User talk:Krd/archive/2016

Happy New Year!

Classical, but still... thank you for your work on Commons! Yann (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Naval Ensign of Ukraine 1917.png

Hello. I been told I need to contact you about deleting this file. --Kwasura (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the flag now. --Krd 10:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Фірмовий блок МНС України.jpg

Same story. --Kwasura (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

and this also. --Krd 10:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Name correction

Hello. For this reason, how to make my picture titles can be corrected? Thx Exagren (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

See Commons:File renaming. --Krd 06:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm...

Du hast mit deiner Bearbeitung schon heftig eingegriffen. Abgesehen davon, dass deine Bearbeitung natürlich grundsätzlich schon sinnvoll war. Aber das Bild aus der Quality Images Serie rauszunehmen ist eher kontraproduktiv. --Hubertl 08:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Hubertl. Das war keine Absicht, offenbar habe ich da beim Raussuchen der Änderungen eine alte Version bearbeitet. Müsste nun wiederhergestellt sein, bitte entschuldige die Verwirrung. --Krd 08:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krd: Das Problem für mich ist - und das möchte ich jetzt überhaupt nicht auf deine Arbeit beziehen - dass im Laufe des vergangenen Jahres viele Bilder von mir bzgl. Beschreibungen/Kategorien bearbeitet wurden. Fakt ist, dass ich bei der Menge, die ich hochlade, bearbeite und nominiere (im letzten Jahr waren es mehrere tausend, davon 1800 QI) mir gefühlte 20 QI-Nominierungen verloren gegangen sind. Ich will das jetzt nicht überbewerten bei der Menge, grundsätzlich auch nicht die Frage, wie wichtig ist das nun mit den QI, aber trotzdem ist es unangenehm. Von einem Tag auf den anderen kann ich das ja auch reparieren, aber in späterer Folge ist das dann tatsächlich weg. --Hubertl 08:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Das Problem wurde ausgelöst dadurch, dass Du die Dateibeschreibungsseite komplett überschrieben hast, und dadurch der Botedit verlorenging. Bei Abarbeiten der auf de:Portal:Österreich/Denkmallisten/Fehler habe ich dann aufgrund der komplizierten Situation selbst einen Fehler gemacht, siehe oben. Du kannst gern auch {{nobots|Krdbot}} verwenden um den Bot generell auszusperren, andere Lösungen sehe ich für den Probleme aktuell nicht. Man könnte für das Entfernen der QI-Tags generell einen Missbrauchsfilter aufsetzen, aber auch das müsste dann jemand abarbeiten, und auch dabei lassen sich vermutlich nicht alle Fehler vermeiden. --Krd 08:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Washington National Cathedral Relief Sculpture.jpg

Hello. This pulpit was designed by w:W. D. Caroe and made in 1906—1912 (see [1], page 17). So there's no any copyright. Danke und Gutes neues Jahr! Hausratte (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hausratte: I have restored the file, please update the file page accordingly with the relevant information. --Krd 07:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Hausratte (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

New uploads by Isere-culture

Hi Krd, thanks for your job. For information : I think that user:Isere-culture is tryng to upload exclusively his own photos, this time, but I hope he will explain if it's really his own work or not, after massive deletion of uploads. I'm not 100% sure without his formal declaration. I suggest him ask for information, you or help service. Have a nice day,--Pạtạfisik 09:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

For the images already deleted we need COM:OTRS in any case, and reuploading is neither required nor helpful. Thank you for taking care of the issue! --Krd 09:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

To start 2016

Hello Krd For information you can see "To start 2016" on this page. We are sincerely sorry for ours mistakes --Isere-culture (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The Address Downtown Dubai

What about this Commons page? --George Ho (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now deleted the page and some more files and commented at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Address Downtown Dubai. I think the category shall only be deleted if empty. Thank you! --Krd 06:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

System burp?

Hiya: Did the system burp during this close? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earthquake news.pdf where the nominate file is still on the system. Also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by St.Academia, one of those two files is not in use, the other one is. So sorry to have to be a pest! Thank you for all your hard work! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No. 1 simply overlooked file in the headline, sorry. No. 2 kept both, because when one image is in use then both are in scope. We could delete one as duplicate but I'm not sure which one is better. --Krd 09:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nan Chiau High School Crest.PNG

You closed this discussion, but forgot to delete one of the files. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 09:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really, I didn't decide the request, which I couldn't anyway because I commented, but only technically closed it as I though all files had been deleted anyway. As that's no the case, I reverted the closure. --Krd 12:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bikini contests

Hallo. Zu deiner Information, ich habe gerade einen ganzen Haufen ähnlicher Bilder gelöscht, weil ich für dieses Fotoset keine CC-Lizenz sehe. Auch wenn @INeverCry: die Bilder aus der LD am 29. Dezember 2015 begutachtet hat, kann ich dafür am 28. Dezember auch keinen Hinweis auf Creative Commons finden. De728631 (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Da ist tatsächlich ein winziges CC-Icon rechts unter dem letzten Bild in der Serie, das habe ich echt übersehen. Jetzt muss ich erstmal rausfinden, wie ich eine Massenlöschung rückgängig mache. De728631 (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wenn Du die Dateinamen noch hast (im Logbuch o.ä.) kann ich Dir evtl. dabei helfen. --Krd 05:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Danke, aber ich habe die inzwischen alle wieder hergestellt. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File:RiederVolkszeitung 14 Okt 1937 Seite 10 Einböck.jpg

Hallo Krd, ich glaube, dass das eine URV sein müsste oder wie siehst du das? --lg K@rl (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Habe Löschantrag gestellt. --Krd 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

danke K@rl (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Address Downtown Dubai

Hello,

Thank you for closing this deletion request, but I am rather puzzled by the decisions reached. Why was the issue of the speedy deletions being contested by myself, Raoli (talk · contribs), and Blackcat (talk · contribs) not addressed? The nominator, Themightyquill (talk · contribs), also said they were happy for the images to be undeleted and discussed. It seems clear that you were following the DR as it was ongoing, and if you disagreed, you had plenty of time to respond. File:The Address Downtown Dubai.jpg was also deleted despite my call for it to be kept and the nominator's call for it to be cropped. And on top of all that, the "Infossible" images were kept despite the call of myself and Dual Freq (talk · contribs) for them to be deleted due to more general copyright concerns that were not related to the architecture. Overall, it seems this closure bars little, if any, relation to the actual discussion in this deletion request and any resulting consensus. Please review this closure; I await your response. CT Cooper · talk 23:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi CT Cooper. I have deleted the "view from hotel room", File:Address Downtown Dubai and burj dubai.jpg, etc., because I don't see DM here. Maybe the tower in the background is DM, but I consider the other shown buildings as protected works and not DM.

The Infossible images in my opinion are so bad quality that no architectural elements are shown. They should be deleted as out of project scope if the weren't in use.

If I'm mistaken in any point, please advise or feel free to renominate. --Krd 11:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response.

I supported the deletion of the "view from my hotel room" images, so there is no disagreement there – the buildings in the foreground clearly weren't DM. This was not the case with File:The Address Downtown Dubai.jpg, as despite the title, from what I remember, the main subject was traffic with architecture only being in the background. If one cropped out The Address, the remaining background buildings would definitely qualify as DM. However, it was not a good quality image and its usefulness was limited, so I will let that one rest.

I agree that the Infossible images are of such poor quality that there architectural copyright is not an issue here, but issues around COM:SCOPE and where these images are from (there is reason to suspect they were taken from a website) remain. I note however that another deletion request has already been started for these images, making this issue moot.

It seems clear that we're not going to come to agreement on the speedy deletion issue. I obviously can't re-nominate images that have already been deleted, so I will raise the issue of these and other UAE FoP related speedy deletions that have caught my attention at Commons:Undeletion requests shortly, to find out whether these deletions should be endorsed or reviewed. CT Cooper · talk 13:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File:The Address Downtown Dubai.jpg is blurry and noisy and the only usable part IMO are the buildings.

