User talk:Wdwd/2019

2019

Hey, the deletion of my map

Hey, I see you were the one who deleted the png version of my map [1], and the one who nominated for its deletion was this one [2].

Why this map, Germanic tribes settlements 750BC-1AD, could have both of its png and svg versions existed at the same time on Commons [3], [4], But my map cannot?

So, I demand the png version of my map back.

And I'm also going to report this person who nominated for the deletion of my map [5], but for a different reason that unrelated to the deletion of my map. Mendduets (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I restored the file: File:Mainland-pre-Austronesian-cultures.png.--Wdwd (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Mendduets (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) File:Germanic_tribes_(750BC-1AD).png is here because is original from which the SVG was derived (and is noticeably different yet), whereas both Mendduets’s PNGs were mechanical derivatives off SVGs. Note that Mendduets reverted fixes for his/her proprietary SVG font specification; with fixes identities of the PNGs were obvious. Wdwd, I hereby invite you to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems #Mendduets due to your interference with my cleanup work and proxying for the sock(meat) puppet. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

These two Germanic_tribes_(750BC-1AD) files are IDENTICAL. Only their colors are a little bit different. If you are telling me that they can exist just because of their little differences in colors, I can also change the colors of my maps a little bit so that they can exist too. Mendduets (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

These images are not identical. It’s obvious for any good-sight (and faith ☺) person if only because the SVG shows most of Frisian Islands. Hardly any of them is depicted on the PNG. Certainly I can point to several subtler differences as well – not surprisingly, as none of the images is a mechanical derivative of another. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ekscuse mééi ! That is not true. There are tons of other maps being identical on Wikimedia Commons too, such as these: World regional languages map [6], [7]; Languages world map [8], [9], [10]; Tai-kadai-language [11], [12]. I can search for many more if you want. THE QUESTION IS: Why do you only target me for this minor issue? why not other people? why do you only try to delete my maps? What's wrong with you? I am feeling like I'm being harassed, and I'm tired of this. Mendduets (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Taikadai1.0.png and Tai-kadai-language.png have no obvious SVG source for their entirety (we don’t discuss SVG blank maps, do we?). For the first example the only valuable thing is File:World_regional_languages_map.png #filehistory – it must be kept to preserve attribution chain. Uploads by an Adobe Obfuscator user who is unable to rectify poor proprietary SVG (to fit it under Wikimedia demands) are another condition. One Mendduets uploaded both SVGs and PNGs, Incnis Mrsi fixed SVGs and deleted PNGs as having nothing that Commons can’t serve off SVGs, but Mendduets resorted to soliciting and pettifogging. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to read your excuses. They are all identical. Mendduets (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it turned out that Wdwd neglected to create redirects for deleted PNGs, such as File:Austro-Tai-proper.png (hist • logs • abuse log). Due to Mendduets’s reaction we can presume that PNGs were used on some external site. Deletion of a duplicate file without redirect is virtually equivalent to moving it without redirect – a practice strongly discouraged and in some cases leading to removal of privileges. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ĉu bicikli - jes nature.jpg

Nach welchen Erkenntnissen hast du bitte die Datei "Ĉu bicikli - jes nature.jpg" im April 1997 als Copyright violation identifiziert? Es war in der Tat eine komplett neu erstellte Grafik. In der Esperanto-Wikipedia hatte ich allerdings schon im Mai 2010 angemerkt: "La grafikaĵo konsistas el tiom simplaj, stiligitaj elementoj, ke povas esti ke iam venos principemulo kiu argumentos ke la bicikla bildo tro similas al iu trafiksigno de biciklo aŭ al alia ekologiisma emblemo, kaj plenumus ties forigon el la vikipedia komunejo." (Die Grafik besteht aus so einfachen, stilisierten Elementen, dass es sein könnte, dass irgendwann einmal ein Prinzipienreiter käme, der argumentiert, dass das Fahrradbild irgendeinem Verkehrsschild oder einem anderem ökologischen Zeichen zu ähnlich wäre und die Entfernung von Wikimedia Commons ausführen würde.). Entschuldigung für das Wort "Prinzipienreiter", ich habe damals ja nur hypothetisch gedacht, aber meine Prophezeiung war trotzdem nicht unrichtig. Gerade habe ich die Datei über die Google Bildersuche gesucht, um eventuelle Zwillinge zu finden, aber habe dabei nichts gefunden. Was hast du den gefunden, was deine Behauptung belegt, meine Datei sei irgendein Plagiat? Grüße ThomasPusch (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

