User talk:Srittau/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Srittau, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

--Krd 06:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Closing DRs

Hi, Sebari. I'm glad to see you in deletion requests. But if you close the request as kept, please add "kept" template into file talk page and remove deletion template from file page. Taivo (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this. I will take more care not to forget it in the future. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sarracenia Flora.jpg

Did you notice that the author field mentions an author different from the uploader? We requier permission from the author is such cases. Also the upload is from later than 15 March 2006 and therefore cannot be grandfathered, see Commons:Grandfathered old files. May I ask you to revise your decision? Jcb (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The permission is quoted in the description. The file was uploaded 15 days after the first mention of OTRS and many months before COM:OTRS was created. There is no reasonable doubt that this file was released under the terms of the GFDL by its author. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Grandfathered old files is an official guideline. It contains a clear date and this upload is from after that date. That means that this file cannot be grandfathered, period. I provided you this information to help you finding your way in the policies. I must say I am quite surprised by your reaction. Please tell me what part of the policy is unclear to you? Jcb (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a guideline, not a policy. Except in the short summary at the top there is no mention that files after March 15 absolutely fall outside this guideline. I find your zealousness in deleting files as worrying as your lack of understanding the difference between guidelines and policies. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not a deletionist/keepist/philatelist/whatever, I work on decisions in line with our standards. Your decision is not in line with those standards, as has been explained above. You have erroneously 'grandfathered' a file. It's not problematic to make mistakes, but it is problematic to be not prepared to correct them and learn from them. Jcb (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Your interpretation of that guideline and our standards differs from mine. Please accept that. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Jcb, this is OK with Commons:Grandfathered old files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Converting from Speedy

Hi Srittau: Congrats on becoming Admin. I saw several times where you took obviously copyrighted things from the speedy pile and converted them to Deletion Nominations based on the user name "might" show some correlation to whoever owns the copyright. I'd like to suggest that you let those go through speedy without converting them to DN, if the person reappears and has the rights, they can go through COM:OTRS and get the photo undeleted in one move. As it is right now, we have several obvious copyright violations laying around an extra week for people to pick up and use them - thinking they're ok, just because they're here. Please consider COM:PRP; an uploader named "The Beatles" probably hasn't anything to do with the band (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Castatilica) - far more likely they're a fan of the band thinking to sneak a fast one past our admins by copying the name. Again, congratulations on your new admin status, and thanks for your help on the copyvios. Ping me if you need anything. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I will consider it in the future. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heavenkid.jpg I wonder why I didn't speedy. That is such an obvious copyvio ... --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hermanos Olazábal en San Juan de Luz (c. 1890).jpg

Hello. Wouldn't be possible to delete this file, since another user uploaded a similar, better version of it? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomás de Ortíz (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tomás de Ortíz: We are very careful when deleting historical images such as the one you uploaded. In this particular case it seems that you uploaded the original, "damaged" version of the file, while the other uploader uploaded a restored version. It is actually valuable to have your version, for example if someone else wants to restore it in a different way. Also, your image is of a slightly higher resolution. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: Thank you for the clarification. Actually I believe that the other user uploaded a different copy of the same photograph, in a poorer condition. For that reason, I proposed the deletion of the first file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondo EC (talk • contribs) 16:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

On Deletion Nominations!

Hiya: I notice in several cases you have removed some of the images from a DN without closing it. Might I suggest not doing that? The reason I suggest leaving the entire close for the closing administrator is if you take away the obvious stuff, they don't get to see it and understand what the uploader was doing. For example, if a nomination had five pictures of Mickey Mouse, and four from what looks like Disneyland, and you take away the Mickeys, the closing administrator loses the context of the upload, and loses the context of the deletion nomination. I'm perfectly capable to send "obvious copyvios" to speedy. There are times I don't so that the closing admin can see the entire Range of the problem. It's only my suggestion to you, but I don't know any other admins who do that on a regular basis; so it's not common practice. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, that is indeed a good point. I will probably not do that in the future. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

PirnaSun unsigniert.

