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]

File:L'Alba dei nobili a Lierna Lago di Como.jpg No license since 27 June 2024

[edit]

You deleted this file. This file is clearly tagged as {{PD-Art|PD-old-70}} so why did you delete it? It is sourced and as you can see on Category:Vittore Grubicy de Dragon, it's very public domain. Multichill (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I have restored the file. Krd 04:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Krd, how are you? Please reconsider, that file is an upload of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson, an inveterate hoaxer. Nothing that person says or claims can be trusted. The image has no source or attribution, it may or may not be by Grubicy de Dragon, and so may or may not be in the public domain. On past experience, the title and date are very likely to be invented. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Please advise. --Krd 10:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Krd and User:Justlettersandnumbers: In this case we seem to have a source at https://www.museofattori.livorno.it/le-opere/catalogo/la-vela/ which actually includes the images. Looks like it's a triptych: La vela (Q121545709), Alba di lavoro (Q121546724) & Alba di signori (Q121546448). Multichill (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice research, Multichill, thank you! So the painting actually is by Grubicy de Dragon and should presumably be kept, with a corrected title and file description. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore File:Камбаров Илья Скульптура Сермяжная Русь 1905 год ЕМИИ.jpg

[edit]

Please restore File:Камбаров Илья Скульптура Сермяжная Русь 1905 год ЕМИИ.jpg. There is no copyright violation, the artwork in question is dated 1905, more than 100 years ago, so it is public domain. --ssr (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor, and in which year did they die? --Krd 07:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
w:ru:Камбаров, Илья Алексеевич, death year 1958. --ssr (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is the sculpture in the public domain? I don't think so. Krd 08:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking on behalf of the uploader, user:IvanA. He doesn't speak English. But he has good knowledge on laws. I am awaiting now more details from him. Thank you for collaboration! --ssr (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judi Benavente File

[edit]

Good afternoon Mr Kird.

Can you explain the reason for delete the photo of Spanish model and influencer Judit Benavente?

This picture have a free license and was upload by the photographer in 2012.

The file its use for only biography purpose.

Can you restore the file?

Regards

George Barahoma GEORGEB1989 (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foo.png

[edit]

You closed this discussion as "Kept: in use". However, I don't see anywhere this image is being intentionally used in content pages - four of the references are on talk pages, including at least one where the user intended it as an example of a red link; a fifth is in a page of test cases for a Lua module which doesn't appear to even render the image anywhere. As far as I'm aware, none of these should count as "in use" for the purposes of deletion discussions. Omphalographer (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have looked deeper into the user page uses. Sorry. Now deleted. Krd 07:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to restore "fishbowl" image, Braver Angels

[edit]

Greetings. I've read Com:L and Com:VRT.

I just emailed back, within our June email thread, to request restoration of one image. Two images were discussed in that thread, but I believe you only had objections to one image.

The image to restore is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Red_Blue_Workshop_Wellesley_fishbowl.jpg This image does have permission from the photographer and, afaik, no other copyright problems.

Thanks for your consideration. ProfGray (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to contact me at different venues at the same time, as this double my work and your waiting time. --Krd 12:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 12:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krd&oldid=903689332"