Last modified on 9 May 2008, at 20:19

User talk:ChristianBier/Archives/2007/December

Return to "ChristianBier/Archives/2007/December" page.
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

what is the problem

I dont understand why you have flagged a couple of my photos. There are messages from you on my talk page. Please can you clarify what I am missing. My name is there and I clicked a copyright setting. Thelmadatter 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Problem is, that the painter of the wall paintings must give a permission to publish the photos of his paintings. ChristianBier 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
you tagged the stairwell images but not the mask one that is on the same page. Also, if you look at the article for Metro Insurgentes, there are images of some work done about the London and Paris metros that appear (that I did not upload). If those are OK, why not the photos of the stairways?Thelmadatter 17:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I will check the other pictures in the next hours and if necessary, I will tag them to. ChristianBier 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know what you do. Could you direct me to a document that can help me understand why it is a problem to take a picture of a public building that happens to have artwork incorporated in it?Thelmadatter 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You could read: Commons:Freedom of panorama. ChristianBier 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Great minds think alike... well sort of... after putzing around a bit, I finally ran into it... I had no idea what the terminology was. My understanding this that artwork permanently put in a public place can be photographed and used in Wikipedia. A metro station is public is it not? Also, under Mexican law (Freedom_of_panorama#Mexico), my photos seem permissible. Do you read it that way too?Thelmadatter 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Reread it... I have to put the name of the author of the work. I dont have it and wont be in Mexico City again for 2 weeks. Thelmadatter 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama only include pictures from public PLACES. Photographs, taken inside a buildig (a train oder metro station is a "building") are not included in freedom of panorama. In the mexican part this pictures are not especially excluded or included. I only know that the Austrian, British and Indian law allows taking pictures of publicly accessible interiors. ChristianBier 18:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the entire Mexican law with regard to this at http://www.sice.oas.org/int_prop/nat_leg/mexico/lcrd.asp#tit6cap2 in Spanish. The law states anything in "lugares publicos" (public places) falls under freedom of panorama. The word "lugar" can mean inside or outside location. In fact the law is more concerned that the reproduccion has no effect on the commericialization of the original (it doesnt) nor that the reproduction pretends to be the original (it doesnt). Much of what make Mexican construction notable is the artwork that is included. I would like to keep these pictures and photograph much more of Mexico City and central Mexico where I live. However, I will admit that neither of us are Mexican nor experts in Mexican law. To whom can we go and get this question definitely settled?Thelmadatter 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact that I don't understand Spanish very well and can't interpret that right, I will trust you. Maybe we should add this to the Page about F.o.p. You can take the taggs out of your pictures. ChristianBier 21:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats probably a good idea.. I doubt you would be the only person who would interpret "lugares publicos" as only outside places. Can/should anyone make that change or should it somehow be verifiable? If needed, I bet I could get a lawyer from our law faculty to write something.Thelmadatter 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I try to add "Mexican" to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Public_places. ChristianBier 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Timbre Allemagne Narcisse 012006.jpg

Hello. You want a tiny clean unused picture of this stamp : use another name, please. Sebjarod 14:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for doing the rename. ChristianBier 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Seminarix

Dann machen wir es einfach so: Weißt du, ob ich das GNU-FDL-Wallpaer noch gesondert in der Bildbeschreibung verzeichnen muss? Da bin ich mir ehrlich gesagt auch unsicher.

Ist ja nichts passiert. Den Wink mit dem Zaunpfahl habe ich verstanden: Suche die Abstimmliste und trage mich da unter Pro ein. Deine Arbeit in der WP finde ich sehr unterstützenswert, fand ich damals, finde ich heute. --Michael Reschke 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Danke für das Lob. Ein Bildlink auf das Wallpaper ist der richtige weg und die GFDL-Lizenz muss auch mit rein. Dann hast du alles Lizenzmäßig richtig gemacht. ChristianBier 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ist erledigt ([1], wird erledigt. Besten Dank! --Michael Reschke 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Danke dir vielmals. Und nochmal sorry wegen dem Bildschirmfoto. ChristianBier 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Kategorisierung der DDR-Marken nach Jahr

Hallo Christian! Habe nun Category:1952 German Democratic Republic stamps angelegt, weil die alte Bezeichnung Category:German Democratic Republic stamps, 1952 systemfremd ist (im Englischen kommt erst das Jahr und dann alles weitere). Hoffe, Du hast nichts dagegen. Des weiteren gibt es nun Category:German Democratic Republic stamps by year im Vorlauf zu Category:YYYY Deutsche Bundespost stamps sowie Category:YYYY Deutsche Post stamps (frühestens im Januar). Was hälst Du eigentlich von einem Commons:WikiProject German stamps oder evtl. Commons:WikiProject stamps — sonst müßte man dauernd unkoordiniert auf den Benutzer-Disk.-Seiten diskutieren?

