User talk:Krd

If your question is why a specific file has been deleted, please read: COM:L and: COM:VRT. Questions from users who appear to have not read the mentioned two pages will not be answered.

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

File:Лого. Савёловский машиностроительный завод.jpg

Добрый день. Почему удалили файл File:Лого. Савёловский машиностроительный завод.jpg в Русской википедии. Файл загруженный для добросовестного использования в статье Савёловский машиностроительный завод. Всем требованиям для добросовестного использования в русской википедии файл соответствовал. Перед загрузкой проходило обсуждение на форуме по авторскому праву. Прошу восстановить файл. Возможно, надо было загружать на русскую википедию, а не на викисклад --Балагуръ (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Загрузил в русскую википедию. Не совсем разобрался по теме добросовестного использования. Поэтому обращался на форум.--Балагуръ (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

dodis.ch/P112

Hallo Krd

Ich würde gerne die in Dodis – Diplomatic Documents of Switzerland 1848–1975 verwendete Photo in meinen Wikipedia-Artikel über de:Carl Stucki einstellen. Da ich ohnehin mit Dodis im Kontakt stand, fragte ich auch gleich, ob sie einverstanden wären, die Photo unter die Lizenz CC BY-SA 4.0 zu stellen, damit ich sie in den Wikipediaartikel einfügen könne, worauf die folgende Antwort kam: «Die Porträtbilder dürfen Sie gerne unter Angabe der Quelle bei Dodis verwenden (Diplomatische Dokumente der Schweiz, Online-Datenbank Dodis: dodis.ch/P112).» Frage: Reicht diese Zustimmung für Wikimedia Commons? (Den vollständigen Mailverkehr kann ich gerne nachliefern.)

Beste Grüsse, --Freigut (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ich frage mich, ob die wirklich die Rechte an den Bildern haben. So richtig plausibel erscheint mir das nicht. Wenn die Behauptung aber stimmt, dann kann das einfach so nach Commons kopiert werden. --Krd 14:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ich habe mich auch gefragt, ob sie die Rechte wirklich haben. Aber ich bezweifle, dass ein Nachfragen zu einem sicheren Ergebnis führt ... Anderseits scheint es sich um eine simple Personalfoto zu handeln, ohne jeden künstlerischen Wert – aber ob das ein Argument ist, weiss ich nicht. Kann man sich allenfalls einfach darauf abstellen, das Dodis der Meinung ist, die Rechte zu haben? Wenn sie das behaupten, kann es nicht unsere Aufgabe sein, das zu verifzieren. Was meinst du? --Freigut (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ich denke wir sollten da nachfragen. Ich kann mir das ansehen, aber das wird ein paar Tage dauern. --Krd 05:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Danke. --Freigut (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Äh – du setzest den Erledigt-Baustein – ist das denn jetzt erledigt? Ich dachte, du wolltest dir das ansehen? Oder kann ich das Bild jetzt hochladen, mit Beifügung des Mails von Dodis, dass sie damit einverstanden seien (siehe oben)? --Freigut (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Äh, sorry, das war wohl ein Irrtum. Ja, das steht leider noch aus. --Krd 16:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lieber Krd, sehe gerade, dass auch in den Artikel Flavio Cotti eine Dodis-Foto eingefügt worden ist. Zur Lizenzierung siehe hier. Insofern sollte der Verwendung der Dodis-Foto von Carl Stucki somit auch nichts im Wege stehen. Lieber Gruss, --Freigut (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Habe die Foto nun hochgeladen und publiziert. LG, --Freigut (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Bitte gib mir nochmal einen Hinweis oder Link, was genau zu tun ist. --Krd 13:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Siehe oben – ich fragte nach, ob dieses Bild publiziert werden dürfe, und du wolltest dem nachgehen. Nachdem nun ein anderes aus Dodis anstandslos publiziert worden ist, steht auch «meinem» Bild nichts mehr entgegen – die Sache hat sich also erledigt. Einen guten Rutsch ins 2021 wünscht --Freigut (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ich bin nicht dvon überzeugt, dass hier eine Klärung stattgefunden hat oder das so in Ordnung ist, aber ich komme auf absehbare Zeit auch nicht dazu, mich darum zu kümmern. --Krd 14:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Trotz Impressum, wonach «die Inhalte von Dodis – Diplomatische Dokumente der Schweiz [...] lizenziert [sind] unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz»? Dann ist es eigentlich die Sache von Dodis, sich um die Details zu kümmern, und nicht von Wikimedia Commons – die sind meines Erachtens fein raus. Aber wie auch immer, ich bin da kein Spezialist. --Freigut (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Die Frage ist, ob es sich dabei um Inhalte handelt, an denen Dodis Rechteinhaber ist. Wenn es sich einfach um eine falsche Behauptung handelt, z.b. um einen Irrtum, dann ist das schon teilweise "unser" Problem, weil wir als Commons den Weiternutzer dazu ermunter, das Bild zu nutzen. Aber vielleicht hast Du recht damit, dass es ein Problem ist, das wir aus Zeitmangel nicht lösen werden. --Krd 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:OTRS ticket

