User talk:Mbdortmund/Archive/2010/September
 | 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. |
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Westfalenpark-100818-17509-Robinson.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.
|
- Kann archiviert werden --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100814-16677-Schloss-Loewentor-cor.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100814-16668-Schloss-Loewe.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.
|
- Kann archiviert werden. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Du hast Post! Gruß --S.Didam (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Danke! --S.Didam (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- kein Problem. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nordkirchen-090806-9264.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100814-16693-Schloss-Tor.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100814-16634-Schloss-Suedbruecke-cor.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.
|
- Kann archiviert werden. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nordkirchen-100814-16700-Schloss-Suedtor.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.
|
- Kann archiviert werden. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Winterberg-100911-17893-Fenster2.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.
|
Please take care about other files mentioned in request. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- deleted --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Winterberg-100911-17850-St-Jakobus.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.
|
- Kann archiviert werden. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You may not have noticed this second file in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Premio Nobel - Rigoberta Menchú.jpg. It is the same case, and should also be deleted. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- thx, deleted --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Könntest du mir erklären warum du die Datei behalten hast? Du kannst ja nicht wissen, ob das Bild anonym erschienen ist, oder hast du das überprüft? MINZLAFF (oben rechts, Ecke) ist jedenfalls entweder eine Verlags- oder eine Künstlerkennung. sугсго 07:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ich habe danach gesucht, aber nichts gefunden. Die Frage ist nun, ob es dennoch ein persönliches Urheberrecht gibt oder ob nicht. Wenn Du irgendeinen Hinweis hast, wäre ich Dir dankbar. --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- PS:ICh glaube, ehrlich gesagt nicht, dass die caption das Zeichen eines persönlichen Urhebers ist und setze eher auf anonyme Produzenten. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Überholte Eisenheim Karten
Hallo MBDortmund, nimmst Du File:Eisenheim 2-1866.jpg bis File:Eisenheim 6-heute.jpg auch noch raus, Danke. --Wuselig (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- done[x] --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanx. Kannst Du den noch so löschen. Der scheint mir durchgerutscht zu sein. --Wuselig (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Der hatte kein Löschvermerk. Jetzt isser wech. --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eben, sagte ich ja: Hatte ich vergessen. Danke. --Wuselig (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Der hatte kein Löschvermerk. Jetzt isser wech. --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanx. Kannst Du den noch so löschen. Der scheint mir durchgerutscht zu sein. --Wuselig (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop damaging my work
Dear user Mbdortmund, I am user Telfah. I am responsible for the page of my original village in Jordan Johfiyeh. Please stop damaging my work, I upload the photos which I have taken and add nice text to the page. so please and please stop damaging the page. Ahmad Telfah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telfah ahmed (talk • contribs) 2010-09-25T10:35:24 (UTC) (moved here from the user's page --Saibo (Δ) 14:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC))
He sent me the same message on my de-userpage. The problem is, that he writes something like "Free for personal and Wikipedia use" in the description pages. Perhaps he doesn't understand the license policy. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, a reason to delete his pics if he does not remove this caption by himself. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Constructive idea
Thank you for replying constructively here. I just saw that and thought you might find it enlightening to have a look at this, too.
My constructive suggestion is that any other Commons editor than Pieter Kuiper deal with any problems there may actually be with any of those 1000+ images now or in the future. Then we can deal with them neutrally, factually and constructively, without what we (the organization I am helping and I) perceive as persistent destructive stalking ever having to be an issue. I like to be a problem solver, not a whiner, but I need a humane climate in which to do such good work. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk)
Dear Serge,
I got some information about the OTRS ticket we have now. After reading it I think it would be very helpful to get a mail to our OTRS-team with a clearer text that the authorisation concerns every picture by the Southerly Clubs. The OTRS ticket which we have now names about 23 pictures and says that there will be three or four more of them. Could you help us to get a clearer allowance?
Concerning your problems with Pieter I hope you are not too annoyed. Pieter is normaly very reliable and correct concerning copyright questions. And he - as far as my experience goes - always searches ways to save the pictures if possible. I know that it is very annoying to be "attacked" by a DR for a contribution which was for the best of our project and perhaps you've got the feeling that there is a personal background. I can not judge this but in this discussion I did not find any personal attacks. Perhaps you can try to take it cool and help us solving the problem. The pictures are really good and it is in everyone's interest to save them. Excuse my terrible Beckenbauer-English. --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Mb:
- Without going into a major disclosure effort-project-exploit re: Kuiper's behavior, including as many as 50-70 links to pages where he obviously (to any balanced reader) has gone out of his way to be sarcastic, rude and cruel, but could have solved a problem without that, there seems to be no way to convince many of you nice people what a scary time we have had with him.
- More important: I just received an email copy of a long constructive message that the Southerly Clubs Chairman sent in about the OTRS, and I hope that will solve this confusion.
- You are a gentleman/woman to apologize about your language, but it was all clear enough. I deal a lot with Swedes who should apologize about their English but never never never would. Some of them think they know German too, I'm sure.
- Danke schön, Mbdortmund! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Arabic
Done. I will keep an eye on his contributions. File:Johfiyeh.jpg seems to be a Google earth file. I asked him about that. If you find any other Arab contributors in need of help, please contact me. Thank you very much. --Tarawneh (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I think the user needs a little help. --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
|
File:Volovjareber-zveri.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. |
DieBuche (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ich bin nicht der Urheber. --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
keeping of File:0405.Annabell_002.jpg image
You opted to keep the image subject to deletion if the woman requests it. That's a partial solution but suggests that the Foundation accepts liability and so it may be held responsible for allowing defamation to continue prior to her request. Damage can occur because third parties may see and act on the image without her knowing it exists. And it's not clear that she knows about it. If she does, she should be able to submit permission, but I take it she has not. A Commons official guideline says about images of identifiable people, "Normally not OK": "A man and woman talking, entitled 'A prostitute speaks to her pimp' (possible defamation)" (boldfacing omitted). For this picture, the woman is described as a prostitute, presumably making the image normally not okay. And, in this case, we do not know if she is an adult and thus able to consent even if she wants to.
I'm considering appealing on the legal ground. If you are an attorney admitted to practice in a U.S. court, please say so.
Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I know that she knows about the picture and I know she is old enough. --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fasan-IMG 4993-a.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.
|
- kann archiviert werden --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)