User talk:PaterMcFly

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

I usually contribute to the de-version of wikipedia as user PaterMcFly. Please inform me of deletion notifications on my talk page there, not here.

TUSC token 887f0dbb2bf57475408858e5d40a1392[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Mass deletion requests[edit]

Hi, you mentioned on this deletion request that you didn't know how to submit multiple images from one uploader for deletion. So I thought you might be interested in reading the procedure for mass deletion requests. I hope this will help. Best wishes. --Tryphon (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the tip. That might come in handy. I'll wait a day or two though, to get an idea whether the first request has any chance in succeeding. --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good idea, and I didn't mean to point you to these instructions for this particular deletion request. I just thought it might be useful at some point in the future. --Tryphon (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BArch images with biased description[edit]

Good idea, fixed the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fine, thanks. I didn't check so far, because I expected the category inclusion to be in the top level template, which is protected. Thanks :-) --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File tagging File:Trincomalee.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Trincomalee.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't my image. I only transfered it from en to commons. Maybe I didn't check the license carefully enough before doing so, though. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personally, the message is added automatically to your talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Ok. this didn't look like a bot edit to me, though. Or do you mean "automatically using some script"? --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is done through JavaScript: when I tag the image, the latest uploader is automatically notified in the same time. It's the "Quick delete" gadget that you may find in your account settings. --Eusebius (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, PaterMcFly!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 22:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Globi.jpg[edit]

Hi, I don't think there is any permission for the image. I've copied the info in the description template below and also checked on OTRS - there's no permission on the system and was no indication on the file page. Not sure where you got impression there was a permission..--Nilfanion (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Description=
    English: How Globi looks like
    Deutsch: Wie Globi aussieht
  • Source=gisela.klinkenberg@globi.ch
  • Author=www.globi.ch
  • Date=2008-10-29
  • Permission=© Globi Verlag, Imprint der Orell Füssli Verlag AG, Zürich, Schweiz
Hmmm... Maybe I was missguided by that "Permission" line. Could we ask someone from otrs to try to contact that e-mail address? (preferably in german, of course) --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing to do would be to contact them yourself (OTRS volunteers have enough work as it is without creating more work for themselves). The email templates should help Commons:Emailvorlagen.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for that link. I'll see what I can do (that picture really adds to the article) --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now...[edit]

I was writing... :) Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Serbia_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars.png --Tadija (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you now? None reacted still... And image is constantly reverted from wikipedia. highly POV. --Tadija (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Das schwarze von dir anscheinend (zum Glück) verschlafene Wochenende[edit]

Hallo Pater,

mir scheint du hast wirklich einiges (unglaublich unglückliches) verpasst dieses Wochenende (inkl. Donnerstag Abend): siehe Kurier de:Wikipedia:Kurier#Vulva Reloaded + Jimbo und weiterführende Links: de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Thema_in_anderen_Medien_und_Diskussionen_.28Gruppiert.29.

Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 10:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hab's nicht verschlafen (leider) sondern weit in die Nacht hinein versucht, Bilder zu retten. Die Analyse, was davon brauchbar ist, steht sogar noch aus. Ich hatte nur nicht mehr sofort auf deinen Hinweis reagiert. Und ob's so unglücklich war, wird sich noch zeigen. Vieles ist inzwischen wieder da und Jimbo diverse Flags los. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

File:MUSC 01.jpg and 02[edit]

Hello, your comment on the deletionrequestpage for this file states that there is no issue with this picture. Can you show me the place where a proper license for this pictures is granted? I could not find that (for both pictures) Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I didn't check the license, I only argued about the given deletion rationale, which was "someone in the image doesn't like it". Therefore, I also didn't make a "keep" or "delete" statement, but only said that the given rationale was invalid. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Doubts[edit]