War vor fast 2 Jahren, 2017. War eine Speedy-Deletion da (Verdacht einer) Urheberrechtsverletzung. Mag den (unvollständigen/ungenauen) commons-transfer geschuldet sein: Es ist keine Angabe vorhanden wer die Grafik erstellt hat (Urheberangabe fehlt) und woher die ursprüngliche Quelle der Originalgrafik stammt, wer sie geschaffen hat. Solche und ähnliche URVs kommen auf commons leider täglich mehrfach vor. Du bist als User:ThomasPusch als Hochlader der Datei auf eo.wikipedia vermerkt. Was zu den Fragen führt:

1. Wer hat die Originalarbeit erstellt? (nicht das Foto)
2. War diese Darstellung vor dem Jahr 2010 schon veröffentlicht oder in Verwendung? (In der Dateibeschreibung wird die Jahreszahl 1980 erwähnt)
3. Wann wurde diese Darstellung/Logo geschaffen? (diese Datumsangabe fehlt neben der Quelle und Urheberangabe übrigends auch - es ist nur das Hochladedatum auf eo.wikipedia vermerkt)

Abgesehen davon können Fehler natürlich immer passieren. Und: Fehler können auch korrigiert werden.--Wdwd (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi. What is the reason for your revert? Cherkash (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Cherkash: Commons loves outdated stuff – you were already told of it at least once. In Wdwd’s shoes I wouldn’t use rollback and discard a pretty legitimate {{superseded…}} but an attempt for deletion—by its very formulation—went against the Criterion F8 applicable for {{Duplicate}}. It’s blatantly unwise to protest undoing it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a 1:1 duplicate. See the history from other images you tagged, like this one and the description in Template:Duplicate under 3.): Non-exact duplicates should be requested for deletion on COM:DR.--Wdwd (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Granted, these may all be good reasons – but simply reverting without even leaving an edit summary is a horrible form. Leads to unnecessary questions – esp. since like @Incnis Mrsi: mentioned above, you didn't even bother to distinguish between "duplicate" and "superseded" parts, @Wdwd: . Cherkash (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:NGC2251 - SDSS DR14 (panorama).png

Hi Wdwd,

die png und jpg Versionen sollten das Gleiche in unterschiedlicher Auflösung zeigen.

Ich hatte die png-Versionen von Hand über ein Webtool von SDSS heruntergeladen, dabei aber nur ein File mit JPG-Kompressions-Artefakten in einem PNG-Container erhalten und war auf 512px x 512px limitiert - zudem noch das weitere Artefakt mit dem grünen Kästchen unten rechts.

Ich habe erst später gesehen, dass man es über eine Web-Schnittstelle von SDSS automatisieren kann - man erhält JPGs bis 2048px - und habe so den ganzen NGC und IC Katalog weitestgehend bebildert, die ursprünglichen PNGs ersetzt.

Alles bis NGC 3800 habe ich durch "{{Dup..." entsprechend aktualisiert (Category:SDSS DR14), jetzt fehlen nur noch rund ein dutzend größere Himmelsobjekte, die ich mit (panorama) bezeichnet habe, und ein dutzend Mehrfachobjekte. (Liste)

Spricht etwas dagegen, die letzten Reste so abzuschließen?