Hi, this template was under the radar! Template:OTRS ticket should be renamed Template:Ticket reference (or something like that), but modified as well, in order to have the ticket number as sole parameter (see talk page). it is possible to modify all the existent ticket by bot (replacing the ticket number, and using only the second parameter)? --Ruthven (msg) 15:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should replace most of them with Template:PermissionTicket at first and then see what remains. I think this template can perhaps be completely removed. --Krd 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Or simply by the [[ticket:xxx]] link. --Krd 15:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Mostly  Done, but there are still a few transclusions that should or should not get fixed. --Krd 22:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

VRTS templates

Hi, I need your IA powers! Can you please fix this request? Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 10:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have enozgh time in the next days. Would you be able to fix this with temporary IA rights? --Krd 10:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I was thinking about this second solution. Temporary AI rights would be fine (say 1 week? hoping that I've time in the next days myself) Thanks Ruthven (msg) 14:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Krd 14:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. What have we decided to do with MediaWiki:Grouppage-OTRS-member? --Ruthven (msg) 09:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there was any decision, but I think this should be moved to MediaWiki:Grouppage-VRT-permissions-agent and the content changed to Commons:Global VRT group. But I'm not 100% sure. --Krd 10:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I write an email about this. There's still OTRS-stuff in the Mediawiki namespace, but the next 2 weeks will be quite busy for me. I'll ask for IA rights again later to complete the job, if it's not an issue. Ruthven (msg) 13:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Please advise: Is this resolved? (I sadly cannot follow any more what exactly it was about.) Krd 11:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'd completely forgot that :)

According to this search, there might be some fixes that still need to be done. Ruthven (msg) 14:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bot didn't close DR

Hello!

Why didn't Krdbot close Commons:Deletion requests/User:Pascal666/vector.js? Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is written only for files. --Krd 16:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Aha, maybe it can be updated to find all namespaces? Unless it's too much of a trouble.Jonteemil (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be some amount of work, and I currently think it's not worth the effort. Let's reevaluate if it happens frequently. --Krd 08:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably not frequent in non-file namespaces, nvm then if it's some amount of work.Jonteemil (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's put this on the backburner, I'm not sure if I see all possible side effects. --Krd 04:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Filedelinkerbot upgrade?

Hey Krd, I know Filedelinkerbot and @Grin's CommonsDelinker bots have been around a long time, i was wondering if its about time both had an update?... 5 years ago, it wasn't doable but now it may be useful, since wikidata was created, it allowed all articles (and images) to be housed under one dataset. Currently both bots removes links to images that have been deleted on commons but what it should also do is replace the image that has been deleted with the image that was previously on that article or the one used by wikidata for that article to ensure a major article is not left without an image cause someone who did not understand copyright policy replaced it with an unfree one and it got deleted and subsequently goes un-repalced... before wikidata existed, if i found an image used in more than 10+ wikis was a copyvio, i'd try to find a replacement and then use the GlobalReplace tool to change the unfree image before reporting the copyvio to ensure when the image does get deleted here, the articles don't lose out on having a free image on it.. since wikidata came along, i had to do less of it cause wikidata ensure images added there appeared on the articles on regional wikis (except enwiki who apparently think of themselves as superior).

I tried to discuss this on IRC but to no avail as enwiki as usual has chosen to opt-out of something that makes their project better, its bad enough that images added to commons do not appear on article infoboxes on enwiki, its worse when a free image of someone major like a leader/ politician is available but not being used on enwiki because after the copyvio was deleted, no one bothered to replace it, seen it happen far too many times so was wondering what if your bot (Magnus's bot is more global than yours which is active in 3 wikis only) also restored the previous image that was on the article before it was deleted or if there was no image there, added the one used on its wikidata (what use is wikidata if the data there cannot be used on the biggest wiki on wikimedia)...sure users can remove/replace it later if they don't like it but say someone replaced it with another copyvio and it got deleted, the bot will again restore the free one... ensures the articles always has a free image available cause no one ever scrolls down to the bottom to click the wikimedia commons link and the new SKIN has made it even harder for people who browse wikis and use it to navigate through to other wikis. Its bad enough that we have 1000's (if not tens of thousands) of images on commons not being used on enwiki when it could be due to this lame opt-out nonsense ( i know this cause i have added more than 200 that could be used but isn't on enwiki and you know i can't edit enwiki), if we could make it better by using your bot to restore free images as well as removing deleted copyright ones, i'd think that will be great for wikimedia as a whole....don't you? Stemoc 03:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it could be a good idea, but before I start I would like to see this as a flow chart or similar, to be sure we agree on the same thing. --Krd 04:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure you could describe a computationally feasible way to find "an image used before a deleted image", and I am also not sure that it would be very useful. In my observation most images work the way that