Hi Mr Pater, I have copyright doubts concerning these images that have been released in public media in the Republic of India. These images are taken on behalf of a Government Organisation and are Free to be used for educational purposes. I am not aware of the type of licensing it lies under. If you could please help. I am not violating copyright laws on purpose. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profbond07 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you have the images from? Is there a weblink or something available? This would allow me to check whether these are free. It is not the default that works by a government are free, this applies only to works of the US government. It could be that works by the indian government are free, but I would have to check. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: It does not look as if images by the indian government are free, see here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above is maybe correct saying for educational purposes - so maybe this explains all. Commons isnt restricted to free for educational purposes but free for any purpose including commercial purposes. This is a free content project. I think we can delete this non-free uploads and advise Profbond to please follow our licensing policy and read about what freedom means here on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that's maybe the source of the missunderstanding. (Altough I sometimes wish NC licenses would be allowable here, but that's another story) --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FoP und österreich etc.[edit]

Hallo Pater, es ist das erste Mal, dass ich mit den Commons zu tun habe, und brauche etwas Hilfestellung bezüglich der vier von mir monierten österreichischen Innenraumbilder: Inzwischen ist ja eigentlich klar, dass FoP à la Autriche existiert und die Dateien hier auf Commons o.k. sind (habe daher auf de:WP wiederum nachgefragt, ob und wie die Links auf Commons evtl. entfernt werden müssen). Sollte ich jetzt besser sofort die Markierungen der vier Dateien entfernen (und {{{FOP}}}) eintragen), oder stört das die Prozesse, weil zu erwarten ist, dass nun die Massen strömen und auch Häkchen auf den Diskussionsseiten setzen wollen, die dann desorientiert sind. Wer/was/wann setzt ein "Erledigt"? -- Gymel (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genaue Regeln dazu gibt es auf Commons meines Wissens nicht. Du kannst einfach in den Löschantrag reinschreiben, dass du ihn zurückziehst und die FOP in die Bildbeschreibungen eintragen. Ein Administrator wird dann irgendwann (kann recht lange dauern) den Antrag abschliessen und noch knotrollieren, ob die Annahme tatsächlich zutrifft. Ob die Bilder auf deWiki verwendet werden sollen ist, wie du offenbar selber schon gemerkt hast, eine andere Frage. Da dürfte der Konsens eher Richtung "Nein" gehen, weiss ich aber auch nicht so genau. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French diplomas[edit]

I think your arguments are right. Just would you like to vote (keep or delete) at the page Commons:Deletion requests/French diploma Thanks Jirnov (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious that my arguments are in favor of "keep"ing. Deletion discussions are not polls, so it does not matter how big you write "keep" or "delete". Arguments matter. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Tupac Shakur derivative image[edit]

Please share your opinion here too. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I normally assume that the deciding admin reads the whole log of a day at once, so I don't have to post for each similar case. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schöpfungshöhe[edit]

Was hälst Du von

File:Háskólabíó.JPG

diesem Kino? Ein ganz junger Architekt schlug mit seinem Entwurf seinen alten Lehrer an der Hochschule! Damals ging es noch nicht um die Kosten. hier ist er mit Bild (unter dem Mädchenkopf) abgebildet, wo diese Nachricht steht. Der Ksten sieht doch einfach aus. Fingalo (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also das sieht für mich eigentlich schon nach Schöpfungshöhe aus, auch wenn man es wirklich als "hässlichen Betonblock" bezeichnen kann. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not FOP[edit]

I understand FOP, but I think the architect continue to have the copyright. It's his right for his work. Cezarika1 (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, see COM:FOP. We do accept any images that have been taken with under circumstances that allow FOP. Otherwise, you would have to nominate probably hundreds of thousands of images here. If you desire a change in policy, the deletion discussion is the wrong place for this. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bilder oder Papier[edit]

