User talk:Jochen Burghardt

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jochen Burghardt!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Bildquelle - Link zu Git-Repository[edit]

Hallo Jochen,

danke, dass du den LaTeX-Source-Code meiner Bilder direkt in den Artikeln einfügst.

Wenn du das machst, solltest du aber nicht den Link zu dem Git-Repository entfernen. Dort ist auch noch eine Make-Datei und (eventuelle aktuellerer) Source-Code. Außerdem können so an den Bildern interessierte Wiki-Autoren weitere (ähnliche) Bilder finden.

Grüße, --MartinThoma (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


Oops, sorry, ich sehe gerade, dass du das gar nicht gemacht hast. Damals gab es anscheinend das Repository noch nicht bzw. ich habs damals nicht verlinkt. Du kannst also meinen Beitrag ignorieren. --MartinThoma (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Eigentlich sollte von mir nur die Kategorie "Images with LaTeX source code" hinzugefuegt worden sein. Alles andere waere ein Versehen. Gruss - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth: Svg output from LaTeX source[edit]

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Jochen Burghardt. You have new messages at Nbarth#Svg output from LaTeX source's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

File:Combination of abstract domains.pdf[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Combination of abstract domains.pdf 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 file, 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Rational sequence with 2 accumulation points.pdf[edit]

Your image is great but does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Please check it. Regards--Adam majewski (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your hint; I supplemented the license information now. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Glip galli.tif[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Glip galli.tif. 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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Jochen Burghardt. You have new messages at Jarekt#Copyright_status:_File:Glip_galli.tif's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

--Jarekt (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Gießen HeuchelheimerStr102 509.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Gießen HeuchelheimerStr102 509.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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

File:HerbertFeigl a07fig01.gif[edit]

{{Helpme}} Concerning the license, the source page says: "Creative Commons LicenseAll the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License" It is not clear which version is meant; the link is a dead one. The site's main page http://www.scielo.br repeats: "Creative Commons License All the contents of this site www.scielo.br, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License."

I'm not really sure whether it is ok to use the above cc-by-2.5; I just selected the option from the uploader license menu that seemed weakest. I need some help from a license issues expert.

Hallo Jochen,
auf der Hauptseite der Zeitschrift [1] findet sich die Lösung, sie verwenden die cc-by-4.0. Allerdings denke ich nicht, dass sie diese Lizenz auch für offensichtlich etliche Jahre alte Fotos vergeben können. Zumindest nicht ohne ausdrücklich zu erklären, dass sie an diesem Foto Rechte halten, weil ... [Grund einfügen]. Daher werde ich für das Bild leider Löschantrag stellen müssen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 09:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Danke fuer die Hilfe! Es waere schade um das Bild - dass Feigl seit 1988 tot und der Fotograph nicht feststellbar ist, genuegt wohl nicht fuer eine Lizensierung? Gruss - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Schön wäre es :-) Bilder sind i.d.R. bis 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers (hier: Fotografen) geschützt. Und dass die Zeitschrift den Fotografen nicht angibt, heißt für einen Juristen auch keineswegs, dass der nicht feststellbar ist. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Na ja, aber andererseits geht es hier nicht um irgendeine dubiose Blogger-Seite, sondern die Zeitschrift wird von der Uni Sao Paulo herausgegeben, die bestimmt (wie die deutschen Unis auch) eine gute Rechtsabteilung hat und sich auch mit Lizenzfragen auskennt. Da sollte meines Erachtens unsere Default-Vermutung sein, dass sie das Bild nicht ohne Pruefung der Fotographenrechte freigegeben haben. Sonst koennte man ja gar keiner Quelle mehr trauen, oder? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:HerbertFeigl a07fig01.gif[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:HerbertFeigl a07fig01.gif 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 file, 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rosenzweig τ 09:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Bots[edit]


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kufic_Mond_nach_Fabris.jpg[edit]

Dear Jochen Burghardt

Wiki Commons invite the contributors for many search words.

Please, is it to simple cancel all. Administrator RussBot for exampel, change wrong to better search words!

I reset to version from RussBot.

Thank you

Sergio Fabris

Dear Sergio Fabris, I didn't understand what you meant by your above message. If you prefer, we may discuss in German. I guess your message is about my removing of categories from files uploaded by you. For the File:Kufic Mond nach Fabris.jpg, where someone reverted my edits, I gave a justification (viz. COM:OVERCAT). You should understand that Categories are not search words; you may place arbitrarily many of the latter in the "description" entry of the "Information" template, but you should adhere to the commons categorization policy (see Commons:Categories) in the choice of a file's categories. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Blackouts[edit]

Hi:

May I suggest that to add the Blackout category to events, not to individual images. I reverse your edit on File:Boundery waters Canadian Derecho radar image.png to put it instead to Category:1999 Boundery waters Canadian Derecho for instance.

Pierre cb (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry for my imprecise categorization. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:G7 Summit in Williamsburg, VA (1983).jpg[edit]

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Bahasa Indonesia | 日本語 | മലയാളം | Português | svenska | 中文 | +/−


Hello!

