User talk:Trycatch/Archives/2012

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg

Would you be able to weigh in here ? My feeling is that this is exactly the same situation as that Micky Mouse poster from the 1940s which was deleted, but I may well be wrong (limited knowledge of US copyright law). --Claritas (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice. Long time ago I've already nominated Donald Duck from that cartoon. Trycatch (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi Trycatch, just letting you know that I have responded to your question at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia. Sorry for the delay, I've had a few days R&R. Cheers, russavia (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Нет проблем, спасибо за ответ. Trycatch (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper edit restrictions

As you were involved in the original discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29, I'm notifying you of the current discussion of the edit restriction Pieter Kuiper agreed to. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Clarify_edit_restriction. Rd232 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

В разъяснение

Я выставил Deletion requests, потому что мне не нравятся две детали. Во-первых, другой участник регулярно урезает описание фотографии с тем умыслом, чтобы подчеркнуть и навязать этот антисемитизм, которого я там не вижу. Во-вторых, другой участник обвиняет меня в пропаганде антисемитизма. Что делать-то? Для вящего примера я сейчас верну более полное описание фотоснимка, и вы увидите, что будет с этим описанием.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin for CLindberg

I've raised this question again -- care to comment? User_talk:Clindberg#Admin Question, again      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It seems that Carl made his choice, so I don't want to annoy him any further about it. It's sad of course -- he would be an amazing admin, but there is nothing we can do. Maybe he has some reason (or maybe not). Trycatch (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

+File:Faivre jardiniere 2.jpg

With regard to your recent message, I was under the impression that the work mentioned above was discussed when it was first uploaded and subsequently allowed. I will look into the others mentioned. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I can't find the discussion. Anyway, I can't imagine how this picture would have been kept -- the photograph of the sculpture is not trivial and is not free. You can't upload other people photographs of PD sculptures (or other 3D objects), see Commons:Derivative works. Trycatch (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg


The DR was open for one and half month last year, and one month this year, and yet, you didn't care to participate. And 3 minutes after I closed it, you reopen it with the same arguments. This is at the very least very disruptive of the deletion process, and it is not acceptable. You must not do that. Yann (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are also wrong on the bottom on the issue, and I will explain it there. Yann (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I cared to participate in the discussion, but it seems you didn't care to read it. It was a very easy DR, almost speedy deletable case, of course, I was very surprised when you kept this hopeless picture (especially considering you already voted Symbol keep vote.svg Keep in the discussion) and reopened that DR on sight. "You are also wrong on the bottom on the issue, and I will explain it there." -- well, I would be happy to hear from you arguments instead of accusations finally, so I am all ears. Trycatch (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, you've "explained" my mistake closing this that DR again, while you still didn't read the discussion and still don't understand in the issue a thing. Well, I have to bring your pathetic behavior to COM:AN. Trycatch (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for closing the discussion on the AN. Yann (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi!, thanks to you too. I have made a mistake not discussing the issue with you from the beginning. Sorry, if I was too harsh or rude -- no offense meant, I just had been very tired for some days because of RL. Trycatch (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Emile Friant Brittany Women.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Emile Friant Brittany Women.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 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)‎ | +/−

Innisart (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Way of responding to DRs

Hi, normally if some one responds to a DR, e.g. showing that a person is in scope if the nomination reason is scope related, I take appropriate action, often by canceling the nomination and sometimes also by adding the image to an article. But the non-constructive way you use to respond to my DRs, like here and here, doesn't invite me to take a look at it. If you wish me to act on provided information, please post it in a constructive, or at least neutral way. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Invite you to look at the DRs? Hmm? Well, I actually don't care if you will look at the DR or not, but I want you to stop these bot-like careless nominations. If you can't or don't want to do your work with quality -- don't do it all. Quite frankly, why other users should clean up after you? You was warned multiple times by other users & even blocked for disruptive nominations, but you continue the thing. You has the photo of an elderly person with description in two languages, indicating the name of the person, and that the person was a writer. You nominate it as "Unused personal picture." What the hell you are doing? Why in the world did you think it was a personal picture of the user? People make mistakes occasionally, but you are making them all the time, you systematically nominate images with detailed descriptions as "unused personal picture" or "out of scope". --Trycatch (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for being so open about your attitude. I will not spend more energy on you. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Good. Spend some energy on your DRs instead. Trycatch (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


