User talk:De728631


TUSC token 211033b1711e51385fa1da3b5f03b199Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

BarwisEdit

Hello, I recently submitted a number of our companies registered logos to our owners Wiki page and it was deleted. We own rights 100% to those images and shouldn't have been deleted. Can you please re-add the deleted items please.

Thank you. In good health,

Zac Lucius Sales & Events Manager Barwis Methods zlucius@barwismethods.com www.barwismethods.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlucius (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Change of location of this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CSgt_OBrien.pngEdit

I am not going to try to argue with you since its obvious I'm wrong, so I assume the guy in the center is who I thought the other guy was? It would make sense with the naming at the bottom, is that correct? I just made before a stupid guess based on that he looked vaguely like an image already available on the internet and the different uniform. So the guy in the center with the shield at his knees is the lieutenant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blight55 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 05 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The names below the image should correspond to the order of the persons depicted there. So the central guy in the second row would be Lt. Panter Downes. I could have overwritten your crop with a new image but I thought I'd prefer a clean start with a new image for the lieutenant. Please feel free to upload a new cropped picture for Panter Downes. Oh, and thank you for adjusting the licenses. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Abtswind Logo.svgEdit

Hallo - Du hast soeben dieses Logo zwei Kategorien "... in heraldry" zugeordnet. Es handelt sich bei dieser Abbildung jedoch nicht um ein Wappen. Es ist lediglich ein Logo, dass Jedermann verwenden kann. Deshalb hatte ich die Kategorien gestern mit diff getiglt. War das falsch? -- MaxxL - talk 15:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Siehe dazu bitte die Diskussion auf Commons:Village pump/Copyright#If missing, licensing to CC0?. Auch wenn es als Logo Verwendung findet, ist es letztendlich nichts anderes als der offizielle Wappenschild der Gemeinde. Daher kann man die Datei auch als solches verwenden und kategorisieren. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Entschuldige, aber da muss ich widersprechen: es ist nicht das amtliche Wappenschild, sondern das Logo, das Jedermann nutzen darf. Das amtliche Wappen findest Du auf dem Amtsblatt der Gemeinde und dies ist weitaus detaillierter als die abstrahierte Logoversion. Das ist auch die Aussage der Verwaltung in Abtswind. Der erste Bürgermeister ist am Montag wieder aus dem Urlaub zurück. Ich werde ihn sofort um eine schriftliche Bestätigung der mündlichen Auskunft bitten. -- MaxxL - talk 15:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Das diesd gar kein so seltener Fall ist - NRW hat ein Bürger Logo ebenso wie viele Stadte - schau Dir bitte dieses sehr informative Beispiel Düsseldorf. Es hat den äußeren Anschein das Düsseldorfer Wappen zusein, ist es aber nicht. -- MaxxL - talk 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Aus heraldischer Sicht gibt es aber keinen Unterschied zwischen abstrahierten und detaillierten Versionen, solange die Blasonierung stimmt. Fakt ist, dass das Logo die selben Figuren zeigt, wie