User talk:El Grafo/Archive 1

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, El Grafo!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Grob G 103 Twin Astir.jpg is uncategorized since 23 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done --El Grafo (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Scheibe SF 25 B D-KAGR 03.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done--El Grafo (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Abies photos

Hi El Grafo - I fear your photos of "Abies fabri" File:Abies fabri young 01.jpg, File:Abies fabri young 02.jpg, File:Abies fabri young 03.jpg, and "Abies fargesii" File:Abies fargesii young twig.jpg, are mislabelled plants; both are of Abies holophylla. This is unfortunately a common problem with Abies seed imported from China, they are very far from the first mis-labelled specimens I have seen and been told about by various conifer experts. I have tagged the photos with the identification; I will leave it up to you whether you want to re-upload the photos with the correct names, and perhaps also inform the curator of the Ökologisch-Botanischen Garten. - MPF (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi MPF, thanks for your message! I'm on holiday right now, but I will check this when I return to Bayreuth. --El Grafo (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pulsatilla_pratensis_subsp._bohemica6.jpg

Hi El Grafo! Your pictures caught my attention! They are so beautiful. It would match perfectly an article in which Pulsatilla pratensis is mentioned in our Paracelsus magazine. Paracelsus magazine is a product of global cooperation, with people from Europe, North and South America, and India volunteering their time and working without pay. The objective of the magazine is to blend ancient and modern wisdom of medicine and holistic healing. The magazine is published monthly in three different languages: German, Spanish, and English; it is read all on every continent of the world. It reaches physicians, alternative practitioners and ordinary people. Although we sell the magazine, we are a non profit organisation and the printing coasts are hardly covered. Would you be so generous and give us your permission to print one of your photographs? If yes, could you tell us how the reference to the picture should be?

e.g. Pulsatilla pratensis subsp. bohemica, photo taken at the Ecological-Botanical Gardens in Bayreuth, Germany Photo taken by ?

We thank you in advance for your consideration and reply and send you our very best wishes.

Anna Beutler Coordination Paracelsus.magazine (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: For more information please visit our homepage: www.paracelsus-center.ch Unfortunately still not updated! We are working on it.

Please give images good descriptions

---

I noticed you've uploaded File:Flugplatz St. Michaelisdonn – winch 04.jpg and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error.
Please give some thought to writing a good description of uploaded images. This ensures that they can be used. It also helps those that review and improve categories do a better job, which also ensures that images will get used in novel and interesting ways. Thanks, and happy editing!

High Contrast (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi High Contrast, don't worry: I'm working on it. Just uploaded a bunch of pictures via Commonist, categorizing and describing them is the next step. Greetings --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für das Hinzufügen der sehr brauchbaren Bilder! Noch eine kurze passende Beschreibung dazu und es wäre Perfekt. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wie gesagt: Ist in Arbeit, aber erstmal die Kategorien. --El Grafo (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:SF 25 OE-9299.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 11:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done --El Grafo (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of U.S. utility patent images...

Regarding...

• File tagging File:US patent 7938358, fig 9.png
• File tagging File:US patent 7938358, fig 4.png
• File tagging File:US patent 7938358, fig 10.png
• File tagging File:US patent 7938358, fig 1-3.png

Here's why the images published in the notice of utility patent grant for U.S. Patent 7,938,358 by the USPTO are not subject to U.S. copyright (but, IANAL). Starting with the USPTO's Editorial Standards - Publications and Citations leads to 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 37 CFR 1.84(s). As U.S. Patent 7,938,358 doesn't include these notices, the patent publication is not protected by U.S. copyright. The additional discussion and legal citations in the keep/delete discussion from Nov 2009 - Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-patent-no notice provide additional reasons that utility patent drawing are still not covered by US copyright. The conclusion there was to keep the PS-US-patent-no-notice template as well as the utility patent images licensed using that template even, those post 2006.

Not finding a license template(s) in Wikimedia Commons that covers no-notice, US utility patent image licenses, I wrote one using {{PD-because}} on my talk page. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this answers the licensing questions you've raised.

Hello sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ, thanks alot for your explanation, I'm glad that there is a way to keep those files. I'm not that deep into copyright stuff - I just noticed that the template obviously didn't fit. I probably should have asked you first, sorry for that. If there's no template for that, maybe someone should create one? Greetings --El Grafo (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; patents seem to be a murky area. After reading more, the messy copyright/patent overlap appears to mostly occur for design patents; utility patents appear to to have clearer guidelines. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Prohibited Area P-40 Camp David.png

I wanted to let you know that a file you uploaded: File:Prohibited Area P-40 Camp David.png is out of date. There is an updated image on the FAA website. I was going to update it, but I like how your crop looks and I couldn't replicate it with the new one. Would you be willing to help? Or just to update it? Thanks -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi ТимофейЛееСуда,

I'd be happy to help. I'm rather busy at the moment, but I will have a look at this when I come home today. Please don't hesitate to remind me in case I forget … Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally  Done – sorry for the delay. I was able to recreate the crop using en:GIMP. Load 1) the new map and 2) the old snippet as a new layer → make the snippet-layer 50% transparent and move it around until it is at the right position → then simply let the frame around the snippet-layer show you where to crop → remove the snippet layer and save as PNG.

