Dear Ellin, I have been trying to get an explanation for the following deletions, and I have also sent the following email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as I am the copyright owner and want these images to be available to be used freely under the license below.
Can you advise on when these will be put back online? If I need to follow another procedure, let me know.
I hereby affirm that I, Lesley Anne Tan, Director of Communications at Makati Shangri-La, Manila, ( Username: ShangMakati ) am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following files which were deleted recently, and for which I have requested undeletion via Commons: Undeletion requests
I agree to publish the works under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Lesley Anne Tan, Director of Communications, Makati Shangri-La, Manila, +632 813 8888
Copyright Holder Representative
13 January 2014
Hi Ellin, I casually read your edit on Jim's user talk page. Basically Michael's job is cropping someone else's uploads, if you have a closer look was not him the original uploader in many cases. Of course that doesn't prevent us from the risk of having a file either mistakenly or fraudulently licenced, but it's not necessarily MJS's responsability. Regards, -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)22:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Celeb uploads and crops are a favorite pastime of this sockmaster. @Ellin - The account you asked Jim about may or may not be a sock of his, but either way, I like to be able to look into concerns like this and be aware of them. If you see any new user focusing on this area please mention it to me on my talk. INeverCry23:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, oh Talk Page Stalkers!! I didn't know what I was looking at but my spidey sense was tingling. @INeverCry I will certainly let you know if I find more of these and thank you Sergio for your help, too! I was really curious because he and the original uploader (while not the same), often had same pattern ... A uploads, B edits. Just odd! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@INC - It must be all those years of sorting the laundry and bundling socks. Any more that fit that pattern, I'll leave you a note on your talk page !! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Produits en beton.jpg
Hi Ellin,
Our picture can be used for the society FIB www.fib.org (It is our federation). But we have forgotten to delete it in wikimedia commons, after a part of an article we have written (with this picture) has been deleted. We can delete this image. Thanks for your message. ((Unsigned note by User: Ceribmul:Ceribmul
Dear Ellin Beltz!
What exactly is the problem? Translations published in weekly "Ruch literacki" in 1876, so it's not a problem. The original from which the translation was made was issued in 1862. Pictures did I, my own camera, so it's not a problem. I did the a PDF file, so it's also not a problem. The file PDF contains all the translations published in the weekly "Ruch literacki" in 1876, so it's also not a problem. What's the problem? Do not make me guess the riddle of the Sphinx. Is the point that the translation does not include all the original chapters? I can not fix it, for lack of time machine. M.Tarnowski (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
Ellin Beltz, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).
Congrats to our newest admin! Here's a cup of coffee so you can stay up and do a bunch of deletions. If you have any questions or need help, you know who to come to. INeverCry00:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeedous gave me the confidence to try out my claws on some fairly straightforward deletes. I didn't know what pushing any of the buttons did at all, so I started out on one with fingers crossed and had to go back and edit a few. But I now see how all the stuff works. The only things I can't seem to get working are the google and tineye buttons which my preferences say should be accessible on all images, so I'm still cutting & pasting the file name to google images. Any suggestions?? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those two functions aren't in the drop-down list? A cache purge might help, but other than that I don't have any suggestions. INeverCry20:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeay! And as I already said: Just a little joke. :) So you activated Tineye and GoogleImages in Preferences >>> Gadgets >>> "Tineye tab"/"GoogleImages tab"? Than I don't know either, but maybe waiting some time or logging out and in again could help... --Indeedous (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I missed your vote -- I kind of figured you were headed toward an RfA and would have strongly supported you. Unfortunately new RFA's don;t show up in the Watchlist (because they are new pages), so I often miss them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you wrote that the discussion is about the map, but after "this map is unidentified" the discussion was entirely about the original image, showing an identity card. Since you didn't only delete the revision with the map, it would be nice to know that you considered the discussion about the earlier revision. Rybec (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination said:"This map is unidentified, and the previous version of this file name is a completely different image, which is also not identifiable. Mercurywoodrose ..." As the nomination was for the image on top of the other image, the discussion should have centered on the top image as that was the one which was deleted. However, everyone explained the lower document is a free German sample document. If it needs to be added to the project, surely it would be very easy for anyone to upload a higher quality version with correct license, give it a useful and educational description and put it in the correct category. Thus the lower image is no loss as a better one can easily be uploaded, the upper one deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need access to deleted
