User:D-Kuru/archiv/2009

This page is an archive! You aren't allowed to edit this page.
If you want to talk to me use my dicussion page.

Hello

I have uploaded a restitched and color corrected version of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graffiti i baggård i århus 2a.jpg - please take a look! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

May you have contacted the wrong person ^^. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Denmark says that there is Freedom of Panorama only for buildings in Denmark. So I usually I would ask for deletion. This time I don't do so, because if you wouldn't have asked for deletion if you wouldn't have contactet me. However: nice, high resolutet panorama :-)

--D-Kuru (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You must have misunderstand me, or I have been unclear. I want you to take a look and vote. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Wikiquote-tan_child-single.png

File deletion warning

File:Wikiquote-tan_child-single.png 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

96.50.2.122 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

talkback by Marsa Lahminal

	Hello, D-Kuru/archiv. You have new messages at Marsa Lahminal's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Talkback by Sciurus

	Hello, D-Kuru/archiv. You have new messages at Sciurus's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Talkback by Sciurus

	Hello, D-Kuru/archiv. You have new messages at Sciurus's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Your revert of File:Schattenkreuzröhre-in use-lateral view-standing cross.jpg

I noticed that you reverted my addition of a citation for this image without providing an explanation. A citation is a requirement for an image to be included in an English language featured article. This was the reason the citation was added. It clearly wasn't vandalism, so your action is inexplicable to me.—RJHall (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Even I have removed your edit I also don't understand why I should do this. I usually don't use the revert button in the history (And If I do I add a reason everytime) . I think that I just reverted your edit by accident while editing some other files in the same category or something the like. Thanks for rebuilding your edit :-)

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hemp

This image of hemp was taken in France. ++ --Aleks (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion requests on my pictures

Reason given is that my permission Non-commercial with attribution is not allowed.

I had thought that this is a valid option. But I have since been reminded of the main Wikimedia Commons policies. I need to see what is a commonly used form of "request notice and payment for commercial use".

Thanks for taking the time to look in more detail at my photos, and for reminding me of this.

Just one small point, though. It would have been appreciated if you had contacted me on my Talk page before posting the Deletion Request. Suddenly finding a Deletion Request notice is a bit unsettling.

-- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my images

I have just read your note. Thank you for the advice. I have amended the Permission notice on all my image uploads, and trust that this will at least be adequate to stop any being deleted.

I looked at some of the information on Commons about the various licenses. And one thing I notice is an image of a screenshot showing about 4 times more licenses as are now available on the automated menu. I will look at some of the other links you have given me. I hope that they are more informative than the main Commons page on Licenses. Overall, that tells you very little about the scope of the licenses, apart from directing you to the web sites such as Creative Commons or GNU, which do include a non-commercial license option. Yes, I would be grateful for advice as to the most restrictive license options. I went for the one on the drop-down menu which mentions attribution. But it is long past time I was asleep, so that is a job for tomorrow. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again

I am grateful for your offer to create a template. I shall have to think about that for a few days. Since this is an issue for many if not most of the amateur contributors to Wikimedia Commons, could you create a template which will do for a lot more people by including a place for each individual to enter their own name when they place it on their Image Files? I don't know enough abut how templates work on Wiki, but it seems to me that they can be designed to allow that. Best wishes, and return to this next week. I have other things over the next few days, as long as I have done enough to remove the threat of deletion of pictures.

BTW, I have seen an even longer text in the Permission slot. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SlidingCar.JPG

Hello, I took this photo on a visit to the Great Wall. Sorry about the confusing source, as the photo didn't actually make it to my website, but a picture taken right after of me in the car going down the hill is. I'm a little new to the OTRS system. Since this is my own work, how do I prove this? Thanks Isewell (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's your own work it's better to write "own work" as source than a webpage, because a webpage without an OTRS permission looks nearly always like a violation of somebodys copyright.

If you want an OTRS ticket you just have to send a Mail to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org from your webside (see also Commons:Email templates and Commons:OTRS). Tell me if you have more questions.

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Delisting

Hi, I saw you delisted this this although there was 6 to 4 for keeping it. Looks like a mistake to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi White Cat,
If I got it right you created {{Assessments}}. May you can help me with some issue. I also want to create a template where you can change the information by just changing the parameters (for example for Assessments: "com=1" = featured; "com=2" = was featured. May you can tell me how you can create such an option.
Thanks for help --D-Kuru (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. What template do you have in mind? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion requests on my pictures

I taken all of the pictures in all of the penumbral lunar eclipse images. Please, do not continue to delete unless I made all the works. Thank you! GPI-MediaWiki Union (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Soy el autor.

Hola, soy el autor de la foto "File:LaNiña.jpg". Están los metadatos de la foto, y puede conprobar en "internet archive" que la publiqué primero en commons. Ruego que se vuelva a poner la foto en commons. Miguel Ángel "fotógrafo" (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of the picture File: LaNiña.jpg. Are the photo's metadata, and can conprobar in "internet archive" first published in the commons. I ask you to put the picture on commons. Miguel Ángel "fotógrafo" (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am the sole author of this picture, I have all copyrights, besides the image contained metadata only my camera, with its serial number. The page that you say it's a copyvio is NOT true, as has been drawn here in commons. If you do not believe me do a search on "internet archive" and check as I got here first. So I ask you to post both here and in all articles of the wikipedia project. Miguel Ángel "fotógrafo" (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to post all information twice. It's enough if you just exand your old edit with some additional information ;-)

However,

Done, image is undeleted

--D-Kuru (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, delete my image File:20090209-25.jpgaFebruary 2009 Penumbral Lunar Eclipse in Olongapo, Philippines (Part 25).jpg

I need to replace from File:20090209-25.jpgaFebruary 2009 Penumbral Lunar Eclipse in Olongapo, Philippines (Part 25).jpg to File:February 2009 Penumbral Lunar Eclipse in Olongapo, Philippines (Part 25).jpg due to my only mistake of copying from part 1 to 25. 13:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPI-MediaWiki Union (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Even I'm an admin I can't move images. If you want to rename your image you have to reupload it under a new filename. If you've uploaded the new one you can ask me or place {{badname|new filename}} on the old image's description page to ask for deletion.

edit: Please sign all your contributions on talkpages with --~~~~

--D-Kuru (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Frage

Hallo D-Kuru!

Dieses, von dir hochgeladene Bildchen hast du ja, nachdem ich dich darauf hingewiesen habe, ja vorbildlich mit den korrekten Quellen versehen. Hast du noch dies auch mit all den anderen Dateien zu tun, die sich z.B. in dieser Kategorie befinden? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ich war bislang mit anderen Dingen beschäftigt, aber ich habe vor die Quellen der restlichen Bilder auch noch zu erweitern. Nur um eines herauszuheben: Die Quellen in jetztiger Form sind trotz alledem absolut ausreichend. Um es etwas andersrum zu sagen: Wieso sollten Quellen ungültig werden, nur weil sich die amerikanische Regierung dazu entschließt ein neues Datenarchiv aufzumachen und das alte still zu legen. Ich kenne einen ganzen Haufen Bilder bei denen die alte Quelle garnicht mehr existiert, weil es nur temporäre Seiten waren, bzw. nach einer Seitenumgestaltung die Bilder sich an einem anderen Platz befinden. Somal ist meiner Meinung nach die einzutragende Quelle die ursprüngliche Quelle von der man das Bild hat. Wie gesagt: Wenn ich etwas mehr Zeit auf einmal habe (Ich möchte alle Bilder auf einmal machen, damit keines unter den Tisch fällt) werde ich die restlichen Bilder auch bearbeiten.

--D-Kuru (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sollte jetzt alles erledigt sein. Wo ich gerade dabei war habe ich {{ID-USMil}} mitreingegeben, wobei ich bei manchen Bildern, bei denen sich die ID warum auch immer geändert hat, die neue ID integriert habe. Die alte Quelle hab ich dringelassen, weil es die Originalquelle ist, war und auch immer bleiben wird woher ich dieses Bild runtergeladen habe. Bei manchen Bilder von http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp hab ich die Quelle auch noch verbessert.

--D-Kuru (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Fighting Israel for dummies.png

I have an OTRS ticket validating copyright for File:Fighting Israel for dummies.png. Can I restore it and tag it with the ticket number or should it be re-deleted per the DR? MBisanz ^talk 09:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Deine Meinung ist gefragt

Hallo Kuru!

Da wir beide viel von nachvollziehbaren Quellenangaben halten, würde mich interesssieren, ob die angegebene Quelle in dieser Datei als ausreichend ansiehst, oder nicht. Schließlich fehlen sowohl Homepage-Link oder eine Photo-ID. Gemäß dem hier müssen bekanntermaßen klare Angabe bzgl. der Herkunft des Bilders angegeben werden, also eine Weblink oder eine Literaturangabe, obgleich man unter Literaturangabe hierbei eine Photo-ID versteht. Wie siehst du das? --High Contrast (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also so ist die Quelle nicht wirklich aussagekräftig. Ich hab bei http://www.navy.mil/ und bei http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ mal nach allen möglichen Kombinationen aus den informationen gesucht, die die Bildbeschreibung hergibt, habe aber nichts gefunden.

Mir ist die Quelleninformation "United States Marine Corps" schlicht zu wenig (somal es zu solchen Bilern eigentlich immer eine Webseite gibt, wo man sie gefunden hat). Ich weiß, dass man annehmen soll, dass derjenige nur in gutem Gedanken handelt und dass man prinzipiell davon ausgehen soll, dass jemand ehrlich ist (kurz AGF), allerdings ist diese Regelung meiner Meinung nach auf Commons doch etwas differenzierter zu sehen. Somit wäre ein zusätzliche Quelle sehr wünschenswert. Je nach Betrachtungsweise rechtfertigt es aber nicht (oder eben schon) {{Nsd}}.

Ich hab das Bild zusätzlich mal durch tineye geschickt, habe aber nichts gefnden.

Ich hab den Uploader mal gefragt woher er denn das Bild hat. Mal schauen was er so sagt.

mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

File:120-mm Ammunition-right APFSDS-left HEAT MP-T PNr°0110.JPG

Passt schon. Alles Korrekt. Links das Hohlladungsgeschoss, rechts das Wuchtgeschoss. Wenn nötig kann man noch hinzufügen das dieses Exerziermunition ist.--Sonaz (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ist das wirklich Ex-Mun oder sind es nicht viel mehr Attrappen zu Demonstrationszwecken? Dass es sich nicht um Gefechtsmunition handelt sollte auf jeden Fall ausgesagt werden.--WerWil (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

EX-Mun dient zu Demonstrationszwecken und auch zum üben von Ladetätigkeiten.--Sonaz (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ich bin nun kein Panzerfahrer, aber von anderen Waffen kenne ich Ex-Mun nicht als hochglanzgedrehte Edelstahlatrappe. Außerdem lässt die völlig richtige Feststellung, dass Ex-Mun auch zu Demonstrationszwecken dient nicht den Umkehrschluss zu, dass Demonstrationsatrappen zum Simulieren von Ladetätigkeiten u. Ä. (als Exerzier Munition) dient. Von daher ist die Frage für mich nicht geklärt - allerdings stellt die genaue Unterscheidung nun für mich auch kein gravierendes Problem dar.--WerWil (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Information dass es Exerziermunition ist hinzugefügt.

