Benotzer Diskussioun:MGA73

Vu Wikipedia
Op d'Navigatioun wiesselen Op d'Siche wiesselen
Moien a.jpg
Moien MGA73,

wëllkomm op der Wikipedia op Lëtzebuergesch!
Villmools Merci fir Äert Intressi un der Wikipedia! Mir schaffen hei zesummen dorun, eng fräi zougänglech, gratis, neutral a méiglechst ausféierlech Enzyklopedie a Lëtzebuerger Sprooch op d'Been ze setzen. All Mataarbecht ass wëllkomm, déi dat Zil méi no bréngt: sief dat, en Tippfeeler ze verbesseren, eng Informatioun derbäizesetzen oder z'aktualiséieren, oder carrement en neien Artikel ze schreiwen!
Fir datt d'Artikelen e Minimum un Eenheetlechkeet hunn, an och, fir Critèren ze hunn, wat heihi gehéiert a wat net, hu mer eis eng Rëtsch Regelen oder Konventioune ginn.
Wann Dir hei ganz nei sidd, huelt Iech w.e.g. een Ament Zäit, fir hei drënner ze liesen, wéi een déi éischt Schrëtt mécht. Loosst Iech awer net doduerch ofschrecken: et ass manner komplizéiert, wéi et op den éischte Bléck ausgesäit! Aner Mataarbechter paken och am Ufank gär eng Hand mat un, wat Formatéierungen oder Zweiwele mat der Orthographie ubelaangt. Et gëtt keen hei gestengegt, wann e sech iert ;-) Déi wichtegst "Regel" ass: "Sief kéng!"
Crystal Clear app Startup Wizard.png Éischt Schrëtt

An e puer Schrëtt léieren, wéi een en Artikel uleet oder ännert.

Crystal Clear app kedit.png Sandkaul
Fir mam Layout z'experimentéieren, ouni "richteg" Säiten op d'Kopp ze geheien.
Cicero.PNG Regelen a Konventiounen
Rotschléi fir dëst an dat.
Nuvola apps kteatime.png Staminee
Fir Froen oder Commentairen iwwer d'Wikipedia.
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg Wat Wikipedia net ass
Dacks gemaachte Feeler oder Mëssverständnesser.
Gtk-dialog-info.svg Dacks gestallt Froen (FAQ)
Äntwerten op déi heefegst Froen.
Crystal Clear app lassist.png Wéi ee Lëtzebuergesch schreift
Eis Schreifweis einfach an an e puer Punkten erkläert.

Dës Säit ass Är perséinlech Diskussiounssäit. All Mataarbechter huet sou eng, an et ass d'Plaz, fir Messagë vun anere Mataarbechter ze kréien, resp. ze hannerloossen. Wëllt Dir engem anere Mataarbechter schreiwen, maacht dat op senger Diskussiounssäit, an ënnerschreift mat 4 Tilden (sou: ~~~~) oder klickt op e Knäppche wéi deen hei: Insert-signature.png. Ofgeschéckt gëtt da mam Klicken op "Säit späicheren".
Vill Spaass, an op eng gutt Zesummenaarbecht!


Pix licenses[Quelltext änneren]

Hi Michael, thank you for looking after skeletons in the cupboards of lb:Wiki, i.e. Images uploaded long time ago when licence indications were not as consistent as one might expect nowadays. If you have a bot to add the GFDL, FU and unknown tags where missing, that would be very helpful, indeed!

Best greetings, --Zinneke 20:45, 30. Aug. 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, running it under a botflag so not to appear in recent changes would be better indeed. Best, Z.
botflag atributed --Robby 22:06, 31. Aug. 2010 (UTC)