• it gets uploaded
• it gets inserted into the article or template (or recently wikidata)

so there is no "previous image" in the majority of the cases. Also it is usually not "computationally distinguishable" when someone edits an article or just replaces an image; a little additional formatting may break this fragile guesswork.

Of course smart code can do a lot of guesswork, heuristics, but even in the fairly simple CommonsDelinker case there are a lot of problems, exceptions, breakage due to extreme wikiscript syntax deviations and flexibility.

I'm not sure a bot is the best way to handle interpretation of edits, I'd say humans are much better in that, but that's my opinion. (There could be a bot replacing recent deleted_image edits with a human defined replacement_image, but I have my doubts about its resilience against abuse.)

As Krd said you could try to define what the bot would have to do and you would very possibly realise that it would handle 70% of the cases right and would break (or miss) 30% of the rest. :-/ And it'd be very bad efficiency. IMHO. grin ✎ 09:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Darf man ...

... eigentlich, lieber Krd, etwas abfotografieren, die Foto als eigenes Werk deklarieren (was ja zutrifft, nur ist das Abfotografierte nicht eigenes Werk), und schon ist das Abfotografierte gemeinfrei? Dann würde ich das nämlich auch dann und wann machen, war aber bis anhin der Meinung, das gehe nicht. Konkret spreche ich etwa von der Datei File:Studie Aussehen Randenburg.JPG. Die Skizze ist aus Georg Hartmanns Buch 400 Burgen um Zürich. Skizzenbuch eines Burgenfreundes (siehe hier; von 1967, weiss nicht, wie der Hochlader auf 1995 kommt, vielleicht ein Nachdruck). Gruss, --Freigut (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Nein, das darf man so nicht. --Krd 14:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Ich muss präzisieren und mich korrigieren. Die Zeichnungen sind nicht aus dem oben angegebenen Buch (ich habe es eben nachgeschlagen), sondern davon inspiriert (teils aus anderer Perspektive, teils abgezeichnet). Die abfotografierte Publikation kenne ich nicht; die Zeichnungen sind gemäss Angabe auf der Foto unten links von einer Sus. Grubenmann, verfertigt 1995 («nach G. Hartmann»). Falls die heraufladende Person Sus. Grubenmann wäre, dann wäre nichts dagegen einzuwenden. Falls – denn sie ist es eher nicht, sonst hätte sie das «G. Hartmann» kaum als «E. Hartmann» gelesen, wenn die heraufladende Person das Buch vor sich gehabt hätte. --Freigut (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Freigut: Bitte entschuldige die späte Antwort, das war wohl irgendwie untergegangen. Ich kann dem ganzen nicht ganz folgen, und in wie fern "abgezeichnet" eher eine Kopie oder eher eine eigene Schöpfung ist, kann man pauschal nicht sagen. Man müsste es sehen.

Ich kann dir eine Foto des Originals via Wikimail schicken. Wobei das kaum etwas an der Sache ändert: Die neuen Zeichnungen von Sus(anne?) Grubenmann sind wohl selbständig genug (so wie ich sie in Erinnerung habe, das Bild ist inzwischen gelöscht), aber sie sind ja ihrerseits in einer Publikation erschienen sind (die ich, anders als diejenige von Hartmann, nicht kenne), die allem Anschein nach von der Rechteinhaberin nie freigegeben worden ist. --Freigut (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on C:VRT

You have deleted a few of my images because verification had not been supplied yet. The team specified that they had received email verification, but a month has gone by so I understand the deletion. On this page it says:

If there is sufficient evidence of a valid permission, the volunteer will mark the file(s) concerned as reviewed. The volunteer will also act to restore any files which may have been deleted before the permission could be verified, so when following the procedure described here, there is no need to request undeletion.

