User talk:Saibo/Archive/2010

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

File:Mortar and pestle - sand casting, bronze.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

File:St. Abbondio in Montagnola (Ticino).JPG

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Heldenberg, Figuren und Buesten.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Heldenberg, Figuren und Buesten, Rueckseiten.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Gusseisenstuetze.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Moka Express sideview.png

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Turmfalke mit Jungvoegeln.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Klosteranlage vom Essl-Museum gesehen.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Klassisches Paradisobild 230503.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Paradiso parco san grato.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 22:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Morcote lake with ducks and boats.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear bot, please read the license section at the file's page. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)



Notification

NB: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8. Mai 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Saibo (Δ) 16:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the notification at Wicipedia Cymraeg. Wonder how long before it goes again, though? Very sad situation for all concerned: let's hope it is resolved soon, sanely and for the good of our "free encyclopedia". Anatiomaros (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope it'll stay now. Maybe you want to check out the links provided on my userpage in case you do not know them yet. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but there seem to be so many petitions and debates, not just here but across the Wikipedia, that it's difficult to know where to start. I'm more concerned about the art works threatened than the photos, which might be far easier to replace (and I agree we shouldn't become a "dumping ground" for poor porn pictures, of course, but were we ever that?). Another work deleted and now restored was this Art Nouveau drawing by Franz von Bayros. Sheer vandalism which nothing can justify. I'm starting to save some of the remaining erotic art files, but keeping the authorship details is a pain. Perhaps we should all "adopt a category"? Cheers, Anatiomaros (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess there are discussions in every wiki at at least two places, yes. Art will be restored - I am pretty sure. Nevertheless: it is all a big amount of unnecessary work and that's making me sad and angry. No commons shouldn't be a porn host - of course. But some "co"workers here are even taking drawings to illustrate articles as porn. I would simply like to have the commons as it was before. And there was no (maybe some) porn. I hope that Jimbo stops his actions and leaves the community alone. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if commonsense and tolerance have any value Art will indeed be restored, but it is still under threat. The "virus" is spreading, and little wonder given the publicity: take a look at this, for instance. I fear a reactionary agenda has been opened and that the book-burners, Bible-thumpers and other assorted hypocrites are relishing the idea of neutering Wikipedia. We should be on our guard. Best wishes, Anatiomaros (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikimedia is mirroring the reactionary decade we live in. We should defend the values of anti-fascism.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

3x Franz von Bayros deleted

Added section. --Saibo (Δ) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hi again Saibo. You might be interested in the continuing threat to Category:Franz von Bayros. All the deleted files had been restored. Now three files have been deleted once again, purely on the whim of a single sysop - see here. The reason/excuse given is "Undo my restore: I won't rely on 18 USC 1466A(a)(2)(B) for this to be allowable as "artistic", and in the EU this might be off limits as per Council framework decision 2004/68/JHA". Just thought I'd keep you updated. Anatiomaros (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoooha, thank you very much, :( Deleted again without any discussion (as far as I can see with "What links here") - I am angry. I've filed UDRs: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Franz_von_Bayros_006.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 17:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
[Copy of reply @ User talk:Ra'ike.] Yes, thank you for that. I brought the matter up at the Village pump but was too busy at the time to go straight to Undeletion requests. Did you know that a fresco from Pompeii is threatened with deletion as well? 2,000 year old work of art and some would like us to "get rid" of it - Incredible! I don't think it will happen but it just shows the mess we're in thanks to Fox and their Neo-Conservative agenda. Best wishes, Anatiomaros (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your alertness. This case obviously shouldn't have happend. Lupo should know that deleting art is not a good idea. At least not without even placing a note at Village pump. Or should have filed a Undeletion request immediately after his partly comprehensible deletion (because it was, at least he thought, a wrong undelete beforehand). Well - everything is okay now. Just several Kilobytes of Undeletion discussion wasted - once again. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Kleines Dankeschön

Herzlichen Dank für Dein Engagement das ich die letzten Tage teilweise mitverfolgte. Ich hoffe die Situation beruhigt sich wieder. Viele Grüße,Nemissimo (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true

