User talk:JuTa

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Jutta234)
Jump to: navigation, search


Bitte wiederherstellen[edit]

Category:Protected landscape areas in Landkreis Calw. Und nach dem hier frage ich mich allmählich, gegen wen oder was wir hier ankämpfen. --Sitacuisses (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Tja, beide "exclude-Eigenschaften" trafen hier nicht zu. Weder hast Du die Cat editiert noch beginnt sie mit Naturschutzgebiet - siehe hier. Ich lösche hier teilwiese täglich duzende bis hunderte leere Kategorien, und bisher hat sich außer Dir noch niemand beschwert. --JuTa 11:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Aus dem Namen sollte eigentlich hervorgehen, dass es sich um einen Teil einer Systematik aus dem WLE-affinen Bereich handelt, ebenfalls in Baden-Württemberg. Die NSG-Kategorien dort hatte ich auch nicht angelegt, sondern der de.wp-Admin User:Lou.gruber. User:Blech, der die hier angesprochen Kat angelegt hatte, ist einer der Haupt-Mitarbeiter im WLE-Bereich der de.wp. Dass sich keiner beschwert, mag daran liegen, dass die Löschungen erst dann bemerkt werden wenn es schon zu spät ist (eine realistische Chance auf Einspruch gibt es nicht) oder auch daran, dass die so bedachten Mitarbeiter angesichts dieser Umstände die Hoffnung verlieren und einfach gehen. --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
In dem Fall sind es Landschaftsschutzgebiete nach Landkreisen, nicht mal einzelne Gebiete. Es ist sehr unwahrscheinlich, dass die Kategorien dauerhaft leer bleiben. Mich persönlich regt es nicht besonders auf, wenn sie gelöscht werden. Das Wiederanlegen ist allerdings lästig und dauert länger als ursprünglich beim Serien-Anlegen. Könnte man aus einer Wikipedia-Sprachversion verlinkte Kategorien nicht von Löschungen ausnehmen? --Blech (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Es wird nicht angezeigt ob in einem anderen Projekt ein {{CommonsCat}} o.ä. darauf existiert. Daher sehe ich keine Möglichkeit dies als Kriterium zu verwenden. --JuTa 22:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Natural monuments in Landkreis Leer[edit]

Hallo JuTa, kannst du bitte da auf Wiederherstellen klicken? danke. Holger1959 (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --JuTa 10:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

und bitte Category:Natural monuments in Landkreis Lüchow-Dannenberg. Holger1959 (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

auch ✓ Done. --JuTa 11:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

noch eins Category:Natural monuments in Salzgitter. Holger1959 (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

OK --JuTa 12:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

und Category:Natural monuments in Landkreis Osterholz auch. Holger1959 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --JuTa 23:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

ich bleib Mal in diesem Absatz: bitte Category:Protected landscape areas in Main-Tauber-Kreis wiederherstellen. Holger1959 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

yep --JuTa 19:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Missing license and Kremlin.ru[edit]

It seems like a mistake: 1, 2, ..., 10, 11 in Category:Vladimir Putin in MEPhI (2014). Please see {{Kremlin.ru}}. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

But thats not (yet?) a valid license temaplate. Either the template has to use i.e {{cc-by-layout}} or each image has to use a CC-license-template addionaly. Otherwise the images will be marked as Category:Media without a license: needs history check or similar again and again. regards. --JuTa 12:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you give me link to a rule, which says about this: "Either the template has to use i.e {{cc-by-layout}} or each image has to use a CC-license-template addionaly". --sasha (krassotkin) 12:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
No I cant. But its in fact that there a bots arround searching for images without a license. They marking them as no license when the dont tanclude one of {{CC-Layout}} (not {{cc-by-layout}} as noted before) or {{PD-Layout}} or some other basic license layout templates. So its a defacto rule that any valid license template has to use one of those layout templates. Otherwise all those images will get marked as no license again and again and again.... --JuTa 12:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand that it is convenient for the robots. But we are working with humans. Who are worried and ask questions. There are more than 14,000 images. And many of them do not have the additional templates. It would be nice if you could have solved this problem for bots and humans at the same time. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
PS: If ou replace in {{Kremlin.ru/layout}} {{Source-Layout with {{CC-Layout the task should be done. --JuTa 12:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a universal template for multiple situations at different times (with OTRS permission and with license on the site). We need to see whether it will correspond. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


