User talk:ChrisiPK

Babel user information
de-N Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache. en-3 This user has advanced knowledge of English. fr-1 Cet utilisateur dispose de connaissances de base en français.
Users by language

Archives 1

Königes

Hallo ChrisiPK,

Benötige erneut Deinen Rat: Möchte ein Bild von Michael Königes, auf wiki.ro, welches ich von einem Bekannten mit dem Wunsch: «Hallo, anbei das Foto von Michael Königes, gemalt von Eduard Morres. Privatbesitz. Wenn es auf Wikipedia kommt, dann mit Copyright "Archiv Zeidner Nachbarschaft"», erhalten habe, hochladen. Kannst Du mir bitte sagen wie das gehen soll und ob überhaupt? Das Bild findest Du hier. Ich habe das Original in der Größe von 2000 x 2000 px; wenns gehen sollte, volle Größe oder...? Danke. Grüße, --L.Kenzel (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo L.Kenzel, allgemein solltest du natürlich immer die größtmögliche Größe hochladen. Hier haben wir allerdings das Problem, dass keine ausreichende Freigabe vorliegt. Dein Bekannter ist offenbar gewillt, die Nutzung für Wikipedia zu erlauben, aber keine freie Lizenz einzuräumen. Auf Wikimedia-Projekten werden solche Freigaben nicht akzeptiert; die Datei muss zwingend unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht werden. Hier haben wir offenbar noch das zusätzliche Problem, dass das Bild ein Werk einer anderen Person zeigt, nämlich von Eduard Morres. Eine kurze Google-Suche ergibt, dass Eduard Morres von 1851 bis 1945 lebte, also noch keine 70 Jahre verstorben ist. Seine Werke sind also noch urheberrechtlich geschützt, für eine Veröffentlichung bräuchten wir also zusätzlich die Zustimmung der Erben des Künstlers. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo ChrisiPK, danke für die schnelle Antwort. Werde ich so weitergeben, mal schauen was draus wird??? Grüße, --L.Kenzel (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo ChrisiPK, ich glaube das Problem dieses Bildes hat sich wegen der Sache mit den Erben des Künstlers eigentlich erledigt – ist zu kompliziert, kannst die Nachricht archivieren. Danke
Hätte aber erneut eine Frage an Dich: Die Benennung von Ortschaften, z.B. Rumänien oder auch anderen Ländern; Sollte man die Landessprachliche Benennung und anschließend, wenn man möchte, die der dortigen Minderheiten eintragen, oder kann auch nur die der Minderheiten gelassen werden? Gibt es hierzu eine Regel („ungeschriebene“)? Ich hatte nämlich z.B. dieses Bild bearbeitet, worauf der Benutzer des Bildes es wieder umbenannt hat. Hier (Images von Braşov) mein Schreiben an den Benutzer, seine Antwort bei meinen Diskussionen (Brasov). Danke, Grüße, --L.Kenzel (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallo L.Kenzel, auf Commons wird momentan über Commons:Language policy diskutiert, wo wohl hauptsächlich die Benennung von Kategorien und Gallerieseiten festgelegt werden soll. Die Benennung in der Beschreibung ist IMHO nicht wirklich übermäßig wichtig, es können ja auch beide Namen angegeben werden. Auf der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia gab es allerdings dazu vor kurzer Zeit ein Meinungsbild (siehe de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbild/Amtliche deutsche Ortsnamen in anderssprachigen Gebieten), dort wurde festgelegt, dass bei Namen mit amtlichem deutschen Ortsnamen der deutsche Name als Lemma verwendet wird. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallo ChrisiPK, danke für die prompte Antwort. Werde mir das bei Gelegenheit mal anschauen. Grüße, --L.Kenzel (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Amrita Sher-Gil

Hi!

The picture, File:Amrita with Indira 1922.jpg licensis

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Côte d'Ivoire has a general copyright term of 99 years and Honduras has 75 years, but they do implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information).

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse

, See File:Amrita Sher-Gil in her studio in Shimla, 1937.jpg. --Módis Ágnes Vadszederke (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you please provide a reason why this is Public Domain? 1922 is not old enough to just assume that the person has died more than 70 years ago. If you want to claim PD-old, you need to supply the name of the creator and his death date. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

About Trojan

I'm the father of Trojan and I completely disagree with his block. I also told about it on Com-an, during the discussion about his unblock. I really think what happened with Trojan was completely inevitable.

We, his psychiatrist and I think something has gone wrong in the communication between the administrators and Trojan. His psychiatrist didn't tell it, but maybe it is good to know Trojan is a young man of 18 years old and he has autism. Sometimes people with autism have trouble with communicating, and Trojan also have. He uploaded TV-screenshots to resize them for another wiki (by using the wiki-software the quality is better) and he didn't understand why it was wrong. When he was blocked suddenly, he thought it was just a joke. He didn't know why it happened, until I explained him what has gone wrong.

I've also readed the message his psychiatrist wrote to you and your reply and I told Trojan about it. He understands you don't have any good faith left, so we all think (the psychiatrist, Trojan and I) it will be good if you unblock him and then helps him substitute more trouble. I saw the pictures he wants to upload, they're so great to see! Please unblock Trojan and help him not making more mistakes!

Yours faithfully,

83.82.233.210 14:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather fed up with more and more people coming to this talk page and asking for Trojan's unblock, especially since this is not a decision I would make on my own and the discussion has been pretty clear that consensus is not leaning towards unblock. So, once again, I will not unblock him, no matter how often you come here and ask me to. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Banco Mercantil Imagen

Hi Chris, I think you put a tag in this file: Banco Mercantil.jpg

I am not expert in these matters, but in this image and many others I have up loaded I have been very careful in verify their license. The image is from a book published more then 100 years ago and that´s why this lithography is a Public Domain image. The same Google library, that put the book on line, explains in the same introduction of each book, if it is a Public Domain image or not. You can verify it if you down load the respective book in this site: http://books.google.com/books?id=LB1lAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=es#v=onepage&q=&f=false Please tell me what will be the future of this image. It would be a shame if commons delete it. Have a good day.--eliasjorge4 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I answered on the deletion request. Please keep the discussion there so other people can follow and comment. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris again, I leaved you a message on the page of the image. have a Happy day!--eliasjorge4 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Chris, sorry for posting here, but I don`t think there are many people interested in this matter. I really don´t know why you can not down load the book. This is my e mail: eliajorge4@yahoo.com I could send you the entire book If you want it, send me your e mail address and I will return to yours with the attached file. Have a good day--eliasjorge4 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if the book is PD, you can upload it somewhere. Not on Commons, as I assume it is not educational, but somewhere else (Rapidshare or similar). That would be better than sending it as a large attachment per mail and would also give other people the option of downloading and verifying it. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I would try to do that. Have a good day.--eliasjorge4 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Christ I am here again I think there is no need to up load this document in other web pages. It is a document with history value at least for the people of my country. You can find it on line too in the Library of the University of Austin Texas in this link: [1]

Patroller permissions vote

Hello, thank you for your participating in the discussion about if the patroller permissions should be enabled or not. You have opposed for the reason that there's currently no documentation about what the patrol right actually is and what it should be used for. This page has now been created at Commons:Patrol. If you still have any questions what this is, feel free to ask me. If you think the page should be improved, please let me know. As the desired page has now been created, I would be happy if you could reconsider your vote in order to find a solution that makes us all happy. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Riblje oko.hr

Hy ChrisiPK. Thank you for your message at my talk page (hr:User:Lasta). I am the person who obtained permission from Riblje oko.hr and I am writing articles and uploading at Commons. As I understand that their e-mail (as it is) is not sufficient, can you please let me know what I have to do to to clear this problem. By the way, I am still in contact with them and I personally met one of the guys from that association and I know that we can fix this problem, they are very helpfull. Thank you for warning, and please let me know how to procede. Thanks --Lasta (talk)

Thanks for your reply. Please hold on with deletions, I will start wirh request ASAP, hope to arrange all within one week. 10q :)--Lasta (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Uniform_Asuka.JPG

Please check OTRS of this file. This clothing is part of design characters of anime Evangelion. In this reason, i'm not sure, can Don-kun use {{Self}}. Of course, if Don-kun is not en:Yoshiyuki Sadamoto, who create this design. Zero Children (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the OTRS permission is by the creator of the photograph and covers only the photographer's rights. It does not concern the design, but I think the design is not copyrightable as it is very simple. If you think the design is copyrighted, please file a deletion request. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Request undelete of: File:Bell Statue in front of the Brantford Bell Telephone Building 0.98.jpg [Ticket#2009073110048881]

Ref: File:Bell Statue in front of the Brantford Bell Telephone Building 0.98.jpg [Ticket#2009073110048881]

Hi Peter:

Kindly review the noted file and the prior message left on my account Talk page.

Regarding the actual image which needs to be restored: the copyright owner's letter of authorization was mailed to the Commons on July 31, 2009 and resent to your team on September 1, 2009 after I saw the notice on my Talk page, ref. [Ticket#2009073110048881]. I'm resending that letter of permission to the Permissions group, and hope that the image can be undeleted as soon as possible so it can be reinserted into the A.G. Bell article.

Kindly contact me if there are any further issues.

Best,

HarryZilber HarryZilber 04:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Harry, the file has already been undeleted; the permission looks fine to me. I assume the OTRS agent working on this will close the ticket and probably notify you of the successful permission. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

-Thanks for the assistance.... hz HarryZilber 20:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket

Hallo ChrisiPK.
Ist es möglich, dass du mir den Text von diesem OTRS Ticket (für FrankMorphscapePose2.jpg) auf meine Diskussionsseite kopierst - oder mir in einer Mail schickst, oder so etwas in der Art? Ich habe noch drei Bilder von Frank Klepacki zu denen er "Yes you have my permission to use those images." geschrieben hat. Auch wenn er nicht explizit gesagt hat, dass er die kommerzielle Nutzng sowie die Bearbeitung erlaubt glaube ich nicht, dass es ein großes Problem sein wird auch noch dieses Mail zu bekommen. Die Frage einzige Frage ist, ob man das alte Ticket noch verwenden kann oder ob man ein neues brauch, wobei der Text hoffentlich Aufschluss gibt.
Danke für deine Hilfe --D-Kuru (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallo D-Kuru, das verlinkte Ticket ist eigentlich als Freigabe unbrauchbar. Eingeschickt wurde eine Mail, in der im Endefekt drinsteht, dass die Bilder für Wiki verwendet werden dürfen und darauf ging eine Anleitung raus, wie man Bilder hochlädt. Bei der ausgehenden Mail (an den Weiterleiter der Freigabe, also wohl auch Uploader) wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass eine freie Lizenz notwendig ist; der Nutzungsrechtsinhaber selber hat aber nie von einer solchen gesprochen. Wenn du für weitere Bilder eine Freigabe einholst, wäre ich dir dankbar, wenn du für dieses Bild auch direkt nach einer freien Lizenz fragen könntest. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unerwartet schlechte Neuigkeiten ^^' Ich werde einmal nachfragen ob Mr. Klepacki überhaupt mit der kommerziellen Nutzung einverstanden ist (zumindest ist das meines Wissens nach der Punkt über den sich die wenigsten freuen bzw. der am meisten Probleme macht). Das letzte Mal als ich ihm eine Nachricht über seine Homepage geschickt habe hat er binnen einer Stunde geantwortet.

