User talk:Mbdortmund/Archive/2010/March

Einstein painting

Hi, could you also delete the painting of Einstein that was nominated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ehrenfest-onnes-1920.jpg? Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

done (x) --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hömma

Kurze Frage: Ein Kumpel von mir (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GerryS1) wollte den Namen einer Datei ändern, weil es einen Firmennamen preisgibt. Es geht um http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_north.jpg . Das Bild ist sicherlich legitim und so, aber er wollte den Dateinamen ändern damit der Firmenname wo das Bild gemacht wurde weg ist. Geht das? Wenn ja, wie? Gruß, --Achim Hering (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Möglichkeit a) Wenn mir der Uploader des Bildes hier den neuen Namen angibt, kann ich die Datei verschieben.

Möglichkeit b) {{rename|Neuername.Dateiendung|Grund für die Umbenennung}} in die Datei einfügen, ein Admin wird sie dann verschieben, wenn der Grund nachvollziehbar ist.

mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Chris bell, 1969.jpg

Hi. Die Datei wurde anscheinend konominiert mit File:Big star 1972.jpg und sollte mit der gleichen Begründung gelöscht werden. Gruß Hekerui (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Was genau ist da verkehrt? --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dass File:Chris bell, 1969.jpg noch mit einer Löschnotiz bestückt ist die zu einer geschlossenen Diskussion führt. Entweder sollte das Bild gelöscht werden oder eine neue (zur ersten redundante) Diskussion gestartet. Ich wollte eine Entscheidung. Danke. Hekerui (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hab's wegen der Argumente auf http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Big_star_1972.jpg mit leichten Bauchschmerzen gelöscht

mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wie gesagt, man hätte noch eine neue Diskussion starten können :) Danke für die prompte Reaktion. Hekerui (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Im Grunde war die Situation klar durch das Eingeständnis des Uploaders, es tat mir halt leid um das Foto, das auch an mehreren Stellen im Gebrauch war. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AMT Coors Truck Deletion

Could you be more specific on why the truck picture was deleted? This is the typical appearance of a typical AMT model truck kit. In discussing the model company AMT, showing the kit is even more appropriate than showing a built model, because it shows how the kit appeared when one bought it in the store. In other words, it should not be considered a picture of a picture, rather as a picture OF a model kit taken by myself. Could this be permissible, after all? Thank you.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC) --Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I worked through many Backlogs the last days, could you please provide a link? --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-11028.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 Picture is good. Description is copy-pasted from something different, please correct. --Ikar.us 11:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10870-Burgallee-Mars-Portrait.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 --George Chernilevsky 05:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10854-Burgallee-Faunus.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 --George Chernilevsky 05:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10794-Burgallee-Saturn-Detail.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 good --George Chernilevsky 05:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-11008.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. Sehr gut --George Chernilevsky 11:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC) thx, George, first nomination since long time... --Mbdortmund 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Revise:Italic text http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_north.jpg

Hi,

Could you please rename this file to Transformer Fire Barrier. I have uploaded with the image with the owner's name without getting permission.

Please revise.

Thank you.

now http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transformer_Fire_Barrier.jpg

mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Patrick_Henry_Bruce_Stilleben.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Patrick_Henry_Bruce_Stilleben.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

-- User:Docu at 13:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• painter died in 1936 --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Patrick_Henry_Bruce_Forms_about_1918_.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Patrick_Henry_Bruce_Forms_about_1918_.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

-- User:Docu at 13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• painter died in 1936 --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Patrick_Henry_Bruce_Forms_about_1918_.jpg

File:Patrick_Henry_Bruce_Forms_about_1918_.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!

-- User:Docu at 14:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• painter died in 1936 --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10987-Laterne.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 composition --George Chernilevsky 07:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10781-Oranienburg.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 --George Chernilevsky 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10775-Oranienburg.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 A good winter complement to your other takes of the subject. --Iotatau 19:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Distorsion

Bonjour from Paris. Many thanks for having promoted my "Renommée" in Nancy. I don't understand what do you mean with "slight distorsion", could you please explain me ? Vielen Dank .----Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jebulon, if you look at the golden top of the pedestal it seems to be not straight on the right side, it looks as if it comes up a little bit, but I'm not shure, perhaps it is not straight in reality. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ave Borussia. You're right, it IS not straight in reality. All the sculpture is made of goldened lead, and more than two hundred years old.----Jebulon (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

*g* --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10980-Oranienburg.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 quality. --Elekhh 03:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10814-Burgallee-Faunus.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 Quality image. --Elekhh 02:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10833-Burgallee-Flora.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 quality. Interesting point of view --George Chernilevsky 07:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-11055-Lampe-Oranienburg.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-chin 0113 DSC 6376.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 composition --George Chernilevsky 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10841-Burgallee-Faunus.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 Sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 17:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Modif chateau rochebrune

Merci pour votre jolie modification de ma photo du château de rochebrune. --Croucrou (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10950-Artemis.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 Excellent! Sehr schön! --George Chernilevsky 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Karneval_2010_DO_10264IMG_0264.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Karneval_2010_DO_10264IMG_0264.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.

