User talk:Ikar.us

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archiv

Baischstraße in Stadtwiki.net[edit]

Hello Michael,
Happy to see you aroud there! Thanks for the set you've nominated, I learnt on Hermann Billing with your pictures. About Baischstraße in Stadtwiki.net, we could propose some emendations for the article in French, couldn't we? Kind regards, --Myrabella (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour!
Unfortunately, the French Stadtwiki doesn't get much attention.
Of course, we/you can propose emendations
(or just register and conduct them, native speakers are very welcome!).
Thanks for yor review and support,
--Ikar.us (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

2013![edit]

Juletræet.jpg * * * 2013 !!! * * *
Hallo Michael! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Georgij -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thanks to you, VICbot is running again! "Oh, those quotation marks!" Myrabella (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Aerial view of Television Tower St. Chrischona[edit]

Hello Ikar.us, There is a mess with that MVR, with a new page created for the renomination - and some other redirect pages (e.g. [1]) and maybe this is not the right way to deal with the former VI page -> Commons:Valued image candidates/Aerial view at Television Tower St. Chrischona. --Myrabella (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Now he has processed it. More or less.
But other MVRs where former VIs were traeted differently aren't completed either.
--Ikar.us (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the fine tuning of that MVR. For the other MVRs, yes, it's weird. Furthermore, the VI label must be manually replaced with the {{VI-former}} template in the former VI file page; it would be helpful to have this step in VICbot process.
By the way, maybe I would have closed this one with an undecided status for both candidates ("status=undecided, for all VICs in an MVR which ended up without a VIC with a positive score larger than all others"). However I edited neither the closure nor the former VI—which is still VI then.
Best, --Myrabella (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for fine tuning the archive calendar. Face-blush.svg
I agree about status=undecided. Used it now in this one, which has the technical challenge that the challenged candidate had been promoted by MVR in its first run. And the jurisdicial challenge that it didn't get any attention at all in the challenge. Hope that VICbot's shortfall lets it stay VI silently… Sifflote
--Ikar.us (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Polarlicht 2 kmeans[edit]

Could you revert your close of this VIC? I don't think it is appropriate for a participant in the discussion to be closing it, even if the time is up. Otherwise, I would have closed it myself a long time ago as successful, 7 days after DimiTalen's vote. -- King of ♠ 19:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing is a routine task that anyone can perform.
I did not close it when it was due, but waited for 11 days, during which you could have fixed the nomination and explained it.
Unclosing isn't provided and not necessary.
You can simply renominate it, if you're ready for discussion now.
--Ikar.us (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/The fossil cliffs of Steigerberg[edit]

Hallo,

ich bin neu in WikiCommons und kenne die Gepflogenheiten noch nicht so gut deshalb schreibe ich auf diesem Weg. Zu dem Kontra zu o.g. VIC habe ich einen Kommentar auf der Kandidatenseite geschrieben. Es ist wirklich ein ausgesuchter Set von Bildern aus einer größeren Sammlung von Bildern dieses inzwischen wieder zugeschütteten Geotops. Vielleicht können Sie ihre Bewertung ja nochmal überdenken.

Viele Grüße Arcalino (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

VIS Promotion[edit]

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Nesvizh Castle, Belarus.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Nesvizh Castle, Belarus.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Church of Saint Virgin Mary, Belarus.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Church of Saint Virgin Mary, Belarus.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Great Synagogue in Grodno, Belarus .

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Great Synagogue in Grodno, Belarus .
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Lubcza.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lubča Castle, Belarus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Thank You[edit]

For the VI Barnstar. A great addition to my day! -- Godot13 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my VISC. I've changed the scope for Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Sea-Air_Rescue_Training_(Norwegian_Coast_Guard) to more accurately reflect the set. Please let me know if you approve with the new scope. Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Question[edit]

The VIS Great Synagogue is promoted and closed. This does not effect the outcome, but I just noticed that someone added a support vote and changed the vote numbers after I had closed it. I have only been on Commons for 2 months so I do not know whether I should say something or just forget it. Do you have an opinion? - Godot13 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

All other contributions by this user look useful.
Maybe he has confused it with QI consensual review, where the template looks similar, but the running total has to be updated by each voter.
I think you can forget it.
--Ikar.us (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!-Godot13 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

VIC talk page[edit]

Hi Ikar!

