Herrick~commonswiki

Archiv 1

hello

hey that is not "ramya krishna"

that is ramya[kannada actress]

that photo is taken by me personally when i met ramya in bangalore --User:Chandanmm missing signature added --Herrick 08:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

would you please explain the artificial difference between this very weak image and the other professional looking images? (Besides: the lack of meta-data?) I'am also a fan of bollywood movies like "Khabi Khushi Kabhie Gham", "Lagaan" or "Water" but a look at http://kannadagallery.oneindia.in/v/album61/PoD_ramya.jpg.html calls her "South Indian actress Ramya Krishna". You met her. On which profession? And please sign your edits on discussion pages with --~~~~ Look also at Chandanmm's discussion pageCU --Herrick 07:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

there are two actress in kannada named as ramya

look at this she is ramya[other name Divya Spandana]

• http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/kannada/gallery/Actress/4455.html

she is ramya krishna

http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/tamil/gallery/Actress/4249.html

i hope you got the difference between them

If you took a look at this poor, weak image and the professional shots your image could be anyone who had a similiar eye distance on her nose like ramya. I think that ramya krishna http://german.imdb.com/name/nm0471447/ is a little bit older because her first appearance in a movie was Sankeerthana (1987), Ramya's http://german.imdb.com/name/nm1631667/ in 2003 (Ranga (S.S.L.C)) I think she's the younger one and maybe illustrated by the image, but you don't answer the first questions. --Herrick 08:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't matter,whatever the image quality be
i know ramya[Divya] very well.she is my friend sister who lives in bangalore.i met her so many times.i too live in bangalore

But if she is a friend of your sister, you would be probably able to deliver better image quality? You'll see the lack of your arguments, do you? And how would you desribe the big difference to the other promotion shots? You'll have to argue at your own discussion page, because the Copyviotags are linked to this position. CU --Herrick 08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

i don't have time and patience to explain everything here.
truly speaking that picture is mine.
no need any explanation
bye

please delete this discussion
thanks

If you would put a reasonable description in the image summary there'll be no questions. You know that your statement no need any explanation is no polite. I think that this image is your own work, but the others are copyright violations. --Herrick 08:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

reply in my usertalk page.

Notiz

Bitte löscht alle bilder vom: der blutige pfad gottes, die ich heute morgens raufgeladen habe, das ist der reine chaos hier für mich, ich kann die bilder ja nicht mal selbst wieder löschen o__O... Crosina .... Danke Herrick

Hallo Crosina, ein "reines Chaos" ist es nicht; wohl aber recht unübersichtlich für den Newbie. Da die Bilder in Größe und Auflösung deutlich über jenen im Netz lagen (auch wenn sie identisch waren), stammen sie wohl vom Presseserver. Oder liege ich falsch? Es wäre schön, wenn ein Vertrieb seine Pressebilder "unbeschränkt" freigeben würde, aber selbst bei den mir näher bekannten Vertriebsfirmen (ems, Eurovideo, Polyband, Universum, Epix, Paramount etc.) beschränkt sich die auf die zweckgebundene Publikation bei Rezensionen. Buena Vista/Disney besteht sogar auf ihrem in Deutschland überhaupt nicht zu intersssierenden Copyright-Vermerkt. Ich denke, dass die Bilder spätestens heut' abend routinemäßig gelöscht werden. mfg --Herrick 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hallo Herrick! Willst du hier auf Commons Admin werden? Ich lösche regelmäßig von dir markierte Bilder und denke, von erweiterten Rechten könnten alle Beteiligten nur profitieren, sieht man von Familie, Hobby und Haustieren mal ab … Grüße, --Polarlys 23:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Polarlys, danke für dein Vertrauen. Nach 14-tägiger Offline-Phase wg. Urlaubs antworte ich dir Anfang der Woche per Mail. Alles Gute --Herrick 10:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ganda Ham

Ganda pictures

I have a verbal agreement with ganda ham, the owner of the pictures i uploaded.