 

-- User:Docu at 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that, I find hard to believe. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC) (comment written before Mbdortmund removed what I reacted to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Man on a mission, looking for revenge. And want's to be an administrator.... Great. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

public place, public event, FOP in Germany. -- smial (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The image it is reproducing seems to come from here. -- User:Docu at 10:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Da ist weder ein Pappmache-Rathaus zu sehen noch Häuser im Hintergrund oder Gebüsch. Ein blaues Auge auch nicht. Sollten die Karnevalisten eventuell wegen einer URV angezeigt werden? -- smial (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbdortmund, will you delete this one yourself or do you prefer that I list it for deletion? -- User:Docu at 02:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Das sieht hier so langsam wie Stalking aus. -- smial (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Duisburg 10406IMG 0406.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 07:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-090806-9420-Capellerallee-Atlas.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 --Carschten 20:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A recent deletion request closure

I'm curious why you closed this as "kept"?--Rockfang (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rockfang,

the main argument is that the copyright for this picture expired in China. With the tag {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} it should imo be possible to keep it. We have many cases where pictures of artwork or photography are not free around the whole word but only in some countries and there were a lot of conflicts in the history of our project, for instance concerning freedom of panorama. We have this right in Germany and our neighbours in France have not. If we would start to look for the strictest law in any case you will find reasons to delete many pictures. With the tag above users in the USA will be warned that this picture may still be copyrighted there.

These cases are often difficult to decide and I am no lawyer. If you like to discuss this case accurately http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing should be the right place. Perhaps you can start a new discussion there, perhaps I was wrong and we can get better arguments there.

best regards --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. With regards to this image, do you disagree with or think there is a reason why we should ignore the policy that states that files uploaded to Commons should be under a free license in both the country of origin and the US?--Rockfang (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case I would refer to the exeption which is named at the end of the policy. But there is still place for discussions. If you look at pictures which are free following the FOP in Germany it is not clear what this means for a user in the USA. For this reasons we have those warning tags. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nordkirchen-chin 0051 DSC 6314.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 --George Chernilevsky 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Neue Lizens : amtliches, bulgarisches werk

• Description : memorial card for the 85 anniversary of the bulgarian airforce
• Author : unknown Offical of national airforce Museum, (individual acts of government bodies )

Permission :

According to the Bulgarian Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act (as amended in 2011), Chapter 2, Article 4, the following documents "shall not be considered objects of copyright": normative and individual acts of government bodies and official translations thereof; ideas and concepts; works of folklore; news, facts, information and data. Hence it is assumed that this image has been released into the public domain. However, in some instances the use of this image might be regulated by other laws.

Was sagt der Meister ? --Gonzosft (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gonzosft,

sieht schick aus, aber von der Rechtslage in Bulgarien verstehe ich nicht genug, um das inhaltlich zu beurteilen.

mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interview Aaron Saxton part 1 of 7.ogv. -- Cirt (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, there was no real reason to delete the films. --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

File:PC Engine Duo.jpg

Because the last deletion request mega is the same as going for a Commons:Deletion requests/File:PC Engine CD-ROM2 Interface Unit.jpg, and this image infringes a copyright with a copy from Internet auction, about a Commons:Deletion requests/File:PC Engine Duo.jpg, please delete it.--SACHEN (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

thx for the info --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This image is the one from the Yahoo JAPAN auction. The account of it and user 風霧 is my another accounts.--SACHEN (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It wants to send to the deletion request again, and teach the deletion request method, please. --SACHEN (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSGD head-shot.jpg

Just for info: I think I should have linked to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roman & RED camera.JPG. --Eusebius (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius,

I did see those files with the camera but I was not shure if I should believe in a selfportrait in those cases. Difficult to decide anyway. What would you say? --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have deleted both, I think this user hasn't uploaded a single "own work" file. But I came to point you some information, not to question your decision. --Eusebius (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The EXIFs were an argument for me that the user was owner of the pictures, but you are right, they are from different cameras. But still they show that the photographers someway should have agreed to be a kind of helper for getting a kind of selfportrait. I'm not shure anyway.... Sorry --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing obviously wrong with the keeping of the picture. We might as well have assumed good faith in the "own work" statement. I should have given more info, that's all I wanted to say. End of story I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mh, ist das tatsächlich verbindliche Commons-Politik? *Schauder*, damit machen wir Sockenuploads für Fan-Cruft aber mal alle Türen auf. -- smial (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi smial, normalerweise tolerieren wir Bilder für die Benutzerseite aktiver User; wenn einer nur sich selbst darstellt und nix beiträgt, wärs imo ein Löschgrund, aber ich gebe zu, dass ich das in diesem Fall nicht geprüft habe. Ich habe schon befürchtet, dass es Ärger gibt, wenn ich mich ferienbefreit mal durch ein paar Backlogs arbeite, denn da sind halt nur schwierige Fälle, aber ich finde es nicht gut und benutzerfreundlich, Löschanträge monatelang in der Luft hängen zu lassen. Manchmal habe ich auch unter dem Motto "im Zweifel für das Bild" gewillkürt, da sich keine klare Entscheidungsgrundlage finden ließ. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ich zweifle die Entscheidung als solche nicht an, du hast dich ja auf eine sehr eindeutig klingende Aussage bezogen. Diese Aussage finde ich halt grenzwertig, daher meine Frage, ob das wirklich Konsens ist. Oder, weitergehend: Weißt du, ob das irgendwo schon mal übergreifend diskutiert wurde? -- smial (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, ich hab's in verschiedenen DRs gelesen, aber eine übergreifende Debatte kenn ich nicht. --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, dann denke ich nicht mehr drüber nach. Soll es halt so sein. -- smial (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dringende Bitte

Hallo Mbdortmund, ich habe eine dringende Bitte: Die Datei:SST14 Luebke 05.jpg sollte dringend gelöscht werden, da dort meine volle Unterschrift zu sehen ist. Damit bin ich nicht einverstanden. Viele Grüße --BangertNo (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

done (x) --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)