Здравствуйте. Я не давно загрузил фотографии Тины Митусовы она два раза отправила разрешение но к сожалению проверяющие не хотят найти это письмо в скорее всего ближайшее время они будут удалены вот одна из этих фотографии подскажите пожалуйста что делать чтоб нашли отправленное разрешение? -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Попробуйте спросить у Анастасии Львовой, либо на форуме w:ru:Википедия:Запросы, связанные с OTRS в ру-вики. Я ничем помочь не могу, т.к. участником OTRS не являюсь. --Trycatch (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Спасибо большое. Написал на форуме. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kos93

I've left a suggestion at this DR; in short, there's enough confusion at the DR that I think it might go better if you asked for someone to close it and then renominated some of the images separately. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep these obvious unsourced copyvios with random licensing templates plastered on them (including {{PD-Yugoslavia}} that is not really a licensing template, and can't be used on its own), while nobody in 2 months has voiced a _single argument_ how a _single picture_ from the bulk can potentially be kept? Ok, why not. I am not going to renominate them -- it's not my problem after all, and frankly, I have more interesting things to waste my time on. --Trycatch (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

LicenseReview of YouTube-screenshots from films with Russian description and audio: Advice needed

Hello Trycatch, I apologize if I point you to material that is perhaps political motivated and that you may do not like.

There is, for example File:Dmitry Khabarov delivering his speech to protesters – Moscow, May 26, 2012.jpg. The uploader allows reuse under a Creative-Commons license. But the uploader of the same video also uploaded videos like this that are not own work (but also no Creative-Commons claimed). It would be a great help if you could tell me, if you think the uploader is the author. Also there are lots of more of these files that need review. I would be glad if you could help out here. P.S. If you want to review them yourself what would be a welcome help, I would be inclined to add the license-review-group back to your account since you retired as administrator but were a license reviewer before. Thanks in advance. -- RE rillke questions? 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Serdechny again? Facepalm (yellow).svg He had (has?) very interesting views on copyright, views that are radically different from the views of the rest of the crowd -- flickrwashing is ok, any remotely governmental picture from any country with PD-*Gov template is ok, and so on. Or maybe he simply thinks that copyright is stupid, Wikipedia/Commons rules are stupid and anything goes. Anyway, we need to be extremely careful with any of his uploads, and any of his statements, because he did some deceptive things in the past. What about the pictures, it seems that Evgeny0316 has little or no original content in his YouTube channel. The video in question was first uploaded by aakanab -- [1], and it's not CC-licensed. Stills from Neuromir TV channel on Vimeo look legit. However, the text in video itself contradicts to the CC-BY-SA license:
“Данный материал, при не коммерческом распространении может распространяться бесплатно при условии его целостности и неизменности. При коммерческом распространении материала, студии "Нейромир-ТВ" перечисляются 10% от суммы полученного дохода”
Google translate:
“This material, if not commercially distributed may be distributed free of charge provided that it is the integrity and constancy. In the commercial distribution of material, the studios' Neyromir-TV "lists 10% of the amount of income received”
It's strictly non-commercial non-derivative license. Generally we do not allow materials with contradictory licensing clauses, so I think Neuromir TV pictures should be deleted as well. I'll try to review other uploads by Serdechny slightly later. I had no idea that somebody removed my image reviewer flag, so yes, I think it makes sense to add it back.
PS. I've got slightly out of touch with Commons because of RL, so your gallery tool is new to me, and it's really awesome. Things like this really makes life much more simple. --Trycatch (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts and compliments. I wonder why Serdechny‎ was never blocked for Flickr-washing. If you want to review more efficiently, there is User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js (not as good as my other tools, still working on a more convenient script that is able to fetch info from Flinfo (a proxy on toolserver would be nice for https...) and adding a real UI) -- RE rillke questions? 08:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess, it's because he always puts {{LicenseReview}} tag at the apps of his uploads, thus welcoming any admin or trusted user to confirm the legitimacy of stated license. Hovewer, that's only an undecuated guess. — George Serdechny 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification that you brought us to COM:AN/U#Is there any ethics and/or civility guidelines at Commons?. -- RE rillke questions? 12:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm (yellow).svg. --Trycatch (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
We are going to become prominent: Commons:Village pump#Kick the embarrassment out of the project! -- RE rillke questions? 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Full-time partnership instead of occasional malevolence