Hallo,

One is deleted, the other unblocked. Les Meloures 23:15, 3. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all the work you do for lb:Wiki Les Meloures 17:13, 4. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy that I could help:-) --MGA73 18:48, 4. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
I have the impression that this turns now partly into the contrary. Your bot flags every pic with an "unknown licence" template which does not fit into what the bot recognises as licence. However, there are many local licences that do not fit any template, these should not receive any flag by the bot. Then, there are other pics taken from the en-wiki - I shall be grateful if the bot would check in that case the licence given at the en-wiki. Otherwise I do not see how this small community should write articles if your bot succeeds to pile up thousands of pictures, the licence of which we need to check manually one by one. --Otets♣ 15:42, 7. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
Hei hätt ee besser gehat sech net drëm ze bekëmmeren, amplaz engem Benotzer deen ons Hëllef ugebueden huet hei onnëtz Bemierkungen ze maachen. De Bot tagged nëmen Doublonen a mécht drop opmierksam wa keng Lizenzschabloun am Bild steet. Wann dee Bot dausende vu Biller oplëscht déi kéng Lizenz hunn dann ass dat net dem Bot seng Schold, mä deenen hir, déi Biller ouni Lizenz eropgelueden hunn, an och elo nach ëmmer keng valabel Lizenz gebrauchen, wéi dat an de leschten Deeg erëm geschitt ass. Les Meloures 16:23, 7. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
@Otets: If everyone uploading pictures would stick/have stuck to common/Commons upload rules, MGA's bot would not have flagged so many "unknown" licences. I find this very helpful, at least to have an overview on what is ok and what remains to be checked/fixed/deleted if necessary. We know about the little number of persons working here - the main reason why this hasn't been done before - but at least it's an (important) step forward. Weider op Dénger Diskussiounssäit. --Zinneke 16:27, 7. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
De les Meloures war méi séier wéi ech...
I noticed edits like [1]. If there is more images like that the bot could replace the text with the matching license tag.
Edits like this [2] are not good if you ask me. It is better to find the relevant license template on lb-wiki and add that or if none excists then make one. Another option is to move the en-wiki image to Commons and use that. However, the image has been deleted on enwiki as a copyvio per this. The images were stolen from http://www.latexlair.com. So the license is not valid.
So I think it is a good idea that a user looks at all the images without a license template and checks if there is a valid license. No one said that the job has to be done this week:-) --MGA73 18:18, 7. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

@MGA73,

The license you tagged under N°1 should not be used on lb:Wiki. So we will check up pictures with such license an inform the user to change, or the picture will be deleleted. Les Meloures 19:05, 7. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will not make more edits like that then:-) Just tell me if you get an idea how the bot can help just let me know. --MGA73 19:10, 7. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

"No one said that the job has to be done this week". Thanks! ;-)
I was unaware that the claim of Fireman16 was a mere pretention, you were fully right there.
--Otets♣ 13:41, 8. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

@ Otets
Moien,
Wien ass de Fireman 16 a wat huet dien hei gesot? Les Meloures 14:17, 8. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
Du hues d'Bild Latexkleedung1.jpg jo geläscht, do stong an der Bildbeschreiwung, datt et ursprénglech vum Fireman16 op d'en-wiki eropgeluede gouf an datt den Eroplueder als Lizenz "Fräie Gebrauch" uginn huet, d'Autorisatioun hätt hee selwer vum Photograph Martin Perreault ageholl. Op der en-wiki hu se decidéiert, dat géif "waarscheinlech" net stëmmen, obwuel eng Foto vun deemselwechte Model an deemselwechte Photograph noweislech korrekt u Commons gestëft gouf. --Otets♣ 15:42, 8. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
Wou ass dat nozekucken? Mat Linke w.e.g. Les Meloures 15:54, 8. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
Ma hei an hei. --Otets♣ 16:09, 8. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
I do not know if any of you has acces to OTRS but the permission mentioned in OTRS is only valid for Fichier:Bianca Beauchamp.jpg. --MGA73 17:33, 8. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Dat hei war ech amgaangen ze schreiwen awer den MGA73 war mé séier wéi ech. Duerfir hei hannendrunner wat ech virun him wollt soen:

So Otets, hälls de mech fir domm oder wat.

Deen ee Link weist op d'Diskussiounssäit vum Fichier. De Fichier gouf eben op Commons geläscht well de Mann de Beweis vun der Autoristioun net konnt bréngen.