This is just not true - Rima actually uploaded a vision of the Last Judgment - with all of us burning in Hell. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Waah, my eyes. What an awful picture. It contains more penises than i've seen in the last days. This should be speedy deleted instantaneously better even on hour ago. Shocking - it's even in use in an article - surely placed there by an vandal. This image is unusable. And wait - i will upload it in a minute to flickr -> totally out of scope here. ;) I am delighted that fun returns slowly, very slowly (albeit mattbuck does not seem to find it at least a bit funny). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

List of deleted articles

Thanks for the comments. This inspired me to make a list of the articles that en:W administrators deleted simply because 'made by a banned user'. Most have been restored by the more thoughtful persons (I contribute in the area of philosophy, history of philosophy, logic, architecture plus a few other things). Some sadly haven't. I hadn't realised until now that the article on Georg Dollman was still unavailable. Also 'The Pheasantry' which is a well-known London landmark which was an artists' colony in the 1960's (Germaine Greer, Eric Clapton, Martin Sharp all lived or worked there) but which was deleted by the champions of free speech. Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] On evidence of whether the advocates of free speech are also those who prefer the block button, see this comment[2] by an influential member of the administration. The view is pretty clear. This is the guy who blocked Larry Sanger yesterday, for making a mild critical remark. Peter Damian (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:BAN#Difference_between_bans_and_blocks - I thought block and ban is the same because in my home wiki (de.wikipedia) there is (AFAIK) no such thing like a ban. There's only a block. It is stated more or less explicitly in these guidelines that edits by banned users will be reverted. I guess it is intended to provide banned users with no incentive to continue editing. Very strange - but, if I suppose that someone got banned because his edits are disruptive/whatever it is comprehensible a bit. Nevertheless I do not know yet if I regard this as a good thing.
Regarding this admin: I do not know for what reasons Larry Sanger was blocked - I just read some bad news about him last Thursday (regarding the FOX stuff). This admin seems to forget the basic principle of assuming good faith and connected principles (e.g. appropriateness and proportionality) if someone gets a block for one remark. This applies only if Larry is a regular contributor and also does other things in the Wikipedia apart from unjustified critical remarks.
I am getting the feeling that there is a written guideline nearly for every action you could do in en.wiki. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, there is a rule that any edit by a banned user will be reverted, including whole articles such as these. So, it is not true that anyone can edit; and Wikipeida is censored. My edits were not disruptive, by the way, I have been a respected contributor to Wikipedia since 2003. My offence was purely 'political'. You have the concept of political offences in Germany, no? Peter Damian (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for picking the wrong words. I am not very used to discuss such topics in English. :) I do not even know your edits - I intended to speak not of you, merely I wanted to speak of somebody.
I do not understand what you mean by political in this case. Were your articles not perfectly neutral? We also, of course, have the neutral point of view (NPOV) in de.wikipedia. Could you please explain what you mean by political offences? Maybe give an example. Thank you for the interesting chat by the way. --Saibo (Δ) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
'Political' complaints are those against the administration only - on talk pages and outside article space and so on. My particular offence was my outspoken complaint against the conflict of interest of a senior administrator and arbitration committee member. The block may have been justified - my complaint is the way that a defendant has their talk page blocked and has no right of reply, as in most democracies. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@You have my full support: I would like to note that I cannot find me in your three classes "porn-industry employees, amateur pornographers and worse". That is not very nice of you. Maybe you made a spelling mistake and it should be amateur photographers. This would be correct for me. Apropos... wikipediareview user Cock-up-over-conspiracy ("He seem pretty idiotic") seems to like me. :D Best wishes to him. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi I was not intending to tar everyone with the same brush. However an awful lot of the 'free speech' advocates around here are simply people with an agenda. Peter Damian (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