So this means, once the team verifies the images they will come back? I just want to make sure there is nothing I can do in the meantime. Panini! (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Which image do you speak of? Krd 17:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There's four of them, all of which had cropped versions. They were all done at the same time:

• File:Kristian Bush 2019 Image 2.jpg
• File:Kristian Bush 2023.jpg
• File:Kristian Bush In The Key Of Summer.jpg
• File:Kristian Bush 2019.jpg

Panini! (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Please encourage the permission sender to react to our followup questions. Krd 17:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Krd Oh, were they emailed by VTRS? Panini! (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There was a reply to their permission e-mail, which wasn't answered. Krd 17:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it, I'll give him a heads up. Panini! (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Krd, they have asked who the sender is. Is it usually a specific member of the team, or is it permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in general? Panini! (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in general. Krd 08:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

perhaps undelete an obvious self-made image?

You just deleted File:Comparison_of_the_Runge-Kutta_methods_for_the_differential_equation_(red_is_the_exact_solution).svg. I'm not precisely sure since the image and its description are now deleted, but judging from the edit summaries on w:Runge–Kutta methods this was just a simple English translation of File:Runge-kutta.svg done by a Wikipedia/Commons user. Any human looking at this should be able to tell it was a user-made translation of an image released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license. It doesn't look like there was any effort made to contact w:User_talk:Profywld, nor was there ever a post made to w:Talk:Runge–Kutta methods. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 06:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The user didn't apply any license to their modification, so without the fdeedback I think this isn't possible. Krd 07:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jacobolus: Profywld should have continued with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license or the CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license upon upload, and then after they were notified on 26 November.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a person who makes about 1 edit on Wikipedia every 3 months. Sending them a talk page message on commons is extraordinarily unlikely to get a response within 1 week. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 17:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jacobolus: That's too bad, perhaps you can duplicate their work, with a license this time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 06:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G. It is too bad. It's yet another example of semi-automated Wikimedia bureaucracy insensitively clobbering someone's effort.

@Krd – The uploader indicated at w:User_talk:Profywld#Runge-Kutta_translation_image_was_deleted_at_Commons that they intended to release their work under a free license. Can you undelete this so they can add the appropriate template? –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 16:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please let the go ahead. Krd 18:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Status of images

Hello there, hope all is well. The bot has tagged these images as "permission received" and from my understanding it usually takes 3 days or so to be reviewed by a VRT member. I was wondering if someone will be able to look at it or if there was a follow-up or question to the permission sender, which I may not be aware of.

• File:Regine Rocks - SM Mall of Asia Arena - opening.jpg
• File:Regine Rocks - SM Mall of Asia Arena - opening 2.jpg
• File:Regine Rocks - SM Mall of Asia Arena.jpg

Thanks kindly. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

If there have been any followup questions, which is very likely, then the permission sender has got or will get an e-mail reply. Krd 16:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if I may have been dabbling back and forth on your page and the noticeboard about it. Finally got the sender to tell me the email reply. It mentions in the first two images the main subject appears to be the scene design and not any person. As the scene is likely copyright protected, do you have permission from the copyright owner to publish your photo under a free license? If yes, what is the exact agreement? Not quite sure what is being asked, but for some context the owner of the photos captured these during a concert of which he is a photographer for said artist. His work has been used in articles such as the one by Billboard Philippines [1]. I did notice that the first 2 pictures taken were wide angle shots of the stage of which the subject is part of. Could I ask for clarification on what is required? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseud 14 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In the first picture I don't even see any artist, but a scene installation only, which has to be considered a copyrighted design. We also need permission from the copyright holder of that scenes. Krd 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Got it - and who is the copyright holder of the scene? Would that be the set/stage/visual designer? If so, do we need to ask them to send the same email consent to permissions-commons address? Pseud 14 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who the copyright holder is, but I think the artist management likely knows. Yes. Krd 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reached out to the set designer for the 2 photos with scene installation images. For the third image however, would the first email consent from the photographer suffice? Pseud 14 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: The third image is mostly background, you might have to go back to the set designer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: File:Regine Rocks - SM Mall of Asia Arena.jpg the third image's focus I believe is the main subject, which is front and center and from the looks of it the background isn't even clear and somewhat overshadowed/blended by lighting. Further, the email reply only mentions the 2 images so I'm of the opinion that the third image seems fine? Pseud 14 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Zweitmeinung

Hallo,

bist du gleicher Meinung wie unter User talk:Wnme#"keine_Freigabe_erforderlich" durch Wnme dargelegt? Rillke^(q?) 06:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Antwort folgt dort. --Krd 07:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)