Deen anere weist op ee Bild vun engem aneren Uploader a vun engem anere Modell fir dat d'Autorisatioun vu Commons ugeholl an enregistréiert gouf.

  • The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system.

Gehei dach net Äppel a Biren net duerchereen. Diskussioun vum geläschte Bild op Commons muss de kucken, an net wat am Libellé vum geläschte Bild steet, a wat vu Commons ouni Beweis net gegleeft gouf.

Op der lb:Wiki sti mat grousser Wahrscheinlechkeet och nach Biller vun deenen den Uplouder behaapt se wiere vun him. Eent dervunner hunn ech haut geläscht. Les Meloures 17:42, 8. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Wann dës Diskussioun net rational gefouert soll ginn, da muss de et soen. Ech hunn Äppel a Bire schéi getrennt gelooss. Éischtens hunn ech dem MGA73 direkt am Ufank Recht gi mat senger Remarque a just op deng Nofro hin hunn ech der déi Linke gepost déi s du wolls. Ech hunn domat awer ni behaapt, d'OTRS Autorisatioun wier valabel fir d'Fotoen déi de Fireman16 eropgelueden huet. Ech sot just (an dat kanns de uewen noliesen), datt ech net wosst datt de Fireman16 just virgespillt huet eng Autorisatioun ze hunn, an ech bis ewell a guddem Glaw ugeholl hunn, déi géif et wierklech ginn, well d'Copyrightholder fir eng aner Foto déi net vum Fireman16 eropgeluede gouf esou eng Autorisatioun effektiv ginn hunn an et domat net a priori aus der Welt gegraff wier datt se dat och fir dem Fireman16 seng gemeet hätten. Wat se den en-wiki Leit (an net Commons) no awer net gemat hunn. D'en-wiki Leit huelen dat ugaangs einfach just esou un ("probably copyvios") a schléissen dat duerno doraus, datt d'Biller vun engem Site kommen - firwat Biller vun engem Site net hanneno per Email eng Autorisatioun hätte konnte kréien gëtt net diskutéiert. Mee wéi gesot, obwuel déi Decisioun vun den en-wiki Leit net onbedingt op deer Textgrondlag déi mär virläit kritikfräi ass war ech mam MGA73 d'accord. Firwat gëtt also no Hoer an enger klorer Zopp gesicht? A wat bedeit déi lescht Remark, Eroplueder géife just behaapte si wieren den Auteur vun deene vun hinnen eropgeluedene Biller, wat viséierst de do konkret (dat Latexkleedung1.jpg wat s de geläscht hues kënnt vun engem waarscheinlechen Autorisatiounsbehaapter an net vun engem Auteursbehaapter)? --Otets♣ 23:54, 8. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Salut, déi ganz Diskussioun hei wéinst engem sabbelege Latexbild ass komplett iwwerflësseg. Wat déi englesch oder soss eng Wiki mécht oder gemaach huet geet ons guer näischt un. Wann déi d'Bréck erofsprangen, musse mir dann nosprangen?
Déi lescht Remarque bedeit datt ee Benotzer Biller eropgelueden huet déi e vun engem anere Site hat an derbei geschriwwen huet et wier en eegent Wierk. Elo si mer sou gutt a mer ginn deem seng Biller souwäit wéi et méiglech ass duerchkucken, a mer zéien déi gefuddelt aus dem Verkéier. Dee Benotzer ass leider net méi aktiv, sou dass mer do op engem doudege Gleis sinn, an net méi bei him nofroe kënnen. Déi Aarbecht kënnt dann an Zukunft un d'Rei. Mä elo gëtt et fir d'éischt déi Honn ze beetschen déi bekannt sinn. Les Meloures 00:20, 9. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
Ah, dat geet mech da jo näischt méi un (ausser du wéils ech sollt der hëllefen, dat ëmmer gär). --Otets♣ 00:31, 9. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

More discs with Otets[Quelltext änneren]

