User talk:TadejM
|
——————————————— MY TALK PAGE —————————————
Hello, welcome to my talk page. You are welcome to post any comments below. Please be polite and follow Commons guidelines. |
-- coding taken from White Cat.
-- coding taken from Timwi.
Archives
|
Feel welcome to add new discussions under this line. --TadejM (t/p) 00:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
URAA[edit]
Malo poglej Commons:URAA-restored copyrights preden začneš s tako masovnimi brisanji (...it was decided that files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under U.S. and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion.) Sporti (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Preberi do konca: "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." --TadejM (t/p) 15:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Vseeno velja "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" npr. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hao Jianxiu.jpg. --Sporti (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ne vem, kako in zakaj je bil zgornji primer zaključen kot kept, ampak pravilo je navedeno na Commons:URAA, kjer je poudarjeno, da je bila sprememba previdnostnega načela v smislu, da se te datoteke ohranijo, zavrnjena.
- V Category:URAA-related deletion requests/deleted imaš številne primere izbrisa datotek zaradi URAA.
- V pravilu jasno piše: »Po razpravi na Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA in nadaljnji neuspešni spremembi previdnostnega načela je bilo odločeno, da je treba datoteke, predlagane za brisanje zaradi URAA, natančno pregledati in oceniti njihovo avtorskopravno stanje v skladu s pravom ZDA in lokalno zakonodajo. Zgolj trditev, da za datoteko velja URAA, ne more biti edini razlog za izbris. Če pa je končni rezultat ocene avtorskopravnega stanja, da obstaja pomemben dvom o prostosti datoteke pod pravom ZDA ali lokalnim pravom, je treba datoteko v skladu s previdnostnim načelom izbrisati.«
- (asking Jim for comment) --TadejM (t/p) 16:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Glej tudi Commons:Wikilivres – wiki, ki je bil namenjen prav gostovanju datotek, ki so proste v izvorni državi, ne pa v ZDA, zato jih Wikimedia ni gostila. --TadejM (t/p) 16:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- That paragraph has confused many people. The policy that Commons Admins are following is that simply saying that the URAA applies is not sufficient -- one must carefully analyze whether all of the requirements of the URAA have been met. If that is the case, then the file will be deleted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I have checked the provisions and believe that all the requirements have been met in the proposed nominations. --TadejM (t/p) 17:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
License of File:Adam Falckenhagen Bildnis.jpg[edit]
Hi TadejM, taggings like this one where you added {{Wrong license}} to a perfectly described and licensed file are not helpful. We do not apply this tag just because a link is dead. And in this case it is particularly easy to verify the claims as the engraving is properly signed by the artist and as you can easily find this engraving described elsewhere like, for example, at the British Museum. Even the link can be fixed by a minimal amount of research as the image is still to be found at the original site. Please be more careful – otherwise we would lose good images just because a former is user ceased to be active. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, AFBorchert. Thanks for fixing the information. I don't find anything particularly wrong with adding this template as it is used in cases where "source or informations provided are not sufficient enough to support the selected license tag". Now you have provided the information so it is not needed anymore. Of course I will follow your instructions in checking the license tag in the future as I am not just "drive-by tagging". Thanks for that. --TadejM (t/p) 17:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- AFBorchert, probably we would need another template if this one is less than ideal in such a case. I used {{Dead link}} initially, but it does even not categorize pages for maintenance. --TadejM (t/p) 19:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi TadejM, I disagree that this was a case where “source or informations provided are not sufficient enough to support the selected license tag”. Everything was there and could be easily verified. The artist was named, his life span was given with links to Wikidata and the corresponding Wikipedia articles. The collection and a reference number were provided. A simple Google search for these terms would have led you to an updated link. Link rot by itself is a common problem and should not alone lead to a tagging with {{Wrong license}}. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi TadejM, this is a DR about a monument with a bust of Ivan Tavčar, apparently created in 1936 if Google translates the inscription correctly. Unfortunately, it still remains unknown who created this bust. It would be great if you could have a look at this. Unfortunately, I do not speak Slovenian and hence my ability to research this is quite limited. Thanks & kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, AFBorchert. I've replied at the said DR page. --TadejM (t/p) 04:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]
Read this message in your language
Dear Wikimedian,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.
Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)