@Jarekt: please comment (after removing CC and OTRS templates). --sasha (krassotkin) 12:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Then, whats the problem for you to add the corresponding cc-license-templates to those 12 images when all other 13988 are using such? I dont know which CC-license(s) are suitable in those cases, I hope you know it. --JuTa 13:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not know how much more of the same images... now and in the future... but it's not exactly a few images... --sasha (krassotkin) 14:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hm... I apologize, I have a bad English, but I do not understand this tone. I only came to tell that you put the wrong templates {{No license since}} on these pages. There are already specified licenses in the template: "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0". Therefore templates {{No license since}} should be removed from pages without additional conditions. If you want something else, I am ready to help you, there are really no problems, just tell me. Sorry again. --sasha (krassotkin) 14:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A little history here (long version can be found at Template_talk:Kremlin.ru#License_update). In the past {{Kremlin.ru}}, {{premier.gov.ru}} and {{government.ru}} were a source templates that also added CC-by-3.0. After Russian government switched to CC-by-4.0 there were some discussions of what to do to the template, which had to show one thing for photographs taken before April 8, 2015, and something else for photographs taken after, with a strong probability that in the future there might be more changes. Several solutions were discussed but the most logical was to make those templates into source templates and add proper cc templates directly to the files. I changed all existing files, and as a person often monitoring Category:New uploads without a license I would occasionally "fix" files with {{Kremlin.ru}} only and add cc license. I would usually also write the uploader about the need to add cc template at the upload time. --Jarekt (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Jarekt: Thank you for your response. At this time the template {{Kremlin.ru}} contains valid references to all licenses. As stated above, additional templates are needed for the convenience of bots. For humans they duplicate text of main template only. Perhaps we have to do as advised JuTa - to сhange the parent layout of {{Kremlin.ru}} to {{CC-Layout}}? At least it is easier and more correct than constantly monitor categories and scare users threats to remove their images. --sasha (krassotkin) 05:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
sasha, I think you are trying to fix a problem which is not a problem, as Template:Kremlin.ru explains (unfortunately only in English) all you need to do is to just add {{kremlin.ru}}{{cc-by-4.0|[http://kremlin.ru kremlin.ru]}} as a license template to all the new uploads. Adding license templates like {{cc-by-4.0}} to the files on Commons is not the requirements "for the convenience of bots". license templates are more likely to be translated into large number of of languages than single source templates like {{Kremlin.ru}}, also small custom license templates tend to get changed, or broken without people noticing, leaving files with incorrect or missing license templates, and without any change history in the individual files. Adding {{cc-by-4.0}} directly to the file means that to remove the license someone will have to change the file itself, which will leave a mark in the file history and will be easy to reverse. --Jarekt (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jarekt & @JuTa: I know all this because worked in Wikimedia Russia which received these permissions and then has made the changes in legislation; and I myself uploaded a lot of material from this site for many years. But OK. If you think I trying to fix a problem which is not a problem... Maybe... I added the corresponding CC-templates to those images, and I will explain it to the uploader, who asked me. But if these questions will repeated, we should think about a system solution. Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 17:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you too. --JuTa 22:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Spatzennest[edit]

Als Tübinger fand ich das Flickr-Foto vom Spatzennest ganz schön und habe über Flickr2Commons automatisch hochgeladen, da ich dachte, dass es ausreichend lizensiert sei. Falls es das entgegen meiner Erwartung nicht sein sollte, bitte löschen. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Siehe den Erklärungstext auf Template:Flickr-public domain mark. Zitat: This template is used for images at Flickr that are identified with the Creative Commons "Public Domain Mark". Unlike CC0 or the other Creative Commons licenses, the Public Domain Mark is not a legal instrument; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement. Instead, the Public Domain Mark is a tool that allows anyone to mark a work that they believe to be free of known copyright restrictions. However, it does not say why the image is in public domain and this part has to be added by the user. This template encourages the user to select an appropriate Commons public domain license template. Instead of using this tag directly, you should instead use {{Remove this line and insert a public domain copyright tag instead}}{{No license since}}. Gruß --JuTa 16:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Danke, dann muss das Bild wohl von Creative Commons gelöscht werden. Es wurde meines Wissens glücklicherweise noch nirgends eingebunden. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, ✓ Done. --JuTa 18:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Restore user page[edit]

Hi JuTa. Could you please restore the redirect at user:Pikolas? It's my old username, and as you can see many pages still link to it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Pikolas&limit=500 ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 17:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it was on Special:BrokenRedirects, but it looks its a special case with non-existant but meta-included userpages. Redirects on Meta not "coming through" :( I restored the redirect now. --JuTa 22:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm the author, I want to erase this images[edit]

Hi I'm the author, I want to erase this images, please, thank you.