Kann man so ein OTRS ticket eigentlicha cuh wieder löschen? (Ich rate einmal ja, aber dieses Ticket sollte eigentlich nicht mehr verwendbar sein)

--D-Kuru (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, nein, gelöscht werden können Tickets nicht. Es wird lediglich die Vorlage von der Bildbeschreibungsseite entfernt und das Bild dann ggf. wegen einer fehlenden Freigabe gelöscht. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Das neue OTRS-Ticket liegt schon in greifbarer Nähe :-): Mail von Klepacki: "Yes I am fine with those images being used commercially or modified."

--D-Kuru (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wunderbar, vielen Dank. Bitte auch darauf achten, dass er einer konkreten freien Lizenz zustimmt. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hat zwar ein bisschen gedauert, aber ich habe eine neue Mail von Frank bekommen: "I will copy the text and insert the cc-by-sa for the license and send it to the email address." (the text ist übrigens der OTRS text den ich für ihn umgeformt und auf User:D-Kuru/perm-kl zum kopieren abgelegt habe. FrankMorphscapePose2.jpg wird dann zwar nicht mehr PD sein, aber in jetztiger Form war es eher ein Fall für {{Copyvio}}
--D-Kuru (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, prima. Habe das Bild inzwischen mal als disputed markiert, damit das nicht mit der Lizenz übernommen wird. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kannst du bei den neuen Mails einmal nachschauen ob bereits ein Ticket estellt wurde bzw. ob das Mail schon eingegangen ist?

--D-Kuru (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Im OTRS gibt es tausende von Mails, da ist es nicht immer leicht, direkt zu suchen, was man findet. Eine Absenderadresse wäre hier hiflreich (gerne auch per privater Mail an mich); meine Suche nach "frank klepacki" war jedenfalls ergebnislos. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Kannst du, wenn du Zeit hast, bitte nocheinmal nachsehen ob Frank schon etwas geschickt hat? Sonst müsste ich ihn nochmal nerven ^^

Danke --D-Kuru (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nur um kurz den orangen Balken wieder ins Bild zu bringen :-) --D-Kuru (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, als ich das gelesen hab war ich nicht zu Hause und konnte grade nicht nachschauen. Antwort kommt per Mail; ich diskutiere das ungern hier. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Poncelin2.JPG

Hello ChrisiPK. You entered this file for deletion. Please consider the following:

• This label was designed by the grandfather of my wife during the years 1950.
• He died 20 years ago and his factory closed 50 years ago.
• I released this design into the public domain.

Best regards, Patrick.charpiat (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, thank you for the information. I copied this over to the deletion request on Commons:Deletion requests/Cheese packagings, please put further discussion and information there. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

maps

ok.will remove it soon.tell me pls how to set up my own wiki.Olaffpomona (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why interference Category:Gastronomy?

See also Why interference Category:Gastronomy? (Category:Gastronomy --> Category talk:Gastronomy)--Tom778 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Egeunilogo.jpg

Hi Chrisi! The image in question is the logo of a notable state university. It consists only of simple geometric shapes and text and these do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain. I am changing the file copyright status to PD-textlogo. See File:Augustana College Logo.gif simply as an example. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cretanforever, the Augustana is much more simple than the one we are talking about here. I am not so sure that this image is really a simple geometric shape, the waves in the background might be a problem here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Rand.pdf

Good evening Chrisi. Please, could you delete this file? I uploaded more or less a month ago and I think it has been cleared the purpose of such file. Thanks in advance, best regards--Manu (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Manu, actually I'd rather not delete this as it documents the process you tried to follow and is linked in the deletion request. Do you really think deletion is neccessary? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vera Mukhina portrait.jpeg

The author of work, Mikhail Nesterov died on 18 October 1942 which is between June 22, 1941 and December 31, 1942 as stated in §1 of article 6 of 231-FZ (Civil Code of the Russia). He did actually publish at least one painting in 1942 - called Autumn in a village (1942, GTG).

But the exact date of the painting in question ([[2]]) is 1940 (it's perfectly traceable!).

You are probably wrong with deletion. If you are not, then it puts some other paintings of Nesterov in question, including File:Nesterov Florensky Bulgakov.jpg (GTG, 1917 - the month and date is not easily traceble - was it done before or after the October Revolution) and File:Nesterov Ilyin.jpg (Russian Museum, 1921—1922). --Yuriy Lapitskiy (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yuriy, the question is not when the file was published, but rather whether the author worked during the Great Patriotic War. As the author published a painting in 1942, I am assuming that he did work during the war, so this cannot be a reason for PD. The other images you linked cite other PD reasons - the second one also uses PD-Russia-2008, but I'm not quite sure which part of the law applies there. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But the question is about the period 1917 - 1942, when PD-Russia-2008 should be taken into account, other paintings dated pre-1917 are fine cause they use a PD-RusEmpire license template.

P.S. One more painting by Nesterov in question - File:Nesterov M V Vsadniki.jpg (1932). Should them be also deleted then?

P.P.S. Just noted that the uploader of File:Nesterov SaintRussia.JPG strangely used a PD-Ukraine template. It was painted in 1901-06 and now exhibited in Russian Museum. --Yuriy Lapitskiy (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And note that the painting you deleted was done in 1940 (which pre-dates the start of Great Patriotic War - 22.06.1941), it's only his last work was done in 1942. --Yuriy Lapitskiy (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, only paintings which are not already PD for a different reason need to be considered. As such, I would say that the ones you linked will likely need to be deleted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sperren von Lizenzvorlagen

Hallo, könntest du bitte meine Vorlagen {{User:Wmeinhart/finepix}} {{User:Wmeinhart/lumix}} {{User:Wmeinhart/lumix.fx50}} wieder entsperren. Ich möchte da Änderungen vornehmen, die nicht die GNU-Lizenz-Version betreffen. --Wmeinhart (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, die Vorlagen sind vorübergehend wieder frei. Bitte beachte, dass du Lizenzen nur hinzufügen und nicht wieder entfernen oder nachträglich einschränken kannst. Beste Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your input to the Ubisoft deletion discussion

Hi ΛΦΠ, I'm curious why you removed your comment that said you had sent an e-mail to Ubisoft asking about the licensing. Did you not send that e-mail? Or did you get a reply already? Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi ChrisiPK

In fact, before sending my e-mail, I spoke with User:Jean-Frédéric to know what he thought about my email. And today he said me that it would be better if this mail would be sent by "Wikimedia France" instead of me, because Wikimedia France has much more power than a single contributor. So, finaly, the mail stayed in my mail box, and Wikimedia France will contact Ubisoft. I was so sure that Jean-Fred would say me "yes, send it, we will see what's gonna happen" that I wrote on Commons that I already sent my mail... Sorry !

I wish you a happy new year --ΛΦΠ (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, happy new year to you too. It is no problem at all that you did not send the mail, but I'd prefer it if you could restore your comment on the deletion request and add the information you just gave me for clarification, so other people know what the status of this is. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Other user's license templates

Would you please be so kind to leave other user's license templates as they created it. If you want to have corrected an obvious error, please contact the respective user on their talk page and give a reason for the correction. It is absolutely unwelcome that you do such edits behind the user's back. Thank you for regarding this. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 14:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates used in the main namespace can be edited by anyone. It's not like I was changing the license or anything, just fixing a mistake which was made in many templates and has already been corrected there. Just because you put a template in your user namespace and then use it as a license template (which is highly discouraged anyway) doesn't mean nobody is allowed to edit it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wallace & Gromit

(Sorry for my English): See http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfelder/44898523/ (you can do derivated works, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode ). Why you deleted File:NickPark2005.jpg? ferbr1 (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ferbr1, the problem is that the photograph itself is a derivative work of the copyrighted Wallace & Gromit statues. The rest of the image is fine. If you want to have a photo of the creator only, I can restore the image and crop it so the copyrighted parts are no longer visible. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but this puppets are in a public exposition (possibly with the aim that people could take pictures) with her creator. That is not important? Regards. ferbr1 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is insufficient. To publish this photograph under a free license, we would need explicit consent by the copyright holder of the Wallace & Gromit characters. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Help!

My first image on my new account!

I need help. You know I'm blocked for 6 months now and I still want to have my block lifted. Is there any way to do it? I now ask it to you and not in the COM:AN, so that I can't bug other people. Could you please give me some more advices? What is the best way to proof I can be a good user? What I already have done: some images (about 50) I want to upload on Commons, are uploaded on other wiki's and most of them are already converted to Commons, but actually I want to place them directly on Commons.

