlich offensichtlich ist, dass es sich um was Altes handelt und wohl kaum wer daran zweifeln wird, ist der Teil nicht außer Kraft gesetzt. Ich habe heute schon für zahlreiche Bilder in der Unknown 14. Oktober Quellen nachgetragen. Es sind noch nicht mal die richtigen Quellen, aber man sieht dort das Bild in größerer Auflösung und auch seine Hintergrundinfos, siehe zB [5] (eigentlich war auch vorher eindeutig, dass es alt ist, immerhin standen die Daten des Malers dabei). -- Cecil 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Meines Wissens stand bei allen Bildern (also auch beim von dir gelöschten) “bronze age” und “Akrotiri” dran. Das muss reichen. Der Text auf Com:ART sah zum Zeitpunkt des Uploads übrigens wesentlich anders aus als heute. Jetzt ohne Information des Hochladers oder Verwenders aus formalen Gründen (Nichteinhaltung heutiger Anforderungen) zu löschen, verstößt eklatant gegen Bestandsschutz und AGF. Ich halte mich hier gerade zurück, aber ich bin sauer. Wenn dir die Infos nicht reichen: Alle in Akrotiri bisher gefundenen Bilder sind in Dirk Herdemerten: Die Wandmalereien von Thera (Santorini). 2004, ISBN 363843088X dokumentiert. Damit ist überprüfbar, dass keine Bilder anderer Herkunft als Akrotiri ausgewiesen werden können. Fast alle sind bei der Thera Foundation auch online. Reicht das an Überprüfbarkeit? --h-stt !? 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC) PS: Bei Kollegen Siebrand habe ich nachgefragt, warum er vor einer Woche das andere Bild als “duplicate” gelöscht hat, wenn es sich um das Original und eine in der Bilderwerkstatt verbesserte Version handelte.
Das reicht eindeutig als Quelle. Wieder da. -- Cecil 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Danke dir! --h-stt !? 23:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Baruhdrkalmiphotobv5.png (section)

Hello Cecil. I understand that you are applying order according to the license regulations concerning photos on various issues. I am willing to do whatever is needed, in order to place the Baruhdrkalmiphotobv5.png (section) in a proper manner. As you understand, the applied photo comes from my family album, and have not existed previously in anything connected to the internet. Size and type are clear. The photo was taken in 1923 in Vienna, when Dr. Kalmi Baruh was still post-graduate student at the Viennese University. It was taken by, today unknown, local photographer. I placed it twice, trying to follow license directions. Obviously without success. Finally, please your assistance in this matter, Please advice parameters under which this photo should be place under the name of Kalmi Baruh. I would appreciate very much solving this problem once for all! Thanks in advance, (Benvenisti A 10:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)).

With you edit (adding the source) you overwrote the licence-tag, which is essential at Commons. I would have restored that part, but the statement you made in the licence section made clear that the previous licence-tag (GFDL) was not correct. Please just add a correct tag, probably {{PD-Old}}. -- Cecil 10:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

image:jet.jpg

I noticed that you removed Image:jet.jpg. I would like to inform you that I am the owner and that it is free of copyright. Following the instructions on Commons these were not further specified. I (and other users) would appreciate it if you could reverse the removal. Jw2c 18:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You definitely did not follow the uploading instructions on Commons, because pictures without a licence are never and under no circumstance accepted at Commons. Especially that point is mentioned in each instruction in each language throughout Commons (usually even in bold print). Without a licence pictures also will not be restored. So you either have to tell me which licence it should be or the picture will stay deleted. For details about acceptable licences see COM:CT. -- Cecil 19:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The picture is uploaded again and has a license. Jw2c 04:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And where would have been the difficulty to just tell the licence instead of wasting server space by uploading the picture a second time? -- Cecil 08:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It said the picture was 'deleted', so then ... Anyway, thanks for pointing out the license issue.Jw2c 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
'Deleted' does not mean that the picture is really gone. It's just not viewable anymore. But administrators can restore it any time. -- Cecil 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FPC nomination closing procedure

Hi Cecil,

I noticed you didn't go to the end of closing procedure for nomination Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Lucie_Bila.jpg. I don't know if this was intentional or if you forgot, but if you believe it takes too much time to follow the complete procedure, maybe it would be better not starting closing an FPC nomination at all to avoid confusion. Do you think it's a right way to do ? Thanks. Benh 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What's not closed? Since it was not featured, there were no further steps to do. Only the archiving was not done, and since both the candidate list and the archive are rather long loading pages I usually archive only when there are several closed nominations (about 5-10). There is no real reason to edit both huge files for just one nomination, and I have noticed that I'm not the only one who lets closed nominations on the page for some time. After all they are marked as closed and people know what that means. And, they can still see some of the results before those disappear in the archive. So please tell me what could be missing? -- Cecil 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed: can't be the archivation, you mean. After all, there were several other already closed ones you didn't archive when you archived the Lucie_Bila pic. -- Cecil 10:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Forget that I've asked what could be missing. After all it just turned out that you don't know the guidelines for closing successful nominations. Please switch on your brain when doing something. For everyone but you it was logical to add featured pics not only to the overview list but to the gallerys themselves too. And the others also were able to not just make a C&P, but also make the necessary corrections afterwards. Just for you I have added a note to the "What to do"-guide, so you can follow it correct to a dot and don't need to think about the obvious actions nobody mentioned extra. -- Cecil 12:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi again, and first, sorry if you took my "advices" in a wrong way. They were not advices, I even asked you if it were intentional, and if it were not I only suggest you to do thing in a given way, and even asked if you think it was a good practice. That's all. I don't always choose my words with care when writing message quickly. the green bicycle was added to Commons:Featured pictures as you can see in the history : [6] and I think I was careful enough not to forget any FPC which get featured on that page, they were all there at a time. If I forgot, sorry. As for me following the closing procedure completely, I follow what is written here COM:FPC Closing Procedure and I haven't found any mention of closer having to update [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11]. Next time, I will. Benh 12:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, sorry for my late reply, I didn't checked your talk_page and was waiting for you replying on mine instead. Benh 12:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, too. I got a little angry after I noticed the pictures in the gallery were missing. Just in general: The guide for the Closing Procedure originally included that as an extra point, but since then somebody tried to make this clearer'. I'm not sure if the version you read now is just really decrypted or if it really doesn't contain that part in the sentence. It should mean that you you add the picture in the overview list (where there are only the four most recent results) and in the categorys itself too, because there you can see all successful nominations. Otherwise some of the nominations would never have the chance to be viewable in the list (e.g. today I featured eight computer-generated medias, only four have place in the overview list). -- Cecil 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • then let's say this issue is settled :) Also, I agree for the dates issue (which I saw after I reply you)... I copied pasted, and didn't even know the #06 number was a date... But thanks for telling me. Hopefully, my forthcoming FPC closing will be cleaner. Maybe I'll update the FPC closing procedure page too, and notice you when it's done, so you can check. regards. Benh 06:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lebanon war ribbon.jpg

Why did you deleted my image? it's was created by me. please restore it.Ingsoc 17:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As should be visible in the page-log the picture has no valid licence. Pictures without a licence are not accepted at Commons. If you tell me a licence for publishing the picture I will restore it under that licence. -- Cecil 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Put it under "GFDL". and if you check the original version that Iuploaded you will see that I originly uploaded the pic under a free licence but somebody probably screw it up.Ingsoc 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Restored. The old licence was disposed because of legal problems. This in combination with the missing source (own work). -- Cecil 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!Ingsoc 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Botafogo_2006-07_b.png, Image:Botafogo_2006-07_a.png, Image:Botafogo_1997_2.png

Hey, I want to know why did you deleted this three images? They were uploaded and created by Caiquenlacerda2, with who i'm working in the this article in portuguese Wikipedia. I have them salved in my computer and i'll reupload them. It's a compilation of uniforms used by Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas, a brazilian soccer team, all over the years. Martins, Tito 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If you reupload them you will be wasting webserver space. Pictures can be restored. For the reason of the deletion, which should be more than visible at the talk page of the original uploader: Caiquenlacerda2 didn't read the guideline and just uploaded something without ever thinking if it is useable. Pictures without a licence are not accepted at Commons. If Caiquenlacerda2 (not you) tell me a licence for publishing the pictures I will restore them under that licence. Otherwise, since you are not the author, the pics will be deleted as "no permission". -- Cecil 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bilder

Hallo! Ich habe die Bilder bereits an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org gesendet, sind garantiert unter GNU-Lizenz, hab ich von Willkommen Österreich gesendet bekommen, lg--Marcus123 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dann wird das OTRS-Team die Warnung entfernen, falls alles seine Ordnung hat. -- Cecil 18:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Danke--Marcus123 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Tja, mit einer Einschränkung auf "nur Wikipedia" sind die Bilder auf gar keinen Fall in Ordnung. Das wird auch das OTRS-Team nichts machen, weil nicht akzeptabel. Einschränkungen wie "nur WP", "nur für Unterrichtszwecke", "keine kommerziellen Nutzung" oder auch "keine Veränderung erlaubt" sind nicht möglich. Solltest du wirklich eine entsprechende Genehmigung von den Urhebern erhalten, dann leite sie weiter und das OTRS-Team stellt die Bilder wieder her. Aber ehrlich gesagt glaube ich nicht, dass die das tun wird, weil damit erlauben sie die Nutzung auch durch andere Firmen und das jeder Blödsinn damit machen darf. -- Cecil 18:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Kannst du dir nochmal das E-Mail anschauen und herausfinden, was dazu passen würde? Weil ich habe nach einem GNU-Bild gefragt.--Marcus123 18:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Es ist egal, wie genau der Inhalt des Mails aussieht und was es genehmigt. Sobald du ein Bild so beschreibst, dass direkt beim Bild ein "nur Wikipedia" steht, auch wenn das Mail selbst sogar mehr gestatten würde, ist es für Commons nicht akzeptabel. Im übrigen kann ich mir das Mail nicht anschauen, ob es ev. mehr Befugnisse einräumt als du in der Beschreibung angegeben hast. Bin Admin und kein Mitglied des OTRS-Teams. -- Cecil 07:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Angelina_Fares.jpg

Hello, why was this file deleted? Jusmine 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a problem with the whole license and permission situation of this picture. 'Attribution' requires a name of the author (not just a sloppy her family). And since you are not the author of the picture there has to be proof that the permission was really given to publish it under the licence you have choosen. Just writing in the picture description that her sister permit to publish the picture is not accepted. We have the OTRS-Team for such things. Please send the proof you must have gotten from the family and the name of where you uploaded the picture to OTRS. Somebody there will check the authenticity of your claim and restore it or come back for more questions. -- Cecil 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chano pozo.jpg

Hey, I would like to know why you took out the photo I uploaded for Chano Pozo??? Answer to me please...cause' they are many things I did not catch about the photos... thanks frenciscobcn

I can't find a image with that file name anywhere in the logbook. But looking through all your contributions that where deleted, there is one named Chano wiki.jpg. If you mean that, it had neither a licence nor an author, and to be honest, it doesn't look like it is own work either. I really don't think that you took this picture with a camera yourself (Pozo is dead nearly 60 years after all) and claiming own work is only allowed in case you really made a picture with a camera yourself (obvious exception are graphics). For everything else you have to tell a original source, e.g. the book something was scanned from, the webpage, which published it, etc.. I suggest, you read COM:DW and COM:L. Especially the first link should clarify some rather common misunderstandings concerning pictures. -- Cecil 06:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi Cecil. You recently deleted Image:AYool WOA surf O2.png, an image that I uploaded to Wikipedia but which was migrated (apparently inexpertly) to the Commons by Vssun. As well as uploading the image, I also created it and documented this fact at Wikipedia - it seems likely that Vssun omitted this information when he/she ported the image here (I was unaware that the image had been moved here at all). Anyway, the presence of the image in the Commons prompted a Wikipedia admin to delete the copy held there, but this was then compromised by its deletion here. As the deleting editor, I would be very grateful if you could let me know (preferably on my Wikipedia talkpage) whether it is now necessary for me to upload this image yet again, or whether you can restore it directly. If the latter, I can amend its details to reflect my creation of it once it is restored. Best regards, --139.166.250.84 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (Plumbago @ Wikipedia)

Restored after source information at Plumbagos talk page at en.WP. -- Cecil 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:CoucheSoleilSaintGilles.jpeg

Salut Cecil, Je me permet de t'envoyer ce petit message en français pour te remercier pour "l'élection" de l'image Image:CoucheSoleilSaintGilles.jpeg que je proposais pour les Commons:Images remarquables. J'effectuais cette démarche initialement, dans le but de la voir peut-être un jour faire partie de la grande collection des Images du jour... Mais je n'ai pas trouver comment "proposer" mon image pour çà. Est-ce que tu peux m'aider?

Merci...

Maxime 08:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Otto Ehrenfried Ehlers.jpg

… hat keinen Autor und ist damit hier nicht in Ordnung, oder täusche ich mich? Gruß, Code·is·poetry 10:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Bei anonymen Werken oder Werken mehrerer Urheber, die nicht im Einzelnen genannt werden (z.B. Lexika) gilt nach der Berner Übereinkunft eine Frist von 70 Jahren nach Veröffentlichung. Bei so alten Bildern lässt sich der Autor, so er nicht bei der Quelle genannt wird, nicht mehr rausfinden, zumindest nicht mit vernünftigen Rechercheaufwand. In dem Fall gehen wir von anonymen Werken aus (siehe auch Bilder von Soldaten aus dem 1. WK). Trifft auch das Bild Image:Otto E. Ehlers.jpg, wo bei der Quelle (seinem Buch) auch nicht steht, wer das Foto eigentlich gemacht hat. -- Cecil 10:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, der letzte Satz klärt die Sache. Danke, ich lösch' dann die de-Version. Gruß, Code·is·poetry 14:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cancer vs crab.jpg

I AM DISGUSTED BY YOUR ATTITUDE. I TRIED TO CONTRIBUTE USEFUL CONTENT TO WIKIPEDIA AND MY WORK WAS TOSSED LIKE DIRT OVER A TECHNICALITY. CECIL & FRED, DID YOU CREATE A NEW IMAGE TO REPLACE THIS ONE? DID YOU WARN ME OF THIS DELETE IN MY PAGE? OF COURSE NOT. YOU DO NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA'S CONTENT OR USEFULNESS. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A BRAINLESS DELETE ROBOT. Emmanuelm 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You can scream like a child as long as you want, but you have no right to steal the work of others. That's not your work, it's a copyright violation. You and Commons can be sued because of your actions, so your harmful contribution had to be deleted. You were warned about the deletion, you even contributed to the discussion, so don't tell you didn't know about it. You are now banned for five days from editing, because you deleted contributions by Fred, which is not within your right. -- Cecil 14:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi cecil!

Ok, i'll do what do you say, thank you, excuse me my english is very bad jii and i know little, say you later the preceding unsigned comment was added by Maica padilla (talk • contribs) 23:26, 22. Nov. 2007

Yeah sure. I noticed how you do what I say, or not. You are banned for two weeks for uploading the picture a forth time despite several warnings. -- Cecil 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Minoan1.jpg

Hi, in diesem Fall warst du deutlich zu schnell und hast offenbar keine Rücksicht auf Kollegen genommen. Bitte gewöhne dir an, die history einzusehen und bei offenkundigen Sonderfällen erst mal nachzufragen. Das Bild wurde gelöscht und auf meine Bitten vom löschenden Admin für 48 Stunden wiederhergestellt, damit ich versuchen kann, beim Hochlader evtl eine zulässige Herkunft zu ermitteln.

Ich halte euer Vorgehen bezüglich "no source" bei Bildern, die vor längerer Zeit hochgeladen wurden, als es die Vorlage Information noch gar nicht gab und Quellen nirgendwo auch nur halb so deutlich eingefordert wurden wie heute, für nicht mehr mit en:WP:AGF vereinbar. Das hat nichts mehr mit Qualitätssicherung zu tun, das ist copyright-paranoia und ihr müsst euer Vorgehen transparenter und nutzerfreundlicher machen. Du siehst dich wahrscheinlich als Beschützer der freien Lizenzen, aber bitte überlege, ob du nicht doch über das Ziel hinausschießt. Bitte diskutiere das mit den Kollegen, ich glaube, dass ihr da momentan zu weit geht. --h-stt !? 08:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC) PS: In diesem Fall lagst du inhaltlich übrigens richtig, der Hochlader hat sich bei mir gemeldet und es war eine "Jugendsünde".

Abgesehen davon, dass ich nicht riechen kann, ob jemand das auf Bitten von jemand anderen wieder hergestellt hat (bei sowas ändere ich normalerweise das Datum des no-source auf den aktuellen Tag um eine 7-Tage-Frist einzuräumen), sehe ich zwei Wochen nicht als "zu schnell" an. Dazu war in diesem Fall auch die Lizenz noch falsch, das Bild hätte ich zwar nicht gleich gelöscht, wenn es eine Quelle gehabt hätte, aber es hätte ganz sicher wegen der falschen Lizenz einen Löschantrag bekommen. PD-Art und dreidimensionale Kunstwerke vertragen sich nämlich nicht.
Wir müssen irgendwann anfangen, die alten Sünden zu beseitigen. Dabei geht leider auch einiges verloren, dass wertvoll ist, das lässt sich nun mal nicht ändern. Monatelanges Rumdiskutieren wird da auch nicht helfen. Dass es nichts bringt, sieht man an all jenen Löschanträgen, die seit dem Juni aktiv sind. Ich finds nicht schön, dass wir Bilder aus der Anfangszeit wegen nicht nachvollziehbaren Quellen löschen müssen, ich finds auch nicht schön, dass wir gespendete Bilder aus der Zeit vor OTRS löschen müssen, weil die Genehmigung fehlt, und ich finde es auch nicht schön, neue Bilder löschen zu müssen, weil die Newbies die Anleitungen nicht ganz verstanden haben und daher die Lizenz fehlt. Aber es muss leider so sein, sonst gehts uns noch so wie Wikiquote. Und ich würde es nur ungern sehen, wenn dieses Projekt, in das ich so viele Stunden investiert habe, scheitert, nur weil wir unsere Altlasten nicht wegkriegen.
Übrigens, gerade bei richtigen PD-Art-Bildern sitz ich vor dem Löschen oft stundenlang rum und versuche Quellen zu finden, wenn die Beschreibung gut genug ist, dass Bild zu identifizieren. Das wäre eigentlich nicht meine Aufgabe, aber es gibt hier anscheinend kaum Leute, die es tun. Hier wäre eigentlich der einzige Punkt, bei dem man eingreifen könnte. Eine Gruppe Leute, die sich zusammentun, und die Künstlerlisten durchgehen und statt dem no-source reinzupappen wirklich eine mögliche Quelle suchen, die wenn schon nicht das Bild in genau dieser Farbgebung und Auflösung zeigt, so doch nachweist, dass es richtig lizensiert ist. Ich weiß zwar noch nicht, wie es am Foto-Workshop nächste Woche zeitlich ausgeht, aber vielleicht lässt es sich da ansprechen. -- Cecil 20:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ich sehe nicht ein, warum wir die "alten Sünden" löschen müssen - bei Texten tun wir es ja auch nicht. Insbesondere halte ich es nicht für sinnvoll, heutige Anforderungen an Bildbeschreibungen von vor über zwei Jahren anzulegen. Das no-source-Label auf die alten Dateien zu bappen und alles nach einer oder zwei Wochen zu löschen, ist eine grundsätzlich falsche Idee, die Prinzipien des Projektes verletzt. Dazu kommt noch, dass mehrere wichtige Tools auf dem Toolserver zZ defekt sind und ich zB gar keine halbwegs komfortable Möglichkeit habe, meine ältesten Bilder durchzuschauen, ob ich auch noch irgendwo nachbessern muss. Ich habe knapp tausend Edits im Image-Namensraum und mehrere hundert Dateien hochgeladen. Fast alle PD. Wenn ihr die löscht, weil ich im Dezember 2005 noch nicht die noch gar nicht existierenden Vorlagen benutzt habe, dann halte ich das für Extremismus und in der Wirkung für Vandalismus. --h-stt !? 08:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Airport vs Snake

Hi you deleted "Image:IMG 0013.JPG" because it was a duplicate of Image:Camau Airport1.JPG, but IMG 0013.JPG was a snake-image (Liasis olivaceus), are you sure the right image was deleted? Greetings, Bart B kimmel 14:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being attentive. The picture was in fact a duplicate of the airport, but only since a few weeks. Before it was the picture of a snake and somebody put the airport-dupe over it [12]. I have restored the versions before the manipulation. Sorry, the duplicate-tool doesn't show that kind of vandalism. By the way, the name of the snake-picture should be changed since it isn't descriptive. -- Cecil 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking over it, the user how overwrote has several strange edits. -- Cecil 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

information for PD-art

there is no consensus about the necessity of sources for obvious PD-art and PD-old images .. if you wanna make decisions without even discusiing the deletion requests then you have to review all PD-old (PD-art) category cause you will find thousands of images to delete ... Thanks for efforts but if commons will be managed in such way .. that is no reason for us to waste our time in it ... please notice that I'm not angry for deleting an Image I have uploaded .. many pictures of mine has been deleted .. but it is nonsense to obey opinion of some idiots without discussion .please go to VP and see what is discussed tehre about PD-old and PD-art ... Regards --Chaos 13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your pictures contained no source information at all, not even an author or something like that the author is unknown or a date when it was painted. Even handling pictures carelessly that is to few information. I'm maybe able to turn one blind eye, but definitely not two. If you think it is time of waste to describe pictures with care and provide proof that pictures is PD-art or PD-old than it's better you don't waste your time at all. Or are you the one who has the right to decide what it obvious for everybody. And there is maybe no consensus about using sources for PD-pics but there is also none for using no source, and since there is a general rule to use source I will delete pics with unsatisfactory description. Better one picture less than one violating someones rights. -- Cecil 14:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Ok .. about this Image : File:Ommayed-mosque6.jpg that is the source [13] but if you request the real author of the mosaaic then u r surely kiffin me .. such mosaics are thousands of years old on the walls of a mosque .. no one mention who is the real painter/author even in the history books .--Chaos 10:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Äh, have you noticed that your source is the picture itself. That's not logical. The source is necessary and requested to confirm the licence/author information. The picture itself can't give that kind of information, it doesn't even show the age or where it was made. -- Cecil 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Toluidine-isomeren.png

Es geht um das folgende:

01:24, 19 November 2007 Cecil (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Toluidine-isomeren.png" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 25 October 2007; no license) 06:08, 25 October 2007 DrTW (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:Toluidine-isomeren.png" ‎ ({{Information |Description= Isomeren van de stof toluidine - Isomers of the chemical compound toluidine |Source= Eigen werk - own work |Date= 25-10-2007 |Author= M. ter Wiel |Permission= ja - yes |other_versions= geen - none }} )

Also, wie soll ich dann sachen die ich selbst erstellt habe hochladen? Es ist doch klar das für solche Bilder keine Lizenzen da sind weil die Dinger selbst gemacht worden sind??? Kannst du das Bild also wieder "un-löschen"? Es wirklich zum kotzen das immer wieder selbst gemachte Bilder gelöst werden ohne das dessen Beschreibung wirklich gelesen wird und ohne ein Bericht zu hinterlassen.

Du kannst mich kontaktieren auf der niederländischen Wikipedia unter DrTW the preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.216.91.137 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10. Dez. 2007

Natürlich gibt es trotzdem eine Lizenz. Die darfst/sollst du dir selbst aussuchen. Benötigt wird die, damit alle wissen, wie sie das Bild verwenden dürfen. Da gibts nämlich Unterschiede: zB bei "Public Domain" dürfen die Nutzer alles mit dem Bild machen und müssen noch nicht mal sagen, wer das Bild gemacht hat. Bei "GDFL" müssen die Nutzer den gesamten GDFL-Text beilegen und die Liste der Autoren, ist daher bei Printwerken nicht beliebt, weil dann irgendwo im Druck die gesamte GDFL stehen muss. Dann gibts Creative Commons. Mit dem Kürzel "sa" (für share alike) müssen die Nutzer das, was sie mit deinem Bild machen auch unter Creative Commons sa stellen. Und mit dem Kürzel "by" müssen die Nutzer beim Bild immer deinen Namen angeben. Ich verwend bei meinen eigenen Arbeiten immer eine Doppellizensierung "{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}" (siehe zB Image:Belphegor RockTheLake2007 06.jpg). Wenn du mir eine Lizenz nennst, kann ich das Bild wieder herstellen, ohne geht es natürlich nicht. Und bevor du dich weiter darüber aufregst, das Bilder gelöscht werden, solltest du dich mal mit der Anleitung hier beschäftigen, da wird nämlich ausdrücklich erwähnt, dass ohne Lizenz gar nichts geht, und auch, wie man bei eigenen Bildern vorgeht (siehe Commons:Lizenzen) -- Cecil 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Богатыри.jpg

you delete Image:Богатыри.jpg (2114 × 1400) as duplicate Image:Die drei Bogatyr.jpg (1825 × 1200), but this image is bigger --Butko 15:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hymen_virginal.jpg -- posted again?

I think that Image:Skenes_gland.jpg is same as Image:Hymen_virginal.jp which you deleted, isn't that? --きたし 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not the same, but it doesn't look very real either. Probably you should contact the discussion participants of the other deletion request. Maybe those people know more about it and how it should look like. -- Cecil 18:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:YangGuiFei.jpg

I understand, I replaced the image, please erase. Thank you.--Taichi 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:AuditorioUDLA.jpg

In response to your comment here: it was about the black stripe in the blue air, say the top 5 pixels or so. What template do I have to use for that ? - Erik Baas 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW: thanks for doing a fine job on some other pictures. :-) - Erik Baas 22:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
For things like that I'd say use the {{cleanup}}, but please wait with such things until the picture is useable. As long as pictures don't have a source and/or a licence they will be deleted and the whole work was for nothing. So if you encounter a picture where one of those information is missing, please mark that, even if the picture itself has an error either. The repair of borders, stripes, and so on can be done later too. -- Cecil 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, I will use {cleanup} fro now on. And I already thought about marking images that may be deleted later on, but the problem is that if I don't do it now I probably will forget about it... maybe a "todo" list would be better, I'll try that. Thank you! - Erik Baas 22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For missing sources, it would be: {{subst:nsd}}
  • For missing licences: {{subst:nld}}
  • For missing permission: {{subst:npd}} (e.g. when a picture was published somewhere else before, and that other place doesn't state it is a free picture)
In all three cases it would be good to leave a message at the talk page of the uploader. I'm using a script for all these things so I just have to make one click and both the message at the image itself and at the user talk page are there. That's also rather handy for deletion requests where you have several more steps to apply. -- Cecil 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you beat me to Heath Ledger...

...I thought I'd give you the pleasure of Commons:Deletion requests/Heath Ledger. EVula // talk // // 18:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. I was searching for a vocabulary, that's why it took me so long to close it. Still searching, but I closed it without that word. -- Cecil 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
...and now someone has uploaded a (hopefully actually free) image. Oh boy, what fun we have when someone dies... I'm restoring the article; if the image gets deleted again, I'll just delete the article as well. Yeesh. EVula // talk // // 19:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again a copyvio ;-) -- Cecil 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This is why I just stick to interwiki links; no damn copyvio issues to deal with. :) EVula // talk // // 19:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SAunitpatch.jpg

Hello. I was asked to contact you about this image you deleted. I am a military historian with the U.S. National Archives and scanned that picture from an original Nazi text when I was doing research at College Park. The picture was labeled as a creation of the U.S. National Archives and cleared for public use. Can you please undelete it for use on your site? I can e-mail you from my national archives e-mail address to prove that this is legit if you like. Thanks for your time. -207.245.178.59 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the picture. Please fill out the missing information/correct the existing one at the picture description. It would be great if you send your legitimation to the OTRS-team. That way it gets documentated and the picture gets a ticket to ensure that that it will not be deleted in the future. -- Cecil 19:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

Why did you delete image Heath Ledger? It is from flickr and it says it is CC so what is the problem? --Zureks 19:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because it is on flickr and somebody marks it as CC that does not mean it is true. A lot of people upload pictures that are not their own and give it a licence of their wish. That's called flickrwashing, meaning the picture on flickr was a copyvio and you uploaded that copyvio here which does not make it more legal. -- Cecil 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Cecil, you delete the image, ok. But you know the license of the image? If not CC 2.0 its ...? Thank you. Leandromartinez 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's "All rights reserved". The photographer is Jeff Vespa. If you want to buy a licence you can contact WireImage.com, because they have the publishing rights, but even with all the money I don't think that they will release them for a Commons-compatible licence. -- Cecil 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we're done. :) EVula // talk // // 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Think so too. The flickr-user looks trustworthy. -- Cecil 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, and the confirmation e-mail has been sent to OTRS allowing for usage on WP projects. Cheers. miranda 06:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No source on a PD image & deletion

Hi!