das Wappen und eindeutig als Wappenschild aufgebaut ist. De728631 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Der Wappenberechtigte - der Markt Abtswind - vertreten durch seinen Bürgermeister sagt: dies ist nicht unser Wappen, dies ist das das abgeleitete Logo. In commons soll dem aber widersprochen werden und das Logo als Wappen benannt werden? Ist das ernst gemeint? -- MaxxL - talk 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ja, das ist teilweise ernst gemeint. Commons ist eine Sammlung von frei verfügbaren Medien für alle möglichen Zwecke. Auch wenn die Gemeinde die Originalgrafik als Logo verwendet, haben wir hier eine SVG-Datei mit heraldischen Elementen (Fuchs, STAB, Schild), die lle auch einzeln benutzt werden können. Darum sollte man die Datei sowohl als Logo einstufen, als auch unter heraldischen Aspekten. Ich bin jetzt erstmal offline, werde mich aber morgen gerne weiter dafzu äußern. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Danke De728631 noch mal für dein Statement. Die ganze Geschichte kommt doch vollkommen absurd daher. Hier wird geltendes Recht (per Gesetz) durch eine nicht nachvollziehbare Behauptung außer Kraft gesetzt. Falls es stimmt was MaxxL "erzählt" müsste eine solche Deklaration öffentlich bekanntgegeben werden. Niemand kann hier ein Wappenlogo/Wappenzeichen erkennen geschweige denn ein Logo. Hier ist also nicht nur ein Nachweis per Email nötig (noch nicht mal OTRS). Ich für meinen Teil warte noch eine gewisse Zeit auf eine Erklärung per Email oder anderen Beleg.
PS: Der Vergleich mit den "gängigen" Wappenzeichen hinkt doch arg (OT: wobei hier doch das Wappen Schleswig-Holsteins also Kuriosität heraussticht, da das Wappenlogo wie ein normales Wappen ausschaut mit vermeintlich mehr Details und das Wappen wie ein Logo, hier wurde wohl auf die Schildform wert gelegt).
@"Kein so seltener Fall" dort wird genau ein Wappenzeichen einer Stadt gezeigt (nämlich genau das erwähnte, wo sind die vielen anderen?). Hier handelt sich um eine kleine Gemeinde (Markt um nicht zu sagen Dorf). Da kann man froh sein, dass hier überhaupt ein amtliches Wappen vorhanden ist. Ein Wappenlogo bei derart kleinen Orten steht wohl als Rarität dar (ist mir jedenfalls noch nie untergekommen). User: Perhelion 20:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Email Antwort: Der 2. Bürgermeister hat mir nur inhaltlich knapp geantwortet, dass man "Mit dem geänderten Wappen zufrieden ist". Obwohl ich explizit das Logo-Problem angesprochen hatte. Damit wäre zumindest die Ersetzung nun begründet. @MaxxL: wie machst du das, fragst du vorher bei den Gemeinden an oder nachher? User: Perhelion 19:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Email die 2.: Auf nochmaliges Nachhaken, habe ich freundlicher Weise eine etwas konkretere Antwort bekommen, die da lautet: er hat "ehrlich gesagt, keine Ahnung" ... "Am einfachsten ist es, dass MaxxL seine Aussage beweisen würde.". Somit kann - wie ich nicht ohne Grund vermutet habe - MaxxL all seine Änderungen an dem Wappen (vermeintlichen Logo) rückgängig machen, falls er binnen einer Woche nichts besseres vorlegen kann. MfG User: Perhelion 07:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für deine Bemühungen. Was MaxxL angeht, stimme ich dir vollkommen zu, obwohl das für die Kategorisierung der Datei sowieso unerheblich ist. Über den Dateinamen kann man sich allerdings nach wie vor streiten. De728631 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