Hi there, dear Trycatch. Taking into account that red tape, which is typical for Category:License review needed (speaking frankly, some entries could be there for months without being overseen,) and regarding your last statement, your competence as a license reviewer, and all that confidence that you're projecting, I decided to dispel the myths about my alleged mendacity. Hereby I employ you, as my full-time Commons reviewer and advisor. All the uploads from youtube or vimeo, that I’m planning to contribute to this project, would be discussed with you personally. Yours, George Serdechny 08:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Я просмотрел ваши загрузки, требующие review. Не могу подтвердить большую часть из них.
    • Файлы, загруженные с YouTube канала "Офицерский романс". Это песни, загруженные не исполнителем, а третьей стороной. Требуется также разрешение от исполнителя и композитора (ежели таковой имеется).
    • Файл File:Kaskad live at the VII Soldaty Rossii music fest – February 15, 2012.jpg. На нем был водяной знак "Svirochka", который вы обрезали. Судя по нему, видео снималось пользователем ютуба, которая пользуется стандартной лицензией ютуба. Никогда не обрезайте водяные знаки без переноса информации в описание.
    • Файлы из видео Сергея Новикова. Что ж, "фотографии из архива". Нахождение фотографии в архиве не делает владельца архива правообладателем. Часть из фото явно снималось не им, да он нигде и не утверждает, что является автором этих фотографий.
  • Вы инвестируете немало времени на загрузку файлов и создание качественных описаний, почему не потратить лишнюю минуту на проверку лицензионной чистоты? Без этого ваш труд просто уходит в мусорное ведро. --Trycatch (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Я связывался с исполнителями, только не просил их отправить OTRS. Если дело стоит за этим — не проблема. Свяжусь, попрошу написать в OTRS — они не откажут.
      • ✓ Done По выступлению «Каскада» — поставил на быстрое.
      • Свяжусь ещё раз с самим Новиковым.
На лицензионную чистоту время стараюсь тратить, но думаю вместе это у нас лучше получится :) — George Serdechny 14:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Прежде чем продолжим работу, я бы хотел чтобы Вы глянули на лицензирование следующих из загруженных мною файлов, и, если можно, подтвердили или опровергнули заявленные в них лицензии:

Спасибо. — George Serdechny 14:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Первые два -- вроде как, ok. С остальными файлами не вполне все в порядке. Если вы загружаете производную работу, то в поле "автор" вы должны указать не только себя, но и автора оригинального произведения. В поле "источник" желательно использовать шаблон {{Retouched picture}}, в котором можно указать, что именно вы сделали с исходным файлом. Другой похожий шаблон, который тоже широко применяется -- {{Extracted from}}, он полезен для всевозможных обрезок. Вообще, это все морока, поэтому для собственных производных работ лучше пользоваться инструментом DerivativeFX, который выполнит большую часть рутины за вас. --Trycatch (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Вообще, с предпоследним файлом что-то не так -- современная фотография трехмерного объекта никак не может PD-art или PD-old. Так что либо товарищ Tokoko что-то не так перенес из ру-вики, либо (что вероятнее) это копивио. Нужно разбираться, когда заработает Википедия. Последний файл -- там какая-то нестандартная лицензия (не факт, что совместимая с Викискладом, кстати -- права создавать производные работы автор не давал), в таких случать нужно копировать весь текст лицензии из оригинала целиком, т.к. это важно. Лучше вообще такие лицензии избегать, этот файл (как и многие другие загрузки с кастомными лицензиями) -- кандидат на удаление. --Trycatch (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Скопировал целиком. Насчёт лицензий – приму к сведению, буду избегать и согласовывать по каждой отдельной. — George Serdechny 15:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Поставил на быстрое. — George Serdechny 11:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Мне тут указали что в Украине нет свободы панорамы. Значит ли это что эти три тоже надо удалить? — George Serdechny 16:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Зависит от того, умерли ли архитекторы больше 70 лет назад. С госпиталем-то проблем нет, он старый, а вот по зданию Ощадбанка не могу найти никакой информации. Если оно построено до революции, то можно использовать шаблон {{PD-RusEmpire}}, но лучше, конечно, найти даты смерти архитекторов, т.к. PD-RusEmpire довольно спорный шаблон. --Trycatch (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Как буду в тех местах — сам посмотрю табличку на здании. — George Serdechny 17:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сайта возможно только при упоминании автора и наличии активной гиперссылки на источник

Приветствую. Мне тут попался пласт полезных фотоматериалов под следующей лицензией: «Полное или частичное воспроизведение материалов сайта возможно только при упоминании автора и наличии активной гиперссылки на источник». Прежде чем их загружать я решил с Вами проконсультироваться, возможна ли загрузка этих материалов на Commons под шаблоном {{Attribution}}: The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed? — George Serdechny 20:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Нет, этого точно мало. Нужно явное разрешение на использование в любых целях (в том числе и коммерческих), на создание производных работ, на дальнейшее распространение и т.д. -- второе предложение в шаблоне является ключевым: "Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." --Trycatch (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Эх, жаль. Ну что ж, как говорил Семён Семёныч Горбунков: «Будем искать». — George Serdechny 08:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)