You marked Toussaint 1888 800.jpg as missing essential source information. Well, that's true, and besides I had already warned uploader Zoust about that, but there's something strange about your warning. Indeed, you marked this image by adding template {{No source since}}, which states that the image might be deleted in 7 days.

But the image is in public domain, since its author Émile Friant died in 1932, that is, more than 70 years ago. Whatever the source can be, it cannot be copyrighted.

Will the image really be deleted if no source is given? It would be kinda grotesque to delete a PD media because of copyright issues... /845/26.01.2008/18:48 UTC/

Yes, without a source it will be deleted. There has to be proof that it really is whatever licence, be it one of the many different PD licences (which all have different background and law) or another one, is given. With PD-ART it's usually a little bit easier to proof the licence, since it doesn't have to be the exact duplicate. So the source picture can be of a smaller resolution and/or different colouring and so on, as long as the link just proofs that the picture was made by someone who falls into the 70-years-rule. Ok, that isn't correct for all painters, but since this one is a French one and not one from Scandinavia, it is no problem. But be aware that the lawyers of the Wikimedia foundation are right now discussing about changing some PD-rules so that only from the time before 1925 pictures are acceptable (I think that would be the end of PD-Poland and PD-Russia). -- Cecil 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so, if I understand what you said (sorry, English is not my mother langage), all I have to do to avoid deletion is to give a link which proof that this painting was made by someone who died more than 70 years ago, even if it is not the exact duplicate ?
If so, I think this link would be ok : [14] from Nancy city's official website states « Emile FRIANT Dieuze 1863 - Nancy 1932 », and if you click on the thumbnail on the right [15], a reproduction of the painting will appear [16] labelled as « La Toussaint, 1888, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nancy ». /845/28.01.2008/13:17 UTC/
Yes, in case of PD-ART licences that should be enough. Mutter Erde already put another link as source in the description. -- Cecil 13:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Alfonso2's images

Please don't delete User:Alfonso2's images. He has uploaded a Wikipedia logo over his own PD images to trick us into deleting them, after he was rejected in a deletion request. The original images should be restores, and only the copyvio deleted. Cnyborg 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I have to remove the copyvio and therefore have to delete them before I can restore them without copyvio. -- Cecil 00:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Great, I was afraid you hadn't noticed. I've restored one of them, I'll leave the rest to you so we don't step on each other's virtual feet. Cnyborg 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
So, finished. Everything back to normal. He got quite far before I noticed it. But maybe I haven't blocked him long enough (1 week), because at that time I just wanted to stop him and hadn't investigated further. -- Cecil 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad mushroom

Bonjour,

I do not understand why you deleted File:Agaricus xanthodermus2, it was from Flickr. Did I do something wrong in importing it?

Thanks in advance, I am more an expert in mushrooms than in licenses.

--Jplm 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC) = Jplm

Beside the fact that the source was missing (it just said Flickr, but there are zig thousands of pictures), it was also a copyright violation. Through the name of the mushroom I was able to find it here, and as you can see the licence under which the author released it ist "All rights reserved" which is an incompatible licence at Commons. Just images with the licences CC-by-sa and CC-by are accepted, and also there it is essential to check if the flickr user really has the right to publish them under this licence (flickrwashing). -- Cecil 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Cecil. I hadn't noticed the "All rights reserved mention" but a big green dot saying "Cette photo est publique", so I am not sure I understand everything but I will try to be more prudent in the future.
--Jplm 08:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The "This picture is public" just means, that everybody can actually see the picture even without registering. For pictures that are not public you have to register to see them. -- Cecil 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Península de Jandía SAT.jpg

is the source not NASA? Betacommand 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NASA is the author. But their website is huge with lots of pictures. How should somebody confirm that it really is from that author without the link where the picture is from exactly. Or do you want to search through a page with x-thousands of pictures to confirm that it's really from the given author. -- Cecil 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wheatus.jpg

Hi, I saw your message in my talk. This image is present on en.wiki, at the address that I linked in the description, with a cc-by license. --KS 15:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have a permission there either. Without a mail of the photographer sent to the COM:OTRS-Team and thus gaining a ticket, this image has no permission and will be deleted. A template for the mail could be found here -- Cecil 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Image:Imam Ali coin.jpg

can i know why have you deleted my image "Imam Ali coin.jpg" is it just because it was listed for deletion? have you contacted the uploader to know the status of the image or wheather it was discussed or not?, the image is for a early islamic coin which user:Tarawneh for religious reasons is trying to remove it, the image was shot by me i have other images from the museum i took it from so please contact me before deleting my legitimite image--Cyb3r 11:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not participate in the deletion request and proofed the claim as untrue, User:Tarawneh is a trusted member of the community, and it definitly is not my responsibility to chase after untold opinions. This picture was deleted in a regular deletion request. If you have proof that the information given that lead to that deletion than go to COM:UNDEL and somebody will check that information and if reliable restore the picture. But do not upload the picture yourself again. -- Cecil 11:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Just remembered something else: I actually didn't work through the deletion requests, but through the Category Unknown where the image also was reported. -- Cecil 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:USMC MP5 Submachine Gun.jpg

Image:USMC MP5 Submachine Gun.jpg - hi, this image was moved to commons from en; according to en's MetsBot [17] the image had proper source information on commons - since I can't see the actual deleted page I wonder what the problem was? 82.41.37.26 04:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the Toolserver didn't work, I had to work without our tools and had just seen the description itself, where there actually was no source in the information box. Checking the picture again I've now noticed that actually the description was defect. It seems the bot was not able to actually convert that to a working description and so the whole source was invisible. I've restored and repaired it . Hopefully we get the toolserver back soon so that I get a better view at the description code. -- Cecil 07:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:AR15 AimpointCompM4.jpg"

You deleted my photo with the above name breaking many of the articles it was used in. I took the picture with my camera and marked it with the correct licence. Please restore the immage immediately.

thanks. 64.167.48.200 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want something done immediately, go somewhere else to ask. I don't like that kind of attitude and react not well to commands and accusations. The image was not deleted because of a incorrect licence, but because it has no proper source, the uploader was notified but just removed the warning instead of providing any source information. You are currently just an IP and not the uploader here. The image description does not give away enough information to actually tell who the real author is (but definitely not an IP). So no, for restoring the image, I need more information. -- Cecil 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Cuneiform script.jpg

Tach. Why did you delete this image? It should be quite obvious that this kind of texts are PD, since the author is dead for more than 3000 years... And GFDL for the foto is default anyway. Just put the correct license in instead of deleting! (Or at least notify the wikis where the image is used *before* you delete it. It's quite impolite to just delete an image and not warning people who use it (at least a week before).) Thogo (Disk.) 11:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is PD (as which is was not marked), a source would have been necessary, but since it was GFDL the rules here are explicit and after a warning deleted. The uploader was notified not only one week before deletion, but actually more than 14 days before. If you actually think that each wiki should be notified while CommonsTicker and/or ToolServer are not working, you are invited to do that for each of the several hundreds of pictures which are marked with no source/no licence/no permission each day. We will not stop our work of cleaning up images against the rules just because of you. -- Cecil 15:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hui, entspannt euch mal. Cecil hat recht, dass eine Quelle benötigt wird, sonst kann nicht mal abgesichert werden, ob wirklich das Behauptete gezeigt wird (Wikipedia:Belege, du weißt schon). Ich denke, wir können das Problem schnell regeln, oder? Code·is·poetry 15:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Cecil, wenigstens in der dewp hätteste aber schonmal vorbeischauen müssen, wenn der TS nicht funktioniert. Das ist ja wohl nicht zuviel verlangt. Codeispoetry, es war ein Foto von einem Text. Wen interessiert das, in welchem Museum der Text grad vergammelt? Der Text spricht doch wohl für sich. Und da der Text etwa 3000 Jahre alt ist, dürfte er wohl unter kein Urheberrecht fallen, oder? --Thogo (Disk.) 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(BK)Es würde eine einfacher Weblink genügen, der zeigt, dass das nicht nur ein qualitativ mieses Schwarz-Weiß-Foto ist, sondern tatsächlich irgend einen alten Stein zeigt und deshalb nicht besser aussehen kann. Oder auch ein Buch, aus dem das gescannt wurde. Da aber auch jegliche Beschreibung gefehlt hat, war es etwas schwer, nach Quellen zu suchen. Google kann mit 'alter vermutlich chinesischer Stein S/W' nicht wirklich was anfangen. Und sorry, aber mit Anschuldigungen, ohne auch nur einmal an dahintersteckende Arbeit zu denken, kann ich einfach nicht. -- Cecil 16:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Und woher hätte ich wissen sollen, dass es in der deWP verwendet wird? -- Cecil 16:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So, Code hat mal einen englischen Admin ausfindig gemacht, der nachgesehen hat, was dort an Daten steht und ändert es gerade. 10 Minuten Recherche pro Bild mal 250, ich glaube, unser Backlog ginge etwas weiter zurück. -- Cecil 16:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Danke euch beiden. Sorry, wenn ich etwas unfreundlich war, war wirklich nicht bös gemeint. Ich weiß eure Arbeit natürlich zu schätzen und weiß auch, dass es hier zu wenig Admins gibt. Ist halt nur unschön, wenn ein Artikel dadurch verunstaltet wird, dass das wichtigste Bild plötzlich verschwindet. Versucht halt, wenigstens auf dewp vorbeizuschauen, wenn der Toolserver kaputt ist. Die anderen größeren Wikis (naja, itwp vielleicht noch) achten eh nicht sonderlich auf Qualität. --Thogo (Disk.) 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Emmanuelli.jpg

Could you please add a licence too, not only the OTRS-ticket. This way the image is not useable. -- Cecil 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The uploader do it
Cheers.--Bapti 08:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chanchan pelicans detail.JPG

Hi Cecil. You've posted in my talk that the Image:Chanchan pelicans detail.JPG hasn't copyright information and will be probably deleted. I've copied it from the homonym image on en.wiki. Its original uploader, en:User:Gsd97jks, released it into the PD. The original en.wiki image has been deleted 'cause I moved it on commons. If our image will be deleted we have to inform en.wiki admins for their file restore.

How can I avoid the image deletion? Must I contact the original uploader? She doesn't contribute to en.wiki since 24 November 2006. Bye. Jalo 11:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll check with an admin from en.WP. Shouldn't be a problem. When transfering something from a Wikipedia to Commons, always add the original source and author to the information-box, and not just from which Wikipedia, but the actual link. It makes checking claims much easier. -- Cecil 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Tractat von dem Kauen und Schmatzen der Todten in Gräbern

Why use the EU flag to represent the English language? AnonMoos 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anymore, because usually I hate that kind of unnecessary klickibunti. But it seems all my Wikisource-Templates use it. So maybe when I made the first one I copied it from one that already existed. -- Cecil 05:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick note

Just a quick note to let you know about Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Darwin Online and the fact that ShakespeareFan00 wasn't vandalising, but was genuinely trying to prevent any legal problems from arising over the images. Nick 22:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't warned him for it, or have I? But in my eyes it was a rather thoughtless action, because that way the wikipedias/... had that kind of message in their articles without getting any warning (or did he send a bot to warn them?). And that message even contained a typo. -- Cecil 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ben Wallace at WH.jpg

IIRC, this image, which you deleted in November as a dupe of Image:2004 Detroit Pistons congratulated by George Bush.jpg, was in fact a cropped version of the latter, used to depict one individual in the larger photo. If you might be so kind as, at your leisure, to check my supposition and, if appropriate, to undelete, in order that I might re-add the images to en.wp and fr.wp, whence delinker removed it, I'd be much appreciative. Cheers, Jahiegel 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just checked it once again, but it is really the exactly same image. It shows the same people at the same picture resolution and the same colouring of the image. The Dupes-Tool also has some kind of calculation to check if an image is a duplicate (it does not always recognize them as dupes, but if it does, it is usually correct). By sending the CommonsDelinker with that message the calculation recognized it as duplicate. There is also just the one version of the image in the history, so nobody overwrote it. I'm sorry I can't restore that picture, but the image name is still available so you can re-upload the image you originally wanted to upload. -- Cecil 06:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Adminwahl

Hallo, gemäß der heutigen Forumsdiskussion und weil ich selbst mit erschrecken festgestellt habe, welche Leichen hier noch im Keller liegen, kannst du mich, wenn du willst gerne als Admin vorschlagen. Ich schaue aus Vergnügen schon jetzt immer mal wieder in die neuen Bilder, wenn man da die Augen aufhält wird man eigentlich auf jeder dritten Seite fündig. Auf de habe ich mich nie der Wahl gestellt, weil es da aus meiner Sicht immer genügend Admins gab. Mit dem Englischen tue ich mich manchmal etwas schwer, das könnte ein gewisses Manko sein. Ich würde mich anfangs auch nur auf die einfachen Fälle konzentrieren und da versuchen mitzuhelfen. --Kolossos 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mach ich am Wochenende. Muss mir noch einen Text vorbereiten. Ich meld mich dann bei dir. -- Cecil 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Die Geschichte mit Nürnberg hast du ja mitbekommen, wenn es dich interessiert, die Vorgänge sind unter GFDL-Krieg_2008 von beiden Seiten dargelegt und unter de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Rechtsgutachten_2008 wird versucht zu einer unabhängigen Lösung zu kommen. Mein Wunsch zur Adminwahl hat damit aber nur so weit zu tuen, dass ich mich durch die Äußerung von Ralf "Das Projekt (Commons) funktioniert einfach nicht." veranlaßt sah mal etwas genauer wieder auf Commons zu schauen und nicht nur zu uploaden. --Kolossos 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pictogram Orienteering.png

I'm italian. in the image page there is: {{GFDL-user-w|it|wikipedia|Wiki.edoardo}}. I'm the author of the image, but in the italian wikipedia. --Wiki.edoardo 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added the missing information that marks it as you own work. Please for further uploads do it yourself. Just a licence-tag is not enough. It always has to state the source. In this case as your own creation the source would be "own work" (or the equivalent in Italian language). -- Cecil 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hilfe bei OTRS

Hallo Cecil, kannst du mir helfen und sagen, ob meine Ratschläge da so in Ordnung waren User_talk:Kolossos#Photobucket Es geht da um etliche schöne Bilder wie z.B. Image:Taijitu_and_flowers.PNG. Vielleicht kannst du auch schauen, ob die Mail da ist, das Ticket also anerkannt werden kann. Danke. --Kolossos 18:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Die Ratschläge stimmen, sobald Bilder nicht der Uploader selbst gemacht hat oder auf der Quelle eine Lizenz erkennbar ist, ist ein OTRS-Ticket nötig. Ich hab keinen Zugriff auf OTRS, aber ich habs mal weitergegeben. Den Angaben im Mail fehlt die Lizenz. Codeispoetry hat dem Sender schon mal geantwortet. -- Cecil 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image duplicate

The images of coats of arms are frequently one like another, because of the blazon is the same, but they are not identically: sothey are identified also by the name of the holder. Is not useful apply the image named Blason_Courtenay.png with the image named Armoiries_Boulonnais.png: the firset is related to the english family Courtenay, the second is related to the french county of Boulogne. The blazon is the same (gold, three besants of gules), but the coats of arms aren't. So, please, don't erase the duplicate images, if they haven't the same name. (Excuse my english, but I am italian). Bye Massimop 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: if you erase the name Armoiries_Boulonnais.png, no one user of Commons could find the coat of arms of county of Boulogne: who of they knows that the coat of arms of the family Courtenay is like the required image? Bye Massimop 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I only replace images which are real duplicates. There are tools who recognize that. Ee don't keep duplicates just because somebody wants two images that are 100% identical to have different names. And sorry, but duplicate images always have different names, that's why they are duplicates. By the way, if an image is categorized properly, it never should be a problem to find it at Commons. The name should just add to the description, not replace it. Only sloppy categorized pictures can't be found. -- Cecil 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of image Armoiries_Boulonnais.png, as duplicate of Blason_Courtenay.png is absolutely wrong, because the user interested in heraldry should be able to find the coat of arms of the french county of Boulogne, with the name Armoiries_Boulonnais.png and he couldn't know that the Blason_Courtenay.png has the same image (and the same blazon: or, three besants of gules). Now, after your deletion, it is impossible to find the required image (county of Boulogne): is possible only find the coat of arms of the house Courtenay. In heraldry the name of the holder of a coat of arms is necessary as the image and the blazon (description of the image). So, please, reload the image Armoiries_Boulonnais.png, because it is not a duplicate of Blason_Courtenay.png, but it another coat of arms whit the same blazon. Whit your decision is damaged all the heraldic find procedure on Commons. Bye Massimop 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
To make a (perhaps forced out) comparison whit flags, is like someone thinks the Mexican flag is a duplicate of the Italian flag (or viceversa). We can't simply rename them green-white-red flag. --F l a n k e r 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, the Italian and Mexican flags are not duplicates, they are just similar. Not only most of them have different greens, but they also have those different little things (insignias?) in the middle. That comparison is like comparing the one from the Netherlands and the one from Luxemburg. But if you really think the replacing is unnecesserary, talk with the one who requested the replacement. After all both flags are still there, so I still don't know why you are bothering me with strange comparisons and national pride. -- Cecil 09:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The comparison I've made is only for helping you to understand my point of wiev, not for bothering you. Actually I would say that the image probably is the same, but the things represented are absolutely different. About the national pride... mmm... where do you see it? Regards, F l a n k e r 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright expired images

Cecil your bot is probably deleting a lot of images that do not need to be deleted. All of the images I uploaded either:

a) have their copyright expired, taken before 1923 or
b) are from other wikipedia projects, as clearly stated in the explanation.

I hope you will adjust your bot accordingly. But in my experience copyright police enjoy the authority they receive when deleting images of others. Hopefully you are not like this.

I am going to bring up the problems with this bot on the copyright page. Odessaukrain 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered there. Will request Check user for the nazi-comment. -- Cecil 08:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mia Rose Image

It is an image of a video Mia Rose put on the Internet. That is in the public domain, all people can see is not that copyright is being violated, the video is on You Tube, enter by Mia Rose and is the first video aprece. removed link the preceding unsigned comment was added by Alejandrocaro35 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3. Mär. 2008

Lol, putting a video on youtube does definitely not make it public domain. A huge percentage of those videos are copyright violations, but even those which are not, like that from mia rose, even those are not public domain. Mia Rose would have to state explicitely that the video is public domain, which she has not done. So by uploding screenshots and so on you are violating her copyrights and in fact stealing from here. -- Cecil 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wusstest Du schon ...

dass ich gut 20 Minuten nach der Quelle/description/cats gesucht habe?: 16:11, 6. Mär. 2008 Cecil (Diskussion | Beiträge) hat „Image:439px-Fadrusz Mária Terézia-szobor from pozsony.jpg“ gelöscht ‎ (In category Unknown as of 27 February 2008; no source). "Keine Quelle" ist reiner Blödsinn - das weiss ich genau Mutter Erde 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Das liegt daran, dass ich das Skript schon laufen gelassen habe, als die Änderung von dir noch nicht da war und die generierte Liste schön langsam in meinen Kompilier- und Debug-Pausen abarbeite. Problem ist, Lizenz ist trotzdem keine da. -- Cecil 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Welche Lizenz schlägst Du vor? Mutter Erde 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hab gerade den Quelllink betätigt. Der zeigt den Kopf eines Mannes und nicht die Reiterstatue einer Frau. Ich habs mal für dich zum Reparieren wieder hergestellt. -- Cecil 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
PD-art hab ich gemacht. Das ist OK, oder?. Jedenfalls Danke und Gruss Mutter Erde 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Richtest den Quelllink bitte auch noch. Ich glaub bei Statuen nicht an Geschlechtsumwandlungen. -- Cecil 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, retour. Die Lizenz geht nicht. Ist ja eine Statue und somit nicht zweidimensional. -- Cecil 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Gerade ist mir augefallen, dass sich in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_Old jede Menge PD-art-Bilder verstecken. Da könnte sich ein Bot lohnen. Mutter Erde 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Und wie erkennt ein Bot den Unterschied zwischen 2D und 3D? -- Cecil 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
He, Du bist hier der Admin, nicht ich :-) Mutter Erde 17:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ich habe aber trotzdem keinen eigenen Bot, dafür muss man nämlich nicht Admin sein. -- Cecil 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Jetzt wollte ich Dir ein paar abnehmen, aber wenn man aus PD-old <-> PD-art macht, dann bleiben die ja trotzdem in der PD-old-Cat drinne. Dann sollen sie eben da drin bleiben :-). Grüsse Mutter Erde 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ups, total vergessen. Das liegt daran, daß ja in jedem PD-Art-Template ein PD-old drinnensteckt (man kann bei der Einbindung sogar spezifizieren, welches es sein soll, also 70 Jahre, 100 Jahre usw.). -- Cecil 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indonesische minivarken

Hallo, u heeft een afbeelding van de bovengenoemde page verwijderd, maar dit is echter eigen werk van mij. Het klopt dat ik er inderdaad niet de juiste coprightvermelding bij geplaatst kreeg - help please -...77.248.98.118 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't speak flemish(?). And without a picture name or the user name with which you uploaded I can't help anyway. -- Cecil 06:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Saint Stephen Crown.jpg

Hello, Du hast das Bild Image:Saint Stephen Crown.jpg gestern gelöscht (s. [18]). Wäre es mögich es irgendwie zurückholen, und es mir per email zuschicken? Wir suchen das Originalbild momentan vergebens. Auf die nationalen Wikis (inklusive Dewiki und Huwiki) sind diese Löschregel noch nicht so streng. (Falls unmöglich bitte um eine kurze Mitteilung hier). Danke für deine Hilfe, mfG. Akela3 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

Ok, wir haben's geschafft, es ist nicht mehr aktuell, danke. Akela3 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Louis XIV Louvre avec cadre.jpg

I thanf you for your very active kob cleaning up any image I transfer on the sit Commons.... But I don't be egrea with you when you deleted my image, the portrait of King Louis XIV of France with it's original frame. This work is the same, endeed, but with the frame you can compare it ti the image you ahve cited : Image:Louis XIV of France.jpg, image who was before restauration.

Il it will be also nice to you to not delete my emages just with sothes commentary. If a manke some mistakes or essrors in descriptions or licences, ok, I appoligize myself beacause it's not very easy to understand all the specifications of Wikicommons.

So, before deleted an image for a obscour reason, ask me before please, because I will re dowlod this image I took my self in the Louvre to watch the magnificent frame with it ~Sperreau2

If you reupload it (which is a waste of server space because deleted pictures can be restored) than be aware that you have to provide a proper source and a valid licence. Right now you haven't provided a proper source for any of your pictures. Codeispoetry and I spend several hours last night to try to confirm for at least a few of the images that your licence- and author-claims are correct. But since actually providing a proper source is the job of the uploader you can be assured that soon those pictures will have to be tagged again with the no-source. private property is not a proper source, same goes for the museum-information. Those are no proper sources, because they can't be confirmed. -- Cecil 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand can you explain me when a oil painting for exemple is in a private collection (for exemple my collection). I take a photo of it and have the right to diffuse it by the possessor of this old art painting. Do I importe also on wikicom a free scan of the paper which exeplain this autorisation. And for my exemple ? Do I autorisemyself to publish my own collection ???? When I publish a picture I have take in a musuem, I always choose a old art picture. What do you suggere for proper source instead of "private property" ? -- Sperreau

technical question about a painting with a frame

Hi Cecil, and thanks for all your help for the cateries of my contributions. Excuse for my bad english which can not help me for my explains. I see that you have modified the image Image:1681 - homme inconnu.jpg. Could you exemplain me the difference between a oil painting with or whithout his old frame on Commons ? Endeed, I take the photo of booth old objects and don't understand that the oil painting must be seperate from his frame. Thank you for your help for next images. Best regards.Sperreau2

The oil painting is a 2dimensional object, the frame is a 3dimensional object. Both are created from different artists. The licence for 2dimensional artistic objects is PD-Art. As soon as a image has a frame it is not PD-Art anymore. In that case you would have to figure out not only who was the artist of the painting, but also who was the artist of the frame and his lifedata. Maybe it would be good if you read COM:APL (french) and COM:ART (english), articles that will tell you more about the licencing of old pictures. Also you should be aware that even if you upload the painting with the frame again, somebody will soon but a "RemoveBorder"-Tag on it, because pictures with frames are not desired on Commons. -- Cecil 09:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Erin

Hi Cecil, can I ask you to review your copyvio claim regarding File:Erin Brockovich. The picture is licenced under an CC-licence and the usage in Wikipedia should not be a problem, I believe. You fin dmore information here. Cheers,--Schreibvieh 10:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that, but the guy at public.resource.org (Carl Malmud, who is also the flickr-owner) is not the copyright owner. He just decided for himself that the pictures of the Smithonian Institute are great and should not be just fair use. The real author and copyright owner of this picture is Jim Wallace (whom you didn't even put into the author-line to attribute him) and he has not released the picture under CC, he gave them to the Smithonian without naming any licence at all, they published it on their website and then Malmud came and took it and made it CC. -- Cecil 11:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
More about Carl Malamud, if you are interested. As soon as he has won his fight, we can use the pictures, but not before. -- Cecil 11:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Karoly Szabo

According to CV at user page the user is not old enough to be author of this image. -- Cecil 09:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Family Photo (my father) Tamas Szabo 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Muenchenstein.gif

Since Image:Muenchenstein.gif seems to depict a coats of arms of a municipality of Switzerland I've reverted the change of license to {{PD-Coa-Germany}} which I find highly unlikely. /Lokal_Profil 00:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if there a similar license for Swiss CoAs or are they not PD by default? /Lokal_Profil 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ups, somehow I had the idea that it is a German flag. I'll ask in the Forum if anybody knows the situation in Switzerland. In Austria and Germany they are PD, so I think it's that way in Switzerland too, but I'm not sure. -- Cecil 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the image must be very similar to a German CoA because I've had to stop myself several times from retagging it as PD-Coa-Germany. /Lokal_Profil 01:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Edwin Booth Hamlet.jpg

Hello. I see you deleted Image:Edwinbooth.jpg in favor of Image:Edwin Booth Hamlet.jpg. Thanks for taking care of duplicates. However I note that the image you deleted had a link with information on such matters as source, authorship, date, whereas the image you kept listed all of that information as "unknown"! I have copied the information to the version kept. In the future, please be sure to look at image pages before you delete them as duplicate, and make sure any useful information on any version is on the version you keep. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I had a little bit to many tabs open. -- Cecil 21:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:LuchtfotoAcademiegebouw.jpg

Hi Cecil, Please inform me why it is'n allowed to use a airial photo from Microsoft Virtual Earth. There was written: Image:LuchtfotoAcademiegebouw.jpg, Derivative work from Microsoft Virtual Earth Cecil 12:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC). Yours sincerely 129.125.151.143 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the real owner of the card material obviously has not released the pictures under a free licence. The company Navtec (or whoever else) owns the right to those images and just because somebody takes a screenshot of their images that somebody doesn't get copyright owner. -- Cecil 08:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images

Why was Image:New York State Route 292.jpg kept instead of Image:NY 292 near West Pawling.jpg, which had a more descriptive filename and was properly categorized unlike the other image? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It was by the author of the picture itself and not just some transfer. And it was here earlier than the transfer. I don't understand why people make those unnecessary transfers after an author uploaded his pictures. -- Cecil 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The author originally uploaded the image to both Wikipedia (en) and the Commons. I found it on the former first, which is why it was transferred here using what I believe was a better filename. I didn't find the Commons version until after the fact. Anyway, since the cats have been restored, it's not a big deal, but that's the backstory behind this. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I m sory, I not speack english. Can you delet, please: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Popups_que_hacen_prescindibles_las_categor%C3%ADas_1.JPG and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Popups_que_hacen_prescindibles_las_categor%C3%ADas.JPG ? Thank. Ferbr1 14:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They are deleted. -- Cecil 15:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank. Ferbr1 07:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Licencia

Hola, ¿qué tal?, he añadido la licencia, aunque ya tiene la licencia GFDL. Saludos. --Cme 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Cecil, thanks for your notice. Please look at here for the answer. Regards --Μυρμηγκάκι 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

About deletion requests

I do close DRs rapidly. You were wrong in thinking that things like "the author is still alive and wasn't the uploader" requires a lot of discussion. It doesn't; the facts were simple and plain enough that I saw no reason for us to host a copyright violation for seven days just for the sake of waiting seven days. Such things can and should be shot on sight.