How do i prevent the pictures from being deleted?

regards

Jan

Please see Commons:OTRS and send in a written permission via email. Thank you. --Polarlys 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Thunder lightning Garajau Madeira 289985700.jpg

Hi Herrick! Wo hast du dieses tolle Foto her? So etwas sieht man selten. Nur das verflixte Kabel stört. Gruß --Hedwig Storch 12:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Hedwig, wie ich schon in der Bildbeschreibung eingetragen hatte, stammt das frei lizenzierte Bild von Flickr.[1] Die übliche Telefonleitung im Süden verschlechtert trotz der schönen Wolkenstimmung auch leider dieses Bild. Das übliche Künstlerpech im Süden. Gruß --Herrick 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Danke dir für die Info. Gruß --Hedwig Storch 20:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keine Ursache. Übrigens eine schöne Bildergallerie, die auf deiner Benutzerseite zusammengetragen hast. Gruß --Herrick 06:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Du bist der erste, der sich öffentlich darüber freut. Übrigens gebe ich dir das Kompliment zurück. Wo hast du die schönen historischen Fotos her? (Mein Gebiet in der deutschen WP ist ja die deutsche Literatur. Und da suche ich immer Fotos von Autoren). Gruß--Hedwig Storch 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neben der Library of Congress, wo ich so einige gute historische Bilddokumente gefunden habe, meinst du wahrscheinlich Max Graf von Coudenhove oder Theobald Fuchs. Jene Bilder wurde ursprünglich von Benutzer:Seeteufel für "seine" Artikel im Umfeld Bad Kissingen im 19. Jh. eingescannt. Da diese im ersten Arbeitsschritt jedoch reichlich Artefakte (Moiré etc.) aufwiesen, da die automatische Bildbearbeitung des Scanners einiges verschlimmbesserte, hatte ich ihm angeboten diese entsprechend zu bearbeiten. Gruß --Herrick 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gut, da weiß ich Bescheid. Gruß --Hedwig Storch 12:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bewegungsunschärfe

Hallo Herrick,

ich will mich mit dir nicht streiten, ich kann dir hier nochmal versichern, dass diesem Bild keine Bewegungsunschärfe hinzugefügt wurde. Es gibt schon einige Anzeichen auf dem Bild, die dafür sprechen, dass es "echt" ist. Z.B. sind die Räder sicherlich nur sehr schwer so hinzubekommen, dass du die Bremsen durchsiehst. Auch die Bewegungsschärfe so exakt um das Auto zu legen halte ich für sehr schwierig. Ist dein einziger Grund an dem Bild zu zweifeln, die Struktur der Bewegungsunschärfe? Evtl. gibt es ja ein Missverständnis das geklärt werden kann.

Solche Mitzieher sind nicht einfach und an der Technik arbeite ich schon ne ganze Weile, wie du auf meiner Benutzer-Seite sehen kannst. Auch bei denen habe ich nie Bewegungsunschärfe hinzugefügt.