Thank you for uploading File:G7 Summit in Williamsburg, VA (1983).jpg to the Wikimedia Commons. I noticed that when you uploaded from another Wikimedia project, you left out some important information, or copied it incorrectly. In the future, please consider using CommonsHelper, a tool which automates the process of moving files over. Thank you,

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:People by name[edit]

Bitte entferne nicht massenhaft die Kategorie Category:People by name aus Personen-Kategorien. Jede Personen-Kategorie muss diese Kategorie enthalten. Danke! --NeverDoING (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ich habe sie nur von Seiten aus der Unterkategorie Category:Men by name entfernt. M.E. gilt die Regel COM:OVERCAT auch hier. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Die persönliche Meinung zählt hier aber (leider) nicht. Wenn es einen Konsens geben würde, dann wäre schon längst ein Bot aktiv, der die Kategorien entsprechend löschen würde. Ich kategorisiere schon lange Personen in vielen verschiedenen "Bereichen" und Deine Meinung ist mir dabei noch nie untergekommen. Eher umgekehrt. --NeverDoING (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
COM:OVERCAT hab ich mir nicht ausgedacht; es ist nicht nur meine Meinung, sondern "official policy" (Zitat oben auf der Seite) bei Commons. Auch wenn es dir noch nie untergekommen ist. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ich kenne COM:OVERCAT! Allerdings nützt es nichts, wenn man sich als einzelne Person gegen die üblichen Gepflogenheiten (Standards) stellt. Gibt es andere User, die Deine Bemühungen in diesem Bereich unterstützen und genauso vorgehen? --NeverDoING (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Verstehe ich Dich richtig: Du glaubst, die offiziellen Richtlinien seien irrelevant; stattdessen seien irgendwrlche Gepflogenheiten/Standards entscheidend, die nirgendwo nachzulesen sind, die aber Du (im Gegensatz zu mir) trotzdem genau kennst?
Und Du glaubst, zu letzteren gehoere es, ein File mit jeder Kategorie auch in alle ihrer Oberkategorien einzuordnen? Oder in beliebige ihrer Oberkategorien, je nach persoenlichen Gepflogenheiten? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Verdeh mir bitte nicht das Wort im Mund. Welche anderen User kategorisieren Personen so wie Du? Ich sehe in den Kategorien Category:Men by name bzw. Category:Women by name eine andere Sprache. Wer bin ich mir anzumaßen etwas gegen die Gepflogenheiten zu unternehmen ohne die genauen Gründe zu kennen oder mögliche Abhängigkeiten von irgendwelchen Bots? Ich kenne und achte COM:OVERCAT, allerdings ist diese Regel auch manchmal nicht sinnvoll. Wenn in unserem strittigen Fall ein Konsens für Deine Meinung ist habe ich kein Problem damit. Die Realität sieht meines Erachtens nur anders aus.--NeverDoING (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ich habe nichts verdreht, aber das soll jetzt egal sein. Es gab einen Vorschlag von Sep 2014 (Commons talk:Categories/Archive 3#Flat categories), der aber anscheinend nicht weiter diskutiert oder umgesetzt wurde.Vielleicht solltest Du ihn wieder aufgreifen. Wenn es Ausnahmen von COM:OVERCAT gibt (z.B. alle Kategorien, die auf "by name" enden; oder m.E. besser: die auf "(flat list)" enden), sollten sie in einem entsprechenden Abschnitt auf dieser Seite erklaert werden. Schliesslich muessen neue Editoren (und es kommen andauernd neue dazu - "anyone can edit") die Chance haben, sie nachzulesen. Auch unsere ganze Debatte hier (die auch Du vermutlich nicht immer auf's neue fuehren willst) haette mit einem Hinweis auf solch einen Abschnitt schnell beigelegt werden koennen. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Slavist - Linguist[edit]

Hi Jochen Burghardt,

Not every slavist is a linguist, even according to Category:Slavists, since many of Category:Slavists by country are not linguists but literary historians or ethnologists, e.g. Matija Murko, Irena Grudzińska-Gross, Mirko Messner, Basil Kerski. Therefore it is necessary to note both "Linguist" and "Slavist", as in the article about Paul Diels. Professors in the German Departments of Slavic Studies are either linguists or literary scholars. Best regards,--Mozel W. (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand your examples: en:Matija Murko has neither a "...slavist..." nor a "...linguists..." category. Category:Matija_Murko has Category:Slavists from Slovenia, which is in turn a subcategory of Category:Linguists from Slovenia. So he is neither a slavist nor a linguist according to en.wikipedia, but both a slavist and a linguist according to commons.wikipedia; certainly somebody should fix this inconsistency. I didn't check the remaining examples then.
I am not insisting on every slavist being a linguist in the real world; my edit summary just intended to say that the current categorization at commons.wikipedia implies this. If you are an expert in slavistics/linguistics, please feel free to fix the categorization. As far as I have seen the latter would affect Category:Slavists and many of the Category:Slavists from XXX catgories. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have time to fix the current categorization at commons.wikipedia. However, it is illogical that she is the only person in the Category:Slavists from Croatia, whereas of those who are in the Category:Linguists from Croatia 90 percent are slavists. She is primarily a linguist (the most internationally well-known Croatian linguist) and secondarily a slavist. And she of all Croatian linguists is not in the Category:Linguists from Croatia any more. Therefore I would suggest deleting her from the Category:Slavists from Croatia and bringing her back to other Croatian linguists, i.e. into the Category:Linguists from Croatia. Best regards, --Mozel W. (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
That's ok for me. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)