User talk:JuTa

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 20:24, 16 January 2017 by Ivob (talk | contribs) (→‎File:GP_C9.jpg and others: new section)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Steiger-mini.gif

Hallo, ich verstehe Deinen Tag nicht. Unter meinem Avatar steht doch die generischen Creative Commons Lizens. --Steiger4 (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steiger4, ich habe den Problem-tag entfernt.--JuTa 10:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iris!

Hallo JuTa und Frohes Neues Jahr aus den weissen Taunus! Ich habe ein Bißchen geforscht und die Website auf der Waybackmachine gefunden, woher die 2 Blumen kammen. Hoffe es reicht, um sie zu retten! Mit freundlichen Grüßen, -- notafish }<';> 13:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ich hab' die Lizenz noch auf {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} geändert, so wie in der Quelle angegeben. Gruß --JuTa 14:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyright status"

Hi, JuTa,

Thanks for your help in

you added the "insufficient copyright information" tag to my photos File:PlominChurch.jpg and File:Plomin.jpg. Both photos are licensed under CC-BY-SA 1.0, as stated on their pages. How is this insufficient? --Aqwis (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you didn't used {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} but {{Cc-by-sa}} which declared another collegue as invalid. I've fixed it now. --JuTa 14:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sod roof

Hi, JuTa,

Thanks for saving my drawings Torvtak 1, 2, 3, and 4 from deletion by tagging them with the appropriate licence. Greetings from Lars Roede (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ambox content.png

Hello, could you please undo your changes to File:Ambox content.png? You have deleted it then made a redirect to File:Imbox content.png. Unfortunately, like this past similar change, it can break things. Notably CSS backgrounds, which happened at least on the French wikipedia. Regards, Od1n (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Od1n, can you pls. give me an example where is broke things? At the moment I cannot realy understand the problem. --JuTa 21:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See for example on this page. The orange warning band is missing its icon. That's because we use CSS to display it:
background-image: url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Ambox_content.png");
This could be fixed locally, but the technique is widely used, so unless you want to check and update all wikis…
Od1n (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, its back, though I think such type of code, which cannot follow redirects isn't perfect. --JuTa 21:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:GlobeAmarnath.jpg.

Hello, This is regarding File:GlobeAmarnath.jpg , That file is my own work. and I have marked it in the description. The license is also specified (CC-By-SA). what extra information should be there inorder to keep the file?

- Hrishikesh.kb (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just updated the license with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, ealrier it was {{Cc-by-sa-old}}. hope this is enough to keep the file.
- Hrishikesh.kb (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Thx. --JuTa 07:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:ETimor2006-0035.JPG

Hallo JuTa! Was ist genau das Problem bei der Datei? AFAIK hat doch der Rechteinhaber selbst das Bild hochgeladen. Schönen Gruß, --JPF (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gleiches betrifft File:ETimor2006-0014.JPG. --JPF (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Würde mich auch interessieren. Möchtest du hier in großem Stil klar ersichtlich unter Freier Lizenz veröffentlichte Bilder abräumen, oder was genau soll das bitte? Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe oben unter #Are you sure you are helping?, #Are you sure you are helping? (again), #"Eigenbau"-Lizenzvorlage und Commons:Village pump#Another bulk process to delete large numbers of licensed files. Ich bin bereits dabei dass wieder rückgängig zu machen... Gruß --JuTa 12:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Danke schön. Da bin ich erleichtert. --JPF (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Category:RNV-Betriebshof Käfertal

Hello JuTa, could you please undelete Category:RNV-Betriebshof Käfertal? It’s finally not empty :-) --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --JuTa 16:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wir leben (für immer) im Jahr 2013?

Hi JuTa, wieso hast du unter

File:EU28-2013-Eastern Partnership.svg

eine Weiterleitung nach:

File:EU-Eastern Partnership.svg

erstellt? Das eine ist (bzw. war) eine Karte aus dem Jahr 2013 (z.B. für einen Artikel über das Jahr 2013), das andere ist eine Karte, die fortlaufend aktualisiert wird. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nun, ich arbeite von Zeit zu Zeit einiges von Special:ListDuplicatedFiles ab. Die Dateien waren binär identisch. Falls es mal eine neue Version geben sollte lade die jetzige doch mit dem alten Namen hoch. Oder übersehe ich etwas? --JuTa 16:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Das Problem ist, dass wir dann in historischen Artikeln nur bedingt Karten verwenden könnten. Wenn ich in einen arabischsprachigen Artikel eine Karte einbaue, die sich auf das Jahr 2013 bezieht, muss ich mich darauf verlassen können, dass niemand, nur weil er vielleicht dieser Sprache nicht mächtig oder die Einbindungen nicht im Einzelnen durchgegangen ist, in Commons auf die Idee kommt, die Karte zu aktualisieren. Ansonsten müsste man in Wikipedia in solchen Fällen auf Commons verzichten und historische Karten lokal abspeichern bis sie "historisch genug" sind, dass eine klare Änderung erkennbar ist, was wahlweise ein halbes Jahr oder 20 Jahre dauern kann. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, wenn das wiki den redirect-namen verwendet, und dies, sobald es ein update gibt, durch die jetztige Version ersetzt (überschrieben) wird, sollte das Problem nich auftauchen. Aber wie em auch sei: die Datei ist wieder da. Ich hab' noch ne Winzigkeit im Source-Code geändert, so dass die auch nicht meht als Duplikat angezeigt wird. Gruß --JuTa 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

duplication of license

I got a notice because my file, File:Bldk-20130710-kaolengmian.jpg, seems to be lacking a license. I added the mentioned license, and now it looks like this:

