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]

Quick discussion closure

[edit]

Hi! I think this discussion went to closure mightily fast. Could you at least comment on the issue or on the VRT ticket (2024072910005722) now received? Thanks in advance. Paracel63 (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VRT ticket is for one file only, and the likelyness that it will be successful is at the lower end. It's safe to asssume that the files are all copyvios. Krd 17:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is safe? I've invited Estrellato to this discussion, and as a local administrator at svwp he has been acting quite responsibly regarding administrative issues during the past couple of years. He is free to disclose his civilian identity (which I know), and I find it quite unreasonable to presumeassume he's been acting in bad faith. Yours truly. Paracel63 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the music in the file that was kept is copyrighted too, so in either way the sound have to be deleted. // Kakan spelar (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only second what Paracel63 said. It really feels like you assumed I acted in bad faith. "Safe to say they were all copyvios" is a ignorant statement. it has already been confirmed at Undeletion requests that this was not the case.
Music can be muted, if it is copyrighted. Expect an email from Cosmico Jr (who filmed the video and gave me permission) shortly. Estrellato (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the file has already been restored. Does your claim also apply to the other files? Krd 03:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It applies to those listed at Undeletion requests, for various reasons mentioned there but mostly simply because it is own work. Basically the last 9 files listed in the discussion.
Some of the other pictures was taken by a close friend of mine (Angel Arce), who gave me permission to upload them, he already does for luchawiki.org. But I will just ask him to reupload them himself instead of going through the VRT process for those. Only three pixtures were screenshots taken from non CC videos due to a missunderstanding on my part. All of those, I marked as G7 as soon as I realized I had been wrong. Assume good faith. It was never my intention to bend the rules. / Estrellato (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you have already created several undeletion requests. Please advise what you request me to do. Krd 07:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete every file that I've submitted, except for maybe the escudos because the discussion is still ongoing. There is no evidence of copyright infringement. See also this: https://www.facebook.com/audacion/posts/pfbid02vcHR5e6WkdeageeQ9ncq6S6WnYsrKWZBn4o3VcKWtKAUc3wnMQnjsoz1ZaYvwMmal
I don't care about outing my real name. The LTAs know already. Estrellato (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reopened the deletion request. Krd 06:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. Please read my arguments and take them into account. I admit to making a mistake uploading 3 screenshots from YouTube due to being misinformed by another user (who had no intent to mislead, it was a simple misunderstanding.) See sv:Användardiskussion:Estrellato, and use translation software for further explaination. Those files should obviously stay deleted. But I will stand by that all the last 9 files (now restored) in the first deletion request are completely my own work, and I have made everything I can to prove so, including writing on said album in my Facebook profile that I am Estrellato and I give permission to use everything from that album for public domain. Since I lost access to my original phone and computer where the media was originally stored, there is not much else I can do. Estrellato (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Thanks about connecting Facebook and Wikipedia account identities, which I think is the way to go. Paracel63 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 00:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ultrararere34

[edit]

Hello. The two files of Ultrararere34 that you deleted have been reuploaded by Cero9e under new names. Since the former is a sock, one can assume that also the latter is I guess. Jonteemil (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite clear, and I think at least the current deletion reason is wrong. Still under investigation. Krd 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drapeaux

[edit]

Bonjour, j'ai une question, pourquoi supprimez-vous les drapeaux que j'ai publié, j'ai pourtant ajouter les licences. Cordialement, Al-Hilali Z (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]