Since there were no significant changes (as far as I can see, there is just one mountain that is slightly higher now), I just uploaded it as a new version of File:Prohibited Area P-40 Camp David.png. --El Grafo (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Gee Bee Model Z Reproduction Front.jpg

File:Gee Bee Model Z Reproduction Front.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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

ze-dan (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A little message

Hello El Grafo,

I'm Imer, the user who upload the files: File:Skyhawkbonnie.jpg, File:Bonaventure16.jpg, File:Catbanshee.jpg and File:2212540540026767448kzscbl6.jpg. I think these pictures are very useful on Wikimedia Commons and whether they should be excluded entirely it should be replaced by other pictures of the HMCS Bonaventure. Wikimedia has only one picture of the Bonaventure and I wonder where to find other images of the ship if it is possible. If your not the user to contact to make this job, can you tell me more experienced user to do this work. Thanks (Imer (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC))

Hello Imer,

I have no doubt that these pictures would be useful if we were able to keep them. Maybe we can save at least some of them, if {{PD-Canada}} applies.

To be honest, I have not much experience regarding Canadian military history pictures, nor do I know anyone who might have. Just a wild guess: The people over at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force or some other Wikiprojects from en:Portal:Canada/Wikiprojects might know the best places to look for such pictures. Hope that helps at least a little bit, --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello El Grafo, I add a comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catbanshee.jpg, could you see the page and answer me please, your help is welcome.Thanks(Imer (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC))

Hi, I'll try to figure that out, but since that's completely new terrain for me too, I can't promise anything. --El Grafo (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello El Grafo, Two of the pictures have been deleted. But fortunately not that we are trying to save. Can I know where is your research? From my side it is rather to slow down.(Imer (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

The two other pictures were kept and I asked the admin who decided to keep them to adjust the license templates (The Flickr user doesn't own the copyright, so s/he can not release them under a Creative Commons license). The two important things seem to be: 1) the pictures were taken by the Canadian Forces and 2) they were published before 1962 (although we don't have definite proof of that). If you find other (similar) images you would like to upload, I think it would be a good idea to simply go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright first (or maybe Commons:Bistro if you prefer French, but the other one is explicitly dedicated to copyright, so that would be my first choice). There you find the people who know more about that tricky copyright stuff. Just give them a link to the image you would like to upload and all the information you were able to find (When was the picture taken? Who was the photographer? Did s/he belong to the Canadian Forces/US Army or some other kind of governmental organization?). The more information you provide, the easier will it be for those people to figure out if the image can be used at Commons. Hope that helps? --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this valuable information, I am glad that at least two of my images have been preserved. We have nothing unnecessarily finally.Imer (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Airport de-icing vehicles und Category:Aircraft de-icing vehicles

Hallo!

Wenn du dich in Zukunft entschließt ganze Kategorieinhalte in andere Kategorien zu verschieben, dann überwinde dich bitte an jemandem zu wenden, der das alte Konstrukt löscht oder weiterverlinkt. Danke im voraus! --High Contrast (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahoi,

im Normalfall schlage ich die dann zur Löschung vor oder richte einen Cat-Redirect ein. Category:Airport de-icing vehicles ist aber eigentlich eine sinnvolle Kategorie für Fahrzeuge, die der Enteisung von Landebahnen usw. dienen (de:Flächenenteisung). Das einzige Problem ist, dass wir (noch?) keine Bilder dafür haben. Die Bilder, die da drin waren, waren dort falsch, da sie de:Flugzeugenteisung oder die Entfernung von Schnee zeigen. Was macht man denn nun mit einer eigentlich sinnvollen Kategorie, die leider leer ist? Weiterleiten macht wenig Sinn. Löschen und dann bei Bedarf neu anlegen? Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

File:JP 4 Mensile di Aeronautica

Hi, may you delay at least two days the deletion of the files ? I have had difficulties to obtain the Monthly e-mail address, as it has no website. On Saturdays and Sundays the editing office is closed. Thanks, Chesipiero (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chesipiero,

I posted a note on the image description page. Since I'm not an admin, that's all I can do for now. But don't worry: If the images get deleted and you get a permission afterwards, it shouldn't be a problem to have them un-deleted. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Bebauungsplan der Bonner Ermekeilkaserne.jpg

Es ist doch immer wieder schön, das man die Arbeit eines anderen ohne Rücksprache einfach so löscht, ohne vorher einmal mit diesem darüber zu reden. Vielen Danke dafür. Ich bin nicht jeden Tag aktiv hier, habe auch noch andere Freizeitaktivitäten als jeden Tag zu kontrollieren ob jemand meint „ich weiss alles besser“.

Aber ich dachte nachdem ich geschrieben habe das ich das Bild selber erstellt habe, einfach zu sagen „Nö, ich finde nicht – und raus damit“ und es sofort zu löschen ist ein ganz schlechter Still und verleitet einen die Freude sich bei „wikipedia“ einzubringen.

Und wenn Du schon meinst alles löschen zu müssen solltest Du wenigstens die Artikel in dem das Bild eingebunden ist so überarbeiten, dass nicht „Gerüste“ zurück bleiben.