File:C lux kassel-saibo.jpg

Hallo Saibo. Magst du die Dateibeschreibungsseite der ursprünglich von dir hochgeladenen Datei mal etwas säubern (inkl. Kategorisierung)? --Leyo 17:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Was du alles ausgräbst ... gut, ist gemacht. Zufrieden? Nun muss das Bild aber auch in den Artikel. ;) Das Umlizenzierungszeug von MGA73bot2 habe ich revertiert. Wie soll denn ein Bot die Kriterien der überprüfen, ob das Bild umlizenziert werden kann?
Ich habe mal Category:Christina Lux angelegt. Ist das okay so (sooo wahnsinnig geübt bin ich im Kategorienanlegen nicht)? Da können nun auch die anderen Lux-Bilder rein, wenn dann euer toller Move-to-Commons-bot läuft. --Saibo (Δ) 21:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Vielen Dank! Für meinen Geschmack hat es nun etwas zu viele Kategorien drin. Wikijunkie und ich sind daran, die Altlasten in Category:Files moved from de.wikipedia to Commons requiring review abzubauen. Es gab mal über 400 Unterkategorien.
Betreffend Umlizensierung: Der Bot wieder wahrscheinlich nochmals vorbeikommen. --Leyo 21:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Danke für den Kommentar und die Aufräumarbeit. overcat "happens when an image is placed in several categories within the same tree." - das ist mir klar und das versuche ich zu vermeiden da es redundante Kategorien sind. Ich habe nichts redundantes gefunden (siehe auch catgraph). Was meinst du was overcat ist?
"Category:Night in Kassel" habe ich nun beim Bild gelöscht, die passt nicht so ganz denke ich.
Nun gut, dann soll er kommen der Bot ;) --Saibo (Δ) 22:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, dann war der Link halt nicht ganz passend. IMHO sollten man sich bei Kategorien aufs Wesentliche beschränken. Zusätzlich zu der von dir entfernten Kat. würde ich eine der beiden „lighting“-Kats. entfernen. --Leyo 10:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Man sollte schon in das, was man verlinkt, reinschauen. ;) Du meinst also, dass z.B. Stage nicht so ganz passt? Nunja, ich habe es rausgeworfen - aber eigentlich ist eben eine Bühnenbeleuchtung zu sehen - nur sieht man nicht die eigentlichen Lichtquellen - mir scheint die cat geht eher darum. Auch weil es nur so ein kleiner Ausschnitt ist, passt es wohl nicht so ganz. Danke nochmal für die Kommentare. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 2

Thanks for your rational vote on quite a few of the deletion listings on my talk page currently, I must admit I am largely befuddled since I go to great lengths to only upload the "artistic or historic" works - and often find myself cropping out the naughtiest unnecessary bits of an image. Hope you don't mind I stole a chunk of text from your userpage...and am thinking of stealing that bookburning photo for a third categorisation on my userpage...deleted works of MRB. By the way, might be worth signing up with Commons:Wikiproject:Erotica to help develop long-term ways to handle such material. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, feel free to copy - I copied the first part of the text, too. :) This short sentence dos not exceed the threshold of originality - I guess. So there's no need to follow cc-by-sa-3.0 and give the author's name.
Thank you for the link to this project, I'll have a though if I sign up there. The DR on your userpage is ridiculous. You've even hidden the "bad" (in some peaople's eyes) pictures.
Although the hiding (it's a hiding!) does not reduce the size to load. So users with a slow connection visiting your user page (eg. to click trough your talk page) will be a bit angry because of the big gallery. ;) Just for this reason it might be worth to think of moving the galleries to a separate page linked on you user page.
Voting on many of the deletion requests on your talk page was by chance. I haven't been on your talk page before. I have just left a message to the mass DR poster: User_talk:Tyw7#two_things_.28your_DR_spamming.2C_your_sig.29- Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Domorgel Münster

Hallo Saibo,

danke für Deine Nachricht auf meiner Seite und für die Bearbeitung der Fotos. Vielen Dank, sehr gut gemacht. Das Foto der Domorgel Münster sollte sowieso nur ein Übergang sein. Ich habe nur eine FinePix F30 und kaine wirklich gute Kamera, leider hatte ich zu dem Zeitpunkt auch kein Stativ dabei, deshalb musste ich den grossen Altarstein mit draufnehmen, der das ganze Foto natürlich viel zu dunkel wirken lässt. Vielleicht erbarmt sich ja mal jemand und macht ein besseres Foto.