DuckDuckGoEdit

Hi, De728631, can you explain to me why Brimz keeps removing the files on the dutch version of DuckDuckGo pretending they are copyright files? I taking a look at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-07# and Category:DuckDuckGo this doesn't make sense to me. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hoi, @Lotje:. Judging from the design I can understand how Brimz thinks this is copyrighted. You should drop him a note on his Dutch talkpage and explain to him that the logo is part of the software and has been released under a free licence. Actually it IS copyrighted but the licence allows using the logo anywhere else. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done Lotje (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't believe what you did and the basis you did itEdit

Can't believe how destructive action you took, rather than attempt to be helpful instead. I'm average WP editor, with little experience loading files needing permissions. However I did the best that I knew how with this system (upload specifications), and did the correct things in getting the copyright holder to send the right information to the right place. If you were trying to be a pain, and as unhelpul as possible, I don't know how you could have possibly improved on your response at the Noticeboard, and with your action. This has left a very very bad taste in my mounth. I wonder why you are in the position you are in, to shoot from the hip with unhelpful/destructive reponse/action, rather than work to help someone who asked for help to resolve what went wrong??? I do believe that nothing went wrong on my end, but judging by your knee-jerk responses it is easy to think that much is going on wrong here at COMMONS with the way things are managed here.

You shouldn't make the assumptions you made without putting your finger on the permissions Email. I'll pay you $1000 if there is any inadequacy about that Email. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You've put me in IMPOSSIBLE POSITION -- don't you see that at all??? (By telling me "something is wrong" and at same time that you don't know what is wrong.) That is crazy-making. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If there was someone I could report you to and get you fired from your job at COMMONS, I would do it!!! You should be trying to resolve things and helping people who need it, rather than frustrating them further with non-reponses and destructive actions. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't even know that something is wrong in the first place -- you've assumed that. Yes there may be something wrong ... something wrong with OTRS overlooking a permissions Email that was sent to them. You never even attempted to confirm the Email content, you made assumption it was defective. Bad assumption. And you took action on that basis. Bad basis for action. How about reversing your destructive action and restoring what you deleted??? And are you in a position or not, to both FIND and REVIEW the permissions Email sent June 27 by the copyright holder??? How about some answers and some help, instead of the crazy-making approach that you have already executed??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are an administrator. (Excuse me for not being very impressed. Or differently, I'm impressed, but the wrong way.) How about un-doing the damage you've done, then just getting someone more qualified to help me??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You might not know it but when we delete files, they are not ultimately erased but the file history and edit history are kept on the file servers, just not visible for everyone. That is why I could see that on 6 August 2016, at 00:04, user BU Rob13 put {{this template}} on the file page which says "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. ..." Apart from that, other editors have now explained to you at the OTRS noticeboard what may have been wrong. De728631 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That's confusing. (First you said "I cannot read the email that was sent", now you're quoting someone saying "can be read here by users with an OTRS account". That seems contradictory. Do you have an "OTRS account"?) Second, the client confirmed in their permissions Email to be both owner and copyright holder. Is OTRS honestly taking the position of telling the client (a notable US attorney & law professor) that he is mistaken!? And on the basis "probably the photographer is the sole copyright holder"!? (Just what position has OTRS taken? The client asked to be informed of any deficit to the permission he submitted. Was that done? ... I was supposed to be in the loop on communications, but OTRS dropped the ball on that by overlooking my Email address in the CC of the permissions Email, so I'm asking. I'd like to be sent a copy, seeing how I've been told that OTRS dropped the ball re including me in communications.) Update: I've asked for said copy at the Noticeboard. Ok, IHTS (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not have an OTRS account, and with "can be read here by users with an OTRS account" I was quoting a generic message that was not written by me but is included in Template:OTRS received. It means that other volunteers that do have an OTRS account can read any email messages sent to OTRS. It is not contradictory because I was pointing you to this templated message that was placed on the file page 30 days before the file got deleted, and which you could have read in due time. As to the OTRS team not including you in their emails, I'm afraid I don't know why that happened. Again, I do not have any access to OTRS emails but can only tell you what happened to the image file itself. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: For your future reference, people with OTRS access usually display a tag on their userpage as BU Rob13 does. And it is not uncommon for "simple" administrators without OTRS access to provide answers at the OTRS notice board. De728631 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I got to answers now, as much as is feasible. Thank you for your participation & timely responses that helped get me there. Sincere, IHTS (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:File:Teniente coronel César Muro cropped.jpgEdit

Hi De728631, I'd like to kindly ask you to respect my uploads. As you possibly know, any uploader is granted the right to ask for the deletion of his/her uploads, provided that no more than a few days have passed since upload. Thus, I've deleted the file I've just uploaded and upload the version I like. Feel free to upload the original image (I'm not interested in such image) but please, leave the version I want to upload, provided that I'm following the rules. Thank you for your understanding --Discasto talk 21:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC) PS: I've been a commons admin for years and I do know the basic rules pretty well

The version you last uploaded is in File:Teniente coronel César Muro cropped.jpg. Just without the larger image in the upload history. Please note also that you did not delete your first upload. You just overwrote it with the cropped image but it is still present in the history of the file. This is not what we want at Commons. Please see Commons:Overwriting existing files. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you please remove the file I requested? Best regards --Discasto talk 21:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why you want to remove it because I'm going to re-upload it anyway. But if it pleases you, I'm going to remove it now. De728631 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


File:Acta constitución LIADA.jpgEdit

Thanks for your opinion on the discussion about the status of the transcript of the foundation of this organization, I was thinking like you, but I didn't know what licence I was able to use for that. I still need to learn a lot about the licenses in Commons. Thanks. --JoRgE-1987 (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons VPEdit

