Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Ww2censor

User talk

Deutsch | English | español | français | magyar | +/−

This user talk page is for discussion with user Ww2censor.

If you ask me at this page, I will answer here. If I ask you at another page, I will answer there!

Quill-Nuvola.svg
Please sign your message: --~~~~
Add a new section at the end of page, please!


License review (list of reviewers)

Flickr

Ipernity

Lemill Web Albums

OpenPhoto

Panoramio

Picasa Web Albums


Other reviews


Scripts


TUSC token 36200f83ed7e451b0e9762a3748a9e16Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TalkbackEdit

TBEdit

talkback about Fred Sirieix imageEdit

Bob Collymore imageEdit

Talkback re Israel stamp imagesEdit

Talkback re Swiss imagesEdit

Löschung von Datei File:Wappen von Türkoğlu.tiff vom 26.Juli 2014 und 25. Dezember 2014Edit

Hallo Ww2censor! Ich weiß, 2014 ist lange her, aber ich habe immer noch Fragen, die mir keiner beantworten kann. Ich habe das Wappen von Türkoglu hochgeladen, das wegen "fehlender Urheberrechte" wieder gelöscht wurde. Nach einer Diskussion mit EugeneZelenko wurde es wieder hergestellt, dann aber wieder (von Ihnen?) gelöscht. Hier der Dialog mit EugeneZelenko: Hi EugeneZelenko, thank you for working on my file. I used the same license as the file "Datei:Antalya buyuksehir logo.png". But why was my file deleted and this one isn't? The same happens to many Turkish coats of arms, like Adana, Ankara or Izmir. I'm the opinion, the file must not be deletet according to Adana or Antalya. Thank you for your answer; with kindly regards --Christian1311 (Diskussion) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC) File didn't have license tag. Could you please clarify what this coat of art represents: settlement, education institution, etc? --EugeneZelenko (Diskussion) 15:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Hi EugeneZelenko, sorry that I answered so late, business.... The coat of art represents Türkoğlu, a town in Turkey. It has the same license as Antalya buyuksehir logo.png. Please take my file back to wikimedia commons. Thank you very much. Kind regards --Christian1311 (Diskussion) 11:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC) I restored file, but you still need to specify proper license tag. --EugeneZelenko (Diskussion) 15:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)) Ich verstehe folgendes nicht: Beispiel Adana: Quelle ist "eigenes Werk", was bedeutet, dass Kokojino2020123 es abfotografiert hat. Urheber ist Kokojino2020123. Reicht das aus als Urheber? Dann kann ich mein Wappen von Türkoglu unter gleichen Bedingungen (eigenes Werk; Urheber Christian1311) wieder aktivieren lassen, oder? Überhaupt ist keine konsequente Linie zu beobachten. Hängt es nur von dem zuständigen Bearbeiter ab, ob eine File bleibt oder gelöscht wird. Ähnlich Ankara und Istanbul (ohne Urhebernennung) Schon jetzt vielen Dank für deine Antwort! --Christian1311 (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Christian1311: Ich weiß nicht, warum Sie mich bitten, Ihnen dabei zu helfen. Sie sollten den Redakteur EugeneZelenko fragen, der das Bild gelöscht hat, aber es sieht so aus, als hätte das Bild nicht den richtigen Autor. Das ist der Autor, der das Bild entworfen hat, nicht die Person, die es fotografiert. Wenn Sie sich das Bildprotokoll ansehen, sehen Sie, dass es dreimal gelöscht wurde. Wenn Sie nun die richtigen Details, Autor, Quelle und Copyright-Status haben, können Sie bei Undeletion requests anfragen nach dem Wiederhergestellten fragen. Nur weil andere Dinge existieren, ist das kein Grund etwas anderes zu behalten. Ich bin kein Adminsitrator, also kann ich nichts für dich tun; Alles, was ich tun kann, ist dich zu beraten. Viel Glück. Ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die ausführliche Antwort! Mit freundlichen Grüßen--178.7.28.228 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hôtel de BuetEdit