Viele Grüße, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, die Markierung als Duplikat (mit {{Duplicate}})ist nur bei 1:1 Duplikaten oder identen Bildern (gleiches Dateiformat) mit geringerer Auflösung streng genommen ok, da dann ein einfacher Ersatz. Die von Dir als Duplikat markierten Dateien sind 1. in Verwendung und 2. in anderen Format (JPG vs PNG). Eine Weiterleitung wie sie bei ist zwischen verschiedenen Dateiformaten (JPG vs PNG) nicht ok.

Vorgamngsweise: 1. Entlinke in allen Projekten die zu löschende Datei (das "Dupliakt") 2. Stelle einen regulären Löschantrag auf die betreffenden Dateien mit Hinweis welche Datei durch welche ersetzt wurde. Das sollte dann passen.--Wdwd (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Das mit dem unterschiedlichen Dateiformat hatte ich nirgendwo gelesen, und wurde bei der Aufräumaktion mit Dup bisher meistens akzeptiert.

Die PNGs sind wirklich jpeg-komprimierte Bilder - mit den jpeg-komprimierungs-Artefakten -, die in einem PNG-File gespeichert sind. Ich ägere mich jetzt maßlos, dass ich die PNGs alle von Hand hier hochgeladen haben (hatte einiges an Zeit gekostet) - und ich erst später den gescripteten Export der höheraufgelösten jpegs gesehen habe. Jetzt bleibt es mir nur noch, die Relikte meiner Lernkurve mit möglichst wenig Aufwand zu beseitigen (...Upload the highest resolution file that is possible....).

Ich habe die Verwendung der Files jetzt händisch umgetragen, ich hoffe, das Dup... ist jetzt akzeptabel.

VG., --Fabian RRRR (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"Valkyrie" deletion

Hi -- I think there was some confusion due to the fact that I nominated two similar files for deletion at the same time. Discussion led to keeping "Valkyrie and Raven.jpg" but no one argued in favor of keeping "Valkyrie - Harald Harfagr.png." That one I uploaded recently myself, and then superseded it with "Valkyrie and Raven.png." So I think "Valkyrie - Harald Harfagr.png" should indeed be deleted. Levana Taylor (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, there is no obvious reason to delete File:Valkyrie - Harald Harfagr.png. Could you give my a hint which reason should apply in this case? (see the list on Commons:Deletion policy for a list of accepted reasons) In my opinion it is safe to keep the second file too.--Wdwd (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

svg version of deleted copyvio file

Hi, I saw that you deleted the file as a copyvio. There exists, however, also a low-quality svg version of the same motive: File:Escudo del Municipio Nagua.svg, uploaded by a now indeffed editor. I expect that also will have to be removed. Thank you! --TU-nor (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, done. Thank you for the hint.--Wdwd (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

.

Again I repeat.. This is my original own picture, which was copied by that website - you've mentioned!. And not the other way around!. Please ask them to take my work down instead of blindly removing my original uploads. Hope its clear and you can understand english!--7leumas (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the procedure COM:OTRS, section "Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?"--Wdwd (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Request

May Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Stand News be closed? Σανμοσα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 11:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Dupes from Varaine

See also COM:ANU#Varaine. Varaine has been very creative with Photoshop. These oversaturated/mirrored/upscaled versions generally have little to no value, but I won't argue with keeping them. There are two more in Category:Files uploaded by Varaine from Flickr with issues. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the rules for the template {{Dupe}} are, my understanding, strict: exact duplicate or scaled-down. A "duplicate" with obvious optical differences like others colors and also files that looks more or less identical but with a different format like PNG vs JPG should be deleted with a regular DR.--Wdwd (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Bitte wiederherstellen