I have started two discussion topics at Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list. But it seems that this page is visited less frequently. Hence thought of notifying you as you are a regular editor at VIC. Please put your views, if any, on these topics. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Prison destroyed, restored by me[edit]

lol

In some way, this is not absolutely wrong !
After the destruction, a new building was erected in 1902. Believe me or not, my own family flat, from where I'm writing you right now, is in this new building, second floor. And yes, I've restored this flat (paintings, electricity and so....).
Ah Ah !
Funny, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Windkraftwerk in Schiff.jpg[edit]

Nice photo that you have added. However, it looks really weird when we used it in the articles having the white space around the upper left side of the image. I think it will look better if you use the original image (768 x 1024), rotate clockwise for 17 degrees, and crop down toward the center (crop left-right equally and top-bottom equally) to the size of 565 x 765. The result image will have the ship angle that is not perfect, but it will look reasonable. It will not have any white space, and it still get the whole idea of the ship with the tower inside it. The lower right will still have water to show that the ship is running through a waterway. If you want, I can make that I upload for you. Your thought? Z22 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be really too small. Please use the original file: http://ikar.us/Windkraftwerk_in_Schiff.JPG --Ikar.us (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you please take your original and upload it to File:Windkraftwerk in Schiff.jpg? This way, your high resolution file will be released as Creative Common license as well. Then I can rotate, crop and upload for you right after your upload. Sorry for nitpicking, but it seems that people in Commons are very strict with the copyright stuff. I just got a picture that I took deleted from Commons the other day due to some complications with copyright. I just don't want another problem. Z22 (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Magic Offenbach.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Magic Offenbach.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO 7804819[edit]

Hello Michael, Thank you for the categorization! --Myrabella (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Spatzenbrücke.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Spatzenbrücke.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

Ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Hello[edit]

Hello Michael,
I hope you're fine. Each time that I upload a photo about river transport on Commons, I think of you—that is to say, not very often but it happens. I guess because of one of your very first VIs, I had spent time scrolling through the related categories then! So I am pleased to dedicate my lastest image on this topic to you → File:Dragage_Seine_Paris.jpg. Cheers, --Myrabella (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze[edit]

LUSITANA WLM 2011 d.svg

Hallo Ikar.us,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

Schwabenheim barrage in VI[edit]

For this series I perceive that you forgot to put in a caption in English on the images. Can you fix it, thank you. :) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it required? Anyway, provided.--Ikar.us (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Die von[edit]

Dir hier angegebene Kategorie verstehe ich nicht. Hast Du Dich vielleicht verklickt? Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Stimmt, danke. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Gern geschehen. --4028mdk09 (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bravo![edit]

Very good initiative, ranking in VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Valued image candidates review / Bardentreffen 2014 So 1868.JPG[edit]

Hi, thank you for your note. Changed scope to Catalina García of the Colombian music band Monsieur Periné -- rs-foto (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/HydroelectricitySrilanka.png[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your vote. Scope changed to Hydroelectric power plants in Sri Lanka. Regards, Rehman 14:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Dossenheim Vatter.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Dossenheim Vatter.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


KA300-Stadtteilprojekte Grünwinkel[edit]