Hello, you recently deleted File:EEZ of Cyprus.jpg. The uploader User:Alexyflemming has just uploaded another image, File:Iskele Long Beach AirBNB.png, which is also copyrighted. I know this because they uploaded the same image before, and I found the copyright claim for it. However, because that previous upload was deleted, I can't see the page it was on, and therefore can't see the links I posted there. Are you able to access the deleted page, and if so can you delete the new upload for exactly the same copyright violation? Regards, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HI
I would like to ask about photo which removed from article about organist Mr. Wróbel, what should I do?? Best regards. (unsigned by User talk:WrobelWiki
You made a deletion request about three files I uploaded. I took the pictures myself. You said the image of Nelson Mandela was used there, but the source of the image is indicated at the bottom of the page : Image of Nelson Mandela by Mbx (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons. You also said the image of Didier Cuche is used there, but the page shows random photos from the Google search 'Cuche Roland'. This is written in French : Les photos suivantes sont tirées d'une recherche sur Google avec le terme "Cuche Roland". Pour retirer ce contenu d'internet, nous vous invitons à contacter le ou les sources. The images doesn't appear anymore on the two sites, this is another proof that they came from Wikimedia Commons. There are no camera metadata because these are scans of printed photos (I didn't have a digital version of these images). So I ask you to undelete the three images. Thank you. Mbx (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually the deleting admin. I stand by the deletions and oppose any restoration. You've uploaded 3 images to Commons: 2 of them are pics of a Swiss skier 10 years apart, and the other is a 1997 close-up of the acting President of South Africa. I don't believe that you originally took the Mandela photo yourself, or the skier photos. You say these are scans of printed photos, but where were they printed, a magazine? Also, File:Didier Cuche 2012.JPG looks like it originally comes from a TV coverage screencap. INeverCry23:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do is go through COM:OTRS and reupload. It's a process not a value-judgement. "Family property" is not the same thing as "family holds copyright." I'm really sorry but to upload an image to Commons, the uploader has to push a lot of buttons and type information which says they hold the copyright. If they don't the images can't be kept. I've had images deleted too for copyright reasons, it happens to all of us. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient manuscripts
Thanks for nominating my pictures for deletion (that is not a sarcastic comment). I am relatively inexperienced with Commons, but have tried to respond to the issues you raised. As far as I know, old manuscripts have no copyright in Arab countries, and most of my (recent) contributions have been photos of old manuscripts kept in Arab libraries. Regards.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the old manuscripts is that whoever photographed the manuscript holds a copyright on the image, thus while the manuscript itself is out of copyright, the provider of the photograph has rights. If the source clearly waves the rights in a way that they can be uploaded to Commons, and the source is provided on the upload page in a way that any person can find it easily, then the old manuscripts are usually ok to upload. But, of course, the reverse is true also. Every library page marked (c) or "all rights reserved" means that the documents cannot be uploaded to Commons and given a free license. I appreciate your understanding in this regard, please don't hesitate to ask questions and get help with/for future uploads! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point (about how the photographer may have rights). The issue is, it is not clear if it applies to the manuscripts I uploaded, but I would highly doubt it.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You requested quite pictures for deletion on March 10 that I uploaded. You are probably right in some of them. But I think you are wrong in some other cases. I made one comment on the File; Pelliot chinois 4646 sofar. The problem is I have only little time in the next days to comment on other requests for deletion. I hope you can give me somewhat more time to the end of this month before a final decision is made. I would be grateful for that. Renevs (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum paste what you typed here on the others, because the standard is to have all replies/discussion on the nominations which have about 7 days for decision. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed your decisions for deletion. I disagree with all your decisions on images from the Dunhuang project. Before I go on fighting these decisions I suggest you read my comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buddhist criticism on a Bon funeral ritual.jpeg posted 21:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC). I would like to know if this a reason to reconsider your decision. I will wait for an answer before I continue this debate. I repeat that if the image in that post is deleted probably tens and tens of other images on several Wikis will also have to be deleted. I
"File:StephanChaseActor.jpg" Nominated for Deletion
Hello Ellin, this image is indeed the same as the image on IMDB. The actor (real name, Stephan de Montaingnac) says he owns this particular image and is happy for it to be registered here. I have only a little experience as a Wikipedia contributor, so my apologies if this is the wrong method to respond - I could not find a better way in the help files. Also, perhaps it would be better to refer to the image from a different source than Wikimedia? Your advice is welcomed, thank you.
Best Regards, Steve Weeks, "stevix"
--Stevix (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed here you deleted some photos of a protest in Hong Kong for being "out of scope" and "not in use". Please don't direct me to make an undeletion request, these photos are not mine and are not directly relevant to my query.