Schade, dass die (Dom)organisten da selber kein Interesse dran haben, qualitativ hochwertige Fotos "ihrer" Orgel in die Wikipedia zu stellen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.190.135 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17. Mai 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, bist du User:FZohren? Mal geraten - du scheinst nicht angemeldet zu sein. Freut mich, wenn dir die Bearbeitung gefällt. Welches Foto meinst du wo der grosse Altarstein drauf ist? Achja: schlechte Fotos sind besser als keine Fotos! :-) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proxying for a banned user

Just so you know, you are proxying edits of a permanently blocked user. Very unwise. Wknight94 talk 21:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What an honor for me, you are talking with me. ;) It's an IP who's comment was reverted by you without any comment. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you mean by "proxying edits"? I do not understand this. --Saibo (Δ) 21:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Those IPs are sockpuppets of Mutter Erde (talk · contribs), who is permanently blocked. He even admits that the IPs are his. Permanently blocked means he is not allowed to edit and edits by his sockpuppets should be reverted immediately. "Proxying" means you are doing Mutter Erde's edits for him. Why would you want to do Mutter Erde's edits for him, when his edits got him blocked?! Wknight94 talk 21:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation! But I have not done edits for him - i've just reverted because of your uncommented revert of his edit. Well, and how do you know that this IP is one of his? Are his IPs written somewhere? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
He admitted it. Wknight94 talk 00:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but that's a some bits different IP. Well, okay, feel free to revert this IP range, I do not mind anymore, although his edits currently seem not to be bad. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

Hello. I think you are incorrect to label my action as an 'attack'. I am trying to make a point that this website has a collection of sickening images retained under the misguided view of educational use. I fail to understand how several images of blatent exhibitionism can be kept for 'educational use'. The Cleaner (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to User_talk:The_Cleaner#COM:CENSORSHIP. I don't have anything to add: just assess your own body as sickening. Fine. Some people have reached the 21th century - and some haven't. Please do not disrupt the project. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not speak to me like that. The Cleaner (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, then don't speak of "a collection of sickening images". In fact, some images are "sick" (do not click if you dislike sick things) and some images have to be deleted due to violating law, but according to your mission statement you want to delete for example all this "flith". And this (your mission) is sickening me! Maybe i've misunderstood you and your mission - then please correct me. --Saibo (Δ) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I would say you have reacted unnecessarily towards me regarding these images. Surely you cannot defend all the images on this website as educational when many I have identified are very similar and all seem to include nude women? The category you believe I would judge to be filth sounds like there would be more 'educational' images within it than the collection of pornographic actresses I have taken selections of. You seem a bit too eager to attack those you determine as 'attacking' this website. The Cleaner (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't you be eager if some socks are repeatedly trying to burn your bank notes in your cupboard? If you do not like to look at natures creation then simply leave commons, leave the internet, leave ... . But please do not bug others with your psychic problems. Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 21:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File mover

The functionality of the template {{Rename}} has recently changed. You might need to clear your cache to see the changes. If successful you should then be able to use the new "Quick adding" link in the template to instruct CommonsDelinker to replace the old name with the new name in all wikis. Please use that every time you rename a file. If further questions arise, feel free to write on my talk page --DieBuche (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User page

Hi Saibo, I really enjoyed your user page. It is such a relief in a wikipedia filled with arrogant admins and benevolent dictators. I took the liberty to copy it for my user page, hope you don't mind. Kind regards, --SummerWithMorons (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to copy. I have added another citation. --Saibo (Δ) 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Harcourt photographs

Hello Saibo,

What you removed on the picture of Boris Becker is not a watermark, but the signature of an artist. You should not modify such art work !!!!! Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Jacques, it is not belonging to the photograph. Your file's license explicitly permits derivations. If you do not want this, do not upload files here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
See also Commons:Watermarks#Reasons_not_to_upload_watermarked_images. It is not favourable to upload watermarked files. --Saibo (Δ) 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
"signature of an artist"? Funny interpretation of an absolutely typical watermark. All our licenses allow derivative works. If Harcourt does not want this, the license is simply not possible on commons. Please delete those photos immediately! -- smial (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


File:Zugvögel_in_Mitteleuropa.jpg

File:Zugvögel_in_Mitteleuropa.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 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lagouli (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wife_marija_15082010477.jpg

File:Wife_marija_15082010477.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 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

PeterSymonds (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wife_marija15082010486.jpg

File:Wife_marija15082010486.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 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

