User talk:Mbdortmund/Archive/2010/June

Strand von Kerouriec

Hello Mbdortmund, Thank you very much for having added a German description in my image. Cheers, --Myrabella (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I think we will meet from time to time if you continue to contribute interesting pictures to QI. --Mbdortmund (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Immergluck2.jpg

File:Immergluck2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Wknight94 ^talk 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the information --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello?

Hab dich schon ein paar mal im Chat angepingt, kannst du mal bitte schauen ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

done (X) --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Juglans regia (Walnuss)

Hallo, danke für den Tipp, habe etwas beschnitten. Besser so? Mehr geht leider nicht. Gruß --Llez (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mal sehen, ob das gut geht, hab's promoted, aber vielleicht meckert jemand die etwas schwache Oberkante an. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100415-12397-Park.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

• archivieren --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10916-Burgweg-Jupiter.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10791-Burgallee-Saturn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10864-Burgallee-Mars.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10868-Burgallee-Mars.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

archivieren --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rombergpark-100516-13077-Oldenburg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

archivieren --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-U-100611-13989-Wasser.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Seems to be quite fine. ABF 11:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-U-100611-13983-Tauben.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI with funny details :) --AngMoKio 23:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

archivieren --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-U-100611-14065-Duell.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments looks good, too --Carschten 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-U-100611-14015-Rheinische.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

archivieren --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hemingway

Hello
Thanks for your work, it's very nice and fine.
I'm sure you understand that I've seen the distortion(s) in my own pic... The structures of the two buildings are very special, with a very strange angle when they "work" together. If you chose to set the plaque upright, then the distortion of the entry of the "74" is stronger. That why I proposed this image as it was restituted by my camera... One could make the other choice. Set the door and the façade upright, but the plaque will look really strange... I don't know... However, I'm very proud that a so good reviewer like you is interested by my pic, and spend time to work on it. Vielen Dank, mein Freund !! --Jebulon (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jebulon,

the picture is interesting and I am aware of the problems. My argument for correcting it my way was that the plaque is the main object of the picture - but I had to see the problem with the two numbers on the right and on the top of your photograph. It stays interesting anyway... --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the plaque is the main object, but it is not the main subject... I wanted to suggest a "parisian atmosphere" in the "Quartier Latin" (old and typical "intellectual" borrow in Paris) by showing the street sign with the name of the street, and the number of the building... That's why it's hard... And I've made a special photo of the Hemingway's plaque, I have now to correct the perspective distortion (lol !).--Jebulon (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-U-100616-14156-Kinder.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK --George Chernilevsky 07:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-U-100616-14242-Foyer2 .jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sehr gut --George Chernilevsky 07:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-U-100616-14271-Rheinische .jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Gut --George Chernilevsky 07:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

archivieren --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-U-100616-14305-children.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice and very sharp image. --A.Ceta 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund-U-100616-14203-Weitwinkel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Saustark! -- Smial 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) for english speaking readers: absolute adequate photo and view of that location, btst thx! --Mbdortmund 13:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

archivieren --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

QI

Bewegt sich QI in Richtung FP? Ich sehe das mit etwas Besorgnis. Nein, nicht wegen meines Bildes, das ins Review geraten ist. Aber die Nikon D700 ist recht ordentlich geknipst, mit nur leichten Schwächen (ausgefressene Lichter im Bajonett, etwas Rauschen), die blaue Winterlandschaft ist ebenfalls brauchbar und informativ geknipst - es wird Unschärfe in den Birkenästen bemoppert, File:Apophyllite-Kinoite (1) Fond.jpg ist nicht scharf genug usw. usw. Wie könnte man gegensteuern? -- smial (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Haste die Debatte verfolgt? Ich denke, einige wollen die Messlatte gezielt höher legen, auch bei FP. Man muss das beobachten und geduldig interessante Neulinge unterstützen. Die alten Hasen sind ja Kummer gewöhnt... --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Welche Debatte? Zu einzelnen Bildern? Oder gibts irgendwo eine Zentraldiskussion? -- smial (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

hier --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:I_was_here_in_Singapore.jpg

I usually just shrug and let things go, but this is one I really don't understand. How do you reconcile this quick close with our clear decision to respect the copyright on Warhol's Campbell soup cans, Christo's curtains and Wrapped Reichstag, and Mondriaan's rectangles? I think a clear argument could be made that the soup cans and wrappings are less creative than this. I think Mondriaan is very creative, but some of our colleagues might say his work is only simple geometric shapes.