--D-Kuru (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Mafia

Hello. You deleted the image of the "La eMe" symbol used by the Mexican Mafia, by saying the image is copyrighted. They're a criminal prison gang, and that is only one of several logos that they use. They are not a legitimate organization, and the image is not copyrighted. If you know otherwise, please provide that information. --Tacosunday (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Mafia.gif ias/was a derivative work of a logo. Just because there is no single author who claimed authorship doesn't mean that this logo is not copyrighted or you could even use/publish it under a free licence. Even you have may created the image in paint, photoshop or whateverprogramm doesn't mean that this image is (as you claimed) really your own work (because you didn't invent the logo). If you have not drawn it by your own it's a copyright violation in any way.

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Halbsperrung Benutzerseite

Hallo D-Kuru, herzlichen Dank für die IP-Halbsperrung und zusätzlich die für mich überraschende Beobachtung der Seite während meiner Abwesenheit! Du hattest mal wieder recht: der tägliche Vandalismus-Wahnsinn tobt wohl wirklich hauptsächlich in der Wikipedia ;). Ein wunderschönes Wochenende! LG, --3268zauber (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Botev license

I don't think it's very difficult to edit my image description page. If a user views the image with language settings other than English or Polish, there is a link pointing to {{Botev license}} that explains how it can be done. If the language is set to English or Polish, it's even easier - all the user has to do is to edit the text that is already there. --Botev (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that user should be able to find out how they can add a description without an extra explanation.

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Beobachtungsliste

Hallo D-Kuru, ich habe da mal wieder eine Frage (und hoffe, dass ich Dich nicht nerve): auf der Beobachtungsliste erscheinen üblicherweise die noch nicht gesehenen Änderungen im Fettdruck. Seit ein paar Tagen werden bei jedem neuen Aufruf meiner Beobachtungsliste alle Änderungen im Fettdruck angezeigt. Das nervt! An den Einstellungen habe ich nichts verändert. Gibt es hierfür eine Erklärung / eine Abhilfe? Gruß, --3268zauber (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Keine Sorge, du nervst nicht ;-)

2) Bei meiner Beobachtungsliste ist das auch so. Ich kann dir allerdings da glaube ich weniger weiterhelfen. Versuche es eher im de-Forum oder bei de en Version: Village pump. So etwas ähnliches hatten wir glaube schonmal, wobei ich mich nicht mehr erinnern kann, woran es gelegen hat. Ich galube es war einfach nur ein Bug der bei einer neuen Version vom Wikisystem aufgetaucht ist.

mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Danke! Gruß, --3268zauber (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Guten Tag, Mr Kuru, I'm leaving you this note to let you know I've nominated one of your pictures for featured picture status. It's an interesting and, in my opinion beautiful, image. Best of luck! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Noted

My apologies; I will be more careful in future. The result of editting while tired I suppose. I'm currently reviewing my other taggings to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Thanks for taking an interest in the actions of a relative newbie; here's a proposal of mine you may be interested in Commons talk:MediaMoveBot#US Military image renaming. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our German-language image submission queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Disk Images

I simply grouped them together because it seems likely that one or the other will be featured, not both. People will chose which one they prefer. Making a second nomination seemed unneeded. I have found precedents, but if you feel that they would be better off apart, then I'll do so.

I also centred your image, cropping a little off the left side. I hope that this is alright.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hallo...

...und eine bitte: Kannst du ein Statement bei dieser Löschdiskussion abgeben? Deine Meinung wäre sicherlich hilfreich. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hab meinen Senf dazugegeben. Was wäre eigentlich deine Meinung zu dem Bild?

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ich bin dafür das Bild zu behalten aus einigen Gründen: Dein Statement wie das des Antragstellers zielen darauf ab, dass in die Richtung spekuliert wird, dass kein offizieller US-Angestellter vor Ort gewesen sein könnte. Das ist wie gesagt reine Spekulation. Genausogut könnte man behaupten, dass das Bild von einem Russen gemacht wurde, der vom CIA bezahlt wurde, was ihn ja dann zu einem Angestellten irgendeiner US-Regierungsbehörde macht. Tja, aber beides wissen wir nicht - weder mein Ansatz, noch der des Antragstellers. Schließt sich somit aus. Dass das Bild auf defenseimagery.mil gefunden wurde tut nichts zur Sache, das stimmt, aber dieses Foto wurde, wie viele andere auf Commons in dem Geheft Soviet Military Power (kurz SMP) des US-Verteidigungsministeriums veröffentlicht, was zweifelsohne vom Verteidigungsministerium/Pentagon stammt. Und sind nicht auch amtliche Werke von US-Behörden gemeinfrei? Zudem muss die Möglichkeit in Betracht gezogen werden, dass das Bild gekauft werden konnte und dadurch im Rahmen des SMP-Gehefts in die Lizenzfreiheit entlassen wurde. Des weiteren zieht die Löschung aus diesem Grund weitere Konsequenzen nach sich, denn es befinden sich sicherlich mehrere hundert Fotos aus SMP auf Commons mit der gleichen Quellenangabe, nämlich kein Autor. Zudem lässt jedes dieser Bilder schwer daran zweifeln, dass es von einem US-Soldaten aufgenommen wurde.
Zusammenfassend ist zu sagen, dass man die Kirche im Dorf lassen sollte, ich glaube nicht, dass in SMP Fotos abgedruckt wurde, bei denen eine Copyright-Verletzung vorliegt oder die Bilder geklaut wurden. Du weißt so gut wie, dass Fotos, die nachweislich nicht von US-Angehörigen stammen auf defenseimagery.mil explizit als solches erkennbar gemacht werdeb, indem eine andere Quelle bzw. der Urheber angegeben wird.
Was wird nun mit dem Foto geschehen? Wirst du dein delete zurückziehen? --High Contrast (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Die Annahme, dass es sich beim Autor dieses Bildes um einen US Soldaten handelt ist aber genau die gleiche Spekulation. Da man weder sagen kann, ob es von einem US Soldaten gemacht wurde oder nicht kann man eigentlich nicht anhand dieser Sache entscheiden ob das Bild gelöscht werden soll oder nicht.

Ob damals so viel Wert auf die Einhaltund des Copyrights gelegt wurde wie es heute der Fall ist kann ich nicht beurteilen. Man kann hier auch wieder viel spekulieren, was aber nur wenig bringen würde. Ein wichtiger Punkt, der nicht in den Bereich der Spekulation gelangen sollte ist die Frage, ob SMP von Anfang an als Text zur Veröffentlichung gedacht war oder ob er eher als Militärinterner bericht gedacht war der später im zuge eines allgemeinen Gesetzes schlicht wie viele andere Bilder in die Gemeinfreiheit entlassen wurde. Es gibt zwar en:Soviet Military Power was aber nicht besonders informativ ist. Eine andere Frage, die aber schon eher wieder in Richtung Spekulation geht ist jene, ob vielleicht hier das Copyright absichtlich missachtet wurde um eine Art Schaut her welches Bild wir haben, obwohl wir garnicht dabei waren Message zu senden was im Kalten Krieg durchaus vorstellbar ist, wenn die Amerikaner Unmengen ausgegeben haben um die ganze Zeit Bomber mit Atomwaffen in der Luft zu halten. Wie gesagt, das ist aber eher Spekulation welche man vermeiden sollte, weil man sonst nicht weiterkommt.

Wie ich bei google nach "Soviet Military Power" gesucht habe habe ich diese Seite gefunden. Zwar habe ich das Bild bei den angeführten 1987er (und spätere) nicht gefunden, was aber nichts heißen muss. Nach etwa 10 min Suche habe ich diese Seite entdeckt. Aufgrund dessen, dass das Bild auf dieser Seite auftaucht und diese Seite offensichtlich eine Regierungsseite ist kann man von dem ganzen Zug von wegen Copyright wieder abspringen. Laut Information auf der Webseite wurde die Seite am 21. September 1999 zuletzt aktualisiert zu welchen Zeitpunkt alle copyviobilder eigentlich schon rausgeflogen sein könnten, die nur aufgrund des Schaut her was wir haben-Grundes reingenommen wurden.

~~Die Quelle hättes du eiegtnlich auch finden können :-/~~ Da hab ich mich wohl mit der Regierungsseite geirrt :-( Das Bild könnte tatsächlich von der FAS sein und die US Regierung hat es einfach verwendet. Derzeit bin ich noch am überlegen

Wenn es eine Seite oder einen Screenshot gibt, wo dieses Bild bei SMP zu sehen ist, wäre es nicht schelcht sie zu speichern oder einen screenshot davon ans OTRS team zu schicken.

~~Wie dem auch sei, ich habe mein Kommentar auf com:del abgeändert.~~

Bevor ich es vergesse: 1) Wikipeder hat schon recht. Da es bislang nicht klar war/ist, ob dieses Bild überhaupt PD-USGov ist müsstest du beweisen, dass das Bild tatsächlich frei ist und nicht ümgekehrt. 2) Wenn es mehere Bilder von SMP gibt wäre eine eigene Kategorie nicht schlecht.

