User talk:Blurred Lines/Archive/2013

Mairie du Xe paris

Bonjour, Tu as mis plein de bandeaux sur des images tout à fait acceptables (cf. commentaires dans les pages de discussions) ; aussi je t'invite à supprimer tous ces bandeaux inutiles qui polluent la documentation de ces images commons. Amicalement, --Mbzt (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not speak your language. Me speak English. --Blurred Lines 14:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

("You put ton of tags on correct pictures; so, I invit you to erase all these useless tag") I agree, not the way to tell that, but about usefull tags, because the architecte of Town hall of Paris Xe arrondissement is fr:Eugène Rouyer, and he dies in 1901. ----MGuf (d) 15:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite the same problem with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cathédrale de Grenoble - portail.jpg. Seriously, a medieval cathedral? No FOP in France does not mean that you cannot publish a picture of any building in France. If you have a doubt, do some research: who is the author? when did he die? These are the question you need to keep in mind when you see a potential copyvio. Martin // discuter 16:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When I looked at the files, the files did not describe the author or the date the building was build. Otherwise, I would of never nominated it; But, yes, I could try that research suggestion. Just to keep in mind, I have withdrawn the nominations. --Blurred Lines 18:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe it would be preferable in those cases if you'd look for the missing information instead of rushing ahead in a DR. Martin // discuter 08:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider looking at the category for the building. If the category contains lots of files, then the building is typically old as COM:FOP#France keeps categories for buildings almost empty. If the category has {{Nouploads}}, then the building is typically recent. Finally, the category often contains interwiki links to Wikipedias in various languages. The Wikipedia article may contain more information about the age of the building. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blurred Lines 12:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Jezuieten Heverlee.jpg

Hi Blurred Lines, Thank you for the notification about the deletion nomination for File:Jezuieten Heverlee.jpg and informing me about FOP, I had no idea that FOP even existed. Admittedly, this is the first time I've encountered this and I'm not at all familiar with it. As you are aware of how it works, is there any advice you can give about how to avoid it in the future (considering there are already so many panoramic views of Belgium available here) or how to find aspects about the picture that can allow it to uploaded here. Any help is greatly appreciated. Happy editing, Pjposullivan (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, and same to you with the happy editing. Blurred Lines 16:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blurred Lines 16:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

adding FOP Poland

Hi, can you tell me why are you adding {{FoP-Poland}} template to images of temement houses? What's the point of this? Yarl ✉ 20:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The images were captured from Poland, so the photo's deserve the template, right, because obviously, Wrocław is in Poland. Blurred Lines 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, not really. I'm pretty sure, that architects of these buildings died 70+ years ago, so in fact their work is in public domain. Maybe some are not, but this is definitely something you should consider individually, not via mass edit. Yarl ✉ 20:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that I should revert all the edits that I did to the category's photos? Blurred Lines 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

{{FoP-Poland}} tells that photography of a building or a statue is permitted although it is still copyrighted. If it can be shown that the copyright already has expired, it may be better to add a public domain template instead. That also helps people who wish to use those photos outside Poland. However, in almost all cases, people simply don't bother to add any template for the buildings or statues at all. I don't think that you can say that it is "wrong" to upload the images without any copyright template for the buildings, but it provides extra information to anyone wishing to use the images. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So what happens next? Should I revert the edits that I did? Blurred Lines 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it hurts to have the tags there, but I also don't think that there is any problem to keep them there. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blurred Lines 15:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rücksetzen von A. Savins Edits

Hallo Blurred Lines! Ich habe gerade zufällig mitbekommen, dass du eine Editierung von A. Savin zurückgesetzt hast. Allerdings waren 22 QIC, die du eingestellt hast, vielleicht schon ein paar zu viel. Die Seite funktioniert eigentlich nur, wenn man sich an eine akzeptable Zahl von Nominierungen hält. Selbst Mega-Contributoren wie Poco nominieren an einem Stück meist nur 2-3, vielleicht maximal fünf Bilder. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, ich werde ein paar Fotos von der Seite zu entfernen, und lassen Sie mindestens fünf dort, wie Sie vorgeschlagen. Blurred Lines 18:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've forgotten that you are no German speaker. I hope you understood everything correctly. If not here the translation from above: Hello Blurred Lines! I've seen that you've reverted the edits of A.Savin who reverted your edits. The problem was that you put 22 images to QIC that is far too much at a time. The QIC process only works well if everyone sticks to a reasonable number of nominations. Even users with a large number of contributions (e.g. Poco) do nominate max 5 images at the same time. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blurred Lines 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

COM:QIC

Blurred Lines, I'm sorry that I have to not accept your additions. Because, please read Commons:Quality images candidates in the "How to nominate" section: Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon. Besides, if you nominate 30 images at once or so, there is no chance that some of them will be reviewed. You may ask any skilled QIC contributor for a third opinion. Thanks --A.Savin 17:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I will remove the photos myself, and leave at least five for people to review. Blurred Lines 17:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please note also that you should attribute the photographer in case you nominate images on QIC not made by yourself. This is because the QICbot should notify the creator of the photo on its promotion, and not the user who just nominated them. I also recommend to read COM:Image guidelines. Basically, images with perspective problems, overexposure and similar things (like those five you nominated now, obviously) are not eligible for QI status and unlikely to be promoted. --A.Savin 18:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Blurred Lines 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blurred Lines 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

FPC templates

Regarding Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sandhamn February 2013 04.jpg, just to let you know, only the official templates {{Support}}, {{Oppose}}, and {{Neutral}} can be used for voting. Otherwise, the bot will not count the votes correctly. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blurred Lines 19:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

FPC Promotions

I reverted many of your most recent edits, please re-read the FPC-rules to see why. Unless there are 10 support votes and no opposing votes, review can't happen before the end of the voting period (which is noted on top of every nomination). And in any case, 7 support votes are needed for a promotion, not just a two-thirds majority. Please keep that in mind. Thanks, — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are more mistakes. Don't close 1 second earlier; you only look on the dates. No oppose within five days; you close already have oppose votes. Moreover, the bot restarted and we are testing it. No need of manual close now. Only confirmation (by adding category, etc.) are required now. JKadavoor Jee 15:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blurred Lines 16:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

QIC

In case of [1] please have a look at the QIC guidelines. -- Smial (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blurred Lines 22:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Read the rules

You need to read the rules; they are there to make evaluation manageable and fair for everyone. They may be inconvenient, but please don't try to skirt the 2 photo FPC rules by placing them in a 'Birds' set. —Mono 22:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Mono I can't understand why it won't make it because of the name of the set, and I have just read the guidelines, and nothing states that a name of a FP set that is not suitable must be speedy un-featured. Blurred Lines 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

These are featured sets. Take a look and you'll see what I mean - the rules are ambiguous, but the idea is the images go together very, very closely (i.e. same object from multiple angles, illustrations from the same book, etc.). You are free to disagree, but that's how I see it. —Mono 22:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok, now I'm getting your point, I have withdrawn my nomination. Blurred Lines 22:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blurred Lines 22:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)