Mir gefällt an Commons, dass man hier im allgemeinen sehr nett miteinander umgeht. Momentan unterstellst du mir eine Lüge... --AngMoKio 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Die unterschiedliche Blendenöffnung und der Abstand zum Objekt erklärt nicht diese merkwürdigen kreisförmigen bzw. ovalen Strukturen, die auf der Fahrbahn zu erkennen sind. Bewegungsunschärfe sieht insbesondere in der analogen Fotografie anders aus. Ich habe bereits mehrfach auf Commons Bilder von Rennwagen gesehen, die bei relativ langsamen Geschwindigkeiten bei Testfahrten bzw. dem Abbiegen in der Boxengasse "aufgehübscht" worden sind - und die extern verlinkten Beispiele hast du sicherlich ebenfalls erkannt. Im Moment verschweigst du mir nur eine Erklärung für diese unerklärlichen Artefakte. --Herrick 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mir ist noch nicht ganz klar welche Artefakte du genau meinst. Vor allem nicht welche Artefakte in diesem neuen Bild auftauchen und die es aber in meinem alten Bild nicht gibt. Ich gebe dir Recht: Bewegungsunschärfe wird oft nachträglich eingebaut. Ich sehe das aber unter einem sportlichen Aspekt....ich will das hinbekommen ohne Photoshop. Ich kann dir auch sagen, dass dieses Bild mitten im Rennen direkt vor der Mercedes-Benz-Tribüne entstanden ist. Evtl. solltest du auch mal einen Blick auf die EXIF-Daten werfen. Bei 210mm und 1/100s Verschlusszeit bekommst du ohne Mitziehen kein scharfes Bild hin. --AngMoKio 07:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lineare Fahrbahnstreifen werden sich wohl kaum zu kreisförmigen Strukturen verdichten. Das ältere Bild ist gut - gar keine Frage. Aber bei diesem hier bin ich extrem irritiert. Die Verschlusszeit erscheint mir bei der Geschwindigkeit des Fahrzeugs und dem Objektiv (selbst vom Stativ?) relativ lang zu sein. Nicht von ungefähr wunderten sich einige darüber. --Herrick 08:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ich kann dir nur raten dich mal in das Thema einzulesen. Es gibt im deutschen Artikel dazu einen guten Link. Da du mir jetzt auch noch unterstellst, dass ich die EXIF-Daten angepasst habe ist die Diskussion für mich beendet. Es wäre gut, wenn du dich in Fotografie-Grundlagen etwas einarbeitest bevor du dich so weit aus dem Fenster lehnst. --AngMoKio 10:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Und dir rate ich zum letzten Mal auf meine Frage einzugehen. Denn die kreisförmigen Strukturen hast du mit deiner Polemik noch immer nicht erklären wollen. Und schließlich zweifeln einige an der relativ langen Verschlusszeit. Nicht ich bin hier im Erklärungszwang sondern du. Vor allen Dingen dann, wenn du allerortens dieses Bild pushen möchtest. Auf Commons wird es wohl sicherlich zu einem "vorgestellten Bild" (wie vieldeutig übrigens), da sollte dich eine zweifelnde Stimme nicht derart aus dem Häuschen locken. --Herrick 05:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Letzter Versuch. Ich weiss immer noch nicht was du mit den runden Strukturen meinst. Aber schau dir mal folgendes Bild aus der gleichen Serie an: Image:Seat_Leon_Johansson_amk.jpg. Wir erklärst du dir dass man die Bremsen deutlich durch die Räder durchsieht?

Weiterer Punkt: es gibt auch Leute die eine längere Verschlusszeit fordern...soviel zu deinen Zweifeln daran.

Was das "Pushen" angeht? Das meinst du jetzt nicht ernst? Wenn ich ein gutes Bild habe (zumindest meiner Meinung nach) möchte ich, dass es auch verwendet wird. Das kann man erreichen indem man es entsprechend bewerten lässt. Das hilft dem kompletten Wiki-Projekt..es gibt hier verdammt viele nur sehr mittelmäßige Bilder (solche habe ich auch - keine Frage). Vielleicht ist dir aufgefallen, dass ich mit jeglicher Kritik an dem Bild klar komme. "Gepusht" habe ich das Bild sowieso nirgends. Ausser wenn man mir wie du Lügen unterstellt.

Ich habe von Anfang an gesagt, dass ich mir dir nicht streiten will. Leider gibst du mir keine Chance. Wie soll ich dir beweisen, dass es ein echter Mitzieher ist? Du zweifelst ja sogar an den EXIF-Daten. --AngMoKio 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurzer Nachtrag....mir ist einfach nicht klar was für Strukturen du meinst. Meinst du diese schwarzen Stellen auf den Curbs? Das ist Reifenabrieb der sich durch das Mitziehen natürlich auch verwischt. Etwas anderes kann ich beim besten Willen nicht finden. Vielleicht können wir damit die Diskussion wieder auf ein normales Level bringen... --AngMoKio 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Danke für das bessere Bild im Forum

Wollte mich nur für das echte Forum bedanken! Ich hatte damals nur Ruinen gefunden, daher kam mir ein antikes Theater als Pseudo-Forum vorteilhafter vor. Aber das rekonstruierte echte Forum ist natürlich besser! Grüße -- Godai2 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gern geschehen. An das Amphitheater von Apspendos hatte ich zwar ebenfalls gute Erinnerungen (sowohl besichtigt - als auch eine Carmen-Aufführung dort erlebt), aber ein Forum war es nun einmal nicht ;-) --Herrick 15:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Paolo Uccello?

