User talk:Michael Bednarek
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
--SieBot 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
TUSC token f6c5486c51af43bb7b983de54b9779cfEdit
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Hi Michael, I have reverted this edit by you. You are of course free to check whether images are properly tagged. But images shall not be silently untagged in non-obvious cases just because you disagree. It is best to find either consensus with the editor who tagged it or to open a deletion request for it. In this case, the images of Marco Lazzara were not shot by himself but by professional photographers (he admitted this already elsewhere). Please consider also this already closed DR. Best regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
TUSC token 686afd69b3a1a084f60d602d6f28ea0aEdit
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
- Interwiki links for pages in the "File:" namespace are pointless. Those files will appear on each and every language Wikipedia, but they exist only at Commons. You can observe this when you read the page that you get when you click on an Interwiki link: it says this file is from Commons.
- Also: my edit, which you mention above, corrected a lot of nonsense in the description; even if you disagreed with the removal of Interwiki links, you should not have undone my other edits. However, as the Interwikilinks don't really have a place in File:-pages, I suggest you revert Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC) --
- Thanks for sharing your thoughs. The Namespace topic wasn't my issue, I agree with that one (removed it now).
- Reg. the iw
You've wrote: "However, as the Interwikilinks don't really have a place in File:-pages" --- in most cases the file names are automatically changed to the edition language. You might as well exchange the "file" with any name which is used in a certain Wikipedia" such as "de:Bild:Mozart - Don Giovanni.ogg". This might be good for further information: Commons:Language policy. I'm doing this for years now and had one or two small discussions yet. I have no idea where to discuss the issue on a broader basis. At least I would like to say this tiny iw links (and edits) do no harm. But it could be disturbing if user put them in and other users delete them and again some others add them again and there is a ongoing discussion at every user page of the user who did it. That'll be a mess. I find it useful to see at once where a particular file is used in a Wikimedia project. As I said, the other way around (Cross-Wikipedia, and Wikipedia to sister projects for example) it's OK but from Commons to Wikipedia seems not be OK with you. I'm still wondering why... BFN, --Mattes (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think I haven't made myself very clear. There should be no Interwikilinks of the sort that appear in the left sidebar on any "File:" pages – the kind that you introduced in your edit; see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Oct#Interwiki linking policy. Do agree? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- An interwiki link for a page points to a page for the same subject on a Wikipedia in another language. Page interwiki links on File: pages don't do that, because that file doesn't exist on any other language Wikipedia. Thus they are unhelpful, confusing and misleading. Have you red the discussion I pointed to? The tool to check for usage of Commons file in other Wikipedias is the "Check usage" tool. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I have read the discussion you have pointed to. I don't see that it came to any consensus. If you ask me, interwiki links are not unhelpful (helps to identify the usage in Wikipedia editions), not confusing (interwiki just gives one defined answer that is: a Wikipedia uses this image/article or gallery) and not misleading (the only misleading might be that upon "clicking" you leave the Wikimedia Commons platform). As I said the other fields in Wikimedia place them as well. Now what are we doing without a consensus/policy? Should everybody delete, insert, delete, insert and delete the iw in each gallery, file and category as they please for eternity? I'd suggest, a discussion for everyone should be initiated somewhere -- and I hope that a policy comes up within weeks. I know the Check usage tool but that is not always working and it is not part of the Wikimedia syntax. Just because the tool exists, all iw links provided by the syntax are redundant? BTW Who says this tool or any other tool with that feature still operates in five years or so? --Mattes (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interwiki links on File: pages do not give "… one defined answer that is: a Wikipedia uses this image …"; a File: from Commons will appear in every language Wikipedia, whether it's used there or not. Also, Interwiki links are meant to be reciprocal, i.e. if Commons has a page with an Interwiki link to a page on xx-Wikipedia, then that page on the xx-language Wikipedia has an Interwiki link to the page on Commons. As this is not possible for File: pages, they should not have Interwiki links.
- Following your suggestion, I have raised the matter at the Village pump. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- For the record:
- -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
... und es gibt ihn ja doch!Edit
Vielleicht amüsiert's: &Prost!
-- das imo erheblich unterbelichtete Geschwätz 'andernorts' ging mir zuletzt dermaßen auf die Eier, dass ich mir vorläufig eine 60d-Auszeit verpassen ließ. Bis dann! ;)) -- lg, [w.] 16:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
|File:Uschi Glas.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Universal danger road signEdit
- At the time I made that comment, the category was, (as you know), called Universal danger road signs and consisted of, well, universal danger road signs. The image Panneau A14.jpg, which is clearly French, stuck out as not belonging into that category which consisted of unviversal icons. Now, that the category has been "renamed" to Triangular warning road signs, that objection clearly no longer holds. However, this "rename" makes me wonder where an interested reader should look now for universal danger road signs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I assumed the category was based on the visual symbol, not on the actual meaning of "danger" of the signs. From what I understand, your criterion would also have File:Bordenpark07.jpg, File:Faltsignal einsatz.jpg, and File:Feuerwehr Warndreieck.jpg removed from the category, right? Let me know if I misunderstood the issue.