You're right, however, that the deletion requests have a huge backlog. This is a reason for solving obvious problems as soon as they come up. Today's deletion requests are, after all, next week's backlog. And part of the reason it is backlogged, is because COM:DEL has become xbox-huge. Deleting obvious problems as soon as possible helps to keep it to a manageable size; that way, community attention can go on things that actually require discussion.

Love, Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, I don't think what the uploader has to say matters too much if the facts are clear enough. There's plenty of other venues for them to complain about it, anyway, right up to undeletion if needs be. Meanwhile, we have a duty to our re-users to not host copyright violations, and (as I see it) a legal duty to delete copyright violations as soon as possible. Restraint is a good thing, but there's a place for everything; "moderation in all things, including moderation", and all that.
As for giving a chance to educate users about the rules, deleting their uploads does a pretty good job of that... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah sure. A great and wonderful job. Recently I had encountered a user whos images where deleted eight times already, all speedy and nobody took the time to tell him why.
But it's okay. From now on I will just add a "No permission"-request and explain it at the image itself. This way the images will stay seven days, because you will not see them in the deletion requests.
Need to change my explanations at German WP, because I recommended deletion requests until now if there is a doubt, but now I will not do that anymore. The "no permission"-tag is easier to add (just two edits, not four), and nobody will misunderstand the difference between a speedy request and a normal one. -- Cecil 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right. I just love destroying things and hate it when discussion gets in the way. *sigh*. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Hyyrynen 03.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Hyyrynen 03.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.

Image:Alain fournier.jpg

Hello,

Your rationale for deleting this image is not based on valid arguments. I have restored it. Please do not delete such images which are more than 100 years old, and useful for the projects. Thanks, Yann 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a decision, go to undeletion request, but don't restore a image where you were involved, thats a misuse of your admin rights. Especially since you removed the deletion request totally. -- Cecil 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The deletion took place based on a deletion request where Yann was the only one supporting to keep the image and did so without bringing rationale why the image should be pd-old. I can't see that Cecil has done anything wrong here. Yann could request undeletion, but for now I'll delete it (again) pr DR Finn Rindahl 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Red Flag Over Reichstag, version without smoke..JPG

Delete this. --Pianist 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not seen that one. -- Cecil 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:CDWilbur.jpg

Hello Cecil, I m not the first uploader of this file. This file was originaly posted at english wikipedia with only this link as source. I uploaded this file to illustrate an an article translated into french. There was no other informations for this file. --Pixeltoo 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that at findagrave everybody can upload. On english wikipedia those images are ok, because the english Wikipedia allows the anglosaxon law Fair use, but Commons can't do that (in a very simple way, fair use means that you use the picture to illustrate text, but only text that is directly connected to the image; in case of Commons there is just a picture, so a fair use rationale would not work). For Commons there is a reliable source needed that a image is public domain, and in this case it is unlikely that the fotographer of the picture is already dead 70 years. It could be, because of Wilburs job that it is an official navy picture and thus useable, but for that a proove also will be necessary.
If you want a picture but can't find the source of this one, maybe Image:Yamamoto and Wilbur.jpg is a solution. It's not that good, but at least it is free. -- Cecil 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok there is maybe alternative solutions as you mention it. But what I am saying is that this picture was accepted on wiki in english with a PD-old template. The picture was not fair use when I posted it. And I know what is fair use. Maybe there are in history on english wiki something to proove my good faith. but I understand your need to inform this picture with a correct source. Anyway you can delete it. I am not opposed to that. --Pixeltoo
Deletions can happen to everyone (to me too), be it assuming to much good faith or not knowing about a special law. Especially from english Wikipedia we get a lot of transfers we have to delete, because they were marked wrong there. That's not your fault, so you don't need to try proove anything. Most people here at Commons know the difficulties. I'm still trying to find a source for the image at the usual places (loc, ...), if I can't find anything to show that my theory about being a official military picture is correct, I will delete it. -- Cecil 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

QI

For debugging purposes, what just happened on QIC? Did you have JavaScript deactivated? --Dschwen 18:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nein, keine Ahnung. Ich hatte in der Vorschau die Unterschriften noch korrekt gesehen, dann aber, weil ich die Bilder noch beschreiben wollte, noch mal die Tilden rein und beim nächsten Abspeichern hab ich die Unterschriften nicht mehr automatisch gekriegt. Noch mal aufgemacht, Vorschau gedrückt und da waren sie wieder. -- Cecil 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wappen

Hallo Cecil! Kannst du bitte mal auf meiner Commonsdisk ganz unter schauen. Ich weiß nicht recht, was da nachgetragen werden muss, veilleicht kennst du dich ja da aus. Danke im Voraus, und antworte wenn geht auf meiner Disk, weil dann bekomm ich eine e-mailverständigung, weil ich schau ja nicht so oft hier rein. lg --Geiserich77 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Cecil 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

deprecated function in your monobook.js

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Kangasmäki 01.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Kangasmäki 01.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.

Dominia Nosturi 29032008 Anton Rosa 01.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dominia Nosturi 29032008 Anton Rosa 01.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

Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Velin 02.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Velin 02.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.

Compostela scan

Hi, you deleted this image, but the image was properly referenced in the tekst on the image itself (though I admit this is in Latin). Your deletion comment that the source (diocese of Sanitago de Compostela) was not listed is therefore incorrect. I also don't understand why you felt that the discussion was closed. Certificates can be validly referenced and scanned, especially ones that are based on old designs. Since this design is well over 100 years old, there should be no problem. Please let me know, because I can uplaod a new one. Thanks. -- Jane023 9:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you don't ever need to upload a image a second time if it was deleted, because deleted images can always be restored. You didn't tell me which image I have deleted according to you, but checking the log of your image uploads I presume you mean Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pilgrim Compostela.jpg, because that is your only upload that I deleted. And if this is the image you mean it seems you have misunderstood my deletion reason, because I'm not missing the source, I'm missing the author. The author is the person who has designed that certificate and not the Canonicus Deputatus pro Peregrinis. They are just the ones who sign and give away the certificates (they have the exploitation right, but even if they somehow managed to buy also the personal copyright, there is still no proove that they intend to give away the design under a free licence). To use the scan we need to know who the author is, only through that way it can be determined what the proper licence is and only then a decision about restoring the image can be made. -- Cecil 16:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And what is the age of limitations on this particular license (assuming the Canonicus Deputatus pro Peregrinis don't know who designed the certificate)? Jane023 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on Commons concerning this. Until there is a result I can just recommend to not upload things with unknown authors unless that image is older than 170 years. For images older than 120 the possiblity to violate a copyright is quite distinct, but since we haven't finished that discussion yet, let's be better safe than sorry. If you know the age, please let me know, so that I can restore it in case the discussion result fits the age. -- Cecil 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! There are lots of things uploaded with unknown authors on Wikipedia that are younger than 120 years, including whole books. I find this particular point highly doubtful. Which countries does this stipluation include? Just the US? Most specifically, process specifications for methods and other such things. Often the organization is properly referenced, but the author is not. I still disagree with deleting this particular certificate, since it is not a legal document and there is no objection from the governing body itself. Jane023 20:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Which books are there, that are younger than 120 years old and the author is unknown? And the reason why there are pictures that are younger than that, is on the one side, that we have a huge backlog and much to few people marking them for deletion, and on the other side that there are also images where it is prooven they are anonymous work. -- Cecil 20:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Heavens! I would never dream of telling you whoch books, because you would probably go ahead and delete them! Besides, I don't want to stray from the subject at hand, and that is this particular image. I will attempt to discover the precise age for you, but that will take some time. I have found out from a Catholic priest that there is no objection whatsoever to using the image and that the reason for deletion on Wikipedia is probably a misunderstanding of Catholic copyright issues. Unfortunately, the Spanish authority is slow to react to my mails. I will try through the Dutch confraternity of St. James. They may have some old copies also on record. Jane023 8:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you next time please switch on your brain first before writing nonsense like that? I seriously doubt your claim that there are books that would have to be deleted, especially since their are different laws for books (anonymous books are free 70 years after their first publishing, not 70 years after the death of the author; on the other side books whose authors are dead more than 70 years, can still be unfree because of Editio princeps). But unlike the heirs of fotographers who probably never notice it when their images are used too early, the same can't be said of publishing houses who very well know their rights. This could lead to serious consequences. Books here are usually used for Wikisource-projects and those projects are huge amount of work. Not only will they be sued if they are using the book material to early, a lot of work will also get lost. But since you are so obviously ignorant of laws, the wellbeing of the community and Commons in general, please just stay away from here. -- Cecil 13:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

TUSC

Hallo Cecil,

du hattest mir das Tool zum trasfer von Bildern empfohlen. Ich verstehe die Vorgehensweise des Tools nicht und deshalb bleibe ich dabei, die Bilder händisch zu übertragen. --Μυρμηγκάκι 08:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ich hab dir TUSC empfohlen? Das ist doch noch ganz neu. -- Cecil 09:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
ja, sthet auf meiner Diskussionsseite. Aber, da du es auch nutzt, meine Frage: Was ist das mit dem TUSC Account, dem neuen Passwort und dem cryptischen Absatz in der Diskussionsseite? Das hat mich so verwirrt, dass ich davon abstand genommen habe. --Μυρμηγκάκι 13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Es gab ein ziemlich großes Problem mit den Uploads, die durch den Bot mit Hilfe von Commonshelper vorgenommen wurden. Viele dieser Bilder hätten nie nach Commons geladen werden dürfen (wg. Urheberrecht, Lizenzen, fehlenden Beschreibungen) und dazu hat es IPs, die auf Commons eigentlich nicht hochladen dürfen, die Tür geöffnet. Die konnten dadurch plötzlich Bilder hochladen. Die Folge dieser Sicherheitslücke war, dass sehr viele Bilder wieder gelöscht werden mussten. Jetzt legt man sich mit TUSC auf dem Toolserver einen Account an, und ist damit für den Commonshelper und einige andere Tools identifizierbar. Geh einfach mal hierhin, trag im ersten Feld deinen Benutzernamen ein, im zweiten das Wort "commons" und drück dann "NextStep". Drück auf der nächsten Seite auf "Click me", das öffnet bei dir auf der Benutzerdisku einen Abschnitt, den einfach abspeichern (siehe bei mir einen Beitrag weiter oben), dann geh zurück zu der Click-me-Seite und gib ein neues Passwort ein. Wenn du dann den Commonshelper oder das Flickr-Tool (und es werden sicher noch mehr Toolserver-Skripte) verwenden willst, gibst du dort dann einfach deinen Benutzernamen und dieses neue Passwort ein und der Toolserver weiß damit, dass du ein vertrauenswürdiger Benutzer bist und lädt deine Bilder hoch (wenn du die Option "Directly upload file" gewählt hast, ansonsten gibt es dir nur den Text aus, den du beim manuellen Hochladen angibst). -- Cecil 13:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

wie gesagt. viel zu kompliziert und unverständlich. Ich bleibe beim händischen. Sollte es irgendwann gar nicht mehr gehen, dann eben nicht. Trotzdem vielen Dank für den Hinweis und die Erläuterung. Ciao. --Μυρμηγκάκι 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: "You didn't tag it properly etc etc"

What are you talking about? A vandal ERASED THE LICENSE. I released with a PD-self license, description, categories etc. A vandal edited the image, erased the license, and then the image was deleted. This has happened to me 3 times now, though before I caught it before the image was actually erased. Before you hit the erase button, check to see if the license was deleted with the last edit by some anonymous user first. In fact this should throw up a red flag if someone anonymous removes a license tag from an image. --Ingoman 22:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since that vandal erased the licence, you once again reuploaded the image. The last edit was made by you and since the last image upload no vandalism had happened. Meaning: you where here, uploaded a new image, didn't check your image after uploading it and thus didn't notice that a few weeks earlier somebody removed part of the image description. Check the version history. The vandalism happened in March. On May 21st you uploaded a new image, this time without a licence, so a bot tagged it and notified you. Since you didn't add the missing licence for your last upload the image was deleted. Ahonc didn't delete the vandalized image, he deleted your last upload where you haven't added a licence. Next time check your upload and that will not happen. -- Cecil 08:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tereshkova.jpg

Excuse me, but why you remove Tereshkova.jpg image from commons? Dodonov (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Tereshkova.jpg. There was no proove that this image is in public domain, and two users brought informations that it most probably is not PD. Since Commons just hosts free images, this one had to be deleted. -- Cecil (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Havis_Amanda_at_Vappu_2008.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Havis_Amanda_at_Vappu_2008.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Ikiwaner (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is gone. Stupid FOP-restrictions. Why can't everybody use the ones from British countries or Austria. -- Cecil (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar template

Thanks. I actually just noticed that on another site (WikiMedia). I just left the colons out of the category links, so it categorized the page rather than linking to the categories. Oops! Thanks for catching it and alerting me. And thanks for not speedy deleting my pages!!! :-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Modulor

This image is coming from a licence created by Le Corbusier, which was given to public domain in 1947. What data should I add to make it clear. Thanks for your help. Jean-Luc W (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A reliable link with which it can be verified that Le Corbusier did indead release it under that licence, and a source would be good too. -- Cecil (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

De Portzamparc

Hello,

First, let me tell you that I withdrew the message I wrote to you because I was angry of the process. I have got carried away, and i prefer it not to stay on your UT page.

About Portzamparc, I'm searching the message that have been written about the right on the reproduction of his work. I think he sent a message to fr:WP ORTS and I'm sure that the WMFr president, ~Pyb, talked about this somewhere. Maybe it would be easier to talk to him directly.

Regards, --Pymouss Tchatcher - 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I would also be pissed if somebody tries to delete a lot of my pictures. There is one user who has made a huge lot of pictures with designs of one architect (the last, I think). He obviously walked through the whole city to get them. The only thing that does not make this FOP-law a total catastrophe is that the designs of that architect are also in cities outside France.
Let me know about the progress with de Protzamparc pics. If somebody deletes them before you can find the proove just tell me to restore them. I will also tell a few friends to check OTRS, maybe four to six eyes are better than just two. -- Cecil (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have more news about de Portzamparc's works. According to this, it appears that he just gave a free license for the photos he took by himself. So... --Pymouss Tchatcher - 10:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Damn. Maybe somebody could write him and ask. After all we don't want to publish the blueprints, just a feew pictures of the finished buildings. -- Cecil (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I mentioned the OTRS ticket (its number is 2008031910023091) in this discussion about one of the authorized images(Image:2003-2008 Renaissance Paris Wagram Hotel, Paris.jpg). A secondary problem does remain, as it seems that the uploader User:Alanya Knowles (who is an authorized uploader as per the OTRS confirmation and who is probably the photographer) had tagged the image with licence tags (GFDL + Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0) that are different from the licence specified in the OTRS confirmation (Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr). A similar situation occurs with another authorized image Image:2001-2008 Société Générale tower, La Défense, Paris.jpg (which the uploader tagged with a free art licence). I suppose that the correct tag should be only the one mentioned in the OTRS confirmation, but I would feel better if an experienced user like yourself could sort this out. Clearly all persons involved, architect and photographer, have confirmed that they want those images to be freely licenced, so certainly we shouldn't delete them, but the only question is to tag it appropriately. I'm not sure what to do about it, so I'd appreciate if you or someone else could please take care of this. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I will give this information to User:Codeispoetry. He is quite reliable and has OTRS-access. -- Cecil (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. 2008031910023091 is indeed a valid ticket. Unfortunatly I'm only fr-1, but I think all files uploaded by Alanya Knowles and Portzamparc Francais are released as Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr. Since many of them are deleted I suggest asking a fr (and commons) sysop. Regards, Code·is·poetry 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Stupid thing is, the images I have requested for deletion are all not from those two users. Good thing is, if those really have to be deleted, we will still have the one of those users. -- Cecil (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wondering

I'm also wondering where my head is. It must be the heat here, and now I just edited the template instead of the user's talk page. :( Thanks for the warning. Cheers. Anna (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

huhu

Cecil-am-grill.jpg

Ich habe es hier abgelegt, bin ja brav ;) Wenn es dir nicht gefällt, lösche es einfach. --Marcela (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Danke, gefällt mir. Ist sogar Oma-tauglich. -- Cecil (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Also irgendwie find ich den Titel von Image:Straußenfleisch-1.jpg fies ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm stümmt. Hätte ich geschickter wählen sollen. Naja, wenn man ständig ans Essen denkt... Nächstes Jahr bein 26. machen wir Vergleichsfotos! --Marcela (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Subst'ing

Those templates should not be substed, since they are the only way the bot can determine whether the request has been closed. I used to subst all templates on archiving to make the archive work again. That turned out to be a very bad idea and should not be done anymore. If you find a bot that subst deletion requests, please leave me a note so that I can have a talk with its operator. Best regards, -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

See this discussion. --Olahus (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I expect an answer here. Cheeers! --Olahus (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to do your work. I already spent time researching the source even though I am not the one who wants to chance the map somebody else has drawn. You are the one who want to change somebody elses work without even bringing any source at all. So sorry, but I have better things to do than that. And until all my atlases and schoolbooks claim that Romania is in Eastern Europe I will keep the map protected from unsourced changes. -- Cecil (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You have shown me a source that presented Romania in Southeastern Europe, a term which is not similar with Eastern Europe (in the case you din't know that). So, if you don't have much interest in the issue, remove the protection and let me do the best for the map. --Olahus (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not your map, you have not even tried to proove your position, and the licence protects the image from those kind of changes. So no, and as long as you are unable to change your attitude you don't need to post on my talk page anymore. -- Cecil (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither the actual position is proven and the actual position is anyhow not the original one. So, concerning the licence ... it's anyhow violated. Besides, how do you rate my attitude? --Olahus (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the licence protects the original work of the author not to be changed in a way it is not intended. And I would call your attitude offensive, and since the time I spend here is my free time, I don't waste it with nationalistic thoughts. Next edit will be reverted. -- Cecil (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And just to clarify that revert: I'm the admin who protected the image from an edit-war. I'm not the person with whom you had an edit-war. Go to that person. If you two have reached a consens I will unblock the image, but I will not miss-use my admin-rights by deciding something by overruling the other contributor of that edit-war. -- Cecil (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bild verlustig

Hallöle, irgendwie vermiss ich ein Bild von mir. Es war mal da [19] und wurde dann mit Now commons von dir versehen. (03:31, 6. Nov. 2007 . . Cecil (Diskussion | Beiträge | Sperren) (257 Bytes) (NowCommons)). Ich habe dann mal hier gewühlt und irgendwie nicht mein altes Bild gefunden. Ich habe versucht die erste Version wiederherzustellen, aber irgendwie kam nur das von Erell [20] dabei raus. Was dann nun wirklich n Duplikat darstellt. Irgendwas ging da schief ;)... Gruß Darkone 21:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Moment, dazu brauch ich nen de.Admin. -- Cecil (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Codeispoetry sei Dank: Image:Ribnitz_Klarissenkloster.jpg. -- Cecil (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Der Löschkommentar auf de hätte aber eh auf das richtige Bild gezeigt. -- Cecil (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, na doll hätt ich auch drauf kommen können ^^. Danke für die schnelle Auflösung. :) Darkone 22:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikilove, help each other

You removed my good questions instead of answering them or even moving them somewhere else.
Have you heard of wikilove ? Helping each other... You should understand that it is already difficult for the contributors which pictures have been suppressed. My questions were very linked to this debate.
Helping wikipedia is a good thing but there is a way of doing it. Like helping newbees, even if they do wrong, debate and explain before suppressing someone's work...
Regards Liné1 (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, by the way, I really don't know what to do about my questions... Liné1 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The debate was clearly marked as closed and archived. You would not have gotten an answer there. I could have just left it there and everybody would have ignored it. Instead I warned you about that fact by removing it and telling which places you can go to get an answer. And I answered at least a third of it somewhere else. -- Cecil (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
For the second message of you: I think the first question would best be posted at the talk page of COM:FOP or maybe at the English Commons:Village pump or the French Commons:Bistro. There most people are observing the discussions.
The second question is something you can ask everywhere, even go to an admin of your choice, e.g. Collard, who deleted them, or one of the French ones.
The third question is already at the correct place. I just don't think there will be a good solution for the problem. -- Cecil (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Renaming British artillery shell diagrams

You are making big mistakes in renaming the British artillery ammunition e.g. Image:BL8inchHENavalShellDiagram1934.jpg as Image:Diagram of British HE shell.jpg

Also Image:BL8inchSAPMkIBShell1933Diagram.jpg Image:BL8inchSAPKMkIBNTShell1943Diagram.jpg Image:BL15inchAPMkXXIIBNTShell1943Diagram.jpg Image:BL15inchAPMkXIIAShell1933Diagram.jpg

You have omitted the important identification information : calibre, mark, year etc. There are many similar diagrams and need to be uniquly and descriptively identified.

Also, for sorting purposes, the most important thing is the gun calibre and shell type, not the fact that it is a diagram. We want all shells for the same gun sorted together, whether diagram or photograph. Hence the name should end with diagram if it is used.

Please do not delete these diagrams until you have proper names. I recommend you just place spaces between the parts of the name as it is now. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not rename them. Somebody made a request for renaming, somebody else confirmed that request as valid and somebody made the transfer. I just delete the duplicates. -- Cecil (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI. -- Cecil (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have contacted all the people involved and nobody wants to accept responsibility for this. I'm just going to upload them again with proper names, no great problem. Maybe admins need to include a step in the delete procedure : contact the original uploader and give them a chance to respond and present their counter-argument or objection. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to upload them. They are still there. By the way, the request for renaming was made in May and nobody spoke against it. -- Cecil (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Last night alone nearly 400 pictures were renamed. Can you image what would happen if we contact each time every uploader (most of them never returning anyway and not leaving contact data) and then wait if they ever respond. The problem is more the whole renaming and approving process itself. It is in many cases useless or wrong. And I have requested to remove the responsible user in this and another case from the list of trustworthy users. The whole renaming game is more a creation of work than a solving of problem. If I can't trust somebody who should be trustworthy that is also a problem. -- Cecil (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aristarchos logo small.png

Hi Cecil. You recently deleted Image:Aristarchos logo small.png as a duplicate of Image:Aristarchos logo big.png. It actually wasn't a duplicate, but a different image meant to look better at a small size (e.g. on a project banner or userbox). Could you undelete it? Thanks, Tim Smith (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

done. -- Cecil (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure what I was seeing with that Johnny Bench image, thanks for making the note. Leafschik1967 (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably a problem with the server cache. That sometimes happens. -- Cecil (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Panait Istrati

Hi Cecil. I've noticed taht you have removed 3 photos of Panait Istrati because of "no proper source". Can you explain what you mean by that? Also, I don't remember exactly if I have uploaded the photos. If I did then there is no warning about the removal of the pictures. I may be wrong about any warning but if not is there any specific reason not to warn anybody? Thanks, Mvelam (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just checked. All three were uploaded by you. User Complex marked them all as missing proper source description. I don't know why he did not warn you, because that would be part of setting the no-source-template. I usually use a script that also warns the uploader. Maybe he didn't do it, because your user talk page is already 143 KB large. For a user with a slower internet connection it is very difficult or even impossible to load and change a page of that size. Also there are browsers that can't load pages with over 32 KB content. To the deletion: all three images had a link to a page, where there was no information about the picture itself, so it was impossible to confirm that those pictures are indeed in public domain. They also were all missing an author and his death date (images are in PD 70 years after the author died). -- Cecil (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Disputed chemical diagrams

Hallo Cecil. Du braucht dir bei Grafiken in dieser Kategorie keine Mühe zu machen. Die meisten davon sind falsch und sollten nach einer Wartezeit gelöscht werden. --Leyo 22:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ich wollte eigentlich nur dieses Privattemplate loswerden, das da so offiziell herumschwirrt. -- Cecil (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Gute Idee. Ich habe als Arbeitserleichterung alle inkorrekten Bilder aus Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:SynthCompoundImage mit einem SLA versehen (war sowieso fällig). So muss die Vorlage nur noch in den restlichen Bildbeschreibungsseiten entfernt werden. --Leyo 11:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Die Vorlage wird nun nicht mehr verwendet und kann gelöscht werden. --Leyo 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your support and the speedy deletion of my 2 files!

Danke für die schnelle Erledigung, war gerad etwas in Eile. Mit dem Mikro: Ich hatte im 2. Anlauf aus Versehen auf Off, statt auf On geschaltet. Die Erklärung auf dem Gerät habe ich missverstanden. Ich nutze Skype und Mikro sonst nicht so häufig. VG --Michael Reschke (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Cecil,
I've seen that you've already deleted Image:Mann, Roman .jpg by new user:Katharina mann. As her contributions seem to be valuable, please don't delete more files until we have some feedback from her (see: [21]). The uploader might actually be [22], and thereby, additionally interesting. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please read the deletion comment before commenting on something? It was a dupe that was uploaded two times. -- Cecil (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for that, but I was under the impression of your rather strong comment "If she proceeds ... she will be banned" on AN/U. --Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pont Morand Lyon.jpg

Thank you for your attention, Cecil, but I have already done the replacing all instances with the preferred image. I wanted to keep Image:Passerelle du Collège.jpg which is the good named version (we can see the passerelle but the photograph was on the bridge Morand so not on the photography)... If something is still missing, please make me think about it. Cordialement Otourly (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have different tools for working with duplicate-deletions and speedy deletes. And if you put a speedy delete on a dupe, the admin can't see the necessary data needed for deletion. -- Cecil (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, what template should I used for dupe? Otourly (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
{{duplicate|Image:Name of the other one}}. -- Cecil (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:1 Kruszwica 4.jpg vs Image:Kruszwica 4.jpg

Cecil, those are 2 images that came from the same source. Originally Image:1 Kruszwica 4.jpg had obnoxious watermark which I cropped. Image:Kruszwica 4.jpg never had a watermark and someone corrected color of the sky, and have done it well in my opinion. This is why I tagged Image:1 Kruszwica 4.jpg as a duplicate, since it is cropped version with invisible sky. Greetings --Jarekt (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That somebody who has created a blue sky also drew a thick dark border around the tower which makes it look totally unreal. -- Cecil (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I see it now. You are right. How about if we revert "blue sky" addition of Image:Kruszwica 4.jpg and put {{duplicate}} on Image:1 Kruszwica 4.jpg? --Jarekt (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. -- Cecil (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dupe

  • ✓ Done.--OsamaK 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Whiteread tate 1.jpg

Ich hatte mal eine Löschdiskussion zum Thema moderne Kunst angefangen. Soweit dachte ich Bildrechte dann doch verstanden zu haben,.... Liege ich da etwa falsch? --Kolossos (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, gemäß [:de:Panoramafreiheit#Großbritannien]] liege ich falsch. Dann kann ich ja schonmal die Koffer nach London packen.... Aber weren damit die Künstler nicht doch irgendwie enteignet? Ich kanns kaum glauben. --Kolossos (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(BK)Es gibt ein paar Länder, wo FOP auch drinnen funktioniert. Am lockersten sind da Österreich und das UK und damit auch der Commonwealth drauf: COM:FOP#United_Kingdom. Da fallen auch Skulpturen (keine Gemälde usw.) drunter, die permanent an Orten installiert sind, die open to the public sind, wobei in dem speziellen Fall (UK) auch solche Orte öffentlich sind, wo man durch Eintrittbezahlung reinkommt. Also sind Fotos in der Tate-Gallery eigentlich kein Problem und fallen unter FOP. Das einzige Problem, das ich bei dem von dir gewählten Kunstwerk sehe, ist, ob diese Skulptur wirklich permanently situated ist. -- Cecil (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Na gut warten wir mal, was noch an Kommentaren kommt, ich will da was die "Permanentlität" angeht auch kein künstliches Problem konstruieren, schließlich werden die meisten der Werke aufgrund ihrer Größe nach ihrer Ausstellung wohl einer Vernichtung zugeführt, und waren somit für die Zeit ihrer Existenz dauerhaft ausgestellt. --Kolossos (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cecil!

