User talk:De728631

TUSC token 211033b1711e51385fa1da3b5f03b199Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Copyright of MexicoEdit

Yes, I read the talk page. It is not easy to resolve all Mexican copyright rules, but I do my best. It's true that Mexico does not apply the rule post auctoris mortem in many cases (films, music, books, etc.). And, in addition, the law in force on the URAA date was different from the current one. There are many ways that a work enters the public domain (for example, in some cases it is for the death of the author without heirs or not renewing a registry). And a work in the public domain never restores their rights, even if the law changes. I'm still studying all this. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 17:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Age of Consent.pngEdit

You ruined my colorblindness example :-P —Dispenser (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: Oops. I've reverted the change because this is in fact a good example for illustrating problems with colour blindness, and the file itself is actually not used in any WP articles. Just yesterday I came across Vischeck which is another simulator and Daltonizer that can simulate files and entire webpages. Perhaps it should be added to your list of links. De728631 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This is one of my demonstration images for a JS simulator I wrote and show off to random strangers on my phone. Most images are photos (Traffic lights, Rainbow, autumn leaves) to give people an understanding. It a bit research to find the Delta E 2000 equation so a program can difference between #DBDB00 and #D9D92A (a lot more blue!). I think for color accessibility getting people to review charts in grayscale "laser printer" simulation would elevate things from "5% of readers might have trouble".

I left out Vischeck since its closed source and Coblis is more featureful. —Dispenser (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. You're really doing some good work there. Thumbs up! De728631 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

LizenzEdit

Hallo De728631, vielen Dank für die Hilfe auf User talk:JuTa#Lizenz angegeben. Ich habe die Lizenzen der weiteren Fotos auch geändert. Muss ich das zugleich bei OTRS/Noticeboard#Dutch_check erwähnen?--ManfredFX (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Kein Probelm. Diese OTRS Tickets kann ich leider nicht einsehen, also weiß ich nicht, worum es da im einzelnen geht, aber wenn es sich um die Lizensierung der MSC-Downloads handelt, solltest Du besser auch auf dieses Impressum verweisen. De728631 (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Vielen Dank, werde ich erwähnen.--ManfredFX (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

could you please explain...Edit

You made dozens of edits like this one. Did you offer your reasoning for removing images of buoys from the category for buoys anywhere? If so where?

If you move a whole bunch of images from one category to another, in future, I strongly urge you to include a link to the discussion or policy that you think explains your action, in your edit summary.

I don't mean to be insulting, but can I ask you to confirm that you know what a buoy is? Geo Swan (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: What I did is called category diffusion. Files at Commons and Wikipedia should always be in the most specific category of the category tree. E.g. this edit moved the file to Category:Special marks which is member of Category:Navigation buoys which is in turn in the parent category "Buoys". And yes, I do know the different types of buoys because I have a German motorboat licence for maritime and inland waterways. Moreover, such edit do not require a link (and afaik Cat-a-lot doesn't even let you add a summary) because they are covered by one of the basic policies of Commons. Commons:Categories#For more appropriate categorization states that "generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic." De728631 (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bilder der securityconference.deEdit

Tach,

bist Du dir sicher das die Bilder unseren Lizenzbestimmungen genügen?

Auf https://www.securityconference.de/en/legal-advice/ steht:

All proprietary and copyrights are reserved. The website’s layout, the photographs, graphics, sound, animations, videos and texts used as well as their arrangement on the website of Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz (gemeinnützige) GmbH are protected by copyright. It is not allowed to copy or use the content in other electronic or printed publications without the express consent by Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz (gemeinnützige) GmbH, except for the authorized use detailed below. In particular, beyond the authorized use, the content must not be reproduced, disseminated, amended or made available to third parties for commercial purposes.

Von daher wäre eine Freigabe mit Mail an OTRS erforderlich. --2003:4D:2C53:9C29:F840:A16D:E9F3:BD16 08:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Tach auch. Gleich danach kommt ein Abschnitt mit der ausdrücklichen Freigabe der Bilder:
Photographs of the conference which are offered for download may be used free of charge, provided that the name of the photographer is indicated. The pictures are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany License. MP3 versions and videos of the speeches offered for download on the website are free of charge.
Daher brauchen wir hier kein OTRS. Das Ganze ist auch schon mit JuTa besprochen worden. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Archimolluscm-de copy.svgEdit

  File:Archimolluscm-de copy.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

KDS4444 (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lots of photos for the license reviewEdit

Hi, can you please verify the photos of actors from Category:Panfilov's 28 men that I've uploaded? They all are downloaded from the official group of the author - "28 панфиловцев" studio. The license is in the header of the album (CC-BY-SA 3.0) -- Katkov Yury (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Done I have reviewed these photos. It should be noted that I couldn't find some of them in the Facebook gallery but the original coloured versions had already been reviewed by INeverCry, so the bw derivates are alright. It's strange, but some photos appear to have been removed from Facebook today. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
indeed. I will contact the studio shortly. Katkov Yury (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  Done they have recovered the photos and added some more. Katkov Yury (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you for contacting the studio about this. De728631 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Picture from MynewsdeskEdit

Hello De728631! I see that you have reviewed the picture of Gellert Tamas [1] and I have to ask you if you are aware of the huge problem that exists with pictures from Mynewsdesk? It has been up for discussion several times here at Commons. The main problem is that pictures receive the CC-license automatically and by default, often without the uploaders understanding and regardless of if the uploader holds the copyright or not. There is a huge risk that the pictures on Mynewsdesk has been re-licensed by people who doesn't hold the copyright and in these cases the license is falsely made. (Mynewsdesk is a site for press-releases, but that a picture is free to use for press-releases doesn't mean it is free to re-license.) In this particular case, the contact person for the upload is not the same as the photographer of the picture - and because of that there is a huge risk that a copyright violation has taken place. If I search the photographers name I cannot find any picture the photographer has put under a CC-license, only copyrighted pictures ([2], [3]). Your opinion would be appreciated. //Vätte (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I replied at the DR. De728631 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

CristianChirita (talk) for your kind support

Return to the user page of "De728631".