Just to be clear: I don't ask you to unblock me, I just need help. How can I get my block lifted and how do I have to work so that it won't happen again? I ask you just some advice and please, don't be angry, but help me! 94.209.17.22 19:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep quiet for a while. Your constant pleading for unblock are not helping your cause at all. Read the rules, do some basic stuff, you could even get a new account, but stop posting to AN and various places asking for your unblock. If you demonstrate after a while that you have been working on Commons as a productive user without getting into trouble, an unblock might be considered. But from your last actions, I would at least give you another six months before that happens. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One small problem: I can't create another account (that function is blocked), so I can't demonstrate it. Could you create one for me? MANY THANKS! 94.209.17.22 19:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Account creation should not be blocked for your ip. Try again without being logged in and give me the error message if it doesn't work. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Trojan2010 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded my first image on my new account. Trojan2010 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhm well the basic idea was that you create an account which is not obviously connected to your main account so you can start over without any negative feelings towards you. Well, have a try... -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:3 firefoxes.png

Why wouldn't you remove the logos?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 21:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The logos were the main part of the image. I think removing them makes the image sort of useless. I won't object to a version with the logos removed being restored, though. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the useragents are the main part of the picture. Feel free to restore the image and remove the logos whenever you have a moment.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Note, though, that the blue ball without the fox is free ({{MTL}}). --AVRS (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying I should put that back in? I suppose it would look a bit awkward. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Andres Rojas

Hi ChrisiPK, as you are taking care of the uploads of Andres Rojas, you might be interested in this short thread. --Túrelio (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You might want to mention that on the DR. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Thoreau cabin statue flickr.jpg

It looks like you nominated this image I posted for deletion. I don't understand what was wrong with this image. Can you explain why you nominated it? I realize it was deleted by consensus, so I am not trying to argue. I want to know what I did wrong. Usually I only post image I have made myself or images with free licenses. I want to make sure I don't repeat the mistake.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bkwillwm, you uploaded an image from Flickr (see here), which features a copyrighted statue. For us to be able to use that, we need permission by the creator of the statue, as the image is a derivative work of the statue. The image was deleted because we are lacking such permission. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Below you"

Frankly, Chris, I expect better of you than to voice unfounded conclusions about the motivations of my commentary. I respect your right to disagree with the project. I am, however, sorely disappointed in your comment that I was accusing people of canvassing, when I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cary, I'm sorry, I might have come across a bit harsh. I apologize for that. I do, however, hope, that you can see what I was trying to say. Your comment "Now that we've heard from a few users who believe Commons should host every horrible image, without regard, let's hear from a more representative selection of, the community, and perhaps the readership as well." a few lines above reads to me like "Now please be quiet and let people speak who are actually part of the community", which is IMHO unfair towards the people who haved voiced their opinion so far. This sounds like you wouldn't want to hear from people who disagree with you and rather have some opinions in favor of the idea. As I am opposing the project, I felt personally insulted by this, as you are implicitly calling me not part of a "representative selection of, the community, and perhaps the readership as well". As I wasn't sure whether I had gotten your meaning correctly, I wondered whether you suspected canvassing against your proposal. Why else would you suggest, that the people commenting are not a representative part? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

headings

thanks for the change, I just followed the format of one used on the COM:AN/B havent used those template before. Gnangarra 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether my change was neccessary, but this is how I always used them. I assume that the archive bot archives everything below the heading, so if the closedh template is on top of it, it will be part of the other section and might be split when it is archived before or after the section it belongs to. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sexual content

As someone who previously participated in a past discussion regarding this page, you may be interested in the new discussion taking place. I have endeavoured to send a message to everyone previously involved; if I have missed anyone please let them know as well. Roux (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will have a look at it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

De-sysop Request

As per Jimbo Wales' statement advocating "removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue" I request your resignation as a Sysop on Commons. Respectfully, Stillwaterising (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Request received. Respectfully, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Question: this 'wheel warring' advocating removal for those who redo a reverted administrative decision you said Jimbo mentioned, does it look something like this? Ty (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's by definition wheel-warring, and the user who wheel-warred here no longer has userrights like a commons sysop. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hm, but if adminship is removed in case of wheel-warring then wouldn't he have by consent removed his own powers on May 7? I'm not sure what would happen in that case, like does the decision stand or if the power is gone, the wheel-ban rule goes with it? Ty (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Apologies, left out a rather crucial "no longer" in my reply above... It should be noted that Jimbos removal of his own rights was not directly related to wheel-warring. That, and Jimbos statement aside, wheel-warring (edit war with sysop tools) is one possible abuse of sysop-tools that could lead to a deadmin. process. To my knowledge, ChrisiPK has not been guilty of wheel-warring, nor has any deadmin process against him been started (and there is IMO no valid reason to start one). Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I understand you're frustration. I think it's better if we drop the issue and move on. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Heads-up

Just wanted to give you a heads-up on a deletion request on one of the Bundesarchiv images: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-2005-0119, Kurt Weill.jpg, which is now also listed at Commons:Bundesarchiv/Questionable licensing. I saw at the latter page you had tackled a number of other problem Bundesarchiv images; could you please do the same for this one? Tabercil (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I wasn't part of the team coordinating the deal, so I'm not really familiar with the details of the contract. Forwarding this to Raymond, who was involved. Thanks and regards :) -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 06:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:MAN_Lions_City_FAP.jpg

I don't care! I WANT THIS IMAGE REMOVED. or I will take legal steps. I already checked with ma lawyer.

Making legal threats on-wiki will not get you anywhere. Feel free to check with your lawyer, but as long as you are unwilling to elaborate and provide a good reason why this image should be deleted, you will not find an admin who will delete it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review notice

Hello ChrisiPK. You are receiving this message because you have recently or regularly participate in Flickr review requests. A proposal to move Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers to Commons:License review/requests was made and no objections were raised and thus transferred. Please watchlist this new page for further requests. Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers will continue to display for a period of time but new requests will not be raised on your watchlist. Thank you, ZooFari 17:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, ChrisiPK!

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Das Große Judenprivileg Kaiser Karl V., page 1.jpg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Requests and KB per data type on Commons main page.svg was uncategorized on 10 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Tapferkeitsmedaille_1.Klasse.JPG

File:Tapferkeitsmedaille_1.Klasse.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 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!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No source

Hi ChrisiPK! Wow you really clean up a lot! That is so nice :-) What brings me here is the "nsd" on files like File:Heinrich heine.jpg and File:Josephine Brandell (1906).jpg. The nsd is a speedy deletion tag if uploader is no longer active. If you start a DR instead then more users will notice and hopefully help checking if it is possible to rescue the file (those two could easily be PD-old). On new files and uploads I ofcourse also use nsd so it is only old files where I think a DR could be better. What do you think? Does this sound like rubbish? :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi MGA, are you serious about me cleaning up a lot? I have hardly had any time at all lately, but thanks for the flowers. ;) About the nsd template: Yes, you are right, I could probably also have nominated those for deletion, but I tend to do that with files, where the licensing information is doubtful. However, the licensing information on these files is basically non-existent and some people tend to make a big fuss out of deletion discussions of such files, saying that "the author is probably dead" etc., basically bringing up everything, which is listed on COM:PS#Precautionary_principle as a big NOT. That's why I have become reluctant to open deletion discussions for such files and have the same pointless argument with the same people over and over again. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Korean_106-key_keyboard.jpg

Hallo, auf meiner Disk meckert ein Bot, dass für obiges Foto angeblich keine Freigabe eingetroffen ist und sagt auch, ich kann mich diesbezüglich direkt an einen OTRS-Menschen (wie dich) wenden. Also dann...

Der Urheber hat mir ein Freigabemail weitergeleitet. Bitte schau nach, ob du das finden kannst und trag ggf. die Freigabe ein.

Falls es irgendein Spezialist gelöscht hat, wäre es dann möglich, dass direkt jemand vom OTRS-Team (du?) beim Mister Savard nochmal um die Freigabe frägt, damit der möglichst nur auf "Reply" klicken muss und sich bei der Adresse nicht vertut? Es ist sowieso schon mühsam genug, den Leuten zu erklären, wie das mit den Freigaben funktioniert. Wenn man sich die Erklärung sparen kann, dass man selber die Freigaben nicht vergibt, sondern die Mails ans OTRS-Team gehen müssen, dann spart das wieder einen verwirrenden Schritt.

Wäre echt nett, wenn du mir in dieser Sache helfen könntest. Es hat verdammt lang gedauert, so ein gutes Foto von einer koreanischen Tastatur zu finden...

Danke+Grüße --Berntie (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Berntie, die Mail wurde bereits bearbeitet, aber leider war kein Link zu dem Bild auf Commons, sondern nur zur Quelle angegeben. Der OTRS-Mitarbeiter wusste daher nicht, wo das Bild auf Commons liegt und hat nochmal nachgefragt, worauf bisher aber keine Antwort erfolgt war. Ich habe Mail und Ticket jetzt verknüpft, das Bild wird also nicht gelöscht werden. Danke für den Hinweis und beste Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Exzellent! Vielen Dank für deine Hilfe! --Berntie (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Scene.org-Statue

Huch? Zustimmung des Künstlers? Seit wann denn das? Ich weiß ja selbst, dass es keine gute Argumentation ist, mit Gegenbeispielen zu argumentieren, aber von File:Bambi_Grzimek_1973.jpg angefangen, über beliebig viele andere Auszeichnungen habe ich das bisher noch nie gesehen. --Avatar (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Avatar, das Problem ist, dass das ein Werk des entsprechenden Künstlers ist und somit immer eine Freigabe benötigt wird, wenn man ein abgeleitetes Werk erstellt. Das gilt aber IMHO genauso für den Bambi und praktisch alle anderen Auszeichnungen, die als schöpferische Leistung angesehen werden. Mir ist zumindest keine Ausnahme bewusst, unter der wir das sonst verwenden könnten. Siehe auch Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Oscar statuettes. (Zugegebenermaßen kein wirklich gutes Beispiel, weil von mir selber geschlossen, aber ich habe jetzt grade leider nicht die Zeit, mehr Löschanträge zu suchen.) Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mein erster Eindruck ist, dass es übertrieben ist. Aber ich weiß ja selbst, dass du es nicht zum Nutzer ärgern machst :-). Ich besorg ne Freigabe von Visualice. Haben wir dafür irgendwo nen vorgefertigten englischen Textbaustein? Ich würde ungern irgendwas übersehen und später noch mal nachfragen müssen. --Avatar (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Jop, Freigabe-Vorlagen gibt es auf Commons:Email templates. Vorgefertigte Anschreiben mit Bitte um Freigabe hat en-wp: en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Prima, danke. Freigabe ist Ticket #2010121710024437. --Avatar (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Super. Jetzt haben wir nur noch ein kleineres Problem: Urheber der Statue und Urheber des Fotos haben unterschiedliche Lizenzversionen gewählt (2.0 vs 3.0). Ich meine, mich erinnern zu können, dass ab CC 2.0 schon eine "any later version"-Formulierung enthalten ist, sodass wir das vmtl als 3.0 lizenzieren können. Da muss ich aber nochmal nachsehen, wenn ich Zeit habe. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

File

• I apologize, I thought that I was allowed to remove the request because I fixed the photos on file. --SeikoEn (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi SeikoEn, not a problem. Please note, though, that the tag will only be removed after the deletion request has been closed. Otherwise, people coming to the file page will have no idea, that there is still a discussion going about whether the file should be deleted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re. AN thread on "concern troll"

You wrote that "CC license does not put restrictions on derivatives of the image". IMO, this is incorrect. CC-BY-SA-3.0 says: "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation... " Doesn't it address the case?