Thanks for unblocking me Cecil, and I'm sorry for all the troubles that I made. I'm a new user and just never saw the rules before.

Thanks once again, Kamoweasel. -- (Kamoweasel (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)).

My Socom Image.

I am SO SICK of you freaking SNOBBISH PEOPLE!

You had NO RIGHT to touch or delete my image from the commons. It did not contain ANYTHING against the rules.

You cannot tell me that it was copyrighted, because it was NOT! There was NO LOGO, NO COPYRIGHTED ANYTHING!

Just for future information, Polygons, Fonts, Pixels and COLORS cannot be COPYRIGHTED.

The Material was an image created BY ME, and the Metatag PROVES IT.

Again, you are deleting information trying to get your way.

STOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cached Entity (talk • contribs) 05:55, 29. Jul. 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted a game screenshot you uploaded which is never free unless the programm behind it is free. And it is not free. Stop stealing the work of others and act as if it is your own work. That's called fraud and can be sued. -- Cecil (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Favorite - Harlekin.jpg

Hello, you have deleted this picture. I've send the permission for using this image to permissions-de@wikimedia.org and marked it with An email containing details of the permission for this image has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS.

Please restore this image. --Lipstar (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If the permission was ok, the OTRS-team will restore the image. But since already quite some time has passed, it is obvious that something is not ok. Since you didn't give a ticket number, I can't even ask one of the OTRS-people what the problem is. -- Cecil (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the ticket number. The last time I've send a permission, the OTRS-people needed a month to check the mails. --Lipstar (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ticketnummer ist 2008062410013424, aber der OTRS-Mitarbeiter hat ein paar Probleme mit der Mail und wird dich wohl noch kontaktieren. Irgendwas von wegen Person im Mail lässt sich der Quelle nicht zuordnen, oder so. Genaueres darf er mir ja nicht verraten. -- Cecil (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Könntest du mir sagen, wer der zuständige Mitarbeiter ist? Würde den dann mal kontaktieren, damit die Sache erledigt wird. Gruß, Lipstar (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Das Ticket ist noch niemandem zugewiesen. Hast du das Dokument per Mail zugeschickt bekommen? —Pill (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Das einfachste wäre es, wenn du den Urheberrechtsinhaber bittest, selbst eine E-Mail an uns zu senden. --my name 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Die Bilder sind Cover von Alben, die Beschaffung der Verwendungserlaubnis ist also mehr oder weniger aufwändig. Ich kann denen nicht auch noch sagen, dass sie sich darum kümmern müssen, Wikimedia den Sachverhalt zu erklären. Die Dokumente habe ich einfach runtergeladen und in dem Formular die Links angegeben. Selfmade Records war mit der Verwendung einverstanden (wie zuvor übrigens auch bei sechs anderen Bildern). Was benötigt ihr noch? --Lipstar (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, klären wir das mal per Mail weiter, um Cecil mit weiteren „Du hast neue Nachrichten“-Balken zu verschonen. :-) —Pill (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Urgent request

I have a urgent request for undeletion. Please help me. --Nyo (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Was already done. -- Cecil (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-Finland50

Moikka, könntest du die Vorlage mal bitte in Absprache mit ThePeter so abändern, daß wir die Bilder in .de verwenden können, ohne daß dumme Fragen kommen? Ich möchte da als Nicht-Admin und englisch-Unwissender ungern eingreifen. Hilfreich wäre vielleicht auch Kontaktaufnahme mit Forrester, der auf .de die Vorlagen unter sich hat und grad hier als Admin kandidiert. Danke Marcela (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nochmal ich... Auf http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#L.C3.B6schinvasion_franz.C3.B6sischer_Bilder ist man etwas ungehalten. Kannst du die betreffenden Bilder auf .de hochladen? Bit ja jetzt dazu in der Lage ;) --Marcela (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Mach ich in den nächsten Tagen, hatte ich ohnehin vor. -- Cecil (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate

Kleiner upload-naming error:

Shiva by Alexander Calder Kansas City MO.jpg

Salut! Why did you delete this image? If you go to the article Alexander Calder, you will see many of his artworks displayed in a gallery in the article and in Wikimedia Commons. The images of public works of arts in public places are Fair Use in the U.S. where the art is located and on the U.S. Wikipédia site (It is not like in France or fr.Wikipédia.) You made a mistake. (Are you going to delete images by all 20th Century artists from Picasso to Matisse an all???) - - I will upload the image again with another name and put a Fair Use disclaimer on it. Do not make this mistake again. Thank you. Merci! Bien amicalement, Charvex (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons does not accept Fair Use. You can upload it at en.WP, but not here. The other images were all made in countrys, where FOP-law allows that. But in the United States, that is not the case. So any artwork there can't be uploaded here, unless the sculpteur is either dead 70 years or gives his permission. Btw, there are no artworks by Matisse here on Commons (not allowed), and the only sculpture by Picasso was fotographed in Sweden, where FOP includes artwork and that kind of picture is allowed. -- Cecil ( ) 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why art by Alexander Calder uploaded by German and Canadian Wikipédians is OK, and it is not for others. Many of Calder's works in Germany and Canada are there. Merci. Charvex (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, why are so many art works by 20th century artists in Wikipédia, including - for just ONE example - these works by artist Juan Gris: Image:JuanGris.Portrait of Picasso.jpg; Image:Juan Gris - Still Life with Fruit Dish and Mandolin.jpg; Image:Juan Gris - Violin and Checkerboard.jpg; Image:Juan Gris 003.jpg; Image:Juan Gris 001.jpg - - none of these artworks are 100 years old (most are about 1913). - - I could choose many, many artists and show similar examples. - - - Your policy is not consistent. - - - Also, why are photographs of Architecture allowed? Architects are artists who make buildings. You have many photos of architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright (please search on the name. Are you going to delete all photos of 20th century buildings, too? (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The FOP-law of Germany and Canada (actually all Commonwealth countries) allows pictures of work of art, the one of the United States does not. Juan Gris died 1927, since his death was more than 70 years ago, his work is in the public domain no mather in which country it is located. Architects do not create sculptures, they create buildings. Buildings are included in nearly all FOP-laws worldwide (except France, Italy, Belgium and a few eastern european countries). If they would create sculptures, only those pictures would be allowed where the sculpture is located in countries where FOP includes work of art. The pictures of Frank Lloyd Wrights are buildings located in countries where FOP allowes pictures of buildings. And yes, we delete pictures when the FOP-law does not allow them (check out this recent mass deletion or this still open one) as soon as we spot them. -- Cecil ( ) 11:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And since I have just seen it: If you are unable to understand that Fair Use does not exist at Commons then please stay away. Even after you have been explicitely told so, you still made that stupid comment with a fair use rationale. -- Cecil ( ) 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. -- Cecil ( ) 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Coronation of Nicholas II.jpg

Please restore that image. I don't think the file was a duplicate, it ws just a different picture of the same painting. The deleted image was a smaller image but had different (much better) colors. Scaling images does not change the colors, so the deleted file can not have been created by just scaling down the other image. According to the deletion guidelines only exact duplicates or scaled-down versions can be speedy deleted, other "almost duplicates" or "redundant files" has to be nominated for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests. (And if you really have to speedy delete such files, please use a more specific reason than "duplicate, although not an exact duplicate".) /Ö 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For me, that looks just like a scaled down version. And it was already replaced by bot by the command of another admin, so obviously I was not the first admin who had the same opinion. -- Cecil ( ) 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In this comparison you can see that the colors are different. The file at English Wikipedia is a scaled down version of the image that was deleted on Commons. If users has different opinions that is a reason to keep both files here, so that individual projects can decide for themselves which file to use. It is not the task of Commons to make such decisions for other projects. /Ö 23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Restored (maybe you should use a different tone, people would then be more willing to look into your requests, after all they are humans too). Webspace is used anyway, and in the last few hours I've seen that this project has definitely worse problem than which one of two bad versions of a portrait should be kept. -- Cecil ( ) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the file. /Ö 00:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for the great amount of time and effort that you spent deleting all those Malaysian Army pictures. I guess it must have taken you a couple of hours or so. The deletion request was pending since more than a month, with me and the pic's "authors" being the only users who answered there. I'm happy that finally someone took on the effort. :) --NoCitNeed (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. At Commons it can take a little bit longer before an admin decides a deletion request (current backlog goes till March 1st). I just worked through the images tagged as copyvio and thus noticed on of the three accounts. While checking his uploads I found your requests. From the ones that were left after that deletion I tagged a few more as copyvio (so also gone by now), but there still are a few suspicious images left. I hope somebody can figure out where they were taken from. -- Cecil ( ) 10:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Louvre picture

I am the author of one of the pics you proposed for deletion. After explaining that the composition of Image:Museo de Louvre Paris 04 07 21 8x6.jpg is different from the others, I did request the two previous editors who had already voted for deletion to re-evaluate their vote base on the reasons I provided. I will appreciate if you come back and give a look to my explanation. Thanks. --Mariordo (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'll stay with may opinion. I've read at serveral places that the architect is rather typical american, meaning he likes to sue. Sure, you are the one who takes the main-risk of getting sued, but here at Commons we actually want the people to get quality and feel secure in the pictures we offer them. Using you picture could mean that the reusing person will be sued too and that is unacceptable, because after all you will not be willing to pay that damage, or are you? -- Cecil (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Renaming

Ich erwarte von dir eine konkrete Begründung für deinen gegen mich gerichteten Vorwurf[23]. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

eta for the example

You left a message for me about not making rename suggestions that waste the time of the people who do the renaming -- you stated this more diplomatically, however.

I am seriously of the mind to not anger the people who do make the productive changes here and also having spent time downloading poorly named images, reuploading with improved names and also changing all of the instances of them on other wiki, I like to think that I am not making suggestions that waste the time of others. This was a while ago and perhaps I have become sloppy with this or abusive of a situation.

My question here is was that a message pasted on the user pages of those who are either involved with the thread at the pump right now or pasted on the talk pages of those who do occasionally suggest the renaming of images or a message that was intended specifically for me with a few examples in mind? Or other which I have not considered? -- carol (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The message at the village pump was for all to read. The ones for users personally where to those people where I noticed that they tend to make unnecessary renames. A few examples of those unnecessary renames (which you did too) you can read at the village pump. -- Cecil (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, see that is what I wanted to see. Perhaps I am not as intelligent as many of the other users, but specific examples are almost the only way I know of how to correct a mistake or kinds of mistakes I make. -- carol (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
None of my rename suggestions are there. Perhaps you could point to where the list I was involved with is at directly (like make it a subsection with some ===wikithings=== and point to it with the #notation)? Which would really be like talking to the blind idiot that I think I must be right now? -- carol (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Checked my deletion log and found one: Image:Abutilon indicum Blanco2.337-original.png renamed to Image:Abutilon indicum Blanco2.557-original.png. The original image was unused so I could delete it immediately. Usually I first have to replace them, and depending on how the images are used in the other projects that can be just a command to the bot CommonsDelinker and waiting until it did the work for me or running through all the projects and doing it manually. Especially the projects with the non-ascii-fonts are real fun then. I once spend 30 minutes in one project until I found the proper template to replace exactly one image that was used more than 1000 times. And thus I get very frustrated if I see renamings that are not necessary. And please don't tell me that the image name should show the source of an image when it should actually just help to find the image. -- Cecil (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort, honest! Digging through the logs is an additional pain. I know what I am talking about also -- I tried to clean up the Russian maps right before the new year here (many many duplicates). Not only is it a difficult task to change the names of things (and I have mostly no experience with the non-ascii named images and dread to even consider it) it is additionally frustrating when well, in my case, the suggestions that I made about how to handle those maps with less duplication (they go by the date in the name and not use the dated stack which the software keeps -- so for the thing I did, my suggestion was to make it so they could simply upload the new version into the namespace and have the accurate map appear everywhere) and less name changing for each new political reorganization were ignored.
That particular name change was an inaccurate page number in it. I must warn you, I might do that again since in a set of images like that, the name affects where it shows up in the category display and my mindset is there right now and many have tried to put this simple thing which is my brain/mind on a different track and have failed (including me, btw).
Feel free to complain about any problem you have while doing this task at my talk page, btw. Occasionally, problems expressed can find solutions. -- carol (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

image:Flag Map of Morocco.svg

Hi, maybe this image should be protected. see the description/deletion request. thank you --Flad (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected for one month. It's Koavf part to find a compromise if he does not like something but not to destroy the work of others. If he proceeds to vandalise the work of others after that month without even trying to find a compromise then the next admin action in this case will be against him. -- Cecil (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Some IP (maybe him) added "Category:Imperialism", please remove it. Cheers --Flad (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've founed the same problem here image:Morocco Flag Map.PNG, I've uploaded the new version apart but I don't think the war edit will stop --Flad (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Portail_JO.jpg

Hello,

Thank you for your vigilance... I re-uploaded the image with the sources used for the collage, which are specified in the description. Do i still incur a speed deletion now?

Karta24 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I made no speedy deletion request, but a normal one. Second, you still have to fullfill the licences of the images you use. Only with proper attribution of the real authors (you are just one of them, and not the only one) this is ok, currently it is just a copyright violation. -- Cecil (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Anchor.png

Hallo Cecil,

bitte stelle das Bild Anchor.png wieder her (siehe Löschung: 12:37, 21. Jul. 2008 Cecil (Diskussion | Beiträge) hat „Image:Visitor.png“ gelöscht ‎ (Dupe of Image:RouteIndustriekultur Besucherzentrum Symbol.png)) , das Ersatzbild ist nicht passend zu den anderen Symbolen, die in der Route der Industriekultur verwendet werden (andere Größe, niedrigere Position). Es wird in vielen NaviLeisten und Listenartikeln verwendet, siehe auf unserem Portal. Es wäre auch schön wenn du zunächst eine Nachricht beim Ersteller hinterlassen würdest bevor du das Symbol löscht. --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Es war natürlich nicht Anchor.png sondern Visitor.png. Wurde sonst noch was gelöscht? Was wurde alles umgeschrieben per Bot? --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, aber wir horten auf Commons ein Bild immer nur einmal und nicht mehrfach unter unterschiedlichen Namen. Du kannst dir aber gerne aussuchen, welches der zwei du haben willst, denn wenn ich Visitor.png wiederherstellen würde, würde in dessen Folge RouteIndustriekultur Besucherzentrum Symbol.png gelöscht. Die Regeln sind da eindeutig. Und sorry, aber du erwartest doch auch auf de.WP nicht ernsthaft, dass dich ein Admin benachrichtigt, wenn er einem Schnelllöschantrag statt gibt. Warum haben komischerweise alle Leute diese derart sonderbare Vorstellung, dass ihnen die Commons-Admins quer durch die Projekte nachlaufen, ist ja sonst auch nirgends der Fall. -- Cecil (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Nachrichten? Klar erwarte ich die, und zwar von demjenigen, der den LA gestellt hat (wer war das eigentlich?). Schließlich war auch Zeit da Botläufe auf WP.de durchzuführen. Das hat doch nichts mit Hinterherlaufen zu tun sondern was mit Absprachen, Zusammenarbeit, usw. Stell jetzt bitte die drei gelöschten Symbole (Visitor.png, Panorama.png und Siedlung.png - falls ich nicht noch was übersehen habe) wieder her und ich organisiere dann, das die richtigen eingebunden und danach die doppelten gelöscht werden können. Wieso werden ausgerechnet die Bilder gelöscht, die stark eingebunden sind? Schaut da vorher keiner drauf? Jetzt ist das doppelte und dreifache Arbeit, was zumindest unnütz ist wenn nicht sogar ärgerlich. --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Das war kein LA, es war ein SLA. Und den hat Bubinator drei Tage vor Durchführung der Löschung gestellt. Und der Botlauf ist hier ziemlich automatisiert, da wird nur rasch geschaut, Duplikat oder nicht, vernünftiger Name oder nicht, stark eingebunden oder nicht (und nein, Verwendung in einem einzigen Projekt bedeutet nicht 'stark eingebunden') und ob das Duplikat auch die gleichen Informationen enthält. Dafür gibt es ein Tool, das diese Daten gegenüberstellt und auch schon den Befehl zum Botlauf per Tastendruck ermöglicht. Andernfalls wäre eine Abarbeitung von einigen tausend Bildern pro Tag auch nicht möglich. Es sind hier immerhin nur etwa 20 Admins regelmäßig aktiv, leicht daran zu erkennen, dass unsere SLAs leicht drei Tage und älter werden können und unsere LAs (für die es eine Benachrichtigung gibt) bis zurück Anfang März reichen. Falls du also Anforderungen stellst, die es sonst in keinem anderen Projekt gibt, kannst du dich ja hier engagieren. Ich schlag dich gerne zum Admin vor. Andernfalls verschone mich bitte mit unrealistischen Forderungen. Und da du zum eigentlichen Thema anscheinend nichts mehr zu sagen hast, ist die Sache wohl erledigt. Also bitte weitergehen, ich hab zu tun. Es warten 700 Schnelllöschanträge, 1800 Bilder ohne Lizenzen und 3323 Löschanträge auf ihre Abarbeitung, und das ist nur ein kleiner Teil der Arbeit. -- Cecil (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ich kann ja verstehen das ihr viel zu viel Arbeit habt und darüber nicht sehr glücklich seid, vor allem weil diese Löschung von drei Bildern mir selbst jetzt unnütze Arbeit macht. Ich stehe aber weiter auf dem Standpunkt das eine Nachricht die Zusammenarbeit fördern würde, deshalb hab ich immer noch die Erwartung (vielleicht besser mit Hoffnung ausgedrückt) das eine solche vor dem Lösch- oder Schnelllöschantrag geschrieben wird. Aber weder du noch ich können vermutlich daran derzeit viel ändern (jedenfalls traue ich mir eine Admintätigkeit derzeit noch nicht zu). Abgesehen davon ist die Sache nicht erledigt, die drei Bilder sind noch nicht wieder hergestellt. Wann kann ich damit rechnen? Oder muss ich dafür noch irgendwo anders was tun? --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ich hab Bubinator auf seiner Talkpage angesprochen und auch festgestellt, das er an verschiedenen SVG-Dateien dieser Symbole arbeitet. Seufz, wenn die Leute doch nur miteinander reden würden. Vielleicht können wir ja die Symbole komplett auf SVG umstellen und damit dann das Problem aus der Welt schaffen. Las also bitte erstmal die Wiederherstellung, ich melde mich wieder wenn die SVG-Geschichte nicht klappen sollte. --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Overwriting question

Huh? I do not know why you posted on my talk or the image in question. If it was Image:Palestinian authority map.gif, I am really confused, as the prior version of that image (to which you reverted) contains inaccurate text on top of the image about Israel occupying Gaza. And these are virtually identical maps, other than the addition of the text. Please post on my talk to explain what is going on here. Koavf (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wikipedia-word.png

Bitte mal schützen... --Marcela (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Moin Cecil. ShakataGaNai hat das Bild bereits gesperrt. Gruß --M.L (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Barmer Spitze - Vom Fenneregg.jpg

Kannst du mir erklären, warum das Bild in der Vorschau nicht richtig angezeigt wird, obwohl es in der Detailansicht in Ordnung ist. Auch im de:Barmer Spitze Artikel, seh ich es nicht. Gruß --Geiserich77 (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bei mir siehts ok aus. Vielleicht hatte der Server Schluckauf. -- Cecil (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

duplicates

Hi Cecil
Yesterday I uploaded 23 Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of Americas Armored Divisions and uploaded Image:1st US Armored Division SSI ver2.png and Image:1st US Armored Division SSI.svg- which can both be deleted. They are versions of Image:1st US Armored Division SSI.png, which is the version that needs to stay. thanks, --Noclador (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Cecil (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks, --Noclador (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yojakarta

O.K., Only download --Penarc (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How many of those wrong descriptions have you done? From how many authors did you take away their authorship and made yourself the author? -- Cecil (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:SDC12213.JPG

Hello! Why you did not remove this? I uploaded under this name through an oversight and I notified correct. Happened to me this already and always one cancelled. --Starscream (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It will be deleted this way too, but since there is a second version the template I replaced it with helps the admin to check out those details first. It will just take a little bit since there is a lot to be deleted in duplicate/badname-section. -- Cecil (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My uploads from Flickr

Hi, I made a mistake. They should have been uploaded with PD-USGOV licenses. I've corrected that. Also, I'm not sure about your level of English, but "What were you thinking?" sounds very very hostile, and might not be the best way to start a comment in the future. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find it quite interesting what a person is thinking when doing different things, in this case uploading a image with the help of a bot and then not checking what the bot did. It's a question I ask quite often, even though most people don't tend to answer, probably because they don't know themselves. But still, would be interesting to know. -- Cecil (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

LCS-1

Could you clearly explain why have you deleted pictures of Freedom LCS-1 altough these photos had right permission from Lockheed Martin, as was shown in discussion about request for deletion one of these pictures? --Matrek (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've written a detailed explanation at the deletion request. That so-called permission was a joke. Ih has not even specified a licence. Also you request-email contained misinformation which in any way would have made the permission invalid because the copyright owner thus was misguided and did not know what the real consequences of the permission would have been. -- Cecil (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for creation MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js/km

As you are an admin on this wiki, Could you kindly create a MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js/km with the source on its talk page, MediaWiki talk:Extra-tabs.js/km? Thank you, --Kiensvay (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Cecil (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, --Kiensvay (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont delete this image

Hi, I would like to keep the picture Johns safer Dancer black.jpg, this is same as the earlier Dancer and the Dance.jpg image. Please let me know why this is being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot24 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 25. Aug. 2008 (UTC)

Please read COM:DW for more information. John Safer is still alive. Without his permission you are not allowed to publish his work of art under a free licence. -- Cecil (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Please tell me which license, I should be using. I do have his permission to change the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot24 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 25. Aug. 2008 (UTC)

Send the email with the permission by John Safer to COM:OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). In this email he has to specify the licence. And until then please don't reupload the image. The OTRS-team will check the permission and then restore one of the many versions you already uploaded. -- Cecil (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What license should he be choosing..Also did you mean John Safer should send an email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot24 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 25. Aug. 2008 (UTC)

The licence you had selected was already fine. And yes, the email need to be from John Safer (or his management/agent/...), but if you already have one, you can also forward it. -- Cecil (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

please let me know if i can forward that email to you now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot24 (talk • contribs)

Not to me, to the OTRS-team. And stop uploading that image. We now have already five images (maybe more) on the server. If the permission was checked and is correct, the OTRS-team will restore one of them. If you upload it one more time I will block you. -Cecil (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will not upload it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot24 (talk • contribs)

Your sockpuppet was just blocked indefinitely. -- Cecil (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why???

Why did you deleted in this] picture my appeal? --MARIÁN 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you deleted my photos, please? I added as experiment ([24], [25], [26]). PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!! And this photos is not my creation! [27], [28], [29], [30]--MARIÁN 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sure. Always when a user is pissed at one of the projects he/she tries to revoke all licences by finding sometimes the most absurd reasons for them being illegal. The "I'm not the author"-reason is the most commons one. It's just strange that they all don't notice their allegly illegal uploads at first. It has to take month/years, then something happens and suddenly "oh, not my image". It would not matter anyway if we would delete the images, because they are already so long on Commons that they are already used on several mirrors and other websites. "Author request" works for maybe one month, afterwards the image is in the net and withdrawal is impossible from there. So what has happened that after several month you first try to claim "authors request" and after that didn't work you suddenly claimed that they are not your images at all? And don't say nothing because it never is nothing. -- Cecil (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, but are you OK? I wrote: "It is not my creation!" and you deleted it! Hmmmm .... If you does not believe me, look at my statistic on sk.wiki. - [31] and my edits [32]--MARIÁN 07:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Löschung von Image:20080805 Avro Aerocar (64080478).jpg

Hallo Cecil, ich habe Dich gerade zum Admin meines Vertrauens gemacht. :-) Jetzt folgt das übliche Gejammer: Obiges Bild wurde gelöscht, obwohl es meiner Ansicht noch sowohl ausführlich wie auch lückenlos gekennzeichnet war. Den Grund Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since August 11, 2008 kann ich als Nichtadmin jetzt nicht mehr nachvollziehen. Wenn Du mir sagen könntest, was noch gefehlt hat... Wäre echt super. Viele Grüße aus Berlin sendet Dir --Marbot (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Welche Ehre. Hab mal reingesehen. Da hat ein Bot einen Fehler gemacht. Da du den Autor von Flickr angegeben hast, ist einer der Flickr-Bots vorbeigekommen und wollte einen Review durchführen. Natürlich war in der Quellangabe kein Link zu Flickr, sondern zum Original-Bild hier. Dass hat der Bot nicht verstanden, die Überprüfung ist wegen fehlender Flickr-Quelle gescheitert und zur Löschung gemeldet worden. Warums der Admin nicht gesehen hat, weiß ich nicht, ich vermute mal, wir vertrauen unseren Bots einfach zu sehr. Wieder hergestellt. -- Cecil (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Du hast wohl einen guten Eindruck bei mir hinterlassen. :-) Ich hatte echt an mir gezweifelt. Nun kann ich wenigstens nachvollziehen, was passiert ist. Damit die Bots nicht wieder vorbeischauen und ein gefundenes Fressen entdecken, werde ich jetzt zusätzlich noch die Flickr-Quelle hinzufügen. Sicher ist sicher. Gelernt hab ich auch was. :-) Herzlichen Dank für Deine Hilfe und das Wiederherstellen. Viele Grüße --Marbot (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ich sehe gerade, daß ich ein "Rundum-Sorglos-Packet" bekommen habe. Danke sehr. --Marbot (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont delete my images

Cecil, I have been given permissions by John Safer to edit/upload images. Please do not delete my images. How do I make sure that I can always upload his images without any further issues.

Let me know. He has sent emails twice to the email id you had given me granting permissions and also mentioned the copyright for the images. Please let me know if I can go ahead and edit images.

I want to edit the image Dancer and the Dance that is on John Safer's page.

Let me know.

~~pilot24~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot24 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27. Aug. 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any of your images recently so stop your insulting tone. Your unability to read and/or understand even the most basic guidelines is more than enough, you don't need to get accusatory on top. So once again the explanation and I hope this time it is simple enough for you: if the permission is ok, the OTRS-team will restore one of x versions of the same image you have uploaded. But first they have to check it and that can take some time. After all it is summer and this is a project where people contribute their spare time. And please stop bugging me. Start reading, then maybe suddenly everything will fall into place (or not, after the experiences I had with you). -- Cecil (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

?

Can I delete my uploads another way? Romancop (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. As long as there is no legal problem with them, that is not possible. If everybody who has a quarrel in one of the projects would withdraw his contributions this project would have no chance. That's why everybody gets the warning at the upload that the licences that can be used don't allow revocation. You can't remove a once made edit at wikipedia either, or? -- Cecil (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hurbanova pamätná tabuľka vedľa rodného domu.JPG

Hello Cecil. The uploader claims that they're not the original creator of the image. The same goes to Image:Mackerel sky .jpg and Image:Mackerel sky.jpg. Is the user just trying to delete them or is the user not the original creator of the media? Thanks --Kimse (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The user already tries since weeksto get his/her images removed from Commons, each time with another reason. Most probably has some problems in a Wikipedia project. -- Cecil (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll ask her on her talk page to resolve the issue. Thanks for explanation. --Kimse (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for processing the author OTRS complaints I noted! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you let me how my image violate Fair Use?