I added now a link to the previous version of the Gallipoli map. The original author Jeronimo released it only under GFDL. I see that it is now also cc tagged on Commons, but I ignore the reason. Should not the author's initial wish be respected? --Otets♣ 13:38, 10. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these links. But did Jeronimo agree to this retagging or was it done without his consent, just following the vote? --Otets♣ 13:57, 13. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the chess club logo on 7 August 2010, the de-wiki people see an issue with the documentation of the authorisation only since 14 September 2010. Let's see what they will find out, they left a message to the uploader on his discussion page. So far we always trusted the uploader's sayings unless a copyright holder showed up to deny such authorisation - it's the uploaders responsability. In case Katana would never log in again, it's believing his initial word or retagging FU.

This is actually also the reason why we were (at least initially) reluctant to delete local copies of pictures now appearing on Commons. Indeed, it happened more than once that after several months somebody on Commons was not pleased with the documentation of the picture and it got deleted without giving us the chance to save it locally as FU or under another licence, as applicable. For instance Europäisches russland.jpg, now replacing Europäescht Russland.jpg - this file got already tagged on Commons as missing information on the author. Maybe in some months there will be a new policy on Commons and our map will vanish? Big wikis like the en-wiki might have users constantly monitoring Commons on speedy deletion tags, but we don't. Hence I would propose to replace local files only if we can be sure that no severe tag checking and no policy change on commons might ever risk to make us lose such files.
--Otets♣ 11:07, 15. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

If a file has been uploaded on lb-wiki and deleted as "NowCommons" you can always undelete it here. I'm an admin on Commons so if you need a file I can always make sure you get it to upload as fair use if needed. Just ask:-)
It is importaint to fill out all information as good as possible - both here and on Commons. I think that lb-wiki should have the same standards for when it is ok and when it is not ok with the exception of Fair use-files. As you know files are sometimes deleted on Commons and if you use a local version you will perhaps never know and therefore host a copyvio. If you use the version on Commons you will find out and can judge for yourself if the file can or should be Fair use instead.
But I agree that all files should be checked before the local version is deleted. But if it is checked and found ok I think that the risk that the file is deleted on Commons is small. --MGA73 12:32, 15. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
Great for having you as a commons-contact! And good idea to check before.
Sth else: Could you please check why this file has been deleted on en-wiki? We have it here as RitchieAlbert.jpg with a licence translated from en-wiki. --Otets♣ 16:27, 15. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The reason was:

  • (del/undel) 18:32, 12 February 2007 Mysid (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Fichier:Governor albert ritchie of maryland.jpg" ‎ (Images with unknown copyright status as of 28 January 2007) (view/restore)

The information on the page was:

  • Portrait by Douglas Chandor (1897-1953), 1929. Commissioned by the Legislature, 1927. MSA SC 1545-1103

Furthere more it had the license en:Template:Mdarchives that had this text:

  • Some information or images have been taken from a non-password protected section of the Maryland State Archives. This is copyrighted but may be legally reproduced as long as credit is given. See citation policy.

The template was deleted after this deletion request: en:Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_27#Template:Mdarchives. The main reason to delete was that the webpage "only permits educational use".

The page has later been moved and I can't find the terms for use on the page so I can't tell if there is a valid permission somewhere on the site. --MGA73 17:17, 15. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated our pic accordingly. --Otets♣ 23:06, 15. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work on lb:Wiki, Michael, it is rather you who deserves a whole package of these cookies ;^ --Zinneke 21:44, 17. Sep. 2010 (UTC)

Files on commons[Quelltext änneren]

Thank you very much for your help with pictures on commons. In the existing trend it will take a lot of time to delete and replace all the pictures. But I think for the next anniversary of wikipedia the work will be done. (I am an optimist:-) ). However as it is, two of us will continue, but not regulary, to manage those files. One day in future all will be done. Les Meloures 15:15, 16. Jan. 2011 (UTC)

NC license for Fichier:Chart articlecount.png by Otets♣[Quelltext änneren]

Hi. There's an NC condition in the Luxembourgish comments for that already-transferred-and-deleted image. What do we do? — Bjung 20:47, 19. Mäe. 2011 (UTC)

Otets added {{Bild-CC-by-sa/3.0/lu}} on the file 8. mar 2011, 12:38 "nei Lizenz fir aktuell Versioun" so the license is correct for the version on Commons. So the NC part is not a problem except it could perhaps confuse some users. --MGA73 21:10, 19. Mäe. 2011 (UTC)

Fichier:Saint-Barthélmy (COM).JPG[Quelltext änneren]

Hi MGA,

I got the picture from my son's camera, who had the window seat on a stop-over flight from St. Martin to Martinique...