As said, I'm not opposed to reevaluating any of the mentioned cases. Though, as far as I have double checked the images, I cannot see a strong reason to revert my decision. --Krd 13:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, I respect your position. As previously stated, I will be asking for some recent speedy deletions to be reviewed shortly, but I'll let the dust settle first. Thank you for your assistance. CT Cooper · talk 15:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There is very little chance that the Infossible images are "own work" as claimed. The uploader posted numerous images from around the world in a matter of days. Either they are a world traveler or they lifted the images from Infossible.com. Which is more likely? I doubt any of these uploads are properly licensed. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead and nominate the affected images for deletion. Thank you. --Krd 19:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monkey selfie at Wikimania 2014

Could you explain your closure here? The images were nominated partly because of them being out of scope. In the end, you kept all images on the rationale that the matter already had been settled in the original deletion request for the monkey selfie, but as far as I can tell, that deletion request only discussed whether the selfie was a copyright violation, not whether these modifications were in scope or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see the PS. I agree that they may be out of scope related to educational use, but per policy we shall not delete them for scope as long as they are in use. And IMO it is not up to the Commons admin closing the DR to gain consensus to remove the usage at the projects. --Krd 13:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Per COM:INUSE, we don't delete images as 'out of scope' if they are in use on another project, but several of the images are not in use on other projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Which of the images do you see not in use? Does User:Jcornelius/Wikimania 2014/2014 August 11-20 count as usage? --Krd 14:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No; that use need not count. ("An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace)...") Jee 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia Foundation are also allowed (e.g. photographs of user meetings)." Hmm; but that was a bad move by the community. Sad to see many well-known Wikimedians behaved that way. :( Jee 14:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

COM:INUSE only applies to files in use on 'one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation'. Commons itself is not 'one of the other projects'. For use on Commons itself, we have COM:PS#File in use on Commons only. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Your closure here has a couple of problems:

Closing with a controversial PS can be seen as taunting other editors by you wanting to slip in a "last word", knowing that it can't be challenged without them re-opening the FfD and so opening themselves up to a block for technical "disruption".

Secondly, "Many of the images could be considered out of project scope if they were not in use." is just not part of Commons' scope at all. You are confusing project scopes for image hosting between a wikipedia and Commons.

Commons' scope is very broad. Even if we exclude this as "educational", there is still clear precedent that recording our project's own events is considered to be in scope anyway. Then it is also basically difficult to claim this is out of scope when it records the project's own behaviour, over a major copyright issue, of the project's own making. "Embarassing to Wikimedia" is not grounds for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinions, but this discussion is not going to reach anything helpful. The files have been kept, and you are free to renominate them if there are new arguments or if there is evidence that the closure was incorrect. You are also free to nominate small batches with fitting argumentation or to change the usage situation before renominating. From my side there is nothing I can do, and I of course abstain participating in future deletion requests on these files. --Krd 15:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ruprecht von Mangoldt.JPG

Hallo Krd, ich habe diese Datei vorübergehend entlöscht, da die Genehmigung, die am 24.9. 2015 an OTRS-de gegangen war (mir liegt die Mail vor), offenbar überhaupt nicht bearbeitet worden war. --Túrelio (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ticket is still open, so maybe ok. --Krd 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dr. Strangelove

Hey Krd, since you kindly suggested, I clarify my keep. The registered song is either unrelated to the film or named after the film. Kubrick is notorious for having carefully selected the soundtracks of his films and the composer of the original soundtrack of Dr. Strangelove is notoriously Laurie Johnson [2] [3] [4]. Mick Terry is a writer of "funny" parodical songs. He may or may not have written the homonymous song after the fim. So what ? His application for copyright is from 2009, while Kubrick film was released in 1964. Mick Terry, born in 1948, was 16 years old when the film was released... In any case, the copyrighted application the nominator refers to is for the lyrics of a song and there is obviously no song by Mick Terry or anybody else in the soundtrack of the trailer from which the images are taken. Do I need to make an undeletion request ? Cheers, — Racconish^☎ 19:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Kindly advise. Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 08:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd really suggest to discuss this at an undeletion request. Thank you. --Krd 07:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will do. BTW the files here still have to be deleted . Cheers, — Racconish^☎ 18:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bindella1

Hallo Krd. Hattest Du die nicht alle mal gelöscht? Scheinen wieder da zu sein. Zumindest umbenennen sollte man die Bilder. Die Bezeichnung Milf ist wenig enzyklopädisch bzw. Out of Scope. Gruß, --Gereon K. (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ich wollte eigentlich nur der zweiten Teil des Löschantrags geschlossen haben, aber für den ersten gilt sicher das gleiche. Nun gelöscht. --Krd 08:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok. Danke. Da ist aber noch jede Menge übrig: [5]. Wenn das in Artikeln verwendet werden kann, ist es ja okay. Die Beschreibungen und Dateinamen sind nur ziemlich daneben. --Gereon K. (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Da stimme ich zu, die Bilder könnte / sollte man auch zum löschen vorschlagen, wenn sie nicht genutzt sind. --Krd 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Tja, andere sehen das wohl anders und halten MILF für eine Beschreibung, die enzyklopädisch ok ist: [6]. Dann ignoriere ich das alles mal ... Gruß, --Gereon K. (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Felix Hnat auf Hochzeit.jpg

Hallo Krd, kannst du dir das Foto bitte anschauen. In meinen Augen ist es eine Urheberrechtsanmaßung ;-) - bei den URV-Eintragungen auf Commons kenne ich mich leider net wirklcih aus. danke K@rl (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Karl. Dafür sehe ich erstmal keinen Hinweis. Wie genau kommst Du darauf? --Krd 14:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Er schreibt als Autor Onsemeliot, darunter Das Foto wurde auf der Hochzeit von dem veganen Zuckerbäcker Chris Geiser in Wildschönau in Tirol gemacht. - Unter User:Onsemeliot schreibt er aber dass er Grafiker ist, also net Zuckerbäcker ;-) --K@rl (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Da warte, er hat sich schon gemeldet auf meine Bemerkung. --gruß K@rl (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, den Satz habe ich vollkommen missverstanden - ich habe mich bei ihm auch entschuldigt. lg K@rl (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Hod.jpg

Hallo. You've closed DR, but haven't delete the file. 128.68.59.122 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there has been a technical problem. Now fixed, thank you for the notice! --Krd 07:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Danke sehr! Can I ask you also to delete or re-nominate 5 files of the same uploader? There's same situation (no any OTRS), but Natuur12 has kept them with very strange words «Seems to be permission». I couldn't find any «seems» in COM:OTRS, so I don't know what to do… I think it's a criteria of speedy deletion «OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons». 128.68.59.122 08:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, no. Please ask the closing admin or renominate if good reasons exist. Although it recently appears to be, my talk page is in fact not a valid venue for private deletion requests. Sorry. --Krd 19:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I've asked him, but he didn't answer and has rollbacked my request. (I can't send you a diff because his talk page was deleted; new one was created in September). I would be grateful if you will renominate (not delete) these files yourself - because if I do it myself there will be «seems to be permission» and rollbacking on talk page again. 128.68.59.122 20:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was asked to respond here. I checked my talk page history (it was renamed, not deleted) and I can't find any evidence supporting your claim that I have rollbacked you. I seldom remove messages from my talk page so your story seems quite unlikely especially since the IP you used back than never edited my talk page to begin with. (Archive number three is where you can find the rest of the edit history).

Those files where kept because the trusted uploader obtained permission from the author in a time when we were less strict when it comes to OTRS. The photographs are not made by professionals given their quality. One of our most experienced admins, @Taivo: , also made a keep vote. "Seems to be permission" is actual a pretty accurate description of the situation. Of course, I could have described this in more detail but I am not a huge fan of stating the obvious. If someone mentions that there is a permission statement available via the permission field it logically follows that “seems to be permission” refers to the statement available via the permission field. Natuur12 (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Very strange, I thought that I leaved a message, but couldn't find a diff. In this case sorry for my words. About «Seems to be permission». So I can upload any another's non-professional photo (for example taken from any book like File:ShirokovKrivchenkov1954.gif), write in Permission field something like «By this document I allow the use of the image. Author» and no admins can delete it because «if someone mentions that there is a permission statement available via the permission field it logically follows that “seems to be permission” refers to the statement available via the permission field». Cool. We can forget any OTRS because we can write such «permissions». Thank you! 95.28.25.114 19:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Btw, why is User:Domitori a «trusted uploader»? Have you seen his talk page? Other admins and bureaucrats (@Steinsplitter: @Jameslwoodward: @Rubin16: @JuTa: @Ellin Beltz: ) have deleted tons of his files because he and his «authors» couldn't give any precise explanations to OTRS volunteers. 95.28.25.114 19:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:London bus route 185 Victoria 26 April 2005.jpg