I cannot see what license was affixed to the deleted pics, neot the whole story on other wikis, so I might be wrong. Cheers, NVO (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, indeed, you are right. I wasn't sure whether the CC license had such a section. This indeed solves the problem. The image was a combination of a CC image and a PD image, so technically it would have been allowed, but was a clear distortion of the original author's work. You might want to mention this on the thread on AN. Thanks for informing me and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Firefox3.png

File:Firefox3.png 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 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!

Teofilo (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Schau auf meine Benutzerdiskussion

Solidarität unter Admins und gegen die aktiven Benutzer, die Inhalte beitragen, was war sonst zu erwarten. Ein guter Grund, keine Beiträge mehr zu liefern, das war's dann wohl. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 20:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Schade, dass du das so siehst. Vielleicht beruhigst du dich erstmal und betrachtest die Sache in ein paar Tagen nochmal etwas rationaler. Grüße und auf hoffentlich wieder baldige Zusammenarbeit, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Zusammenarbeit? Willst Du mich auch noch verhohnepiepeln? Es wäre nicht der erste Fotograf, der aus Commons weggekelt wurde, und das vorzugsweise von Verwaltertypen und nicht von Leuten, die selbst schöpferisch tätig sind. Hausmeisterstypen sind tödlich für Kreatität. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nein, das ist mir vollkommen ernst. Commons ist ein kollaboratives Projekt; ohne Zusammenarbeit geht hier gar nichts. Wenn du aber an einer Zusammenarbeit endgültig nicht interessiert bist (also deine Meinung, dass deine Bildbeschreibungen dir alleine gehören, aufrecht erhältst), finde ich das bedauernswert. Dann ist es nur konsequent, sich von diesem Projekt zu verabschieden. Insofern: Viel Glück auf deinem weiteren Weg, ob er dich jetzt auf Commons oder woanders hinführt. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ich sehe im Überblick nicht ein einziges von dir selbst erstelltes Bild, für das Du vielleicht auch noch die Mühe auf dich genommen hast, erstmal die Erlaubnis zum Fotografieren zu bekommen o.ä. Und so einer will mir von oben herab was erzählen. Das strotzt nur so vor Arroganz. Get a life! --Eva K. ^{is evil} 22:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wenn das hier jetzt nur in Angriffe auf meine Person ausartet und endgültig von der eigentlichen Sachfrage abgleitet, ist die Diskussion für mich beendet. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No photos, no creativity, and lot of rules and orc-talk instead. That's all what I see. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 16:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS-Bitte

Hallo, check doch mal bitte die Freigabe für File:CD-Verpackung mit Metalltray und Magnetverschluss.jpg. Der Urheber stimmt höchstwahrscheinlich so nicht, siehe w:de:Benutzer Diskussion:Tomcat1112#Freigabe fehlt immer noch. Wäre wichtig, dass das richtiggestellt wird; am Schluss kriegt ein Nachnutzer noch Probleme... Danke+Grüße --Berntie (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, danke für den Hinweis. Habe jetzt mal den Urheber aus dem Ticket eingetragen. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Besten Dank! --Berntie (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Und nochmal OTRS

Bitte schau mal da vorbei, geht um das. Danke. --Berntie (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Vietnam coins.jpg

File:Vietnam coins.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 16:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Konflikt mit User:EvaK

Hallo ChrisiPK!
Ich leide schon seit langem unter Erniedrigungen von der Benutzerin und möchte mir das nicht länger gefallen lassen. Erst in den letzten Tagen habe ich zwei Mal versucht, Klartext mit ihr zu reden ([3] und [4]), jedoch hat sie beide Male meine Beiträge mit einem sarkastischen Kommentar als Begründung gelöscht und mich heute auch auf meiner Diskussionsseite angegriffen ([5]). Da ich sehe, dass du als Administrator schon Erfahrung mit dem Fall gesammelt hast, möchte ich dich dringend um Hilfe bitten. Ansonsten weiß ich einfach nicht mehr weiter. LG, Boris Karloff II. 09:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Bitte um Entschuldigung für die Einmischung und den Rat den ich geben möchte: Lass es nicht an Dich ran! Bleib ruhig und sachlich, dokumentiere persönliche Angriffe ohne Wertung und lass den Rest seinen Lauf gehen. Auch wenn es im ersten Moment noch so schwierig ist: Es bringt einfach nix. Es macht einen nur kaputt ... :( axp_de^Hello! 10:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ich bin Dir Dankbar für deine Einmischung; je mehr Leute hiervon erfahren desto größer sind die Aussichten auf eine Lösung. Ich versuche natürlich, meine Gefühle aus dem Spiel zu lassen und sachlich zu bleiben, aber ich bin auch nur ein Mensch. Das alles hat mich schon so sehr zerstört, dass ich inzwischen wegen Motivationsverlust meine kreative Arbeit aufgegeben und mich der so stark kritisierten "Hausmeisterarbeit" gewidmet habe. Auf meiner Diskussionsseite habe ich übrigens spontan eine kleine Liste fragwürdiger Aktionen ihrerseits erstellt; vielleicht hilft das weiter. Dadurch, dass User:Evak bestimmte Beiträge nach kürzester Zeit von ihrer Diskussionsseite löscht verliert man leicht die Übersicht. LG, Boris Karloff II. 10:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Boris, ich kann deine Frustration nachvollziehen und bin auch bald mit meinem AGF bei dieser Benutzerin am Ende. Sollte sich die Situation nicht deeskalieren lassen, werde ich wohl noch um weitere administrative Unterstützung bitten, damit die Benutzerin nochmal zur Ordnung gerufen wird. Ich scheine ja in ihren Augen verbrannt zu sein, sodass eine vernünftige Diskussion nicht möglich ist. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ich danke dir sehr für deine Unterstützung und hoffe dass wir bald eine Lösung finden. LG, Boris Karloff II. 11:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Bitte gern. Gerade gesehen: Auf Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#EvaK_.28talk.C2.A0.E2.80.A2.C2.A0contribs.C2.A0.E2.80.A2.C2.A0count.29 geht es auch schon weiter. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nochmals danke, ich werde mich an der Diskussion beteiligen. LG, Boris Karloff II. 12:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiermit wäre das Problem wohl gelöst. Ich danke vielmals. LG, Boris Karloff II. 13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:8FamousPersianSpeakersIran.jpg

File:8FamousPersianSpeakersIran.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

  ■ MMXX  ^talk  16:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:15FamousPersianSpeakersIran.jpg

File:15FamousPersianSpeakersIran.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

  ■ MMXX  ^talk  16:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stasi 2.0.svg

Kannst du mir die Datei bitte kurz wiederherstellen oder gleich auf de.wikiversity hochladen? Siehe http://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Stasi_2.0 - dort sind Bildzitate zulässig und als solches möchte ich das dort beschreiben. Um den Lizenzkram dort werde ich mich kümmern, kannst es aber auch selbst machen: http://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Vorlage:Bildzitat nehmen wir in solchen Ausnahmefällen, die streng überwacht werden. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Liegt jetzt unter wikiversity:de:Datei:Stasi 2.0.svg. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ich danke dir. Mir lag nichts daran, das Bild aus dem Netz zu verbannen, deshalb habe ich die WV-Seite angelegt. Keine Zensur, nur Urheberrecht. Ich hoffe mal, die entsprechenden Stimmen werden das begreifen. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding images to deletion request

Thanks for the comments and answer to my questions at the Village Pump. I replied there, but have come to your talk page to ask two more specific questions:

• (1) Would you be able to add 1 and 2 to the deletion nomination here? I mentioned them there already, but I'm not sure how to formally add them to the nomination. I know it can take a while for deletion nominations to be commented on, let alone closed, so I'm sure adding them would be OK.
• (2) At the village pump, you mentioned Flickr and being sued by copyright holders of the works in question. "However, if your works depict works of other people, you need their permission to publish them (unless covered by FOP or similar copyright exceptions). So the answer is: You are not allowed to upload this to your Flickr stream, as you don't own all the rights to the picture. You can, however, upload it anyway and hope, that nobody sues you." First, I presume this only applies to publicly visible photos on Flickr, but even there, I'm not so sure that publication is restricted as much as you think it is. I know this is not really the right place to discuss Flickr terms and conditions, and how copyright works when people display photos on websites like that, but I did note at the village pump copyright section discussion that newspapers freely publish such photos, and speculated (later confirmed) that they do so under 'fair dealing for purposes criticism, review and news reporting'. I suspect that if I uploaded to Flickr and included a wide range of photos, and the captions 'reported' on the events and gave information about what the picture is showing (the orbit and the spacesuit and the planet), I would in effect be reviewing the sculpture or reporting on the event in some way. I would also mark the photos as 'copyright, all rights reserved' and add a note that the rights pertaining to the statue originate with the sculptor, and credit him. Of course, if I then tried to sell the photos, or release them under an (incorrect) free license that allowed others to use them for commercial purposes, that would be another matter altogether. Which is one reason why I want to see the picture deleted here, as I now realise it was a mistake to upload it here (I had originally intended to write a WikiNews story, but never found the time). The only reason I'm going with the deletion discussion, rather than requesting speedy deletion, is that I'm not sure whether a one-year installation is 'temporary' or not, as some definitions of 'permanent' do cover later removal.

If the second question is better discussed elsewhere, that's fine, but as you brought up the question of whether it is OK to upload certain photos to Flickr, I wanted to reply to that point. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

• (1) I opened a separate deletion request for the first image, as this is somewhere else and the reason for deletion is a different one. I don't think, we need to delete the second image, as it is perfectly fine.
• (2) I am not too familiar with fair use, because it is not allowed on Commons and the jurisdiction of my home country doesn't implement it. You might well be right, that those images could be used under fair use on your Flickr stream. For further discussion of fair use, I'd recommend requesting more input maybe on the Village pump.

Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:JCampbell.jpg

I've added back the source that was lost during the files move from English Wikipedia to Commons, however the link was from the University of Minnesota news service and that page is now dead. I've added the phone number of the University of Minnesota Spirit Squads Office, with whom I verified the image a while ago. Is that sufficient to clear the speedy deletion? -ThinkBui from en.wikipedia.org 97.116.36.131 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the main problem remains: We don't know, who authored the image or when it was taken. This is vital information, if we want to assert, that the image is in the PD. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll work with the Spirit Squads and the Minnesota archives to obtain that information. How much time do we have to provide it? -ThinkBui 192.149.74.10 15:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually at least 7 days. After that time, the image might be deleted. But it can be restored anytime, when you have obtained the information. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrieren statt argumentieren?

Hallo,

offenbar kannst Du nur administrieren und nicht argumentieren. Ich weise Dich ein letztes Mal darauf hin, dass Dir das Urheberrecht dieses Bildes nicht gehört und Du keine Recht hast, an diesem etwas zu verändern. Wenn Du bis in 24 Stunden deine Aktion nicht rückgängig machst werde ich rechtliche Schritte prüfen lassen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Die Diskussion ist bereits erschöpfend geführt worden. Mehrmals. Zuletzt auf AN/U, wo dir bereits erklärt wurde, weshalb das, was du hier machst, nicht möglich ist. Diese Diskussion hast du nur mit bereits mit More is needless to say here. verlassen. Da ich weder das Geld noch die Zeit habe, einen Rechtsstreit mit dir zu führen, habe ich die Sperre aufgehoben. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Es gibt bis heute keine einzige stichhaltige und rechtlich haltbare Erklärung, wieso der Urheber eines Bildes eine gültige Lizenz nicht gegen eine andere ersetzen darf. Dazu: die Lizenzänderung betrifft weder Commons noch WP-Projekte. Es betritt letztlich nur den geringen Kreis an Drittnutzern, die das Bild nach Änderungsdatum nutzen. Damit ist in jedem Fall Rechtssicherheit gewährleistet, denn wer das Bild vor dem Änderungsdatum einbindet und nutzt darf es nach der bis dahin gültigen Lizenz tun. Also wozu das ganze Bohei? Eine Erklärung bleibt stets aus bis auf stetige Wiederholungen eines nebulöse "darf man nicht tun". --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Im übrigen hast Du diese User_talk:Taxiarchos228#Lizenzr.C3.BCcknahme_bei_File:Toronto_-_ON_-_ROM3.jpg Diskussion "verlassen". Es gibt bei eindeutigen Fakten auch nicht wirklich etwas zu ergänzen oder totzureden. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Er hat keine stichhaltigen Argumente. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tut mir leid, die Diskussion auf deiner Diskussionsseite habe ich übersehen. Die von dir vergebenen Lizenzen sind nicht widerrufbar und auf ewig gültig, das steht in allen Lizenzen so drin. Sie jetzt von der Dateibeschreibungsseite zu entfernen, bringt also rechtlich nichts, weil sie weiterhin gültig sind. Das einzige, was es tut, ist, Verwirrung zu stiften, falls dein Werk bereits unter diesen Lizenzen verwendet wurde. Darüberhinaus wird die Dateibeschreibungsseite inkorrekt.

@Ralf: Die Umlizenzierung mit GFDL und das manuelle Zurückziehen von Lizenzen durch den Urheber sind zwei unterschiedliche Sachen. Nachdem du das dauernd hier anführst, erkläre ich es jetzt nochmal ausführlich, bitte aber dafür dann darum, dass du diesen hinkenden Vergleich nicht immer wieder heranziehst, um zu rechtfertigen, dass Lizenzen zurückgezogen werden.

Hier zulässige Lizenzen müssen uneingeschränkt gültig sein. Ansonsten sind sie nach der Definition von freedomdefined.org, die die WMF als Maßstab anlegt, nicht frei und können höchstens als Zusatzlizenz verwendet werden. Es ist somit offensichtlich, dass einmal erteilte Lizenzen nicht widerrufen werden können. Wie soll man etwas beenden, das auf ewig gültig ist?

Nun zur „Umlizenzierung“: Eine dieser freien Lizenzen war und ist die GFDL 1.2. Viele Urheber haben ihre Bilder unter "GFDL 1.2 oder einer späteren Version" veröffentlicht. Sie stimmen also zu, dass ihre Bilder unter der benannten Lizenz oder einer nachfolgenden von der FSF veröffentlichten Version der GFDL verwendet werden können. Die FSF hat (wohl u.a. auf Betreiben der WMF, aber das tut rechtlich nichts zur Sache) die Version 1.3 der GFDL herausgegeben, die (ACHTUNG: vereinfachte Darstellung folgt – ich habe jetzt nicht den Nerv, das nochmal alles detailliert durchzulesen) dem Betreiber eines Wikis erlaubt, Bilder, die unter der GFDL 1.3 verwendet werden können, auch unter der CC-by-sa zu veröffentlichen. Die WMF hat somit mit dem „Licensing update“ diese Erlaubnis der GFDL 1.3 in Anspruch genommen und Dateien, wo möglich, auch unter CC-by-sa veröffentlicht. Aus Kulanz (dies ist von der Lizenz nicht verlangt) wurde den Urhebern auf Commons die Möglichkeit zum Opt-out gegeben. Bei entsprechend markierten Bildern hat die WMF also darauf verzichtet, sie auch unter CC-by-sa zu veröffentlichen.

Der Zeitraum, in dem entschieden werden konnte, ob eine Datei unter GFDL 1.3 auch unter CC-by-sa veröffentlicht wird, ist übrigens lange vorbei. Jetzt nachträglich bei Dateien den opt-out-Parameter zu setzen ist also genauso inkorrekt wie die Lizenz komplett zu entfernen: Die Datei wurde durch die WMF bereits unter CC-by-sa veröffentlicht (wir erinnern uns: weil die vom Urheber vergebene Lizenz das erlaubt) und die CC-by-sa kann für diese Datei jetzt auch nicht mehr zurückgezogen werden. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Zu deiner Kenntnis: keine einzige Lizenz gilt ewig. Mit der unrechtmäßigen Umlizenzierung hat sich die Foundation das geleistet, was jedem User hier verboten werden will. Seit der Umlizenzierung nehme ich mir nur lediglich das gleiche Recht heraus, was dabei millionenfach gemacht wurde. Nur eben nicht für fremde Werke, was an sich schon eine Frechheit ist, sondern für meine eigenen Fotos. Wenn der Betreiber Lizenzen beenden und ändern kann, dann kann ich dies ebenfalls. Wenn das überhaupt jemand darf, dann der Urheber. Und genau dieses Unrecht soll rechtlich geklärt werden, das wurde schon vor 3 Jahren beim deutschen Verein beantragt. da sich von Seiten des Vereins nichts tut, müssen wir wohl selbst aktiv werden. Eine Umlizenzierung meines geistigen Eigentums durch Dritte ohne meine Einwilligung sehe ich als geistigen Diebstahl an. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jede hier erlaubte Lizenz gilt ewig. Wenn du auf Wortklaubereien bestehst: Sie gilt solange das Urheberrecht noch nicht erloschen ist. Die Umlizenzierung wurde durch die Lizenz legalisiert, ist also nicht „unrechtmäßig“. Selbst wenn sie unrechtmäßig wäre, würde dir das dennoch nicht das Recht geben, deine Lizenzen zurückzuziehen. Zu Wenn der Betreiber Lizenzen beenden und ändern kann, dann kann ich dies ebenfalls.: Ja, kannst du, aber nur, wenn die Lizenz das vorsieht. Und das tut die GFDL 1.3 nun mal nur für den Betreiber, nicht aber für den Urheber. Wenn du eine freie Lizenz findest, die das dem Urheber erlaubt, kannst du deine Dateien gerne unter dieser Lizenz hier hochladen. Deine Argumente sind leider ideologisch und nicht rechtlich motiviert und daher nicht wirklich fördernd für diese Diskussion. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Meine Argumentation ist, daß die "Plus- Lizenzen" in Kontinentaleuropa sittenwidrig und somit ungültig sind. Es wird offenbar wirklich mal Zeit, daß sich die Gerichte mit dem Thema beschäftigen. Bloß zu dumm, wenn dabei herauskommt, daß der ganze Umlizenzierungskram unrechtens war. Aber ihr gebt ja keine Ruhe. Ihr fangt ja immer wieder damit an. Irgendwann halten wir nicht mehr die Klappe. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Du glaubst gar nicht, was für einen Gefallen du mir tust, wenn du tatsächlich dagegen klagst. Dieses Vorhaben kann ich nur unterstützen, ist aber mit meinem Geld- und Zeitkontingent nicht zu vereinbaren. Solange aber nicht feststeht, dass sie sittenwidrig sind, wird das Projekt hier davon ausgehen, dass sie es nicht sind. Ansonsten würden wir unsere Lizenzpolitik ja selber ad absurdum führen. In Einzelfällen jetzt herzugehen und zu behaupten, man dürfe die Lizenz ändern, weil sie sowieso sittenwidrig ist, ist nicht hilfreich. Wenn du meinst, sie sei sittenwidrig, klage dagegen und erwirke ein entsprechenes Urteil. Dann ist die Frage endlich geklärt. Solange sie aber nicht geklärt ist, wirst auch du dich der vorherrschenden Meinung im Projekt unterordnen müssen. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ich hatte niemals vor, irgendjemanden aus dem Wiki~ Umfeld zu verklagen und ich werde das auch jetzt nicht machen. Sonst wäre das längst passiert. Ich suche eben nach einem anderen Weg. Ich muß mich niemandem unterordnen außer den Gesetzen. Wenn Regeln hier unrechtmäßig sind, dann ordne ich mich ihnen auch nicht unter. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Mit dieser Einstellung sind schon einige andere Mitarbeiter hier angeeckt. Ich kann dir nur nahe legen, dich dem Konsens unterzuordnen oder den Konsens in deine Richtung zu ziehen. Letzteres wird jedoch schwierig, weil, wie bereits geschrieben, das gegen die gesamte Lizenzpolitik eines signifikanten Teils aller Dateien hier geht. Mit der Einstellung, Ausnahmeregeln für einzelne Bilder zu fordern, wirst du jedenfalls nichts erreichen. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Zur Kenntnis: [6]. --Túrelio (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We can repel legal threats using w:en:WP:THREAT policy. Constantinople (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Warum gibt es das eigentlich nicht auf deutsch? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Vermutlich weil es noch niemand übersetzt hat. Das hier ist ein Wiki. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear ChrisiPK. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of your inactivity in the past six months.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at the current inactivity run page within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, OdderBot (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Gpl-v3-logo.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gpl-v3-logo.svg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:OP}} on file description page. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own. Unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Patrick87 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response on your talk page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes ok, tomorrow morning I'll send the request in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added the whole discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion log