Schau mal nach -- MaxxL - talk 18:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved AN threads

Hi Sebari. ArchiverBot archives these threads. No need for {{Section resolved}}. lNeverCry 23:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Philippines architecture unDR

Would you mind "un-closing" P199's request? While I agree with the outcome, I am not sure the discussion has completely run its course, and given that my response was almost a full day after P199's last one, I think closing only an hour and a bit after my response is a little premature. Storkk (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: ✓ Done, even if I believe that the discussion has run its course and basically its only old arguments that are being rehashed. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Storkk (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Storkk for giving an opportunity to discuss it further. But unless other users agree with me, there is not much else I can discuss. I still feel that these plain buildings are below TOO and lack any originality. How can one copyright a building that looks like every other building? Although there is a huge grey area (especially since Philippine law doesn't say anything about FOP), I'm just rehashing the same argument, as Sebari said above. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You may not be the only person with an opinion who will express it... it has only been a day and a bit. Storkk (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

RFCs

Thanks for the suggestion, though I believe that there's probably more engagement by discussing at the VP as there is with RFCs. In general, Commons is not great at promoting RFCs and we have a low level of interest in policy or guideline improvement discussion, even from those with trusted user rights. --Fæ (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on that point and that is a problem. I don't have a good solution either, and for now I am content that it is on the VP. Also thank you for taking the initiative here, starting a discussion about old files of unknown authors was one of the things on my todo list. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
It's good to see you active right out the gate. The more active admins we have like you, the more I'll eventually be able to burry myself in my own hobbies and let you take care of everything... lNeverCry 14:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling sock pages

When you tag a sock like User:KLawliet can you mark it as blocked if it's blocked and also click on the link in the bottom left of the page that says "Mark this page as patrolled"? Small things, but they get in the way when I patrol new userpages. Thanks. lNeverCry 14:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I will, thanks! --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting! :)

Hi Sebari,

Thank you for the undeletion of the files that were deleted due to a misunderstanding listed on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_MilenaGlebova1989.

You have restored my faith in Wikimedia / Wikipedia system. :)

I am happy that these files will stay on Wikimedia / Wikipedia to benefit all users.

Please feel free to let me know if I can be of any other help.

Best, MilenaGlebova1989 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Mr-yoga-galavasana-one-leg.jpg

While this undeletion appears to be entirely correct, rather than simply undoing the recent work of another active Admin, we generally drop a note on his or her talk page and ask him to do it. Aside from simply being polite, this ensures that he or she did not see something about the file that others did not. I was actually doing that when I noticed that the file had been undeleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Normally I would agree. In this case, Yann only deleted the file, because I forgot to remove {{Copyvio}} after my first undeletion. As such I consider this undeletion just fixing my own mistakes and asking him to do it would be unnecessary overhead. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
OK -- you're certainly correct to think that Yann doesn't know anything we don't. I sometimes go into teacher-mode with new Admins a little too quickly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine and appreciated. Your comment made me reconsider my action, and will certainly affect how I approach things in the future. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Embassy of the Republic of GBANAN in Japan.jpg

Thank you for closing this request. I see that you deleted the file named in the heading, but not the related one that was also mentioned in the request. Please let me know if that was an oversight or if you think there should be a separate request. I intended the request to be for both files. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I was actually looking for a second DR and then got distracted. Deleted. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandals are back

@Srittau: sir the international donkey(Vandal) namely User:Mission Kashmir III with new user name of John CS please check his recent vandalism here, he is nominating every picture related to Khowar Wikipedia. He has been blocked as confirmed sock puppet of multiple accounts [1], please revert his edits and block his IP in Commons as well. [2]--Zaheeruddin25 (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Zaheeruddin25: Thank you, user is blocked. For future reference, you might get a quicker response here: COM:AN/U. Feel free to ping me when this user reappears! --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much sir @Srittau: The vandal is reappear sir, please block his IP. please check his vandalism here [3]--Zaheeruddin25 (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: Sir, please check this[4] he is a confirmed sock puppet and international donkey/vandal and frequently deleting contents and nominating files for deletion, please check confirmed sock puppet her[5] --Zaheeruddin25 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Implausible/broken redirect?