Hallo PaterMcFly. Da du deutsch schreibst, möchte ich dich bitten auf meinem Bilder-Depo einmal nachzuschauen. Auf der weiteren Seite ist auch noch dieses Bild das evt. gelöscht werden könnte. Da ich kein Englisch kann, wäre es schön, wenn du bei den anderen evt. Lösch-Bildern auch einmal nachschauen würdest. Die alten Papiere z.B. sind alle mein Eigentum und sind schon lange nicht mehr gültig, denn ich habe diese extra für die Historie bekommen. Ich danke dir für die Unterstützung. Mfg vom --Elkawe (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, mehrere Punkte hier: Zunächst bedeutet Eigentum an einem Bild oder einem Werk nicht, dass man die Urheberrechte besitzt. Ist zwar blöd, ist aber leider so. Daher hast du grundsätzlich zunächst mal auch keine Rechte an irgend welchen Bildern oder Akten, die dir übergeben worden sind. Bei den Akten sehe ich da allerdings eher weniger Probleme, da das Amtliche Werke sind und ausserdem für urheberrechtlichen Schutz zu einfach sind (d.h. die sogenannte Schöpfungshöhe nicht ausreicht für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz).
Das nächste Problem ist, dass du bei einer Fotografie (die du selbst gemacht hast) eines fremden Werkes keine Rechte am Werk bekommst, d.h. das Foto nicht frei verwenden darfst. Es sei denn, das fotografierte Werk wäre frei, also zum Beispiel bereits alt genug oder eben auch zu geringe Schöpfungshöhe. Das ist beispielsweise bei den Fotos von Autokennzeichen mE eindeutig der Fall.
Im Einzelnen (Ich gehe davon aus, dass alle Bilder von dir selbst im deutschen Sprachraum gemacht wurden, sonst wäre es nochmal anders)
@ danke und kann ich das dort jeweils jetzt noch einfügen ?
Ja, kannst du natürlich. Wenn du nachträchlich feststellst, dass du beim Lizenzieren einen Fehler gemacht hast, kannst Du das korrigieren (Ausnahme etwa wenn du nach Jahren ein Bild von PD-self nach CC-BY-SA oder so umlizenzieren willst).
@ siehe bitte dortige Diskussion
Ok, ohne genaues Alter wird es schwierig.
@ Reklame vom Bundesverband Güterverkehr und Logistik (BGL) / Ende 1970 - Anfang 1980 + diese Reklame gabs in tausendfacher Ausfertigung z.B. als Abziehbilder, kl. Papier-Fähnchen, kl. Kissen 20x20 wie dieses Bild usw. Ich kann mir auch die Erlaubnis vom BGL geben lassen
Ja, hier wäre eine Erlaubnis am Besten.
@ ebenfals BGL-Reklame / ca. Mitte 1970 - Anfang 1980 und der kl. Brummi ist genau 8 cm groß und gehört mir
Dito, am besten mit Erlaubnis
@ Diese Plaketten sind normal an fast jeden sehr alten Oldtimer-LKW zu sehen und sind dort in vielen verschiedenen km Ausferigungen nur am Kühlergrill angebracht. Dann wären nach meiner Meinung auch die alten LKW Logos + Abzeichen auch nicht ok / Die Km-Ehren-Plakette ist mein Eigentum + 8 cm groß
Ok, wenn sie aussen an LKWs angebracht sind, greift wohl die Panoramafreiheit. Ich versuche das mal zu begründen.
@ Automuseum Melle an der Außenwand am Eingangsbereich
Ok, kein Problem in dem Fall
Beachte: Dies alles sind meine eigenen Meinungen, die ich mir auch aufgrund von Erfahrung mache. Andere könnten teilweise zu anderen Schlüssen kommen. Wenn du etwas nicht verstehst, frag bitte nach. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vielen dank fürs nachschauen PaterMcFly und es hat mich sehr gefreut. Nun haben hier bei Commons die Admins sehr viel zu tun und hier geht es auch sehr streng zu. Ich werde bzw. will hier keine zusätzliche Arbeit für die Verantwortlichen hinterlassen und ich denke sehr genau nach bevor ich ein Bild hochlade. Die KM-plakette wäre eigentlich das letzte was ich hier als Problem angesehen hätte. Einen Gruß und nochmals danke für deine Hilfe vom Elkawe (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kein Problem, solche Fehler passieren anfänglich fast jedem hier. Schlimmer als solche Fehler aus Versehen/Unwissenheit sind auch bewusst mit falschen Informationen hochgeladene Dateien. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright oder "public domain"? oder "Mal 'ne blöde Frage"[edit]