Thanks for the good job in deletions, please pay attention to speedy-commands more intensively (if you can) since it's not rare that they are sometimes waiting 2 days. Best regardz. Orrlingtalk 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. Is there some file or action you are referring to in particular? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. My intent was as general as my words, I wouldn't hide anything - it just can happen that no deleter is around for quite long. So monitoring the requests more frequently may be wonderful (as long as I can't perform my deletions self). Orrlingtalk 14:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. Well, I'm most of the time quite swamped with work and stuff, but I'll do my very best. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Kleine Bitte (OTRS)

Kannst du bitte File:Viktor Denisov.jpg überprüfen und ggf. die Lizenz aus dem Ticket auf die Datei übertragen? --McZusatz (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, ich habe die Eintragung auf der Seite Lizenz nachgeholt. Allerdings sieht das Ticket etwas schwammig aus, daher habe ich mal auf der OTRS-Mailingliste um Nachforschungen gebeten. Wundere dich bitte nicht, falls das Bild doch noch verschwindet. Danke für den Hinweis und viele Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear ChrisiPK. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2013 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you – Kwj2772 (msg) 07:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Avocato, thanks a lot for letting me know. Best regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Tesla photograph.jpg

File:Tesla photograph.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 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!

DMacks (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/ChrisiPK⧽: 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. 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)

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 ChrisiPK,

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) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Schreibschutz

Hallo ChrisiPK, kannst du bitte bei meinem Bild diese, Category:Finalist at POTY by User:Ritchyblack hinzufügen. Die Seite ist schreibgeschützt ich kann das selbst nicht erledigen. Danke, viele Grüße --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchyblack: Ja, kein Problem, habe ich erledigt. Viele Grüße, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubber duck images

Pardon, but I'm curious. I noticed that all the images with rubber ducks in them have been nominated for deletion, and I was wondering what law is broken to require their deletion? I saw that it is a copyright issue, but I don't understand what copyright is being broken. Is the issue that it is a commercial duck, so the company that owns the molds to make these ducks has a right to my image? If I made the duck and took a picture of that, would that have a copyright issue? Thanks, Loggie (talk)

Hi @Loggie:, yes, you are right: A rubber duck is basically a work that is protected by copyright. So to license an image of a rubber duck under a free license you would need the consent of the copyright holder which is usually the company creating the rubber duck. If you created your own duck from clay or something then you would be able to take photographs of it and license them under a free license. Note that all other people who take photographs of your duck will need your permission to license those photographs under a free license, just like we now need from the creators of the rubber ducks depicted in the images. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me then that by this definition, that a very significant percentage of all of the pictures used on sites such as Wikipedia are in violation? Any picture primarily of one object not made by the person taking the picture? That covers almost any picture of a household object and most objects, I would think. It would make more sense to me if the focus of the picture was that particular brand of object-if by switching this particular company's rubber duck out for a different company's rubber duck, the overall appearance of the picture would be fundamentally altered, as to any picture with that object in it. Loggie (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all objects carry this restriction. Utilitarian objects are usually not subject to copyright (Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects) so taking a picture of your table or key is usually fine. Rubber ducks, however, are toys and those are protected by copyright (Commons:Derivative_works#I_know_that_I_can.27t_upload_photos_of_copyrighted_art_.28like_paintings_and_statues.29.2C_but_what_about_toys.3F_Toys_are_not_art.21). It may be okay to include them in images where they are not an important part of the image (Commons:De Minimis) but for the current deletion request I only chose images where this is not the case. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that with the yarn bombing images, the focus is on the knitted sweaters, not the ducks. I know that with my image the goal was to have a duck that was wearing my nametag to use for my profile picture on Wikipedia-the actual type of duck was not really the point. Ignoring that though, does this mean that you plan to delete all pictures of toys not made by the person taking the picture? That is still a very large number of images, including things like File:Spinning top.jpg, File:Magnetic letters scattered on a refrigerator door.jpg, File:Model of an Alternating Tread Stair.jpg yet probably not File:Acorn (6945629417).jpg. Are all of these really not allowed?

When I read the pages about toys/utilitarian objects, specifically Commons:Applied_art#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F, it seems to me that not all toys apply. It doesn't seem to be as much about whether the entire object is purely utilitarian, but more about whether the design is separate from the utilitarian aspects of that object. Sculpture is made to sit and look pretty, with no utilitarian purpose, but a spinning top, while not particularly useful/utilitarian does have the purpose of spinning. Thus I would think that it wouldn't be copyrightable unless there was a specific feature of the top besides the fact it is a top, such as copyrightable carving. Action figures are of some copyrightable figure/person/design, just turned into 3D, so it makes sense to me that they are copyrightable. Rubber ducks first started being made in the 19th century (at least according to Wikipedia), and their purpose seems to me to be a floating duck of rubber. So if they don't have a particular design, like say the geek or sports ones do, I still don't see why images of them are copyrightable. As the applied art page says: "The test of separability and independence from "the utilitarian aspects of the article" does not depend upon the nature of the design—that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable." Loggie (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

With the yarn bombing images the ducks are still an important part of the image. Think of it this way: If you put graffiti on a copyrighted sculpture and then take a picture you wouldn't say that the graffiti is the most important part of the image and the sculpture is COM:De Minimis.

Do I plan to delete every image of a toy that has not been created by the uploader? Well, I can't make sure that I will find all of them but I think that is what is required if the toy is copyrighted and we do not have a statement from the toy's creator. Regarding the images you linked:

• File:Spinning top.jpg is an image of a very simple toy. I am not sure whether this meets the threshold of originality so it might be fine.
• File:Magnetic letters scattered on a refrigerator door.jpg is an image of magnetic letters. Once again, I am not sure whether simple plastic letters meet the threshold of originality so this might also be fine.
• File:Model of an Alternating Tread Stair.jpg has actually two different issues to consider: The copyright on the Lego bricks and the copyright on the sculpture that those Lego bricks depict. I might argue that the bricks themselves are too simple to be copyrighted (they are, however, patented). The sculpture was probably created by the preson who created the photograph so this should not be a problem.
• File:Acorn (6945629417).jpg is a close-up shot of a teddy bear. I don't think this was created by the person who took the photograph so I think it should be deleted.

Well, a sculpture has the purpose of sitting there and looking pretty and a spinning top has the purpose of spinning and looking pretty. The one you linked, however, is very basic so I think it might still qualify as a utilitarian object. The main purpose of a rubber duck is not floating but rather looking pretty while floating. A utilitarian object whose main purpose is floating would e.g. be a boat or a floating platform, both of them usually not copyrightable. Just like an RC car (copyrighted) is there for the enjoyment of watching it drive while a car (not copyrightable) is there to be driven (to move people and goods).

I do enjoy this discussion but if you are interested in hearing some more opinions we should consider taking it to COM:VPC or some similar page. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Upon reflection I'd really like to change the wording/driving point of my previous comment. What it comes down to is this: I understand that the exact shape of the rubber duck is copyrightable-not the idea, just the exact implementation. I'm unfamiliar however with derivative law, so what I don't understand is why a picture where the exact design used is interchangeable with a different exact design is an issue. So for the sculpture/graffiti example-sure the sculpture is a big part of the image, but if which sculpture used is irrelevant-if the same overall effect could be produced on two different people's sculptures, or if whose sculpture it is is impossible to tell after the graffiti-is that a copyright issue? The sculpture isn't minimal, but say that the copyrightable portion of it (it's exact shape) isn't important. What then? Graffiti art on a wall surely belongs only to the graffiti artist, not the person who made the wall. So at what point does the shape of the surface become intricate enough to matter?

The above bit is all about the physical object, or a picture just of that single object with no added anything. The next question is what level of additional interest does the person taking a picture have to add before it is their own? Positioning on an empty background isn't enough, but do we have to completely obscure the original object before a picture of it is permissible?

Furthermore, what is the burden of proof on stating that one made the object? For the teddy bear linked above-the person calls themselves a teddy bear maker, and has some pictures of other bears in the construction process. In order to have the particular image allowed, what might we need from her? Is a statement good enough? Loggie (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't take a picture of an idea. An idea will always need to be transferred from idea to statue/image/words or something tangible. This is where the copyright comes into play. The actual statue or rubber duck is copyrighted while the abstract idea of a statue or a rubber duck is not. What you are probably referring to when you talk about exchanging the copyrighted parts and still get the same overall effect is called De Minimis. Basically it says that the inclusion of copyrighted content is permissible when that content is not the main subject of the image. E.g. if you put some graffiti on a statue and then take a picture of that graffiti that might be fine. I'm saying "might" because not all pictures of that statue will now be allowed just because you put something on it. If the image clearly shows the graffiti and only the parts of the statue necessary to show the graffiti then than is usually okay. Unless your graffiti covers a huge portion or even the entire statue, then it would probably be a derivative work. General rule of thumb: If the image can be used to illustrate the original work then it does not qualify for DM.

As above, the new work can only contain portions of the original work that can be considered De Minimis. Otherwise it is a derivative work and will need consent by the copyright holder. So: Yes, we need to pretty much obscure the original work as much as possible to claim that we did not create a derivative.

TBH I did not look at the Flickr profile of the person who created the above image. If they claim that they make teddy bears and that they made this one then that's sufficient for our standards. After all, we also believe when people tell us that they took the images they uploaded themselves. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hİ!