Hello Cecil, that image (which I made) have been deleted by you. Can you let me how my image violate Fair Use? I made it and I use it for wikipedia? Why even that illegal Fair Use deleted image Nnq2603 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Commons does not accept images under fair use. This is an international project, and fair use is just law in very few countries. -- Cecil (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, I got it, thanks and I think it's legal if I upload image to Vi wiki and use it for vi wiki? Nnq2603 (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the rules of vi.WP. At english Wikipedia it would be allowed, on german not. But for the others I don't know. -- Cecil (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I see. I can got some sysops's suggestions in my language wiki edition about this problem. It's all, good luck! Nnq2603 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

skasowana grafika

Chciałabym wiedziec dlaczego moja grafika Jezioro Orzysz.jpg została skasowana. Mam pisemną zgode od właściciela na jego publikację. Pozdrawiam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renata-anna (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30. Aug. 2008 (UTC)

I don't speed Polish (only English, German, Finnish, French or Spanish), but the Google Translator says that you want to know the reason for the deletion of Image:Orzysz.jpg. The image is published at Panoramio as "All rights reserved". If you have a permission to publish it here under that licence then please forward that permission to the COM:OTRS-team (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). A member of that team will check your permission and if it is ok, he will restore the image (otherwise he will tell you what still misses for restoring it). -- Cecil (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed for dealing with this one Cecil. I really am very short of time at present & only logged on the deal with my 'crat rights. I appreciate your help. --Herby talk thyme 07:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Harper photo

Hi. I recently noticed that you deleted Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg and File:Stephen Harper head 2.jpg. You cited a "Author OTRS complaint ( 2008082510006418 )" as the reason. I don't have access to the deleted file or OTRS, so I was hoping I could learn from you the reasons for deletion. The image seemed to be public domain to me, based on the source. The image here is marked as a "VOA photo" (e.g. not an AP photo). The VOA terms of use make clear that all VOA-created content is public domain, and it's just material created by others, such as AP, that's protected. If I made a mistake in uploading this image, I'd be happy to learn how, so I don't make the same mistake in the future. This particular image isn't very important, I'm not contesting the deletion (I'm sure you knew stuff I didn't), and my concern is more to learn the reasoning. --Rob (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I don't have OTRS-access, but the he full deletion request reason was: Author OTRS complaint ( 2008082510006418 ) - Image owned by him, licensed to VOA for their use only, not a VOA PD image. For more details you have to ask Georgewilliamherbert. He is the one who worked on the ticket. -- Cecil (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

...unbeliebt machen...

siehe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Olympiabilder - an sich schöne Bilder, Zeitzeugnisse. Aber ich denke, die sind nicht sauber. Gibt es auf Commosn ein Schlupfloch, sie zu behalten? In .de sind sie jedenfalls nicht haltbar oder übersehe ich da was? --Marcela (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Magst du mich nicht mehr *schnüff* ;-) ? Löschantrag ist gestellt. -- Cecil (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Oooch Schatz, natürlich mag ich dich :( Was denkst du denn? --Marcela (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Important message

I declare that I used without agreement all graphic arts their owner - my grandfather. I ask about their removal and blocking my account for ever. Ok? Romancop (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, everybody here is that daffy and gullible. You actually think you are the first to try it that way? -- Cecil (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/French architects

hi Cecil,

I once noticed your work here Commons:Deletion requests/French architects, good job (I am not being sarcastic, I think it's really good that you pay such close attention). I noticed this image here Image:Salon du conseil-vue général du salon.jpg which is taken from the RMN photo agency. The author is given as "Jules Antoine ROUSSEAU (1710-1782)" (like what?), and this part here [33] talks about copyright at the bottom. Are images from this website all free? Gryffindor (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Sorry to say it, but they are not free. Rousseau is the artist who designed the room. His designs are already in public domain, so a picture of them would be allowed to use in all ways. But as it is with all derivative work there is also the photographer. In this case the photo credit is: (C) RMN / Hervé Lewandowski. The foto agency RMN allows to buy images for commercial use and if you credit them you can also use it in a non-commercial way without payment, but the whole website offers no indication that they have released their images into public domain (or in the case of the image you linked into PD and GFDL). As long as Hervé Lewandowski is not dead 70 years, this image can just be used commercially after paying money to RMN. -- Cecil (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I went through the list of all pictures that link to RMN. If the image showed something in 3D (thus derivative work) I have deleted them. 2D luckily is allowed. If you still see some images that are derivative work don't hesitate to notify me or put a request for speedy deletion (derivative work from an unfree source) on the image. -- Cecil (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Great, merci beaucoup. Gryffindor (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture you tagged as improper

Hello.

I'm the owner of the picture http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem:Alfa_Pendular.jpg which YES is copyrighted in flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoniomlcabral/445111643/in/set-72157600003199034/. As the owner of the picture, I authorize it to be used in Wikipedia, as it was written in the picture's details. I see that you've tagged it as incompatible to Commons, that's why I'm letting you know to let you untag it, since everything is ok.

If you need to reply me, i'd rather prefer if you to me write in my pt.wiki discussion here:Reply me.

Best regards.

Barao78 (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Flickr-images that are already that long on Commons will not be deleted anyway. The problem is that no bot can understand that you are also the flickr-owner, so it will have to be tagged that way (otherwise in a few days a bot will once again re-tag it) unless you choose to change the licence of that one image at flickr too or remove the note that the image is also available at flickr (which is to what the bot reacts). -- Cecil (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching owner of a deleted picture

Hello Cecil, You deleted http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:DirkvdM_buff-tailed_coronet.jpg Is there any way to find the username of the owner of this picture or to read again the information in the picturetalk? Many greetings Hans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.112.236 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5. Sep. 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that is possible. Pictures are not really deleted, they are just made invisible for the users. Administrators can still see them and restore them too. In this case the image was just renamed and then deleted as duplicate. You can find the exactly same one at Image:Stripe-tailed Hummingbird.jpg (including the whole discussion name and original description). -- Cecil (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion requests and wastes of time

Hello again, you and I had a chat a few weeks ago about not wasting administrator time with useless requests. I felt at that time that you were in need of releasing some frustration and the review of my requests should be good to do at any time. You did take the time to look at my renaming requests and found one image that I had requested to rename so that the name reflected the page it had come from -- if I did not say that I might make a request like that again, I should have. That image came from a very thoughtfully uploaded set of images and if there are a few mistakes like that among them, it should be good to fix them.

So much for a review of the discussion that brings me here now. I have had a page deleted and the reason given is that it was out of the scope of the project. I wrote about that at the talk page of the person who did the deleting User_talk:Zzyzx11#Restoring_List_of_Fabaceae_species and my communications there are starting to become a little sarcastic now so I come here to ask if I remake this page if you could protect it until evidence about it not being within the scope be verified?

Sorry to bother you with this. -- carol (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a little problem following your communication. Where are Zzyzx11s answers? Next problem is that I don't know anything about what happens here in the taxonomy-area, but are these lists really customary? It's the first time that I see one. Shouldn't that be a category or a gallery?
To be honest I don't think I should participate in this discussion as I am totally clueless and thus probably will create a wreckage. As far as I've seen on your talk page Lycaon put the list in your namespace, so all I can suggest is that you keep it there until the issue is solved. -- Cecil (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It has not become customary here yet to reflect the different taxonomy logically. When I first started to work in these areas, I follow the categories until there was a navigation used and paste that back to where I was working. I cannot speak for others (unless they trustfully did the same thing that I did) but I pasted many a mistake this way.
Since 1980 when that taxonomy was made, there has been a new one which works better and starts to reflect the DNA sequencing of the species and not just a list of similarities. Also, new genus have been discovered or defined or included since then. For me, my enthusiasm is to see how the science has changed and I will be honest, the fact that wikipedia "tends" to use the taxonomy that this list reflects more is something that supports the "within" scope situation more than it matters to me. The list would be included on the category page itself if it did not contain more than 200 items. The list can be "hidden" with javascript enabled, but I don't have javascript enabled and I don't want this to be a requirement for the category to not look cluttered -- the taxonomy already accomplishes enough clutter.
Including a few photographs seems like ass-kissing to me (forgive my direct language here) if that is all it takes to turn an educational, only semi-historical list of expected images into a gallery and a stretching of the "scope" thing into nonsense instead of education. This last paragraph has been crude and my opinion only. -- carol (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, did you read the part about the Blanco images? I have requested that those images be moved. I have to request that a person add them to the category move list because I cannot add things to this list. Also, I have been studying the taxonomy for about 8 to 10 months now and am trying to address some of the problems I encountered here while learning about the subject. My education was in problem solving. -- carol (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
All has been managed, for today. In hindsight, I actually appreciate the time you spent reading of my frustrations as much as just about anything else today. -- carol (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Licenses are irrevocable?

Hello. I'm who stuck deletion requests to Image:Ki-100 in the RAF Museum 01.jpg and Image:Ki-100 in the RAF Museum 02.jpg. You reverted my post because the license should be irrevocable, but I doubt it. I guess licensing is the right for the author, say the copyright holder, at any rate. And of course, they may have the right to change their licenses. At least, they can change licenses freely on Flickr. Well, I would like to make sure that the irrevocability of license is wikipedia's rule or not. If it is a local rule of wikipedia or commons, I shall apologize to the original author about my ignorance. (I am the uploader of those images, so I feel some responsibility for it.) So, I would like you to think about this again. Thank you.--Tataroko-common (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Creative Commons licences (and GFDL too) are irrevocable. Once you published an image under one of those you can't withdraw that. Read the full legal code for more information. As long as the other side (we or other users) don't break the rules of the licence, the author can't terminate the contract. On Flickr they still can change them (but there are already a few projects to stamp those changes for reproducibility), but thanks to the flickr-bot we already have the timestamp here, which prooves that the image was indeed released under that licence. -- Cecil (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. That's sorry, but I understood it is a obligation for the licensor. From now, I will pay much attention when I use CC licenses or upload images distributed under it to commons. I'm sorry for you taking a time.--Tataroko-common (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

request for template deletion , Template:Potd/mk

Please, If you can, delete this template Template:Potd/mk, created by missunderstanding how to work this template Template:Potd. Best regards. --Brest2007 (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Cecil (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

Could you please explain more fully why you applied a "no permissions" tag to Image:Khadr family portrait.png?

It says it was released into the public domain.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and where is the proof that it was released? I know there are a few talk pages where a few people claimed that they are family members and that they are ok with it. But here on Commons when you are not the copyright owner as uploader yourself than you'll have to bring a proof that is checkable by everybody: either a website that obviously belongs to the copyright owners and tells that or a OTRS-ticket (as explained in the tag). -- Cecil (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Toutes boîtes.jpg

Hi, I don't understand why you deleted it. Could you explain me why there was a copyright violation ? What's the difference between it and Image:Presse-gratuite-Øresund.jpg ? The RedBurn (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

None, except that your example was overlooked and thus never marked as copyvio. It is gone now, too. If you see more then please mark them as copyvio. Our "recent upload control" gets better (even though still a lot of copyvios are missed) but there are a lot of problematic legacy. -- Cecil (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to answer your first question: You have fotographed something that is protected by copyright. Only if the copyright owners of all the newspapers release those images under a free licence you are allowed to release images of that kind under a free licence. More details you can find at Commons:Derivative works. -- Cecil (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, your deletion of Image:Presse-gratuite-Øresund.jpg is abusive. There are many newspapers on the picture. None is the main subject. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
So by making several copyright violations in only one picture it should be ok? Great logic. Taking away the copyright of not only one but several people does not make them annihilate each other. -- Cecil (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It does. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Servus und Frage

Hallo, ich wollte wissen warum du dieses Bild auf dieses Bild weitergeleitet hast, statt es zu löschen? Danke :) notafish }<';> 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Das Icon wird unter dem Namen mit Redirect über 700 Mal in der hebräischen Wikipedia verwendet. Der Bot hat es einfach nicht geschafft es zu ersetzen, und ich auch nicht. Also hab ich es weitergeleitet, damit es nach der Duplikats-Löschung auch dort noch sichtbar ist. -- Cecil (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Danke (für die Erklärung und die Weiterleitung) :) notafish }<';> 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Cecil, ich bin durch Zufall auf diesen Benutzer aufmerksam geworden, dessen Beiträge [34] imho für sich sprechen. Keine Ahnung, wie man auf commons dazu steht, deshalb der Hinweis an Dich. Außerdem kann ich dann gleich die Gelegenheit nutzen, Dir viel Erfolg zu wünschen :-). Liebe Grüße von —YourEyesOnly (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mit sowas wird ganz kurzer Prozess gemacht. Der Spam ist gelöscht, der Benutzer gesperrt. Ich halt mal die Augen offen, ob er es unter einem neuen Account versucht. Im Fall der Fälle kommt halt der Weblink auf die Blacklist. -- Cecil (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, dann danke Dir für den kurzen Prozess! —YourEyesOnly (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ich sehe du bist grade da

hast du kurz zeit in den IRC zu kommen? abf /talk to me/ 13:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Schon unterwegs. -- Cecil (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:2128655517 cdc93a19eb o.jpg

Hallo, das Bild bitte nicht löschen. Ich habe die Erlaubnis das Bild unter einer freien Lizenz zu benutzen. LG --Braegel (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Solche Erlaubnisse bitte immer an COM:OTRS weiterleiten, andernfalls muss es vor Ort (Flickr) irgendwo vom Autor vermerkt werden. -- Cecil (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Alles klar. Erlaubnis wird angefordert (bin gerade im Urlaub). Sorry für den Aufwand. -- Braegel (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Büroktatine :)

Ich denke mal, ich kann so langsam mal concrateulations wünschen! :) abf /talk to me/ 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

The other 'crats have started eating it to celebrate the new slave dear colleague.

Congratulations Cecil, per Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cecil (bureaucrat) you are now a 'crat. Please add {{user bureaucrat}} to your userpage and let me know if you need any help. Have some cake. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Next two days I will not be online a lot (have to take a ferry to Germany, which takes 26 hours and has no internet connection, so totally medieval), but on Sunday I will start to take my first tentative steps. I hope I will not let you all down. -- Cecil (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Guédelon

What did you think of Category:Guédelon ? It’s a recent building (not finish yet !) so logicaly it must be unfree but I’m not sure (it’s more a experiment than a building). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 08:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that project needs a closer look into details. After all while the building itself is new, the design itself is medieval. As long as they don't create something totally new out of it I think that the design is already a few hundred years in the public domain. But to really know that would require a closer look in their project definition. -- Cecil (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

«Image:Rectoriauabc.jpg»

I want to ask you why you erase this imageFile:Rectoriauabc.jpg--el armenta 04:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The author of the image obviously was not the same person as the uploader. So there was no permission visible for this image to be in public domain. And the original uploader already had a history of uploading pictures for which he had no right. -- Cecil (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Josef-Winkler.jpg

Ich denke das gehört gelöscht, wollte mal aber deine sachkundige Meinung einholen. Gruß --Geiserich77 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

*flööööööööt* :P abf /talk to me/ 16:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Is ja keine Kunst wenn sie nicht online ist :p --Marcela (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Na und? Trotzdem erster :P *Kleinkind* abf /talk to me/ 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashurnasirpal II picture

Instead of removing the picture from the article, in this diff Commons Delinker replaced the King's name by another King's name, enabling the mistake between the two kings to be perpetuated. The picture of Ashurnasirpal II has nothing to do in an article on Ashurbanipal. Teofilo (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand your problem. I just replace exact duplicates. Both images were exactly the same (one was only down-scaled), so if it did not show the correct king after the replacement, that would mean that it never showed the correct king. Thus the problem was always at your wikipedia project. Tell it the one who included the wrong(?) image in the beginning, because I'm not interested in homemade errors by your project. -- Cecil (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm glad my promotion could be a milestone for you ;-). Thanks- Rjd0060 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Your promotion was my first bureaucrat activity, so I hope I have not forgotten to do anything. -- Cecil (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Just the one thing; [35] :-) Giggy (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No, that one I didn't forget. Bastique was just faster. I was starting with the list of admins per language and when I tried it with that one Rjd0060 was already listed. Who would think that so many people are awake in the middle of the night, stupid timezones. ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Damn, here I was trying to catch you out and everything...! Oh well, carry on then. :-) Giggy (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/SterkeBak/Bureaucrats_discussion

Your attention is requested. Also, I sent you an email about this as well. Bastique demandez 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Moin Chefin,

kannst du bitte mal löschen? Image:Schietwetter-rr-16.jpg? Mal wieder so ein Fall... ;) --Marcela (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wieder schneller :P abf /talk to me/ 07:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Pfff, da schaut frau mal 10 Sekunden auf ein anderes Projekt und schon wird einem die Arbeit abgenommen. -- Cecil (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Tattoo image

Regarding Image:Mokoma - Kuopio Rockcock 05.JPG ... The image is now in its proper place. The main catgeory was overpopulated and most of the images were moved. Your reversions, now driving an edit war, are un productive. I am willing to discuss the issue, but if you keep reverting, I will post the issue to the admin board. Cheers. Evrik (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop changing the licence of my images. I see that as vandalism. And this ridiculous nonsense with linking dates and formating them in a way that only users who are used to that strange kind of date formating can understand it is counterproductive. I don't have problems with the categories of this image as they are now, but stop destroying the description, especially since it is the way the upload-tool creates it. Even if you don't understand it, there is a reason behind not putting the licence-tag into the description field, and there is a reason behind linking to the explanation about copyright-tags. -- Cecil (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
And by the way if you want to get rid of contributors you can do it several easier ways then telling them that they have to fit into your rules and have to adapt to your way of formatting and that they are not allowed to use any other language than english, which by the way is exactly the opposite of what was determined at COM:LP where it was not defined to forbid the usage of the mother tongue for non-english-speaking users. But please notifiy the users at the admin-board that you want to introduce that chance and allow no other language than yours. I'm sure it will be a success. -- Cecil (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
One more thing. This is the image of a human, not a tattoo image. Just because he has a few tattoos on his body nobody who is the least bit sensible should degrade him to just his tattoos. -- Cecil (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice of namespace-rename "Image" -> "File"

Dear user, the MediaWiki developers recently announced that the "Image:" namespace is going to be renamed to "File:". "Image:" will remain an alias. The canonical namespace name wgCanonicalNamespace will change from "Image" to "File".

I noticed that you use wgCanonicalNamespace in either your monobook.js page or a JavaScript file in your userspace (check this list).

Please check and replace all occurrences of

wgCanonicalNamespace == "Image"

with

wgNamespaceNumber == 6

to ensure that your scripts keep working. Thanks! --Dschwen (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Without screaming

Sorry, but the photo that You deleted was a free photo. Wikimedia Commmons allow the use of Creative Commons BY photos, and this is the license of the photo. If You don't allow the use of CC BY phtos, please, say It because I think that CC BY is a free license. Do You need public domain?

This is my photo:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4437146

I think that It can be uploaded at Wikipedia Commons. Why delete It if It isn't a copyrighted photo? --212.183.253.249 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, and now for the third time. I hope this time you finally will understand it. You have to state at the image that you want to release it under this licence. Here you are just an IP. Nobody can proof that you are indeed MrHamster. You could be an imposter and just tell us that and the poor MrHamster will be cheated. -- Cecil (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. You can see that this photo is mine, and It is free. Also, all my photos are free. :) --212.183.253.249 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Harry E Donnell house.jpg

You are the administrator who apparently flagged my image of (Image:harry E Donnell house.jpg as well as (Image:Harry E Donnell house 2.jpg and I'm not sure why. I filled out more info, including the public domain license info. If you need more info, please let me know. hixguy1@gmail.com Hixguy1 (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)hixguy1

Since the picture is published somewhere else already, everybody could take it and say that he is the coypvright owner. As long as you do not proof that you are indeed the owner we can't take that as truth for the sake of the real owner (which could be you or not). So you have the option to change the homepage from "All rights reserved" to "Released into public domain" or you use the OTRS, as was explained in the upload form. If you decide to do neither then the images will once again be deleted. And by the way, the images are hardly useable. Their resolution is much too small to use them on any Wikimedia project. -- Cecil (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the resolution is too small to use on any wikimedia project. But the purpose of uploading the pic was that wikipedia directed me to wikimedia when uploading an image. And since wikimedia seems like a nightmare to work with, what other site do you suggest that I upload the image to? I'd prefer to get away from wikimedia all together as this site is worse than it's reputation. Also, how do I change the homepage as you suggest to refelct "released into public domain"? I don't see any way to change the info that was originally uploaded. Please explicitly tell me what to do. Thank you. Hixguy1 (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)hixguy1

Image:Alt Rehse - Evang. Dorfkirche 1.JPG

Hallo Cecil, könntest Du bitte so freundlich sein, und die überflüssigen Upload-Varianten bei oben verlinktem Bild lösche? Ich habe sie am 14.10.08 hochgeladen. An diesem Tag funktionierte irgendwas mit dem Server nicht und ich dachte es läge an den Bildern. Diese vielen Uploads sind zum einen unschön und nehmen zum anderen viel Speicherplatz in Anspruch. Dank im Voraus --Botaurus stellaris (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Danke fürs schnelle Erledigen. --Botaurus stellaris (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ich denke zur 20.000sten daf man

gratulieren :) (aktion im erweiterten Bereich ist gemeint ;) ) abf /talk to me/ 09:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Danke. Grad gemerkt, ich archivier ja nur, wenn ein zweiter Beitrag da ist. -- Cecil (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Username "Snow White Queen"

Hello, when I tried to create account with the name "Snow White Queen", a box appeared, writing "Login error: The name "Snow White Queen" is very similar to the existing account "Snow.white.queen" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or request an administrator create this account for you.". Snow.white.queen hasn't made any changes since he created his account in 12:23, 21 March 2008, so I think I am able to use that name. Could you change my username to this, or create that account for me? Thanks.--Ms. Naz (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I just checked. The renaming is no problem. The similar name is not in use in any other project either. But I noticed that your current account (Ms. Naz) is a global account. Renaming it would remove the account from your SUL-account. Are you sure that you want that? Oh, and could you please state on your Turkish WP account that you are "Snow White Queen" there (just log in with your local account there and make a note on your user page or talk page that you want the account on Commons renamed, you can revert it immediately again, I just need to see it in the history), because if you are not, and since the other account is in use and older, you would loose the account here if the turkish user wants to get SUL. -- Cecil (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image description page

See image descripion page of "claudio licciardello 1.jpg" and reload the picture becouse is not a copyright violation. Thanks Piccadillo

Sorry, but with an uploader like you where we have proof that you already uploaded copyright violations (you uploaded pictures which were taken by different authors like Lorenzo Sampaolo and Giancarlo Colombo and claiming for all that you are the author), we require real proof that you are either the author or have permission to upload the images from the real author. In either way go to [[COM:OTRS}}. If they accept your proof they will restore the image. Until then do not upload the image again. -- Cecil (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hilfe gesucht

Hallo Cecil, wärst Du so gut und schaust mal bei mir vorbei. Es geht da um die Löschung von insgesamt drei Bildern mit extrem unsicherer (Image:Biamyinmd masturbating.jpg und Image:Biamyinmd fishnet dress toy fun.jpg) bzw. nicht zu verifizerender Lizenzlage. Ich habe diesem Benutzer mehrfach zu erklären versucht, dass im 1. Fall die Bilder (und auch die Benutzerseite, wie inzwischen festgestellt) bei flickr nicht zu sehen sind. Ich habe diesbezüglich auch Gnu1742, YourEyesOnly und Bdk angesprochen, um einen Einstellungsfehler bei mir auszuschließen. Mein Einwurf, das man gerade bei Bildern dieser Art in puncto Lizenz und Persönlichkeitsrechte auf Nummer Sicher gehen muss, wurde dabei ebenso ignoriert wie die imo klare Löschargumentation und -entscheidung des 3. Bildes. Entweder ist mein Englisch nicht gut genug, um meine Begründungen verständlich rüberzubringen oder der Benutzer will es nicht verstehen. Ich hoffe, Du kannst da etwas mehr Klarheit in die Sache bringen. Viele Grüße -- Ra'ike T C 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ich hab mich beim Undelete-Request dazu geäußert. -- Cecil (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Gerade gesehen. Vielen Dank :-) Grüße -- Ra'ike T C 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Piano.jpg

Hi, I see you recently deleted Image:Piano.jpg. That image appears to have been lost due to the recent image loss bug. I've found a copy on archive.org, but, since I'm not an admin on Commons, I can't access the deleted versions to see if the version I found is the most recent one or one of those deleted previously due to uncertain copyright status. Could you please check this for me? Also, it would be better if admins refrained from deleting missing or corrupt images at least until this specific image loss episode is resolved, as doing that makes recovering the images harder. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

They're the same, but as it was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Piano.jpg I'd be hesitant to reupload it. Giggy (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture template

Hi there Cecil. As you are an administrator here on Commons, I thought you might find the following templates interesting.

Cscr-featured.svg This user took the featured photo [[{{{1}}}]].

With this template, a user can show which Featured Pictures they have uploaded to Commons.

Alternatively, you can use this template:


Cscr-featured.svg This user has uploaded ? featured pictures on Commons.

Here, a user can say exactly how many Featured Images they have uploaded to Commons. They simply add the number of uploaded FPs to the template.


I have also created two other templates for Valued and Quality images, which can be found here and here. What do you think? Could it catch on?

I don't have so many images with featured and quality status yet, so currently they all fit nicely on my user page without adding a extra babel for them. Maybe later when/if I have more of them. Probably should start nominating some. -- Cecil (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
For the full set of templates, see User:Elucidate/Templates. I'm hoping it'll catch on. Elucidate (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

...and as administrator, you should know it [36]. Labelling my question as "don't say shit" is offensive and I will repport this abuse.--SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time don't start lying, then nobody will tell you the truth to your face. If you can't handle the truth, don't start doing anything that will force you to see it. -- Cecil (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are you so agressive? You are now entering in DIFAMATION...I ask you TO STOP you personal attacks and reconsider your behaviour. For your information, I cannot lie because I haven't been at any time advise of deletion process!!! As far as I know, I have asked to other colleague to keep the original name BECAUSE it is the official name of that country, but whatever, never been told of the ultimate intentions. Now the problem is that your behaviour is INNACEPTABLE.--SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You removed the tag warning you that the image name is not proper yourself. And then you tell Flominator that No one has reported or commented anything wrong or ask for amendement. Sorry, but admins can still see the version history of an image and thus can see that you knew about it already since quite some time. It can be so easily proved that you lied. If you complain about me, go on. All the admins will be able to see the truth, and if some non-admin wants to see it either (including the non-existing discussion about the original name; you just removed a tag and screamed around in the version history) we can easily restore the image for a short time for everybody to see your behaviour. So, go to the complaining section, but on this talk page you are not welcomed. EOD. -- Cecil (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hi,

where you able to help the person?