I began contributing to Wikimedia Commons as a means of preserving Hong Kong history. Mainly I contribute architectural photographs, but would also like to contribute images of events and protests in the city, similar to some of the ones you deleted above. Before I began making such contributions, I looked through Commons:Project scope to ensure these were acceptable. That page indicates they would be, based on the fact that such photographs fall under the broad definition of "educational" as being informative in some way, and I do not get the impression from that page that "not in use" is a valid reason for deletion.
I often upload photos to Wikimedia Commons not necessarily for immediate use on a Wikimedia project, but to make informative photographs available for use for architecture/design students like myself, and to preserve images of a fast-changing city for future generations. The old images of Hong Kong available on Commons are educational to me, and I hoped to contribute to this visual record of places which might appear totally different from decade to decade.
Now I am doubting whether spending time uploading photos to Commons is worth it if my photographs are apparently liable to be deleted at any moment in the future. Would you please comment on your interpretation of Commons:Project scope? Until clarification, I quit contributing photos to Commons. I enjoy contributing but it's obviously not a worthwhile use of time if my photos will be deleted. Citobun (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Citobun:
Images that get deleted for out of scope, not-in-use, may include
(a) blurry or really poor quality images
(b) images of some guy/girl/babies/families/pets doing various guy/girl/baby/family/pet things,
(c) images so personal as to defy polite description,
(d) images that are impossible to tell what they are and/or have little to no description to help the user decide the educational content,
(e) images that were uploaded as test edits, out of boredom, or to test a new phone,
(f) are not categorized or are categorized to Category:NonexistantPages and
(g) unused, poor quality, low resolution and lacking metadata images.
I started uploading images to Commons several years ago. I lost count over 300 uploads. I'm sure there's some way of teasing the exact amount out of the system somehow, but I don't know how to do that. In that time, I've had I think only one image deleted, but my girlfriend who took more pictures of plaques while we were using "let's fill WikiCommons with Historical Buildings and Places" as a fun excuse for outings had a pile of her pictures deleted at the same time. Something I would have never expected is that certain (not all) metal plaques in the out of doors in the U.S. are copyright! Go figure, but they are. Both my friend and I got very upset at the time being accused of being copyright violators for taking a photo of a sign stuck to a rock at a boat ramp. The deleting editor asked me to work on deletions so I would see what the project is up against. My friend, however, gave up entirely and no longer contributes to WikiCommons so I understand your concern.
In general, when real users uploads real pictures that they took themselves, the sizes and quality are so obvious compared to what you saw being deleted that it's really obvious that the nominated for deletion photo is out of scope.
My best advice is to upload a couple of images, poke me and I'll take a look at your uploading template and offer any fine tuning I can. Here's something that might help you with the location tags: It is a utility which gives you lat/long from Google maps. If you take photos outside of metropolitan areas, this utility may be more useful.
Was it a great answer? I truly don't mean to be rude, but I'm genuinely baffled. The reply Ellin Beltz provided really sounds like a cordial, wordy non-answer which skirts my concerns. My core questions have not been addressed. Ellin Beltz, could you please then answer these specific queries?
1. Would you please articulate why photos of a protest in Hong Kong are outside project scope. Some of the photos of User:Dannytcchan which you deleted do not seem to fall under any of the criteria for deletion you listed. Some illustrate an event (the autonomy demonstration) not illustrated elsewhere and thus fall under the scope of Commons by virtue of the fact that they are "educational", taken broadly to mean "informative", as per Commons:Project scope.
2. I would like clarification on the point that "not in use" is a reason for deletion, as you have provided in the case above. Because for one, I don't see that anywhere in Commons policy. And secondly, that would have a huge impact on the Commons - you might as well nominate tens of thousands of photos that aren't in use.
3. I don't understand your sentence here: "In general, when real users uploads real pictures that they took themselves, the sizes and quality are so obvious compared to what you saw being deleted that it's really obvious that the nominated for deletion photo is out of scope." What does this mean? What do image size and quality have to do with whether or not they fall within project scope?
4. Above all, I would like you to allay my fear that my photographs, which appear to me, after reviewing Commons policy, to meet all stated criteria for project inclusion, will not be deleted in the future. If they might be, why? Am I misunderstanding Commons:Project scope in some way? How?
You're not being rude at all... Let me go through your list here and see if I can be more clear.