I would also point out that our usual reaction to simple text is in the context of print, not sculpture. I would be the last to claim that "I WAS HERE" was copyrightable in print form. Sculpture is different, though, which is why many of the rules treat it differently from print.

Finally, I point out that the Singapore law (at Part II, Section 7) says,

"artistic work" means —

(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not;

(b) a building or model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or

(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship to which neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies,

but does not include a layout-design or an integrated circuit within the meaning of section 2 (1) of the Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Act (Cap. 159A);

and, later,

"sculpture" includes a cast or model made for purposes of sculpture;

There is no exception for "simple sculpture" or anything like it. In fact, there are no exceptions of any sort. This definition is considerably broader than the USA definition which we are all accustomed to working with. My reading is that literally any "painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph" is subject to copyright and that there is no exception for simplicity or lack of originality.

Unfortunately, you chose to close the discussion less than four hours after I posted my strong delete and before I had a chance to pull together the arguments above. I would think that when an editor posts a strong objection that it might be left open for comment for at least 24 hours to allow users around the world to comment -- after all, Singapore is roughly 12 hours out of sync with me and 7 with you, and we do have some DRs that are open for several weeks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would accept, if you start a new deletion request with your arguments above. I didn't see that your argumentation was not complete and it is definitly wrong to wait for month to close a DR. Perhaps your arguments are important enough to discuss them not only concerning this case because in fact you put into question our basic policy that simple text is not copyrightable. In this case it is even a very simple font without any special style. To be honest I'm not convinced that your line of arguments is right. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yours --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Deletion requests September 2009 still contains ten files. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That is right but not pleasing. Do you think my decision was wrong, Pieter? --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this can be kept. Even if our city would build something like this, I would not consider it copyright infringement. There is also Category:Love by Robert Indiana. And in principle, it is good to decide DR after a week. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx for example and explication --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Two thoughts. First, I was by no means proposing that having DRs open a month or more is good, far from it -- just that after an editor adds a "strong delete" that it might be nice to wait 24 hours. I notice that several of us go through the DRs on their eighth day -- the first day for a normal close. That means that I see all the DRs once -- on the eighth day. To avoid the sort of situation we have here, I would have to go through them a second time, earlier, and that's not efficient. Better that we should allow 24 hours after the last serious comment, particularly if it adds new thoughts.

Second, I did not look at all the images in Category:Love by Robert Indiana, but those that I did look at are tagged {{FOP}}, admitting that there is a copyright, but that FOP applies applies. Further, my strong belief is based on the breadth of the Singapore law. Most other copyright laws, including the USA, make exceptions for simple works. As I pointed out above, Singapore does not. Any sculpture is covered.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think it is an acceptable solution to open a new DR justified by this discussion? --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I want to think about it a little more and do a little more research -- Pieter is correct that Indiana's "LOVE" is a precedent -- we have photos of them in the USA. There may be other similar things that I haven't thought of.... Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buchenwald-100625-14486-Schwerte-hell.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very impressive QI.--Jebulon 22:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buchenwald-100625-14539-Schwerte.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 08:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buchenwald-100625-14406-Schwerte.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 08:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

archivieren --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buchenwald-100625-14397-Schwerte.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok, I accept the explanation. QI to me. --Cayambe 15:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Well, photograph could show the rails horizontal too...--Jebulon 23:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with reuploaded image

Hello. You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:USS Princess Royal.jpg as delete, but the file has been reuploaded from enwp, same name. Do I need to open a new discussion or can you just zap it? (not sure about Commons speedy criteria) Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the hint. I deleted it with a link to the old DR. --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In future will just tag for speedy deletion with a link to the DR if I find any like this. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buchenwald-100625-14559-Schwerte.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Great picture of a frightening sculpture. WikiLaurent 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)