Hallo Pater McFly. Ich habe mal eine ganz blöde Frage. Es heißt ja, dass man hier nach Möglichkeiten nur seine eigenen Werke hochladen darf und das Kopieren urheberrechtlicher Werke verboten ist. Wie verhält es sich beispielsweise, wenn ich einen Kassenbon oder eine Fahrkarte scannen und hochladen würde? Ist es eine Urheberrechtsverletzung, wenn ich jetzt ein benutztes Ticket bzw. einen Kassenbon vom Supermarkt in der Nähe einscanne und hier veröffentlichen würde?
Einerseits: da die Entwürfe darauf von jemanden stammen müssen, vornehmlich von den Verkehrsbetrieben, -verbünden, -gemeinschaften bzw. den Einzelhandelsgruppen, würde da wahrscheinlich dann das Copyright greifen, könnte aber nach den Gesetzen einer fairen Verwendung greifen, sofern die auch in Deutschland Bestand haben.
Andererseits: da jeder solch ein "Dokument" bekommen kann, egal, ob er es selber "erworben" hat oder nicht, und es auch noch vielfältig sein kann, dürfte hier einer der freien Lizensen gelten da nicht wirklich ein Urheberrecht besteht. Demnach müßte auf jede Fahrkarte / jeden Kassenbon, der ausgegeben wird, ein Copyright drauf sein. Verschiedene Zeitpunkte, verschiedene Auflistungen, verschiedene Geltungsbereiche etc. Wie verhält es sich damit? Das habe ich mich mal gefragt, als ich meine Sammlung von Kassenbons durchsah. Mir scheint, dass es sich hier eventuell um eine Grauzone handelt. Wie wäre das rechtlich zu bewerten? --Saviour1981 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die Fragen sind berechtigt. Es ist grundsätzlich erstmal so, dass der Besitz an etwas nicht das Urheberrecht einschliesst. Auch wenn du einen (echten) Picasso zu hause hängen hättest, hättest du prinzipiell mal nicht das Urheberrecht daran. Das gilt auch für Fahrkarten oder Kassenzettel. Aber: Der urheberrechtliche Schutz erfordert eine gewisse eigene kreative Leistung. Deshalb ist alles, was die sogenannte Schöpfungshöhe nicht erreicht, nicht geschützt. Computergenerierte Ergebnisse, wie Kassenzettel oder auch z.B. das Ergebnis einer Google-Suche sind daher nicht geschützt. Bahntickets auch nicht, es sei denn z.B. das Papier wäre noch irgendwie speziell. Auch Firmenlogos sind oft nicht geschützt (beachte aber, dass diese "minimale Schöpfungshöhe" international niedriger angelegt ist als in DACH, weshalb wir viele Firmenlogos direkt auf dewiki hochladen und nicht hier auf commons). --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... das hieße ja, man kann sie unter derselben Lizenz veröffentlichen, wie das SED-Logo? So verstehe ich das zumindest mit der Schöpfungshöhe, die nicht ganz erreicht wurde. Auf jeden Fall danke ich dir für die Antwort. Das hat mir doch ein großes Stück weitergeholfen. --Saviour1981 (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, die richtigen Lizenzbausteine (auf commons) für sowas sind {{PD-Ineligible}} und/oder {{PD-Textlogo}}. Wobei das SED-Logo nach Commons-Massstäben schon fast Schöpfungshöhe haben könnte. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Logo_ono.svg[edit]

Hi. Sorry for the bother, but somebody closed the deletion process for this file quite quickly and one doesn't come to Commons everyday. This particular file is registered under the European Union Office of Patents, including the brand device, thus rendering it not eligible to be kept at Commons no matter what the rationale or license text may say. To be more precise the OAMI brand number is 009057118 and you can find more information here: http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/QPLUS/databases/searchCTM.es.do (sorry, this page is Javascript-based and I can't provide you with a direct link). Can we delete this from Commons before some laywer gives us a ring? Thanks in advance, Cvalda (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user posted the same to my talk page. --Leyo 08:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err... No. No lawyer may give a call here (well, he might try, but it's useless). The logo is protected by Trademark, which is something very different from copyright. Please read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Copyright protects the work itself, but in this case the work (= the logo) is not protectable by copyright because it's too simple. Trademark prevents some usages of the logo. In this case, one might i.e. not use the logo for a commercial on another company's products. However, we don't care about this, because these limitations do not disallow hosting such images. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I didn't know much about this subject and I must say it's a tricky one. Thank you so much for your patient explanation, and sorry for the inconvenience, Cvalda (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. These laws are tricky in the first place, and we all had to learn about them. One remark for logos protected by trademark: Because of those limitations, one should generally only use these images in contexts of encyclopedic articles or news items about the subject, not i.e. on user pages or in similar places. It should always be clear that we're not affiliated (connected to, paid by) the respecitve company. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I wanted to delete it; in es:wiki we can only use images from Commons on the assumption that they are free to use, and when I saw the logo at es:Ono, clicked on it and saw the image was on the public domain, I freaked out a bit. Well, now I know it was the work that was released for free, not the trademark. And it's always nice to learn. Thank you again, and cheers, Cvalda (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schnellöschanfrage[edit]