Thank you. That explains why uploader and author was not the same name:-) --MGA73 17:05, 9. Mee 2011 (UTC)


Hello,

Has the FU-3D license also to be aplied for Pictures in Belgium? --Les Meloures 19:00, 10. Mee 2011 (UTC)

There is no freedom of panorama in Belgium so pictures of statues and protected buildings in Belgium are only allowed as fair use (or en:de minimis). --MGA73 19:48, 10. Mee 2011 (UTC)
Thank's for the information. Best regards --Les Meloures 20:04, 10. Mee 2011 (UTC)
You are most welcome:-) --MGA73 20:11, 10. Mee 2011 (UTC)

Files with unusual licence[Quelltext änneren]

Hi! Since we allow FU, we should be able to treat "free for all wikis" licences that same way, i.e. let the pix in the articles until somebody succeeded to replace them with equivalent free pix. --Otets♣ 07:39, 1. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

Hi! No I do not agree. The policy of WMF is very clear. Either the file is free or it has to live up to the local EDP. The English EDP is very clear: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". The Lëtzebuergesch EDP may not have the excact same wording. The WFM resosution says
"Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."
So if Lëtzebuergesch EDP allows files that could be replaced then I do not think the EDP is following the WMF-resolution. And as long as there is unfree files on an article users will not notice that we need a free file and therefore they will not upload a free file. --MGA73 17:51, 1. Jun. 2011 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia Diskussioun:EDP. --MGA73 18:22, 1. Jun. 2011 (UTC)
I answered at that discussion page. --Otets♣ 00:57, 2. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Portal:Musek, I replied on my own discussion page. --Otets♣ 12:59, 7. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the photos uploaded by Anne.pannrucker, I replied on her discussion page. I would propose to delete the deletion tag unless sth makes us believe the licence tag is a false claim. --Otets♣ 14:25, 7. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

I answered on your Floener question on my discussion page. --Otets♣ 10:58, 8. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the Charles Goerens pix. --Otets♣ 15:31, 10. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

re: ORTS[Quelltext änneren]

Hi MGA73,

unfortunately no, there is currently no such thing on lb:Wiki. Normally, people would simply indicate on the picture page that they got the permission from the photographer/rightholder, which, as I see it, works reasonably well. If you think that this is not enough, maybe the solution to refer to Commons-ORTS might be envisaged, provided that this is not too cumbersome (I never tried it out). --Zinneke 08:05, 7. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

Hi MGA73,

Free media[Quelltext änneren]

Wat is, or shal be the use of the template {{Free Media}} -- Les Meloures 16:07, 15. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that every file should have a clear statement - either "Free" or "Non free". That makes it possible to have a machine determine if the file is free or not.
Since lb-wiki still have a lot of "not free enough" files it would perhaps be good to create a template for those files also.
With these 2 (or 3) categories it should also be easy to spot files that does not yet have a known and accepted license. --MGA73 16:12, 15. Jul. 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, for your rapid reply. --Les Meloures 16:21, 15. Jul. 2011 (UTC)
"{{Not free enough Media}}"
I think "{{Beschränkt fräi Medien}} or simply {{BfM}} " could hit.
Thank you very much! --MGA73 17:46, 15. Jul. 2011 (UTC)
I answerd on my Talkpage. --Les Meloures 20:22, 15. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

Pictures or list[Quelltext änneren]