Derzeit muss ich ehrlich sagen, dass es alles mögliche sein könnte und wir nur vermutungen haben aufgrund welcher wir keinen Entscheidung fällen können

--D-Kuru (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ich halte mich kurz.
Du hast einiges richtig dargestellt, vor allem, dass Spekulationen nicht ausreichen, wie der Lizentstatus einer Datei ist. Der beweis, dass dieses Bild PD-USGov ist, ist leicht zu erbringen. Wenn du dir den Punkt 2 der Privacy Policy der Quelle defenseimagery.mil zu Herzen führst (alternativ auch hier im gleichen Wortlaut). Da steht eindeutig, Information presented on DefenseImagery.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.. Jetzt kann natürlich wieder eine neue Diskussion losgetreten werden ob public information gleichbeteudend ist mit public domain - da bin ich mal gespannt. Wie bereits erwähnt wurde diese Datei auf den entsprechenden Quellen als lizenzfrei freigegeben, ob wir das glauben oder nicht. Man kann es bezweifeln, aber dann muss ein dezidierter Beweis vorgebracht werden, ansonsten ist das reine Spekulation und sofern dies mehr Achtung findet als eine reputable Quelle, dann ist Commons gescheitert. Wann wirst du diese Löschdebatte als beendet erklären? --High Contrast (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ich versuche mich auch kurz zu halten: Löschdiskussionen bei denen ich meine Meinung dazu geschrieben habe beende ich nicht. Das hat den Grund, dass ich immer gerne eine zweite Meinung höre und relativ schnell sehr viel Unmut entstehen kann, wenn man da einfach schnell drüber wischt. Die einzige Ausnahme mache ich, wenn sich hierbei um klare Fälle handelt. In diesem Fall wäre dem so, wenn du ein Bild zum vergleichen hast, wo ausdrücklich gesagt wird, dass dieses Bild (oder andere Mediendatei) nicht PD (oder was auch immer) ist um so einen direkten Vergleich zu haben, damit selbst der kritischste User zufriedengestellt ist. Eine andere Möglichkeit wäre es einen User zu fragen, der sich genau mit den verwendeten Wortlauten auskennt (also {{User en}}), ob Public information wirklich "Released into the Public Domain" bedeutet (sonst gibt es da irgendwann den nächsten Löschantrag). Diesbezüglich habe ich Herbythyme kontaktiert. Mal schauen was er sagt. Je nach dem wer schneller ist, werde ich mein Komentar auf der del seite anpassen und die Diskussion bei ausreichender Beweislage schließen.
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Das heißt, der Fortbestand dieser Datei ist nun von Herbythyme abhängig. Warum hast du gerade ihn für diese Frage ausgewählt? Ist er ein ausgewiesener/bewährter User bezüglich derartiger Fragen? Es geht hier ja über den reinen Englisch-Wortschatz hinaus. --High Contrast (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Das heißt wohl, dass du kein Bild weißt, wo ein andere Lizenzstatus (oder andere Informationen) angeführt ist(sind). Es hat ihn eigentlich mehr Zufällig getroffen. Er war der erste auf der Liste von admins die en status angegeben haben und von dem ich der Meinung bin, dass er nicht auf einem Löschzug fährt. (Außerdem glaube ich ihn soweit einschätzen zu können um zu sagen, dass er, wenn er sich nicht sicher ist, es auch sagt und nicht einfach einen blödsinn daherredet) Das der Fortbestand wirklich jetzt rein von Herbythyme abhängt glaube ich nicht. Siehe nächsten Absatz.

Was noch interessant sein könnte sind die Terms of Use: Punkt 3: ". Copyright information can be found in the XMP data area in the data field labeled 'Rights'. Generally speaking, nothing on this site is copyright (Defense Department imagery and unclassified information is usually deemed to be in the public domain) but if in doubt you agree to examine the Rights datafield for appropriate information." Es gibt ein Programm von Microsoft names "Photo Info" mit dem man sich Informationen ansehen und manche auch verändern kann. Im Feld Instructions (von Chernobyl reactor clean-up operation.JPEG) steht dort "RELEASED" was bei DM-SC-00-02179 (Bild mit Vergleichbaren Informationen), bei DN-ST-86-01537 (Bild das Anscheinend nicht von einem US Soldaten gemacht wurde) und bei 030502-M-3692C-010 (Bild das eindeutig PD ist ( FGM-148 Javelin - ID DM-SD-04-07566.JPEG and Pic auf Commons)) auch steht. Dazu gibt es bei keinem eine Copyright Notiz (was bei der Sorgfalt die die Bearbeiteranscheinend an den Tag legen nicht als reines Vergessen' gewertet werden kann). Ich werde mal abwarten was Herby noch sagt und dann (wenn er nicht etwas ganz anderes sagt) die Diskussion schließen.

--D-Kuru (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Die Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP) stellten eigentlich die Basis meiner Argumentation dar. Ich ging davon aus, dass Wikipeter die XMP-Angaben anzweifelte, aber vermutlich wusste er nicht einmal davon (Meine Annahme: er gehöre zur "copyright paranoia"-Gruppe). Wie dem auch sei, jetzt erklären sich die anfänglichen Missverständnisse. Wie ist der aktuelle Stand bei der Email Abfrage bei defenseimagery.mil? --High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe mir mal besagte copyright-paranoia seite zu gemüte geführt und nach deren checkliste wäre ich auch copyright paranoid, auch wenn ich das nicht so sehe. However, das Mail an defenseimagery.mil is abgesetzt aber (verständlicherweise) noch nicht beantwortet. Mal sehen, wie lange es dauert (Ich habe eine Mai erhalten wo das übliche wir haben ihre mail erhalten drinnen steht sowie "we will respond to you within 2 business days" als Zeitangabe). Gegenstand meines Mails war unter anderem die explizite Frage, ob dein hochgeladenes Bild PD ist; die Frage, woran man ein nicht-PD-Bild erkennt und ob sie ein Beispiel geben können; sowie die Frage was es mit der Shopping card auf sich hat, weil Herby es in seiner Antwort erwähnt hat.

--D-Kuru (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Die Geschichte war als Witz gemeint. Aber egal. Was ist der neueste Stand? --High Contrast (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Der Stand ist auch heute noch der gleiche. Ich hab denen mal noch eine Mail an die Adresse geschickt die sie als mail für dringliche Anfragen angegeben haben. Auch wenn es keine dringliche anfrage in dem sinne ist möchte ich auch nicht unnötig lange warten somal die rede von 2 "business days" (was vermutlich das gleiche wie Werktage bedeutet) und nicht von drei oder noch mehr. Mag zwar sein, dass ich ein bisschen ungeduldig bin, solche Sachen haben nurmeist an sich, das sie einfach unter den Tisch fallen bzw. fallen gelassen werden. Wenn die meine Anfrage nicht als dringlich einstufen so können sie sie doch dem in die Hand drücken der genaueres weiß. Mal schaun wie lange sie brauchen.
--D-Kuru (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Was gibts neues in diesem Fall? Wie wird weiter verfahren? --High Contrast (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Überhaupt nichts neues. Nicht einmal ein "ihre Mail wird weitergeleitet" Antwort. Die 2 Werktage sind jetzt schon deutlich überschritten. Ich könnte es nochmal versuchen oder mit einer Art Mailbombe, wo ich denen 10 oder 100 mal das gleiche Mail schicke. Ob das so viel weiterhilft bzw. sie mehr dazu animiert mir zu antworten würde ich aber trotzdem in Frage stellen.

Ich hab mir mal die Sache ein bisschen durch den Kopf gehen lassen. Fakt ist, dass Autor und Originalquelle (mal abgesehen von SMP) unbekannt sind. Trotz der shoppingcard bei defenseimagery.mil glaube ich nicht daran, dass das Bild All rights reserved oder ähnlich unverwendbares ist somal in der von dir genannten Unterseite explizit darauf hingewiesen wird, dass nicht public information als solche gekennzeichnet ist. Wenn sie eine Verwechslungsgefahr von public information und public domain gesehen hätten, hätten sie es vermutlicha uch dazugeschrieben. Somal nicht public information (im sinne von "Das darf die Öffentlichkeit sehen/wissen") kaum aufscheinen werden.

Kurz um: Heute kümmere ich mich nicht mehr darum, aber morgen (oder in den nächsten Tagen) werde ich die DEL disc einfach zumachen und bis dahin werde ich mir noch eine schöne Erklärung einfallen lassen. Es hat eigentlich garkeinen Sinn nur dumm Zeit zu vergeuden indem man rumspekuliert. Wenn das Bild wirklich geschütz ist, oder sie die weiternutzung verhindern wollten hätte defenseimagery.mil ganz einfach ein "All rights reserves" tag anbringen können. Ich werde noch versuchen ob was von defenseimagery.mil zu hören ist. Derjenige der mit meiner Entscheidung nicht zufrieden ist, kann ja mit einer ausführlichen Begründung meine Entscheidung ändern oder nochmal zur Sprache bringen.

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ist erledigt. Ich würde mal sagen, dass ich alles wichtige zusammengefasst habe. Wenn dir nochwas einfällt dann sag es einfach.

--D-Kuru (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Chinasittich Nahaufnahme.JPG - Fehlerhafte Angabe über Verwendung einer Datei?

Hallo D-Kuru, vielleicht kannst Du mir auch hier wieder einmal helfen. Die oben genannte Datei wurde von mir vor geraumer Zeit auf Commons hochgeladen und danach auf de.WP hier eingebunden. Im entsprechenden File heißt es aber unter Dateiverwendung: "Keine Seite benutzt diese Datei". Was ja faktisch nicht stimmt. Hast Du eine Erklärung? LG, --3268zauber (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Die Erklärung ist relativ Einfach: Du hast (so wie es sich für mich anhört) im falschen Projekt nach der Nutzung geschaut. So sieht man Chinasittich Nahaufnahme.JPG and Beim Bild auf Commons dass dieses Bild auf Commons nicht verwendet wird (was offensichtlich zu stimmen scheint). Diese Zeile sagt aber nichts über andere Projekte aus. So steht bei de:Datei:Chinasittich Nahaufnahme.JPG bei der überschrift "Dateiverwendung", dass das Bild bei "Chinasittich" verwendet wird. Um von Commons aus zu sehen in welchen Projekten deine Datei überall benuzt wird musst du über der Fileseite (in der selben Leiste wie "Bearbeiten", "Versionen/Autoren", etc.) den Button "Nutzung" bzw. auf english Checkuse anklicken. Hier siehst du wie es für dein File aussieht. Für andere berühmte Dateien wie etwa die La gioconda.jpg and Moan Lisa ist die Nutzung entsprechend breiter gefächert.

Ich hoffe dass damit deine Frage ausreichend beantwortet ist.