Hi Sebari... you deleted File:Patriarch_Irinej_of_Serbia_(portrait).jpg but I cannot figure out why you thought it was implausible or broken. "Patriarch Irinej of Serbia" would seem to be a good romanization of "Патриарх Сербский Ириней". Storkk (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: That was a lazy description, I should have linked this, sorry. In short: a user manually created a redirect under the name of an old, different file and then requested its deletion on the same day, possibly to avoid confusion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Understood... thanks! Storkk (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jenny Holzer For the City.jpg

Hello, I just noticed this image was deleted because of its removal from an en.wiki article and I think it was one I originally uploaded. I did not receive notice of it. Can you confirm whether it was one of my uploads, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, I think its deletion was in error even apart from the procedural failure to notify me so I could discuss it. Thanks, Postdlf (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Postdlf: This does appear to be yours. Originally uploaded on 2006-03-30 by User:Tvpm (which is why you were not notified) with the comment "For the City by Jenny Holzer, projected on the main branch of the New York Public Library in Manhattan. Digital photo by User:Postdlf, ..." If you think the deletion was in error, please request undeletion on Commons:Undeletion requests. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think a relist would be most appropriate given that I wasn't notified and the discussion had no participants apart from the nominator. But before we load process on top of process, as you were the deleting admin I want to make sure I understand what the rationale was. What content that was captured in my photograph do you believe to be copyrighted? Postdlf (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The photo showed part of a (public) art performance, i.e. the writing projected on the building. There is no freedom of panorama for artworks in the United States. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I was never relying on FOP here, and to make this simple let's assume going forward that I am familiar with both Commons policy and applicable U.S. copyright law. The question is how they apply here to this image and what it depicts, and there are two layers to that question. The first issue is that Holzer's work here is not copyrightable. Do you disagree with that? Postdlf (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
As I said before, if you think the deletion was in error, please head over to Commons:Undeletion requests. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to discuss it with you first given that it was deleted without any discussion, so I don't know to what extent you or the nominator understood just what the photograph depicts or how to analyze it. Here's what it comes down to: Holzer scrolled someone else's words across someone else's building. There is nothing legally copyrightable in that performance notwithstanding her cultural status as an artist. What is copyrightable is the text she scrolled, which is a 257-word poem by Jack Gilbert titled "A Brief for the Defense". In the photograph I took of that scrolling projection, only ten words are legible, which is too short to be anything but de minimis, and such short phrases are not independently copyrightable. If you can explain why this analysis is incorrect, you may save us the time of going through an undeletion discussion. Postdlf (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Secretary Kerry Sits With British Prime Minister May in the White Room No. 10 Downing Street in London (28376382456) (cropped).jpg

Hello Srittau. I noticed that you closed this discussion due to the image still being in use. I would note to you that I added the image to w:List of Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II a number of days before requesting the deletion of the image at the Commons. If I were to revert that edit, would it be OK for me to renominate the image for deletion? Thank-you. Neve-selbert (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Yes, that would be fine. I cannot promise the outcome, of course. Also, some people have invested time to touch up the picture, so it might actually valuable to keep it, but those are just my personal thoughts. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your warning here. Sagecandor (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions about a file you deleted

Hello,

I noticed that you deleted a file discussed here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mural Elizabeth II Shankill Road 2016.jpg. May I please know why you marked the deletion edit as a minor edit? Was that a mistake? I spent weeks thinking that a decision had not been made yet because you chose the minor edit option. Also, I would appreciate it very much if you could tell me the meaning of "not covered by UK FOP." I don't know what FOP means, and I would like to learn for the future. Thank you very much in advance for your help, and have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dontreader: Thank you for pointing that out. It seems that the widget I use marks those edits as minor for me. All my closed deletion requests are marked as minor it seems. "FOP" is short for Freedom of Panorama, sorry for using abbreviations like this, jargon like this easily slips in. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thank you very much for your reply. I'm zero at technical matters! But I also want to thank you for explaining the meaning of FOP, and for showing me that very interesting page. I understand that you do many things very quickly, so the abbreviations are a natural consequence of that, and I appreciate your hard work here on Commons! All the best... Dontreader (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Regarding File:BSicon MSTR.svg, where is it still in use? I thought I replaced all its uses (unless there are some others which weren't on Special:GlobalUsage). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

See Special:WhatLinksHere/File:BSicon_MSTR.svg. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: Sorry about that, have replaced those uses as well in case the redirect is nominated for deletion again. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hallo Srittau, you ended discussion Should the deletion request be removed? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lahiri_Mahasaya --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Reinhardt: Thank you for the message. I have removed it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Roman ruins

Hi, Srittau, in regard to this DR, the file File:Roman ruins - panoramio.jpg does not depict Roman ruins, but an architectural work by the architect J. Plečnik (d. 1957) (Slovene-language reference: [6]). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Eleassar: Ah, I see. I have deleted it as well (and I photo I forgot). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I've restored the image of the bridge, because yesterday after you had deleted the unfree image, a new unrelated free image was uploaded under this name - see the logs. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I wondered why I had missed it. Thank you! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Reconsideration of deletion