I hope so.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 17:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrote you a short résumé about it per mail. -- Cecil (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

On renaming, and Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Talk_on_File_names

In case you can afford the time, I'd be pleased if you passed by + left a comment. TX, --Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Naja, du kennst ja glaub ich meine Einstellung zum Umbenennen von Bildern. Ich sehs nicht gerne und arbeite sie nur ab, wenn ich vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt werde. Mich dann an der Planung einer Umbenennung zu beteiligen, ist nichts für mich. Die Zeit würde sich so viel besser in das Verbessern der Bildbeschreibungen investieren lassen, was wiederum bei Suchmaschinen zu besseren Ergebnisse führen würde. -- Cecil (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Die Umbenennung würde ja ohnedies MediaMoveBot durchführen
  2. Es geht darum, wenigstens vernünftige Dateinamen für zukünftige uploads "zusammenzuschrauben" -- Dein feedback dazu wäre DORT höchst erwünscht. Wenn garnix kommt, bin halt einer mehr der seine eigenen Dateinamen kreiert und das Chaos auf der Kategorieseite weiter erhöht (was eh fast unmöglich scheint ;))
  3. Die Dateibeschreibungen zu optimieren ist eine Schweinearbeit solange sich niemand erbarmt und als absolutes Minimalerfordernis eine Dateiliste erstellt. Ideal wäre eine Tabelle Dateiname--Inhalt der Beschreibungsseite. Ohne Dateiliste höre ich demnächst auf dort weiterzumachen, so ein Masochist bin ich nun auch wieder nicht. Danke, --Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
ad 1) Die Umbenennung vielleicht, aber die restliche Arbeit (ersetzen in allen Projekten, Löschen, ...) bleibt an den Admins hängen und seit es den Bot gibt und es damit für alle Benutzer nicht mehr Arbeit bedeutet als ein rename reinzuhängen, wird das exzessiv genutzt. Seit die en.WP den Bot gesperrt hat, der uns beim Ersetzen half, dürfen wir das dort auch manuell machen, vorher waren es wenigstens nur die Bilder, wo dann Vorlagen, Infoboxen, usw. die Syntax für den Bot zu komplex war.
ad 3) Dateiliste ist doch die Kategorie, oder? -- Cecil (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(nach BK)

Punkt 3 sollte besser lauten: Die Dateibeschreibungen zu optimieren ist eine Schweinearbeit solange sich niemand erbarmt und als absolutes Minimalerfordernis eine Dateiliste erstellt. Das sollte per bot doch nnicht allzu schwer sein? Ideal wäre natürlich eine Tabelle Dateiname--Inhalt der Beschreibungsseite.
Ohne Dateiliste höre ich demnächst auf dort weiterzumachen, so ein Masochist bin ich nun auch wieder nicht. Was ich vorhätte (und für meine eigenen zukünftigen uploads ohnedies praktizieren werde, falls keine vernünftigen Gegenargumente kommen), ist beispielsweise auf Category_talk:Vincent_van_Gogh#Samples_of_good_file_descriptions zu checken.
Dazu: ich brauche diese Liste als Textdokument, damit ich die c.360 Namen auseinanderklauben und den Identitäten der Objekte zuordnen kann (da gibts als einziges eindeutiges Kriterium die zwei "amtlichen" Werkkataloge, und ohne diese Zuordnung schaut im Internet oft ein Bild fast wie's andere aus.) Schaumal nach Category:Le Pont de l'Anglois.
Dass der Bot NICHT den ganzen Kram erledigt, war mir unbekannt. DAS ist natürlich was anderes! Danke, --Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Zu Punkt 3: du könntest ev. ein anderes Tool für diesen Zweck missbrauchen, nämlich das BadOldOnes-Tool. Probier mal, ob du das als Nicht-Admin öffnen kannst, wobei ja eh nichts passieren sollte, wenn du aus Versehen in die letzte Spalte klicken solltest. -- Cecil (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BAD-oldies ;)

Das wird eine praktikable Lösung, danke.

Genau erforscht hab' ich's noch nicht (komme auch erst ca. übermorgen dazu), vor allem blicke ich nicht durch warum von mir unlängst editierte Dateien immer noch unter den "Bösen Alten" aufscheinen. Aber DER Aufwand, diesen output zu einer per Word editierbaren Tabelle umzumodeln, scheint mir vertretbar. Das Projekt (wie meine meisten) werde ich sowieso mit wenig Rückendeckung+Hilfe durchziehen "dürfen" [karma], aber bis Weihnachten könnte das durchaus passabel geschafft sein. Falls Du betr. optimierter Dateinamen noch ein wenig Feedback geben kannst (oder andere anleiern kannst, die das tun), wär's gut+hilfreich. Gruß, --Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Das Programm dient ja eigentlich dazu, böse alte Dateien zu löschen. Anzeigen tut es alle Bilder aus einer bestimmten Datei, egal ob nun vor einem Jahr oder gestern zuletzt editiert. Die bösen kann man sich dann anhand der Beschreibung und dem Editierdatum rausklauben. In der ersten Spalte sieht man aber, wann zuletzt editiert wurde. Beschreibung findest du hier. Da es am Toolserver läuft und für jedes Bild CheckUsage aufruft, sollte man es aber nicht zu oft verwenden, es übt eine ganz schöne Last aus auf den armen Server. -- Cecil (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, falls ich es nicht klar genug gesagt haben sollte: ich rufe das Programm auf, mach' daraus per copy+paste (+über Zwischenstufen) eine Word-Tabelle an der ich so lange editiere bis sie mir passt (etwaige zwischenzeitliche Rückmeldungen auf der Talk Page eingeschlossen) [geschätzter Zeitaufwand 2-3 Tage, plus 1-2 "Anlaufzeit" zum Austesten] und überschreibe dann mit dem Ergebnis die früheren Dateien.
Danke nochmals für den Tipp. Falls Dir betr. Dateibeschreibung in den nächsten Tagen was Ergänzendes einfällt: HER damit ;) lg, --Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Vielen Dank

...für die blitzschnelle Umbenennung. Ich hoffe ebenfalls auf dessen Nutzen :) Beste Grüße, →Nagy 07:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Category move, und File Upload Form

  1. Wäre der von mir gewünschte move von Category:Le Pont de l'Anglois Dir zumutbar? Der Name ist wirklich der ungeschickteste den man wählen konnte. Einen weiteren nicht abgearbeiteten move habe ich auch anzetteln wollen, Category:Van Gogh selfportrait. Das sollte Englisch definitiv Category:Van Gogh self-portraits heißen, mit Bindestrich und Plural, aber ich bin mir nicht mehr sicher ob's den Aufwand wert ist, da die Fehlschreibung andernorts auch mehrfach genutzt wird.
  2. Wichtiger: Das einfache Upload-Formular duldet heute nicht (mehr), dass ich den Inhalt Description=... usw wie bisher eintrage (was ich bisher per copy+paste aus einer Worddatei tat), sondern erkennt grundlegende Daten nicht und verweigert daher den Upload. Image:See possible bug.gif. Auch nicht wenn ich die Lizenz mit kürzel eintrage, da hab' ich aber vergessen dn Screenshot zu machen. Ist das ein bereits bekannter vorübergehender Bug oder wurde da in den letzten Wochen was "amtlich" umgestellt? Wäre schon blöd, wenn ich rund 100 Dateien erst durch Pfuschangaben hochladen und dann nachbessern müsste, s. beispielsweise hier (diff)

Danke, --Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ad2) DAS klappte heute wieder mal -- solltest DU was damit zu tun gehabt haben, FETTES_DANKE. Oder es war ein Eintagsfliegen-Bug? -- auch wurscht. (1) ist für mich immer noch ein ernstes Thema. lgw. Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wegen (2): Hab nix gemacht, aber ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass es klappt, wenn man im Permission-Parameter nur Text für die Lizenz reinschreibt. Soweit ich weiß, braucht es unbedingt ein Lizenz-Tag entweder irgendwo im Textfeld oder im Lizenz-Dropdown (zumindest bei mir funktioniert deine Art der Angabe nicht).
Wegen (1): muss mir noch ansehen, wie ich den Bot füttern muss, damit ich das nicht manuell machen brauch. -- Cecil (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
"2" betreffend, hatte ich wie weiter oben erwähnt auch die 'andere' Version versucht, ohne Erfolg, aber im Zorn leider zu dokumentieren vergessen.
"1" betreffend [ich meine Le Pont de l'Anglois, das andere lassn'wa-mal ;], könnte es leicht sein, dass hier händisches Korrigieren schneller ginge als einen bot zu füttern -- diese Unterkategorie scheint mir bloß sehr wenig genutzt zu sein -- oder irre ich da? Oder läuft OHNE bot sowiesonix auf dieser/Deiner Ebene? --lg, Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sicher kann mans händisch machen, aber dann kannst es ja du auch machen und sobald die alte kategorie leer ist, einfach nen schnelllöschantrag reinhängen {{duplicate|Category:Neuer Name}} (falls es WP-Artikel gibt, bei denen vorher noch den Link korrigieren). -- Cecil (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonyme

I change the author from "unknown" to "anonyme" only on the old postcards. We can't know the name of the author consequently, because they didn't signed their work, as today. But those pictures were taken at the end of the 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th, before the WWI anyway. So the anymous authors are death since more of 70 years. Sorry, but my English is not very good. --Karldupart (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please respect my above mentioned wish not to tear apart discussions by spreading them over several pages. As I also mentioned I watch the pages where I start discussions, so please keep the talk at the place where it started. -- Cecil (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

If you have even a little bit of human sense, I want to talk to you. Please contact me from nerval at hotmail from msn. If not, send to your phone number to that e-mail to me. Thanks. Now delete this and get rid of an anarchist. But before this examine Diderot and realiz you were the human being that banned Diderot in the first place. Take care. --Nerval (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would not suggest to phone with me, that could get quite expensive, but I have a Skype account (details see at my home-wiki (chat-function whole day, phone-function just in the evening) and one for ICQ. But anyway, as long as you don't provide a release by the artist to publish a picture of the award under a free licence, I can't help you anyway. Just hand over one to you does not include that. You can read more about the topic at COM:DW. And please, don't edit archived and closed deletion discussions, we have users talk pages and Commons:Undeletion requests for that. -- Cecil (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Blue sun.jpg

Hey Cecil! I just have a question about the deletion of this image. It seems that this picture was deleted because of copyright violation. But, why? I remember that when I uploaded the image, I did it because it had a compatible license with commons, and also I linked to the license at the website of the owner. I hope you can explain this to me. Thank you so much!!! Have a nice day!! --Snakeyes (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The link in the permission field you added is to SOHO's copyright page. There they just mention permission for non-commercial and educational use, which is a restriction that is not acceptable on Commons. Don't know if they changed it or if you misunderstood them. Maybe User:ComputerHotline who tagged the image for deletion knows more about it. -- Cecil (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh my! You're right. I did not take note about the non-commercial restriction. Well, there's nothing we can do. Face-crying.svg. Thank you so much!!! Bye!! --Snakeyes (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cecil, All SOHO images are concerned, so you can easily find other images to delete. The RedBurn (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:General Fan Hanjie.jpg

I fixed the copyright so you can hopefully withdraw the deletion request. (You see days have passed and you didn't reply there, so alerting you here to remind you to look there. Thanks.) Jidanni (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Chinese law is not my strong point, and since it is not really usual on Commons to withdraw a request, I would prefer that another admin closes it properly. But that should not hamper you using the image already. -- Cecil (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

W. schon wieder ;))

Hi, da bez. meiner gewünschten Umbenennung auf enWP seit etlichen Tagen nix weitergeht, frage ich DICH ob es zwischenzeitlich immer noch ein Problem darstellt, einen Account (eines bestimmten Projekts) HINTERHER zu SUL dazuzuführen (das war vor wenigen Monaten[Wochen?] ein ernstes Problem).

Ob sich die en-Zuständigen oder 1-2 oder 40+ Tage mit der von mir gewünscten Umbenennung Zeit lassen, oder die Umbenennung vielleicht gar nicht vornehmen (es gibt auch "user:W", ohne Punkt dahinter), ist mir inzwischen "irgendwie wurscht", da ich dort eh keine 300 edits habe ["user:W" hat ca. 106] und sowieso nur gelegentlich beitragen werde.

SUL ist mir inzwischen jedoch wichtig, und alle anderen Accounts außer enWP hab' ich seit etlichen Tagen unter dem selben Hut.

Quintessenz ist also die Frage: SUL EHEBALDIGST aktivieren, oder den en-Verantwortlichen nochmal 48h Zeit lassen??? Gruß, --Wolfgang H.W. (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Wolfgang, (da ich darum gebeten wurde, hier auch meinen Senf hinterlassend), SUL kannst fuer Dich nur Du aktivieren, bitte besuche hierfuer special:mergeaccount und fuehre die weiteren Anweisungen aus. Bitte beachte auch m:SUL bevor Du es aktivierst (denn manche regen sich dann auf, dass fuer sie ueberall ein Account erstellt wird, wo sie sich einloggen - mir unbegreiflich, schlieszlich ist das Sinn und Zweck ;) )
Wenn Du noch offene Umbenennungen hast, so macht das ueberhaupt nichts, Dank der Behebung eines Bugs, der die Umbenennung von bereits vereinten Accounts verhinderte.
Falls Du noch Fragen haben solltest, kannst Du Dich gerne melden.
LG. an Euch beide, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Waaah, wann ist den der Bug gefixt worden? Ich bin auf veraltetem Stand. Das ist ja gar nicht gut. Hab letztens wen SUL löschen geschickt, damit ich ihn umbenennen kann. -- Cecil (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, naja, ist schon ein Zeiterl her [37]. Aber keine Sorge, wir fragen eigentlich immer nach, warum jemand SUL-Löschung beantragt, wenn er dann sagt, dass es zum Umbenennen sei, wird nicht gelöscht, auszer er besteht darauf (kann ja auch andere Gruende haben). LG., --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hab den Armen gerade umbenannt. Hab einwandfrei geklappt. Also falls sich ein ROmas an euch wendet, sagt ihm, es hat sich erledigt. -- Cecil (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, :) --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
&nochmal, es klappt leider nicht

An dem Punkt an dem ich (an der angegebenen Adresse) aufgefordert werde, das scheinbar fehlende en-Passwort einzugeben, und dies brav tue [per copy+paste, versteht sich, damit gewiss nix danebenrutscht], springt das Display wieder zurück zum vorigen Stand.

Da das Thema eh schon ein paar Monate alt ist, werden's ein paar Tage mehr auch nicht verschlimmern können, aber für mich steht dzt. fest: SO wie gewünscht geht's dzt. [für mich] nicht. Best, [from problem's g.r.e.a.t friend: W~] --Wolfgang (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: für heute steige ich aus, vielleicht erledigt sich ja das Problem über Nacht von allein. lgw.

Hm, vielleicht ist der Account auf en.wiki nicht Deiner? Die Zusammenfuehrung der Konten an sich klappte jedenfalls. Du hast jetzt ein globales Konto unter "W." mit zwei nicht dazugehörigen Accounts auf en.wiki und it.wiki. Da diese 0 Bearbeitungen haben, sollte einem Antrag auf Umbenennung selbiger scheinbar nichts im Wege stehen. LG., --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
HaHaaa_Ju-Hi-Huuu: Die Welt ist voller Wunder. itWP ist ein "pending" Sonderfall, auf enWP hatte ich "W." usurpiert, aber eine Woche lang ohne Reaktion, und heute rel. ausweichend: So nämlich. Aber ich kann mich damit abfinden, dass ich jetzt möglicherweise tatsächlich halbweg global einloggen kann ;)) &_s'Nächtle, jetzt eeeehrlich. --Wolfgang (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hi,

i have send you a email. I hope you don't mind.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 18:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hey thanks for your help with those "Samyn" pictures - I was ready to mark all the others as copyvio too when I realised you'd deleted them already :) -- Deadstar (msg) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page at French Wikipedia is somebody who claims that he got the permission from Ph. Samyn to upload the image. I told him that the ownership of the pictures alone is not enough, that he also needs to own the copyright to release them. Then I told him about OTRS. Let's see, maybe they get restored soon. -- Cecil (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Weird_Al_Yankovic.jpg

Cecil, can you drop by my talk page and give me some advice on how to best fix this? Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see your question there the first time and then the weekend started. But I'm glad to see that somebody else noticed it. -- Cecil (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Commandant Brebant le Mans 1937.gif

L'importateur de l'image confirme que son grand-père, mort il y a 46 ans, est l'auteur de la photo, et qu'il possède l'originale. Diff. --P@d@w@ne 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Merci. -- Cecil (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Magazine cover?

how do i get the appropriate license for a magazine cover? i have seen magazine covers on other pages. i have listed the source and listed it as fair use rationale. what else do i need to do?

This is Commons, not the english Wikipedia. Here, fair use is not allowed and never will be. We are a free project and fair use does not fit that. And you will never get the permission by one of those magazines to release their covers under a free licence. So either upload at english Wikipedia or stop uploading at all. -- Cecil (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RE-Duplikate

Hallo Cecil! Danke, dass Du mitdenkst :) Ich wollte eben die Tags setzen. Ich bin grad bis 993 gekommen, jetzt gibts erst mal Frühstück, dann mach ich noch den Rest. Vielen Dank! Wikisource-logo.png Jonathan Groß Wikipedia-logo.png 08:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ich mach gerade RC-Kontrolle. Und da ich die Diskussion von WS kannte, wusste ich ja, was los ist. -- Cecil (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stefan Zweig.png

Sorry but you have to notify the original uploader, not the users--85.130.31.81 15:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Darldarl? You are the uploader here, that makes it your responsibility. Local projects have different rules, they sometimes allow uploads without all the necessary information. That does not mean that those files can be transferred to Commons just because one of the projects accept them. The person who transfers an image has to check first if everything is ok, because (s)he is the one whose name is now below the upload. Just uploading an image without proper copyright and then shirking off the fault to another project with other rules does not work. You are the original uploader at Commons, so you are the one responsible that it fits to the rules at Commons. If the image misses information to proof its freedom then you uploaded an unfree file, not the uploader at another project. -- Cecil (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Images of artwork

Can you advise me the best way to proceed — I would like to profile artists who are members of our art society, and to provide text and images of their works in Wikipedia. Some of them are deceased, and many of them are of historical interest as painters of the Ukrainian diaspora. I have access to their original paintings, and would like to upload images that I have taken of them. I can get permission to use the images of the paintings by the original author, where they are still alive. I understand that there are 2 separate permissions that are required: a) by the original author, and b) my permisson to use the photo of the artwork. However, the "permission" section in the upload area of the Commons, and the discussion on licencing, is confusing to me. My questions are:

  1. Which "permission" is it referring to? Am I granting a licence for the photo, or for the original artwork?
  2. If I need the latter (or both): is obtaining permission from the deceased artist's relatives OK?

--Pkravchenko (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email since there is quite a lot to consider depending on the initial situation. -- Cecil (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rotation of project images

Unfortunately, it is not so simple to do this pre-uploading in a decentralized project. We aim to correct this in the successor project next year. However, I have never wanted to place the burden of adding the Rotate tag on other users, and so have been systematically placing these myself for quite some time now; I believe 95%+ of such markings have been by me, unless someone else happens to catch one first. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Einladung

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:4._Foto-Workshop - ich weiß ja, ist nicht grad um die Ecke aber als Co-Organisator von Berlin-09 hätte ich dich gern dabei. Wenn es zeitlich paßt, sollten wir mahl mehlen... --Marcela (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

on deleting Image:Benito Mussolini Roman Salute.jpg

Hello Cecil, sorry to upload a copyvio image, I thought commonshelper can recognize the copyright status of the images correctly. Seemingly not. Cheers, Syp (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress

Hi I saw you deleted to of the files I up loaded because Commons doesn't accept Fair Use. I just want to say I am sorry. I was not aware of that. I was all ready answered about those files in the Cafe in Spanish and English, but in the Spanish version nobody answered me. I will pay attention to the license of the files better.--eliasjorge4 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:19julio36.jpg

Hallo Cecil,

Du hast vor einiger Zeit dieses Bild richtigerweise gelöscht. Es landete gemeinsam mit diesem Bild in den Löschanträgen (siehe hier). Wäre froh wenn du auch beim zweiten Bild die Löschdiskussion beenden könntest.

Danke --Koroesu (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Order of descriptions

Hi! Thanks for writing descriptions for categories and articles of Finnish cities and municipalities. But where is it said that the descriptions should always be listed alphabetically. Listing them native languages first seems to be quite common. (See for example Deutschland, Berlin, Hamburg, Tallinn, London, New York, Stockholm.) Best regards, --Apalsola tc 09:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an international project. One of the most serious problems we have is that there are a lot of frictions between nationalities,... These frictions are intensified by the cavemen-tactics of some people here who think that their homecountry/project/whatever is the most important and has to come first. Actually the only real written rule here on Commons is that English as common language is the most important. But that is because many of the rules are not yet written down since Commons is still a large building lot and every discussion about languages just leads to tensions again. In all the large projects the sorting by alphabet is standard. But you can change it back if you really think that you and your nationality are the most important people here in an international project and that you want to ignore basic naming conventions (like the rules how to name a gallery). -- Cecil (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would really appreciate if you didn't make any offensive and unjustified allegations of my motives. I don't think that I or my nationality would be the most important people here. I merely stated that it seems to be very common to sort the descriptions native languages first regardless of the language, and I did give you many examples of which none was Finnish. I agree with you that we should have written down rules to avoid confusions. If that rule would be to sort the descriptions alphabetically, I am perfectly fine with it. And for naming the galleries, there actually is a written down rule to use only one language form even if the place is bilingual. Thanks for pointing it out and sorry about the reverting your changes. BR, --Apalsola tc 10:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for assuming motives. I just see it too often here and then often forget to assume good faith for other people. We have a few concepts about how to deal with languages but nothing really fix. Commons:Language templates is probably the most advanced try in that direction, but even here it only is visible in the example but not really written down. -- Cecil (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Policy accepted. BTW, is there a policy in Commons about whether the descriptions (and interwiki links) should be sorted by ISO 639 code or by native name? I.e. should "fi" or "Suomi" be used as the sort key for Finnish language? (I prefer the latter because then the user actually sees the descriptions in alphabetical order and he/she doesn't have to know the ISO 639 code.) --Apalsola tc 11:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No, there isn't. Meta says that the default order for most projects is the one with the language code. Only nine projects sort based on the local language. One of it is yours, so you are probably accustomed to it. The thing is: our tools here and the bots sort by language code, so according to the function implemented in 2867 Commons seems to be registered for language code sorting in the Wikipediabot framework. -- Cecil (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why?

I'm sorry, I don't speak english. I want ask you why http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sergiofernandez.jpg must be deleted. Extraido de http://www.myspace.com/monagagas con la autorización de los dueños.

Images need to have permission by the original photographer, and there is none visible at the source. -- Cecil (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Als dein Vorgänger

...gratuliere ich dir offiziell zur statistischen nummer zwei :) abf /talk to me/ (forever number one!) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ich geb dir mal was ab zum Löschen ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bildeinstellung

Hallo Cecil, wir hatten ja schon einmal Kontakt, daher habe ich Dich als Ansprechpartner "auserkoren". Ich würde eventuell gerne einen Scan einstellen, den ich von einem Faksimilie gemacht habe, das mir vorliegt. Es handelt sich bei dem Faksimile um einen Petrus-Papyrus aus dem 3. Jahrhundert nach Chr., dessen Original sich in der Vatikanischen Bibliothek befindet. Ist dies erlaubt? Ich würde wohl als Lizenz "PD-Art" angeben. -- Mediatus 13:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ja, das ist natürlich erlaubt. Ist ja schon seit 1700 Jahren gemeinfrei. Details findest du unter de:s:Wikisource:Urheberrecht. Zahlreiche, wenn auch nicht ganz so alte Dokumente, findest du hier, falls du mal sehen willst, wie andere es gemacht haben. -- Cecil (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Bitte um Überprüfung

Hallo Cecil. Ich habe den Eindruck gewonnen, dass Du Dich etwas auskennst: könntest Du mal einen Blick auf Special:Contributions/Zyberv werfen? Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob das alles so koscher ist.

Falls ich bei Dir an der falschen Stelle gelandet sein sollte, würdest Du mich bitte weiterleiten? Danke. --hdamm (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Danke für deine Aktion.
Wo wir hier gerade so gemütlich beisammen sind, in der Category:Politicians of Thailand taucht dieser eine Typ insgesamt fünf Mal auf. Wie verfährt man mit so etwas? --hdamm (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Schauen, welches den besten Namen hat bzw. auch wirklich verwendet wird und in die restlichen Bilder {{duplicate|Image:das ausgewählte.xxx}} reingeben. Ein Admin wird diese dann löschen bzw. falls mehrere verwendet werden, den Bot losschicken, der die anderen Verwendungen auf das ausgewählte Bild vereinigt. Falls, wie in diesem Fall, ausgerechnet das mit der schlechtesten Auflösung verwendet wird, dann ein anderes auswählen. -- Cecil (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

FP

Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Hyyrynen 03 edit.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Hyyrynen 03 edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Stam1na Nosturi 22032008 Hyyrynen 03.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

MediaMoveBot

Hallo Cecil, Du sagtest mir unlängst, ich solle möglichst keine Umbenennungen anleiern weil sie den Admins Zusatzarbeit bescheren. Kannst Du mir erklären, worin diese Extraarbeit besteht, wenn ich auf Commons liegende van Gogh Medien umbenennen lasse? Ich habe es nämlich jedenfalls vor (in etwa 8-14 Tagen, jedenfalls vor Weihnachten) und möchte sondieren, ob ich die entstehenden Mehr-Arbeiten dann nicht auch gleich selber durchführen könnte: Die Aktion ist mein Baby, und daraus entstehende Belastungen für andere will ich tunlichst verhindern. Habe diesbezüglich unlängst schon mir Betacommand Kontakt aufgenommen, der scheinbar über Mängel seines Bot zu wenig Rückmeldungen hat: User_talk:Betacommand#frequency? Vielleicht kannst Du gleich dort was dazu sagen? Gruß, Wolfgang (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Einen Teil davon kannst du schon selbst übernehmen. Da ja die Bilder mit den alten Namen gelöscht werden müssen (den Teil können nur Admins machen), müssen in sämtlichen Projekten (Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Wikinews, ...) alle Verwendungen der Bilder auf die neuen Namen umgeändert werden. Du kannst also bei jedem Bild über das CheckUsage-Tool nachsehen, wo es überall verwendet wird, und dann den alten Namen gegen den neuen austauschen (macht im hebräischen und arabischen WP besonders viel Spaß wegen rechts-nach-links-Schreibung). Problem ist, das kann man erst in dem Moment machen, in dem der Betacommand-Bot die Duplikate mit neuem Namen angelegt hat. Es gäbe ja auch einen Bot, der das auch kann (auch wenn der oft Probleme hat und immer nachkontrolliert werden muss, auf en.WP ist/war/wird er sogar gesperrt), aber eben weil der einiges an Probleme bereitet, kann er nur von Admins bedient werden und wenn im betroffenen Projekt die Seite gesperrt ist (Wikinews zB sperrt ja immer, da muss man dann mit einem lokalen Admin Kontakt aufnehmen, damit der das erledigt) oder auch bei nicht immer ganz logisch aufgebauten Infoboxen und Vorlagen streikt dieser Bot gerne total.
Was wir machen könnten, damit du den Ersetz-Bot (CommonsDelinker) nutzen kannst: informier dich, wann deine Umbenennungen dran sind und bereite schon mal die CommonsDelinker-Statements für den vor. Ich kopier sie dann rein und sobald er durch ist, kannst du ja die Nachkontrolle machen und alle Problemfälle manuell ersetzen. Danach muss ein Admin nur mehr das Löschknöpfchen drücken und eine Löschbegründung mit Verweis auf die neue Datei eingeben (der Teil geht relativ einfach, wenn keine Verwendungen mehr angezeigt werden). -- Cecil (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Besten Dank für Deine ausführliche Info. Ich versuche mich noch ein paar Tage lang schlauer zu machen (grundsätzlich gibt's ja auch zeitweilige Sonderrechte), bevor ich "loslege". Zu Weihnachten hätte ich die Sache gern hinter mir/uns. Der Welt zuliebe ;))) Lieben Gruß, Wolfgang (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Nur sicherheitshalber, falls Du bei Betacommand nicht vorbeigeschaut hast: Die Großaktion ist abgeblasen, was ich brauche, nämlich Sortierung des Inhalts der gesamten Kategorie nach Entstehungsdatum, geht auch per DEFAULTSORT. Wenn ich das bloß früher gewusst hätte ;) eod. (kann imo archiviert werden) --Wolfgang (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, gut. Archivieren macht der Bot in 5 Tagen (falls niemand mehr weiterdiskutiert). Ich bin zu faul, das selbst zu machen. -- Cecil (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
HARR_HARRRR [~Beavis+Butthead]:
Gibt's sowas (wie auf deWP: {{erledigt}}, um zu Archivierendes "abzusegnen" und binnen einer voreingestellten Zeit "verschwinden zu lassen", hier tatsächlich immer-noch-nicht? Ich kenne es DORT (in der deWP) erst seit Kurzem, finde es aber ideal für Diskus jeglicher Art. lg, Wolfgang (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Geben müsste es das schon, aber das ist mir zuviel Arbeit. Der Bot machts doch eh so auch nach einiger Zeit. -- Cecil (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Müsste-sollte, betreffend, ACK. Miszabot kennt's_+_kann's scheinbar nicht. lg, Wolfgang (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship)