--D-Kuru (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ich hatte da heute einfach etwas durcheinander gewürfelt. Danke für die Erklärung - und entschuldige die Mühe, die ich Dir damit gemacht habe. Herzliche Grüße, --3268zauber (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:PD-GreekGov

You removed {{PD-GreekGov}} from Commons:Copyright tags. What's wrong with it? I have not created it, but it has existed for a few years (since March 2007) and it reflects fairly accurately the provisions of greek Law 2121. As I explain in the talk page, it applies to very few images (drawings) and no other media. Sv1xv (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I removed it. I think I did it by accident during I created some different categories. I guess I clicked the wrong button and saved it together with some images. However, I reverted my edit

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your attention. Sv1xv (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi White Cat,
If I got it right you created {{Assessments}}. May you can help me with some issue. I also want to create a template where you can change the information by just changing the parameters (for example for Assessments: "com=1" = featured; "com=2" = was featured. May you can tell me how you can create such an option.
Thanks for help --D-Kuru (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. What template do you have in mind? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I though about a new template for com:fp and one for me. To create a good template I need to how I can create the option to change the included text by just changing a parameter. As the example above: com=1 turns into this is a fp while com=2 turs into this was a fp. I thought that it may would work using {{#switch}}. I thought about that the example would work with {{#switch:{{{com|}}} |1=this is a fp |2=this was a fp }}

I'm not sure if "|#default=" is required. May you can tell me if I'm on the right way or not. I hope you don't mind that I seperated the missing-source-templates from this headline.

thx for help --D-Kuru (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey White Cat. just contributing in case you have forgotten me. Regards --D-Kuru (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sidetracked... So what about the template? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 02:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually wanted to create my personal licencetemplate which can be adjusted by parameters on the images descriptionpage.
Assessments uses ifexpr to have the a flexible style. I use switch instead.
I created the planned template for the featured pictures today. May you have a look at it and tell if you would change anything: {{Fp-res}}
My own (I guess slightly oversized) licencetemplate exists as well. I have collected pieces of the code all around. Right now it seems to work.
--D-Kuru (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File:EF and EF-S.jpg

Hi! It's EF 50 mm f/1.8(left) and EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 (right) Canon lenses. I'm added this information in to file description. --Atorero (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (ru:User:Atorero)

Thanks you for the information. I already categorised the image.

--D-Kuru (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hemp / Cannabis

Your comments would be welcome at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/06/Category:Hemp events; you created the category in question. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notification

--D-Kuru (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nachhilfe: Prohektrahmen

Hallo!

Ist irgendeine Datei, die in irgendeinem Wikipediaprojekt verwendet wird automatisch im Projektrahmen? Verfolgen diese Dateien [1] und File:Michele Merkin 1 ad.jpg edukative Ziele? --High Contrast (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Laut geltenden Bestimmungen ja, die Bilder sind im Projekramen. Grund dafür ist der, dass man - wenn die Datei verwendet wird - davon ausgehen kann, dass sie dort zu einem bildenenden Zweck verwendet wird. Das dem nicht immer so ist und das auf en.wikipedia Dateien verwendet werden weil es "kinda cool" ist habe ich schon mal zur Sprache gebracht - wurde aber - wie sehr vieles andere auf Commons - konsequent unter den Tisch gekehrt (mit einem durchaus plausiblen Grund: Wir sind die Datenbank, was die Projekte verwenden wollen ist nicht unsere Sache)

Das Bild ist bei den exzellenten Bildern auf de.wikipedia verwedet. Scheint mir einfach so eine Art Scherz zu sein wie Chicken Ball February 2009.jpg auch. Das rennende Huhn ist für mich noch als educational content erkennbar, wieso das Bild mit dem Ball aber jetzt auch zu solchem bildenenden Zeug gehört ist mir auch nicht ganz schlüssig.

Um es kurz zu machen: Obwohl es keinen (für mich erkennbaren) bildenden Wert hat würde ich es nicht löschen. Grund ist der, dass jedem Autor ein gewisses Maß an nutzlosen Bildern erlaubt wird (z.B. Bilder von sich selbst um sich vorzustellen). Wieviele Bilder nutzlos sein dürfen habe ich auch schon mal nachgefragt, habe aber keine brauchbare Antwort erhalten. Es gibt gute Argumente das Bild zu löschen und es zu behalten. Meine Erfahrung nach ist die Mühe einer Löschdiskussion es nicht Wert, da dabei nichts rauskommt. (Meine Einschätzung wäre in etwa "kept because in use". Wenn du das Bild weghaben willst kannst du es ja trotzdem versuchen. Vielleicht sind die, die alles un jedes behalten wollen gerade in Urlaub.

--D-Kuru (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Me-cancun-hotel.jpg

Hi, I have a question. A tag was placed on File:Me-cancun-hotel.jpg saying it would be deleted in seven days if info on its copyright status were not provided. But that tag was placed on June 24 (two weeks ago), and it's still there. How's this? Nightscream (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Such files get deleted by hand and not with a bot. Thereby an admin has to delete all such images which can also take twi or even more weeks. Such files do not get deleted by a bot to prevent that the file get deleted even information got included already.

However, thanks for notification. I already deleted the image.

--D-Kuru (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Eine Bitte

Hallo D-Kuru, ich beende meine Mitarbeit auf Commons. Kannst Du mir - falls hier überhaupt möglich - Benutzer- und Diskussionsseite unbegrenzt gegen Veränderungen durch Benutzer schützen? Danke! LG, --3268zauber (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ja, kann ich durchaus machen ein bisschen mehr Information wäre dazu aber hilfreich.

Problem ist das auf Commons nicht so wirklich, da sich hier eigentlich nicht wirklich jemand dafür iteressiert was du machst sofern es nicht stark gegen die guidelines geht. Ich kann die Benutzerseite so weit sperren, dass sie nur Administratoren bearbeiten können. Du könntest sie allerdings auch nicht mehr bearbeiten sondern sie müsste wieder entsperrt werden.

Die Diskussionsseite zu sperren halte ich für nicht so gut, weil etwaige Anfragen oder ähnliches dich dann nicht erreichen könnten. Wie bereits erwähnt ist es mit dem Vandalismus auf Commons nicht so weit her wie z.B. auf de.wikipedia womit ich die Gefahr dass deine Diskussionsseite verunstaltet wird nicht sehr hoch einschätze.

Weiters habe ich deine Benutzer und Diskussionsseite noch immer in der Beobachtungsliste drin und kann etwaige dummen Kommentare entfernen wenn ich weiß, dass du es nicht machst.

Gibt es einen speziellen Grund wieso du nicht mehr auf Commons weiterarbeitest?

mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Seit heute habe ich meine Mitarbeit auf Commons und mit gleichnamigem Account in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia unwiderruflich beendet, mit diesem Edit sind für mich die "Aufräumarbeiten" abgeschlossen. Eine Bitte um Entsperrung wird es von mir nicht geben, ich selbst werde die Seiten sowie die hochgeladenen Bilder ab sofort nicht mehr beobachten.

Das Bildmaterial ist korrekt lizensiert, Belege oder Nachweise über Veröffentlichungen an mich nicht gefordert. Rechtliche Probleme sind nicht zu erwarten und Rückfragen nach meiner Erfahrung und ausweislich meiner Disk äußerst selten. Auch hier unterscheidet sich Commons übrigens ähnlich wie beim Vandalismus eindeutig von der de.WP. - ich wünsche den hiesigen Administratoren, dass dies auch in Zukunft so bleibt.

Vielen Dank übrigens an dieser Stelle, dass Du BS und DS die ganze Zeit auf Deiner Beo hattest. Ein Anlaufstelle vergleichbar Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen für meine Bitte habe ich auf Commons nicht gefunden, daher entschuldige, dass ich mich (wieder einmal) direkt an Dich gewandt habe. Natürlich ist es Deine Entscheidung, ob Du die Seiten mit [edit=sysop] und [move=sysop] schützt; wenn nicht, nehme ich Dir das ganz sicher nicht übel. Mit dem von mir gesetzten Baustein {{retired}} sind alle zumindest informiert, dass sie mit einer Beantwortung etwaiger Fragen nicht rechnen können. mfg, --3268zauber (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Es ist eh gut, dass du dich direkt an mich gewendet hast, da dein Anliegen sonst vermutlich einfach ignoriert worden wäre und so viel Arbeit ist es auch nicht ;-)

Ich habe deine Benutzerseite voll gesperrt und die Verschiebung bei der Diskussionsseite voll gesperrt. Wie gesagt halte ich es für nicht so ratsam die Diskussionsseite zu sperren, da etwaige Anfragen (dich vielleicht sowieso nicht) aber auch andere nicht erreichen können. Von Lizenzwegen her gibt es vermutlich keine Probleme aber technische Fragen wie "Welche Kamera hast du verwendet" (unter Umständen in den Metadaten), "Wo hast du das Bild gemacht", "Welches Programm zur Nachbearbeitung hast du verwendet?". Es heißt nicht, dass solche Fragen wirklich kommen, aber es könnte schon sein wobei dann andere Leute an statt deiner die Fragen beantworten können.

Wie dem auch sei. Wenn du kein Archiv hast dann würde ich dich bitten das du deine Diskussionsseite bis auf das Wilkommenstemplate leerst, damit ich neue Einträge schneller erkenne.

Wenn esnoch etwas gibt dann melde dich wieder bei mir.

mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Diskussionsseite bis auf {{retired}} geleert, Inhalt auf neu angelegt Archivseite User talk:3268zauber/Archiv kopiert. Könntest Du diese bitte ebenfalls vollsperren? Danke im voraus!

Abschließend einige ergänzende Infos: Kameratyp und Aufnahmezeitpunkt der Bilder können den Metadaten entnommen werden. Es wurde von mir keines der hochgeladenen Bilder nachbearbeitet. Bei ganz wenigen Bildern (vielleicht bei 5 oder 6 der insgesamt über 860) fehlen diese Metadaten; hier handelt es sich um Positiv-Abzüge von Analogbildern (Kameratyp: Minolta Zoom 160C), die, um sie hier hochzuladen, zuvor gescannt wurden (ScannerModell:?). Aufnahmeort ergibt sich in den meisten Fällen aus der Bildbeschreibung, in den Fällen ohne Angabe liegt er in Nordbaden.

Danke Dir für die rasche Umsetzung meiner Bitte und dass Du als Ansprechpartner für eventuelle Fragen zur Verfügung stehst. Alles Gute! mfg --3268zauber (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alles erledigt. Die Archivseite habe ich voll gesperrt aber {{Retired}} entfernt, da dieser tag nicht im Archiv erforderlich ist.

Wenn ale nennenswerte Information vorhaden ist, ist es schön :-)

Was du auch immer jetzt machst, ich wünsche dir viel SPaß und Erfolg dabei.

mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Neverland Rides Deletion

Guten tag,

I'm sad to see that you've deleted the CC open version of my aerial photo of Neverland ranch rides, because it prevents thousands of people from seeing that remarkable place and because it makes hassle for me to restore the file. The image was a public version of a higher-resolution photo I took and placed on my Flickr page. I enjoy sharing lower resolution images, and as my licensing note on Flickr indicates I also freely share those photos with copyright to serve my hope that anyone using them for commercial gain will compensate and cite me as source.

I appreciate your diligence in ensuring that copyrighted works are not used on wiki sites, yet would much prefer if you had simply contacted me via Flickr before deleting the image.

danke -John Wiley Jw4nvc (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I used to contact the people before I delete their images, but I stopped it after some time because it usually ended in a waste of time. I would be glad if I could undelete this image because it would be perfect for articles like en:Neverland Ranch or en:Michael Jackson.