Hi Krd, Could you explain your reason for keeping this lot please?, (I should note to that when that Keep !vote and the comment was made I never explained anything (It was basically this [7] so I never put a proper arguement forward when they were made),
The images wouldn't ever be used and so Keeping "because they could be useful" isn't really a compelling arguement for keeping ?,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010. Just as an example, File:Optare Solo in Shropshire Bus livery, Stableford, 12 March 2010.jpg is in external use at [8], which disproves that the images are generally not usable. --Krd 19:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Krd, Oh Jesus I had no idea that was being used elsewhere, I'm still not entirely convinced the image being on that website is all that useful but regardless of my opinions it's still being used, Could I ask on how you found the image there ? ... It's just it's not the first time I've nominated a bus and then found out it was used elsewhere, Anyway thanks for your help :), –Davey2010^Talk 20:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

See: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/search-by-image-by-google/ --Krd 09:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Chrome user , Sorry I assumed there was some sort of tool here, Well I could use the Google Images thing or Tineye so isn't too bad, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

CU statistics

Hi Krd. Please note [9] and [10]. Trijnstel_talk 13:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Trijnstel. I already saw that, but besides that I see no relevance in that information, it is much more complicated to consider it. I can stop updating the table if somebody likes to do it more careful. --Krd 13:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A pair of technical undeletes

Could you undelete File:Park Street Station 1914 construction 2.jpg and File:Easterly view from Milton Railroad Station (2).jpg? I mistakenly included them in the list at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Duplicate Boston Transit Commission files which you deleted, but these were actually not duplicates (due to my mistake). Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Krd 10:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Archivo mío

Hola, Krd. He visto que has borrado en dos oportunidades la foto del iPhone 6s Plus que he subido. Te comunico que la imágen me pertenece, pues corresponde a mi teléfono personal, tomada por mí por lo que los derechos de autor me pertenecen. Saludos.--Penquista (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Penquista. The photograph shows elements copyrighted to Apple which cannot be reproduced without their permission. --Krd 10:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

per nomination?

These three DRs

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyler Corbett.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyler doing the thing.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyler actually being pretty.jpg

included an inane and meaningless rational which I challenged, while offering other (better) reasons to however support the deletion. Yet your closing rationale is "per nomination", where, if anything one could expect "in spite the nomination".

If this is mere boilerplate, I suggest replacing it with "per discussion" — it is more accurate while equally terse, and has the advantage of not disenfranchizing users who take time participating DR discussions; if it is not boilerplate, can you please explain how a vague argument on scope grounds is better than a copyright concern?

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tuvalkin. You are right, I should have changed the default reason the tool presented, sadly I didn't. Thank you for pointing out, I will try to do better next time. --Krd 19:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Help with File:Louis-Raphaël Bischoffsheim.jpg

Hello, I received your bot message. As indicated I wrote the text below on the discussion page. Can you help me?--Bettylella (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"I am always concerned when I receive these messages as I want to follow the rules - but they are very complicated and instructions are not clear, perhaps due to my not very good English. This person is dead since 1873, so more than 70 years, and so is the person who has taken the picture. So I think it should be free of rights, but I clicked on the button "I'm not sure" because I would like an administrator to confirm this. I have written on the "Italian Bar" so that I can interact in Italian to find someone who can tutor me on Wikimedia Commons. I am waiting for their feed-back." Thank you for your comprehension.--Bettylella (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Bettylella, please see: COM:L. Is this a photograph or a painting? Who is the creator/photographer/painter? --Krd 08:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Krd, thank you for addressing my problem. It's a photograph and I don't know the name of photographer but one think is sure the photo was made before 1923 because L-R Bischoffsheim died in 1875 so I think it is a public domain material based on information I found on your link (Works published before 1923 are in the public domain.). Am I correct?

Regards--Bettylella (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this has already been updated in the file page by somebody, so it looks ok for me. Please verify. --Krd 18:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Bildungssystemv5.jpg

Ein ähnlicher Fall, ich habe den User, vor zwei Jahren darauf angesprochen, nur leider ohne Erfolg. Ich glaube auch das ist ein Fall von URV. lg K@rl (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wie gesagt: Bitte konkrete Hinweise, die das stützen. Auch hier finde ich erstmal nichts, was "own work" widerlegen würde. --Krd 14:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Auf dieser Graphik ist die offizielle Bezeichnung von der Koordinierungsstelle für den NQR - ACTIF schreibt sich als Urheber hin und gibt es unter CC BY-SA Lizenz frei. Wenn es amtlich ist, kann er es nicht freigeben. Wenn er es von amtlich gemacht hat, was ich nihct glaube, dann müsste ACTIF eine Verifizierung machen - das passt alles net zusammen. lg K@rl (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Stimmt, das hatte ich vorhin übersehen. Habe die Datei nun entsprechend markiert. --Krd 18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

danke K@rl (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/Ahechtbot

Ello Krd. :) Commons:Bots/Requests/Ahechtbot; bot still needs to be flagged. Cheers, Riley Huntley (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, don't know how that could be forgotten. Done now. --Krd 08:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Siron Fox and User:Dan Stiffy

Those two are very likely the same judging from their penetrant edits at File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg. Upload comment at File:Donald Trump August 19 2015.jpg smells like LTA David Beals. You may want to check those two to confirm and find possible sleepers.--Denniss (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed, no further sleepers found. --Krd 08:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Denniss (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

More files from a deletion request

A few months back you were the closing admin on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Duplicate Boston Transit Commission files. I've discovered about a hundred more duplicate files (caused by the same reason) that I missed the first time around. I've put them all in the same Category:Duplicate Boston Transit Commission files (redlink but not empty). Since they were caused by the same technical glitch, would you be willing to delete them, or do I need to file a separate deletion request? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Krd 05:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser?

Hello Krd, Regrading this request [11], could you please tell me what is the result of that check? Thanks. --Dr-Taher (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dr-Taher. Thank you a lot for the question, because it seems I have accidentally archive this request before it has been processed. I have now undone that, sorry for the confusion. --Krd 10:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Krd for your correction. Now what about that request? Could you please check that user, as he/she used to use sock-puppets. Thanks again. --Dr-Taher (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but not right now. Maybe later today. Sorry. --Krd 12:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot-Flag

Hallo Krd,

könntest du auch die Gruppenzugehörigkeit von KasparBot ändern nachdem Commons:Bots/Requests/KasparBot jetzt durch ist?

Vielen Dank, -- T.seppelt (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ich dachte nur, dass! :) ~riley (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hallo T.seppelt. Ist nun erledigt, danke für den Hinweis! Gruß… --Krd 18:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot/request

Hallo Krd, viel Fotos von Flickr sind auch bestimmten Fotografen durch Kategorie zugeordnet. Ich habe zwar begonnen die Fotos von Franz Johann Morgenbesser in die Category:Photographs by Franz Johann Morgenbesser einzuordnen. Da bin ich bis etwas mehr als 100 gekommen. Allerdings stammen etwa 1500 Fotos von ihm. Kannst du das per Bot machen. Im Autor steht eh sein voller Name. Denn manuell weiß ich außer jedes einzeln keine einfache Lösung sondern nur Stunden ;-), was ein Bot leicht schaffen kann. Kannst du das machen, oder an wen kann ich mich wenden. Wohlgemerkt es ist net lebensnotwendig un dnoch weniger eilig. danke im Voraus. --lg K@rl (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Das selbe gilt für Fotos von weisserstier etwa 800 Fotos --K@rl (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

und Dragan Tatic etwa 1000 Fotos --K@rl (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, bitte sammle gern schonmal weiter, das zu bauen dürfte ganz gut machbar sein, allerdings nicht kurzfristig. --Krd 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ja dränggt eh nicht, danke schon einmal --lg K@rl (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Für die weiteren Sachen brauche ich bitte mal jeweils ein Beispielbild. --Krd 14:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

File:16Kulis Gernot-Callboy-5525 (18371432752).jpg für Franz Johann Morgenbesser

File:Arbeitsbesuch Irak (16415900861).jpg für Dragan Tacic.

File:130706 Schrems A 008 (9226862460).jpg für weisserstrier. danke K@rl (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Flüchtlinge - Immigranten beim Grenzübergang Wegscheid (23128051281).jpg für Metropolico.org --K@rl (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Karl Gruber: Hallo Karl. Es hat etwas gedauert, läuft aber nun an. Bitte schau mal drüber. --Krd 10:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Also der Morgenbesser schaut recht gut aus. sehe ich kein Problem dabei. --K@rl (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Bei Dragan Tacic klappt das nicht, die Bilder sind auch eher als "Bundesministerium für Europa, Integration und Äusseres" gekennzeichnet. Wie machen wir das? --Krd 10:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Karl Gruber:  ? --Krd 10:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, bin erst jetzt wieder im Land, ich schau mir die mal an. Auf alle Fälle danke bisher --K@rl (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Koordinaten vom Krdbot, Probleme bei bestimmtem Dorf?