Hi, I was wondering why you reverted me?

I can't seem to figure out on my own why Paolo Uccello shouldn't be in Category:Paolo Uccello. the Sidhekin 16:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

These redudant categories aren't the best opportunity to catogorize the oeuvre of an artist. --Herrick 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interject. the Sidhekin is right. If you have an article, place it in the same-named category. Avoid over-categorisation as explained here Commons:Categories. Gryffindor (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sebring Winners 448860439.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Sebring Winners 448860439.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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

AlexJ (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Images from Emil Rensing on Flickr

Image deletion warning

Images from Emil Rensing on Flickr 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 images, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

—LX (talk, contribs) 12:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion --Herrick (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucas van Valckenborch

Hi there Herrick,

I saw your edits on this painting here Image:Sommerlandschaft Lucas van Valckenborch.jpg. Basically a painting should have a painting template, that's why we have them. Also please increase thumbs to 100px, the 25px you use is too small. Thanks alot. Gryffindor (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please don't post this useless rename-template on this correct named image. Sir Gawain's decision was correct. For someone who'd visit commons it's not very helpful looking for paintings only by "numbers" instead of title in the original language. --Herrick (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pieter van der Werff 001.jpg

hi there,

I had to revert your edit and putting a frame here Image:Pieter van der Werff 001.jpg. A frame is three-dimensional while the painting is not. Taking an image from another website with the frame could be in conflict with pd-art, which requires only two-dimensions. Even though I agree that the frame belongs to the painting, in this case it would be in conflict with pd-art. sincerely Gryffindor (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

to my kind of view - I've studied history of art at the University of Cologne as part of my M.A. degree - there's a obviously lack on science backround on your site: in the history of art this kind of painting frame concens to the art because it shows his dimension in spite of the fact that this frames are "Kunsthandwerk" [artcraft] (and so your argument of three-dimensional "art" has lost it's dramatic line - you'll get problems by using some renaissance images). As an author and editor of scientific publications I know that most of the publishing houses dislike the unprofessional brute cutting of such artificial frames - and the unrealistic use (colour etc.) of Photoshop possibilities used by your maygarian friend was horrible and punishment for the eyes which can take a real look at the Stadtmuseum Düsseldorf. And please stop your own contra-productive, unscientific and unprofessional renaming-project. CU --Herrick (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How very nice for you. Please read on Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#When_should_the_PD-Art_tag_not_be_used.3F the second and third bullet point which I shall quote here for clarity's sake:

• When the work of art shown in the photograph is in three dimensions

{{PD-Art}} does not apply to 3D works of art such as sculptures, since the photographer was able to generate originality by virtue of a choice of viewpoints and lighting arrangements. Anything that could cast a shadow is excluded.

• When the photograph shows a 2D work of art within a 3D frame

If the frame is 3D, the previous point applies and the image cannot be accepted on Commons. Please crop to remove the frame and upload a version which shows the 2D work of art on its own.

Please inform yourself first about Commons standards and rules before jumping to conclusions or becoming downright rude. sincerely Gryffindor (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's only your missguided interpretation of simple common standards and you don't understand the point: An image frame is craft (Handwerk) no art. Your violation of image history is an unacceptable missuse of your sysop rights. My conclusions - and the of other users - were the result of professional work with pictures. --Herrick (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nasses Blatt

Moin Herrick, sag mal, ich wundere mich gerade ein bisserl über Deinen kommentarlosen Komplettrevert. Das Blatt stammt sehr sicher nicht von einem Ahorn, und auch gegen die weiteren (Format)anpassungen spricht wohl nix, oder doch? (wenn ja, was?) Magst Du bitte nochmal gucken u/o hier kurz etwas dazu schreiben? Morgentliche Grüße und Danke im Voraus --:bdk: 06:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Moin Bdk, der obige missratene Hogwartszögling ohne Ahnung von der Kunst enerviert einfach. Platanen und Ahorn - schröcklich manchmal die Differenzierung - zumal der FlickR-User es erstmals als Ahornblatt bezeichnete. Aber Platane gibt es inzwischen wohl auch in Neuseeland. ;-) Hab's wieder auf deine Version geändert.[2] --Herrick (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

