User talk:Krd

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning
If your question is why a specific file has been deleted or how it can be restored, please advise on initial contact that you have read COM:L and COM:VRT and why this doesn't answer your questions.

Questions from users who appear to have not read the mentioned two pages will be ignored.

 Warning
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day. For the archive overview, see archive.

Karten wirklich ohne Lizenzinformation?

[edit]

Hallo, gestern wurde eine Vielzahl von Karten (größtenteils Gemarkungsgrenzen und Einzugsgebiete unterfränkischer Gemeinden) entfernt, was einen großen Informationsverlust darstellt. Als Grund angegeben ist "No license since 25 March 2024", was für mich jedoch nicht nachvollziehbar ist, da in der Google-Suche nach den Karten noch Lizenzinformationen zu finden sind. Ich könnte mir lediglich vorstellen, dass die Lizenzinformationen durch Vandalismus entfernt wurden. Ich bitte um Prüfung und ggf. Wiederherstellung.

Es handelt sich – sofern ich alle gefunden habe – um folgende Dateien (sorry für die lange Liste):

Vaionaut (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Beispiele, die ich jetzt nochmal geprüft habe, sollen alle "Eigenes Werk" und "CC-by-sa-4.0" sein. Das trifft sicher nicht zu. Krd 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Danke Krd, verzeih bitte dennoch die Nachfrage: Laut Google-Suche waren Hinweise auf die Openstreetmap hinterlegt ("This map of Fellen was created from OpenStreetMap project data, collected by the community. This map may be incomplete, and may contain errors. [...]"), z.B. bei File:Fellen 500.png oder File:Eußenheim mit Gemarkungen.png. Wo ist der Unterschied z.B. zu File:Lammersdorf Openstreetmap 110209.png? Kann die Lizenzinformation nicht korrigiert werden, wenn sie nachvollziehbar ist? Vaionaut (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Es gibt zahlreiche Beispiele, in denen nichts von OSM steht. Hast Du eine Liste der Dateien, die von OSM stammen? --Krd 16:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EugeneZelenko: You tagged these as dw_no_source but some appear to be valid OpenSteetMap files. Please advise. --Krd 16:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, license tag on File:Esselbach 500.png was {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} what is obviously wrong: work of other people was used, so {{Self}} claim is invalid, as well as OpenStreetMap license is different ({{CC-BY-SA 2.0}}). Sure, files could be restored, but somebody should fix licenses there. EugeneZelenko (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who could sort all this out. Krd 04:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaionaut: Here is one example I checked: File:Aalbachtal Einzugsgebiet.jpg is derived from opentopomap.org. The file description claimed this to be the own work by the uploader (by using {{Self}}) and granted a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} which doesn't match {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} used by OpenTopoMap. Neither OpenTopoMap (for the map style) nor OpenStreetMap were credited. Mass-uploading such maps without proper credit and licenses is a disaster waiting to happen. How to fix this? We could temporarily restore the whole lot but then we need a volunteer who goes through all these files within a reasonable time frame, fixes the credits and adds links to the original maps. Is anyone willing to do this? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ma pona pi toki pona - icon (2023).png

[edit]

this file was deleted even though the author contacted VRT on my behalf (original uploader). on the deletion log is says that there was no ticket permission despite the creator have done that. Juwan (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the ticket number the permission sender got. Krd 04:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dimash's Stranger concert in Almaty 2022.jpg

[edit]

Dear @Krd! On 30 May You putted a template to this photo. I don't understand why, because there was written "A feltöltő saját munkája" (in English: The uploader's own work). On same day I supplemented the Source line with "Own work", and I asked You at my account. It seems You didn't read it, that's why I repeat here my question:

"Dear @Krd! This photo made I myself at the concert in Almaty. There is written: "A feltöltő saját munkája" (in English: The uploader's own work). What's the problem with it? Whose and what consent should I get? What kind of website should I link to? Thank You,"

And may I ask, how long will it take to process of permisson of István Lajkó's photo - over 30 days?