PeterSymonds (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 3

Hydroxonium has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the help over at the Village pump with the secure connection stuff. - Hydroxonium (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-) I enjoy helping. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

From Village pump

I'm not the author of this file, but thanks for fixing it anyway :-) --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 01:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I mixed it up. By the way: same with File:Plano de la Catedral de Puebla.svg. Searched for jpg using an text editor, deleted the tag containing it, opened with inkscape: auto cleanup, saved as normal svg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Is good to know how to fix it, while patrolling the new files I always find a few svg with that problem, maybe I should install Inkscape to fix them... Cheers, --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The main problem is the file link. You just any text editor (I used KWrite) to fix it. Example: In the last version of File:Plano de la Catedral de Puebla.svg I removed only:

<image style="font-size:38.98087692px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;text-align:start;line-height:119.00000572%;writing-mode:lr-tb;text-anchor:start;fill:#0018cc;font-family:Britannic Bold;-inkscape-font-specification:'Britannic Bold,'" y="5.0388141" x="6.5359864" id="image2826" height="1261.6589" width="730.84729" xlink:href="file:///C:/Users/telmex4/Documents/scan%203%20-%20copia.jpg" />

The auto cleanup was just a precaution - I am no svg pro. ;) I am wondering a bit, why the file gets bigger when using it?!
Maybe I would not do it when patrolling freshly uploaded files. Some ideas against it: The uploaders will notice that it doesn't work and probably upload a corrected version shortly after. It slows you down when patrolling and irritates uploaders. Some users are running bot skripts and check for files/svgs not rendering and do the fixing in bulk. I'd say that's better but I am not sure. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

About the changes in Cathedral of Puebla

Dear Saibo: excuse my english, I did not know who to thank for the configuration of the image, I am a novice in svg. images and I make basic mistakes, even the image is a low quality one but it serves well the article in which I am working now. Thank you again. --Gustavo Velarde (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem: I am happy to help with such little things. I described in the section above what I did.
To find the helping hand next time: You can find my name on in the file history (on the bottom of the page) in both files: File:Plano de la Catedral de Puebla.svg, File:Planta de la Catedral de Puebla 2.svg.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Catedral de Puebla

Hi Saibo, sorry to bother you, I have the same problem, now in this image (File:Plano_arq._de_la_catedral_de_Puebla.jpg), can you give a hand? --Gustavo Velarde (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gusvel, no need to feel sorry. :) It's not your fault and I like to help.
I linked your File - please see in edit mode how I did it so you can do yourself the next time.
Please see COM:VP - for example: Commons:Village_pump#Yet_another_thumbnail_problem.3F. Our servers have severe problems currently and the last days. So - just sit back and wait. See Special:NewFiles - all new files do have no thumbnail/preview currently.
By the way: If you have the possibility to scan plans in a better (optical - not interpolated) resolution (dpi): do it. It is enhancing the image quality.
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Fernrohr (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Uithoorn Vogellaan.jpg

Hi Saibo, thanks for your work on this file! Best regards, MartinD (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mona Sahlin in Helsingborg 2010.jpg

File:Mona Sahlin in Helsingborg 2010.jpg sollte jetzt o.k. sein,; war aber heftig Arbeit, weil irgendwelche dämlichen Filter auf Commons den Upload verhinderten solangen in irgendeinem EXIF/IPTC/usw.-Feld noch "href ..." stand. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Turelio, ja, deswegen hatte ich ja einfach alle tags entfernt nachdem ich das endlich rausbekommen hatte (vorher bestimmt 20 Minuten mit magnus und bryan's flickr-tools versucht). Dann aber gemerkt, dass das diese blöde Lizenz wohl verbietet. Hast du nun auch keine Copyrightinformationen aus den Tags entfernt? Und wie hast du die Tags bearbeitet? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 15:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Alles Trial and Error. In IrfanView habe ich gesehen, dass in einem IPTC-Feld <a href ...> stand. Dann habe ich die Datei in einem EXIF-Bearbeitungstool ([3], GUI dazu [4]) geöffnet und aus einem EXIF-Feld von dem "bösen" string lediglich das href-Gedöns entfernt, die URL also nicht angetastet. Weil das aber nicht gereicht hat (zwischenzeitlich ca. 5 gescheiterte Upload-Versuche) musste ich dasselbe auch noch bei einem IPTC- und einem XMP-Feld machen. Der Photograph hat die Datei ganz schön zugemüllt. Dann hat es endlich geklappt. Das eigentliche Problem war also nicht die URL sondern das html-tag. --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Das exiftool hatte ich auch zum kompletten Entfernen benutzt. Mangels Oberfläche wäre nur das selektive Entfernen etwas mühsam gewesen. Die von dir benutzte GUI ist leider nur für Windows.
Im commonschat habe ich mich mit Daniel und thedj schon über die mangelhafte Warnmeldung (bug report) und das generelle Problem unterhalten. Danke und viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lösche bitte File:Mona Sahlin in Helsingborg 2010 cropped.jpg, damit ich es neu erstellen kann. :) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Túrelio, Dankeschön an dich von Jocian und Happolati. --Saibo (Δ) 02:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Panzerzugbild