"as my licensing note on Flickr indicates": It would be the best way to include such a comment on the page on Commons or with an OTRS ticket. However, I'm not trained using flickr and I am not able to find that licencing note. The images page on flickr includes only the information "All rights reserved". I wasn't able to find a copyright note like "use it under cc-by-sa-3.0 with a resolution of 550x322."

I undeleted the file, because it seems to me that you really are that user from flickr and that you really have taken the images on your own.

However, I would really appreciate if you could either a)make a small copyright notice on every page b)make a small copyright notice on your profilepage* c) get an OTRS ticket

* "As you can see I also enjoy taking snapshots while I'm in the air and sharing them here, in the EdHat.com Local News section (link for my contributions only), and on my Wikipedia pages." Does not include the wich image is freely licenced and with is not so it is very difficult for somebody who doesn't know you to tell if this image is really licenced under a free licence.

The OTRS ticket would be my favorite, because it tells everybody that it is OK that this file is licence under a free licence and that there is no need to start a deletion request.

A link on the files page like "A lower resolution of this file is available und a free licence on Wikimedia Commons <Link to Image>" would be OK as well but is maybe a lot work for every single file.

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for undeleting the file. You saved me some work because I don't know how to undelete and feared it would just get autodeleted again as spam or something. Instead of learning how to undelete, I was able to use that time uploading two more pix and adding them to the Neverland page (they might add to the MJ page, but I don't know how to do that). I've enjoyed flying over it for several years and noting fascinating new features and changes on each flight. It's fun to share some of this with the world, especially when so many people are turning to wiki for info. As you might guess, I don't know what an OTRS ticket is and would prefer flying and photography to learning that. Regarding your suggestion to add something to my Profile, the only place I could find for that was "signature" where I put this: My CC images may be smaller versions of identical (c) photos elsewhere such as on my Flickr page (but I've deleted it, because that then showed up instead of my username). Hopefully what I've added to my WikiMedia page suffices, and if not perhaps I could just copy text from somewhere and paste it into the page. Again, thanks for helping ensure wiki respects copyrights and for undeleting the file. Let me know next time you're in SoCal, and maybe we could share a flight or at least have coffee. Jw4nvc (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Update - The undeleted image now shows up on my wikimedia page and the MJ wikipedia page, but if you click it there's no file in the wiki link. I've added a link to the image in the caption, but if there's a way you can get the wikipedia link to work again it would be better than the link. Jw4nvc (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you give me a link to the page I may can help you.

Undeleting files isn't possible for you for now because only admins can delete and undelete images to prevent something like deletion-vandalism.

There is not really much to say about the OTRS ticket and how it works. Long version on Commons:OTRS; Short version: You just send a mail with a template to the OTRS-mailing-center. Then you get a ticket which can be included (or rather should be included) in all of your images that are "© All rights reserved" images on flickr, because somebody who doesn't know your work will aks for deletion again. The email template is

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORKS [link to image].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

I would suggest that you create a new category for your own images if you don't have one so that you get an OTRS ticket for all the images you have added to that category instead of having one for every single image.

If you don't know how to do it I can arrange everything for you and you would just have to send a mail to the OTRS team so that you still have enough time to take some more awsome bird view images.

PS: Even the small note on your user page is a good start it is actually not that strong as an OTRS ticket would be.

--D-Kuru (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I sure appreciate your patience with me! "If you give me a link to the page I may can help you." Luckily, it seems to work now and somebody also changed the caption. So I gather that if you give me the email address for the OTRS team, I can put some magic link with the ticket info on my WikiMedia user page. I'll copy the text you've offered above, put in my info, and await the email address. Thanks to your help, I was flying yesterday instead of reading about OTRS (still don't know what it stands for) and uploading some pix. :)

Jw4nvc (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS way is a bit different. You send an E-Mail to the OTRS team. They create a ticket and send you the ticket number. You include {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=<ticketurl>}} to every of your images.

If you are fine with that I would create Category:Files by Jw4nvc for all your self-made images (the category makes it easier for the OTRS team). I will adjust the text above and all you have to do is to send that text to the mailing adress of the OTRS team. Is that OK for you?

If you upload a new image the work wich would be more is that yiou include your own category and the OTRS ticket. Btw.: "OTRS" stands for Open-source Ticket Request System.

--D-Kuru (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, I wish you'd deleted my first upload because "include [ticket link] to every of your images" plus a new Category seems like a Lot of work! :)

Is there a way to do them as a batch, or would I need to edit each one? Might I get away with just putting the ticket on my user page? There's already a link there for a gallery of all my wiki images, so maybe I could just make that prominent in some way that OTRS/admins would notice?

"send that text to the mailing adress of the OTRS team"

Here's my edit of the text you so kindly offered:

OTRS Permissions

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORKS I have uploaded to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jw4nvc

I agree to publish that work under the free license Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
*Note: a few of my CC3 photos are smaller versions of my copyrighted photos, but are placed on WikiMedia with CC open use permissions as noted on the photos.

July 14, 2009, John Wiley

If that's good, all I'd need is the OTRS email address. Thanks again for all your help! Jw4nvc (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If I got that right you only uploaded ~50 images so far. Even it takes time it won't take long. Editing them as batch is not really possible the way it should be.

The text is quite good I would do the following modifications:

1) I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the works I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using my account (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jw4nvc) and are categorised in my gallery category (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files by Jw4nvc)

2) I agree to publish my own works under free licenses which got and/or get added by myself with my own account.

The reason for the change in 1) is that you may upload some images that were not taken by yourself (eg. freely licenced images from flickr, or images in the public domain,...). Thats also why I would create a category for all your images. All your self-made files in one category which are not mixed up with not own images (I would really recommend the category even you don't plan to upload not-own images so far). The reason why I changed 2) is because you may want to use a later version CC-BY or CC-BY-SA version in the future to use new approvements.

Again: If you are fine with the category I would do all the work for you: Creating the category, adding the category tag to every image, including the OTRS ticket to every image if you have recived it,... All you would have to do is to send the mail and including your category and the OTRS ticket to future uploads.

The problem with the ticket on your page is that deletion requests may will be started and images may will be deleted, because the user don't have a look on your page. That's because usually >95% of all "All rights reserved"-images are copyvios without any permission so they may get even speedy deleted without any deletion request. Even admins (including me) should care about every file it is not really possible, because you really would go crazy because of the mass of images you would have to care about. If admins would get paied for their work on Commons it would may be possible to care about all images but for know Commons ist actually only a hobby and deleting ~100-500 (depending on how much you care or are activ in that section; some admins delete much less images superadmins delete much more than 1'000 images) clear copyright violating images every month is not much fun after some time. So if it seems to be an obvious case your file gets deleted or even speedy deleted. To save time for undeletion requests I would reccomend an OTRS ticket on every imagedescriptionpage.

--D-Kuru (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Redraft

As you can see, I've added section titles for easier editing in this dialog. Once we get this sorted, I'd sure like to take you flying so we can both get some fresh air in our hair. :)

How's this?

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the WORKS that I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using my account (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jw4nvc) and/or that I have categorized as such in my gallery category (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files by Jw4nvc)
I agree to publish these WORKS under free licenses such as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported which have been and/or will be added by myself with my own account.

Jw4nvc (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Both sections are good.

I'm still not really sure, but I think that you are fine with the category idea (because you didn't removed the category section from my suggestion). I will created the category (If you are not fine with the category just let me knoe and a bot will remove it) and I also will post the text I would reccomend for the OTRS ticket and of course the mailing adress. I don't know so much about flickr but if it is possible it would be the best way to use flcirk as some kind of maiing host (so that the mail is send from flickr to the OTRS team.

--D-Kuru (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Done I categorised all your images in Files by Jw4nvc and it took (from the creation of the category till the klick on the last save-button) only ~16 minutes on average speed. I have noticed that many of your images have "MyName (Jw4nvc (User talk))" as Author. Do you planned to add your name and it was just an accident that your name didn't get included or do you want to have it that way. When the OTRS tickets get included both can be fixed together.

I would recommend to send this thext to the OTRS team:

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the works that I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using my account (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jw4nvc) and/or that I have categorized as such in my gallery category (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_by_Jw4nvc)

I agree to publish these works under free licenses such as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported which have been and/or will be added by myself with my own account.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

*Note: a few of my CC-BY-3.0 photos are smaller versions of my copyrighted photos, but are placed on WikiMedia with CC open use permissions as noted on the photos.

July 14, 2009, John Wiley

-> Date need to be updated

Send the whole text to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org You should receive an E-Mail or a note on your talk page with more information.

--D-Kuru (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sent

Well, I didn't notice your change to my "Note" at the bottom and already had an email ready in Tbird (Flickr didn't work) so I sent this:

Subject: OTRS Submission

Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:29:04 -0700

From: John Wiley <j4u@"domain.com">

Reply-To: j4u@"domain.com"

To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

.

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the WORKS that I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using my account <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jw4nvc> and/or that I have categorized as such in my gallery category <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files by Jw4nvc>.

I agree to publish these WORKS under free licenses such as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported which have been and/or will be added by myself with my own account.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

*Note: a few of my CC3 photos are smaller versions of my copyrighted photos, but are placed on WikiMedia with CC open use permissions as noted on the photos.

July 14, 2009, John Wiley

I added angle brackets <> in the hope it will make the links clickable in email, and if not presumably the team is tech savvy enough to sort them out.

Followup

I'd like to express again how much I appreciate all the time and energy you've invested into this, mein freund. I've probably just fractured your beautiful language again, but I wish the Deutsch I learned way back in high school were fresh enough. It's taking quite a bit more of my own time than I'd have preferred or enjoyed too of course, but your sweet efforts on my behalf have not only made my share smaller but much more fun! :)

I'm amazed you've already updated all the images! It will be easy for me to do future ones, because I "edit" the most similar image in my WC gallery to copy the Summary text and paste it into my upload as a template.

OK, now I'll re-read this whole exchange and see what else I need to do.

Is there anything you'd like a photo of? I'd so much like to do something for you. If you're ever coming to the U.S., I do hope you'll let me know. I always enjoy meeting people who share my appreciation of open standards and community efforts, and of course I love any excuse to go flying.