Hallo lieber Pater McFly,

ist es möglich, mir diese falschgeschriebene Kategorie zu löschen? Habe einen Löschantrag gestellt, aber anscheinend so schlecht erstellt, dass er gar nicht angezeigt wird. Muss ich noch lernen, wie das funktioniert. Habe den ganzen Inhalt von dort in die gleichnamige Kategorie ohne Rechtschreibfehler verschoben, diese Kategorie kann also gelöscht werden. Das wäre sehr nett, weil ich vermeiden will, dass jemand diese Kategorie mit Typo Error sonst benutzt bzw. neu erstellt und die Kategorie ohne Typo Error übersieht. Thanks in advance :-) Ein frohes neue Jahr wünscht Saviour1981 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin nicht Commons-Admin, kann das also selber auch nicht löschen. Zum Schnelllöschenlassen verwende {{Kurze Begründung}}, das ist dann wesentlich einfacher als das Erstellen "normaler" Löschanträge hier. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 11:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Your prior participation in a discussion[edit]

You previously participated in a discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg.

There is another discussion ongoing, again, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg.

Please if you wish to do so you may voice your opinions and comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

File:Noyce1.jpg[edit]

File:Noyce1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Rosenzweig τ 12:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Pipeline en correction[edit]

Hi Pater, a first time user here. There is a small spelling error in this en SVG:

geometry pipeline

The word 'objekt' should be 'object. I have a corrected version of the file but I am unable to upload the correction myself. --Libjohn (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix it, but I'm quite busy otherwise, so it may take a few days. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Invisible box}}[edit]

Hi PaterMcFly, brauchst du bzw. legst du noch wert auf diesen Baustein? Er wurde von jemand zur SL vorgeschlagen und wird tatsächlich nirgends benutzt. Your call. --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nein, ich mag mich da auch nicht mehr dran erinnern. Wahrscheinlich habe ich die angelegt, weil irgendwo ein Parserfehler aufgetreten war. Da sie nicht mehr in Gebrauch ist und auch wenig sinnvoll, kann das weg. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Datei gelöscht[edit]

Hallo, PaterMcFly!

Ich halte Ihre Worte in dieser Diskussion für absolut korrekt. Es ist nicht klar, warum die Datei gelöscht wurde. Kann man diese Datei wiederherstellen? --DarDar (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wahrscheinlich schwierig. Man müsste tatsächlich sicherstellen, dass meine Annahme "unbekannter Autor" zutrifft (z.B. durch Recherche wo das Bild herkommt). "Unbekannter Autor" und "anonymer Autor" ist tatsächlich nicht das gleiche, kann aber unter Umständen so angenommen werden. Dazu muss aber wirklich sicher sein, dass es keine Möglichkeit gibt, den Autoren festzustellen. Leider ist Commons da mittlerweile (?) wieder restriktiver geworden, weil irgenwelche Gerichte regelmässig den Sinn von Gemeinfreiheit nicht verstehen und uns weitere Steine in den Weg legen. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Danke! Ich meine auch so. Siehe auch: Studio portrait taken 1943.
--DarDar (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important message for file movers[edit]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

  • To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
  • To perform file name swaps.
  • When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beneteau.png[edit]

File:Beneteau.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

PtiBzh (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Thai-khmer learn (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PaterMcFly&oldid=865669551"