I wait your answers. Thank You

Tösö8 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the photo depicts the stage scene and requires permission from the copyright holder of that. Krd 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say it not seriously, are you? Tösö8 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're only 3 led-walls and a snapshot from the concert. Tösö8 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally

[edit]

Hopefully, if the recently introduced Commons:Wikimedia VRTS release generator is made prominently visible to uploaders, it will help reduce some of the repetition. Atsme Talk 📧 12:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Alba dei nobili a Lierna Lago di Como.jpg No license since 27 June 2024

[edit]

You deleted this file. This file is clearly tagged as {{PD-Art|PD-old-70}} so why did you delete it? It is sourced and as you can see on Category:Vittore Grubicy de Dragon, it's very public domain. Multichill (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I have restored the file. Krd 04:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Krd, how are you? Please reconsider, that file is an upload of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson, an inveterate hoaxer. Nothing that person says or claims can be trusted. The image has no source or attribution, it may or may not be by Grubicy de Dragon, and so may or may not be in the public domain. On past experience, the title and date are very likely to be invented. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Please advise. --Krd 10:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Krd and User:Justlettersandnumbers: In this case we seem to have a source at https://www.museofattori.livorno.it/le-opere/catalogo/la-vela/ which actually includes the images. Looks like it's a triptych: La vela (Q121545709), Alba di lavoro (Q121546724) & Alba di signori (Q121546448). Multichill (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice research, Multichill, thank you! So the painting actually is by Grubicy de Dragon and should presumably be kept, with a corrected title and file description. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VRT response

[edit]

Hi, I have seen that you have been removing the {{Permission pending}} template off the images in Category:Barba_(WikiProject_LGBT). However, the author sent a VRT ticket reaffirming the release of all the images under the mentioned license. In order to avoid problems in the future, it would be nice to have all the images marked with a VRT template as in File:Barba-wikiproyecto-lgbt.svg. If you do not think that is necessary, could you please reply to this comment on my talk page to serve as proof in case they are nominated for deletion in the future? Thanks in advance. Nacaru (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all derivatives of a single design, so it should be sufficient when the original has permission, and is mentioned as the source of the rest. We can also tag them all, if the permission sender in the ticket provides a list of the files his permission applies to. Krd 06:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd, I don't think he provided a list but he provided the category in which they're all in. I still have to upload more designs, so we thought this approach would be easier. By the way: the problems already arrived 🥲. Nacaru (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your proposal how we should handle it? Krd 08:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood the double standard of the deletion criteria

[edit]

Hi Krd,

You once have targeted my uploaded files many deletions like here.

As I told you in your archived talk page, I understand that you took this action just because you found my uploaded contents to be unoriginal and suitable for the criteria for immediate deletion.

However, when I referred to another user page taking the same action as yours, someone like the Wikimedia administrator said that there should be enough time to discuss whether the deletion request was appropriate.

Wikimedia requires a multi-person discussion, but there does not seem to be any discussion when deleting my contents.

What do you think about this? I am sorry to bother you, but I would appreciate it if you could take sensible approach. 😌🤍

Regards, Keio Cheer Unicorns (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive DR logs with other number systems

[edit]

Because of this bug with the Commons mobile app, users who don't have our normal Arabic 0-9 as their native number system, are adding their deletion requests to the logs written with their number system. That's why we got pages like Commons:Deletion requests/২০২৩/০৬/০৮ and Commons:Deletion requests/۲۰۲۳/۰۹/۱۶ among others. This should be the full list. Can you make Krdbot archive these anyway and then delete the empty logs? Jonteemil (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense developing this for a temporary workaround for a bug. Krd 10:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as workaround I tried moving one of the logs to the correct number system and Krdbot did archive it. I saw that you deleted the then empty log, so I guess you already know that. However I noticed only on of the DRs was properly moved, see Special:Diff/901402364. Jonteemil (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was done incorrectly? Krd 08:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were two DRs that should've been archived, see also edit comment by Krdbot, but as you can see in the diff, only one was archived. Jonteemil (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other one already was in the archive page, so it didn't get added a second time. to avoid dupes. Krd 10:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't catch that. Well then, good! Jonteemil (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now moved each log with the incorrect numbers to Arabic numbers so they can be redeleted when your bot has archived them.Jonteemil (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you very much! Krd 11:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hikmat Mirzayev in 2020.jpg

[edit]

Hello. Can you please restore this file? Because as far as I know, this file actually has a free license. I will check and keep you informed. Atakhanli (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krd&oldid=901814983"