Grüß dich, mir ist aufgefallen, dass dein Bot bei Baudenkmälern eines bestimmten Dorfs zu streiken scheint: Beispiel 1, Beispiel 2, Beispiels 3 (alle aus der de:Liste der Baudenkmäler in Taufers im Münstertal). Im Kontrast dazu ein Bild aus einem Nachbardorf (de:Liste der Baudenkmäler in Mals) vom selben Uploader am selben Tag hochgeladen: [12]. Vermute ich recht, dass da irgendein Problem vorliegt oder braucht's nur ein wenig mehr Geduld? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Mai-Sachme. Die hier verlinkten Bilder sind nicht die, die in der Liste stehen. Bitte prüf das nochmal doppelt und melde Dich nochmal, wenn es damit noch nicht geklärt ist. Danke! --Krd 18:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sollte eigentlich nichts machen, da dein Bot bei Südtiroler Baudenkmälern (im Gegensatz zu Österreich) bei allen getaggten Bildern Koordinaten hinzufügt (also nicht bloß bei jenen, die in der Liste eingebunden sind). Hab aber nochmals gegengecheckt, Koordinaten fehlen bei allen am 5. Juni hochgeladenen Bildern aus diesem Dorf (also auch bei den in der Liste eingebundenen): [13], [14], [15]. Grüße, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Interessantes Problem. In den Denkmallisten sind unsichtbare Leerräume in Form von Tabs, das war in meinem Parser nicht berücksichtigt. Inzwischen sollte es geklärt sein, bitte schau mal, ob jetzt alle Fälle gelöst sind. Gruß… --Krd 16:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, das war mir beim Bearbeiten der Liste auch aufgefallen. Ausnahmslos alle Bilder haben jetzt Koordinaten. Vielen Dank dir und Grüße! --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Danke Dir nochmal für den Hinweis. (Für Österreich ist es auch gefixt, hat sich ebenfalls gelohnt.) --Krd 17:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Foto's Paul O'Brien

Hallo @Kdr: , könntest Du mir bei den Foto's für [O'Brien] helfen oder Tipps geben ? Meines Erachtens wurde alles gemacht was gefordert wird, die Zustimmung des Eigentümers wurde auf den Formularen per Mail an Commons gesendet und trotz allem stehen die Fotos wieder zum löschen auf der Liste. Vielen Dank --Michael Körting (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Michael Körting. Die Bearbeitung der E-Mail-Freigabe wird einige Zeit dauern. Sollte das Bild zwischenzeitlich gelöscht werden, wird es nach Abschluß des Freigabeprozesses wiederhergestellt. Gruß… --Krd 07:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sysop

Hi old friend. Can you close Commons:Administrators/Requests/INeverCry (readmin)? I'd love to get some rust off those old tools. INeverCry 06:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, looks like I just missed you. Guess I'll have to wait till morning... INeverCry 06:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome on board! --Krd 06:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Danke! INeverCry 06:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

?

Wie kommen Sie eigentlich dazu ein Bild von mir zu löschen? Was soll das? is ja echt krass! Harald Bischoff (es geht um floating piers) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.164.221.39 (talk) 07:28, 06 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

File:122. JARDIN DES PLANTES, PARIS, 1980, Oil on canvas, 57.5 x 46 cm..jpg

File:122. JARDIN DES PLANTES, PARIS, 1980, Oil on canvas, 57.5 x 46 cm..jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: This file is a duplicate of the following files: File:Ilka Gedő - Jardin des Plantes.jpg. If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Revent^talk 17:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You are the best!

A tea for you! MechQuester (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Lizenzfrage

Hallo Lizenzspezialist, hältst du die Lizenzangabe bei File:Busserltunnel Südportal.jpg mit nur Namensangabe für korrekt. Ich diskutiere gerade bei User talk:Linie29 danke K@rl (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Files

Hola, te consulto sobre el borrado de los siguientes archivos con el bot Krdbot. Las mismas son una edicion personal realizada por mi, partiendo de un Banner institucional de la [oficial] del Poder Judicial de la Provincia del Chaco. En consulta con el organismo, ellos declararon que sus imágenes son de dominio público. Archivos Borrados:

• File:Presid 1.png
• File:Presid 2.png
• File:Presid 3.png
• File:Presid 4.png
• File:Presid 5.png

Agradecería tambien que si vas a estar "inactivo", no dejes funcionando tus bots, ya que sino no podremos hacer reclamos ante errores. Saludos! --Anderwsont (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see: COM:LIC and COM:OTRS. --Krd 11:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Krdbot/af69

Today bot added two images to the log, but I don't see tickets there (1, 2). This happens on a regular basis. What I overlooked? --sasha (krassotkin) 06:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If seems something has changed somewhen, and the script now also add instances to the page where the user has only been warned by the abuse filter and did not save the edit. I will change script next week as soon as I have a minute; until then it's safe to ignore these cases. --Krd 17:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. --Krd 11:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Using a friend's camera

I just saw that files by a user is nominated for deletion because the metadata shows that the photos are taken by others. However, the uploader argues that he owns the copy right and he has just used the cameras of friends for those photos. How can the issue be resolved. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• How if those authors mentioned in the metadata send their disclaimer emails to OTRS and verify that they don't hold the rights of the photo and had lend their camera to the claiming author? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the issue should be resolved via OTRS. --Krd 07:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User and the file upload saga

Hi. With the file upload url issue, would you mind considering whether the user Jasonanaggie has a relationship. This user has transferred many gao.gov images over into Commons with no apparent purposeful use. I may be overly suspicious, however, a string of circumstances around this user doesn't sit right. Note that I am not expecting any particular reply, more alerting you to the use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 18:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Answered by e-mail. --Krd 08:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete

Please, delete https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_body_shouldersstripe.svg this file. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done, please use {{Speedy}} next time. --Krd 17:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Koordinaten vom Krdbot, erneut Probleme bei bestimmtem Dorf?

Hallo, dein Bot trägt ja Koordinaten zu allen getaggten Südtiroler Baudenkmälern nach. Mir ist vor wenigen Tagen aufgefallen, dass er offenbar bei einem bestimmten Dorf (de:Liste der Baudenkmäler in Völs am Schlern) Probleme hat. Beobachtungen:

• 13. Oktober: Upload von File:Val Sarentino - panoramio.jpg (Baudenkmal in der Gemeinde Sarntal)
  • 20. Oktober: Krdbot ergänzt Koordinaten [16]
• 13. Oktober: Upload von File:Fahlburg Prissian Tisens-1.jpg (Baudenkmal in der Gemeinde Tisens)
  • 20. Oktober: Krdbot ergänzt Koordinaten [17]
• 13. Oktober: Upload von File:Schloss Proesels Voels am Schlern-1.jpg (Baudenkmal in der Gemeinde Völs am Schlern)
  • Krdbot ergänzt keine Koordinaten... Am 21. Oktober trag ich sie selber nach [18]

Dasselbe Problem bei Baudenkmälern aus Völs am Schlern tritt auch bei allen weiteren am 13. oder 14. Oktober hochgeladenen Dateien dieser Gemeinde auf (Beispiele: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], Koordinaten jeweils nachträglich von mir händisch ergänzt). Bei allen anderen Gemeinden trägt der Krdbot hingegen weiterhin die Koordinaten nach (Beispiele: [25], [26], [27], [28]).