MfG, --Mattes 13:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sollten wir angehen. Wenn du die Kats alle umbenennen willst, dann machen wir das koordiniert, damit ich die alten kats gleich als Admin ab Sonntag wenn fertig immer entsorgen kann. ChristianBier 13:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your support in my RfA! I see that you'll be an admin very soon yourself. I look foreword to working with you. Thanks again! Rocket000 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, was a pleasure for me. I think we could work together very well, too. ChristianBier 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Glückwunsch, lieber Administrator!

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

Ein Willkommenspräsent für unseren neuen Administrator von deinen Kollegen...

ChristianBier/Archives/2007, herzlichen Glückwunsch! Du hast jetzt die Rechte eines Administrators auf Commons.

Nimm dir bitte einen Moment Zeit, um dir die Seite Commons:Administratoren und die in Verbindung mit der Beobachtungsliste stehenden Seiten durchzulesen (insbesondere Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und Commons:Deletion requests), bevor du damit beginnst, Seitenlöschungen, Accountsperrungen oder Änderungen am Seitenschutzstatus bzw. an den geschützten Seiten selbst durchzuführen. Der Großteil der Bearbeitungen eines Administrators kann durch andere Administratoren wieder rückgängig gemacht werden, mit Ausnahme der Zusammenführung von Versionsgeschichten, die deshalb mit spezieller Obacht behandelt werden muß.

Wir laden dich herzlich ein, mit uns auf IRC Kontakt aufzunehmen: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Du findest zudem in dem Commons:Ratgeber zur Administratorentätigkeit vielleicht eine nützliche Lektüre.

Bitte überprüfe, ob du in der Commons:List of administrators und den jeweils nach Datum oder Sprache sortierten Listen eingetragen wurdest und ergänze deine Daten andernfalls.

EugeneZelenko 15:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vielen Dank Eugene. Ich werd dann mal mit der Lektüre beginnen. ChristianBier 15:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
+1: Auch von meiner Seite: Alles Gute und viel Spass mit den erweiterten Rechten! Gruss — Manecke 13:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Danke. Naja, Spaß is immer relativ, wenn man sieht wie viel getan werden muss. ChristianBier 13:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Da du ja ein workoholic bist sollte es (zumindest für dich ;)) Spass sein. — Manecke 14:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Wenn mans von der Seite aus betrachtet, hast du wohl recht ;-) ChristianBier 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
na das sag ich doch. :) Viel Spass auf jedenfall. Grüsse — Manecke 18:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Species categories

Hi ChristianBier; I just now ran across a discussion from last summer of species categorization on a user talk page. It seems I neglected to summarize one of the arguments, probably because I don't fully understand it. I think the argument is that category maintenance for species is an enormous task for those who do it, because of frequent classification changes. Those who do this work see species categories as doubling the work with no commensurate benefit. But, I may miss the point entirely. But, another point that I think I do grasp is that maintaining consistency among species categories and galleries may be difficult. I've heard this point made by others. You might find the discussion more illuminating than I. [2] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should see both arguments. In my opinion, species categories are helpful to navigate. Sure, it is an enormous task to create them, but we are a lot of Users here, and I think we could do this work. I find no point, that says "don't create species category" or someting else. So we should decide in every case, what way we should go - "Only Gallery-Page" or "Gallery and Category". ChristianBier 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Good arguments exist on both sides. While there are a lot of users on Commons, only a small number, probably less than ten, are have the expertise needed to keep the category tree consistent with the scientific literature and reasonably current. I'm inclined to defer to them in this effort. You are correct that it takes no special expertise to update species categories when the gallery page is moved to a new category. For that matter, a bot could be used for this purpose, as Quadell suggests in the link above. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, Christian. I deeply appreciate your support in my recent nomination. Finally, I've been appointed and I'm ready to go on working (this time with some extra buttons). If you need anything from me, don't hesitate to contact me. I'll be glad to help. Best regards and thank you again. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to see you as an admin. ChristianBier 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Problematic BG user

Hello, Christian. Thank you for facing the problematic uploads of User:Cool12, though I would object his indefinite term of blocking. Let me clarify the situation a little bit.