- As for renaming the cat, I did it after reading the article on Wikipedia, which made it clear that there's no such thing as an universal road danger sign, since there are variations in shape, color, etc depending on the country. I thought "triangular warning road signs" would be a more objective name for the category (though maybe it should be further renamed to "triangular road signs with an exclamation point" to be completely unambiguous). What do you think? --Waldir talk 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, in my opinion the files you named didn't belong into that category under its former name, either. But as I wrote above, the new category name seems to encompass these types of images as well. Do you want me to re-add the category Triangular warning road signs to Panneau A14.jpg or will you? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's done on an instant, it makes no difference who adds it. So I just did it :) Nevertheless, I'm still thinking that "triangular road signs with an exclamation point" might be the best name for this category; maybe I'll change it soon. I'll think about it some more. Do you have any thoughts on this? --Waldir talk 10:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletionEdit
|Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Beethoven's Piano ConcertoEdit
Hey if Category:Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven) is "inside" Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven, it's not needed to add the second category to files that already have the first, don't? --MisterSanderson (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would be a lot easier to follow your argument if you could provide some links to the categories, files, and edits involved.
- There is no reason to have Category:Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven) inside Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven. All OGG files of Beethoven's piano concertos need to have at least two categories: Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven and Category:Piano concertos by Ludwig van Beethoven or one of its subcategories. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- MisterSanderson: Without responding here (where you started to raise your questions), you have removed the Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven from
- and the Category:Ogg files of music by Ludwig van Beethoven from
- File:Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 1. Allegro assai.ogg,
- File:Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 2. Tempo di minuetto, ma molto moderato e grazioso.ogg,
- File:Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 3. Allegro vivace.ogg.
- This leaves those OGG files without any category in the tree Category:Ogg files and the categories Category:Ogg files of music by Ludwig van Beethoven and Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven incompletely populated.
- It also created insconsistencies in that File:Beethoven Piano Concerto No 5 Movement 2.ogg is categorised in Category:Ogg files of concertos for piano by Ludwig van Beethoven, but File:Beethoven Piano Concerto No 5 Movement 1.ogg is not.
- I strongly suggest you revert your edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ich habe den Benutzer/Realnamen des Betroffenen aus deinem Kommentar entfernt (bzw. durch "the user" ersetzt), denn 1) geht es dabei nicht um ihn als Person, sondern um die Sache, und 2) sollte die Nennung seines Namens in diesem Kontext m.E. absolut vermieden werden, damit er nicht mit dem Thema assoziiert wird und womöglich im RL Schaden erleidet. --Túrelio (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Achim hat seinen vielzitierten Beitrag mit seinem Namen gezeichnet und darüber auch getwittert.
- "Urteil" muss nicht unbedingt ein Gerichtsurteil sein, es kann auch als die Entscheidung der Staatsanwaltschaft verstanden werden. Was Achim mit "Revision" meint, ist nicht klar, da er als Begünstigter dieser Entscheidung keine Wiederaufnahme fordern kann; es bliebe ihm jedoch die Selbstanzeige. Meiner Meinung nach beschreibt Achim's Beitrag im Kurier das Vorgehen der Kölner Staatsanwaltschaft und kein Gericht war daran beteiligt. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Achim hat .." Ich halte das für riskant und hatte ihm (a posteriori) zur Anonymisierung geraten. Aber das ist seine Sache; was hier passiert, ist dagegen unsere Sache. Davon abgesehen, ist der Username für die Diskussion völlig belanglos. Wenn jemand bei mir nach der Quelle gefragt hätte, dann hätte er halt das Link auf den Kurier-Beitrag erhalten. --Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Catégorisation de mes imagesEdit
Monsieur, Je souhaite que l’image File:Jean-Pierre Ponnelle par Claude Truong-Ngoc 1980.jpg apparaisse dans la Category:Personality by Claude Truong-Ngoc et dans la Category:Claude Truong-Ngoc pour des raisons qui me regardent. Je ne vois pas où est le problème puisque ce sont des catégories cachées. Si vous avez une meilleure solution, merci de me l’indiquer. Bien à vous, --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- When I removed the category Category:Claude Truong-Ngoc the first time, the Category:Personality by Claude Truong-Ngoc was not hidden. That it was hidden later, when I removed the parent category again, escaped my attention. I've never seen categories like that configured as hidden categories and I don't know whether COM:OVERCAT applies in such a situation or not. Anyway, I won't revert any more if you add that category again. Regards, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Traduction par Google:
- Quand j'ai enlevé la catégorie Category:Claude Truong-Ngoc la première fois, la Category:Personality by Claude Truong-Ngoc n'a pas été caché. Qu'il était caché plus tard, quand j'ai enlevé la catégorie parente encore, échappé à mon attention. Je n'ai jamais vu catégories comme celle configurée en tant que catégories cachés et je ne sais pas si COM:SURCAT s'applique dans une telle situation ou non. Quoi qu'il en soit, je ne vais pas revenir plus si vous ajoutez cette catégorie à nouveau. Cordialement, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow! I am so impressed at your inserting the 'krakoviak' reference so quickly after I posted the image of Elssler in 'La Gypsy'. I'd thought of putting that in, but was unsure of the territory and so left it out. Thanks for the added contributions to the image. Kim Traynor (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Michael, I therefore have moved the picture <I6W0025 2.jpg> out of the category Burkard Schliessmann, because it's a duplicate (convince yourself ...) to the official version ("...BS in Teldex-Studio/Goldbergvariations..."), which actually is used and embedded in the Wikipages of the artist. In fact, one could delete this file entirely. All the best and thanks, many greetings, --Elvirtuoso (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- That File:I6W0025 2.jpg is a duplicate of File:Burkard Schliessmann in Teldex Studio in Berlin, during the recording of the Goldberg Variations from Joh. Seb. Bach.jpg is no reason to remove it from Category:Burkard Schliessmann. I agree that it should be deleted, probably by using Template:Duplicate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!Edit
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|Thank you for excellent collaboration and help!|
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 01:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I noticed that I moved into "Gottfried von Cramm" because in cat-a-lot I clicked by mistake the "Move" on the wrong category. As for "Hannover", I simply followed the consensus emerged into a CfD about Hanover that requested the name change because in English is being gradually accepted the form "Hannover". See here -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's debatable whether the version you uploaded is better than the previous one at File:Edliner Mozart.jpg – which has been there since 2005 and is widely used. Your version has better defined ruffles but it is a lot darker and a bit smaller (it noticeably cuts of some bits on the left, right, and bottom). I know that there is an almost duplicate of File:Edliner Mozart.jpg at File:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Letztes Bild zur Lebzeit.jpg, but that is no reason to overwrite it. The normal course of action is to upload a new file to a new file name; see Commons:Overwriting existing files. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
|Hello, Michael Bednarek. You have new messages at Gunnex's talk page.
Chopin, Nocturne No. 1 in B Flat Minor, Op. 9.oggEdit
Hi there! I saw you overturned some of my edits. Is there something wrong with them? A piece of music is not 'defined' by a film it's used in, but who says a category should be 'defining'? Can it not be 'informational'?
Some people like to categorise all elements of paintings: the people on it, elements of the clothes they are wearing, if they are standing, sitting or lying down, statues in the background, furniture that can be seen, animals, buildings, trees, etc. Most of these elements are not necessarily 'defining' for the painting itself, they are elements that someone may be interested in.
My main hobby on Commons is categorising film info. If St Paul's Cathedral in London is used for a film, this does not 'define' the cathedral or the film, but should that be a reason not to connect them? And one actor usually doesn't 'define' a film either, nor does a film usually 'define' an actor. Must that be a reason to overturn categories that link an actor to a film? In the case of the Chopin nocturne: it is very dominant in one of the Endeavour episodes, as is the Beethoven sonata in another episode. Classical music in general plays an important part in the series. I would like people to be able to know where the music came from, and hear this for themselves. What's wrong with that? --Judithcomm (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I applied the principle of "defining categories" from en:Wikipedia:Categorization. There, just because, for example, Joan Baez sang "Plaisir d'amour", that doesn't make it a Joan Baez song. Or just because Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, has been used in the Doctor Who episode "Attack of the Cybermen", that doesn't justify categorising the work in en:Category:Doctor Who, or, by extension, the Category:BWV 565 on Commons in Category:Doctor Who. As you write, the Chopin and Beethoven pieces featured each in one episode of Endeavour, and they are AFAIK not even mentioned in the English Wikipedia's article – where readers are likely to look for that, not on Commons. Anyway, feel free to re-add those categories. I (almost) always revert only once. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I re-added the categories, but a little bit differently. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_in_Endeavour_%28TV_series%29_episodes. May I'll add the music to the Wikipedia article too, but I don't know how to work the footnote system there. I mess things up when I try to add or alter a footnote. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Michael, I did because the picture was too small and its aspect ratio was unusual (3:4 or 2:3 are the typical). Yes I can restore the history, but wouldn't advice to keep the photo with the aspect ratio as it was presented. Your son's shoulder is a minor issue, it doesn't affect significantly the photograph. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)