Um sicher zu gehen, dass das Problem spezifisch Dateien aus Völs am Schlern betrifft, habe ich testweise am 21. Oktober File:Wappen Prösels.jpg hochgeladen. Der Krdbot hat auch eine Woche später noch nicht die Koordinaten ergänzt. Kannst du dir das mal anschaun? Grüße, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Mai-Sachme. Bei File:Wappen Prösels.jpg sagt er mir beim Trockdurchlauf, dass er es jetzt machen würde. Ich gehe davon aus, dass die 7 Tage zu knapp bemessen sind, wahrscheinlich musst Du eher 8 oder 9 Tage warten, oder wir müssen die Cachedauer reduzieren. Bin mir nicht sicher ob sich das lohnen würde. --Krd 10:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ich ändere es bei mir mal auf 6 Tage, das dürfte angemessen sein. --Krd 10:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, vielen Dank, hat jetzt geklappt! Da war ich wohl zu ungeduldig. Schönen Tag noch! --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Representative

A customer alleges to be the representative of a copyright holder. I asked for an email from the copyright holder himself, but he said that he was old and did not have Email address. Instead, he suggested that he could show a hand written letter indicating that the customer is his representative. How should I act in this case? Can I accept the scanned letter? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course it depends on the letter, but generally yes. A signed piece of paper is usually more trustful than an e-mail. I'd asked him, though, not to sign any representation but the original permission template. --Krd 07:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I asked for the signed permission letter from the owner besides a document showing that the user is really in contact with the owner. In response, he sent me a signed copyright permission and a copy of owner's birth ID. The latter shows that the person being photographed is the daughter of copyright owner. Now, how can I reassure that the photograph is really taken by the father. Should I trust in the sent permission letter? the photo seems to be taken by a professional photographer. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you give me the ticket number? --Krd 08:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Here you are. Ticket:2016100110011277. All the communications are in Persian. Tell me if you need my help as bilingual. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I read your description (I cannot read the ticket) this is ok. If we informed the user that normally the copyright holder is the photographer, and everything is plausible, we have to believe the rest that we cannot verify. --Krd 13:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know If I could ask you to finish the job, if you think there's no problem with that. The story is almost as I told you here. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you don't do this? I'm hesitant because I cannot read the ticket. --Krd 17:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not OK with the case. I thought maybe other volunteers could just verify the license. --Mhhossein ^;;;talk 18:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The text of license is OK and the birth ID proves that the alleged copyright holder is father of the photographed character. Anyway, I can't verify that he, the old man who does not have an email or probably does not know how to use that, could take such a photo! I'm finished with the job anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I understood your question that you wanted a second opinion to accept the case. If you have serious doubt, you are of course free to leave it open for the next agent. I won't close it as I cannot read the ticket. --Krd 06:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Do I have to do anything for leaving it opened?! I mean, how can other agents get sure that I've left the ticket? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

When there is no more progress your colleagues hopefully take over. --Krd 07:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Merci

Merci. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Procedure for including a picture in WikiMedia

Hi !

For loading the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Georges_Forestier_2016.jpg I followed exactly the described procedure :

- load the file to have an address in WikiMedia

- ask the author of the picture to send the mail to WikiMedia about copyright ownership within 7 days

Then user JCB destroyed the file before the 7 days explained in the procedure !!!

How is it possible ?

Thanks in advance for your explanation. Regards Graphophile (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The file was deleted because you did not specify any licence for this image when you uploaded the file. It is not sufficient to mention that you got permission from the author to upload the image, but every file on Wikimedia Commons needs a free licence that allows anyone to re-use and change the file for any purpose. This can only be granted by the original photographer or anyone else who purchased the copyright, but we need to know the type of licence to keep the file. Images attributed to other authors than the uploader without a free licence are routinely deleted to protect the potential interests of the copyright holder. Once the email with a permission has been processed by our volunteer email team, the file will be restored, but this may take up to several weeks. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Unapproved bot

I noticed the recent block a few minutes ago. Could you write up a notice with any details about the flooding incident, even a provisional note may be an idea? It looks like the sort of thing that cat-a-lot might require changes to avoid. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This was the second user I blocked for this thing. At which page would you like to have the mentioned note? --Krd 14:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Tm was the one I noticed. This may be down to a bug with cat-a-lot rather than the users of it making mistakes. If so, it's a bit of a bear-trap if the outcome is that your account gets blocked. If the pattern is clear, we may need to take cat-a-lot offline. --Fæ (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. It should be clear to anybody that a category with 8 million entries cannot removed by cat-a-lot. Maybe cat-a-lot required a change, but this is likely non trivial, and taking it offline doesn't appear reasonable to me. But, as said, I'm open to any discussion. Please suggest at which page to proceed. --Krd 14:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest Tm. I'm sure they can analyse what happened and suggest a fix. I agree, if there are 8 million changes, then it's a slower bot task that's needed; I think my maximum single housekeeping task was around 3 million and nobody noticed . However it would be neat if cat-a-lot did that throttling on the user's behalf, or at least warned the user that the job looks too big and if necessary dropped the job after a certain number of maximum actions. --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If I may suggest, perhaps we should unblock the 2 users (if they are not already). This was clearly a good faith attempt to do a task that the community has determined needed to be done. Personally I don't even think the bots should be doing this lone task unless they are doing something else at the same time for a while, but this was clearly not a block that was necessary. Simply asking the user on their talk page to stop would have been sufficient. I also agree with Fæ that perhaps limiting Catalot to runs of less than 100, 000 (maybe not even that high) would be a good thing to do. Reguyla (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

They of course have been unblocked immediately after they responded. --Krd 07:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Block

Hi Krd, Is removing the upload category with catalot not allowed ? ... It's just I myself have removed the category from about 200 files (I've only done it twice and those were about 2/3 days after the last removal so it's not asif It's a frequent thing however seeing the block of Tm I wasn't sure whether I should stop entirely and leave it to the bot), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please leave it to the bots. Thank you. --Krd 15:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing but there's 8,669,985 in the category so surely removing 200 here and there is better then simply everyone leaving it to a bot (if everyone chips in it's going to be done alot quicker isn't it?), I'm not saying lets remove thousands each day because that's stupid but removing like 200 every other day is better than leaving it to a bot surely ?, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 15:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind I've only just spotted the newly added message, Suppose I'll have to leave to a bot then, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/タチコマ robot

Hello, it was suggested that I bring this to your attention. Several people suggested that an RFA was an overkill. Is an RFA needed? What do you recommend I do? Thanks. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have commented on the RfA page. --Krd 06:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear: any task that there is a strong argument that suggests a sysop bot, should not be handled by bots. Bots should only be used for routine non-controversial tasks. I do not follow what you expect to see in the RfA. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't expect anything in the RfA, I just disagree with your request. Sorry. --Krd 06:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am tempted to pull the RfA request down after the next oppose vote citing you. I will simply handover post-bot action tasks to you where you would need to identify the which pages were not fixed. It should take you quite a bit of time to identify the two pages skipped by the bot among hundreds.

It is VERY frustrating when someone decides to "disagree" with a request without providing a reason beyond "I don't think it is necessary". You know what, if it isn't necessary, I will not care about it either. This isn't worth my time. I will just leave protected pages as is, be it re-licensing, OTRS tagging, url updating or some other routine task.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies

Hi Krd. I wanted to offer my sincere apology for my inappropriate behavior toward you over the Tm block. I over-reacted completely, and I was wrong to take that to BN. I've always respected you and I consider you one of our best crats and administrators. I have a tendency to let my temper get the best of me and be dramatic and confrontational. You didn't deserve any of that. I know I'd often be much better off if I kept to my usual work and didn't cause drama and problems. I'm better than I was in 2013 and earlier, but I still have work to do in improving. My post about you at BN is something I find embarrassing now to be honest. I can't take it back, but I can work not to repeat it, and will do so. lNeverCry 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I appreciate your message and accept your apology. I know you're acting in good faith for the project. --Krd 07:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Commons User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons roles vs. WMF policies

Hi, I thought your comment on AN was worth responding to, but I don't want to take the vote on a tangent.

My understanding of COM:Administrators, is that the community can and should improve it and change the definition and requirements on administrators and other trusted roles as we see fit. In this way the sentence "it is not up to us to decide such a requirement" does not sit well, as the Commons community should be free to do exactly this, not rely on the WMF to make decisions about requirements on administrators and the enforce them without community discussion.

Do we disagree, or perhaps there context or a background that changes how this should be read? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we disagree. Of course the community can and should change requirements on administrators and other trusted roles, but regarding the login style we should look beyond one's own nose and take global considerations into account. I think we can be sure that after the recent incident the WMF is aware of the problem, so if they considered this a requirement, the had acted accordingly. Maybe they are still in the investigation or decision process, and there is no need to rush before one knows the actual fact. Maybe this approach is even counterproductive. Maybe it's also not thought to the end, because perhaps we cannot even verify who if on 2FA and who not, without creating a new security hole (see discussions on other venues). I'd suggest to step back a bit and give them a fair amount of time to do their work, as well as the community should take the necessary time to prepare and discuss a proposal, if any applicable. The current proposal does not appear well prepared to me, as it doesn't give background information, arguments and alternatives. (Sorry.) --Krd 18:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Martin Purtscher 2015.jpg

Hey, du hast das oben genannte Bild wiederhergestellt mit Angabe, dass ein zugehöriges OTRS-Ticket dazu eingelangt sei. Darf ich fragen, von wem diese Freigabe stammt bzw. ob tatsächlich die Nutzung unter der angegebenen Lizenz darin erlaubt wird? Mir gegenüber hat Herr Pinjo nämlich erklärt, dass er das Bild doch nicht unter CC-by-sa freigeben könne, weil er eine gewerbliche Nutzung seiner Bilder nicht wolle. Darum bin ich jetzt etwas verwirrt, dass da offenbar doch noch eine Freigabe gekommen ist. Beste Grüße, Plani (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Plani. Die Freigabe kommt vom angegebenen Urheber. --Krd 07:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Merci. --Plani (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User:22sep

Hello Krd.