Hallo Saibo, warum wird nicht ein verbessertes Bild als neue Version hochgeladen. Wenn jedesmal ein verbessertes Bid, womöglich in meheren Versionen als Einzelbild hochgeladen wird führt dies doch nur zur Vergrößerung der in der jeweiligen Commonskategorien angezeigten Bilder. So müssen die Nutzer erst 2 oder sogar mehr Bilder durchsehen. In den meisten mir bekannten Fällen hat man auch einfach so verfahren dass die Bilder als neue Version hochgeladen wurden. Was spricht dagegen? Falkmart

Hallo Falkmart. Habe bei den beiden Panzerzügen die Verbesserung nun direkt drübergeladen. In der Regel wird das Drüberladen (neue Version mit der Verbesserung) nicht gemacht, wenn das Bild stark verändert wurde (z.B. entzerrt) - das ist eine Commonsregel, damit. In der Fotowerkstatt werden Bilder eigentlich fast nie überschrieben, aber meist sind es ja auch größere Veränderungen. In der Fotowerkstatt kommt hinzu, dass es oftmal meherere Bearbeitungsvorschläge gibt und die ja verglichen werden müssen - das geht mit Versionen nicht gut. Bei deinen Bildern, wo eh kaum was zu verbessern war, wird es wohl kaum noch andere Versuche geben. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 13:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi; thanks so much for your assistance

It's en:user:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (which, obviously, I use on English Wikipedia. Anyway, I was about to upload this image I just a moment ago obtained permission for here.--Francis Burnett (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Answered at Commons:Village_pump. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MichaelWinters.jpg

Hi! You wrote on this deletion request that you'd sent an e-mail to the photographer asking for permission. Have you got an answer yet? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Dresden Albertplatz Brunnen Stuermische Wogen.jpg

Hi Saibo, deine Interpretation des permission field ist mir neu, wo kann man denn die nachlesen? Ich kenne es nur so, dass dort die Lizenz des Fotos reinkommt, nicht Infos zum abgebildeten Gegenstand. Gruß, --X-Weinzar (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi X-Weinzar, nun "permission" heißt "Erlaubnis"/Genehmigung, oder? Wo das steht was da reingehört, weiß ich nicht. Evtl. nirgends. Die weitreichenste Erlaubnis, dass du das Gebäude fotografieren darfst und das Foto verwenden darfst ist in jenem Falle die Gemeinfreiheit des Gebäudes. Das Pano.freiheitbapperl wird allerdings meist in den "Lizenzierung"-Abschnitt (statt zu permission) gesetzt. Wenn es dich so stört, dann nehme es eben raus so wichtig ist es mir nun auch nicht. :-) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Naja, was heißt "stört"... Also so ganz klar war mir ja nie, wie das Feld nun eigentlich gemeint ist, andererseits habe ich halt noch nie so eine Angabe dort gesehen, wie du jetzt dort eingetragen hast. Deshalb nehm ichs mal raus. Gruß, --X-Weinzar (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Wenn du meinst, ja. Es kommt zum Beispiel auch der Hinweis auf eine Vorliegende OTRS-Konversation dort hinein. Wie auch immer - lassen wir es eben so. Da ich gesehen habe, dass du dort nun nochmal die Lizenz wiederholt hast - das ist eigentlich unnötig: steht ja untendrunter. Schönes Wochenende! --Saibo (Δ) 13:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