Hello,

Do you perhaps know why in one Kategorie the files are shown as picture-thumbs and in another as a list. ? --Les Meloures 21:24, 15. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do. When you add __NOGALLERY__ in a category there is no thumbs. They do it on en-wiki on all unfree files to prevent the thumbs from showing. So I thought we should do the same here. But it is much easier to check files when thumbs are shown so feel free to remove the code. We can allways add it again later once all non-free files are cleaned up:-) --MGA73 08:47, 16. Jul. 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks I didn't notice this. Old men are a little bit slow.:-) --Les Meloures 08:53, 16. Jul. 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Well if you have some time feel free to check Benotzer:MGA73/Sandbox - that should all be unused files with a non-free or no license. --MGA73 09:02, 16. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

FU 3D[Quelltext änneren]

Hello,

The last pictures you put in FU 3D are located in France. Must Fu 3D be applied also for those pictures. B.r. --Les Meloures 19:05, 30. Aug. 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There is no freedom of panorama in France:-( --MGA73 19:08, 30. Aug. 2011 (UTC)

Fichier:RUS ORT KIE 01.jpg[Quelltext änneren]

Yes, this looks correct to me. I however thought it to be already on Commons? --Otets♣ 06:43, 7. Sep. 2011 (UTC)

The Cornischong story, very confusing indeed ;-) I do no longer remember all details, but I think Cornischong uploaded a photo of the church (the file name is held in his style), Yabloko uploaded then with the same file name one of my photos because she disagreed with Cornischong's representation of the church with a white sky and especially with a "blasphemic" dove sitting on the cross. Thereupon Cornischong had a verbal "discussion" with Yabloko (he insulted her, she asked if he is ill, he took the reply badly and threatened to ban her), he deleted the file with all versions and Yabloko uploaded mine again under Cornischong's file name so that no changes in the article were necessary. She did this under her own name and I tolerated the wrong attribution, but as time may change many things, I eventually decided to claim the right attribution. --Otets♣ 09:29, 17. Sep. 2011 (UTC)

Wow what a story - no wonder it is confusing to find out what happend. --MGA73 08:15, 18. Sep. 2011 (UTC)
Indeed ;-) --Otets♣ 21:20, 20. Sep. 2011 (UTC)


Transfer on Commons,
Hello,
Please can you transfer these two pictures to commons:
Fichier:Bréck vu Kanne Vue laanscht d'Bréck.JPG
Fichier:Bréck vu Kanne.JPG
As in categories like the others [[Category:Kanne]] [[Category:Albertkanaal]] [[Category:Bridges over Albertkanaal]] [[Category:Road bridges]] [[Category:Suspension bridges in Belgium]]
Best regards -- Les Meloures 13:01, 26. Sep. 2011 (UTC)
Should be on Commons now. Maybe someone would ask if there is a problem with FOP but I think that the bridge looks ineligible for copyright. Just keep an eye on the file:-) --17:14, 26. Sep. 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much

Fichier:EngelshaffFerrariskaart02.jpg[Quelltext änneren]

Hi, I have uploaded the file, under the same name, to Commons. So, please delete it here. Cheers, --Cayambe 14:55, 30. Okt. 2011 (UTC)

Thank you... Deleted. --MGA73 09:51, 31. Okt. 2011 (UTC)

HettingerEugene.jpg[Quelltext änneren]

The photo is from the newspaper "De Biergmann". It's an "oeuvre dirigée", so only the publication date matters, not the date of the death of the photographer (unless it was published earlier by the latter and the rights expired earlier, which can't be excluded here). Unfortunately I don't have any further info on this, at least not now, because 6 years after the upload I forgot where I preserve the source:((. --Otets♣ 18:24, 31. Okt. 2011 (UTC)

Fichier:Astridamba.JPG[Quelltext änneren]

Hi MGA73! The long discussion with the uploader (about another picture) revealed that his/her knowledge about copyright was that, "when it is available on the internet somewhere, it must be pubic domain, mustn't it?". As for this one: It is a cropped version of this one which on Picassa, says that "all rights reserved". To make this unabiguous situation more complicated, the text on the description page says "Private Archive of Ms. Lulling, no copyright on it. " However, no indication of photgrapher nor permission of the latter. I therefore propose to delete.Zinneke 18:59, 31. Okt. 2011 (UTC)

Yes either that. Or if someone could contact the owner. --MGA73 20:01, 31. Okt. 2011 (UTC)

Unused maps & Commons[Quelltext änneren]

Ok for the deletion of the unused maps, it seems that currently none are listed in which I invested too much work, so no real loss, especially as I don't see for the moment where to use them (they seem to have been replaced by better maps).

