User talk:WolfgangRieger

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days.

Löschanträge[edit]

Könntest Du bitte deine Löschanträge noch erweitern? Hier finden sich noch ein paar hundert Bilder, die ebenfalls ein Vorlage für die Lizenz verwenden. Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schön, dass wir miteinander reden. Die anderen Uploads habe ich durchaus gesehen. Ich halte selbstgebastelte Lizenzbausteine für sehr problematisch, aber vielleicht sieht man das hier anders. Die einfachste Möglichkeit wäre, den eigenen Baustein durch den Standardbaustein zu ersetzen, und zwar in sämtlichen Uploads. Ansonsten wird man sehen, wie der DR ausgeht. Ich fände es sehr bedauerlich, wenn eine große Zahl von Bildern wegen eines konstruierten Lizensierungsproblems gelöscht werden müsste. Beste Grüße --WolfgangRieger (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wolfgang, damit Deine Aktion nicht ein persönliches Geschmäckle bekommt, rege ich an, auch Löschanträge auf Bilder von Martina Nolte zu stellen, denn die werkt auch mit "persönlichen Lizenzbausteinen", vgl. [1]. LG Bwag (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WolfgangRieger: +1, sie *sind* problematisch. Man kann ja als WP-Textautor auch nicht daherkommen, und per selbstgebastelter Lizenz fordern, bspw. hinter jedem geschriebenen Satz namentlich in Klammern genannt zu werden. Sehe nicht, warum das bei Fotos anders sein sollte (mit Verlaub: klick-fertig; den ganzen High-End-Qualitäts-Hokuspokus brauchen bestenfalls Fotografen unter sich). Die einzig wahre Lösung ist die bei Wikidata, wo man mit jedem Edit in CC-0 einwilligt. Und das meine ich völlig unironisch. --Amga (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bwag: Ich habe keine Lust, Massenlöschanträge zu stellen. Aber in der Tat würde für alle Bilder mit Extrawurst-Lizenz im Prinzip das gleiche gelten: entweder entschließt sich der Urheber, den Gepflogenheiten zu folgen, oder sie gehören gelöscht. Zwar sicherlich schade, aber letztlich IMHO im Zweifelsfall unumgänglich. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natürlich hast Du faktisch einen Massenlöschantrag aus heitrem Himmel heraus gestellt, der ohne Not Wikipediartikeln die Bilder entziehen kann und Usern ausserhalb der Wikipedia die Möglichkeit nimmt, diese Bilder zu nutzen. Denn die Lizeneinbindung ist nicht nur einmal vorhanden.
An der Einbindung der von Commons bereitetgestellten Vorlage für die Einbindung der CC Lizenz Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland mit Nennung der Attribute ist nicht Extrawurstiges drann zu erkennen "Namensnennung – Du musst den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen "). Nenne doch bitte die konkreten Textpassagen aus der Lizenz so dass deine Behauptungen nicht wie eine dahergezaubertes Extrawurst erscheinen. Deine Begründung für deinen Löschantrag wurde übrigens von Túrelio in die Extrawurst-Tonne getreten "To avoid further misinterpretations: 1) the original (unspecific) deletion rationale is per se not valid. (many users have individual "license templates");" Du hast dich null mit der Lizenz beschäftigt und lediglich ohne Ahnung aus einem persönlichen Affekt heraus einen Löschantrag gestellt. Aus der Löschdiskussion geflissentlich hälst du dich dabei auch noch pikfein heraus.
Und Extrawurst? Verteilt die Wikipedia Extrawürste? Nein. Die Wikipedia wird mit Extrawürsten zugeschüttet in Form von Spendengelder und freier Arbeit Aussenstehender, die dafür null Pfennig sehen. Und falls Du über die Spendengelder auch noch finanziell über deine Admintätigkeit heraus eingebunden sein solltest, dann bist Du hier der einzige dem irgendwelche Extrawürste zufliegen. Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Das sind keine selbstgebastelten Lizenzen sondern Erklärungen und Erweiterungen, alles hier weit verbreitet und üblich. In meinen Augen ist das nichts weiter als BNS. --Ralf Roleček 15:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarot de Marseille thumb major.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!

 — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 26 July 2016 (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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:SFOD-D Patch.svg 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!

Jcb (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kameraposition[edit]

Hallo Wolfgang, ich beobachte, dass du immer wieder die Kameraposition bei Bildbeschreibungen einträgst. Die Objektposition einzutragen halte ich für sinnvoll (danke dafür), aber die Kameraposition in den meisten Fällen nicht. Genaue Angaben kann letztlich nur der Fotograf selber machen, und ungenaue Angaben kann man sich auch sparen, wie z.B. bei Baumstr. 11 Muenchen-4.jpg. Herzliche Grüße --Rufus46 (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sehe ich anders. Eine ungefähre, auf wenige Meter genaue Kameraposition sagt etwas über die Aufnahmeperspektive. Außerdem kann der Fotograf (im genannten Beispiel Du) jederzeit eine genauere Position eintragen. Und schließlich zeigen Tools wie wikishootme die Kameraposition und nicht die Objektposition an, das Ziel meiner Edits ist aber, Commons-Bilder mit solchen Tools besser auffindbar zu machen. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Fresco Villa dei Misteri Pompeii[edit]

Hi Wolfgang, do you have a high-resolution copy of this image? I'm writing on behalf of Trinity University Press, and we'd like to use this image for a book about art that we're currently publishing, but we can't use JPEG format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiah Mitchell (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC) --Isaiah Mitchell (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which file are you talking about? Please give precise name/URL. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Fresco Villa dei Misteri Pompeii 008 --Isaiah Mitchell (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from the source info, this is a scan from a book. If the quality of the file is not sufficient, I advise to get the book and do your own scan. However, the resolution would allow for 7.1in width at 300 dpi. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Flornoy Tarot[edit]

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!

Thomas Linard (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarot © Maritxu De Guler, 1983[edit]

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!

Thomas Linard (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2018 (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!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Thomas Linard (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2018 (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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Rosenzweig τ 20:26, 13 August 2018 (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]

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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this self-censorship?[edit]

File:Pompeii - Osteria della Via di Mercurio - Erotic Scene 2.jpg, File:Pompeii - Osteria della Via di Mercurio - Erotic Scene - Print 2.jpg. Please add a detailed explanation to the caption or this category may be removed as unjustified. --Lochost of China (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the description of the second file and look at the usage. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see an example of censorship, but why is it self-censorship? --Lochost of China (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:First Fandom Patch.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!

Susmuffin (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2021 (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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]