User talk:Marcus Cyron

Dieser Benutzer verwendet weder Sockenpuppen noch editiert er unter IP-Adresse.

• Deutsch: Beiträge auf dieser Seite werden durch mich auch hier beantwortet, wenn die Diskussion bei dir begann, soll sie auch dort und nicht hier fortgesetzt werden.
• English: I’ll answer your queries here. If we started the discussion on your discussion, I answer there.
• Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to an archive

This user is a member of the Volunteer Response Team. (verify)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

TUSC token ea10bfa8c837460b9d03bb73594292e5

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token dc981b9b44185bbbe64865c9ae3660e9

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Renaming of incorrectly identified image - File:Japan Type 89 grenade discharger.jpg

Hey Marcus,

New to Wikimedia, still learning the ropes. Was hoping you could clarify the issue with my proposed rename of the image? Did I miss a step in the process or is there something else? It is a Misidentified Object and does seem to fit the criteria. The guideline says "If an object or organism was incorrectly identified in the filename (such as calling a Sylvilagus floridanus by the name “File:Sylvilagus audubonii.jpg”), this criterion covers renaming the image". Seems analogous.

If theres doubt that it is misidentified, a correctly identified example of the Type 10 exists on the commons. Here is a Type 10, notice the identical trigger tab, the same right angle steps where the barrel ends and same general construction. The other image of the Type 89 here isn't great, but here is an external link to images. Notice the different designed buttplate, the different trigger tab, the elevation control knob, the curved section where barrel meets the "stock". Khitrir (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You want to rename an image. There are three stages for the identification of an object. The least important is the name. At the end you can name a file how ever you like, it's of minor importance. But of importance is a correct categorization and the most important is a correct discription. The category as also the discription still saying "Type 89". So which effect other than inconsistence should a renaming have? But it's not my job to do this, because it's not my field of work - I don't know, if what I would do is correct. But what I can do, have to do, is not allowing an inconsistence in this all. What's next? Someone comes and want to rename it back to Type 89, because discription and category say so? -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it. The obvious solution to me is also correcting the description and categories to match what's actually in the image. Its misidentified, the guideline seems clear that the filename should change. The name it has is actually the name of an entirely different thing. Like a photo of a Dog with the file name "Elephant.jpg". If such a photo existed, and had "Elephant" in the Categories and Description as well, is it just meant to be left like that? There's no process by which to fix it? Khitrir (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't explain it a second time. If it's not worth to you to change the category and the discription, it can't be a problem. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I assumed changing the page details (the category and description) before the name change was approved would be bold. I intended to get the rename done, then fix the details. If all I have to do is fix those first, then request the rename, that's easy. Sorry for being a nuisance and thanks for your patience. If I've misunderstood, please let me know, otherwise I'll make those changes and re-request the name change after I check into the category and description standards to make sure anything I do is compliant. Cheers. Khitrir (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Korinthischer Skyphos Antikensammlung Berlin 2.jpg

File:Korinthischer Skyphos Antikensammlung Berlin 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

185.45.239.133 10:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thiyagasothy

This user, Thiyagasothy, is continuing to post copyright images as his own work despite being previously blocked for the same infractions. He is also remove the copyright violation tags on those images to avoid getting them deleted. Dan arndt (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There were enough warnings, I blocked him now indefinite. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

SLA

Darf ich fragen welche "norm" hier als Schnelllöschgrund akzeptiert wurde? Das die Fotografin den Ausschnitt unpassend fand? Ich bin verwirrt. --Mirer (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Das Bild, das du da ausgeschnitten hast, war nicht nur handwerklich schlecht, es hatte Potential absolut despektierlich zu wirken. Wenn wir solche Ausschnitte in dem Projekt verwenden, könnte es uns durchaus passieren, daß wir bald keine Akkreditierungen mehr bekommen. Echt, was hast du dir denn bei diesem Bild gedacht? Hast du etwas gegen die Dargestellte? Anders kann ich es mir schwer erklären. Vielleicht solltest du nicht bei mir meckern und Nicola angreifen, sondern mal darüber nachdenken, was sinnvoll ist und was nicht, womit man Menschen schaden könnte. Wenn wir Menschen fotografieren, haben diese ein Recht auf die Wahrung ihrer Persönlichkeitsrechte. Es geht also nicht darum, ob die Ausschnitte von Bildern machst, sondern darum, wie du das hier gemacht hast. Ich wäre an deiner Stelle eher froh, daß dieser schlechte Ausschnitt schnell wieder weg war. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sehe ich immer noch anders als ihr beiden. Das Bild ist wie es ist ...

Ich habe übrigens weder hier "gemeckert" (sondern eine einfache Frage gestellt), noch Nicola "angegriffen" (sondern sie lediglich gebeten mich nicht mehr zu kontaktieren). LASS solche Unterstellungen/Lügen bitte!

Es gab also keinen Grund nach den Regeln?! Soll mir aber egal sein, wenn du alle anderen Crops von mir (das sind alle Dateien unter diesem Account) auch schnelllöschst - scheinbar bin ich ja zu doof dafür und das ändern von Dateien schreiben wir uns zwar als Möglichkeit auf die Fahnen, wenn es dann aber einer macht, fragen wir den "Hauptautor". Dann mache ich hier nichts mehr und überlasse das Feld euch Commonshelden.

Ansonsten bitte die Beschwerdeinstanz nennen. Sowohl zur Bildwiederherstellung als auch für ein "AP". --Mirer (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mirer: Diese Regel ist ganz einfach und nennt sich Artikel 1 des Grundgesetzes: "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar." --Nicola (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Keine Commonsregel ... das du mir hier unterstellst ich würde dagegen verstoßen zeigt nur, dass du a) keine Ahnung von Recht hast und b) warum du dich mal mit Robert verstanden hast - irgendwie kommunzierst du ja scheinbar gerne auf eine ähnliche widerliche Art. --Mirer (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)