I've been helping this editor on English Wikipedia to draft articles about certain political figures in Thailand. Their first language is not English, so it is not easy.

I suspect this editor did not intend to disrupt or vandalise Commons but rather does not understand the policies. They say another editor was involved, hence, I think the apparent sock-puppetry. 22sep is a friend of Panda Mantikul (who I think is the other editor and who is also the son of one of the political figures in question); so there is a CoI situation.

Any advice on how to proceed re their uploads? Can they be unblocked? And can someone school them on protocol here at Commons?

Thanks Iadmc (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

(@LX: FYI.)

Hello Iadmc. Sadly we don't have the necessary resources to provide individual mentoring, but you are of course free to provide help to them. The images that are deleted or nominated for deletion can possibly be kept after providing evidence of permission, see COM:OTRS. The user(s) can also be unblocked after some positive result has been achieved. Thank you for your help! --Krd 10:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll advise them on the situation after familiarizing myself with OTRS. Iadmc (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

your comment

Hi Krd... I'm pretty sure your comment ended up in the wrong section here. Would you care to move it? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the fact that you were explicitly pinged about this. The comment seemed disjointed, but clearly was not. Sorry for that. Storkk (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

2014/2013

Sorry, copy&paste error. -- smial 09:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Kein Problem. --Krd 10:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Genehmigung des Urhebers bzw. Rechteinhabers fehlt

Hallo Krd, Du hast bei folgenden Bildern heute den Baustein „No permission since|month=November|day=25|year=2016“ gesetzt

• Werk Margaretha Espenhain.jpg
• Werk Kausche Geräte.jpg
• Markscheide-Studenten.jpg
• Sachsen Energie 1928.jpg
• Müller in New York.jpg
• Vermesser Müller.jpg
• Diplom Müller.jpg
• Müller 50.jpg

Die Bilder wurden gestern hochgeladen. Am gleichen Tag ging die Freigabemail des Rechteinhabers an permissions-de@wikimedia.org und deren Eingang wurde unter der Ticket#: 2016112410013346 bestätigt, wie auch an den Bildern vermerkt. Da dem Rechteinhaber (es handelt sich um einen Nachlass) die Urheber der Bilder nicht bekannt sind und auch nicht ermittelt werden können sowie das entsprechende Alter vorliegt, wurde als Lizenz „Anonymous-EU“ angegeben. Was ist falsch oder hätte anders gemacht werden müssen? --Martin Geisler (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Martin Geisler. Ich glaube nicht, dass Anonymous-EU hier passt. Der Einsender der Freigabe hat heute eine entsprechende Rückfrage erhalten. Gruß… --Krd 13:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Danke für die schnelle Reaktion. Der Absender der Freigabe ist nicht sehr wiki-bewandert. Wie lautet denn die Rückfrage an ihn? Ich frage nochmals, was hätte ich anders machen sollen oder was kann ich jetzt tun. Gruß --Martin Geisler (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Bisher passt alles so. Der Einsender der Freigabe sollte möglichst auf die Rückfrage antworten. --Krd 13:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, mir wird gerade klar, dass gemäß der Freigabemail die Lizenz "Bild-CC-by-sa/3.0" zutreffen muss. Ich werde das an den betreffenden Bildern entsprechend ändern. Oder? Übrigens: Da, wo als Quelle eine Zeitschrift steht, stammt der Artikel jeweils vom Einsender der Freigabemail (siehe Literatur im Artikel) --Martin Geisler (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Krd, ein User:Yann hat das Bild Diplom Müller.jpg gelöscht. Kannst Du es in die Gesamtproblematik wieder einbeziehen und ggf. bitte wieder herstellen. Gruß --Martin Geisler (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Martin. Wir haben im permissions-Bereich weit über 1000 offene Vorgänge. Bitte lass das den vorgesehenen Weg gehen, denn je komplizierter wir es machen, desto länger wird es dauern. Bisher gibt es keinen Grund zur Besorgnis. Gruß… --Krd 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Letzter Satz voll bestätigt? Ha, ha, ... --Martin Geisler (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Martin Geisler. Das Ticket wurde rechtzeitig bearbeitet, leider ist hier jedoch wahrscheinlich keine Freigabe erzielbar. --Krd 11:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File deleted

Hi, have you any idea why this file was deleted in the first place? We received the OTRS ticket:2016102610013193, but I wanted to understand well what happened and why. Thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 18:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The uploader is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, so likely the uploads have been mass deleted for missing permission. I left a note in the ticket. --Krd 10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:タチコマ robot/list

Hello, please process this list. Permission is granted at Ticket:2016112810007364. Thanks. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I don't agree that the ticket is valid in the current state, because it's implausible that the museum is the copyright holder of all those images and shown works. Necessary questions haven't been asked yet. Sorry. --Krd 18:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I will communicate this info and work on the ticket further. Is there a guideline in dealing with museums, most content looked pd-old to me since universal suffrage for women was a thing as of 1920's 19th Amendment well before 1928. To clarify none of the archived media on women's voting rights would be created 8 years after the amendment was passed. Most seem to be from pre 1910s. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There is also this list User:タチコマ robot/list2 of 35 files relating to ticket:2016112110010603 which needs to be marked as well. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

とある白い猫, I will not do your work, please stop your WP:POINT campaign at the earliest convenience. Thank you. --Krd 08:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no campaign of the sort. I am not even trying to make any point. I picked both tickets even before filing my OTRS permission request on meta. Main reason was their age (their proximity to the end or beginning of the list) and that they had a non-free email address (not gmail, hotmail, outlook, yahoo etc.). I intend to reduce the ticket count in OTRS by processing them in a quality manner. I am not trying to rush issues. I put a lot of thought into what I do.

I have demonstrated my need for this OTRS access and you have prevented my bot from handling this monotonous task. Mind that this task has previously been handled by this very bot even before I became an OTRS member where an OTRS member asked me to bulk tag a number of files for them.

I will not preform this manually as it is a waste of my time. Almost as much as arguing over the matter. I'd rather be working on other tickets where I can instruct the bot to process bulk requests for me.

I also will not run any automated scripts that makes mass edits under my user account (file replace is the only one I use on file rename). User accounts should not operate as unauthorized bots as per well established consensus. Do I need to go in detail?

So, here we are. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to take these two tickets, not more, if it helps to bring this conversation to an end. --Krd 09:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was about to ping you for comment at Commons:Village_pump#Scripted_.26_automated_tasks_on_human_accounts but it seems like there is still troublesome communication here.

Aside from the bot issue, it seems like you Krd are questioning とある白い猫's basic judgment about whether a valid copyright release is being made. That is a bigger issue than bot approval. I was hoping to help facilitate the request by talking things through at the pump. If you are having trouble communicating to とある白い猫, then would you present a set of demands to me and allow me to try to mediate? Otherwise, if you really want the conversation to end, I will proceed elsewhere. Thanks - I would prefer to get the people who voted oppose to change to support if rights are to be granted, but I understand if you just need out. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: My impression is that とある白い猫 is looking for a way to get any more flags for his bot without being able to show any valid need and without being open to any compromise suggested, and I have also the impression that he chose to work on the above mentioned tickets just in order to make a point here and show any artificial need. I may of course be mistaken, and/but I refuse to take this to any personal level. I see nothing broken in the current state, and とある白い猫 is of course free to elaborate new arguments to prove me and the community wrong, who declined four or five similar rigths requests in the last few weeks. --Krd 06:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. It seems as if you are asking this person to point to a long list of tasks which require advanced rights to complete, and to make the usual commitment to complete some of those tasks if given the rights. Right now, the user has only pointed to a few tasks, which might be less than what is expected.