bilder umbennen

sie dürfen nicht einfach unsere bilder umbennen! machen sie dies sofort wieder rückgänig es handelt sich hierbei auch nicht um spam sondern ist ein wichtiger link um auch zu mir dem autor zu gelangen für kontakt! desweiteren haben sie mit ihrer aktion noch einige wikipedia seiten die mit den bildern verlinkt sind zerstört das können sie doch nicht machen! machen sie sofort alles rückgänig!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne1234 (talk • contribs) 2010-11-09T20:42:35 (UTC)

Hallo Anne1234, bitte signiere deine Diskussionsbeiträge immer mit --~~~~.
Und nein, ich werde das nicht rückgängig machen. Der Autorenname gehört nur in ein Feld und zwar das Feld "Autor". Wenn sie hier überall ihre Website bewerben möchten, kann ich ihnen sagen, dass das nicht geduldet ist. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 20:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Piraten BGE

File:BGE-Recht_auf_freie_Entfaltung_(Plakat).png, File:BGE-Feiern_vor_dem_Rentenalter_(Plakat).png & File:BGE_-_Niemand_muss_arbeiten_(Plakat).png

look at: http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Piratenwiki ;-) --Krinzl (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ich sehe da nichts von CC-by. Verlinke die relevante Seite bitte im Informations-Vorlagen-Feld "permission".
Übrigens sind die Bilder selbst im Piratenwiki eine Urheberrechtsverletzung, da sie (unter anderem) den Urheber und die Lizenz der verwendeten fremden Fotos nicht angeben. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Nun gut, das mit der Lizenz hätten wir (zumindest für die Bilder hier) geklärt. Fragt sich nur noch, wieso wir hier Parteiwerbung hosten sollten. ;) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Alicja Bachleda-Curuś at closing gala of the XXXV Polish Film Festival in Gdynia 2010 - 3.jpg

Hello!

I assure You that this girl literally ran. If the red carpet was a punishment. She stopped only at press photographers who sat further. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Starscream, sorry. I reverted it. It really does not look like running. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I appreciate your help a lot Seibo! You explained me what to do to undelete the picture for my article. I did it and was succeed. Best Regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-)
However, it was not undeleted on commons and you uploaded it at ru:Файл:Boyko Viktor S..jpg in russian Wikipdia directly. Did you photograph the picture by yourself? The problem is: it is also on this website. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

re: File:BockscarAndFatmanDisplay.jpg

The image is my own, and is marked as much. It clearly says that I am the copyright holder and that I released it to CC. Your template suggests that I add the {{Own}} template, yet in 2006, when I added this image, that template didn't exist. I feel that I added all of the necessary documentation to add my own work to commons as it applied in 2006, and don't feel that I should have to go back and add further information to all my old submissions as the rules change. --rogerd (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Rogerd! I guess your images will be questioned all the time if you do not. However, I have added source and author now at the image. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:aluminium objects

You're right. The image title cheated me... --Aushulz (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Help desk

Dear Saibo, Thank you so much for helping me in here. Regards, *** in FACT *** (contact) 14:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Vielen Dank fuer deine Hilfe :-) Feel free to answer to the people that need help that you find in my talk page if you want and you have some time :-) Thanks again, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
:) All right - I guess you would not mind. Why don't you just send all to the help desk only in your bot's message? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flickr.jpg

Hi. About this topic I want to ask you if when you say they got CR is because they´re pictures of the game or because in Flickr says other thing but Free? In the Mona Loser case I pretty much obvious, I´m asking about the rest. I really wanna know because they´re use in a good article in es:WP. Thanks (sorry about my english). Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andera, sure: Please see Commons:Flickr washing (the page in flickr says free - but the uploader there probably is not the cards manufacturer and has therefore no permission to give this free license. He apparently has just photographed them to put them in ebay (see "sets")) and e.g. Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games why they are protected. Any more questions? Feel free to ask. :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I´ll tell to the one who write the article and ask me these questions. Thanks very much. --Andrea (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saibo/Archive/2010&oldid=64686260"