Hi, I think is inessesary images, I must change the map, Hidalgo State don't have got a flag by laws, Mexico State flag is diferent and Quintana Roo State flag is diferent.Grettings. --Marrovi (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There are allready running deletion requests for them, which I completed for you. Please wait until another admin will decide them. thx. --JuTa 01:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I want to improve my quality images and remove the bad images, regards.--Marrovi (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a good reason for an empty category[edit]

I see you deleted Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1846 because it was empty. I think that sometimes when there is a pattern of "by year" categories, the fact that there is nothing in one particular year is probably not a good reason for deletion. Right now, we don't have a building identified as being built that particular year in Washington, but note that Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1847 and Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1848 are non-empty. I believe that keeping categories like this, which form part of a pattern of parallel categories, greatly increases the chance that if an image of such a building is uploaded, it will be correctly categorized. I'm pretty certain there is plenty of precedent for this. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Then we differ in our opinion about that. Empty cats distubing more than they create benefit. They falsely suggesting content, where there is none. And what is the difference between the now deleted Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1846 and i.e. the newer created Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1845? If we wanna create a built cat for every year for every possible geogafic entity there would be (guessed) more than 90% of them empty. And it would be just luck when searching for an image of a region and a specific period to find an non empty cat when browsing through them. regards. --JuTa 01:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The 1840s are the first decade when European settlers would have built anything in Washington, and two of those years have content. By the 1850s, 6 years have content, 8 years in the 1860s, every single year in the 1870s, etc. So you are very wrong in saying "more than 90% of them empty." - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
And whats about regions, cities, town and villages in i.e. Europe, China or Egypt which have a much longer history? --JuTa 07:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
"They falsely suggesting content, where there is none." Not true. The number of files inside a category is written behind the name in the parent cat. When a category is empty, it is clearly stated. --Sitacuisses (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
But not at the template links i.e. generated by i.e. Template:WashingtonArc. --JuTa 09:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a matter of more or less smart template coding. There are templates that show links only if the category exists. --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
... even when they are empty ... --JuTa 23:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Qualcomm-Logo.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Qualcomm-Logo.svg 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

213.238.121.248 14:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there![edit]

I sent a fixed version though the original version was replaced by a cropped version, how to fix that: [1] Dianakc (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit the description page of the file and add the free license of your choice to the permission field. {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommended, but there are much more posibilities - see Commons:Copyright tags. regards. --JuTa 14:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, could you move the cropped version to another name and keep the version I sent in 2012? [2], i sent that in 2012 but some newbie replaced and moved the version to a poor and cropped version. Thanks.Dianakc (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I dont see why. The cropped version should stay as cropped name and the full version as it is, because there might be s.o. who likes more to use the full version. regards. --JuTa 15:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
erm... that was what I tried to say... can you be more helpful? Dianakc (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, then I completly dont understand your problem. The cropped version has a cropped in its name and the new uncropped version not. Why should the name of any of them should e changed? btw: the license for the new version is still sissing. If you dont ad one it will likely e deleted at 1. July because of that. regards. --JuTa 19:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Bilder Urheberrechte[edit]

Hallo :)

Du textest mich grad mit den Löschwarnungen für hochgeladene Bilder zu. Ich habe extra dazu geschrieben, wer die Bilder gemacht hat und das ich die Erlaubnis zur Benutzung hab. Ich kann das gerne mit Unterschrift des Unternehmens mailen :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin Kramer (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Nicht nur Du sondern jeder weltweit benötigt das Recht die Bilder zu jedwedem zu benutzen. Die Bilder müssen unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht werden, die eben dies jedem erlaubt - siehe Commons:Licensing und Commons:Copyright tags. Und die Genemigung muss über das sog. OTRS vom Urheberechtsinhaber bestätigt werden, er muss also eine Mail an das Commons-Support-Team schreiben - siehe Commons:OTRS bzw. Commons:OTRS/de. Sobald Du weisst dass diese Mail verschickt wurde, setzt Du besser die Vorlage {{OTRS pending}} - am besten per {{subst:OP}}. Dies verhindert dann die Löschung für längsten einige Wochen oder bis der Fall als OK oder nicht OK entschieden wird. Gruß --JuTa 14:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Jorge Basadre Province images[edit]

Hello, i uploaded the images because are simbols of a Province of Perú, so, as any coat of arms or so, so are property of the State of Perú, and can be shared because of that. Source of the images--Janitoalevic (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, if you can find a fitting license template on Commons:Copyright tags apply it on the file description page. n.b. the webpage you linked is stating all rights reverved. JuTa 22:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


Alberto Juantorena Montreal[edit]

Hello, JuTa I have seen your message as moderator, or bureaucrat of Wikimedia, and I understand that I have made a mistake while uploading the file Juantorena Montreal '76.jpg, which I thought was of public use, but it is not. I would like to remove it myself. How do I proceed for this? Thank you very much for your help. --Xiphias73 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You cant, only admins can delete files. but I deleted it now. Thx for your note. --JuTa 07:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ticket zur Bildfreigabe[edit]

OTRS Wikimedia

This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.

Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2016062910018048.

If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2016062910018048

Hallo JuTa! Unter diesem Ticket liegt die Freigabe des gelöschten Filmposters File:Job Interview (Poster International).png vor. Bitte stelle die Datei wieder her. Vielen Dank, Doc Taxon (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Die Freigabe etc. trägst besser Du ein. Gruß --JuTa 13:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)