6 Jahre war es völlig unstrittig, da hätte man auch mal etwas Zeit zur Klärung des Sachverhaltes aufbringen können.

Danke Lunabonn (Bin nur auf wikipedia aktiv keine Ahnung warum mein Name hier rot angezeigt wird)

--89.0.187.171 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Lunabonn,

immer mit der Ruhe. Ich habe das Bild nicht gelöscht, das kann ich garnicht, da ich kein Admin bin. Ich habe dort lediglich meine Meinung dazu kundgetan und sogar Hinweise darauf gegeben, wie man eine Löschung meiner Meinung nach vermeiden könnte – ich bin immer froh, wenn ich mich gegen eine Löschung aussprechen kann. Da du anfangs auf den Löschantrag reagiert hast, ist man wohl davon ausgegangen, dass du das auf dem Schirm hast – dumm gelaufen. Aber für solche Fälle gibt es ja Commons:Wiederherstellungswünsche, wo man die Wiederherstellung von gelöschten Dateien beantragen kann. "Amtssprache" dort ist vornehmlich englisch, aber wenn dir deutsch lieber ist, kannst du natürlich auch auf deutsch schreiben (wenn du mir Bescheid gibst, kann ich gerne den Übersetzer spielen). Übrigens: Die Entfernung von gelöschten Bildern aus Wikipedia-Artikeln macht normalerweise der Bot User:CommonsDelinker automatisch.

Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Identity

Hi El Grafo - are File:Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum ÖBG 2012-05-17 01.jpg — 08.jpg all from the same tree? The cone (06.jpg & 07.jpg) is Pinus nigra, and I strongly suspect the rest are too. - MPF (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi MPF,

1-5 and 8 are of the same individual. The cone (6 & 7) was lying below it. As far as I remember (I'll check the rest of the picture series), the tree was standing apart from the others, but it's not completely impossible that the cone came from another tree. The ÖBG is not far from where I work, so I could go there again – is there an easy way to distinguish the two species and their cones or any literature you would suggest? --El Grafo (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmh, according to conifers.org:

• Pinus nigra: Leaves in fascicles of two, 8-15 cm long
• Pinus ponderosa: Needles 2-5 per fascicle, 7-25 cm long, but
  • var scopulorum: Leaves 2-3 per fascicle, 10-17 cm long

--El Grafo (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Easiest to tell from the cones. In P. nigra the scales have a short 1-2mm prickle (which often wears off nearly smooth), and fallen cones remain intact; in P. ponderosa subsp. scopulorum, they have a stout 3-6 mm spine, and fallen cones lose their basal scales. So if you can knock down a cone that's still on the tree, you'll be able to see if it is the same as the fallen cone pics you already have. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll head over there and have a look at the cones within the next few days. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bad news: There are no cones on that tree that could be reached without a ladder. Any other ideas? The color of the bark is clearly reddish-brown … --El Grafo (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Shame! Try some needle fascicle counts; in P. nigra something like 98-99% of fascicles will have pairs with only rarely in 3s, whereas in P. ponderosa subsp. scopulorum, there will very likely be at least 5-10% in 3s, often up to 30%. Check 50 or 100 fascicles and you should get a fairly reliable answer. Also - if there's lots of cones under the tree, even if some have rolled in from elsewhere, the vast majority will be from this tree, and you can check as above; just discard any cones that stand out as 'odd ones out' from the crowd. - MPF (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, El Grafo. You have new messages at jmabel's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lizenz von Bildern aus dem BMW-Archiv

Hallo El Grafo, ist die Verwendung folgender Bilder aus dem BMW-Archiv in Ordnung: Gustav_Otto_with_an_Argus_aircraft_engine.jpg und Portrait_of_Gustav_Otto1910.jpg? Ich verstehe die Lizenzierung nicht. Die Bilder "gehören" doch aktuell BMW, auch wenn sie vor 1923 geschaffen wurden und damit unter PD 1923 fallen. Anders gefragt - können wir alle Bilder vor 1923 aus dem BMW-Archiv hochladen? Grüße --Bergfalke2 (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahoi! Nach meinem persönlichen Verständnis sieht die Sache so aus: Damit ein Bild hier auf Commons als "gemeinfrei" gelten kann, muss es a) nach US-amerikanischem Recht und b) nach dem Recht des Ursprungslandes gemeinfrei sein.

a) ist hier zweifelsfrei erfüllt, wenn es vor 1923 veröffentlicht wurde. Das ist in beiden Fällen bisher nicht wirklich nachgewiesen.

für b) könnte {{Anonymous-EU}} infrage kommen, wenn das Bild tatsächlich anonym und vor mindestens 70 Jahren veröffentlicht wurde. Wenn's nicht anonym war, gelten in der EU mindestens 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Fotographen.

Das ist ein ziemlich komplexes Feld mit vielen „wenn“ und „aber“ und ich habe da auch noch lange nicht den vollen Durchblick. An deiner Stelle würde ich einfach mal bei Commons:Village Pump/Copyright anfragen, die Seite ist ja genau für sowas eingerichtet worden. Meiner Meinung nach sind bei beiden Bildern die gemachten Angaben derzeit nicht hinreichend, es fehlt mindestens noch die Angabe von b). Von daher könnte man auch einfach mal eine Löschdiskussion starten und sehen, wohin die führt (aber wenn sich dann keiner drum kümmert, die nötigen Angaben zu recherchieren, könnte das dazu führen, dass die Dateien gelöscht werden, obwohl's vielleicht gar nicht nötig wäre …). --El Grafo (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Danke für Deine Einschätzung. Fairerweise werde ich dann einen Löschantrag stellen - vielleicht kriegen wir die BMW-Leute ja mal ins Boot, da sollten wir dann keine Leichen im Keller haben. --Bergfalke2 (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
LFU 205.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Image is not geocoded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmadler (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the DLR did not provide any information about the location. However, I think that geocoding is not crucial in this case, since the main object is the airplane and there is virtually nothing to see in the background. Note that only a single aircraft of this type was built and thanks to the DLR we now have a good picture to illustrate our articles (of course the quality could be better and the crop is a little bit tight, but all in all this is a very good air-to-air shot). --El Grafo (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    •  Support I am convinced that the geocoding does not make much sense here. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Image:Defense.gov photo essay 100116-F-9171L-060.jpg