I've been to Hôtel de Buet, the one you mentioned at User_talk:Ruthven/Archive_4#WLM_2017. The images on Flickr and on WP are correct: the hôtel is now embedded in the courtyard of a more recent building. It's pointless to upload my photos, as there are other ones. Where is the statue you mentioned in another message? --Ruthven (msg) 09:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ruthven: Maybe your images are better than mine, as I remember there was a garbage bin close by as well as cars making wider images not so good. The statue is on the corner of 30 rue des Changes and I cropped a wide shot to make this image but since then I have visited again and have a closer up image but it was quite a dull day, so if you can make a better one, please upload one when you photograph it. Christelle was correct about Mérimée having the wrong photo, similar to this one for the fr:Hôtel de Guillaume de Bernuy in the rue de la Pomme which belongs to the other Category:Hôtel de Bernuy in the rue Gambetta. Maybe the page names need changing so they syncronise between the languages. Hope that helps. I'll also email you later. Ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Arditurri2.jpgEdit

Dear ww2censor,

What is the license for this image please? Is it cc by sa 3.0 or 4.0? I don't know where the license is kept but you managed to upload a higher resolution version of this photo. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • In this separate image from the same web source, it was cc by sa 4.0 but at least there is a link to the license to view:
  • File:Aliri baserria 05.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv: Actually when you click on the image in the source page you get a similar image page to the one linked from this image File:Aliri baserria 05.jpg. However, the license is just written {{cc-by-sa}} without defining which version it is and there is nothing to verify it is version 4.0. That's why I did not give it a good review after finding the higher resolution image. To me either it fails review or we need to look more deeply at the site's copyright statement if there is one to make a better informed decision. Thanks for asking. Ww2censor (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You. I did what you did and went to the cc by sa option. Below it when I click on License Deed, it says "cc by sa 4.0" Many people have got images from this website wrong. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
When I go to File:Arditurri2.jpg all I see is "cc-by-sa" on the right of the image and no link under the image. When I click on the "cc-by-sa" on the right it brings me to the page that lists all the different cc licenses, just the same link you gave that lists both free and unfree but not specifically any license. I don't know where you are seeing a "cc-by-sa-4.0" because the link you gave does not verify a 4.0 license for me. It's exactly the same for File:Aliri baserria 05.jpg and the new source links still do not link to a specific license just to the general Creative Commons license page. Personally I dispute the good reviews you have given. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm, Leoboudv I'm not so sure, because the page you are brought to is the current general Creative Commons License page and by clicking on the CC-BY-SA all you are seeing is the current version of the CC license which is what you would expect. I'm not going to dispute these reviews with you, or with others, but I still have concerns. The image pages should in that case really link to the actual license page that you eventually found. Anyway, thanks for the info, so let's get on with other things. Ww2censor (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

StempelmarkeEdit

Hi Ww2censo, sorry, but the file File:Stempelmarke Österreich.jpg‎ has nothing to do with a philatistic, because it's not a postal stamp but a taxe stamp, so I removed the category from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stempelmarke Österreich.jpg‎ again. --regards from Austria K@rl (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

ThisEdit

Dear Ww2censor,

If you click on any of the 3 boxes in the link above, you get lots of images and the words Creative Commons erkännande which links to CC BY 3.0 when you click on it from the mynewsdesk website. Is mynewsdesk making a false misrepresentation here that they own the photos copyright when they don't? I was just curious since they Normally name the photographer. Nothing more. I don't know if 4nn1l2 had seen my question on my talkpage. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv, the 3 boxes just seem to link to subsets of the main Link page. But actually if you hover the mouse over the images on the page, the photographer is usually attributed, such as this one but if you try to see the license as shown on the hovered image from the main page, you can't get there (or I can't see a way). However, not everything is licensed cc-by-3.0, such as this one which is ARR. My concern is that we don't seem to be able to navigate from the source links of images already on the commons to see a license at mynewsdeak upon which it might have been given a good review or maybe never reviewed at all. All we can see is the general CC statement page pop-up window. Finding such images through the link above is virtually impossible as it just lists recent uploads to their site. Ww2censor (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks for sharing your concern here. And thanks for your time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ww2censor".