alles klar, danke :-) --:bdk: 22:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi Herrick. I am really disappointed that you are trying to votestack on Gryffindor's de-admin request. I seriously do think if we try dispute resolution on this dispute we can solve this in a much better way. --Kanonkas_(talk) 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, first of all you'll have to assume good faith. It'no votestack - it's information about a very important issue, because every user has a right that these images are correct named - and by the gift of 3.000 images of the Bundesarchiv!. And to play the bad "german influx"-card before reading the arguments is very simple to negotiate the logic issues. On my point of your technique could be called intimidation. --21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Those whose opinions are needed will see it - the request is plenty visible. There is no need to ask people to come and support you. Since de-adminship requests are not votes, it will not do any good in any case.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably someone that narrowminded will not be able to change his mind, although promising it. I do not think such makes someone a reliable admin. That's why I "voted" against him, not even being sure whether I was allowed to, on COM:Administrators. Wolfgang (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

@Kanokas: First: dispute resolution isn't an accepted policy of commons and de, if you look at the interwikis. It's similiar to our "Schiedsgericht" which is connected by several trusted users and the better tool for "judgement". At en: and de: we also have the possibilty w:de:Wikipedia:Autorenportal to inform the community about w:de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung. It's absolute legal to inform and if your german would be better than you read that I only wrote "look at this crucial issue because it's a problem of the whole community concerning the images, the categories and the principles of sysop misuse". Second: Thank you for en:red herring. --Herrick (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue that was brought up to your talk page. That was you canvassing this here around. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Template_talk:Painting#Location_created

Falls Du zu meinem Vorschlag eine Meinung hast, bring sie bitte dort bei. Ich führe dzt. dort leider Selbstgespräche, ebenso wie in meinem Projekt Category talk:Vincent van Gogh (na, dort nicht ganz: Ein gewisser G. nervte mich mit seinem Starrsinn, hat aber inzwischen zu schwafeln aufgehört - ist scheinbar dzt. mit der Rettung der eigenen Haut hinreichend beschäftigt ;]) Weiters interessiert mich Deine Meinung zu heute von mir erstellten Kategorien Category:Drawings and other by van Gogh in the Van Gogh Museum und der Übergeordneten. Ich möchte nächste Woche diese Kategorien zu befüllen beginnen (VGM hat mehr als 800 Objekte, und die Gemälde sind in der Unterzahl), tue dies aber ungern ohne Feedback betr. Nomenklatur. Siebrand, der "im Auftrag" Gryffindors vier Kategorien umbenannte (für die ich die falsche Syntax verwendet hatte) redet nicht mit mir, und M. Manske ist zwar in etwa meiner Meinung, aber ich möchte ihn nicht tagtäglich quälen mit derlei Kleinkram ;) Gruß, Wolfgang (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

zum Schmunzeln, falls Du kannst. Der ist tatsächlich dumm genug, zuerst rauszufinden dass der Künstler keineswegs gesichert ist, und dann das Bild in altbewährter Yorck-Manier auf genau diesen Künstlernamen umbenennen zu wollen. Und ich dachte bisher, Spinner laufen hauptsächlich in der deWP rum ;) Wolfgang (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic: Ich stelle fest, dass Google Bilder nicht zu finden scheint die auf COM liegen aber in keiner Datei genutzt werden. Kannst Du mir sagen ob das eine Schwäche von Google ist, oder durch irgendein "Nofollow" seitens der Wikisoftware passiert. Gibt's dafür einen Grund? Wolfgang (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ups, das ist ja auch wieder nahezu ein Faß ohne Boden, zu dem ich wirklich erst nächste Woche kommen werde, da wir Besuch übers WE haben. Bei Glühwein auf einem Weihnachtsmarkt werde ich dann den Wikistress davongleiten lassen ;-) Google kann offenkundig weder in den Description-Templates etwas finden noch Bilder die auf Commons liegen. Dies war früher anders. Aber selbst in einem Rezensionsportal, wo ich Sysoprechte habe und Redakteur bin, ist mir dies ebenfalls aufgefallen. --Herrick (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Zwar nett, dass Du mein off-topic hinreichend beantwortet hast (wenn Du nicht schlauer bist, trage ich EDV-Nut mein Schicksal mit Fassung ;), meine Hauptfrage aber war, ob es Deiner Meinung nach sinnvoll ist diese gewünscht Extrazeile in tl|Painting einzuführen, oder lieber nicht. Vielleicht fällt Dir dazu doch heute noch was ein. Natürlich kann "Notes=" mit der Info befüllt werden, klar.