Jw4nvc (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just added the text to my Talk page in a Permissions section, with a link to that section from my User page. Probably doesn't help anything, but it was easy enough to do. :) Jw4nvc (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I've re-read everything, and wanted to note that the date was ok because my yesterday is your today. ;)
"MyName (Jw4nvc (User talk))" as Author ... When the OTRS tickets get included both can be fixed together.
I guess you're meaning that I'd do that manually, so unless you've already added the tickets with a bot or something, there's still 16 minutes of me going top speed to match your work at an easy pace. :) Jw4nvc (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

7/15

Actually even I guess that it is possible that a bot does the work I prefer to do it by hand. If you want to add a text at the permission section for every of your images I would reccomend to create a template in your usernamespace (usernamedpace is "User:<username>/<whatever>" instead of "Template:<whatever>"). You could include the OTRS ticket and the text together and save time and if you want to update your text you just edit the template and all images get updated. Your gallery-category can be included with that template as well so that you don't have to add it and (a more notable advantage) it can't be removed so easily by somebody who doesn't know your category or vandals and if you want to change the category because it can also be done by just changing the template (it will be again updated for all images).

If you have an OTRS ticket I can create it within 10 minutes to show you what you can do with it. You just need a place where you want to have it such as User:Jw4nvc/permission for example.

Again: If you want to to have another author section you just have to tell me. It is not a big thing to do both together. It's much more work to do it seperated because loading and saving time will be needed twice.

If I 'm going to see the USA I will tell you ;-). So far no idea striked me what I want to have on a photo, but if it does I'll let you know.

PS: Let me know if you have received the OTRS ticket.

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean about hand coding. I try the javascript formatting tools on wiki occasionally, and return every time after a few minutes to just coding the tags. :)

Thanks for your flock of words about templates, but they flew so far over my head I couldn't track them. I guess that "slash" method (user/fod)is what I was trying to find for a few minutes yesterday, when I couldn't recall how to create a sub-page off my user page and didn't find it in Help. As with User:Jw4nvc/permission you suggested (and I've now put some placeholder text in). Should I have Capitalized it? Anyway, the template/gallery thing you describe seems daunting to learn and do correctly, so I'm very tempted to just save this whole dialog on my Mac and wait to see if anyone ever deletes another pic after the stuff I've done already.

I don't know what you mean about another author section, but if it's more work hopefully there's no need. I doubt that my photo collection will ever get very big, because I only put them here to complement wikipedia pages and most of those aren't improved by aerial pix. Maybe 100 this year and tapering off after that.

Do remember to contact me if you come here or have pix requests, and I'll of course let you know when the ticket arrives (could take longer because that mail server has been cranky lately, let me know if I should re-send the request email from another account). Jw4nvc (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What you mean with "Should I have Capitalized it?"?

"daunting to learn" well... depending on how much time you have and if you knwo the right pages. I also had no idea about creating a category, using simple commands (such as ''', <s>, <sup>, ==,...) and all the other stuff. Every time I found a page with a new code I listed it somewhere so that I can look the code up if I need it. I started with just copying the codes but now I can do much more than I ever expected that I would be able to do. So if you don't have the time you can either have a look at other tempaltes or ask me instead ;-)

The other author section could be "SB John Wiley (Jw4nvc)" instead of "MyName (Jw4nvc (User talk))" You may will get attributed with "MyName" which is (I guess) not the preferred way of attribution. It is slightly more work but it is like taking another image if you are up in the sky. If you take off just for one image it is much more work as if you would take off for some shots and you do them together. If all together is fixed the author thing will may take 5 minutes. So don't worry about that short ammount of time.

If there is no icket after a week till 10 days I would contact an OTRS member and ask for that ticket. I actually don't know what information is needed, but I guess the Mailadress from which you sent the mail and date and time when you sent it.

--D-Kuru (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

7/20

I meant "Capitalized" User:Jw4nvc/permission so it would be User:Jw4nvc/Permission. I dimly recall something like that with wiki naming conventions, but either way is fine with me. Your list of "simple" commands looks pretty scary, so I like the idea of asking you instead. To -do- whatever, that is. :)

Yes, the MyName is bad and I guess that happened because I didn't notice it when editing Summaries. Since I now always copy the Summary from the most similar pic and paste that into the new one for editing, hopefully it won't happen again once all the MyName ones are fixed.

This ticket email arrived an hour ago:

I've placed a notice on your talk page confirming this permission is verified. If
there's anything else you need us to do, let me know.

Yours sincerely,
(Stifle)

There's a long number associated with it. So now that he's added the note to my talk page, is there anything else I need to do? Something on the User:Jw4nvc/permission page? Guess I'll go now and try to find/fix the MyName entries...

Hey, thanks yet again for all your help! Jw4nvc (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

...

Fixing the MyName thing, I noticed this image got tagged by a bot or something, apparently due to the "pix by jw" Category. Is this going to happen on all images if I use that Category? Jw4nvc (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag just has actually nothing to do with your category. At the beginnung (after your upload) the bot included a "This image needs a category" message, because your file was not categorised since then so that your image can befound in a related category with related images. Because no category got added the bot was using a programm whichs purpose is to find out what the image content could be about (I guess by analysing the filename and/or the description). The tag now says that the added category/categories should be checked because the bot bot could have chosen the wrong categories because of missing and/or wrong descriptions.

I changed the following things on User:Jw4nvc/permission(actually nobody cares on Commons in usernamespace tempaltes about which latters are upper case and which are not) and your images/short explanation how tu use the template:

1) (template) - If you Include "{{User:Jw4nvc/permission}}" the OTRS ticket will be included

2) (template) - If you Include "{{User:Jw4nvc/permission|a}}" your authorname will be included

3) (template) - I removed your category from all of your images, because they get automatically included if you use "{{User:Jw4nvc/permission}}"

4) (template) - I protected your page so that only User (not IPs) can change your template and only admins can move it (I set the move option to admin-only because I don't think that you will move, If you want to do so, I can move it or I can set a lower protection.

5) (image) - I replaced all sources by {{Own}} because this template transforms itself into the right language (de-user can read german, fr-user can read french, en-user can read english, and so on...)

6) (image) - I included {{ISOdate}} to all of your images so that the date get automatically transformaed into the right language and because MM-DD-YY is a bit difficult especially if it's M/D/Y like 3/5/9.

7) (image) - I inlcluded "|Permission=" to all of your images for the OTRS ticket. Old permission have been replaced.

Please use the ISO-form for dates (YYYY-MM-DD) for all your future uploads. If you have some free time you may also can quickly check the changes I made in the date section so that I replaced the old date with the right ISOdate

Do you have a date for Aerial-PaintedRock.jpg?

Some images had a different author section ("User:Jw4nvc John Wiley (Flickr page jw4pix)"). Because the authorname is included via User:Jw4nvc/permission it can be easily changed for all images together.

You can also add a text below the OTRS permissiontemplate if you like ("Note that this CC version is identical to the larger (c) version on my Flickr page." for example which was used on some pages.

If you want to have a text added you can do it on your own of course or you can tell me what it should look like and what you want to see included.

If there is any question don't hesitate to contact me!

Because of the OTRS permissiontemplate on every of your image descriptionpages you can exclude the "Permissions" on your talk page if you like.

--D-Kuru (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

7/21

Wow, you've sure improved the info on these files! The seven items you list look like only a few if I use items 2, 5 & 6, right? Much of this is beyond me, so maybe if we have one image with everything exactly right I could use that as a model to revise all the others?

I don't know where to put the ISO date. When I upload, WC asks if it's my own work and then gives me a page where I can just paste in a Summary I've copied from the most similar image already on my page. I paste that in and change name/date/description/categories and anything else that needs changing. Can we work on one image to make as a model so I can go back and do that for the other files, or is that not a good idea?

The date for Aerial-PaintedRock.jpg is in the Description:

Aerial photo of Painted Rock area, taken January 26, 2007.

I don't have a good time for that photo because it was taken on my old camera and the time was obviously set incorrectly. Maybe some day I'll try to figure out what the time was, by going through all the photos from that period to find one taken at a known time. I'd then need to adjust for Daylight Savings changes. My guess is that nobody cares that much about the time, so I probably won't ever go to all that bother unless there's a good reason.

I'll probably leave all the permissions stuff on my talk page, in case it reassures anyone concerned in future.

Question: How could I get my actual name associated with my Jw4nvc user name? It would be great if it just showed up automatically somehow. I tried putting it in the Signature part of my Preferences, but that didn't seem to do anything. Presumably I could manually add it where the MyName string was before, but that would be a bit of work.

I sure appreciate all your help, and all the work you've done on this! John Wiley (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right. It's much easier if you use the templates. Of course we can work an image together. How the uploadform should look like:

{{Information

|Description= {{en|English description}}

|Source= {{own}}

|Date= {{ISOdate|YYYY-MM-DD}}

|Author= {{User:Jw4nvc/permission|a}}

|Permission= {{User:Jw4nvc/permission}}

|other_versions=

}}

It would be nice if you would include Interwikilinks. Interwikilinks are Wikimedia internal links to other projects in different languages. Example: You take an image of a prism. If you include "{{en|A [[:en:Prism (optics)|prism]]}}" it will become "English: A prism". It works like that: "en" says that it will include a link to the english wikipedia. "de" would be a link to the german wikipedia and so on. "Prism (optics)" is the full name of the page. If you include "|prism" the imagename displayed linkname will become prism. I included a link to en:Painted Rock (San Luis Obispo County, California) on Aerial-PaintedRock.jpg.

If you want to include exactly the same template every time you could create a subpage where you can keep the text so that you just have to copy and paste. If you like we can of course do an image together.

You're right. The time is not as important as the date. (In fact neither the date nor the time is needed, but it is an interesting information if something changes, because you know how it looked like in the past.

Do you want to include your name to all images as author section or as your signature? Seems to me that you would know how to change your signature. Again: changing the author section for ALL your files is as easy as possible. You just need to do one single edit. So if you want to that aother way of attribution is included (John Wiley) for example just tell me!

I fixed your change on your permissiontemplate so that your edit is not included with the permission and the author information. Now it gets included with the permission only. You may should thought about some kind of drop down menu. If you have a look at User_talk:D-Kuru#Quality_Image_Promotion you see a triangle in the right bottom corner. If you click on it more information get displayed. I would recommend to would be able to see the additional information if you click on the triangle (or some arrow). Moreover I wouldn't use headlines with "==" to avoid a (big) content section at the beginning of the page as you can find it on Aerial-PaintedRock.jpg.

--D-Kuru (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I fixed your edits on Aerial-PaintedRock.jpg and your Aerial-EllwoodOil1.jpg and New picture. I also fixed your template: 1) Now you will find "John Wiley Jw4nvc" in every author section of your images. 2) I moved the See talk page for more information tag to the persmission section of your temlate because the author and permission section are close together and you actually don't need to have the information twice. Of course you can revert my image if you feel like.

How your template would have looked like if there would be drop down option:

This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.

The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers here.