Hi, kommt bitte bei http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Gryffindor_(de-adminship)#Supporters mal langsam auf die Hufe, bevor die Anglos meinen, nur weil wir es auf de: unterzeichnet hätten, wäre es auf Commons ungültig, obwohl ich denen die Versionshistory auf dem güldenen Teller präsentiert habe. --Herrick (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ehrlich gesagt halte ich diesen {{!vote}}-Baustein für eine ziemliche Unverschämtheit, Verschleierung und Abstimmungsbeeinflussung, die von bestimmter Seite lanciert wird. Sollte die gegnerische Seite damit durchkommen, würde ich es als verhängnisvolles Signal für alle nichtenglischsprachigen User interpretieren, da damit der Eindruck entsteht, dass gewisse Nationalitäten über den Regeln stehen würden. --Herrick (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Nimms nicht so schwer. Kanonkas hat das auch bei Sterkes Adminwahl rein. SterkeBak ist übrigens nicht Admin, was aber weniger an den Bürokraten liegt, sondern daran, dass er starkem Mobbing ausgesetzt war. Ich frage mich momentan eher, welcher Bürokrat da mal später entscheiden soll. Immerhin haben im letzten Monat zwei ihre Rechte abgegeben, zwei weitere hab ich noch nie als Bürokraten tätig gesehen und Patricia hat ja eigentlich auch angekündigt, nicht mehr als solcher tätig sein zu wollen. Lar und ich fallen als Beteiligte auch raus, womit nur mehr Eugene und Cary übrig sind. Ich vermute mal, da werden wir mal wieder hinter verschlossenen Türen rumdiskutiern. Darauf bin ich mal neugierig. -- Cecil (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Wenn wir die gleiche Patricia aus Portugal meinen, sehe ich schwarz. Die sieht erfahrungsgemäß nur die Bewahrung des status quo als conditio sine qua non an. Wo hat sich denn Lar ? zu Wort gemeldet. Auf de: betreiben Elian, Sicherlich u. Southpark wieder mal ihre Zenodot-Glorifizierung und schweigen lieber alles tot, was für den Verein unbequem werden könnte. So - Pause bis Montag, Gruß --Herrick (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Auf de. sollte diese Diskussion auch nicht stattfinden. Wer auf Commons nicht aktiv ist, sollte nicht seine Stimme abgeben. Genau das ist das Problem von Canvassing. Stimmen von Leuten, die keine Ahnung vom Problem haben, sich dann auch nicht wirklich damit auseinander gesetzt haben, aber halt mal abstimmen, sei es, weil sie jemandem vertrauen oder weil sie zu Commons eine bestimmte Einstellung haben. Und es ruft jetzt Leute auf den Plan, die Gegen-Canvassing betreiben, also genauso argumentslos einfach mal auf Gegenteil stimmen (siehe Kanonkas, Cirt, How do you turn this on, ...). -- Cecil (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm very sorry you see black at my name's mention, Herrick. I would like to know what I could improve so you'd start seeing a more pleasant colour. Patrícia msg 12:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Template_talk:Painting#Location_created

Hi, falls Du zu meinem Vorschlag eine Meinung hast, bring sie bitte dort bei. Ich führe dzt. dort leider Selbstgespräche, ebenso wie in meinem Projekt Category talk:Vincent van Gogh (na, dort nicht ganz: Ein gewisser G. nervte mich mit seinem Starrsinn, hat aber inzwischen zu schwafeln aufgehört - ist scheinbar dzt. mit der Rettung der eigenen Haut hinreichend beschäftigt ;])

Weiters interessiert mich Deine Meinung zu heute von mir erstellten Kategorien Category:Drawings and other by van Gogh in the Van Gogh Museum und der Übergeordneten. Ich möchte nächste Woche diese Kategorien zu befüllen beginnen (VGM hat mehr als 800 Objekte, und die Gemälde sind in der Unterzahl), tue dies aber ungern ohne Feedback betr. Nomenklatur. Siebrand, der "im Auftrag" Gryffindors vier von mir erstellte Kategorien umbenannte (weil ich die falsche Syntax verwendet hatte) redet nicht mit mir, und M. Manske ist zwar in etwa meiner Meinung, aber ich möchte ihn nicht tagtäglich quälen mit derlei Kleinkram -- da hab' ich wiedermal an Dich gedacht ;) Gruß, Wolfgang (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nachdem ich schon öfter erlebt habe, das Gryffindor meine Änderungen rückgängig macht, hätte es ohnehin keinen Sinn. Warte mal ab, was das aktuelle Verfahren bringt. Danach können wir mal versuchen, all den Schaden zu reparieren, den er angerichtet hat. -- Cecil (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ich weiß nicht, ob da so viel Zusammenhang besteht - dass G viel im Template:Painting getan haben kann, bezweifle ich (NULL Edits dort). Dort geht's dzt. ausschließlich um die Frage, ein Extrafeld für den Entstehungsort des Kunstwerks einzufügen, oder eben doch nicht. Und da wäre es dringend wünschenswert, mehr als nur (m)eine Meinung einzubringen. Wolfgang (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:CookbookFriedRice.jpg

Entschuldigung, ich schon wieder. Nur ne kurze Frage: gibts eigentlich irgendeine Möglichkeit, offensichtlich grottenschlechte Bilder wie dies hier aus der Sammlung zu entfernen? Weiterer Gedanke: wenn ja, wo sollte man dann die Grenze ziehen (Briefmarkengröße, unscharf, ...)? --hdamm (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dafür haben wir den Commons:Scope (out of project scope). Wenn es keine Nutzungsmöglichkeit gibt, weil die Qualität so schlecht ist, gib einen Löschantrag rein. Ich hab schon öfter mal komplett verwackelte Bilder das letzte Mal sogar eins speedy, weil mir beim Hinschauen schon fast schlecht wurde) und auch mal Handyfotos löschen lassen (wäre nicht unterm Bild gestanden, welche Band da fotografiert wurde, hätte es wohl nie jemand so rausgekriegt). Bei Bildern, die aber in einem Projekt verwendet werden, stehen die Erfolgschancen auf eine Löschung aber schlecht. Die Reispfanne wird auf en.Wikibooks verwendet, die müsste man erst Mal durch ein besseres ersetzen. Bei Briefmarken ist es auch oft wahrscheinlich, dass die von ner Website geklaut wurden. Da schau ich meist mal bei Tineye und Google vorbei bzw. überprüfe, was der Autor uns bisher so spendiert hat. -- Cecil (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld

See here. Ernst Stavro Blofeld (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Cecil (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if you could show me how to use a TUSC account. You see there are a fair few images I'd like to upload and want a way to do them quicker. I've got the TUSC number. Now what do I do? Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Post it on your talk page like that while you are logged in. The actual text is not important, just the number has to be there. Then go back to [38] and enter a new password which you want to use for the transfers. And then whenever you transfer something you enter your username and this password in the transfer-tool (or let the browser do it). -- Cecil (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

Dear Cecil, sorry to come and disturb you with this, but I'm a bit disconcerted. Several factors made me be away from Commons for a while, I'm very very slowly coming back, and I'm afraid I'm not quite catching up with all that is happening.

I find the environment on Commons increasingly hostile, not just towards new users but also amongst "regulars". I find it increasingly unwelcoming for non-English speakers. I find it hard to manage with all the cultural differences. And it's certainly hard to make compatible different ways of doing things, imported from other wikis. I'm a bit tired of this, really. I'm not sure what you meant with all those "WE" at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Deletion of my account, but I feel there is some sort of gap that we should try to close. There shouldn't be a We and a Them on this project, we're far too central for that. If you don't mind, I'd like to hear what you think about this, and ways to improve the state of things.

I think we could start with a more active and visible dispute resolution process, even if this is not the core problem; what do you think?

Cheers, Patrícia msg 12:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

bitte eine Löschung

Lösch mal bitte File:Klaus-graf-historiker-rr.jpg, Smial hat das für mich verbessert: File:Klaus-graf-historiker-rr-2.jpg. Draht im Hintergrund, Mundwinkel usw. Das Original kann und sollte weg. Gruß Marcela (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrtümer.

  1. Ich hatte mir glatt eingebildet, Du seist jetzt wieder nachtaktiv ;)
  2. Ein von Commons "vielverkaufter" van Gogh ist leider keiner (genauer: gleich 2 files), was seit 9 Tagen keine Sau, mich und einen inzwischen dort nicht mehr aktiven Gesprächspartner ausgenommen, zu jucken scheint. Kannst Du auf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vincent Willem van Gogh 033.jpg entweder Dich selber einbringen oder wen vorbei"locken" der sich der Sache annähme? Muss auch nicht unbedingt heuer noch sein -- der Mist existiert eh schon seit 2005.
    8[[ -- lg, Wolfgang 06:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Auch Irrtümer haben offenbar ein Ablaufdatum ;) -- In einem Anfall von Helfersyndrom hab' ich beide Files mit identem korrektem Inhalt überschrieben, das weniger oft verwendete verwaist (mann gönnt sich ja sonstnix als in der jaWP zu editieren, vgl. mit arWP immer noch ein Vergnügen ;) und ein {{duplicate}} gesetzt, das prompt exekutiert wurde. Das dzt. meistgenutzte andere File hat zwar immer noch den Haken, dass es in der Erstfassung ein copyvio gewesen sein dürfte, aber das haben der Erstuploader und ggf. COM am Hals, und D.A.M.I.T kann ich leben ;]]]. [w.] 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Diti meanwhile did it ;)-- the file is clean now. [w.] 07:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Mit WeihnachtsSpam hatte ich Dich ursprünglich bewusst verschont, hole dies aber jetzt nach, da ich eh schon hier editiere und das Bildchen herzallerliebst ist. Auch wurde ich unlängst opa. Ein glückliches und möglichst stressarmes [hähäää] Neues wünsch' ich Dir natürlich auch noch schnell, logo-klaro. [w.] 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Und noch eine Frage: Wie erstellt man von einem (Image-) File einen Redirect auf ein anderes derart, dass tatsächlich das bevorzugte sofort angezeigt wird? Oder ist dies "Normalsterblichen" ohnedies nicht erlaubt/möglich? Ich lese gelegentlich, dass nach Löschen eines Files ähnliche Redirects erstellt werden sollten, mitunter aber nicht werden. [w.] 17:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Es irrt der Mensch, solang' er ...
Sorry, mein Versuch, nachdem ich heute glaubte es begriffen zu haben, schlug fehl. S. "error, did not find the answer. See, e.g. "File:How-To.gif"", und vergleiche es mit File:Example2.jpg, das brav zu File:Example.jpg weiterleitet. -- [w.] 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Erledigt, &eod: Hab' zwischenzeitlich geschnallt, dass solche Weiterleitungen nur dann funktionieren wenn das File ansonsten leer ist. [w.] 07:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No more waiting forever

Sorry, I will clean up the mess on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:General Fan Hanjie.jpg personally, instead of waiting forever. Jidanni (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to vandalise then go on. You are no admin, you have participated in the discussion, ... As such you have no right to remove the deletion tags. But if you do it, it will count as vandalism and you will be blocked. So please go on if you want that kind of action. And stop putting insulting messages here or at the deletion request. I told you before that this kind of behaviour is not accepted and still you are rude. -- Cecil (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename request | Demande de renommage

Can you rename this account User:Sniff with 0 contrib for I will take it? (SUL) [39] Thanks! Best regards, --Sniff 20:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Français : (missing text)

Pouvez-vous renommer ce compte User:Sniff avec aucune contribtution pour que je le prenne? (SUL) [40] Merci! Cordialement, --Sniff 20:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done by EugeneZelenko [41]. --Sniff (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bavarian Army

While you were deleting the OrBat graphic, I was redrwaing it, so that it will fit... I will upload it now a second time - this time the size will be right. --Noclador (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just reupload. Would not have said anything against it ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

about my deleted images

Hi Cecil,

The images I've uploaded: Image:GeorgeV Grigore.jpg and Image:George V Grigore.jpg (actually the same image) are used with the permission of the copyright holder (George V. Grigore). The same image is used also on his website: www.georgegrigore.ro. Why am I not allowed to upload it to Wikipedia?

Anyway I replaced the image with the one I took myself and is free of copyright. This is used with the permission of George V. Grigore (who is my godfather). If this one is still not good please say me what am I doing wrong.

Thank you.

--Gwapobluebird (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The new one looks fine to me. But with the other one only the creator himself can release it. Since Grigore is in the image he can't be the creator. But even if he has somehow bought the copyright from the creator, his release of the image under a free licence has to be documented since it is already released in the net under "all rights reserved" (georgegrigore.ro also has this kind of statement). So anybody can just take the image and claim he is the owner or he has the permission of the owner (sadly this kind of claim happens every few uploads here on Commons, and only a few of those claims can be really prooven by the uploaders, must just disappear and leave a copyright violation). This is why we have the COM:OTRS where the real copyright owner can send a release-mail to (you can find a few templates there for this kind of release). Only other chance is to add a note to the website itself that the image is free. Also be aware that all images are really free, so your godfather should know that images here can be used for everything, also commercially without him being able to do anything against it (as long as the usage is not derogativly). -- Cecil (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My Flags

Hello Cecil, I'm very confused because the user User:Rastrojo in Wikimedia Commons, he deleted all my proposal flags of Mexico without say nothing to me before, so, I wrote him here in Commons, asking him why he deleted my proposal flags, and only my proposal flags and no others proposal flags, and he said me, "Mexico hasn't official flags and I said my flags are officials", but I've never said that, you can verify that in the historial on the pages;

For example;

Clearly it said in Spanish "Bandera propuesta", or "Proposal Flag", and my flags have been there for long time, and now he deleted them, I really don't want to understanding wrong why exactly he did that. Should I upload them again?. --Heraldicos (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Cecil/Archiv1, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of 100 % support. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and I promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks,Abigor talk 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Klashorst

Your mass deletion of all the Klashorst nude was rather irregular. It is not supported by consensus. It was done without notifying uploaders. Please restore, and restore all usage in projects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will restore them. As soon as you bring the confirmation that they have signed a model release and are not minor. The deletion request discussion was more than clear about that. Oh, and the uploader of most of them (TwoWings) knew about it, he participated in the discussion and voted for "delete". -- Cecil (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
On thing: there are a few where you can't see the face. Those can be restored, but the rest falls under the same rationale. -- Cecil (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ebony lady.jpg was about one image. A previous Commons:Deletion requests/Peter Klashorst Photos was closed as kept. Reverting such a decision and deleting so many images without giving opportunity for debate in the usual channels is irregular use of admin buttons. See also Commons:Village pump#Klashorst? (again and again). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
That's an interessting discussion. Just men contributing. But it was to be expected that many guys like that kind of images. I did not expect that from a few of the guys who are contributing in this discussion. Just proofs that most man are primarly thinking with their dicks. -- Cecil (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bilingual cities in Finland

Hello!

Why do you keep on reverting the names for bilingual cities in Finland? Do the Swedish names disturb you for some reason? I've checked the "Commons:Language policy" and I have only found a proposal that places should have their native names and I agree. If a place has to native names why shouldn't we include both? The Swedish names are often the original ones (such is the case for Helsinki / Helsingfors) and they are also official according to the Finnish constitution. You claim that articles should just have one name in title, referring to the naming conventions, I haven't found that rule but I strongly disagree with it (who has decided that they should be the law here anyway?). If the conventions are bad, we have to change them, if that's tricky, we'll simply have to ignore them. Have a nice weekend! Aaker (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I have no problems with swedish. Quite the opposite, I like it that there are two languages since I understand that language better. But we only take one language. If the city is Swedish majority like Tammisaari/Ekenäs, then the gallery is in swedish (Ekenäs), but Helsinki, Espoo, and so on, have Finnish majority. -- Cecil (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to read that you have no problems with Swedish but I still can't under why double titles bother you. Is there any technical issue? Aaker (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's photo

Ah. Ok. -- Cecil (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks ;) --DsMurattalk 02:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:General Fan Hanjie.jpg

Can you please ask somebody to close this. I believe all the requirements have been met. Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a wikibreak. If it is urgent go to COM:IRC and try one of the channels there. There are always some admins active there. I have not followed the discussion anymore after Jappalang game along who seemed to have more insight in Chinese law so I don't know the status of the discussion. -- Cecil (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Message

Did you try to write me a message at 19:34, 10 January 2009? I got an e-mail notification about a change on my user talk, but when I looked at it, there was no message (last change from 8 February). The e-mail said, the subject was Assessments... --Slomox (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Der Mail-server dürfte einen ziemlich großen Backlog haben. Ich hab auch erst letzte Woche eine Mail bekommen, die mich über eine Nachricht auf meiner Talk page informiert hat, die bereits im Dezember getätigt wurde. Das Thema von damals ist schon geklärt. -- Cecil (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh mann, hätte ich auch merken können, dass da January steht und nicht February. ;-) Aber Tag und Uhrzeit passten gerade. Ich denke, das ist ein guter Anlass, dass ich die E-Mail-Benachrichtigung ausstelle... --Slomox (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

SVG problem

Hi! I have a problem with File:Hawaii Island topographic map-fr.svg. In full view mode it crashes my browser, the current Mozilla Firefox (version 3.0.6, active since 2 weeks) running on Vista. I've asked a friend and he had the same problem (same browser in same version but XP Pro as OS). With all your other maps which participate at POTY I didn't have problems. -- Cecil (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Same problem with Opera 9.63. -- Cecil (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cecil,
It's difficult for me to fix your problem, because of course, I havn't... I tried with Firefox 3.0.6 under XP Pro and Ubuntu, and with Opera 9.63 under XP pro: no crash.
However, I've uploaded a new version, in valid SVG format (which means without the Inkscape tags inside). I hope you won't have the same problem ; please tell me the result.
Sémhur (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the problem still exists for me on Vista. The large view opens and I can see the water and the land in all its shades and the one blue line surrounding the land. But then the browser just loads loads loads. The streetlines and the labels are not displayed anymore and the browser does not react to anything anymore. I could not reach my friend who uses the XP-OS to check with him. But after work I will try it with the Vista at home. The firefox there and here at work are a little bit different. Maybe it is some Firefox plugin that causes the problem. I just don't understand why the other SVG-maps are working for me. -- Cecil (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I cannot do better for this file, as it's already a W3C valid SVG now. May the problem comes from the big size of this map. It's a fully SVG file, unlike my other maps (where the background is an embedded JPEG file). So, the web browser have to translate a lot of text informations in a visible image ; perhaps it's too much for it. Otherwise... I don't know. Sémhur (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Nationalratswahlen 2006 Gemeindekarte.png

Wenn ich da was ändern will, bekomm ich eine Spyware-Message. Irgendeine Idee, warum? Gruß --Geiserich77 (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicht wirklich. Bei mir schlägt nichts an. Vielleicht hast du deinen Spyware-Sucher zu streng eingestellt und er mag irgendein Commons-Cookie nicht. Probiers mal den gleichen Prozess bei einem anderen Bild, ob das gleiche passiert. Ansonsten: keinen Schimmer. -- Cecil (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


This image

Do you know what to do with this image? Is a 'no permissions tag' appropriate or is a DR better: File:Autun Eve detail.jpg The thing is the uploader seems to be a legitimate contributor to Commons...so I don't know why he placed this image here. Only 4 months separate the initial upload and flickr review. Thank You, and feel free to act on it...if you wish. I'm sorry but I don't speak German unlike you (the uploader is German). --Leoboudv (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It happens quite often that flickr users change the licences so considering the uploader here it is very possible that at the time of the upload the image was still under a free licence. Somewhere on Commons should be a few help pages where the Flickr people discuss how to react in case of such situations. I'm not very active there so I don't know the current status quo, but back in August when I deleted the freshly uploaded images where the flickr-review failed it was status that images which are no fresh uploads anymore will just be marked with the template I put there until further discussions and decisions. The active flickr-reviewers will sooner or later check this image again. -- Cecil (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

copyrights

Hello Cecil, you refused my contribution and my photographs about Printemps buldings because you said this is a copyright violation. This is not a violation because I'm working for the company Printemps, which took these photos, and I'm authorized to publish them on the Internet because I'm part of the department which took the photos. Moreover, this is royalty free photographs. What do I have to do now to be able to post those photos ? Mirjouline

I sent you an email explaining what to do. Internet is a anonymous space where everybody can claim he/she is allowed to use the images (and it happens much too often). So we need some confirmation. More at COM:OTRS. -- Cecil (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy face

Hi there, Cecil. About your marking of File:Mars KAMLOOPS Galle Craters Argyre Planitia.jpg as not a duplicate of File:Happy-face1.jpg, I'd ask you to compare it with the original version of the happy face file. As you can see, the contrast is not that different, and the resolution seems to be higher in happy face, not lower. So what do you say, can the dupe marking be restored? Cheers, Waldir talk 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We do not save any space on the server be that kind of action. No picture will ever be really deleted, they are just hidden from the face of the public. Everybody with extended rights is still able to see each picture that was uploaded since the beginning of this project. So what good would the deletion do anyway? And no, speedy deletion is for exact duplicates. If it disturbes you so much that somebody took an image and changed it a little bit to fit more his/her taste (which is allowed by the licence) then make a normal request. The two images are not exact duplicates and as such a speedy deletion under that claim is wrong. -- Cecil (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I never said this was about saving space on the server nor that this issue disturbs me in any way. I just wasn't sure you were aware of the fact that the "different contrast" image was originally the same (virtually) as the one marked as duplicate; but mostly, I was intrigued by your note about it being "smaller resolution" than the one I marked as a duplicate, when to me it looks the opposite (I'm still awaiting your thoughts on that, by the way). Besides, {{duplicate}} mentions that it applies to "exact or scaled-down duplicates", and even though the images have the same dimensions, I assumed that one having lower resolution than the other could be considered covered by the "scaled down" rule. Still, I don't expect you to change your opinion, nor I intend to follow up on this issue, I just wanted to make the above points clear so that you wouldn't have a wrong opinion on my original intents. Regards, --Waldir talk 08:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Votre message

Bonjour !

Vous m'avez laissé ce message/ You have left me this message :~

Je ne suis pas sûr de comprendre le problème : la photo vient de WP:en, et elle date de 1854. Donc, ce qui est sûr, c'est qu'elle n'est pas de moi ... Et aussi que, comme elle a 155 ans, elle est dans le domaine public.

Est-ce que j'ai raté quelque chose ? N'hésitez pas à m'éclairer sur ce que j'aurais dû faire !

In other words : this picture comes from WP:en, and dates back to 155 years ago.

What should I have done ? I am still a comparative newcomer here, so please enlighten me.

Thank you. Blufrog (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't never be the source. For everything that is on Wikipedia there is an original source, the place where the uploader had it from. And we always need the original source for confirming the correctness of a licence/permission. Wikipédia:Travaux inédits also affects images, not only texts. -- Cecil (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

btr: Kontoübernahme

Hallo Cecil, unter Commons:Changing username/usurp requests habe ich eine Anfrage hinterlassen. Vor einigen Tagen hatte ich meinen Haupt-Account (de:wp) gewechselt. Nun würde ich gern meine alten Edits und Benutzerseiten auch in den Schwesterprojekten auf das Konto mit dem neuen Namen (Uncopy) übernehmen. Kannst du bitte mal einen Blick darauf werfen. Welche Zutaten fehlen noch? Beste Grüße --Peu (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ist erledigt. Was man bei Umbenennungen immer angeben muss, ist ein Link zum Hauptprojekt (in deinem Fall de), an dem man erkennt, dass du auch hier der Kontoinhaber bist und wechseln willst. Ich mal mal deinen vorletzten Edit auf der Benutzerseite als solchen gewertet, weil du dort auch schon den commons-link entsprechend geändert hast. -- Cecil (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Danke :-) vor allen, dass es so schnell ging. --Uncopy (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cecil, wie ich sehe, hat Dich der Benutzer gefunden. Ich bin mit dem "Problem" vertraut und hatte ihn an Dich verwiesen. Liebe Grüße, — YourEyesOnly (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

images Markus Roscher and Friederike Meinel

Someone attacks these accounts in wikipedia. Who has marked them as copyright violation??? Both pictures are originals and both pictures are free. There were no problems with rights. You can ask the lawyer Markus Roscher himself. He is also manager of the singer Friederike Meinel and can give you the same answer for her. --Schnuffelwuffy (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, don't post the private data of people here, especially if it are not your own. Second, everybody can claim that he has the right to post some images but as soon as they were already published on the net before that has to be prooven (which you failed to do). Therefor we have COM:OTRS as was mentioned in the upload form, a short text which nobody can overlook. Nobody will call Roscher, it is your job to proove it, not ours to confirm it. Nobody would pay my telephone bill for a call into another country and also Markus Roscher would not be happy if he would get a call every few minutes to confirm it (because every user here must have the possibility to confirm the truth of a licence by contacting the copyright owner). -- Cecil (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
So richtig?
Beide Erklärungen wurden unterschriben, eingescannt und an OTRS gesandt!
Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild MarkusRoscher.jpg [Rivatsammlung Markus Roscher], dass ich der Fotograf oder Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin.

Ich erlaube hiermit schnuffelwuffy die Weiternutzung des Bildes/der Bilder unter folgender freier Lizenz/folgenden freien Lizenzen: [ Auswahl gemäß http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen_für_Bilder bzw. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ] Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild gewerblich zu nutzen und zu verändern. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd in Wikimedia Commons eingestellt wird. Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen. 22.03.2009, Markus Roscher

Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild Friedrike Meinel.jpg [Prvatsammlung Friederike Meinel], dass ich der Fotograf oder Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin.

Ich erlaube hiermit schnuffelwuffy die Weiternutzung des Bildes/der Bilder unter folgender freier Lizenz/folgenden freien Lizenzen: [ Auswahl gemäß http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen_für_Bilder bzw. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ] Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild gewerblich zu nutzen und zu verändern. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd in Wikimedia Commons eingestellt wird. Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen. 22.03.2009, Friederike Meinel --Schnuffelwuffy (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Du sollst das nicht mir schicken sondern dem OTRS-Team. Und außerdem sollst es nicht du senden sondern Markus Roscher. Und der auch nur, wenn er der Fotograf ist oder aber der Fotograf ihm schriftlich die Verwendungsrechte überlassen hat. -- Cecil (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Erst nimmst Du höchstpersönlich zwei mal hintereinander zwei, seit Monaten völlig unbeanstandete, Bilder heraus, obwohl ich zwei Mal die Erklärung über die Rechtsinhaberschaft abgegeben habe (wofür eigentlich, wenn dann jemand mit Administratorrechten die Dinger doch wieder rausnehmen kann?)und dann lässt Du mich mit dieser Situation im Regen stehen, obwohl ich zwei schriftliche Erklärungen auf den gültigen OTRS-Vordrucken besitze? OTRS habe ich die auch gesendet. Was passiert jetzt? Du hast ja schließlich für die Beeitigung der Bilder gesorgt. Kann ich die jetzt wieder hochladen?