In the last 4-5 days this same user is developing in Bulgarian Wikipedia an article devoted to a photography site, which however does not meet any of the notability criteria for web content and is listed for AfD procedure. I am still not sure whether the user is in conflict of interest (manages the website or whatever), but he is really ardent in promoting it. He said that he is contributor to this website and the pictures are his own, and I am prone to believe him - all deleted images are from his own gallery there solely (and violates the idea that Wikipedia is not personal photoalbum!). However, it is his problem for not uploading them correctly on Commons. You know, it is a bit difficult to explain to new refractory users that the situation with self copyvio... Moreover, as you've seen them by yourself, some of the uploaded images are absolutely uncyclopedic and cannot properly illustrate any article. We're trying to locally temper the guy and explain him all this notability / copyright issues but he already accuses us for assuming bad faith...

I am afraid that your blocking him here indefinitely may worsen the situation, and lead to sockpuppet creation (he already locally showed his inclination to sockpuppetry). That is why I would suggest you to revoke the block but closely inspect his further contributions. Maybe some links to relevant materials on copyright issues will help too. :-) All the best, --Spiritia, sysop on BG WP, 10:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In the meanwhile the user showed cooperativeness and uploaded several really precious and illustrative images. --Spiritia 11:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Heinz Guderian

Why do you erased the image of Heinz Guderian? I think that it have all the necesary information. Thanks for read this.--Titán 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hola ChristianBier de verdad no entiendo, ni si quiera despues d leer todos los tutoriales cual es la licencia q tngo q utilizar para cada imagen. Las imagenes que subi y que fueron borradas, son imagenes q consegui en google, mi pregunta es cual licencia tengo que usar para estas imagenes que necesito para terminar o complementar paginas de wikipedia que estoy creando. Ademas agregar que no veo el problema con que esas imagenes esten en commons. por favor comunicate conmigo de verdad necesito q me expliques con tus propias palabras que debo hacer y cual licencia utilizar para estas imagenes. Gracias. Espero tu respuesta.

Image:Global Warming Predictions Map 2.jpg

If you had bothered to ask, I would have told you that this "duplicate" existed to avoid the adblocker conflict with having /ad/ in the cache path (a rather obvious problem when the image was used on the enwiki front-page) and it was Image:Global Warming Predictions Map.jpg that should have been removed. Image:Global Warming Predictions Map.jpg was globally replaced with Image:Global Warming Predictions Map 2.jpg on enwiki for a reason and you just undid that. Dragons flight 13:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Calkins Science Center Picture

Uhm my talk page shows no disscussion on that picture. Second I have emails verrifying that I could use the picture. The emails also gave me a selection of 3 pictures I could use. Can you explain why it was deleted when I also listed the person from GRCC who wanted the picture.--Mihsfbstadium 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no corect License Tag in the Picture, and you have to send the mails you've got to the OTRS so that a member of the OTRS-Team will put OTRS and Permission in the description page correctly. Without this it is a copyright violation because, we can't verify things you wrote. And then the picture has to be deleted. ChristianBier 10:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you need and where does it need to be sent to. I dont understand all of this stuff you wrote.--Mihsfbstadium 03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Again...