Hallo Wdwd, bitte stelle die gelöschte Datei File:Meyers b13 s0522 b1.png wieder her, denn sie ist kein exaktes Duplikat von File:Quipu.png. Ich betreue das Projekt Meyers Lexikon (MKL) auf Wikisource. Die Illustrationen für das Projekt müssen eine einheitliche Darstellung haben (z.B. weißen Hintergrund). Ebenso ist ein einheitliches Namensschema nach Band und Seite für die Dateien erwünscht. Danke --Mapmarks (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mapmarks, ok. Erledigt.--Wdwd (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dankeschön --Mapmarks (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

DR

Hello. Please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Importance of business communication MIS 11th-converted.pdf, you’ve closed the DR as deleted but the file is still there. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 02:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the hint. Fixed.--Wdwd (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GameOfLight

I notice on my watchlist that this deletion has removed winning images from 2014 and 2013 WLM. As the contest rules require the images to use a free licence, are you sure they were uploaded without one? Most contestants will have used a wizard to upload the images. Just because there are corresponding non-free images on Flickr does not mean the images here are non-free. What did the Commons file description say on first upload? -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as i know, images from User:GameOfLight (aka user "Boris G" on FlickR) have a cc-by-nc-sa license on flickR and the EXIF metadata of the images here on commons also mention "Boris G" as copyright holder and a CC-NC license. Can you give me the filenames from the 2014/2013 WLM contest from this list, so I can recheck this files?--Wdwd (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Files File:Santuario Nacional de Las Lajas 01.jpg and File:GOL Church of All Nations.jpg were removed. I find it concerning that you are going by Flickr and EXIF metadata. What matters is the licence template the user picked for the Commons File Description page, provided they are the copyright owner (which they must be for WLM). Lots of our files have '(c) All rights reserved Joe Bloggs' in the EXIF and many users pick a different licence on Flickr than they do on Commons. I would guess that all images uploaded as part of the WLM campaign, not just the winning two, will have a free licence -- the images would not be eligible otherwise. I see from their talk page, the following translated message:

"First of all, welcome to Wikimedia Commons and thanks for uploading your photos here.

I have been seeing that several photos that you have uploaded have the CC-Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license in the EXIF data, while on the image page in Commons they are licensed as CC-Attribution-ShareAlike.

In principle we would take as valid the license with which you have uploaded it here, but it would be good if from now on your photos in the EXIF data had the correct license. In Commons we do not accept non-commercial licenses and therefore there is always the possibility that in the future someone will notice that discrepancy and end up deleting your photos."

This would support my suspicion that the deletion was based on looking at the wrong place (EXIF/Flickr) rather than what the user uploaded to Commons (CC BY-SA). @A1Cafel: fyi. --Colin (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. 1. Both files you mention have a CC-BY-NC-SA license in the EXIF metadata. 2. And we have a user (User:GameOfLight aka "Boris G" on FlickR) which license his files (many, different files, but same style) on FlickR with CC-BY-NC-SA. In such cases COM:PCP (precautionary principle) should take place - there is significant doubt. Another option to solve this problem is an explicit statement from the copyrigh holder via OTRS which license matters. Everything else is speculation in contrast to the precautionary principle.--Wdwd (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Peertube03.png

Hallo Wdwd, ich hatte diese Datei absichtlich entlöscht, auf Basis dieser Diskussion, da sie lt. Quelle unter AGPL steht, was ich ursprünglich übersehen hatte. User:Rlemetayer hatte leider keine Chance die Angaben in der Beschreibung zu korrigieren, weil du sie wieder gelöscht hattest. Ich habe sie jetzt nochmal bedingungsweise entlöscht, damit er die Korrekturen vornehmen kann. --Túrelio (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Túrelio, danke für den Hinweis, hab da wohl Deine Wiederherstellung im log Übersehen. Vielleicht wäre es in diesen Fällen und zur Fehlervermeidung sinnvoll, das SD-template unmittelbar nach einer Wiederherstellung rauszunehmen und auf einen normalen DR mit 7 Tagen umzustellen.--Wdwd (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)