Hi, The gun in this image is a M60. I put it in the description but it's not showing up. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 19:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I can see your text in the description, maybe that's just your Browser keeping the old version of the page in the cache. Just try to re-load the page and clear the cache, then it'll eventually show up. --El Grafo (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bellanca TES

en:Bellanca TES was an aircraft with 2 engines: first version: 2x Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp second version: 2x Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror --Gampe (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, by bad - thanks for correcting. --El Grafo (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Kleine Bonaire-Underwater life(js).jpg

Please, look now. Jerzystrzelecki (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caproni Ca 101 bombázó.jpg

Hay! +1 source. Tambo (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hay! Uploaded a new version, +1 source. Tambo (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Erftlandring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Earl Sawyer

Can you explain me exactly what I have to do to keep the portrait and poster in Wikimedia Commons so I can ad them to the article of Robert Earl Sawyer? This is very important as he is an artist from pre-Digtial age and therefore links are hard to find.--Fred Bokker (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fred,

you would have to find out who the current owner of the copyright is and ask him/her for a permission, following Commons:OTRS - which might be rather difficult. However, if you are interested in the english language Wikipedia only, there might be another possibility: Other than Commons, en.wikipedia allows files to be uploaded there locally (via en:Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard) as en:Fair use. Unfortunately, I can't help you with that (no idea how this works), but there is a big help page about that at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Hope that helps? --El Grafo (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Curació al aire libre.jpg

Hi EL Grafo:

I uploaded this file. It has been deleted for copyright violation.

The object photographed is a 1973 point of sale advertising display for a pharmaceutical product. I have the original and wanted to upload a picture of it in the Wikipedia page for the product.

Is there a way such material can be uploaded? For example, taking a picture of it so it can clearly be seen that it is an object?

Regards,

Alex

Hi Alex,

I've sent you an e-mail. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Segelfluggelände Sundern-Seidfeld

Hi, El Grafo, thanks for your message. I have been trying to put some common sense into various airfield categories, and Former airfields appears to be largely redundant, because there were very few images and sub-categories there, but we have many hundreds of former airfields (esp WW2) that are not categorized as former airfields. IMHO, the whole use of Category:Formerxxxx qualifies as over categorization, and assumes that the present status of an airfield or country or xxxx has some importance, but we are involved in applying categories to the entire range of history. We certainly don't apply it to aircraft manufacturers or aircraft sub-types, so why should we apply it to airfields, countries, etc? If we do plan to apply such categorization, then surely we must attempt to comprehensively apply it to all such airfields etc, not just a few that we are aware of personally. Out of courtesy, I won't reverse your action, and I will try to remember this exchange if I return to the category.PeterWD (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Walerian Wróbels Zeichnung (Fragment).jpg

Hallo El Grafo,
wahrscheinlich bist du sehr stolz darauf, dass du eine Abbildung gefunden hast, die du zum Löschen vorschlagen kannst. Aber hast du wirklich einen Grund, solz zu sein?
Die Uhrheberschutzgesetze wurden erlassen, um da geistiges Eigentum zu schützen. In diesem Fall sollte es keine Anwendung haben, weil der Autor es nicht als Werk im Sinne der Bildenden Kunst angefertigt hat und weil seine Eltern, die ja seine rechtlichen Nachfolger waren, die Arbeit zur Veröffentlichung frei gegeben haben. Diese Abbildung ist ein Dokument und nicht ein schützenswürdiges Werk, außerdem wurde es von den Erben freigegeben. Die Verwendung des Uhrheberschutzgesetzes, um diese Detei zu löschen, ist in meiner Überzeugung missbräuchlich, weil sie nichts mit dem Schutz des geistigen Eigentums zu tun hat.
Ich möchte mich nicht in juristische Haarspalterei verwickeln. Vielleicht ist das bestehende Gesetz nicht ganz gut oder vielleicht gibt es trotzdem keinen Konflikt zwischen der Existenz dieser Datei auf Commons und ihm. Auf jeden Fall Personen, die es anwenden wollen, sollten sein Wesen verstehen. Die Staatsanwälte, die de:Walerian Wróbel angeklagt haben und die Richter, die ihn verurteilt haben, haben ein Gesetz verwendet, aber ein von den Nationalsozialisten erlassenes falsches Gesetz, das wir heute ablehenen. Jeder soll also nachfragen, ob das Gesetz, was er anwenden möchte, wirklich so sinnvoll ist, ob es Bestand hat. Ich kann von mir nur so viel sagen, dass jemand, der so eine Datei aus Commons entfernt, also sie für die Wikipedia-Benutzer unzugänglich macht, so viel Achtung verdient wie ein nationalsozialistischer Staatsanwalt oder Richter. Gruß --Mewa767 (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Mewa767,

warum sollte ich stolz auf so etwas alltägliches wie einen Löschantrag sein? Wenn ich zufällig (hier z.B. beim Abarbeiten von Category:Media needing categories) auf Dateien mit unzureichenden Informationen bezüglich des Urheberrechts stoße, versuche ich diese Informationen ausfindig zu machen und entsprechend zu ergänzen. Wenn das nicht möglich ist nominiere ich die Datei zur Löschung - bei wertvollen Dateien wie dieser hier immer in der Hoffnung, dass ich etwas übersehen habe und wir sie doch behalten können. Dabei halte ich mich an die geltenden Gesetzte, ob ich sie nun im Detail gutheiße oder nicht (beispielsweise - entschuldigung - kotzt es mich immer wieder tierisch an, dass die ansonsten weit verbreitete Regelung "Autor ist seit mehr als 70 Jahren tot → Werk ist gemeinfrei" im US-Recht nicht zum Tragen kommt).