Wenn aber das Feld "Location created=" ausdrücklich vorgegeben ist (durchaus als "IF"), ist imo die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass da was eingegeben wird, erheblich höher, und ein weiterer Schritt zu einer wirklich guten Bildbeschreibung [betreffs welcher, trotz Hickhacks in der Szene, durchaus was weitergeht. M. Manske und Dschwen haben da erheblich beigetragen, auch Mike.l~. Allerdings haben alle die sich am Hickhack beteiligen, wie gestern beispielsweise ich, den Kopf scheinbar nicht mehr frei für Konstruktives. Ich hab' daher heute diese Grusel-Seite von meiner Watchlist genommen und schaue nicht mehr hin. Hoffentlich.]. lg, Wolfgang (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Was die Entspannung betrifft, nimm lieber, nach Absprache mit Deiner Leber, ZWEI Glühwein ;) [ich selber kann gewürzten Wein nicht leiden, halte mich aber ans "Franösische Paradoxon" ;))]

re:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship)

I think that you have overplayed you hand with regards this deadmin. Personally I think the evidence against Gryffindor was enough rope for him to hang without what has been seen as canvassing. The only thing that the garnering of support on de:wiki has done is to force the other admins to close ranks around Gryffindor and to vote Keep whatever their actual feelings of the rights and wrongs of Gryffindor's actions. As it says at the top of the page the discussion is not a majority vote, from the looks of things the 15 weighted keeps of the regulars on the forum will probably be enough to save Gryffindor. The deadmin will probably fail however many more de:wiki users vote Remove so in order to remove the appearance of a Witch hunt it would be best that no more de:wiki users vote remove. As a final tactic the best thing to do would be to convince all de:wiki users to strike out their remove votes, so that those who have voted keep are left either looking parochial defending Gryffindor's indefensible actions or to change their vote; at least two of the Keep votes appear to be unhappy with Gryffindor's actions but are voting keep out of dislike of canvassing.KTo288 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear KTo288,
[I just passed by here just to look whether meanwhile I'd find an answer to my major questions, above, which seems to be impossible because everybody seems to be more concerned with this disgusting issue],
did you ever consider that the sheer fact, to obviously prepare on deWP [where such is not that rare] the de-admin of a person which constantly acts beyond his horizon of understanding and endamages the project due to his sillyness, narrowmindedness and proudness of himself, when creating a mess on commons which might take Y.E.A.R.S to be repaired, might have been the V.E.R.Y reason to call this "de-admin" a "witch hunting" and a "canvassing"?

As of now, it is about "all-others" against the Germans [I, for myself, am Austrian, therefore generally rather one of those "all-others" ;], and that's why my home is COM, not deWP].
Others would call such actions as happen here the last few days, against this request, a "canvassing", as I recently learned.

Note: I had emigrated from deWP due to narrowmindeness of a bunch of keen-young deWP admins which I could not stand any more [I just disliked to waist my energy on idiots], although English is by far more difficult to write, for me. At that time, I felt that on COM there was the spirit which makes it worth while to spend energy and considerable part of one's spare life to contribute. This has changed. eod. Wolfgang (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: There is a proverb, which in English is at least known down to "down-under":
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