Hi! ChrisiPK, could you please delete that picture? Unsuitable picture at Turkish Wikipedia. For example Copyright etc. Good work. Uğurkent (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. That picture is a logo which would need OTRS permission to be kept here. I have deleted it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Propose to update CC license tags to comply with the new wordings in CC deeds

I added option 5 considering your suggestion. Feel free to edit it if you prefer a more small one. Meanwhile we can wait for the WMF input too, if any. Thanks, Jee 15:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted images

Hi ChrisiPK, I have some images that have been deleted and have the OTRS message already sent granting the free license to publish them with no problem. Could you please help me since you are administrator and OTRS volunteer? Thanks --FMateos (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi FMateos, I have found ticket:2014082110008813 which refers to some of your deleted images. Unfortunately, it is in Spanish which I do not speak so it is impossible for me to verify the permission. My recommendation would be to either contact a Spanish-speaking OTRS volunteer and asking him to look at this ticket or simply wait for the ticket to be processed. The backlog on the Spanish OTRS queue is currently around 60 days and your ticket was received less than two weeks ago. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

About political parties in Uruguay

Hi ChrisiPK. Today I was navigating the Category:Political parties in Uruguay and I was surprised to see duplicated categories for Category:Partido Colorado, Uruguay, Category:Partido Nacional, Uruguay and Category:Frente Amplio. If you look inside them, you will see a very similar category, meant to be redirected (and every one of them, full with files/categories). Please, be so kind and move these files/categories in bulk to the corresponding, already existing categories. Best regards - und vielen Dank, --Fadesga (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fadesga, seems someone already beat me to it since all files have been moved to the correct categories already. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Copyright-problem.svg

File:Copyright-problem.svg 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 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!

Be..anyone (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Checked copyright icon.svg

File:Checked copyright icon.svg 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 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!

Be..anyone (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Cscr-featured.svg

File:Cscr-featured.svg 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 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!

Be..anyone (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Gajim icon.png

Notice of impending speedy deletion

File:Gajim icon.png is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: This file is a duplicate of the following files: File:Gajim.png. If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.

 

 ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 09:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Rollback

Commons:Rollback 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 project page, 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. 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!

Wpmint (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It was "speedy-kept." Davidwr (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hilfe für hinzufügen einer Unterkategorie

Hallo, habe 2 Commons hochgeladen.

  Geschwister-Scholl-Weg und Gedenkstein in Ruhland.pdf
  Geschwister-Scholl-Gedenkstein in Ruhland.jpg

3 von 5 der unter dem Artikel "Geschwister Scholl" genannten Kategorien waren rot dargestellt - werden die dann nicht akzeptiert ? Habe dann einfach weitergemacht.

Zweites Problem: die 2 Commons hätte ich gern in eine Unterkategorie

"Gedenkstein Geschwister Scholl in Ruhland und Weg" 
unter Buchstabe G der "Category:Hans and Sophie Scholl"

- verzeih, ich habe da in der Hilfe nichts passendes gefunden - ist das eine neue Seite, quasi leere Seite mit 2 Links ? Da fehlt mir Technik bzw. Wissen, auch wie diese dann eingebunden wird. Hatte gehofft, das löst sich über die Kategorien selbst.

Möglicherweise ist es einfacher, eine vorhandene Unterkategorie zu kopieren als neu zu erstellen (?) - aber dazu habe ich auch nichts gefunden.

Danke für Hinweise Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hallo @Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR:, wenn eine Kategorie in rot erscheint, heisst das, dass sie nicht angelegt ist. Dies kannst du dann nachholen, indem du auf die rote Kategorie klickst und dann dort die Oberkategorie einfügst. Für eine detailliertere Einführung in das Kategoriensystem, siehe bitte COM:CAT. Da deine Dateien leider inzwischen gelöscht wurden, kann ich dir das nicht exemplarisch an diesen demonstrieren. Viele Grüsse, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hallo ChrisiPK, Danke für die Antwort. Ein Problem war wohl, dass ich in Commons auf in Wikipedia existierende Kategorien zugreifen wollte (oder auf Kategorien zu denen keine Seite existiert) - die erschienen rot. Und dass ich in der Hilfe nur deutsch gesucht habe. Die von mir gewünschte Unterkategorie Category:Geschwister-Scholl-Gedenkstein in Ruhland habe ich jetzt. Mehr Bilder muss ein anderer Fotograf hochladen (oder mir das Recht erteilen - ist jetzt leider im Urlaub). Die Struktur der Wikipedia-Seite "Geschwister Scholl" Geschwister Scholl verlangt faktisch, für 4 benannte Objekte Bilder (in 2 bis 4 Unterkategorien) zuzufügen: Geschwister-Scholl-Schule, Gedenkstein an der Geschwister-Scholl-Schule, Geschwister-Scholl-Weg, Gedenkstein am Geschwister-Scholl-Weg. Natürlich kann man zu jedem Einzelbild einen erklärenden Text zufügen. Die Zusammenhänge erschließen sich viel besser, wenn ein Text in der Unterkategorie steht. Das ist dann aber eine Commons-Unterkategorie - wird die dann wieder gelöscht, weil solcher Text dort nicht hingehört? Oder ich müsste dort hinein eine Wikipedia-Seite verlinken. Dazu habe ich noch nichts gefunden - hast Du einen Tip? Es gab einen Versuch, das Problem mit einer pdf-Datei zu lösen - das war wohl nicht genehmigungsfähig, hatte aber keine Antwort auf die Frage, ob stattdessen eine ähnliche jpg-Datei genehmigungsfähig wäre. Viele Grüsse Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hallo @ChrisiPK:,

 inzwischen gab es eine Diskussion bei EllinBeltz - weiss nicht ob Du jetzt übernimmst. Ich hatte dort auch die Fragen gestellt, die oben (23:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)) noch offen sind. Entnehmen konnte ich der Diskussion, dass die jpg (faktisch eine 2-Bilder-collection) nicht zulässig ist.  

Zur Lösung der Erklärung/Darstellung von Relationen zwischen den Gedenksteinen und Weg bzw. Schule in Ruhland weiss ich immer noch nichts. Die Kategorie sollte einen englischen Namen haben - andererseits gibt es daneben u.a. eine Kategorie "Gedenkstein Geschwister Scholl in Sohland an der Spree-Wehrsdorf". Hier weiss ich auch nicht was besser in der Hierarchie ist, Namen behalten oder umbenennen ? Solange ich das nicht weiss, möchte ich keine zweite Categorie-Seite daneben oder darunter erzeugen. Auch weitere eigene Bilder dazu (sowie die Bilder eines anderen Fotografen) möchte ich erst dann hochladen (bzw. den Eigner auffordern). Hierarchisch gehören die 4 Objekte unter die Commons-Seite Category:Hans and Sophie Scholl. Nach meinem Verständnis bin ich dann in Commons, und mein Problem ist, die Erklärung zu Beziehungen zwischen den Objekten zu bringen, ohne an Commons-Regeln zu scheitern. Welche Art von Verlinkung für erklärenden Text hierbei hilfreich (und zulässig) ist, ist dann auch eine Frage. Viele Grüsse Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR:, sorry, dass es jetzt doch etwas länger gedauert hat. Grundsätzlich sind PDF-Dateien, die Text enthalten, auf Commons ausserhalb des Projektrahmens. Wir kümmern uns hier nur um Medien, d.h. hauptsächlich Bilder, Videos und Ton. Erklärende Beschreibungen zu einzelnen Bildern gehört auf die Beschreibungsseite des jeweiligen Bildes. Kategorien sollten maximal eine Kurzbeschreibung des Kategoriegegenstands enthalten. Eine ausführliche Auseinandersetzung mit dem Bildinhalt kann dann in einem Wikipedia-Artikel stattfinden.

Kategorien auf Commons sollten generell englische Namen haben. Es stimmt, dass diese Konvention nicht immer eingehalten wurde, aber neue Kategorien sollten dann möglichst mit dem englischen Namen angelegt werden. Ich hoffe, dir damit vorerst weitergeholfen zu haben. Falls noch Fragen offen sind, kannst du gerne nochmal nachhaken. Viele Grüsse, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hallo ChrisiPK, Danke für die Antwort. Ich hatte gelesen dass main categorys in englisch sein müssen (d.h. Unterkategorien nicht (bzw. nicht unbedingt)). Und dass es unter Umständen pdf's geben darf. Aber das will ich jetzt nicht diskutieren - wenn Ausnahmen nicht zutreffen oder die Gepflogenheiten strenger sind, ist es so. "Geschwister Scholl" ist ein eher deutsches Thema, die Kategorien in Wikipedia sind deutsch benannt und um zu sichern, dass das Template Commonscat zur Einbindung der Bilder richtig arbeitet, habe ich den Kategorienamen gleich.

Die in Wikipedia erwarteten Probleme habe ich - wenn ich versuche, die Beziehungen zwischen Commons-Kategorien in Wikipedia zu erklären, kündigen sich Relevanzdiskussionen an. Weiss noch nicht, wie und ob ich da rauskomme. Für mich als Neuling ist das wahrscheinlich noch schwerer, aber ich habe auch Hilfe gefunden. Ob es am Ende klappt, werde ich sehen. Grüße von --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hi ChrisiPK, leider warst Du plötzlich aus dem Chat verschwunden. Ich habe OfficeBoy jetzt wie besprochen angeschrieben. Da ich aber ab morgen wieder beruflich eingespannt und damit weniger aktiv bin, würde ich Dich gerne bitten, ebenfalls ein Auge auf diesen Benutzer und seine Reaktionen zu haben. Viele Grüße -- Ra'ike T C 21:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Frage zu Wappen

Hallo ChrisiPK, ich habe mal unter Stichwort Wappen das Archiv des Forums durchgeblättert und nach einiger Zeit aufgegeben.
Es gibt in unserer Kirche und desgleichen im Wappensaal unseres Heimatmuseums Wappennachbildungen - nach Dokumenten gemalte Bilder, z.T. auf Holzschilden. Damit habe ich gleich mehrere Probleme. Wie müsste ich Fotografien dieser Wappen deklarieren und welche Rechte berücksichtigen? Wenn ich blauäugig herangehe, ist keine Schöpfungshöhe da (es sind 1:1-Abbildungen von mehr als 100 Jahren alten Adelswappen), und (meine) Fotos wären own work.
Dann gäbe es auch kein Problem mit Fotos des Raums, auf denen die Wappen einzeln oder in Reihe zu sehen sind.
Hoffe, Du kannst mir einen Hinweis geben. Danke und viele Grüße --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo @Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR:, bei Abbildungen von Wappen sind mehrere Sachen zu berücksichtigen: a) das Urheberrecht an der Beschreibung des Wappens, b) das Urheberrecht des Zeichners des Wappens, der die Beschreibung interpretiert und c) das Urheberrecht das Fotografen, der das gezeichnete/geschnitzte/etc. Wappen ablichtet.

ad a): Da Wappenbeschreibungen meist schon mehrere Jahrhunderte alt sind, kann das Urheberrecht an der Beschreibung meistens vernachlässigt werden.

ad b): Hier ist es schon nicht mehr so einfach. Das Zeichnen des Wappens stellt ja eine Interpretation der Beschreibung dar und damit wohl auch ein eigenes Werk. Es ist allerdings in Commons strittig, ob das so ist. Ich habe mich zwar schon seit einiger Zeit nicht mehr in dem Bereich der Wappen herumgetrieben, aber kann mich dunkel erinnern, dass es Diskussionen darüber gab, ob man denn Wappen aus dem Internet einfach so hochladen darf oder ob man sie anhand der Beschreibung nachzeichnen müsste. (s. hierzu auch de:Wikipedia:Wappen#Andere_Wappen)

ad c): Wenn das Foto ohnehin von dir erstellt wird, haben wir hier kein Problem, da du eine geeignete freie Lizenz wählen kannst. Dies aber, wie unter b) geschildert, nur dann, wenn das Wappen und seine konkrete Darstellung denn tatsächlich gemeinfrei sind bzw. du die Erlaubnis des Urhebers (also des Wappenzeichners) hast.