Anstatt hier gegen das System zu wettern und dir völlig fremde Personen indirekt als Nazi zu bezeichnen: Warum steckst du deien Energie nicht lieber darein, dich an der Klärung der offenen Fragen zu beteiligen? So sehr ich diese Emotionalität in diesem Zusammenhang nachvollziehen kann, es bringt uns hier nicht weiter. "Von den Eltern freigegeben" ist doch schonmal ein guter Ansatz. Je nachdem, wie diese Freigabe aussah, könnte das die Lösung des Problems sein.

Noch ein paar weitere Gedanken bzgl. Alternativen, falls die Datei in dieser Form tatsächlich gelöscht werden sollte:

• Wenn man die Datei so zuschneidet, dass nur noch der Text vorhanden ist, sollte sie ziemlich problemlos als unterhalb der de:Schöpfungshöhe durchgehen.
• Die lokalen Regelungen bzgl. Urheberrecht der einzelnen Sprachversionen der Wikipedia sind teilweise etwas weniger streng als die bei Commons.
  • In der englischsprachigen WP könnte man die Datei ziemlich problemlos als de:Fair use lokal hochladen (detasils unter en:Wikipedia:Non-free content).
  • Nagel mich bitte nicht drauf fest, aber ich meine mich erinnern zu können, dass in der deutschsprachigen WP die Anforderung "muss auch in den USA gemeinfrei sein" nicht oder nur eingeschränkt zum Tragen kommt, solange es sich um ein Werk aus Deutschland/Österreich/der Schweiz handelt und nach dortigem Recht gemeinfrei ist (was hier wohl der Fall wäre)

Soviel erstmal von mir. Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Danke für diese lange Antwort. Meine Antwort kam dir sehr emotional vor, vielleicht hast du Recht. Das kommt daher, dass ich in der wenigen Zeit, die ich zur Verfügung habe, zur Entwicklung der Wikipedia beitragen wollte und nicht gegen solche - eigentlich künstliche - Probleme ankämpfen. Dies empfinde ich als Zeitverschwendung.
Du hast mehrere Möglichkeiten angesprochen, aber was schlägst du konkret vor? Zu der Freigabe durch die Eltern, an die der Brief gerichtet war, kam es im Zuge der Aufarbeitung des Falls durch Heinrich Hannover. Deswegen ist jetzt der Brief im Besitz des Stadtarchivs Bremen. Ich beschränke mich jetzt darauf, weil es freilich die beste Lösung wäre, die Datei auf Commons zu lassen. Über andere Möglichkeiten kann ja notfalls noch später diskutieren. Gruß --Mewa767 (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo El Grafo,
ich warte noch auf deine Antwort. --Mewa767 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Mewa767,

tut mir leid, dass das so lange gedauert hat, aber ich habe die letzten Tage mit Fieber im Bett verbracht. Es wäre sehr hilfreich, mehr über diese "Aufarbeitung des Falls" zu wissen – wann ist der Brief eigentlich erstmals "aufgetaucht"? Wenn er bis 2003 nicht veröffentlicht wurde, käme nämlich noch {{PD-US-unpublished}} in Frage. --El Grafo (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bilddatei „Schöne Aussicht Windräder.jpg“

am 05. Juni 2013 habe ich die Bilddatei „Schöne Aussicht Windräder.jpg“ mit schriftlicher Genehmigung des Urhebers Walter Stutterich in Wikimedia Commons hochgeladen und der Kategorie „Initiative Pro Pfälzerwald“ zugeordnet. Am 7. Juni erhielt ich mehrere e-mails , in denen das Vorliegen dieser Genehmigung von Dir ohne Angabe von Gründen angezweifelt wurde. Du hast mich aufgefordert, innerhalb einer Woche eine entsprechende Genehmigung vorzulegen; falls dies nicht geschähe, wurde eine Löschung der betreffenden Datei angedroht. Aus diesem Grund habe ich soeben die mir vorliegende schriftliche Genehmigung Herrn Stutterichs als pdf-Datei an '[email protected]' geschickt. Ich bitte Dich deshalb, den von Dir initiierten Kontrollprozess der Bilddatei zu beenden. Herzlichen Dank!