Hello, I would like you to reconsider the deletions pertaining to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael van Gerwen 2014.jpg. The website you provided in the about section says the user was an editor at dartfreakz.nl which also backs up what I stated earlier with his videos being embedded on their site. That YouTube channel is specifically for dartsjournalist.com as described in the name of the channel as DartsjournalistCOM TV. The Peet Beek channel is specific to Peet Verbeek and the videos are not available anywhere else only as embedded videos. 80.235.147.186 01:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please head over to Commons:Undeletion requests. I think you have some valid points that are worth considering, but this needs a proper UnDR. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Lizenz

Hallo, Ich verstehe nicht, warum Sie meine eigene Arbeit löschen. Ich bitte Sie rückgängig zu machen.

  • Цахилгааны_таслуурын_араг.png
  • Хяналтын гэрэл.png
  • Автомашины_хаалга_нээлттэй.png
  • Манангийн_гэрэл.png
  • Дугуйны_үндсэн_хэмжээс.jpg
  • Цасан_ширхэг_уулын_тэмдэг.jpg

Munkhzaya.E (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Siehe hier. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aftab Shivdasani returns from IIFA 2012 07.jpg

Hi, Where is the deletion request to support a story of user:Revent ? I was looking for that. (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sonakshi at the press conference of Bullett Raja.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:FarooqSheikh.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shahrukh Khan & Deanne Panday at "Shut up & train" Book launch.jpg Anything is different.)--Y.haruo (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Breitscheidplatz

Danke für dein Bild, ohne das wäre es mir unmöglich gewesen, das darzustellen. Den Baustein WM-AT habe ich hinzugefügt, weil ich mit Photoshop arbeite, was von Wikimedia Österreich bezahlt wird. NoFacebook füge ich bei meinen Bildern immer ein, hier würde ich dich bitten, zuzustimmen. Wenn nicht, fliegts raus. --Ralf Roleček 20:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Ralf, alles ok wie es ist. Sehr gute und nützliche Bearbeitung! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:606 ACS.jpg

Hi, did you understand the nomination reason? Judging from your closure statement, it appears you didn't. This (indeed terrible quality) version of the emblem is probably a hobby creation. The copyright holder of such a hobby creation is the creator, the PD-USgov license would not apply in such a case. The link you provided to a Dutch website, does show a very different version of this emblem, which would rather be evidence in favor of deletion than in favor of keep. All the evidence is telling that this version is not authored by the government. Jcb (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at that site again and read the closure statement and you will find two photos of badges that look like this version. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I did look at that site and I found no version comparable to the disputed file. E.g. different details of the wings of the bird. Jcb (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I found only minor differences at most that are not enough basis for a separate copyright claim. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Could you have a look at this? You have more experience with US government copyright. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I think both of you are right and wrong. At http://www.ericsusafpatches.nl/control_radar/squadrons-flights/squadrons-flights%20601_650.html, which Sebari cited in the close, there are three of this patch versions made from the same blazon, so this is probably not a fake. At the same time, it has no source, and it is well established that while the blazon will not have a copyright, individual representations of a CoA or emblem do. Unless we can show that this actually came from a USAF source, which seems unlikely, I don't think we can keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb and Jameslwoodward: Interesting, I was always under the impression that those representations did not cause a separate copyright. What is the best way to proceed? Should I just delete the image with a reference to this discussion or should we re-open/re-start the DR? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the most practical solution is just deleting it with a link to this discussion. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Srittau!
Hi Srittau, thank you for all your valuable contributions on Commons. This help fulfill the number 1 goal of Commons: To be a free, educational media repository for everyone.

I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
   ★ Poké95 01:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Liberaler Humanist und Namensentfernung

(Von mir aus kannst Du das sofort nach dem Lesen revertieren und an die Oversighter melden, falls sie zu dem Thema Versionslöschungen durchführen wollen.)