In Austria, where we have several hundred years of "perfect" administration, back to one Metternich and even by far earlier, there is a third line to this [I translate it with my less than perfect English]:
"Those who are unable or unwilling to do either, administrate".
Admittedly this Austrian version of this proverb hardly ever creates friends amongst wikipedia admins, unless amongst open minded ones. Wolfgang (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• @Elcobbola and KTo288: you missed the point - Gryffindor claims that The Yorck-Project established his type of filenaming, but the reality shows w:de:User:Achim Raschka, adminuser who works for Zenodot) that Zenodot uses only this system for the simple reason of saving of time.[3]: Quote: "Die Bilder aus dem Yorck-Projekt stammten von der Veröffentlichung 10.000 Meisterwerke und waren redaktionionell unter einfach zu handelnden Namen abgelegt (Maler + Zahl) - diese einfache Struktur wurde beim Upload übernommen, da eine inhaltliche Benennung (ich bevorzuge für meine zahlreichen Kunstuploads Maler_Titel_(Jahr) mit sehr viel neuer Arbeit verbunden wäre. Die Struktur ist also nicht durch Zenodot/Yorck gewollt sondern schlicht ein Komporomiss zur Arbeitserleichterung beim Filtransfer." And that's the reason for informing the german, austrian and oterh users. --Herrick (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat late, but
I disagree with Herrick on this proposal: I'd highly prefer creation date (as precise as possible as a most universal "criterion for sorting"

Deutsch: Sortierkriterium

to be given immediately after the creator's name (which should rather be given the way it is done in existing enWP article, or COM category. Beat me, but I did not follow this "rule-of-mine" in the case of vG, cause any kid, imo, would associate "van Gogh" to Vincent Willem van Gogh [there are exceptions amongst COM and other admins, on this point ;]]

Titles of pieces of art are arbitrary in many cases, as...

1. the artist himself might not have given it
2. he/she would have given it in their language. See, e.g., Category:Langlois Bridge. Translations and misunderstandings would follow, the standard language on COM being
   English: English
   ;)) Imagine problems with translations of ja, hy, zh, ... titles.
3. even IDs from catalogue raisonnées are less perfect than the date: On my baby, there are two renowned ones, and both are less than complete (well, they are probably ~99_+_something_% ;). But: Who would assure that there is no undiscovered piece which might be described and dated, one day? There are, for instance, very probably vGs in Belgrad which hardly anyone has ever seen, nor can have cataloguized. See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008Dec#Hoaxes on this. [w.] 08:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Larus argentatus juv.jpg

Hi. You mentioned problems with the background on this image. I've tried to fix them. Was that your only concern? Grüße. Lycaon (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes. I think that the details of the feathers will balance it. Maybe a software sign from SONY? CU --Herrick (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wieder ein neuer Flickr-Fall?

Hallo Herrick, als antwort auf deine Fragen:

• Ich habe den Flickr Benutzer nicht gefragt, auch nicht in diesem Fall. Die Löschanträge habe ich auf Verdacht gestellt wie ich ja unter Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fangtooth 2.jpg schon erbeten hatte.
• Die Bilder deren Löschung ich beantrag habe habe ich noch nicht geprüft.
• Nein, das Bild war ohne Wasserzeichen, es war auch nicht beschnitten und in einer höheren Auflösung als das Vergleichsbild, nämlich 1,600×1,200. Das Fangtooth Bild gibt es allerdings in verschiedensten Auflösungen im Web, auf die Schnelle habe ich es als Buch, Poster und als Wallpaper gefunden, wobei letzteres der Auflösung und Farbgestaltung nach genau dem Upload hier entspricht.