Abschließend noch eine weitere, urheberrechtliche Probleme betreffende Frage: Kann die Bilddatei „Rehberg klein.jpg“, die am 12. 05. 2011 von „homerj87“ nach Wikimedia Commons hochgeladen wurde und u. a. im WP-Artikel „Rehberg (Wasgau)“ verwendet wird, unter den angegebenen Lizenzbedingungen auch für Zwecke außerhalb von Wikipedia verwendet werden, ohne dass der Urheber dazu seine ausdrückliche Genehmigung geben muss? Konkret geht es um die Frage, ob dieses Bild in einem Flugblatt einer Bürgerinitiative frei verwendet werden darf oder erst die Zustimmung des Urhebers eingeholt werden muss. Wie ist hier die Rechtslage? Herzlichen Dank für Deine Antwort!
P.S.: Die obige Aktion hat mich einiges an Zeit gekostet, die ich gern für sinnvollere Dinge (z. B. konstruktive WP-Artikelarbeit) verwendet hätte!
Gruß
Herbert Schreiber -- H. Schreiber (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo El Grafo,

Leider ist es mir auf diesem Wege nicht möglich, Dir die pdf-Datei mit der schriftlichen Genehmigung von Walter Stutterich zu "Schöne Aussicht Windräder" direkt zuzusenden. Du müsstest deshalb bei "[email protected]" nachschauen. Übrigens ist Walter Stutterich ein persönlicher Bekannter von mir.
Grüße
Herbert -- H. Schreiber (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo H. Schreiber,

auch hier nochmal sorry wegen der späten Antwort, ich habe es leider geschafft mir mitten im Sommer eine dicke Erkältung einzufangen und die letzten Tage im Bett verbracht. Ich habe keinen Zugriff auf das OTRS-system, aber wenn das OTRS-Team mit der Freigabe zufrieden ist, bin ich das auch. Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Taken with...

Yes, I was too careless. Surely in the future I will avoid mistakes so trivial. Thanks for the warning. --Discanto (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Emptying Category:Avion

Hi, is emptying Category:Avion really the best way to deal with these photos? All photos for the French place now seem to be at Category:Avion (Pas-de-Calais) so there seems to be no harm in keeping Category:Avion as a holding category until they get sorted properly, making them completely uncategorised will just make them harder to find and sort later. Liamdavies (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, are there really any uncategorized ones? I must admit that I only checked a sample of them but they seemed to be categorized by aircraft type already. Apart from that, all images batch-uploaded by/for russavia are already in special (hidden) holding categories such as Category:Files_uploaded_for_Russavia_(Aero_Icarus) which s/he usually goes through rather quickly (given the amount of files). So there's a) no problem to find them and b) no need to find them for anyone but russavia. However, I've already stopped processing them, since that's something russavia would do anyway – so why bother touching every file twice … Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed that there is already a discussion about that at AN … --El Grafo (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I only looked at a few in Category:Avion, and they were without cats, so when I saw the number decrease: a little investigation, and the above post. My mistake, sorry and no hard feelings I hope. Liamdavies (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. Your reaction was completely reasonable :) --El Grafo (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Hegedűs László karácsony Namíbiában.jpg

Hy! OTRS|2013060310002251 Tambo (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but the template {{PermissionOTRS}} you are using is for OTRS members only. Please use {{OTRS pending}} instead. --El Grafo (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

via translate.google.com: {{PermissionOTRS}} OTRS munkatársak csak. Ne használjon {{PermissionOTRS}}. Használja {{OTRS pending}} helyette. Köszönöm, --El Grafo (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just accidentally missed a number of OTRS! Tambo (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Can you review Commons:Deletion_requests/File:대한전선_금전등록기_광고.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:동화약품.png? I think this discussion has been 1 weeks and copyright problem was solved, so I think we may close the Deletion Request. Best Regards, --Revi^Discuss_{SUL Info} 08:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:대한전선 금전등록기 광고.png and Copyright#Could_someone_please_have_a_look_at_these_PD-related_deletion_requests.3F. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

new Commons brochure draft

Thanks for your comments on the Commons brochure draft. We're getting close to a final version, and I've put up a new draft that includes a lot of the suggested changes from the previous version. Please look it over if you have a chance, and post any final suggestions or corrections.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks!

		The Commons Barnstar
		Thanks so much for giving feedback on the Commons brochure! You can see the print version here. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hi Gunnex

Before I make this media I did take permission to the owner so I can his media(s)

Regards, 80.184.18.69 12:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, since you are not logged in, I have no idea who you are and what you are talking about. But if you have gotten permission from someone to use his/her files on Commons, please forward that permission to our support team and hopefully everything will turn out alright. Please refer to Commons:OTRS for the details. Regards, --El Grafo (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess you are User:Thoriq Dhiyaan Azka Rahmat? Then please read and understand Commons:OTRS and forward the permissions to the e-mail adress provided there. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gunnex, Sorry I forget to write my name, this is Thoriq Dhiyaan Azka Rahmat (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the permission from the owner of this media so I can copy from him.

Regards, Thoriq Dhiyaan Azka Rahmat (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said and others have told you before: → → → Commons:OTRS ← ← ← If you have questions about that please feel free to mail them to [email protected] Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Grassy grass plant.svg is up for renomination.

As you asked to be reminded, File:Grassy grass plant.svg is up for renomination.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you for the identification of File:Aérodrome de Saint-Cyr-l'École en 2013 - 07.jpg. --Lionel Allorge (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you for placing it in Category:Unidentified aircraft – makes finding uncategorized/unidentified aircraft so much easier … Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Paperwindows figure

HI El Grapho

I noticed a figure of PaperWindows got deleted. I just wanted to point out that this *was* placed with permission. I'm trying to reupload it but the system does not allow me to.

