User talk:Polarlys

Babel user information
de-N Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache. en-2 This user has intermediate knowledge of English. sv-1 Den här användaren har grundläggande kunskaper i svenska.
Users by language

• Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User talk:Polarlys/Archiv6
• Archiv 1 Archiv 2 Archiv 3 Archiv 4 Archiv 5

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:St. Lukas-Kirche Chemnitz, Grundriss Empore.jpg

And also:

• File:St. Lukas-Kirche Chemnitz, Grundriss Erdgeschoss.jpg
• File:St. Lukas-Kirche Chemnitz, Innenraum.jpg
• File:St. Lukas-Kirche Chemnitz, Ansicht aus Richtung Blankenauerstraße.jpg

Yours sincerely, Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Kategorisierung alter Karten

Hi, ich hatte gerade deine Anfrage bei Anro0002 gesehen. Es ist großartig, dass du Karten hochlädst, die von dir hochgeladenen Scans sehen prächtig aus.
Aber: ich würde dich bitten, dich nicht zu sehr auf "nach Bundesland" oder "nach Jahr" zu fixieren, sondern bevorzugt die Karten bei den Ortschaften einzusortieren, die sie darstellen. Wenn es eine Jahrhundertkategorie für eine Stadt gibt, muss ein Stadtplan nicht zusätzlich in die Jahreskategorie eines Bundeslandes einsortiert werden, welches erst dreihundert Jahre später überhaupt gegründet wurde. Für "kleinere" Orte reicht auch einfach eine old-maps-Kategorie aus, die irgendwann später ebenfalls nach Jahrhundert unterteilt werden kann.
Die Kategorisierung "by year" ist außerdem besonders problematisch, stattdessen ist es sinnvoller, nach dem Entstehungsjahrzehnt zu kategorisieren, also "1790s maps of Saxony". Der Grund: Kurz gesagt, alte Karten sind i.d.R. eben keine Schnappschüsse aus einem jeweiligen Jahr, sondern beruhen auf jahrelangen Vermessungen oder noch älteren Karten; die exakte Jahreszahl ist daher oft trügerisch, gerade für Laien, die z.B. annehmen, dass der Nachdruck einer 1580er-Karte aus dem Jahre 1633 stammt. Die Kategorisierung nach dem vermeintlich so exakten Jahr führt auch häufig zur willkürlichen Verstreuung von eigentlich zusammengehörigen Karten auf mehrere verschiedene Kategorien - besser ist daher die Kategorisierung nach Autor oder Gesamtwerk, nach abgebildetem Gebiet (Stadt? Region? Staat?), und natürlich auch nach dem Entstehungszeitaum (Jahrhundert, oder ggf. Jahrzehnt; aber bitte nicht Jahr).
Zusammen mit anderen Helfern arbeite ich seit einiger Zeit an der Abschaffung der "Old maps by year"-Kategorien, und ich möchte hoffen, dass ich auch dich davon überzeugen kann, dass es sinnvollere Klassifizierungen von alten Karten gibt. :-) Liebe Grüße, --Enyavar (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hallo, danke für deine Hinweise. Die Frage nach dem Sinn kam mir beim Kategorisieren auch schon. Bisher hatte ich ausnahmslos nach Ort kategorisiert und jetzt erst mit dem Datum angefangen. Da viele meiner Karten von der Bibliothek ohnehin recht grob zeitlich eingeordnet werden (was nicht immer detaillierter Ortskenntnis stand hält), werde ich die Aktivitäten auf diesem Gebiet nicht allzuweit ausbauen. Beste Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, could you explain why you had File:The Lichenologist Covers.png deleted, although this compilation of journal article covers was clearly published (by the original owner of these journal covers) as CC-BY-4.0? Thanks, Esculenta (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry for the mistake. The user requesting the deletion linked a site showing all issues of the journal where a lot of issues are not freely licensed. I should have looked better. The file is restored and was also added to en.wikipedia.org. Thank you for your contributions and sorry again. Viele Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The mistake was mine. As this is not an OA journal, I assumed that the covers were copyrighted, given the copyright notice at the bottom of the page with the archive of issues. I did not realize that this is a hybrid journal with some articles published OA under a license compatible with Commons. Apologies for the hassle! --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Question about deleted file

Hi Polarlys,

I noticed that you deleted a photo I uploaded (a portrait I took of [Aaron Parnas], intended for use in an article), citing a potential copyright violation. The deletion referenced https://www.reddit.com/r/AaronParnas/about/ as a source, but that page is not affiliated with the subject and explicitly says so. The profile picture used there is actually my original photo.

I’m the original photographer and copyright holder, so I’d really appreciate your guidance on how to properly restore or re-upload the file with the appropriate information.

Thanks in advance! SamSchmir (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry for the inconvenience. A lot of files are uploaded here with incorrect copyright information, but sometimes we are wrong in our decisions. To ensure long-term use of your image, you should submit a release according to Commons:OTRS. The image will then be restored. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

question

hi, I would have liked to know what the date and source was for [1], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it was uploaded in March 2024 and the source was https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03946320231209839. Thank you for uploading free content! Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

CC0 is not the same as public domain mark

Hi Polarlys, you seem to be incorrect adding {{CC0}} to your uploads, for example File:Karte der Altmark (um 1720).jpg. CC0 is a license where the copyright holder explicitly puts a work in the public domain, the public domain mark is an assessment of copyright status like us adding {{PD-old-100-expired}} (notice the link at the bottom). Please don't mix the two up. these are probably all incorrect. Can you fix these? Multichill (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message. I have explicitly listed this licence in order to take into account the explicit statement of the digitising institution ("The digitised works of public domain originals produced by the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin remain in the public domain and are therefore marked with the Public Domain Mark 1.0.") if any third party should have any doubts about this but misunderstood its purpose/confused the template. For the copyright status of the original, I have added {{PD-old-100-expired}}, {{PD-old-70}} and/or {{PD-US-expired}} as required. Which template should I use instead to communicate the above statement from the library? Or should I just use e.g. PD-old-100-expired? Gruß, --Polarlys (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

That statement is not a license, but about the Public Domain Mark 1.0 so you're addition of {{CC0}} incorrect.

To re-iterate Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. and Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal are not the same.

You just need the public domain template

• {{PD-old-100-expired}} for the really old stuff (pre 1900)
• {{PD-old-auto-expired|<death year of author>}} for things pre-1930 where author is known

See Commons:Copyright tags/General public domain for more options. Multichill (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I implemented these changes. Is the addition of {{PDMark-owner}} useful? Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)