{{self|cc-by-sa-old}}
{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}

should I remove the 'older' license? or is this what it's supposed to be? Bluedeck 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the "old" license was shortly desclared as invalid, but revereted later. So its a valid license. I you dont like to publish the image under the other licenses undo your edit. But you should to do that "quickly" because the licenses are normaly non-revokable. regards --JuTa 14:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essential source information

To me that means a source that links to the file, not a generic domain url which is essentially useless. Is that not correct? Ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the upper left corner, there is the seal (in small). But feel free to raise a regular DR. --JuTa 16:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks I see that but it is completely different. Anyway I see you have now tagged it again based on the uploader changing the details again. Ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afilador de cuchillos.jpg

wath is the problem with the license cc-by-sa-1.0 ??-- Esceptic0 | ✉ ✍. 04:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing anymore. For details see some sections here above. --JuTa 05:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted photo file for Pierre Ribeaud

Hi JuTa,

can you please restore the file that you deleted ? This file is ok to publish as per explicit mail from the owner (French Assemblée Nationale) below. 

Message-ID: <E1C163A295674742ABD21B2A31AEF86DAB03680A@exchange2.prod.assemblee-nationale.fr>

Bonjour,
 En réponse à votre demande relative à la photographie de M. Pierre Ribeaud,
 s’agissant du cliché officiel du député, publié sur le site internet de l’Assemblée nationale,
 vous êtes autorisé à utiliser ce cliché sous réserve d’indiquer le crédit photo suivant :

                « ©Assemblée nationale – année d’utilisation du cliché ».

 Bien cordialement.

Assemblée nationale
Service de la communication et de l’information multimédia
Division de la communication institutionnelle
La Photothèque

Ref: https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Ribeaud&diff=133515443&oldid=133499632 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFambe (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:LaFambe. The copyright holder has to send an email to the commons support team - see Commons:OTRS or Commons:OTRS/fr. But as far as I understand the mail above, this is not enough. Anybody in the world has to be allowed to use the image for any purpose incl. commercial uses, and not only "you". They have to choose a specific license - {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommended - they like to publish the image under. regards --JuTa 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ! Thanks for replying. When I read the mail they sent, it says "you are authorized" but I do not read it as "me in person" ; I read it as "anybody" ; provided we indicate "©Assemblée nationale – 2017". But oh, well, if it is so complicated to get a French administration public photo into wikipedia, then I'll just leave it like that. Thanks for your (and my) time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFambe (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. JuTa

Hi, Mr. JuTa! Please rename the File:USSR-1983-1ruble-CuNi-Mendeleyev150-b.jpg to File:USSR-1984-1ruble-CuNi-Mendeleyev150-b.jpg because the coin was minted in 1984. Prethanks... Vaga-am (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaga-am, ✓ Done. --JuTa 07:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lohr - Batle of Nicopolis-2.jpg

Dear JuTa,

Unfortunately I made a spelling mistake in the title of this picture. I do not have file mover rights, so I uploaded it again with the right spelling, but you deleted it as a duplicate. I should like to ask you to revert this and keep the version with the right spelling ("battle" instead of "batle").

By the way, how could I get the right to rename a file with mistaken title? It would save some work if the problem arises again, and I could help in renaming many files with obviously mistaken titles.

Thanks in advance for your help--Szilas (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Szilas, ✓ Done. --JuTa 07:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schön!--Szilas (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion requests