Prof. Roel Vertegaal Human Media Lab Queen's University Kingston Ontario, K7L3N6 [email protected]

Hi, I don't really remember which figure you are talking about, but it was probably deleted because there was no evidence of a permission provided. In this case please read Commons:OTRS and get in touch with our volunteer support team via [email protected]. Give them the file name the figure was uploaded under (or – if you don't remember – at least the username you used) and the filled-out declaration of consent. Might be a good idea to attach the file in question too. Once everything has been sorted out, the file can be restored – so no need to re-upload it. Thanks for your patience, --El Grafo (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

for your comments about [[:File:Индуцированные Стволовые Клетки.JPG]]. This file is actually created from pieces of different images. However, it is necessary to clarify the text. Help transform this image. Does Wikipedia have artists who can help? Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Fog in Hong Kong.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful. --VT98Fan (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Creating new copyright code

Hi, you suggested that we could create a new copyright code for the Getty Research Institute, but did not answer my question about how to do that, and/or who does that, as I don't have admin perms. Please advise.--Mandiberg (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Answer here. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Indian Navy pics

1. Please refer to this discussion we had over images from the Indian Navy's official website.
2. Since then, I contacted the webmaster of the website and pointed out the conflicting copyright info, which was pointed out by Martin H during the deletion discussion. They have apologized for the conflict, which they said happened due to oversight, and have resolved the conflict; see website policies and about us.
3. To be sure that the images can be used freely on Wikipedia, I specifically asked them if all images they have hosted on navy's website can be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 India license - they have explicitly declared that I am permitted to upload and use images published on Indian Navy Website (with due attribution to the Indian Navy) on Wikipedia.com in accordance with the existing definition (as on 05 Sep 13) provided under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 India. I have the complete email correspondence with me.
4. Since you are an experienced user on Commons, I would like to ask you about my possible future moves. How do you suggest i proceed in uploading the images on Commons? Is OTRS the valid route? Thanks a lot of taking time to read this. I would be very grateful if you could help me out. Anir1uph (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Answer here --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have written a mail to ORTS. I will keep you updated. :) Anir1uph (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Fraxinus excelsior ( common ash ), Buds.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support I've change a bit the title of the scope, anyway best in scope IMO --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Carpinus betulus (european hornbeam), Buds.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Good & useful but : The binomial name in italics followed by the common name in English in brackets! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 Question Sorry, I missed that. There seem to be two common common names, "european hornbeam" and "common hornbeam". Which one do I choose? Are they capitalized or just lower case? --El Grafo (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment vernacular name are not prescriptive, you can choose the one that you like it.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Acer pseudoplatanus buds 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support a bit unsharp in the middle but ok --Christian Ferrer 09:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Acer pseudoplatanus buds 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support a bit unsharp in the middle but ok --Christian Ferrer 09:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney 2.jpg, which was nominated by Jkadavoor at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/ Thanks for your edit; always appreciated. :) Jee 06:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons Photo Challenge January 2014

Thank-you for helping with Commons:Photo challenge. Please continue to participate at the talk page to discuss and help organise this new project. The December 2013 themes will close for submissions this weekend and be ready for voting from Monday 6th January: Coloured light and Silhouette. For January 2014 there are two themes: A bunch of stuff and January. I hope you are keen to participate. Please read the theme descriptions for full submission rules on each theme. -- Colin (talk)

The "bunch of stuff" is causing a little confusion. See User talk:Araujojoan96#Commons Photo Challenge January 2014. I didn't think his nomination was quite what you intended (given your examples) and might be especially confusing as it was the first entrant. It appears the "texture" category confused so I've removed that from the description. I assume you are happy with it being a assortment of objects rather than e.g. a close-up of a textured surface. I think the former is enough to give a good variety and we can always run "textures" as a theme another time. What do you think? -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Colin, sorry for the late reply. The changes you made are perfectly fine with me, thanks for that. Happy New Year, --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of the Storm Maps

Hi El Grafo,

I'am the one who uploaded most of the typhoon tracks with PAGASA warning, and to think of it you are right that it seems I can't share those files. How can I delete them?

Still Can I remix some works e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Philippine_ethnic_groups_per_province.PNG, will this be acceptable or it is also against the copyright laws?

The remix work would still look like the original file but this time only the color of the province will be done. Thank you for reading this message and for your concerns.

LEXTRIKE

Hi LEXTRIKE,

the maps have already been deleted, so there's nothing more you need to do. File:Philippine_ethnic_groups_per_province.PNG seems to be based on US census data – which is in the public domain, so making derivatives of this map should be fine. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

HiEl Grafo,

Can I also use the remixed work for commercial usage? Will this not violate the copyright laws? Especially the said file was under some kind of license where it was said it is free to share remix and etc... Eg uploading remix work in a website.

Next is do you have other free sources that are commercially free ( can be use for commercial purposes) maps especially the administrative boundary lines?

lastly, how do you guys make those .png? I really wanted to make some and contribute and make some for our website that will not violate against copy right laws. What do you use also? Shapefiles or etc. i just need to make some maps for the website. Hoe to hear from you as soon as possible Thank you so much .