It wasn't the content of these photos, it was the quality, the resolution and that they were uploaded but not used. Pictures with those attributes (low quality, small sizes, low resolution, uploaded but not used) are often a form of test edit. Speaking hypothetically and not about these particular images: sometimes people find "great" pictures on the internet and assume Commons will be delighted to have them. Unfortunately without a great description, good quality, valid metadata and use on the project (including being put in a category other than "uncategorized") the image is of not so much use for education as it could be if it were an original photo and in use (at least to category level). Otherwise some of these images look more like test edits. Again, I'm not speaking to these particular images, but in general.
"In use" comes from a subsection of COM:SCOPE, specifically COM:EDUSE which reads: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed. It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope. Hence a file which is not "in use" falls outside of COM:SCOPE.
If files are educational, clearly described as to what they depict, where they were taken, have an accurate photo date, contain useful location data, and valid categories, as well as being large enough in size and good resolution, they will not be usually be nominated for scope.
To better explain my comment about "real users/ real pictures," please have a look here at one of my images File:Ferndale CA Berding Street Door.jpg. Notice under the photo... a line of text which reads "Size of this preview: 450 × 600 pixels. Other resolutions: 180 × 240 pixels | 360 × 480 pixels | 576 × 768 pixels | 1,200 × 1,600 pixels." Scroll to bottom of page... There is a box of camera metadata that provides information about the image. Both of those indicate that the image was originally from camera data. Then take a look at File:Jouvici en sus comienzos como guitarrista.JPG which is also obviously from a camera, but which I nominated for out of scope due to Commons not being a personal photograph album. It would fall under my item (b) above... kids/families/dogs, etc. Look at this image File:Jeju_1.jpg which is nominated as a possible copyvio. It would not have been eligible for nomination under COM:SCOPE even though it is of low resolution and low quality, small size, and utterly missing a description - because it is in use on several pages. Here's a low quality image nominated for out of scope File:It is max from max and ruby 2014-03-16 13-29.jpg. Here's another one File:Beach of dreams.jpeg which is currently nominated for possible copyvio, but could also have been nominated for scope as it fits the qualifications. I realize that some/all of these images may be deleted in the next few days, but at present these are some samples.
Something to remember in all this, the Commons admins have to work with the laws of over 100 countries, never losing sight of the fact that the Commons servers are in the U.S. which has some of the most complicated and convoluted copyright law in the world. I've heard various figures for the numbers of uploads daily but they're huge. The most obvious ones end up on the deletion nominations; the rest fall through the cracks until some sharp-eyed editor pulls them out later.
For your fears I can offer you nothing more than I've put up about 300 photos on Commons, one has been deleted. That's a ratio of 1/300. If someone offered me 300 to 1 odds on a bet, I'd take it. Also after all this discussion half the admins in Commons will recognize your name as a straight-up cautious uploader unlikely to cause any deliberate problems!!
"Hence a file which is not "in use" falls outside of COM:SCOPE." <-- I think this is where a conflict in our interpretation of COM:SCOPE lies. I don't know if that statement is correct.
You have quoted a passage from COM:EDUSE which, summed up, states that otherwise non-educational images automatically fall within scope if they're in use. But I don't see how, from that, you came to the conclusion that images not in use are consequently outside project scope. And it appeared to me that that was part of the rationale you had used to delete the images of User:Dannytcchan, which seemed to me potentially educational (although perhaps you were right and they were a copyright violation, in which case I think they should have been deleted on those grounds instead).
My own impression is that images that are educational fall within project scope -- provided they don't break other rules -- even if they aren't presently in use. I interpret that from this policy here:
"A media file which is neither:realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed abovefalls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons."
Doesn't the wording imply that images which are educational, but not in use, may fall within project scope?
I care because it might affect images like my own File:Kwong Yuen Estate public space 1.jpg. As an urban design student, I had sought images of the unique public realm of this housing estate on Commons and, finding none, visited and took my own photos. I think it's educational, because I couldn't find similar illustration of this space elsewhere. By my interpretation of COM:SCOPE, this image is within project scope.
However, by your interpretation it is out of scope because it isn't in use. I don't like this uncertainty, plus I think it would encourage people to shoehorn images onto crowded articles on Wikipedia so they wouldn't be deleted, rather than relying on the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to _______" template, found on most Wikipedia pages, to inform users of the content here.