Hallo JuTa,
ich bitte Dich mir Deine Löschentscheidungen zu erklären. Bei einigen m. E. gleich gearteten Anträgen (hier zwei Beispiele: File:Bad Köstritz, Julius-Sturm-Paltz, Julius-Sturm-Denkmal-001.jpg und File:Lykischer Sarkopharg.JPG) hast Du am gleichen Tag verschieden entschieden.
Beides waren offensichtliche Fehler im Namen. Was hat hier den Unterschied gemacht?
Gruß --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baumfreund-FFM, beim 2. dachte ich, der Unterschied wäre einfach nur Groß- oder klein-jpg. Den Schreibfehler Sarkopharg -> Sarkophag hatte ich übersehen. Ist jetzt auch weg. Gruß --JuTa 07:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für die schnelle Reaktion.
Ich habe noch zwei aus dieser ehedem abgelehnten Gruppe: File:Sarkopharg Béla III.JPG File:Lykischer Sarkopharg, Aperlai, Türkei.JPG
Ich bitte auch um deren Löschung.
Bevor ich auf die Idee kam Dich anzuschreiben hatte ich schon einen LA auf File:Landratsamt Sömmmerda - KFZ-Zulassungssiegel neu.JPG gestellt. Wie soll ich damit umgehen?
Gruß --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Auch die sind jetzt erledigt. Gruß --JuTa 08:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo JuTa, hallo Baumfreund-FFM,
seid ihr euch bewusst, dass die Löschung von Dateien nur aufgrund eines Schreibfehlers im Dateinamen gegen die Löschgrundsätze auf den Commons verstößt. Umso schlimmer, wenn mit einer Schnelllöschung am selben Tag vollendete Tatsachen geschaffen werden. Ich bin zutiefst entsetzt über euer Verhalten. In meinen Augen ist das purer Vandalismus. Offensichtliche Schreibfehler sind ein ausdrücklicher Grund, Dateien zu verschieben (request renaming), aber niemals, diese zu löschen. Ich bitte darum, dass die widerrechtlich gelöschten Dateien innerhalb einer Woche wiederhergestellt werden, damit ihr deren adäquate Umbenennung beantragt.
In der Hoffnung auf künftige konstruktive Zusammenarbeit --ludger1961 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, die waren bereits umbenannt. Hier geht es (nur) noch um die verbliebenen redirects - siehe File:Lykischer Sarkophag.jpg, File:Sarkophag Béla III.jpg, File:Lykischer Sarkophag, Aperlai, Türkei.jpg und File:Landratsamt Sömmerda - Kfz-Zulassungssiegel neu.jpg. Gruß --JuTa 11:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Ludger1961,
selbstverständlich verhalten wir uns regelgemäß. Wenn Du Dir meine Historie anschaust wirst Du massig Verschiebungen sehen, bei denen der alte falsche Name gelöscht ist.
Gruß --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hi Juta, Could you do me a favour please?, Could you delete File:Strood community hub - aka library (23791751373).jpg and redirect it to File:Strood community hub (23791751373).jpg, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I marked it as {{Duplicate}}. Another admin will take care shortly. regards. --JuTa 21:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Okie dokie thanks for your help, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Church clocks in Staffordshire

Hi. I have just reinstated this just-deleted category. It took very little effort to provide enough examples to make it viable. I may start other categories for English county church clocks, examples of which are legion. Perhaps you might like to help ? Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I just work from time to time on User:Achim55/Unused categories. regards. --JuTa 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop redirecting exoplanet comparison images

Pease stop merging exoplanet comparison images. These images are not duplicates. They may appear to be nearly identical to you, but they are programmatically generated images kept in sync with the latest published data (as near as I can) and the merges permanently break the ability to keep these images up-to-date. Please immediately restore you're merges and redirects, and refrain from any further merges. Aldaron (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, they ARE binary identical and listed on Special:ListDuplicatedFiles (otherwise they wont be listed there). I now viewed about the half of the images out of Category:Exoplanet comparison graphics and didn't find one where you updated the size of a planet because of new scientific results. And in case there will be realy a need to update a planet in future you can redo my action at that time as you allready did twice without a current need to. regards. --JuTa 23:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand my request. I'm asking you to be helpful rather than disruptive. Is that too much to ask? I don't spend enough time editing here for it to be worth my while to seek out and revert (it's not easy) redirections. Your interference is likely to just grind updates (already to infrequent) to a halt. Aldaron (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I try to be helpfull here by i.e. reducing some backlogs like the one on Special:ListDuplicatedFiles. May I ask you to be cooperative and only revert my actions if there is an actual need to? thx. --JuTa 23:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what it means to be helpful, both to readers and to editors. Your robotic edits are making it confusing for the former and disruptive for the latter. You're failing to think about the underlying data graph behind the edits your making: a currently coincident value is not the same as semantic equivalence. But I sense I can't persuade you to be helpful. One last try: when these files are updated, it's a big task, involving many files. I have a workflow for doing this that you have now broken. Any future updates will either require a complete reworking of that workflow, or a new tedious (and error prone) manual step of checking what files have been corrupted by you and manually (again) repairing them (doing it now is the result of an "actual need to" in order to at least eliminate the first step). Of course someone else can always create and maintain these files, but — "I try to be helpful here". Aldaron (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not happy, because its now breaking my workflow, but I now undid the redirects and recreated the duplicate files. There is no guarantee that any other admin could pickup and progress those file anytime in furture, but I keep them on my exception list. regards. --JuTa 17:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:GP_C9.jpg and others

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GP_C9.jpg and other files

I'm on my Wiki inactive. All of these images were recorded with the process of OTRS. I do not understand what you want. --Ivob (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JuTa&oldid=229933889"