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Für Deinen Beitrag in Commons:Forum: Den empfand ich - angesichts der anonymen, "laxen" Herkunft der Frage - keineswegs als (abwertend) "Senf" (deklariert, siehe diff), sondern als ein vollumfassendes, FAQ-verdächtiges Feedback. Sozusagen eine "Senf"-Delikatesse :-) Gunnex (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Danke für die Blumen, freut mich wenn's zumindest dem Publikum gefällt – wer weiß ob der Fragesteller das überhaupt liest. Ich bin der Überzeugung, dass ein Großteil der Frusterlebnisse, die neue Nutzer hier (aber viel mehr noch bei Wikipedia) haben darauf zurückzuführen sind, dass sie mit falschen Erwartungen an die Sache rangehen (man schaue sich nur mal das Gebashe im Heise-Forum an). Hier läuft numal einiges anders als gewohnt und das sollte man mMn offensiv kommunizieren. Wenn es irgendwann in einschlägigen Fotoforen die Runde macht, bei Commons würde man nur verarscht ("ich kann meine eigenen Bilder nicht löschen"), nur weil jemand das Prinzip nicht verstanden hat, ist das deutlich schwerer wieder gerade zu biegen als hier mal eben präventiv ein paar Zeilen im Forum zu schreiben. Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 1⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Gioacchino Piccolomini - Beato dell'Ordine dei servi di Maria.png

Thank you for reporting. I apologize for the wrong information. I proceeded, I think, to enter the exact information. Please help me, if I have made ​​mistakes due to inexperience. Thank you.--Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roberto.Amerighi, thanks for the update. Looks very good to me. I've already left a notice at the deletion request. Note that it may take some days until an admin comes by and closes the request. That's perfectly normal and nothing to worry about, so just relax and have a little bit of patience. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello El grafo. Many thanks for your note. Thank you for your kindness. Best wishes--Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear El Grafo,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong notification

Hello. You have notified me the deletion of a picture I did not originally uploaded, but just correct it. When I upload an image I always carefully check the licenses. Please, notify the real uploader about the deletion, because has not been pleasant to find your message. Regards.—Frei sein (Talk to me!) 15:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Frei sein, please don't take this personally. That message is automatically generated by the QuickDelete Gadget and deployed to anyone who has uploaded a version of a file that is being nominated for deletion. This is very important (especially for the more complicated cases), because it gives them an opportunity to defend the picture. I understand that it can be annoying, but please just take notifications like this as a friendly "Hey, a file you have been working on has been nominated for deletion – you might want to have a look at it". Sorry for the inconveniences, --El Grafo (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wha?

Hey, man, what the... Why my uploaded pictures was removed? Wich of copyrights i infringed?

/facepalm

@Evaderik: the copyrights of Bioware and EA. They created the game, they own the copyrights of any artwork. Please stop uploading files like that immediately. --El Grafo (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1) That theme is about "Dragon Age. Origin"; 2) My pictures are cutted faces (from ordinary screenshots); 3) (C)opyrights was noted at 'Description'. What was wrong?

@Evaderik: Simple: You are not allowed to post screenshots of copyrighted computergames (like Dragon Age) on the internet. It doesn't matter if they only show faces. It doesn't matter if you make a note that they are copyrighted. You are simply not allowed to do that. Yes, other people are doing that all the time, for example at http://dragonage.wikia.com – but they are also not allowed to do that (there are some exceptions to that rule, but they are complicated and don't apply to this project). See Commons:Fair use and Commons:Screenshots for details. --El Grafo (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1) dragonage.wikia.com - is only english language; 2) Can you give me proof-link where 'BioWare' and 'Electronic Arts' wrotes about impossibility to use screenshots from theirs game 'Dragon Age. Origin'?

Category:Baby Great Lakes

Baby Great Lakes has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Auntof6 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge

Hallo El Grafo,
nachdem du den Großteil der Photo challenge Seite ins Deutsche übersetzt hast, wollte ich dich fragen, ob du vielleicht meine Übersetzungen der laufenden Wettbewerbsbeschreibungen korrekturlesen könntest? Besonders beim Wiki Loves Pride 2014 hab ich mir etwas schwer getan...
Liebe Grüße, Anna reg (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Anna reg,

sorry dass das so lange gedauert hat, ich bin momentan leider nur sporadisch online. Sieht doch alles gut aus, habe nur ein paar Kleinigkeiten geändert. Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Danke für's Drüberschauen (und schön, dass dir meine Übersetzung gepasst hat ;->). Dass es ein paar Tage gedauert hat, find ich nicht schlimm - überhaupt nachdem du keine groben Fehler gefunden hast - aber nachdem die Übersetzung ja Verständnisprobleme vermeiden soll (und nicht neue kreieren), find ich eine Kontrolle ganz sinnvoll... Ganz liebe Grüße, --Anna reg (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Gerne, kann ja nie schaden … ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-26

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf10) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 19. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on June 24, and to all Wikipedias on June 26 (calendar).

VisualEditor news

• You can now drag-and-drop selections of content, not just files and templates. [1] [2]
• When dragging an item, you will now see a line that helps you to drop it. [3] [4]
• You can now only move an image to the start of a paragraph, not to the middle of it, so you don't accidentally split it. [5] [6]
• You will now be warned if you add wikitext to file captions and references. [7] [8]

Future software changes

• You will no longer be able to upload files on wikis that do not have any copyright tags. [9] [10]
• CirrusSearch will be enabled as the primary search method on additional 70 new wikis, including Meta-Wiki and Wikimedia Incubator, during the next week. [11]
• CirrusSearch results will soon take into account categories, the first paragraph and the wikitext of a page. You will also be able to use regular expressions to search the wikitext. It will take a few days for the changes to be enabled on all wikis. [12]
• You will soon be able to watch translations for e-mail notifications without receiving an e-mail when they are reviewed by another translator. [13] [14]
• An IRC meeting to organize old high priority MediaWiki bug reports will take place on June 24 at 17:00 UTC on the channel #wikimedia-office on freenode (time conversion). [15]

Problems

• On June 19, all wikis were broken for about 15 minutes due to a high server load.
• Between June 13 and June 15 there were problems with the scaling of video files due to a configuration error. [16]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)