Hallo Ikar.us,
von Karlsruher zu Karlsruher: Ich habe gesehen, dass Du einige "Krähenbilder" auf Wikimedia hochgeladen hast. Anlässlich des Stadtgeburtstages sind ja über ganz Karlsruhe Kunstwerke vertreut. Ich selbst habe auch schon fotografiert und z.B. den Mercedes am "Besitos" am Marktplatz hochgeladen. Kurz darauf habe ich aber, nach einem Hinweis, kalte Füße bekommen und eine Schnelllöschung beantragt. Denn bei allen handelt es sich um nur vorübergehend ausgestellte Kunstwerke, die nicht durch FoP-Germany abgedeckt sind. Für FoP müssten sie dauerhaft installiert sein. Dies könnte auch für die Grünwinkler Krähen gelten, ebenso wie z.B. den erwähnten Mercedes, das hängende Haus, für Nachaufnahmen der Scheinwerfer z.B. vom Turmberg aus oder das Anstrahlen des Schlosses bei der Hauptfeier.
Ich habe deshalb letzte Woche beim Stadtmarkting angerufen (Name und Telefonnummer kann ich Dir auf Wunsch mitteilen) und das Problem geschildert, dass diese Objekte nicht für Wikimedia fotografiert werden dürfen und viel schlimmer, dass sich im Grunde jeder, der mit dem Handy fotografiert und das per Watsapp oder Facebook weiterschickt, sich der Urheberrechtsverletzung schuldig macht. Das Problem war im Stadtmarketing anscheinend gar nicht bekannt ("Wir wollen doch, dass die Leute das fotografieren und bekannt machen"). Da zumindest ein Teil der Aktionen in Kooperation mit dem ZKM durchgeführt werden, muss die Angelegenheit auch mit dem ZKM geklärt werden, sie wollen Rücksprache halten. Man hat mir zugesagt, dass ich informiert werde, sobald ein Ergebnis vorliegt. Solange wäre ich vorsichtig (ich habe auch noch das eine oder andere Bild in petto, aber ich warte jetzt noch ab). Falls Du allerdings sicher bist, dass die Krähen fotografiert werden dürfen, bitte ich um kurze Mitteilung (und Begründung), ich würde gerne auch die eine oder andere fotografieren. Mit den besten Grüßen --Llez (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Erstmal ein ganz großer Irrtum: Der Urheberrechtsverletzung macht sich nicht der schuldig, der es fotografiert und weiterschickt, sondern der, der es bekommt und kommerziell weiterverwendet. Also z.B. einer, der die Krähe im Stadtwiki findet, damit Postkarten druckt und in seinem Kiosk verkauft.
Wikimedia-Commons hat aber festgelegt, dass alle Bilder, die hier sind, so genutzt werden dürfen müssen. Also es muss für jedes Bild möglich sein, es für sich allein, aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen, unbeschränkt kommerziell zu verwenden. Die einzige zulässige Einschränkung ist, dass verlangt werden darf, dass die Urheber genannt werden.
Das ist eine Hausregel von Commons, und diese Hausregel ist das, was Commons von allen anderen Bilder-Host-Diensten unterscheidet. Deshalb haben Panoramio, Flickr, Facebook und alle anderen damit überhaupt kein Problem.
(Und Commons geht ja auch nicht konsequent so vor. Wenn ein Bild wegen Markenrecht, Wappenrecht, Persönlichkeitsrecht oder sonstwas nicht beliebig verwendet werden darf, wird das entsprechend gekennzeichnet, und jeder Nutzungsinteressent muss sich selber darum kümmern. Für Urheberrechtseinschränkungen könnte man das genauso handhaben. Man hat aber beschlossen, dass man das nicht will.)
Und jedes zivilisierte Land hat sein Urheberrecht so formuliert, dass es genug Freiheiten für private, journalistische und Bildungszwecke gibt. Auch ein Facebook-Reisebericht "ich hab eine bunte Krähe gesehen!" darf illustriert werden. Wenn Wikimedia-Commons für sich beschließt, den Beitragenden die Nutzung dieser Freiheiten zu verbieten, hat das auf den Rest der Welt überhaupt keinen Einfluss. Sehr viele, die davon hören, verwechseln die Commons-Hausregel mit einem Gesetz. (Ich frage mich allerdings, wie die Wikimedia-Stiftung Steuerprivilegien für Bildungszwecke bekommt, wenn sie die Bildungsfreiheiten ausschließt.)
Die Hausregel gilt auch nur speziell auf Commons und nicht in allen Wikimedia-Projekten. Als Russland die Panoramafreiheit rückwirkend aufgehoben hat, wurden in der russichen Wikipedia – nein, nicht etwa alle Bilder gelöscht, sondern ganz im Gegenteil, alle Russland-Bilder von Commons nach ru.wikipedia verschoben! Die hat nämlich ihre Hausregeln so festgelegt, dass russische Architektur dort dokumentiert werden kann. Dafür ist ein Lexikon ja da. Die Wikipedias sind Lexika. Commons ist ein Stock-Photo-Service. Der ursprüngliche Zweck, Bilder für Wikipedia-Lexika zur Verfügung zu stellen, ist an den Rand gerückt.
Was jetzt meine Krähenbilder anbetrifft: Von denen hab ich auf Commons nicht "einige" hochgeladen, sondern nur eine einzige, nämlich die vom CZK.
--Ikar.us (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Zu Deiner abschließenden Frage: Fotografiert werden dürfen sie garantiert. Veröffentlichen kannst sie nach meiner Überzeugung bedenkenlos z.B. in Karlsruhe:Kategorie:Bild (KA300). Dort kannst auch {{Copyright}} setzen – anders als hier ist das aber kein Löschgrund. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Danke für die Info, man lernt nie aus. Habe mich gerade beim Stadtwiki angemeldet. Werde bei Gelegenheit das eine oder andere Bild hochladen. Viele Grüße --Llez (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)