Sebastian, wegen Special:Diff/227728071/227728558 bzw. dem dazugehörenden Thema: Man findet den echten Namen ohne das Kürzel des Mittelnamens 1x in Commons. Der Nutzername ist dort verlinkt und führt nach https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:%48%65%6C%6D%75%74%5F%47%72%C3%BC%6E%64%6C%69%6E%67%65%72 (absichtlich chiffriert, sollte bei Kopieren in Adresszeile aber funktionieren); nebenbei: Warum ein wegen Verschiebung gelöschtes Nutzerkonto bei der SUL-Umstellung berücksichtigt wurde, ist aber auch nicht zu verstehen. Eigentlich hatte ich mich übrigens nur gewundert, warum Du den Liberalen Humanisten mit „them“ titulierst … — Speravir – 21:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Hi! I reverted your closure @ Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Light show and copyvios, because I made a big, stupid mistake I don't want to have swept under the carpet. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Of course. Although I'd say it was a minor mistake, due to a complicated, easily misunderstood situation. And the block was good either way. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I messed up the block because I didn't do the necessary research (and thinking). That's why I unblocked LS again, somebody else will have to close the discussion and decide about the block. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hobbit

Hello, why did you delete which is my personal work? Tan Khaerr (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tan Khaerr: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hobbit by Tolkien.jpg. The file can be restored through the process outlined in COM:OTRS. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy new year!
View from observation tower of highest mountain of Estonia. Taivo (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Srittau!

Happy New Year!

Srittau, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


File:Ghemon Scienz all'Alpheus.jpg

the file must delete it does not exist looks at the two sites are closed. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.16.189.56 (talk) 02:46, 02 January 2017 (UTC)

You can start a proper deletion request if you think there is a legitimate problem with this file. But please note that we have OTRS permission for this file, so it is very likely that we have proper permission to use it, even if the links in the image description are not valid anymore. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI: IP requested speedy delete, I converted the request into a proper DR. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Duplicates

Hi, Srittau, in your opinion, is this file to be considered a duplicate? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lotje: An easy way to check is to open both files in two tabs and switch between them. If you see no difference (possibly except the size), they are duplicates. Otherwise - like in this case - they are not. Nevertheless they are equal enough, in my opinion, that a regular deletion request should be started. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Srittau, sometimes it is very, very confusing. Would you mind if I contact you now and then to ask for your valued opinion? Lotje (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje: I know that it is sometimes not easy to follow all the rules and guidelines on Commons. But don't worry, good faith edits are always welcome, even if they are not 100% correct. Feel free to ask me, although you will probably get a faster and better answer over at the Help desk. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Johny Jhonny

I noticed that you added one of the sock cats at en. Could you also add en:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jhony jhony yes papa as this includes those blocked without CU, mostly by me. I think the User page is protected here, so I can't add it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: ✓ Done. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Rodrigues PortMathurinMosquee.jpg

Hi, You closed the UDR as not done, but the file is still here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Whoops, thank you for pointing that out. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Admin, This is in response to the last warning that I have received on my user page. I am being accused of uploading copyrighted images. How can I demonstrate that images are not copyrighted and available in public domains? I also asked the photographer to publish the image on Flickr under public domain, he did so but the image was taken down here. I believe you have access to deleted images and their history. Please check the Flickr links of those images. Please guide me with the procedure of uploading the image. Does email from the photographer work? If yes, then please let me know the format in which email should be written and what should be it's content? Whom should I send that email? Waiting for your response. Best Wishes. Everypruner5 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Everypruner5: Please have a look at COM:L. Every image is copyrighted by default. If the photographer really gave their permission to publish those images here, have the photographer contact our OTRS team. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will ask the photographer to contact your OTRS team. Everypruner5 (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Admin, I managed to get the copyright holder submit the OTRS form. Following OTRS Ticket was generated for the image 2017010910002555. I have uploaded the image here and have included the OTRS id that was received. I hope everything has been formatted correctly. The person who has the copyright, is not expert at Wikimedia upload, neither I am, so please look into this and help me to rectify errors. Thanks in advance. Everypruner5 (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Original Blue Police image

I uploaded the original and un-edited copy of the the Blue Police image as File:Żołnierz niemiecki i dwaj polscy policjanci na targowisku.jpg under the Category:Granatowa policja, but the picture does not show up on the page, can you help me understand why that's happening, as far as I know there is no approval process on Wiki Commons. --E-960 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@E-960: Thank you for uploading it separately! When I look at the Category:Granatowa_policja, I can see the image. It's the last on the page. Unfortunately, lately there is sometimes a slight delay between adding or removing a category and the image showing up. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out one issue, why was the current image up-loaded over an previous unrelated photo of a Blue Policeman, as noted in the initial discussion form June 2016. That's a very questionable method, and against Wiki Commons recommendations, if the other picture was questionable it should have been deleted, not have a completely unrelated image take it's place across several articles, causing this controversy. I would suggest that everything is re-set properly. --E-960 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, the initial claim that the original picture should have been deleted back in June '16 because Blue Police did not have weapons is not accurate, see images from the same archive [7] and [8], In the end everything about this re-upload by user Poeticbent, was inaccurate and suspect (reason for initial deletion/re-upload, description and date). --E-960 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