The "Kategorie:Elo op Commons" looks already empty to me, is that correct? --Otets♣ 10:43, 28. Nov. 2011 (UTC)


Files by Jean Kunsch[Quelltext änneren]

Hi, he uploader is the Artist himself. I think not that he needs a special permission. B.r. --91.180.15.4 18:24, 15. Mee 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. How do we know it is the artist and that he has the rights for the photos? --MGA73 (Diskussioun) 19:02, 15. Mee 2012 (UTC)

Re:Kategorie:All_beschränkt_fräi_Medien[Quelltext änneren]

Hi MGA, I replied here.--Zinneke (Diskussioun) 09:04, 27. Aug. 2012 (UTC)

GRAND CANYON Pan.jpg[Quelltext änneren]

I restored that file again. You surely do a lot of work here, but I think that sometimes files are deleted too easily, while a deeper research could bring up the required license etc. In this case, I found the original file at en-wiki, simply by making a full text search for the author Mike Huber (ok, I found Mike Huber first at Commons, where he has another user name, hence some confusion at the beginning). --Otets♣ 09:32, 23. Mee 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That is cool. I spend 15 minutes looking for it everywhere without luck. I have now moved all the uploads by User:Mhazhiker to Commons. --MGA73 (Diskussioun) 09:44, 23. Mee 2013 (UTC)
So far looking for the author's name (not necessarily the user name) with a full text search always paid off for me. Thanks, great transfer job! --Otets♣ 10:03, 23. Mee 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to say that I guess that en-User:Mhazhiker is commons-User:ArizonaTravel. But I was afraid to confirm that on commons itself, after what happened to the unfortunate Russavia id revealer. --Otets♣ 10:06, 23. Mee 2013 (UTC)
But who tells us that User:Mhazhiker is Mike Huber. Why did he say Photo by Mike Huber if it is his own picture?????? --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 10:14, 23. Mee 2013 (UTC)
@ Otets: Yeah it is sometimes wise to be carefull. I find most of the originals using Google image search and so far there have been less than 1 % of the files copied to Commons that have not been located. In a few cases the original was deleted because of license issues but it was found. About 2/3 have been checked so far (only about 200 left in Commons:Category:Files moved from lb.wikipedia to Commons requiring review) so it is going pretty good.
@ Les Meloures: We can never be sure but the "self license" on all the files makes we think we could asume own work. --MGA73 (Diskussioun) 10:18, 23. Mee 2013 (UTC)
@ MGA73: Maybe I'll find some more time this week to help with these 200 pix, but unfortunately can't guarantee that.
@ Les Meloures: I'm happy that MGA73 shares my view on this, I already started to doubt my own comprehension. Mhazhiker tells us all this, indirectly (as I explained on your disk page with quotes). Mhazhiker is his nickname at en-wiki, and Mike Huber is his real name. He's not obliged to indicate as author his nick, he can (and did) reveal his real name. For example, you are logged in as Les Meloures, but you can always feel free to indicate as author of your photos your real name. For me it seems quite obvious. One might now wonder why he didn't take as user name his real name, if he's anyway only on the wiki to market photos (or was it guided tours) which he sells under his real name, but there I really don't know the answer. I'm off for lunch now, gudden Appetit! --Otets♣ 10:31, 23. Mee 2013 (UTC)

Yves Kemp pic[Quelltext änneren]