Hello. Again : Image:BM-Spreewald-1991.jpg : why don't you upload with a new name the uncancelled image of this stamp? Sebjarod 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's usual to upload a new version over the old one, because we don't need 2 different pictures of one stamp. ChristianBier 19:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Different images (such as used and unused stamps) should not be uploaded as a new version of an existing image. Uploading new versions is intended for edits that improve the existing images. Making a new scan of an unused stamp is not an edit to the existing scan of the used stamp. If the new scan is useful, it should be uploaded with another name. But the old scan should not be deleted. The deletion comment you have used ('Universally replaced by Image:Frauen_130_Pf_Lise_Meitner.jpg. Reason was "better version"') is not a valid reason for deletion. Category:Universally replaced by CommonsDelinker says:
"Admins: Please delete images in this category only if they are exact or scaled-down duplicates of the other image. Do not delete superseded images. (See Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded)"
So deletion of scans of the used stamps because the unused stamp is "better" should not be done without a deletion request at COM:DEL. /Ö 20:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The images were not superseeded. And that I had used the CommonsDelinke only to save time in replacing the images manually. The new images weren't uploaded for superseeding. They were uploaded for cleaning up. So thousends of other images (including stamps of course) were listet in Category:Images for cleanup. All that images will uploaded as a new version after editing and clean up (for example after cropping, rotating, etc.). It isn't useful to have a picture more than one times in 2 or 3 qualities (except the vector pictures - here we should keep the superseeded PNG/JPG-versions until SVG problems in Browsers were fixed). ChristianBier 20:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Timbre Allemagne 100pf Therese Giehse 1988.jpg = fuck you is my answer. The last times I foudn your changes : it's cancelled against uncancelled. So : get fucked ! Sebjarod 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of this, I have to block you for the next 3 days. Please think over what you wrote here and calm down. ChristianBier 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey...

KPA-blocken wenn man selbst beteiligt ist muss nich sein, auch wenn du recht mit der Sperre hast. Sieht aber besser aus, wenns von nem unbeteiligten kommt. Frohe Weihnachten, __ ABF __ ϑ 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Da magst du wohl recht haben. Frohe Weihnachten dir auch. ChristianBier 20:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

unsourced images

I knew there was something I was forgetting in the upload process! thanks for warning me. I'd prefer a quick note though, that huge warning clutters up my talk page. I'll replace them by the unsubstituted template, to save space, if you dont mind. Cheers, Waldir 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's okay. I use the small little button which inserts this template. ChristianBier 21:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

undeletion request

Hi, only obvious copy-violations and exact duplicates should be deleted without discussion, could you please restore the following images so that a discussion can take place? Image:Stamp Paula Modersohn-Becker.jpg, Image:Frauen 100 Pf Therese Giehse.png, Image:Frauen 180 Pf Lotte Lehmann.png, Image:Frauen 130 Pf Lise Meitner.png, Image:Frauen 080 Pf Clara Schumann.png, Image:Frauen 010 Pf Paula Modersohn-Becker.png, Image:Anneke240.JPG, Image:Frauen 240 Pf Mathilde Franziska Anneke.png, Image:Scannen0006.jpg. Thanks :-) --Tony Wills 04:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The PNG Files were not valid and were deleted because of this, so there is no discussion needed. Scannen0006 and Anneke240 were deleted because of "bad name" with exact duplicates. So only Image:Stamp Paula Modersohn-Becker.jpg was deleted without exact duplicate. I will watch the file and if necessary, I will undelete. ChristianBier 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanations :-), I did not understand from the deletion comments of "better version" that the .png files were in some way corrupt - I thought you might just be replacing pngs with jpgs although there is no policy about this. Nor did I understand that the other two had been replaced because of a "badname request" and already had exact duplicates.
I am still concerned about other deletions with comments of "although NOT an exact duplicate" as I can not see any discussions preceding their deletion. Eg Image:Reagan waves to crowd before being shot 1.jpg, Image:1 Euro coin Fr.gif, Commons has no problem with keeping similar images and specifically keeps revisions of images, and although there is a preference for jpgs for photographic images, there is not an automatic assumption that a jpg supercedes a gif version of the same thing. The only non exact duplicates that should be deleted without discussion are scaled down versions. My concerns also extend to the other files deleted with a comment of "duplicates", if they are not 'exact duplicates' where is the preceding deletion discussion? :-) --Tony Wills 20:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:1 Euro coin Fr.gif was an exact duplicate, same like the other pictures I deleted. I use the "delete"-button of the commons-delinker-template after checking usage and both images. This uses own deletionresons when deleting. So, the reason for replacing were taken from the reason the commonsdelinker was given by an admin. Duplicates, which were replaced after my request to the commonsdelinker, I check before delinking and replacing. So, when there is "duplicates" in Deletionlog, there was an exact duplicate. ChristianBier 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)