User talk:Krdbot/archive/2016

File: cover of extract relation .... in the case about inhertitance of Borja

The file is not a violation because was found in internet. It is forming part of a anciente and legal document published by Google Books. The link is related in upload and there is explained the page where was taken. Please, service to read the arthicles and uploads before disturbe another persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siredejoinville (talk • contribs) 16:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Textlogos

Bitte einmal das ansehen. Ich habe {{PD-textlogo}} und {{Trademarked}} eingefügt, so dass es nicht als Copyvio gelöscht zu werden braucht. Der Bot ist hier etwas voreilig mit "copyvio" bei Textlogos. Es könnte höchstens COM:PS verfehlen, da es noch nirgendwo eingebunden wird. Aber das ist bei ganz neuen Dateien oft so und ein Logo eines TV-Kanals müsste eigentlich relevant genug sein für einen Artikel. Grüße --Bjarlin (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Siehe auch das, das und dieses Logo, alle von heute, ziemlich viele Fehltreffer. Die Uploader erhalten unschöne, falsche Benachrichtigungen über die angeblichen Copyvios auf ihrer Seite, die dann auch entfernt werden sollten, sonst werden die Benutzer nur unnötig vom Bot in die Irre geführt. --Bjarlin (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Bjarlin. Siehe auch ein Abschnitt tiefer: Die meisten Fälle sind in der Tat Urheberrechtsverletzungen, und sie einfach nur mit no license zu markieren is in vielen Fällen leider kontraproduktiv. In den Fällen, in denen es wirkich Textlogos sind, geht hingegen sehr selten etwas schief, da der abarbeitende Admin das sieht und dann richtigstellt, d.h. diese Logos nicht löscht. Dass der Benutzer eine Nachricht bekommt, liegt nicht zuletzt daran, dass es keine Lizenz angegeben hat. Diese Unschönheit halte ich für akzeptabel. --Krd 08:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing "no license" tags from file pages

Here the bot has deleted an existing tag of an admin and added a copyvio tag instead. The file had already been reviewed by an admin who had added the tag that the bot removed, so I reverted the bot now. Please don't let the bot remove existing tags of other users, there's no sense in doing this, when a file is already in the reviewing process. When there exists a tag {{No license since}} or {{No license}} on the file page, the bot should do nothing with such a file. Can you please change this? --Bjarlin (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The same is the case for ongoing deletion requests, just in case the bot that also removes them: It shouldn't do this either. There's also no need to do anything, if there are "no permission" tags and other the like. The bot should exclude all this and only tag files which aren't tagged with any of these templates. --Bjarlin (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@JuTa: The tagging of File:Eit.jpg with no license is supoptimal IMO because this is hardly below TOO and a license won't solve any problem as there is also no permission. In nearly 99% of those cases there is no permission achievable so the file should be deleted instead of forcing the uploader to add a license which won't solve the problem. If I'm mistaken, please advise. --Krd 08:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Krd, I mark every few days just everything not yet marked with any problem tag using {{Remove this line and insert a license instead}} using VisualFileChange. Your bot is marking many of them as copyright violations which is good because most of them are just copyright violations. But your bot isn't marking all of them as copyright violations, because of the content of the source field I guess. So those keep my {{No license since}} and thats the reason I do it - otherwise they would get "never" get marked as problem cases. I am not realy willing to invest more time by i.e. checking every image individually and search the net for each of them to decide if its better to mark them as copyright violations, no permission, no source and/or no license. regards. --JuTa 15:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@JuTa: That sound very reasonable to me, please continue to do so. (Krdbot marks files with some delay because of some objections, maybe this has caused the confusion here.) --Krd 16:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Acerca su questionamiento de: User talk:Wikiplayer99#File:Enrique-Aristeguieta-Gramcko.jpg

Wikipedia pide la información de donde se saca la información y la imagen. Cuando uno (Yo) va a descargar la imagen, puse que el archivo fue sacado de internet, por ende, me pidio de que pagina lo saque y quien fue el autor para hacer la investigación correspondiente. Espero que pueda entender mi punto de vista y podamos usar la imagen para ampliar/completar la pagina. Espero que encuentre un buen traductor para, valga la redundancia, traducir esto. Muchas gracias por su preocupación y Buenos/as Dias/tardes/noches (depende en donde este)

--WP99 23:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wikiplayer99. Please see: COM:L. --Krd 07:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Uploading pictures in Wikimedia Commons

Hi there,

I see you remove the pictures I already uploaded. How can I receive a license for uploading any picture in Wikimedia Commons?

If I won't receive a license for any reason, can you give me please someone who has a license for uploading freely pictures?

Have an nice day :) Prince Azulay (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see: COM:LIC --Krd 01:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Your posssibly erroneous deletion of File:Llanos de moxos1.jpg.png from my User:Smallchief/Sandbox9

I thought I made it clear in putting this map in my sandbox that it was a cropped version of a map that is already posted on Wikimedia as File:Llanos de Moxos.jpg -- and is displayed on the German language article titled Moxos--Ebene. The only alteration I made to the original map was to crop out the German legend.

So, what seems to be called for is that the map should either be removed from Wikimedia and the German article -- or re-added to my sandbox. Please look into this. Smallchief (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC) 15:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Smallchief. Please not that Krdbot does not delete any files. Please contact the admin who actually performed the deletion. Thank you. --Krd 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

question

Hola, te consulto sobre el borrado de los siguientes archivos con el bot Krdbot. Las mismas son una edicion personal realizada por mi, partiendo de un Banner institucional de la [oficial] del Poder Judicial de la Provincia del Chaco. En consulta con el organismo, ellos declararon que ninguna de sus imágenes son de dominio público. Archivos Borrados:

• File:Presid 1.png
• File:Presid 2.png
• File:Presid 3.png
• File:Presid 4.png
• File:Presid 5.png

Saludos! --Anderwsont (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see: COM:LIC. --Krd 11:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)