File:滅-bigseal.svg and File:滅-bronze.svg

Hi, could you help out with the renaming of these files? These files are used by templates in Wiktionary, but they are incorrectly named. is actually in the small seal script (File:滅-seal.svg), and is actually in the big seal script (File:滅-bigseal.svg). The move targets already exist, so what solution is there to correct this problem? Justinrleung (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I have absolutely no clue about ancient Chinese script, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt. I think the correct way to go about it is analyzing why the target files already exist and whether they may be moved to a better name. Maybe talk to the uploader User:Micheletb? Get consensus in a public place? When the name is "free", we can move those files. Being used in a consistent way in a template is a good reason to rename those files according to reason #4. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem lies in that 烕 and 滅 are etymologically the same character, and neither have a "bronze" version" in R.Sear's database. That choice has been made in order to show how the character has evolved from its 烕-oracle version : the labels are literally incorrect with respect to the database, but there is not a big difference between the versions, and that sequence is plausible. "Bigseal" variants often includes the small seal version, so having a smallseal presented as bigseal is not much of a problem. Idem, later bronze inscriptions are contemporary to bigseal ones, so the precise limit is not very relevant. I'll try to check in other databases to see if I can find interesting bronze versions (or bamboo/silk, by the way). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Micheletb: AFAIK, the current sequence is quite wrong. No way is it moving from 滅 to 烕; it's from 烕 to 滅, with the addition of a radical for clarification. It is also misleading to call something the bronze script when it isn't. There are actual attestations for both 滅 and 烕 in the bronze script, but I'm not sure if we can upload them here. Justinrleung (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently you have very strong ideas as to what is or is not bronze script, but I'm sorry to say, they do not reflect reality : those scripts have no definite content, do have large areas or overlap, and being a "bigseal" glyph does not precludes being a "bronze" one at the same time : "bigseal" and "bronze" refer to the place where they have been found (on bronze vases vs. on other kind of inscriptions), not to the glyph shapes, and some later bronze inscriptions are written with bigseal glyphs... The only script that has really been normalized is the smallseal one, all the rest is very approximative as far as glyphs are concerned : periods and shapes largely overlap.
The only aim of the Commons:Ancient Chinese characters project is to present character evolutions. So as long as the glyph series is basically intended to reflect the character evolution, not where such or such picture has been found, the series is essentially correct - because it is meant to be a time series, not an archaeological repository. When the time series is correct and the archaeological data is not, the time series has priority, and that's that. If you are interested with archaeological data (which is perfectly legitimate), look for other databases (such as xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian or the R.Sear one, the latter having some incorrections).
Anyway, the http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian database (which is the "serious" reference where www.guoxuedashi.com/zixing characters have most probably be taken) is currently down, so nothing can be explored right away in search for alternatives. Things may be different in a week or two, give me a ring by then and I'll fix the problem. Tschüss, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Micheletb: I've carried the discussion over to Commons talk:Ancient Chinese characters project so that we stop bother Srittau. Justinrleung (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Serbian 1st Army Staff 1st Balkan War.jpg

Hi,

The closing comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Serbian 1st Army Staff 1st Balkan War.jpg does not seem to address the facts of this file. The comment reads "no indication that author was anonymous or died before 1954 (per PD-Serbia)". But it is a photograph. It's not a drawing or a sculpture. Assuming that the wording of the template PD-Serbia is correct, then the fact that the author was anonymous or not, or the fact that the author died before 1954 or not, would not be relevant criteria. The relevant criterion for a photograph, again according to the template PD-Serbia, is if it was published before 1973 or not. Although the uploader did not specify the publication history, I think it is much more likely that this sort of photo was published at the time of the pictured event or soon after it, instead of remaining hidden by the photographer until 1973. For this reason, I understand that someone might argue for a deletion, but this is a kind of situation where I wonder if it's really necessary to display zeal to delete a file that is almost certainly in the public domain. If you think the file should be deleted anyway, could you please change the closing comment to address the criterion applicable to photographs? Thank you for your time. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Asclepias: You are right, I missed the part about 25 pma applying to photographs. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Знак_на_Армијата_на_Република_Македонија.svg