Hi De728631. Thanks you for your help at the VP. What do you think about File:Philippine Revolutionary Army Rifles.jpg, File:QuezonVehicle.jpg and File:MTUST.jpg uploaded by the same editor? The first two appear to be museum exhibits and are 3d, so I'm not sure if the objects of the photos still can be considered protected under copyright. The third one appears to be a fair use being claimed as "own work", and it does not look old enough to qualify for PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. The first two are so-called utilitarian objects, i.e. things for everyday-use, and they are not generally copyrighted. As to File:MTUST.jpg, this is apparently another copyright infringement so I have opened a deletion discussion for this one, too. De728631 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. De728631 (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

CommentEdit

Hi, You realize that this comment might be used as a statement loosening the user's unblock conditions? I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just checking that's what you're doing. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Thank you for pointing this out. I wasn't aware that Light Show had been placed under any unblock unconditions, but this makes it clear. I was not going to lift these conditions anyway but was merely replying to what looked like a general copyright inquiry. @Revent: as the unblocking admin who enacted these conditions, would you say that Light Show's upload conditions regarding out-of-copyright US media should be levied or would you rather keep them intact? I have asked Light show to keep requesting approval but I think we can also lift these conditions.
If anyone is still in doubt about Light show's uploading habits we could perhaps change his uploading conditions. We could drop the talk page request prior to uploading but have him add weblinks to the file description or to the licence section that point to the relevant copyright catalogues. De728631 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I recall this case. The "tight leash" has been applied for nearly a year. Perhaps the more standard process of adding {{LicenseReview}} to uploads would be a good intermediary step if precautions are still thought sensible? There should be caution in terms of process. Blocks tend to be strictly limited and have a defined appeal procedure, while unusual conditions like this one frequently turn out to be hard for the subject to appeal or otherwise get lifted as they fall outside our community agreed policies. -- (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
{{LicenseReview}} sounds like a good idea to me if some level of control is still desired. De728631 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I see two issues with relaxing this... one being that Light Show is still completely banned from uploading any images to enwiki, because of his extremely long history of copyright problems there. Not that we are required to listen to them, but it will be a source of drama that we should be prepared for.
The other, and more significant, problem is that I really don't think that Light Show has learned much (if anything) about exercising any kind of 'due diligence' regarding what he asks to upload... as an example, on the 21st of last month, he asked on the VPC about uploading this image, which actually has a visible copyright notice in the bottom right corner. He also, about the same time, wanted to upload this AP image, which (if you are not familiar with it) is an extremely famous photo, and it's incredibly hard to conceive of the AP not protecting it given that they are known to be well aware of copyright and that's it's a 'valuable' image, in monetary terms.... I suspect it probably would have resulted in a DMCA notice, to be honest. I unfortunately think he's just throwing 'whatever' at the community, and seeing what gets past, without much in the way of filtering. Reventtalk 09:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples. I find it hard to understand their motivation or persistent failure to grasp policy. -- (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you indeed, Revent. Given these examples and the local upload ban, I agree that relaxing Light Show's conditions would only produce problems, so we better keep his restrictions as they are. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
As to Revent's comment at VPC, I agree with him. VPC is more frequented and thus better suited for upload inquiries than one's user talk page. I would suggest that future upload requests by Light Show shall now be made there instead of using his user talk page. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Asking there was actually a 'change' to the rule made by Light show himself, that I had absolutely no problem with (he's been doing so consistently)... it's probably what I should have said in the first place. FYI, my 'examples' were just of the recent issues... soon after his unblock, he also tried to argue about things like the 'validity' of a visible copyright notice, as a reason that a work should be allowable (as I recall, it was another case where the notice had been written on the negative, and the year was not written, but it was clearly a notice). Light show seems to consider himself an expert on copyright.... in the sense of being a 'sea lawyer', my impression is that instead of objectively looking for the actual status, he's looking for an 'out' that lets him upload the work IF someone objects, and otherwise wants to rely on 'generic' arguments about such works in general. It's unfortunate, as he does seem to want to contribute useful material, and in a way my unblocking him was an unintended burden on the community, but... c'est la vie.
I'd ask that, due to the history, @Moonriddengirl: be consulted before any slacking of his sanction happens in the future, even though she's not really active here. Reventtalk 19:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "De728631".