Zu Fotos des Raumes: Ich kenne den Raum jetzt nicht, aber wenn der gesamte Raum gezeigt werden soll, sind die Wappen wohl de:Beiwerk (bzw. COM:DM) und es gibt sowieso kein Problem. Allerdings beschränkt das dann die Möglichkeit, Ausschnitte des Fotos zu machen, die explizit die Wappen zeigen.

Viele Grüsse, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo ChrisiPK, Danke für die schnelle Antwort. Ich habe eben erfahren, dass die Wappen in der Kirche Originale sind, älter als 100 Jahre (bis auf eins, in dem Fall ist das Wappen von der Adelsfamile als Bild zugegangen). Diese wurden fotografiert und dann Duplikate angefertigt - bin nicht sicher, wie, aber damit ohne Interpretation. Damit scheint der Fall eindeutig, und wenn das so ist, wäre die Frage erledigt. Viele Grüße --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ChrisiPK!

Happy New Year!

ChrisiPK, 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?) 18:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear ChrisiPK, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2017 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference project

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Decision on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ar234P.JPG

Hallo ChrisiPK, spricht noch was gegen eine Entscheidung? Wär eigentlich Zeit. Gruß, --JuergenKlueser (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi JuergenKlueser, sorry, ich habe schon zu lange nicht mehr dort reingeschaut. Das Problem ist, dass du zwar der Modellbauer bist, aber ja wohl nicht das Modell selbst entworfen hast, oder? Es sieht mir eher so aus, als wäre das ein fertiges Modell, das als Bausatz vertrieben wird, den du zusammengebaut hast. Das reicht leider nicht aus, um Urheber zu werden. Wir bräuchten also für das Foto die Freigabe des Urhebers des Bausatzes, also vermutlich der Firma, die den Bausatz vertreibt. Ich werde das entsprechend auch auf dem DR vermerken, damit die Diskussion für andere Leute nachvollziehbar bleibt. Viele Grüsse, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Das ist eine durchaus interessante Frage. Kann mir aber ehrlich nicht vorstellen, dass aus der Vielzahl kleiner Plastikteile eine Urheberschaft abzuleiten ist. Umgekehrt muss man dann auch fragen, ob der Modellbausatzhersteller die Urheberschaft hat, oder der ursprüngliche Flugzeugdesigner. Ich bin da natürlich kein Experte. Wie kommen wir bei der Grundsatzfrage weiter? Das betrifft ja viele. Und zwar nicht nur hier. Allgemein wird das ja so gehandhabt, dass Modellbauer ihre Bilder in allen möglichen Plattformen veröffentlichen. Da wurde m.W. noch keiner belangt. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, kleiner Nachtrag: Es ist mir nicht wichtig, ob das Bild meines Modells drin bleibt. Aber die grundsätzliche Frage ist interessant, ob alle Modellbauer in den üblichen Foren etc. gegen Copyright verstoßen. Das wäre ein "Knüller". --JuergenKlueser (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo JuergenKlueser, für das Urheberrecht zählt leider nicht, wie klein die Teile sind, in die ein Werk zerlegt ist. Was zählt, ist die Schöpfung des Modells an sich, auch wenn es dann in Einzelteilen verkauft wird. Bei Flugzeugen ist die Sachlage etwas anders, weil Flugzeuge Gebrauchsobjekte sind (vgl. COM:UA), Modelle aber nicht. Bei Flugzeugen ist der Hauptzweck die Beförderung von Personen/Gütern, wohingegen bei Modellen der Hauptzweck ja in der Darstellung besteht.

Dass niemand oder verschwindend wenige Leute dafür belangt werden, wenn sie zusammengebaute Modell ins Internet stellen, ist nicht wirklich überraschend. Diese Art der Urheberrechtsverletzung wird vermutlich von den Rechteinhabern einfach geduldet, da die Modellbauer keine kommerziellen Ziele mit den Fotos verfolgen und es ausserdem gute Werbung für die Modellhersteller ist. Die Situation dürfte ähnlich sein wie beim Thema w:Let's_Play#Copyright. Aber um deine Grundsatzfrage zu beantworten: Ja, viele Leute in Modellbauforen verstossen wohl gegen das Urheberrecht. Das ist im Internet aber häufig der Fall, da wenige Leute sich überhaupt Gedanken darüber machen, wenn sie urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke anderer Urheber fotografieren. Viele Grüsse, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Danke für Deine Erläuterungen!! Der Unterschied zu den Leuten, die gedankenlos gegen Urheberrecht verstossen, ist dass diese Modellbauer das in gutem Glauben tun, denn die Leistung ein naturnahes Modell zu bauen geht in aller Regel weit über das "Kleben von Teilen des Kitherstellers" hinaus. In letzter Konsequenz dürften keine gebauten Modelle gezeigt werden. Ohne über so tiefe Rechtskenntnisse wie Du zu haben, kann ich mir trotzdem nicht vorstellen, dass das Recht so ganz anders ist, als es alle leben. Kennst Du Urteile zu genau diesem Sachverhalt? --JuergenKlueser (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo JuergenKlueser, nein, Urteile sind mir dazu keine bekannt, lediglich die entsprechenden Policies auf Commons. Guter Glaube, kein Urheberrecht zu verletzen, reicht leider nicht aus. Am Ende ist wohl die Erstellung des Kits durch den Hersteller eine schöpferische Tätigkeit. Es ist nicht auszuschliessen, dass die weitere Verarbeitung des Kits durch den Modellbauer dann auch noch eine schöpferische Tätigkeit hat, aber dann ist da neue Werk immer noch ein abgeleitetes Werk des ursprünglichen Kits (COM:DW) und benötigt damit die Genehmigung des Kit-Herstellers zur Erstellung von Fotos davon. Je nachdem, wie viel man vom ursprünglichen Kit abweicht, kann es durchaus aus möglich sein, dass die verbleibenden Teile des Kits nur noch Beiwerk (COM:DM) zum neuen Werk sind; in diesem Fall bräuchte man dann keine Genehmigung des Kit-Herstellers mehr. Dass viele Leute es "anders leben" ist leider auch nicht ausschlaggebend für Entscheidungen auf Commons. Wir hosten hier Fotos für Nachnutzer, d.h. wir haben einen höheren Standard an eingestellte Fotos als andere Webhoster, deren Primärziel idR ist, selber nicht rechtlich belangt werden zu können. Viele Grüsse, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Letztlich werde ich Deine Entscheidung als Admin akzeptieren. Ich halte es dennoch für einen großen Fehler. Wie gesagt, es geht mir nicht um meine Bilder. Ich glaube, das wird Wikipedia schädigen. Ist aber nur meine unmaßgebliche Meinung. Dir danke, dass Du Dir die Mühe der ernsthaften Diskussion gemacht hast. Schönen Abend --JuergenKlueser (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hallo JuergenKlueser, da ich den Löschantrag gestellt habe, werde ich nicht über ihn entscheiden. Der Antragsteller schliesst den Antrag üblicherweise nur dann selber, wenn er a) Admin ist und es b) eine eindeutige Entscheidung ist, d.h. keine Gegenargumente gebracht wurden. Insofern kann ich dir da leider nicht weiterhelfen und wir werden warten müssen bis ein anderer Admin den Antrag bearbeitet. Auch dir einen schönen Abend und viele Grüsse, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear {{subst:PAGENAME}}. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you --B dash (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

De-adminship warning (Feb 2019)

Dear ChrisiPK. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2019 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

De-adminship warning (Feb 2020)

Dear ChrisiPK. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hallo ChrisiPK, erst einmal möchte ich Dir für Deine langjährige Arbeit auf Commons herzlich danken. Ich hoffe sehr, dass es Dir gut geht und dass Du irgendwann mal wieder die Zeit findest, Dich wieder hier zu engagieren. Nachdem Deine Admin-Rechte wegen fehlender Aktivität entfernt worden sind, habe ich Dir das patroller-Recht gegeben. Wenn Du wieder aktiv sein solltest und Du dann noch etwas benötigst, kannst Du es mich gerne wissen lassen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hallo AFBorchert, vielen Dank für deine freundlichen Worte. Ich habe in der Tat in letzter Zeit immer weniger Zeit hier auf Commons verbracht und auch bei den letzten De-Adminship-Runden immer nur kurzfristig meine Aktivität erhöhen können. Dieses Mal hat mich die De-Admin-Warnung noch dazu in einer etwas stressigen Lebensphase erwischt, sodass ich eine rechtzeitige Reaktion verpasst habe. Inhaltlich ist das aber vermutlich, in Anbetracht meiner letzten Aktivität, ohnehin sinnvoll gewesen. Mal schauen, wie sich die Zukunft so entwickelt; vielleicht schaue ich ja bald wieder häufiger hier vorbei. Bis dahin, vielen Dank und viele Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)