Hi, Can you please explain why did you delete the file? What was wrong with it? Thank you. -- PhoenixOr (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@PhoenixOr: Please see the explanation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Знак на Армијата на Република Македонија.svg. Essentially we have no valid license for this image, since we do not know the exact laws governing it in Macedonia. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Forum

Hallo, den Editwar zu beenden - und vor allem auch endlich die leidige und sinnlose Diskussion - ist ja absolut richtig. Bist Du aber wirklich der Meinung, dass die Beleidigungen gegen Alchemist-hp dort stehenbleiben sollten? Ich denke, er muss sich weder als Pferd bezeichnen lassen ("Brauner"), noch vorwerfen lassen, dass er stänkert - im Gegenteil war er in der ganzen Diskussion ausgesprochen sachlich und höflich. Und "Kraft Deiner Wassersuppe" ist ebenso ein Verstoß gegen die Wikiquette wie »Getroffene Hunde bellen«. Ich denke, Du solltest diesen Abschnitt administativ entfernen, bevor dass noch auf einer anderen Seite eskaliert werden wird. --Stepro (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Stepro: Ich sehe auf beiden Seiten eine schleichende Eskalation. "Soll ich jetzt über diese Meinung lachen oder weinen" ist auch schon nicht die netteste Art. Aber ich finde jetzt auch die Antwort zwar noch einmal ein wenig unnetter, aber noch nicht so schlimm, dass das jetzt unbedingt versteckt werden muss. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Nun denn, ich werde nichts weiter unternehmen, da ich nicht betroffen bin. Wäre ich es, würde mich mein nächster Weg nun zur entsprechenden Meldeseite auf Commons führen. Diese Eskalation meinte ich eigentlich, die man verhindern sollte. --Stepro (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 7 wallpaper.jpg

Hi Srittau! Thank you for reviewing this DR. Could you also review the Flickr license and place the appropriate tag if you think my arguments provided in that discussion are accurate? Thanks in advance! --Rezonansowy (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rezonansowy: Please note that I closed the DR on purely procedural grounds, no judgement about the validity of any of the arguments were made. I don't want to get involved in the cesspool of Windows logos. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Imagem deletada injustamente

Olá, analise direito as imagens carregadas, pois cometeu um erro em mandar para eliminação File:Mastro Brumado.jpg. Ela se encontra sob a licença ccby-3.0. Alessandro Sil (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alessandro Sil: If you have a look at the source site of the image here, you can see a large watermark of the supposed copyright holder. It is pretty likely that the Panoramio uploader did not have permission to upload that image to Panoramio, therefore the license on Panoramio is invalid. The Precautionary Principle applies. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

OTRS permission and Deletion Requests

OK, I won't remove the template from now on. --Filip (§) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest jhonny jhonny ha ji sock

DoYouLikeMe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you, ✓ blocked and reverted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring the files here. Some other user has already updated the description meanwhile, and I have undone the CommonsDelinker edits. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ja, die Beschreibungen und Kategorien hatte ich bereit eingefügt. Trotzdem vielen Dank für's Wiederherstellen. De728631 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Furfural structure.png

Hallo Srittau. Mir scheint, du kennst COM:Redundant nicht. Wie du dort lesen kannst, soll/kann das Ersetzen eines minderwertigen Bildes durch ein besseres (auch) erst nach dem Entscheid (aber vor der Umsetzung) durchgeführt werden. Folglich ist „in use“ in solchen Fällen kein valider Behaltensgrund. --Leyo 19:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Leyo: In der Tat. Ich finde die aktuelle Regelung aber auch unpraktikabel und habe eine Änderung vorgeschlagen. Du kannst gerne die Verwendungen obiger Datei ändern und ich lösche sie danach (gemäß aktueller Regelung). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Die allermeisten Einbindungen hatte bereits der Uploader der PNG-Version ersetzt. Ich hab's nun bei den verbleibenden Seiten auch gemacht. --Leyo 20:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/videos of speeches

As you closed the key DR, you may wish to contribute to the alternatives and hypothetical interpretations of copyright law that are likely to be put forward. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srittau/Archive_2&oldid=367116266"