--Schnuffelwuffy (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Eigentlich hast du jetzt nur jede Menge Serverspace verschwendet, weil du die Bilder nämlich jetzt beide mehrfach hochgeladen hast. Das OTRS-Team hätte die gelöschten im Falle eines ordentlichen Nachweises ohnehin wiederhergestellt. Aber diese Art von Geldverschwendung betrifft dich ja nicht, geht ja um Werbung und die Kosten trägst du auch nicht. Jetzt hast du ohne Warten auf eine Antwort die Bilder gleich noch mal hochgeladen. Aber ich kenn den Artikel ja eh. Der war vor zwei Jahren mal ein übles Stück Arbeit, weil das Team damals nichts von OTRS wusste und anscheinend mittlerweile ausgetauscht wurde, weil es das schon wieder vergessen hat. Aber macht ja nichts, für gratis Werbung muss man sich nicht anstrengen um die grundlegenden Projektrichtlinien zu verstehen und die Bilder gleich ordentlich hochzuladen, denn den ordentlichen Nachweis über die Rechtsinhaberschaft hast du ja erst jetzt abgesendet und nicht vor zwei Monaten (und hier posten bringt sowas von null, da merkt man erst recht, dass du entweder nicht kapiert hast wie dieses Projekt läuft oder es dich auch gar nicht interessiert und es nur ein Mittel zum Zweck ist). Also: erst lesen, was zu tun ist, und nicht einfach irgendwas tun und dann beschweren, weil nicht sofort jemand springt.
Und nur weil hier Bilder ein paar Wochen oder auch Jahre unbeanstandet bleiben, heißt das gar nichts. Hier arbeiten nur Freiwillige, die bekommen nichts bezahlt für ihre Arbeit und dementsprechend dauert die Eingangskontrolle eben auch mal länger. Die nicht mal zwei Monate, die die Bilder hier auf Commons waren, sind da gar nichts.
Und weil ich solche Leute wie dich (Verschwender der Zeit von Freiwilligen) so absolut null ausstehen kann, herrscht für dich auf meiner Seite Hausverbot. Das OTRS-Team kann sich ja jetzt mal wieder mit euch beschäftigen. Falls du zumindest die eine Seite wirklich gelesen hast, sollte es für die ja einfach werden, sonst wird das jetzt für die ein reger E-Mail-Verkehr, bis sie alle nötigen Nachweise haben oder die Bilder wieder löschen. -- Cecil (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Dear Cecil, there is now a bureaucrats' noticeboard on Commons, so feel free to use it when needed. Cheers, Patrícia msg 10:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dupe backlog

I noticed that the duplicate backlog was down more than 10% today, and checked the deletion log. What can I say, I'm impressed and grateful. Thanks for the efforts you continue to give to make this unmanageble project manageble! Keep up the good work! Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My boss tends to give me really awful tasks like testing code when I'm finished to fast with my programming stuff. So to safe him the time to think about how to keep me occupied and to safe me from torture I've to work slower (or do something else half the time). --Cecil (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, give my best regards to your boss then (or maybe not... :P ) Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Types psychologiques C.G.Jung.jpg‎

Hi, i dont understand your revert, in fact i suggest to delete this files for a new one, in svg, has been created from it. My aim was just to wipe out old files, thanks, --prosopee (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This had two reasons: the first is that we you just put the images in working categorys which should never be done. We have templates for requesting deletions which have to be used (see Deletion guidelines, details). The second much more important reason is that on Commons we never delete images that were superseded by svg-Files. We had a long discussion about this and the community decided not to do it. svg-Files can usually only be used in web, most standard-desctop-programms can't work with the format which disables them for reusage in many cases. Also there are a few other reasons. If you are interessed in reading the whole huge discussion, you can find it at the talk page of COM:SUP. There is a special template for superseded-images, you can use if you want to mark it more visible that there is a svg version (Template). And one technical information: we don't delete anything (for licence reasons), this so-called deletion is just making the invisible for users. As an admin I still can see the images which were deleted in 2005 and could even restore them if there is a new status about their copyright. -- Cecil (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
ok, i understand, as regards, --prosopee (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Starr images

Would you please give a short explanation (just a short one, but a good one) why you deleted my images and recovered the starr images uploaded by BotMultichillT??? Most of the starr images were uploaded with wrong names and wrong categories(!), most of them were uploaded despite existing - with correct name and correct acategory!! It took me many hours to correct this some weeks ago, also I got the approval from Multichill to do so "Feel free to nominate any of the uploads as a dupe, just make sure the source info of the image is alright"

You need to know that Forrest & Kim Starr are categorizing all their habitat pictures by latin plant names - regardless what the image shows! So the latin name of an image may also show a different plant, an animal or an island - which might be very confusing.

Just a short example: File:Starr 050223-4258 Portulaca oleracea.jpg now has wrong name and wrong category as it definitely does not show Portulaca oleracea. My correct file uploaded months ago File:Mokolea Rock.jpg with correct category Category:Mokolea now has been deleted. I'm very angry and I request you to immediately undo the nonsense done by you, and delete the dupes uploaded wrongly by Multichill as they were correctly coded as duplicates - and recover my images as well. --Telim tor (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Der Bot weiß nicht, welche Bilder schon hochgeladen sind. Er lädt alle hoch (ist Teil eines eigenen Projektes) und die wenigen die andere Nutzer schon vorher hochgeladen haben, kommen halt weg. Ob dir irgendwer irgendwo irgendeine Erlaubnis gibt oder nicht, kann ich nicht riechen. Ich sehe nur, dass bei deinen Versionen die Struktur des Namens nicht gestimmt hat und der Originalautor mit den Angaben deines Uploads ebenfalls nicht übereinstimmt. Mehr interessiert mich nicht, wir haben hier einen monströsen Backlog in allen Bereichen. Wenn die Leute ihre Tags nicht genau genug begründen, und dann die Tags in beiden Bildern sind auch eben in dem auf ersten Blick unlogischeren Bild, ist das deren Problem. Nur weil in einem Bild das dupe-Tag drinnen ist, heiß es nicht, dass dieses gelöscht wird und nicht das andere, diese Vorschreibung gibt es nicht (schon allein deshalb nicht, weils genug Leute gibt, die hier Bilder uploaden und dann beim wirklichen Autor das dupe-Tag reingeben).
Abschließend: bei so einem Tonfall wie deinen tu ich mal gar nichts. Die Bilder gehören nicht dir, sie gehören Forrest und Kim Starr. Die haben die Bilder so benannt und sie unter einer CC-Lizenz freigegeben. Pass die Beschreibung im Information-Tag an, wenn du mit ihrer Genauigkeit Probleme hast, das ist ohnehin die Info, die die Suchmaschinen nutzen. -- Cecil (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't read German so I don't know what the outcome or course of this talk is going. I personally have found the upload by the bot of the Starr images to be good and bad. Bad because of all the images that now show up in the species categories which have nothing to do with the species (people photographs, aerial photography of Maui, etc) and that is a pain. The good thing about them is that they are all licensed appropriately (several which were uploaded by users were given PD licenses and similar which is not how they were licensed) and they all have the information template on them -- which is another thing that previous uploaders of those images failed to do.
Also, I think that the bot doesn't find the duplicates until the image is opened by a human editor of the image page.... -- carol (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
A few of the bots (flickr) are able to detect duplicates before uploading, but AFAIK it's a rather complicated and intensive routine, so it would be overkill for this bot. Especially since even if it would be able to detect the duplicates it would not be able to check if the other upload is correct. Like with all bot uploads there still is a lot of work to do to ensure that everything is correct. With the Bundesarchiv-donation we still have to fix a name every now and then, do categorising and enhance descriptions. The same is the case here. If a name is not correct, there should be put a rename-tag in it (but keeping the name structure with 'starr'-the number-the description. That way we later have a better overview about what is here and what not. -- Cecil (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

in the deletion mood?

I have a list of jpegs in which I have uploaded a png of. They are of the original scans which I converted from pdf into png. Sometime when you are deleting things could you delete them?

The other thing I have is a list of images in which the whole stack (the history and such) should be moved. I kind of like the upload history of the original uploader being in tact, it is the way I found these images and was able to make some sense of them User:CarolSpears/Flora de Filipinas -- Atlas I (putting the book back together, in this case). If that is ever an option, I just want to put that list where understanding administrators know it is: User:CarolSpears/Seded#images_that_should_be_moved_with_whole_version_stack just 4 images where the original uploads were jpegs. There is a jpeg namespace for them and it is no big deal to me to delete the one that exists in the space now and move the stack into it. Does that make sense?

Thanks for the help with the clean up! -- carol (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I will look into it in the next few days (as of yesterday evening my easter weekend has started and I was forced to promise not to spend it in front of the computer; just mail-checking now ;-) ). For that moving of the history-pictures if it is not too urgent maybe it can wait until the switch on that new functionality for renaming pics again. The last time it was switched on as a test I did 2-3 renames and it was really nice to see that the whole history stays at it was. I'll check later when they will try it out again. -- 10:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, about the moving of things -- it is more important to retain that history stack to me than it is to delete the copy. It will be nice to have more than just me to remember it.
It is not necessarily supposed to be a nice holiday, but so many centuries later it should be. Have a nice weekend. -- carol (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
I Award you this for making essential modifications rather than deleting the following files File:Heartgraphic.svg, File:GISystem.svg, File:KidneyStructures.svg, as they are extensively used by wikiproject medicine on en.wikipedia Madhero88 (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for modifying File:Diagrama de los pulmones-c2.svg, even though it didn't had links except to my user pages, but now its used by Pulmonology task force :-) Madhero88 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why delete images that are good?

He cecil. I was just wondering about this. Why would we favor an image with the ID in its name, where the old image has a good descriptive name as well. We are removing good contributions of editors and putting a lot of workload on the bot that is not really required in my opinion. I don't see the point of that. (The GPN number is in the text as well). TheDJ (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

There is an entry on my watchlist showing that you deleted File:USAF SR-71 taking on fuel from a USAF KC-135.jpg that states it was a "(Dupe of Image:Boeing KC-135Q refueling SR-71.JPEG)"

I didn't see a discussion of whether or not it was a duplicate. Was there one? If so where? Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The bot that uploaded these images automatically tags duplicates as soon as the file page is edited -- at least that is what I think is happening. Duplicates do not get discussed. The bot uploads have really good names and use the information template. The duplicates have upload and edit histories. I suspect that if you think that your name and version is better just move the duplicate tag to the bots version and all should be good. Yours had better have the information template and stuff like that if you do that.... -- carol (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it isn't a bot -- but that is how the Starr images from the same uploading bot are being handled. Maybe it is a person using the bots user account to answer questions. Maybe many things.... -- carol (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This one was not one of the bot-uploads. Geo Swans version was from March 2009 with source=Flickr, while Arcturus's version was from 2006 with military-source. Arcuturs version also had the better resolution and so Lupo marked GeoSwans version as smaller-scalled-dupe, which is a speedy deletion reason. -- Cecil (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Mhm, there is something weird about those two images. The mil-source has reorganized its website so the image is not at the give source anymore (but I know Arcturus as trustworthy so I'm sure it was there with exactly that data), so it will take some time to check that out: the authors are different. GeoSwans image hat a James Gordon as author (own claim as owner of the flickr-account), Arcturus version has a Ken Hackman as author. Both guys are military photographers. -- Cecil (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my message should have been to have patience. PD to Flickr to here images are a pain and almost always licensed wrong and no one at Flickr seems to care who the real photographer was. Sorry to intrude. -- carol (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

usurp

Thanks alot! Kwiki (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

what was this about? Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there were some cases where the new upload with the GPN-number was a little bit sharpened. Maybe they put a few images through a better scanner. But the time I noticed it was in a case where the sharp version was marked for dupe-deletion. So I went through the deleted cases. But I had a blackout the first few ones and restored them instead just clicking on the unrestored version. -- Cecil (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Example is File:The Original Apollo 13 Prime Crew - GPN-2000-001166.jpg where the faces are clearley sharpened in comparison to File:Apollo13 - Original Prime Crew.jpg. I noticed it there and changed the dupe-marking. But as I just had to restore it again. -- Cecil (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that just the thumbnailing software at work ? TheDJ (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Why would it do it with one image but not with the other one? And why only with the new ones? It's something I can reproduce on several computers so it is not just my imagination. Some chance must have been done even if it is just the thumbnailing software, because why would it not do it with both images if they are the same. -- Cecil (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The full size files are exact duplicates according to MediaWiki software. But the thumbnails looked different. At some time I read a discussion about changing the settings to produce sharper thumbnails (I don't remember when or where, maybe at the village pump or at the wikitech mail list). Thumbnails can be stored a long time before they are purged, so that could explain the difference in the old thumbnail. /Ö 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Mhm, anybody in the mood to go through the current duplicates again. When I went through I usually took them the way the were marked. Most of the times the old ones where marked. But they are usually used unlike the others. But the Commons Delinker has not yet done its job so the replacing still could be stopped. Bäh, extra work. -- Cecil (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
On the other side, I just remembered that in several cases the old ones were down-scaled. -- Cecil (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This only has a little to do with the subject of this section, but in my opinion, it might be a really good idea for a person to go through the bot uploads of those images from NASA grin. Some real person with at least little knowledge and understanding of "getting things off the ground" scientifically and historically. I stopped uploading images from there when I found a highly unlikely photograph from there, of test pilots. They choose more petite people for these elite tasks. It is in one respect a biased choice, but just for practicality sake, the less the pilot weighs, the faster the vehicle goes and that is how the bias is applied. I just saw that one very unlikely image and started to question my other uploads from that source.

I suspect that the edit history of those images that were previously uploaded here will probably display the user names of people who have at least thought a little about aerodynamics and could make good decisions on whether or not to keep the image. It is my opinion that a Public Domained fake image, especially about such things, should not be simply automatically uploaded and kept here.

Thank you if anyone here takes a few moments to think about my opinion. -- carol (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i'd love to see that image. And I have the intent to go trough all images after the dupes and detection problems have been covered. TheDJ (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-000143.html <--!!! -- carol (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean these rather well known and documented figures in history: Joe Engle, Robert A. Rushworth, John B. McKay, William J. Knight, Milton Orville Thompson and William H. Dana, flying one of the most powerful "airplanes" (though the term rockets might be more appropriate), X-15, delivering a whopping 311 kN ? I don't see the problem :D TheDJ (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they did all that but the image is wrong. That guy in the center is too wide to be a test pilot in the 1960s or 1970s or 1980s. Here is another problem image: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001635.html I don't think that there is or was a Cray at NASA Ames Research Center. I think that this photograph was rendered and it looks suspiciously like File:Cray_Y-MP_GSFC.jpg which does look like a photograph taken of a computer which is being housed in a USGov laboratory. I used to work in a USGov laboratory and if they are being used, they are not so photogenic. -- carol (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If you zoom in on the Cray Y 190A image, you see that it is a Cray from the Cray Y-MP series, produced starting 1988. I'm not sure what 190A stands for, but i don't see the problem. And a Cray was clearly used at AMES, as can be reasonably deduced from this paper produced by AMES employees. And when you google, you find a result with the following excerpt from a payperview paper: "At NASA Ames the CRAY-MP system is run under the Cray proprietary operating" TheDJ (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It is rendered. Also, buyer beware: Guess which facility was "For Sale". One of the things that I understand very well is the mindset of regular people once they start to learn the math and successfully make it through some of the very difficult thought processes that (I would like to think) are required for employment at these labs. We|they|I used to| think that people were idiots. I suggest that the people who put these images and that biography online (perhaps with photographs of a different person) think that you are an idiot. It took me a long time to change out of this mindset to become the only semi-successful waitress that I did....
If you were designing aircraft to go fast, how much weight do you want your equipment to have? If you were hanging around a soon to be sold facility, waiting for the sale or for funding for new projects, is it out of your imagination to consider rendering a classic old computer in which to sweeten the sale with? People present different problems than upload bots do. -- carol (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Just in case somebody wonders what happened now with those two images from the beginning of the discussion. It seems CommonsDelinker did not check if the one image (with numbers) was still there and replaced them all. I have restored the already deleted one since it suddenly was used, and then deleted the other one which was still there but suddenly unused. -- Cecil (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicates

Hi Cecil! It seems that we were looking at the duplicates at the same time. When I added these http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CommonsDelinker/commands&oldid=20306651 you had just deleted some of the images. One of the images you deleted was this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:SolarEIOLCA1.JPG (size 512×475 (23,813 bytes)) and you keept File:SolarEIOLCA3.JPG (size 293 × 475 pixels, file size: 22 KB). May I ask why you choose to keep the smaller file? I can't see a difference which I do not understand since the size is different. --MGA73 (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason why one was larger was that it had a huge white border (about 4 cm) on the right which is not visible if you just look at it. In fact the graphic itself had the exactly same size. The wider one (not larger) just had the border which made it unuseable in the projects. I have already reverted the changes at wikiversity which was done by CommonsDelinker after you told him. -- Cecil (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you :-) That was my next task. To clean up when we were sure which version to keep. --MGA73 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicates II

Moin Cecil,
von mir vielen Dank für Deine Hilfe! (passt von der Überschrift gerade) :-) Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

About your concerns

I answered your questions here, and I wanted to contact you especially concerning this File:User Discussion page Barnstar trans.png, please check this message to see why I uploaded this file in a new name, I didn't claim it, I wanted to make the modification without replacing the original, because of the ongoing discussion, and you can see I offered to upload my modification to the original file after the we reach an agreement :-), anyways thank you for deleting the file, and accept my apologies Madhero88 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm glad it was just a misunderstanding by you. So for the future: if you did the whole work, your name belongs in the author-field; otherwise it is the name of the one whose picture you modified. And to be sure always take the licence of the uploader, there are only a few licences out there where you can change it to one of your choice but for that you need to know a lot about licences (and it usually is just possible to take a more restrictive one, not the other way round). -- Cecil (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for making that point clear :-) Madhero88 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have a little question to ask, can I use an image that is copyrighted providing appropriate free rationale to design a barnstar?? this is the one I am talking about en:File:Pepper's.jpg, thank you Madhero88 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Most WMF-projects don't accept fair use, Commons is one of them. Only English Wikipedia and a few others use that kind of law. So on Commons you can't upload that kind of barnstar. And while I don't know fair use law in detail, for it you also must define why this unfree image is the only possibility for an article. A barnstar will most probably not be able to have a rationale of that kind since it is a encouragement but not a necessity. -- Cecil (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I ll think of something els Madhero88 (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons Delinker issue??

Hi Cecil,

I saw that recently a second try to delink File:彳-bronze.svg has taken place and it probably could not discern the usage in templates or something?? I looked at all of those places where delink failed and it is all in explicit use by templates only. Does that mean we can just vote for deletion on the offending file, or maybe redirect to the badname file?? --Tauwasser (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the second try helps, sometimes not. I thought it was worth a try (since the last one was already a little bit longer ago) before I start going through the projects to do it manually. It's a little bit difficult to do that kind of work in projects where the font or even the writing direction is different from mine. As soon as it is completly unused (replaced in the templates too) it can be deleted. When used in templates it just need a chance at one place, but it shows the use on several other places (where the template was used) for some time until the queue catches up (so waiting a bit after the replacement is good). A redirect I would just use if it is a really heavily used image in more than a few projects (e.g. Flag of United States, which probably is used in every WP-project at least once). -- Cecil (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it cannot be replaced in the templates. The templates just create links to files with the names *-bronze.svg, *-seal.svg etc. no matter if those exist or not. So as soon as it will be deleted I don't really see the issue here anymore :] The redirect is only optional as the one with the new name still has character that people look for on its lefthand side (called a radical). If it cannot be delinked while in use, then I'd just go ahead, delete it and null edit all the pages using it. --Tauwasser (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have also wondered how to solve this problem. If it does not help changing the text in the templates from "彳" to "往" then maybe other files have bad names to? You could also delete the template and make links manually if the other names are correct? --MGA73 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Damn. So it is one of those template agains. I hate it when template-builders do that. Still remember that one Wikipedia (italian?) where all town-infoboxes had their flag-names hardcoded. It took some time to get rid of that junky kind of programming templates there. I usually do the same as with replacements in wikinews: write them a message on the talk page (in wikinews usually marked with {{editprotected}}) and give them a few days to correct it themselves. Then I delete it. If they want a special naming then they should do a local upload. They can't expect to keep a local naming convention in an international project. -- Cecil (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it is a Commons project (not sure what local encompasses?)... Also, the templates are correct. The file's name is not supposed to be 彳-bronze.svg because it does show 往. However, that is not saying, that 彳-bronze.svg might not exist (as it is used with this compound in bronze style). I would not know how to build the template any other way besides checking if the file exists. However, that is supposed to be an expensive function call and when used in lists etc, it will stop showing half of the images that way (as there are "quite a few" Chinese characters, 漢字). Really, I think deleting the old one would suffice even when the template "breaks" by not showing the old image anymore and descriptions might be misleading (as some refer to "the second from the left" etc). --Tauwasser (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
A template should be made in a way, that if it uses an image, that there is a parameter where you can tell it the name of the image. This template seems to be build in a way that it uses the sign-parameter and the rest of the file-name is hardcoded. -- Cecil (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That is pretty much what it is supposed to do. If you needed to give the name of all the files associated with the project then you wouldn't need the template at all and it would not be very useful. If might not be the best solution, but it certainly is good when you have that many characters and need an easy way to show all files associated with the project... --Tauwasser (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Then the template is not necessary, if it really does nothing more than show an image. Hardcoding is very bad style. -- Cecil (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dyson_Sphere_Diagram_PL.svg

Hi. CommonsDelinker shows that you have deleted file Dyson_Sphere_Diagram_PL.svg on the basis that it was an exact duplicate of Dyson_Sphere_Diagram-en.svg Well - it was not. The former was a polish translation of the latter (there are some text description on the diagram). Could we have this file back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.122.246 (talk • contribs)

Ups. Weird. It should have been File:Dyson Sphere Diagram-pl.svg. -- Cecil (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the name. It was replaced two times. The other usage was already fixed a few days ago. The second language-sensitive image replacement that day (something with mitochondrien) was correct. -- Cecil (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!--89.78.122.246 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Me Wrong, You Correct

My mistake File:Abutilon indicum Blanco2.557.png. I am not going to take the time to look up the exchange here when you moved this image when I asked, but I distinctly remember that you had hesitations and I was confident that I was right.

Eh, you also said something like "not enjoying making unnecessary name changes".

What sort of apology would you enjoy more than not enjoying that mistake of mine? Admitting I was wrong is not that difficult, especially when I am wrong to necessarily be considered enough of an apology. (All I had to do was look at the source web site even....) -- carol (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

OTRS Wikimedia.svg
Wiki-otrs.png
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our German-language image submission queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of {{duplicate}} for same data in different formats

I've asked for clarification at Template talk:Duplicate#Same file in different lossless formats? regarding your suggestion in this edit that the {{duplicate}} template should not be used for files in different formats. I'd appreciate your comments there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate is a speedy-deletion request. We have strict rules on speedy deletions, everything else that does not fit has to be discussed in a normal deletion request. This discussion just because you have not read the reasons for speedy requests is a waste of time. And all for a file which does not even work properly. -- Cecil (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Candas moulin 2.jpg

Cecil ! My english is very bad ! Kannst du bitte lieber auf Deutsch formulieren ? Danke ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mit "Beispielsbearbeitungen" meinst du zum Beipsiel das ? Wenn ja, verstehe ich nicht wozu ! Und "Echtnamen" ? ... In manchen Beschreibungen, hatte ich nur den Vornamen notiert : "Claudine". Claudine will eigentlich überhaupt kein OTRS-Ticket schicken, weil das Formular ihre Identität, ihre Adresse fordert ... Und da dies von mindestens 200 Personen lesen werden soll oder kann, die von ihr nicht gekannt sind, hat sie kein Vertrauen. Sie versteht wirklich nicht, warum ganz einfache Amateur-Fotos (manchmal schräg, manchmal ein wenig zu dunkel), die vor 2 Jahren von mir und mit ihrem totalen Erlaubnis geladen wurden, "geblieben" sind, und warum es plötzlich so problematisch wird ! Es betraf nur ganz präzis gezielte Gebäude, Dörfer oder Städte ! Die französische Version des OTRS-Formular ist wirklich schlecht formuliert. Die Aussdrücke "droits patrimoniaux" und "droits extrapatrimoniaux" zum Beispsiel werden von keinem normalen Franzosen verstanden ! Das klingt so administrativ, so juristisch !
Komisch und paradox ! Jeder kann (die meistens Leute sogar) ganz anonym auf WP schreiben und persönliche Bilder laden. Aber jemand, der WP und Commons ungefähr 100 Fotos gratis schenken möchte und zu faul ist (keine Lust hat es selber zu machen), kann nicht anonym bleiben !
Die "Sache" hat Claudine müde gemacht ! Claudines Fotos, die noch nicht zerstört wurden, sollen also alle endgültig weg ! Ich habe also "nur" viel Zeit umsonst gegeben (Bilder auf dem Blog gewählt, für jeden Ort Claudine Erlaubnis gefragt, geladen, eventuel besser beschrieben und manchmal auch Geokodierung hinzugefügt) !
Ich danke Dir für Deinen "message" ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für deine Erklärungen ! Nicht alle "Administrators" sind so verständnisvoll, geduldig und höflich ! Ich "kenne" eigentlich einen ... "wilden" arroganten Franzosen ... aus Toulouse ! Für die Fotos, vielleicht habe ich die Gelegenheit, ein paar davon selber zu machen ! Diejenigen, die Windmühlen zeigen, habe ich schon wieder gemacht ! Es bleiben aber Eu, Gerberoy, Saint-Valery-sur-Somme, Dieppe und isolierte Kirchen, Kapellen und Schlösser ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"The larger one"?

Hallo Cecil, verstehe ich hier gerade irgendwas miss? Denn "the other one is the larger one" ist ja absolut richtig - ich dachte bisher nämlich, dass bei Duplikaten die kleinere Version gelöscht wird, nicht die größere. Dementsprechend waren auch zwei andere Duplikat-Löschanträge, die ich in dieser Kategorie unlängst gestellt hatte, ohne Widerspruch abgearbeitet worden. Oder wolltest Du "the smaller one" schreiben? Das würde mich allerdings wundern, denn ich war mir recht sicher, die kleinere Version mit dem Bapperl versehen zu haben. Gruß, --Scooter (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ups, geistiger Aussetzer beim Tippen des Kommentars. Die andere Version war natürlich die kleinere, nicht die größere. Hatte nur 263×400, während die erhaltene 315×480 hatte. -- Cecil (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, alles klar, dann hatte ich nur auf die Größe geschaut, nicht auf die Auflösung, mein Fehler. Danke und beste Grüße, --Scooter (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


What's the big deal?

Hey, why did you delete the photo I uploaded? The copyright terms clearly allowed for the photo to be copied, adapted, ect... And yes, I did attribute the photo to the real author. See copyright details below:

[[42]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rembo74 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30. Apr. 2009 (UTC)

The licence is by-nc-sa, thus forbids commerical use as is clearly visible. You can attribute the author as much as you want, but without the permission of commercial use it's not to be uploaded on Commons. -- Cecil (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Now something did went wrong

See [43] and more. Multichill (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn, what is wrong with the Tool-Server. On Commons it also had that problem, but there I immediately fixed it ([44], [45]). But there the CheckUsage-Tool showed me, that they are still in use on Commons. With the en.WP-usages not even the CheckUsage-Tool reacted. -- Cecil (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
These kind of errors should be easy to spot. If delinker removes something and the deletion summary contains "duplicate" something is wrong. I'll see if i can make a automated tool to make daily reports. Multichill (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, on Commons they are easily to see. But I'm not active on en.WP so the chance that I would see something like that there is more or less null. And en.WP was not the only project concerned. I've fixed three articles there, after you reported the problem in other projects. Sorry, have to go again, next meeting starting. -- Cecil (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I got access to the delinker database and the Commons database. I could combine this information to make a daily report of files deleted files which have duplicate in the deletion summary and got delinked anyway. Multichill (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be very usefull. Thanks a lot for your work. -- Cecil (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File source not properly indicated

I completed File:.45_Cartridges_Tool_1879.JPG with: Own work by uploader. Grüsse aus der Schweiz -- Hmaag (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wäre eigentlich eh gleich beim Upload mit den nötigen Source-Infos versehen gewesen. Aber vor dem Wort 'Source' hat der senkrechte Strich gefehlt, weshalb die Quelle nicht sichtbar war. Ist also erledigt. Danke. -- Cecil (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)