If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the VRT noticeboard. Ticket link: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2009071510014875

more information

All Headlines are excluded and replaced by codes and the drop down option makes it much smaller and if you want you can read the text

--D-Kuru (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

7/22

Oh, this is getting SCARY good!! :)

I -love- that you noticed the double link to permission info and fixed it without my even mentioning it! I'd futzed with it, couldn't get the duplicate to go away, and just decided to leave it. :}

Going even further above and beyond the call of duty, you also somehow made my actual name show up without my needing to remember manually fixing it on every file! Incredible!! :o

The drop-down option is also impressive, but being an Old Guy I kinda like having it all show up on the same page. Is it considered lame to do it this way rather than use the drop-downs?

I've noticed some variations of the section title below WC images. "Summary" is the name used for every file upload (the page after the "Own Work" page during upload). On many other people's pages, and some of my own (maybe due to templates?) it shows up as "Information." I've used that on at least one of my pages recently. Does it make any difference, or should I favor one or the other? I like having a section title so I don't need to edit the whole page in order to change something. Are you saying not to use them at all, or just to use more "=" so they're smaller heading titles?

As you can see, I've expanded the stuff on my User_talk:Jw4nvc#Permissions section by adding the CC3 logo {{fancy bracket}} string and links to the CC3 verbage. My theory is that there might be others like me who prefer having everything imaginable on the same page, and by blasting concerned wikizens with enough stuff they might something that would move them to refrain from needlessly deleting my files. Luckily I also have your help in doing it the wiki way, which is probably much more effective.

Most of my images have an auto tag at the bottom that says they're not used on any pages. I guess that refers to wikimedia pages, because I think every image IS used on at least one wikipedia page. It would be nice if there were an easy way to have those show up, and oddly enough sometimes they have. If an image gets deleted from a "pedia" page, it would be nice to know so I could delete it from "media."

Wow, I had no idea how much is involved in all this. Sure is a lot easier and more fun with your help! John Wiley (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I told you that you can have every attribution in the author section without the need of changing every file as long as you include {{User:Jw4nvc/permission|a}} in the author section ;-). If you want to have a couple of brackets around your username is no big deal as well.

Actually on Commons nobody cares about if something looks lame or not. If you want to keep the full text without drop-down option it is also fine.

I'm not quite sure what your question is about but I think the content is if there is a difference between using "== Information ==" and using "== Summary ==" and if you should prefer one to the other. There is no difference between both. It is just some kind of information that the file description, source information, author information, permission and so on is right below that headline. You are free to use the headline of your choice (I've also seen "Summary" in chinese letters, cyrillic letters, korean letters, japanese letters and arabic letters. Even english is prefered and "Summary" is default it deon't matter. I for example do not use any headlines, because I use a different upload form. However, the headline is not created by a template so there is no should be. It's completly up to you which one you prefer and want to use.

As long as you keep the headlines on the description of the image you can create as many headlines as you want if you have enough information. The old version of your template just included too many headlines which can't be edited on the image-descriptionpage and are not image related (if you click on a headline in the contentmenu the displayed section changes and moves you to the right section which is not very usefull if it's not that much information. Example: And old version of one of my archives: Every headline gets an entry in the contentmenu. If you have a look at the latest version you see that there are much more headlines and every headline would make the contentmenu bigger for which is need on such a small page because the contentmenu would be circa one third of the whole page. en:United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics has a big contentmenu as well, but it's very usefull, because you can click on the section you want to read/edit

The autotag at the bottom says that it is not used in this project (Wikimedia Commons). If you want to see where your image is used in all Wikimedia projects (Commons, Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource and all the other projects) you can click on "useage" above the image in the same line where "edit this page", "history" and so on are located. As I know there is no notification system if your file gets excluded from Wikipedia or other projects. Even your image get's excluded from Wikipedia they will not be deleted on Commons, because (and I guess that I'm not the only one) they will be considered as a way to useful to delete them. Many images on Commmons are not in use but don't get deleted, because they show (for example) different perspectives (of a building) or other model versions (of a car) which can be used outside the Wikimedia system (which is actually one purpose of Commons: To collect freely licenced and pubic domain images which can be used for free)

If you want to keep the permissiontext on your talk page I would suggest to create a second template for this text so that the text don't get replaced, edited or removed so easily. (If you have a look at the beginning of my talk page you see that there is some text even there is code on the talk pag if you edit it. Moreover: You don't save the text every time you edit the talk page which makes it smaller.

If it's easier for you you have much more free time to take new images :-)

--D-Kuru (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

7/23

Thanks for repeating the idea of using the "permission" page, because it's possible I get it now. So as you can see, I added SB after the user name. I also moved most of the permission text to "permission/details" and linked to that. I've learned a lot in this discussion, and hopefully my page is good enough now. I love the Usage link, and hadn't been seeing it because I browse with JavaScript off (I'm using Firefox with NoScript, and have now turned on "allow commons.wikimedia.org"). Looks like the SB coastline pic on my user page is on a "fa." page (Farsi?), and that's so cool! So I hope you'll think of something you'd like an aerial pic of so I can do something for you without waiting until you visit the US. :)

Thank you, dear soul. John Wiley (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

According to ISO 639-1 „fa“ is persian. If you want that your files are used you have to include the images on your own because usually nobody knows if a new file gets uploaded and thereby it is not used until somebody discovers it in a gallery or a category. That's one reason why it is very important to add the right categories to your images. However, I included your image on en:Santa Barbara, California and on because if you include an image on a Wikipedia page it gets sometimes also included in other projects and in other languages.

I will have a look if I find something in the news or something the like from which I want a photo.

I did again minor code fixes on User:Jw4nvc/permission so that the page as such is not included in Items with OTRS permission confirmed (in the summary in the history it is the wrong category) but the images are still included (Usually you use the ticket template on the image descriptionpage so Items with OTRS permission confirmed gets included everywhere where the image is used even it is not an image). I would change the link to Santa Barbara to the page on en.wikipedia because only a category for Santa Barbara exists on Commons.

You may also think about using a template on your user talk page so that the included Bytes get reduced.

--D-Kuru (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

7/24

I almost took a self-portrait to send you, because I realized while reading your words that the expression on my face was comical. A finger on my lower lip, mouth open, furrowed brow, and eyes crinkled in concentration. It didn't help though, because I understood almost none of your words. :)

I knew Categories are important, but have found them frustrating. First, the connections between wikipedia & wikimedia seem all confused so the categories don't always seem to match. When I tried to make Santa Barbara, California a hotlink it came up as a new page, even though it's a large and longstanding page on wikipedia. Maybe the ":en" prefix is required for it to work? (test: en:Santa Barbara, California)

I never found a convenient way to browse for Categories, so I just guess and then see if it shows up red in preview. Mostly I just use the Categories I've already found, thus my strategy of copy/paste from my most similar existing photo when I upload. Sometimes I copy Categories from other people's photos, but when I've used Categories from wikipedia they often show up as new pages. I only use wikimedia to contribute pix for wikipedia, and understood that's required, yet when clicking on a pedia page image it shows up as if on pedia rather than media. This whole alike/different aspect of pedia/media is very confusing and sometimes frustrating for me. Oh well, eh? :)

"You may also think about using a template on your user talk page so that the included Bytes get reduced."

OK, I guess you mean a template will use fewer Bytes to display the same amount of info. I gather that to make a template, I'd just create a new page like permission/details and then put that inside curly brackets on the talk page. I hope this isn't important to do, because it's likely that I'd mess it up.

My wife and I talked last night about buying a small boat, and thus I might soon start sharing pix from that perspective so it's timely that you've helped to improve the structure of my pages. Also, it might take less time for me to upload correctly now so I'd have time for flying AND boating. :) John Wiley (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there something special you don't understand or did my english go terrible (This happens sometimes when I want write a bunch of ideas. Because I don't want to forget them I write as fast as I can and meanwhile my english turns into an english with german grammar, some word-by-word translations of german sayings and sentences that make no sense at all (neither in english nor in german) if they are at least not halph sentences.)?

Categories are indeed sometimes very hard to find. In most cases the categoryname is the same as on en:wikipedia. If you want to find a category on Commons enter "Category:" in the search field below the Commons logo on the top left side and then type letter after letter but not to fast because some categories (or all depending on how much they are) get displayed which start like your entry. If you type in "Category:Santa Barbara" you have many categories related to Santa Barbara (not only to the Santa Barbara in the USA as Santa Barbara dei Marinai for example (even the categoryname should be different)). If you don't find anything just type in the topic you and search for it (If you type in "Santa Barbara California" you will get a bunch of images as well as category Santa Barbara, California. If there is still no category you can create it. Just click on the create button and include a another category. Example: Carrizo Plain National Monument is categorised in San Luis Obispo County, California because it is located there. However you don't need to do create new categories. It's a very good idea to have a look at other people's images. If you find one with the same topic you can of course copy the category. You can have a look at the articles on Wikipedia as well, because there are sometimes images wich have additional categories (When I move an image from Wikipedia to Commons I check other images in the article and copy their categories because it's a way fasten then searching). One suggestion would be that you create a page where you save all usefull categories. You can sort them by location or alphabetically (Mind to use colons: [[:Category:Santa Barbara, California]] because otherwise the page would get categorised and the category wouldn't show up). I for example want to create some kind of code archiv so that I only need to copy and paste the code instead of writing it.

Even Commons and Wikipedia are projects of the WMF (Wikimedia Foundation) they may do not have the same categories, pages, guidelines and so on. They are two seperated projects and are not connected (If an article is created on Wikipedia the same pagename can be free\not created on Commons). You see images on Wikipedia even they didn't get uploaded there because it is a default action if a file does ot exist on Wikipedia (or another project) they use the image from Commons.

One thing: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia and Commons is the file archiv. Wikimedia is the owner.

Bytes & talk page: Exactly! You just would have to create a new page move the text and include the page on your talk page. However, it is not necessary

Codes: [[:en:Santa Barbara, California]] becomes en:Santa Barbara, California; [[:en:Santa Barbara, California|example]] becomes example and [[:en:Santa Barbara, California|Santa Barbara, California]] becomes Santa Barbara, California (to get rid the "en:" infront of "Santa Barbara, California"

A boat sounds good :-) It would be nice to have some from-the-sea-taken images of Aerial-SantaBarbaraCA10-28-08.jpg!

--D-Kuru (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

7/25

You have the patience of a saint! Your mastery of English vastly exceeds my abilities both in German and Wikimedia. The latter is my problem, because the complexity of Wikimedia taxes my very UNsaintly patience. A decade or two back, I'd have enjoyed nothing more than learning every arcane aspect of it. Particularly the programming bits. Now as we've established, I'd rather be flying.