Hi MGA! It is an odd pic (with awful colours). User Cornischong had indicated in his upload text that it would be under GFDL licence, but at the same time added a FU tag. When reviewing the Cornischong files, I removed the FU tag, indicating that both were contradicting each other, and I assumed the tag was a mistake.The comment by User:Klunni on the discussion page just says that the licences are contradicting each other, upon which Cornischong replied that he found it odd that the system "swallowed both tags" (without removing the one or another...) Either we let it as it is, or are very strict, in which case deletion would be the only solution. As no-one bothered for years, I think we can go for option 1. Zinneke (Diskussioun) 22:02, 25. Mee 2013 (UTC)

Fichier:Luxemburg - Liege train in Angleur.jpg[Quelltext änneren]

Can you please check this file on commons. I think the moving to commons did'nt worl correctly. Sources and author disappeared, and old files are deleted and so the information also. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 08:14, 22. Jun. 2013 (UTC)

Like Commons:Fichier:Luxemburg - Liege train in Angleur.jpg? --MGA73 (Diskussioun) 10:11, 22. Jun. 2013 (UTC)

Kanton Réiden[Quelltext änneren]

Hi! It seems to me that now we have on Commons two maps of Kanton Réiden, mine and the one from Bastin8. You can see on Bastin8's file page that I posted there a comment, claiming for a check whether Bastin8 didn't simple "take home" to nl-wiki my edit and "forgot" to mention me as author of that edit. If that would be the case, I would like to be mentioned on Commons as editor and see the licence reverted to GFDL as indicated by me (following that, one of the two files could be deleted). I don't know whether you can compare both files with some program giving you more info than just what I can see (and to me it looks like "my" file). --Otets♣ 13:50, 3. Jul. 2013 (UTC)

It is not easy to see what was used as the source for images. Except that I think that the first version of Fichier:Kanton_RedangeLocatie.png from 2004 is probably the source off them all. If had just copied your file then there would be 100 % match so either Bastin8 made the edits again or made a new version. --MGA73 (Diskussioun) 14:35, 3. Jul. 2013 (UTC)
You are right, there is a very slight mismatch, though that even if Bastin8 really took my edit as a basis, he added in any case some own contribution. Hence I'll retrieve my comment on Commons. --Otets♣ 15:15, 3. Jul. 2013 (UTC)

File Schneider[Quelltext änneren]

Hi, Can you check this file please:Fichier:Etienne Shneider.jpg The author is certainly not Mr. Schneider, an the photograph is not mentioned. It may come from a free page but this is not indicated. The user tries allways to replace other pictures by this doubtfull one. Thanks and best wishes for 2014 --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 08:59, 3. Jan. 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Picture is from SIP (gouvernement.lu), free use is forbidden. --80.200.214.1 09:02, 3. Jan. 2014 (UTC); links by --Zinneke (Diskussioun) 09:05, 3. Jan. 2014 (UTC)

The file has been deleted on Commons (Commons:Fichier:Etienne Shneider.jpg). If it really is own work then the user should send a permission to ORTS.

Also best wishes for 2014 to all of you:-) --MGA73 (Diskussioun) 14:02, 4. Jan. 2014 (UTC)

Fichier:Laxness[Quelltext änneren]

Laxness portrett einar hakonarson 1984.jpg

Hello, can you check also this file on commons, how can the uploader have the rights. Painter is still alive. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 20:23, 26. Sep. 2014 (UTC)

Hi Les Meloures. There is a text on the file page that says "Klettur is acting on behalf of Einar Hákonarson. He has confirmed with Einar that this image should be released under the free licences below". File was uploaded long ago and if it was uploaded today we would ask for a permission to be send to OTRS. --MGA73 (Diskussioun) 20:28, 26. Sep. 2014 (UTC)

Your administrator status on the lb.wikipedia[Quelltext änneren]

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.

You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on the wiki listed above. Since that wiki does not have its own rights review process, the global one applies.

If you want to keep your rights, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights.

If you wish to resign your rights, you can reply here or request removal of your rights on Meta.

If there is no response at all after approximately one month, stewards will proceed to remove your administrator and/or bureaucrat rights. In ambiguous cases, stewards will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact the stewards. Rschen7754 04:57, 10. Aug. 2018 (UTC)