Grüße, --Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, interessant ist vielleicht in diesem Zusammenhang, dass dieses Wallpaper mit dem Hairachen (Added 2007-06-27 by mercury) aus der von dir letztgenannten Quelle als zurückgezogene Flickr-Lizenz eines anderen Flickr-Users hier auch schon einmal gelöscht werden musste. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt (27.06.07) war es IMHO jedoch auf Flickr längst zurückgezogen, sodass die URV hier auf shareyourwallpaper.com über mercury erfolgte. Mal was anderes, warum "zerupfst" du die Diskussion? --Herrick (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Zugegeben, in die Richtung habe ich den Fall Fangtooth jetzt nicht überprüft, allerdings ist die Sache in diesem Fall auch eindeutig: URV des Flickr Benutzers, egal aus welcher dubiosen Quelle er das Bild kopiert hat. Diskussion zerupfe ich auf Commons immer, dass scheint hier so üblich zu sein so dass ich es übernommen habe und es gut und praktisch finde, bei mitlerweile über 10.000 Seiten auf der Beobachtungsliste sinkt so die Wahrscheinlichkeit das etwas untergeht. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Das Zurückverfolgen der Flickr-URV-Versionen ist eine haarige Angelegenheit, zumal sich im Rensingfall ja auch einige Fürsprecher bei der ganzen Angelegenheit fanden, die ihn wohl aus RL kannten. Erfahrungsgemäß tummteln sich auf Flickr etliche URVs, die man nur dann auf den ersten Blick ausschließen kann, wenn das "Werk" arg unheitlich aussieht. Apropos: Zurückverfolgen. Du setzt im Gegensatz zu vielen en: Userns wenigstens einen Link auf jenen Punkt, an dem die Diskussion ihren Anfang fand. Meine Beobachtungsliste versuchte ich immer unter 3.500 Einträgen zu halten, da mir in meiner Adminzeit das Ganze zu sehr ausuferte. --Herrick (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Zurück zum Flickr Fall: Die Bilder stammen alle aus einem Wurf con shareyourwallpaper.com, ich habe die Weblinks in die LD gesetzt, ich denke hier ist es leider ein offensichtlicher Fall. --Martin H. (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Habe soeben entsprechend für Löschung der ganzen Bilder plädiert. Es ist eine Schande wie Flickr pervertiert. --Herrick (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lion key Augusta Raurica 3.JPG

hi there,

you say that the museum does not allow any photography? It would be good if you could point out where that policy is stated, that would interest me indeed, because I am not aware of it. Merry Xmas to you too. Gryffindor (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I just received an email from the museum in Augusta Raurica explicitly stating that photography is allowed in the museum, just as I thought. If you are not familiar with this rule, you might want to read up on the Commons rule Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. Merry X-mas. Gryffindor (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal SPAM

Hi, I'm aware that Christmas greetings are more-or-less to be considered to be SPAM, but I can't help:
Here is one more, which is from me.
Although I might have [and might in the future] disagree with you, I'd like to ascertain you that I respect and love you. Believe it or not. [w.] 16:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please help (on DR)

Hi Herrick, if you have a time please vote to delete hate propaganda images listed below. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

For cleanup: Following files are concerned (there was really no need to "wallpaper" a private talk by huge templates instead of giving the four links):

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Palestine by Latuff by Latuff2.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:IsraHellburningbuses.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:IsraeliBus.gif
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bombman.gif

BTW, I-for-myself see no reason to delete those cartoons. They are sarcastic comments on an extreme political situation; you may agree, disagree or ignore. It is anyways art, and it is free (concerning copyright). [w.] 07:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas review!

Hi Herrick~commonswiki. I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in my request for adminship, and for the time you have taken to review my profile. As a Christmas present I've just been given the admin tools, for which I'm thankful as well. I have understood all the remarks that have been made during the review period. I will take them into account and begin using the tools with much care, until I gain more experience and self-confidence. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Amelita_galli-curci_luigi_curci.jpg

File:Amelita_galli-curci_luigi_curci.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!

Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Jack Brabham 80birthday.jpg

File:Jack Brabham 80birthday.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!

--Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Frontier_dakar.jpg

File:Frontier_dakar.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!

Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Lola petit le mans.jpg

File:Lola petit le mans.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Leoboudv (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Herrick~commonswiki!

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 14:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Abdication napoleon02.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Fulda 1830.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Alfred jaell.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:KYMap-doton-Florence.PNG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Jose Francisco de Isla.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Galusha house.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:KYMap-doton-Radcliff.PNG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Belagerung ruegen.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Notification about possible deletion

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!

  — Jeff G. ツ 04:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Viking invaders ukraina kiev 152085989.jpg

File:Viking invaders ukraina kiev 152085989.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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:

• File:Old Rip Van Winkle Whiskey 301243232.jpg

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 15:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Herrick. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Herrick~commonswiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

21:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

03:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)