However, it is not necessary

My face relaxed into a smile when I read those words. So I guess we're done at least for a while! :)

Oh, my wife now wonders if she'll have patience for boating now that she's hooked on flying. So it's not yet clear whether we'll get a boat. It would probably be a small aluminum one, which would make for a 2 hour bumpy ride to reach the islands. $1,400 for a used boat plus expenses minus resale value might pay for several rides out to the islands on a big, fast, radar-equipped boat that someone else is driving. My solution of course is an amphibious airplane of some sort (ultralight?), but she's pretty scared of that idea and it would cost considerably more than our SB Flying Club planes (about double the cost of driving, and 10x the fun).

I'll check here for a day or two in case you think of something else, and if I don't respond please contact me via Flickr or my WikiPedia page.

Thanks for everything!! John Wiley (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

	Hello, D-Kuru/archiv. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

If your question related specifically to the above discussion of John Wiley's permissions, we can discuss it here instead. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of duplicates

Hi. We have to delete a duplicate only when it’s already been replaced everywhere with the properly named file. CommonsDelinker doesn’t care that it’s been ordered to replace it if it is deleted, and simply removes it from the pages. I am talking about File:Lilium_bulbiferum_2009_G1.jpg. Thanks. --AVRS (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC), 09:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Frage

Hallo D-Kuru!

Kannst du hier mal vorbeischauen? Irgendwie komisch. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ich muss ehrlich sagen, dass ich da im Moment auch nicht mehr dazu sagen kann. Beide Seiten hören sich für mich gleich logisch an. Das "official history program" welches "part of the Navy’s museum system" ist gegen "Copyright 2007 by Naval Aviation Museum Foundation".

Wenn das Bild von der US Navy gemacht wurde, dann ist es PD auch wenn die etwas anderes behaupten. Das "Copyright 2007" könnte für neuere, selbst gemachte Bilder sein z.B. von Ausstellungsstücken oder ähnlichem; Natürlich kann es auch für ältere gelten.

Für mich ist die ganze Sache noch etwas zu undurchsichtig als das ich mir schon eine Meinung bilden könnte. Ich werde dem Museum eine Mail schreiben und sehen ob und wenn ja was sie antworten.

Die Metadaten des Bildes habe ich mir auch angeschaut, da ist aber überhaupt keine Info drin. Nicht mal eine beschreibung oder ähnliches.

--D-Kuru (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Der Widerspruch "official history program" der US Navy und "Copyright 2007 by Naval Aviation Museum Foundation" machte mich ebenfalls stutzig. Wie dem auch sei, die Diskussion wurde bereits abgewürgt, aber ich vermute, dass die Faktenlage des abarbeitenden Admins nicht ausreichend differenziert wurde. Mal sehen, was in der Email geschrieben steht. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Your message on my Talk page clarified how those tags work, and I'm glad you posted it there because I'd have missed it here due to your high traffic. Hope your weather's as beautiful as here today (we're going flying tomorrow), and that you might visit to see for yourself sometime. :) John Wiley (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Products' logos

Oh, thanks for info :D. I've thought that it's copyrighted material (because of signs ® and ™) and cannot be used on Commons on free license. Cheers, Sir Lothar (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Licensing of WWII Images

I have a collection of 300+ images from WWII, a number of which I would like to add to Wikimedia. Several of the them include official USAF photos, which I understand have no copyright. However, on the rest of the images, there is no indication that they have any official USAF origins. Can I post these images under a license that makes them free to be used by others but requires them to cite the artifact as part of my collection? If I can, what license would you recommend?

Here is a link to the images. Thank you. Tannermyoung (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Images which were created by the United States Air Force can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without any Problem as long as you can prove that they were really taken by the USAF (for example the image can be found on an official page such as defenseimagery.mil). USAF images can be tagged with {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. This template is exclusive to images which were taken by the US Air Force. However, you should check if the images already exist on Commons by having a look at the specific categories and galleries.

Non-USAF-Images for which you have a permission to upload them can be uploaded an freely licenced without any problem. Please mind that such a permissions need to be verified (with an OTRS-ticket for example). Such as "The author agreed that I'm allowed to upload this file" is usually not enough and is usually not considered as a proof.

If you don't know the exact origin of an image I would not recommend to upload this file at all.

Wikimedia is always happy when they get freely licenced images or images which are in the Public Domain, as long as they don't violate somebodys copyright (e.g. if you are not allowed to upload and/or licence this image under a free licence)

--D-Kuru (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete images

I want to know is it possible that I can ask for deletion of images I uploaded on Commons. I believe certain images I uploaded (when I was new) have little to no use on Wikipedia since they are either of low quality or have little significance. Some of them also have copyright problems. Regards Marsa Lahminal (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the list of images.

Marsa Lahminal (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes your images can be deleted but I don't see any reason for that because there are many images out there which will never get used anywhere but are still kept because they may show some object from a different point of view or are a good way to have a look at the history (e.g. images of a city)

I wouldn't delete your images because some of them are used (and if they are used anywhere they should not get deleted if they don't violate copyright) and if you are the real author (you stood behind the camera and pressed the button to make that photo; you are not the real author if you just downloaded it from somewhere and uploaded it to Commons) I don't see any copyright problems.

--D-Kuru (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I stood behind the camera and pressed the button to make a few images such as Rawal Lake and Old Tree. Other images such as Military College of Engineering, Islamabad monument were taken by a friend and since I needed them for articles I uploaded them as my own work after taking permission from him. However, I did not send the permission to OTRS team. I still want a few of them to be deleted, and if they are in use I will upload some other images in their place.

File:IIU.jpg, File:Islamabad monument.jpg, File:SaudiParkTower.jpg, File:Military College of Engineering.gif.

As for the montage (File:Islamabad montage.jpg), there is an image with probable copyright vio. Since this image was used in many places, portals and other websites, I decided its better to create one with no copyright violations and replace that one with this. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted all the images you really want to be removed. May you upload new images as soon as possible so that they can be used in articles and galleries.

--D-Kuru (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, D-Kuru/archiv!

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 10:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Image:Focus stacking example.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

FOP

Please note that in Israel FOP applies to all works of art permenantly hung in a public place. No need to be old. Deror avi (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. However, my original deletion request had the reason that I this image does not look like as if it is that old that the author could died more than 70 years agou (which would make it OK to create derivative works of it no matter if there is FOP or not). COM:FOP#Israel says "if that work is permanently placed in a public place" what does "permanently" mean? That it is just not easy to remove or is it just what you have planned to do at that time you placed the object there (example: a statue which was only two days on some street corner isn't actually what I would call permanently. But if the original plan was that the figure should rest there forever was it overall permanently placed?) Moreover: Even may everybody can visit the ethiopean church in Jerusalem I don't think that it is a public place which would make the FOP rule obsolete. I think that you have to know more about the place where it was taken and the Law of Israel. Of course you have to bare in mind that everybody has different thoughts on what is permanently placed.

cheers --D-Kuru (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:M109 howitzers in Israelitic service

Category:M109 howitzers in Israelitic service 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 category, 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.

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--NatanFlayer (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Seitenschutz von User:Bradypus

Hallo D-Kuru, vielleicht hast du noch nicht mitbekommen, was leider passiert ist. Kannst du seine Seiten auf Commons mit einem kurzen Hinweis, vielleicht auch auf die Kondolenzliste, schützen? Danke dir. --95.208.226.150 18:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Benutzerseite gesperrt
Link zur Kondolenzliste erstellt.

wird sonst noch etwas benötigt?

--D-Kuru (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank - das ging ja schnell. Mir fällt im Moment nichts ein, was man noch tun könnte / sollte. --95.208.226.150 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:AMX-32 tanks

Hallo!

Kannst du da mal vorbeischauen und eventuell einen Kommentat hinterlassen? Es geht um eine inkonsistente Massenverschiebung von Panzer-Kategorien. --High Contrast (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kommentar geschrieben --D-Kuru (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Nopenis

Something went wrong with your latest edit over there. Multichill (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

... o.O

Oh yes... I included {{Nopenis}} to a user's talk page who uploaded two low resoluted low quality dicks. Because I didn't substed the template the template as such gets included. If you click on "edit" you somehow edit the template and not the user's page any longer. That's what happened here. However, thanks for the fix!

--D-Kuru (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion procedures

hi;

it has come to my attention that you are closing & deleting nominated files in less than the designated 7 day "discussion" period.

as far as i am able to determine, for the closures i examined; the files in question did not qualify for speedy deletion, & there was no basis for expediting their removal.

please allow at least the designated minimum 7-day discussion period before deleting files; there are large numbers of unclosed deletion debates backlogged, which also require attention.

(additionally; the "nopenis" template is an expression of the opinions of a group of wmc users; it is not an expression of official wmc policy, & does not constitute a legitimate rationale for deletion, much less expedited closing of deletion debates & speedy deletion)

Lx 121 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I close a deletion request before seven days are over for a good reason. I expect that you decided to write that text above after I closed a deletion request for an image of some genitalia. The project scope (which "is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons") says: "Photographs of nudity and male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules on scope. Often (but not always) such images add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, and hence fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose." I have seen many deletion request about low resoluted images of the male genitalia which were made of bad quality. Even the quotation from the project scope does not say that it's a reason for {{Speedy}} all images would have been deleted anyway soon or later because we already have enough and/or even better images with nearly the same content. Nearly the same content means that we have an image of someones genitalia which shows (not exactly but nearly) the same angle ov view and/or content.

You will find enough images in category Male genitalia so there is need for low resoluted, noisy bad quality-images like Male Erect Penis 35 Years.jpg, SwAP84.jpg, SwAP41.jpg, SwAP21.jpg or Adult Penis.jpg. I included a link to {{Nopenis}} because it's shorter than the project scope's page (which is not an unimportant issue) and it's available in more language than COM:PS.

PS: It has nothing to do with the text I wrote above. I just saw that the name of some of your you images should be improved. Bellpianokeyboard&maker'smarkviewfrombelowlookingup.JPG for example is hard to read if you don't speak english good enough or don't know where to add a space.

--D-Kuru (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

hi; i have no problem with renaming the files; if you have better suggestions :) i spend more time organizing materials on here, than uploading, & my main focus is on wikipedia

unindenting

as regards deletion procedures:

the problem is not about whether or not you feel that a particular file merits deltion.

when an item is nominated for deletion, there are procedures that all users, including admins, are expected to follow, in making the decicion whether to keep the file, or not.

part of that process, for non-speed deletions is allowed a minimum 7-day period, for users to discuss the deletion nomination.

commons' official deletion policy, & the steps to follow, as a part of the deletion procedure, are outlined here: Commons:Deletion_requests#Instructions_for_administrators

& here: Commons:Deletion_policy

Lx 121 (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)