Robert Weemeyer
Do not change someone's self-chosen way of crediting themselves edit
I make a conscious decision not to use "own", because it frequently results in crops being credited to the person who did the crop, among other problems. I am entirely within my rights to do this. Please do not change this for me (or any other user who has made a similar choice) as you did at File:Seattle - Our Lady of the Lake - interior 30 - crucifix over main altar.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I will not do that again. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 |
File:Stamp GDR 1963 Michel 1113.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: CSD G2 (Unused and implausible, or broken redirect))
Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk. |
User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Meno25.
I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Please, wait I have finish my work before modifiing, it is enought difficult and now I am completely lost and in no understood procedure. - Siren-Com (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Polikarpov I-16 stamps edit
You were too fast… I just placed the category "Polikarpov I-16 on stamps" into the category "Aircraft on stamps of the Soviet Union", so there is no reason to be stamp in overall category, but in specific one. I'm clearing the mess in category "Aircraft on stamps of the Soviet Union". I undone your correction. Let me know if disagree (and why). --Anry skyhead (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the Category:Polikarpov I-16 on stamps there are also stamps of Russia, so it is wrong to put the whole category into Category:Aircraft on stamps of the Soviet Union. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion edit
|
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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Seriously, what's the deal dude? PD-Germany-§134-KUG clearly says it only applies to anonymous stamps published more than 70 years ago. What exactly is your issue with that? I'm really getting tired of this endless nonsense about the un-deletion dates. It shouldn't be this difficult. @Rosenzweig: can you please look at this DR and tell us when the stamps should be un-deleted? For some reason Robert Weemeyer thinks they should be undeleted 70 years after the publication date because of PD-Germany-§134-KUG. Even though the template clearly says it doesn't apply to stamps published after 1952. So I'd appreciate it if you could sort it out. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: I don't know where you get the "published more than 70 years ago" and "doesn't apply to stamps published after 1952" bits. {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} applies to German stamps published before 1966 (when a new German copyright law came into force). So if these are pre-1966 German stamps not naming the author (I checked a few, and they were), PD-Germany-§134-KUG applies. --Rosenzweig τ 07:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nowhere does the template say it applies to stamps published before 1966. What it does say is "This template is for German stamps published more than 70 years ago" and the last time I checked it hasn't been 70 years since 1966. So where does the year 1966 come from and why wouldn't it be 70 years after the date of publication since that's what the template says? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Would you please be so kind to read the template you are talking about? "This work of bildende Kunst (visual art) or photography was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966." So this template is for works of visual art published in Germany before 1966. If they don't indicate their author and were published by a legal entity under public law, copyright expires 70 years after publication. So the copyright of a 1956 stamp of Germany which doesn't indicate its author ends 70 years after publication, in 2026. It should be deleted now and undeleted in 2027. That's why I added the Category:Undelete in 2027. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I literally quoted from it. The fact that it came into effect on January 1, 1966 has no bearing on what years it applies to. To quote it again, "this work of bildende Kunst (visual art) or photography was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966. It does not indicate its author and was published by a legal entity under public law (§ 5 KUG; for details see Wikipedia:Bildrechte). Therefore according to § 134 Satz 2 UrhG, copyright expires 70 years after publishing." No where does it say it only applies to works created before 1966. It literally just says at the end "copyright expires 70 years after publishing." There's no caveat about what years it applies to or not. Let alone does it say that it only applies to works created before 1966. Otherwise I assume it would just say so. But your taking a sentence at the beginning of the paragraph and one at the end and acting like they are somehow connected when there's nothing to indicate they are. It doesn't say "pre 1966 stamps are copyrighted until 70 years after the date of publication." --Adamant1 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: It seems that you seriously misunderstand what this license tag is about. It says "this work [...] was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966". "This work" being the stamp we apply the license tag to. The rule we use here ("It does not indicate its author and was published by a legal entity under public law") is part of the old law (the "KUG" in force until the end of 1965, hence the "KUG" in the template name). This rule was abolished by the new law (the UrhG) starting with the year 1966. So only works that were published when the old law was still in effect, until the end of 1965, can use the license tag based on this old rule. And for those works, it's 70 years from the date of publication. This will go on for 12 more years, and on January 1, 2036 all affected works will be in the public domain (in Germany) with the 1965 batch joining the others that already entered the PD in the previous years. --Rosenzweig τ 11:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's possible I'm miss-understanding the license tag. That's why I pinged you to explain it ;) Although I still disagree with your and Roberts Interpretation. Or at least I don't think it's clear that's license template is saying if it's how the laws works. That said, the only thing I care about is having a clear date where it stops applying and if that's 1966, great. I don't really care either way as long as it doesn't changed based on the DR, which administrator is closing it at the time, or what guideline Robert Weemeyer feels like applying at the time and how. The fact that he's been inconsistent at best about things up until this point really doesn't help things any. But I'm fine going with it ending with stamps created after 1966 (or I guess it would be 1965?) as long as we all agree on and can stick to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Created after 1965 (so 1965 stamps are the last ones which are eligible for this template). If you think the undeletion categories are wrong in a deletion request, you can let me know and I'll check. @Robert Weemeyer: Thank you for your patience (I hope ;-) while discussing this on your user talk page. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I appreciate that and Robert Weemeyer allowing us to discuss it on his talk page. I'll be sure to ping you if I think the un-deletion dates are wrong in a deletion request going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- You are both very welcome. Thank you especially for your contribution, Rosenzweig. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I appreciate that and Robert Weemeyer allowing us to discuss it on his talk page. I'll be sure to ping you if I think the un-deletion dates are wrong in a deletion request going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Created after 1965 (so 1965 stamps are the last ones which are eligible for this template). If you think the undeletion categories are wrong in a deletion request, you can let me know and I'll check. @Robert Weemeyer: Thank you for your patience (I hope ;-) while discussing this on your user talk page. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's possible I'm miss-understanding the license tag. That's why I pinged you to explain it ;) Although I still disagree with your and Roberts Interpretation. Or at least I don't think it's clear that's license template is saying if it's how the laws works. That said, the only thing I care about is having a clear date where it stops applying and if that's 1966, great. I don't really care either way as long as it doesn't changed based on the DR, which administrator is closing it at the time, or what guideline Robert Weemeyer feels like applying at the time and how. The fact that he's been inconsistent at best about things up until this point really doesn't help things any. But I'm fine going with it ending with stamps created after 1966 (or I guess it would be 1965?) as long as we all agree on and can stick to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: It seems that you seriously misunderstand what this license tag is about. It says "this work [...] was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966". "This work" being the stamp we apply the license tag to. The rule we use here ("It does not indicate its author and was published by a legal entity under public law") is part of the old law (the "KUG" in force until the end of 1965, hence the "KUG" in the template name). This rule was abolished by the new law (the UrhG) starting with the year 1966. So only works that were published when the old law was still in effect, until the end of 1965, can use the license tag based on this old rule. And for those works, it's 70 years from the date of publication. This will go on for 12 more years, and on January 1, 2036 all affected works will be in the public domain (in Germany) with the 1965 batch joining the others that already entered the PD in the previous years. --Rosenzweig τ 11:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I literally quoted from it. The fact that it came into effect on January 1, 1966 has no bearing on what years it applies to. To quote it again, "this work of bildende Kunst (visual art) or photography was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966. It does not indicate its author and was published by a legal entity under public law (§ 5 KUG; for details see Wikipedia:Bildrechte). Therefore according to § 134 Satz 2 UrhG, copyright expires 70 years after publishing." No where does it say it only applies to works created before 1966. It literally just says at the end "copyright expires 70 years after publishing." There's no caveat about what years it applies to or not. Let alone does it say that it only applies to works created before 1966. Otherwise I assume it would just say so. But your taking a sentence at the beginning of the paragraph and one at the end and acting like they are somehow connected when there's nothing to indicate they are. It doesn't say "pre 1966 stamps are copyrighted until 70 years after the date of publication." --Adamant1 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Would you please be so kind to read the template you are talking about? "This work of bildende Kunst (visual art) or photography was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966." So this template is for works of visual art published in Germany before 1966. If they don't indicate their author and were published by a legal entity under public law, copyright expires 70 years after publication. So the copyright of a 1956 stamp of Germany which doesn't indicate its author ends 70 years after publication, in 2026. It should be deleted now and undeleted in 2027. That's why I added the Category:Undelete in 2027. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nowhere does the template say it applies to stamps published before 1966. What it does say is "This template is for German stamps published more than 70 years ago" and the last time I checked it hasn't been 70 years since 1966. So where does the year 1966 come from and why wouldn't it be 70 years after the date of publication since that's what the template says? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Category:Oude Binnenweg (Rotterdam) edit
Hi Robert, thanks for all your work here. I apologize for reverting some of your efforts in the Category:Oude Binnenweg (Rotterdam) because I have adopted this category and some more related categories to experiment with some more advanced rearrangements. -- Mdd (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Robert, I just noticed this edit and you apparently don't get the logic here: We have the building and the bar or the organization, and they are taken separately.
- In the Oude Binnenweg there are at least three interesting bars: cafe Timmer & Melief Bender both over 100 years old and another just turned 25 (which will be added). They are all in the category Cafés in Rotterdam, but they are also present in the Oude Binnenweg.
- Now I guess the crucial thing here is, that I am no longer just archiving stuff. I am documenting the things in this one street: Buildings, art, street furniture.... and notable organizations. The idea with the category is, what I try to establish is that the category is showing a summary of all of these aspects. If you look at it, it will be like reading a travel guide.
- Now I am well aware that the main focus has long been to get every image stored in their own one unique place: to create a logical and well functioning archive. But this is not the end goal. We want people to find it and use them, and we could guide them in the process. That is what I am trying to establish. -- Mdd (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Robert, I resolved this last situation by creating a specific category for bars in that specific street. Best regards -- Mdd (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)