Thanks for your response. Leaving any motivation for requesting flags aside, I agree that Commons reviewers require that those who request rights have to demonstrate a need. I am not sure how the need is customarily demonstrated in this case but perhaps backing up and reconsidering the application would be prudent. I appreciate your answer. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hello, I am not after flags. I request flags as I hit obstacles, to help resolve issues. I currently have 75 files to OTRS tag for tickets I have resolved or am prepared to resolve. I think that is sufficient enough to request a bot to deal with the issue. I intend to look for the larger tickets and deal with them since they are a daunting task. There seems to be some great potential with them where we can get a lot of content processed at OTRS. You can always take the flag back later it you think I am simply hoarding them.
• The easiest way out is to change the OTRS filter (and potentially break it) or run bot edits under human account (something that should not be encouraged). The only other option is to give the bot an OTRS flag which would keep the OTRS activity under check of OTRS volunteers. The only access the bot gets here is to grant OTRS permissions.
• If the issue is strictly about notification, a talk page message would do the trick. I could also post on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. I will do this myself and not through the bot. I still do not know why you wish to notify the uploader of the file regards to the OTRS ticket decision. I suppose it may be to notify them that it is successful but it is not like they would be notified of deletions when unsuccessful. I am not saying this is unnecessary, I just am unsure of the benefit. Also mind that sometimes files are uploaded by bots so notifying the bot would not mean anything.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A talk page message causes unnecessary noise to the user, a Noticeboard message causes noise to all Noticeboard watchers. A watchlist entry is both silent and passively noticeable, if done without bot flag. Are you able to make bot edits with a flagged bot without setting the bot flag on the individual edit? --Krd 13:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot flag is applied at server side I believe. I do not have a way to "unset" it (unless you take away the bot flag each time). One solution here is to have a dedicated separate account for this task. Something like a User:タチコマ robot (OTRS) or User:タチコマ robot (unflagged) (for more generic unflagged use) or User:タチコマ robot II if you will. This will bring limitations of human accounts with it of course such as the speed the bot can edit, how long it can make API queries (500 vs 5,000) etc. I have not seen really large tasks for OTRS tagging so far so this probably is not an issue. Are there any tickets with say 1,000 files?

I would exclusively use AWB with this bot to limit its edit speed etc so as not to flood the RC feed too much. I also would retain the OTRS ticket numbered pages such as User:タチコマ robot/OTRS/2016112110010603 so that bot's activity is better tracked later on. It also serves as a final overview for the human (mostly me) to see if there are any obvious problematic files.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Sadly you are wrong, the flag is set at the client side. And if you use AWB anyway I still don't see at all why it should be a problem to do this jobs with your main account. --Krd 17:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you link me to the doc in question to not use the bot flag? I do not see this option anywhere. I do not want to run bot code or anything automated under my main account. I am a strong believer that automated tasks should be run in separate accounts. This is how I edited well over a decade and I believe this should be the norm. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a definite documentation link at hand, but perhaps the API help page is already sufficient, see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=edit --Krd 06:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Überfrachtete User Pages, die zu Crash und Freeze beim Aufruf führen

Hallo - nach 3.1/2 Jahren möchte ich eigentlich nochmal auf ein von Rd232 dankenswerterweise eröffneten RFC zurückkommen. Es hat sich eigentlich seit damals nichts verbessert, sondern nur verschlechtert. Wenn ich versuche die User-Seiten von SajoR, Glasshouse oder anderen Schaustellern aufrufe, friert mein Browser Firefox ein und zeigt eine Fehlermeldung wegen Zeitüberschreitung. Wie mag es eigentlich Usern in nicht so gut versorgten Gegenden wie Duisburg ergehen? Kann man da nicht jetzt nochmal eine für alle akzeptable Initiative starten? -- MaxxL - talk 17:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo MaxxL. Ich verstehe nicht ganz, warum Deine Anfrage gleich persönlich wird, da ich davon noch nie etwas gehört habe. Ich bin Deiner Meinung, dass diese Userpages nicht ok sind. Man sollte die User ansprechen und sehen, was sie dazu sagen. Notfalls könnte man die Seiten löschen. Gruß… --Krd 18:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Meine Ansprache resultiert aus der tragischen Entwicklung für den von mir hochgeschätzten Rd232 und der neutralen Haltung die ich bisher von Dir gesehen habe. Außerdem schätze ich ich Deinen Ratschlag. Aus diesen beiden Gesichtspunkten ergab sich die Frage an Dich, die ich auch an andere von mir weniger geschätzten Sysops hätte richten können. Wo bin ich bitte persönlich geworden? -- MaxxL - talk 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ich würde sagen, ob Du jemanden schätzt oder weniger schätzt ist für die Sachfrage unerheblich und müsste hier nicht thematisiert werden. Aber ich kann mich auch täuschen. --Krd 12:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of an image of a stamp

Hi. Why delete an image of a stamp? File:Briefmarken-Penrhyn.jpg Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Llywelyn2000. The image has been deleted in 2013, and of course I don't remember the exact reason. If really required we could investigate. --Krd 10:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:German py1.jpg. Letting you know since you hit the button. Revent^talk 14:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reasoning for PD yet, but if there is any, you're welcome. Thank you for taking care. --Krd 14:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

He's added it now. Revent^talk 14:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Best Wishes!

Best Wishes, Krd/archive! Hi Krd/archive, I wish you all the best for the Holidays and a Happy New Year 2017. Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --Krd 16:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks

thank you sir, For correct my user page . Zejjon (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Krd!

Happy New Year!

Krd, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Is doch noch gar nicht soweit, viereinhalb Stunden Arbeit voraus. ;-) --Krd 18:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Uploads von Freigut

Hallo Krd; du hast drei Uploads von Freigut mit {{No permission since}} getaggt. Das ist mir aufgefallen, weil ich mit Bezug auf die Lizenzierungsmöglichkeiten eines Teils dieser Bilder bereits mit Freigut korrespondiert hatte. Im Falle von File:Walterio Meyer Rusca (1882–1969).jpg war der Baustein sicher fehl am Platz, da das Foto nach der angegebenen Quelle http://doi.org/10.3932/ethz-a-000026752 (ETH-Bilderarchiv) eindeutig und nachprüfbar unter der Lizenz CC-BY-SA 4.0 freigegeben ist. Darum habe ich deinen Edit dort revertiert. Die anderen Fälle sind etwas schwieriger. Meines Wissens müsste für File:Christian Schmutz (2014).jpg eine Mail beim OTRS eingegangen sein, die Seite enthält ja auch den Baustein {{OTRS pending}}. Vielleicht kann Freigut noch etwas dazu sagen, auch zu File:Guntram Saladin (1887–1958).jpg - ich glaube, diesbezüglich gibt es auch eine OTRS-Korrespondenz, wobei da das Problem der unbekannte Urheber sein könnte. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Gerade fällt mir auf, dass es ja noch mehr von seinen Uploads betroffen sind. Ich denke, man sollte sich die Fälle einzeln genau anschauen, in manchen wird sich wohl eine Lösung finden lassen. Rein nach schweizerischem Recht betrachtet wäre ja eine Fotografie wie File:Rudolf Trüb (1922–2010).jpg gar nicht erst schutzfähig, aber ich weiss, dass es hier angesichts der vermutlichen Schutzfähigkeit in den USA nicht gerne gesehen wird, für solche Fälle {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} zu verwenden. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Gestumblindi. Das Problem ist in der Tat der unbekannte Urheber, bzw. der Irrtum, dass der Besitz der Fotos gleichzeitig die Nutzungsrechte begründet. Ob PD-Switzerland-photo überhaupt verwendbar ist, dürfte umstritten sein. Für Deutschland machen wir auch keine Unterscheidung zw. Lichtbild und Lichtbildwerk, und betrachten alle Fotos als Lichtbildwerk, nicht zuletzt da die Grenze zu unklar ist und das sonst zu endlosen und frustrierenden Diskussionen führt. --Krd 05:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Krd, für die Schweiz würde das bei einfachen Porträtaufnahmen schon gehen - siehe die aus dem Template verlinkte "Meili-Entscheidung" des Bundesgerichts bzw. den Abschnitt zum Thema in der englischen Wikipedia. Das dort abgebildete Foto des Wachmanns Christoph Meili, der mit Aktenbänden posiert, wurde vom schweizerischen Bundesgericht als nicht schutzfähig "wegen Fehlens des individuellen Charakters" eingestuft. Da es in der Schweiz darüber hinaus keinen Lichtbildschutz à la Deutschland gibt (d.h.: Wenn ein Foto kein schöpferisches Werk ist, hat es überhaupt keinen Schutz, auch nicht den Lichtbildschutz von 50 Jahren nach Erstveröffentlichung, den es in Deutschland hätte), ist das Meili-Foto in der Schweiz (wie üblich abgesehen von Persönlichkeitsrechten) vollkommen frei. Dies wird damit auch für andere Fotos gelten, auf denen eine Person ähnlich wie in diesem Bild Wachmann Meili ohne besonderen künstlerischen Charakter des Fotos abgebildet ist, die weit überwiegende Mehrheit der Porträts. In Abgrenzung davon geschützt ist das im englischen Artikel ebenfalls abgebildete Foto von Bob Marley (die englische WP zeigt es als "fair use"), dessen expressiven Charakter das Bundesgericht geschützt hat. Ich schreibe das hier einfach mal als Einblick in die schweizerische Rechtslage und hoffe, du findest es interessant :-) - für Commons nützt es uns aber zugegeben nicht viel. Denn nach Commons-Praxis müssen Fotos ja im Herkunftsland und in den USA frei sein, und das Meili-Bild ist in den USA wohl als schutzfähig einzustufen. Der Umgang damit war hier auf Commons ein ziemliches Hin und Her: Das Meili-Foto wurde erstmals 2006 hochgeladen, ein paar Monate später gelöscht, wieder hochgeladen und im Oktober 2010 gelöscht, nach einem undeletion request 2011 tatsächlich wiederhergestellt, 2013 wieder gelöscht und erneut wiederhergestellt, schliesslich aber 2014 gelöscht und ist bislang gelöscht geblieben. Ich denke, dass es in der Community wohl ein gewisses Unbehagen bzw. Unverständnis gibt, wenn ein Foto gelöscht wird, das in seinem Herkunftsland eindeutig gemeinfrei ist (in diesem konkreten Fall sogar vom höchsten Gericht bestätigt), aber nach Commons-Policy kam man hier wohl um die Löschung nicht herum. Das heisst allerdings nicht, dass sich gerade bei älteren Fotos aus der Schweiz nicht vielleicht im Einzelfall doch ein Grund finden lässt, sie neben der Gemeinfreiheit in der Schweiz per {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} auch in den USA als frei anzusehen. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Das von Dir dargestellte ist genau das, was ich auch meinte, nämlich dass es für die Admins unzumutbar ist, das für jeden Bild einzeln zu klären. Du kannst für Beispiele, die Du für vertretbar hälst, das no-permission entfernen. Ich fühle mich damit ehrlich gesagt überfordert. --Krd 17:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Krd, nach Rücksprache mit Gestumblindi melde ich mich nun hier auch selbst zu Wort.

• File:Walterio Meyer Rusca (1882–1969).jpg ist, wie Gestumblindi schon gesagt hat, wie das ganze ETH-Bilderarchiv eindeutig und nachprüfbar unter der Lizenz CC-BY-SA 4.0 freigegeben – dieser Fall ist damit sicher erledigt.
• File:Christian Schmutz (2014).jpg wurde von der Photographin mit Mail vom 19. Oktober 2016 freigegeben. Wie ich eben sehe, hat sie es allerdings an permission-de@wikimedio.org statt wikimedia.org geschickt. Da Du selbst im OTRS-Team bist: Kannst Du nachschauen, ob sie das Mail anschliessend noch einmal – diesmal richtig adressiert – geschickt hat? Oder soll ich ihr Mail, das ich im CC bekommen habe, einfach noch einmal an permission-de schicken?
• Die Rechte für File:William G. Moulton (March 1954 at Bosco Gurin).jpg und File:Rudolf Trüb (1922–2010).jpg liegen ganz unbestritten beim Schweizerischen Idiotikon, Zürich, und wurden von dessen Chefredaktor Hans-Peter Schifferle damals (weiss nicht mehr, wann das war, habe das CC-Mail nicht mehr) zu Recht freigegeben. Es handelt sich dabei um Photos, die von den Exploratoren des Sprachatlasses der deutschen Schweiz (SDS) gemacht wurden. Alle mit dem SDS verbundenen Rechte des vorzeitig verstorbenen Rudolf Hotzenköcherle gingen testamentarisch an den Sprachatlas über, und nach Abschluss desselben gingen überhaupt alle mit dem SDS verbundenen Rechte vertraglich an das Schweizerische Idiotikon über. Testament und Vertrag befinden sich beim Idiotikon. Dein Edit bei diesen beiden Bildern kann also rückgängig gemacht werden. Im Übrigen arbeitet man am Idiotikon ohnehin an der Digitalisierung und Publikation dieser Bilder.
• File:Robert Schläpfer.jpg: Auch diese Photo befindet sich in der Sammlung des SDS; Schläpfer war ebenfalls ein Mitarbeiter. Beim Bild handelt es um eine Passphoto, die von einem Automaten gemacht wurde. Frage: Wer ist der Urheber bei Automatenphotos? Der Photographierte, da er ja selbst auf den Knopf drückt? Oder die Photofirma, die den Apparat zur Verfügung gestellt hat (doch eher kaum, sonst würden ja auch die Rechte an Bildern, die jemand anderer mit meinem Photoapparat macht, bei mir statt bei ihm liegen)? Trifft ersteres zu, dann wurde die Photo damals vom Chefredaktor des Idiotikons zu Recht freigegeben, da dieses Institut, wie gesagt, alle mit dem SDS verbundenen Rechte hat.
• File:Bearbeitungsgebiet des Rheinischen Wörterbuchs.jpg: Die Karte wurde 1928 publiziert; ein Name des Autors ist nirgends aufzufinden, weder auf der Karte noch in der Publikation sonst. Meines Erachtens ist sie damit gemeinfrei – oder irre ich mich? Die Photo habe ich selbst gemacht – habe ich damit allenfalls selber Rechte daran und muss diese freigeben? Falls nötig, kann ich auch bei der Verlagsgruppe Friedrich Oetinger vorsprechen, welche die Rechtsnachfolgerin des Erika Klopp Verlags ist, der seinerzeit die Publikation herausgegeben hat. Wenn sich das aber vermeiden lässt, wäre ich nicht unglücklich.
• File:Hans-Peter Schifferle.jpg: Hier war die Redaktion des Idiotikons der Meinung, sie besässe die Rechte daran. Sie dürfte sich freilich getäuscht haben; unterdessen weiss ich aber den Namen des Photographen und werde ihn um Freigabe bitten. Habe deshalb ein OTRS pending eingefügt.
• Bei File:Rudolf Hotzenköcherle.jpg und File:Guntram Saladin (1887–1958).jpg sind die Verhältnisse komplexer – möglicherweise hat die Redaktion des Idiotikons zu Unrecht vermutet, die Rechte lägen bei ihr. Hierzu muss ich nun dessen Archiv durchsuchen – könnt ihr die Photos so lange stehen lassen? Weiss nicht, ob ich das vor Weihnachten noch machen kann.

Lieber Gruss, --Freigut (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Es scheinen jetzt alle hier genannten Bilder eine Freigabe zu haben, außer:

• File:Bearbeitungsgebiet des Rheinischen Wörterbuchs.jpg
• File:Rudolf Hotzenköcherle.jpg
• File:Guntram Saladin (1887–1958).jpg

die inzwischen gelöscht wurden. Gib bitte kurz formlos Bescheid, falls die Bilder zur weiteren Klärung wiederhergestellt werden sollen. Gruß… --Krd 14:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• File:Bearbeitungsgebiet des Rheinischen Wörterbuchs.jpg: Habe den Verlag angefragt – der figuriert nämlich explizit auf der Karte, weshalb ich davon ausgehe, dass er 1928 die Rechte hatte. Aber wären sie diesfalls nicht abgelaufen, ist ja mehr als 70 Jahre her?
• File:Rudolf Hotzenköcherle.jpg: Mittlerweile durch ein anderes Bild ersetzt, wo die Rechtslage klar ist.
• File:Guntram Saladin (1887–1958).jpg: Dem konnte ich noch nicht nachgehen, werde das aber noch machen.

Gruss, --Freigut (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 20:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A question

Hi! Is there such a thing as "temporary adminship" here? I'd like to translate some MediaWiki messages, but don't want to use {{Editprotected}} for all of them (there're around 50 such messages, if we count untranslated gadget descriptions as well). It's resource and time consuming to use that template for all of them – not only mine but also some administrator's work would be needed. I would need those rights for a day or two, I guess. Do the policies allow such a thing here?--Piramidion (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that policies allow that. For everything that cannot be done on translatewiki, you either should use {{Editprotected}} or collect the changes somewhere and find an admin who applies them directly. --Krd 16:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that there's a translation message group for such messages: this one. But even having now a translation admin right, I'm still unable to translate those. If there was a user group with "editinterface" permission here on Commons, I'd request that flag. But afaik, there's none, except "administrator" flag, which I generally don't need. So if there's nothing that can be done here, I'll stick to using {{Editprotected}}, but will have to set aside some time to do that. Thanks anyway.--Piramidion (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 20:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)