In a nutshell: You have stated that "a file which is not 'in use' [consequently] falls outside of COM:SCOPE", but I don't see COM:SCOPE as supporting this statement anywhere. Therefore, I don't think "not in use" should ever be used as a contributing reason for deletion, unless the image is otherwise non-educational. Thank you again for your time and clarifications. Kind regards, Citobun (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*We hold many high quality images of species-identified birds, and there is no realistic educational use for a small, blurry, poorly composed snapshot of an unidentified and unidentifiable bird. Of course, there is always room for another educationally distinct image, for example illustrating some aspect of bird behaviour that we do not currently cover, even if the image is perhaps not of the highest quality.
There may sometimes be an argument for retaining multiple images that are (from an educational point of view) quite similar, for the sake of variety and availability of choice, but there is no purpose in our hosting many essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value.
New educational files of exceptional quality are always welcome, and the later uploading of such files may in principle render earlier unused poor quality files educationally redundant. However, as indicated above, a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational, so a poor quality file that remains in use is not liable to deletion even if a better-quality file covering the same subject later becomes available.
New and existing files of poor or mediocre quality may or may not be realistically useful for an educational purpose depending on what they illustrate and what other files we have of the same subject. Where a subject is rare and/or difficult to capture, even a poor quality file may be of significant educational value, especially if Commons has very few or no similar files already. On the other hand, poor or mediocre files of common and easy to capture subjects may have no realistic educational value, especially if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples.
Image quality is just one of the factors that may limit the educational usefulness of a file. Other limiting factors may include low-resolution and hard-to-remove watermarks.
The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".
A media file that is in bona fide educational use in an article (the "mainspace") of one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to comply with this requirement, as is a file in bona fide use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like.(See my note 1 below)
An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for bona fide use on a personal user page of another project is considered legitimate.
File NOT in use in another Wikimedia project
Any file that is realistically useful for an educational purpose, which means that it is broadly speaking "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".(See my note 2 below)
An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace), but the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for bona fide use on a personal Commons user page is considered legitimate.
Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:
Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.
Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offense. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate-group) they should be kept.
Advertising or self-promotion.
Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.
The upper section addresses quality of images, then this lower section addressed educational content.
Note 1: If the image fails this test, then is on its way to failing COM:SCOPE.
Note 2: "Realistically useful" here includes quality issues discussed in the previous paragraph.
The overall point here is that images need to be of good quality, larger size, better resolution to be educational. :The image in question that started our discussion was defined as a small size, low quality image, not in use. That nomination was based on multiple factors... (a) small size, (b) low quality, (c) no camera metadata and not in use. Had it been in use even with the A,B,C, factors considered, it would not have been able to be nominated for out of COM:SCOPE. Images are considered outside of COM:SCOPE because of both quality and lack of use.
The image you linked wouldn't fail under COM:SCOPE, it's nicely framed, well lit, has camera metadata, is of high quality and high resolution. If it's not in use, it's not a big deal because it is a lovely photo of a place and you took it yourself. Now there are some other issues besides COM:SCOPE that can get photos deleted, but that's a totally different can of worms.
Returning to the nomination which started all this, here "They are all out of project scope and/or copyright violations due to missing camera data. Taivo" When I examined the images, I saw also that they were of low quality, low resolution, which put them outside of COM:SCOPE and raises the issues of possible COM:COPYVIO. None of the images were in use, so they failed the auto-keep of in use.
I know there's several admins, including Jim and INC, lurking this thread, I'd point out I found half a dozen typos in COM:SCOPE this morning - we might want to take another run through that page with their fine-tooth combs. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2D work copyright
Hello,
I noticed that you submitted DRs for old reproductions of 2D works. Please notice that these are accepted whatever is the source or the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? And how old does something have to be to be included? Doesn't the uploader have to provide accurate dates for "old" images? I DR'd manuscripts that were marked (c) on various websites, but I don't recall just tagging 2D works that were not marked (c) on the page of source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the original document is in the public domain, the reproduction is OK, whatever the source says. These copyright claims are copyfraud, IMO. Obviously precise dates are always better, but anything older than 130 years is fine. BTW, you can now use {{Ping}} here, instead of {{Talkback}} on my talk page. Yann (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, I agree with User:Yann*. It is WMF policy that the act of photographing or scanning a 2D work does not give rise to a new copyright. This is in accordance with Bridgeman v Corel. I disagree, however, that claiming copyright on a scan of a 1271 manuscript is copyfraud. The issue of whether a simple scan has a copyright of its own is very much unsettled. Bridgeman is only a district court decision, although several other US Federal courts have followed it. The UK is unclear, although probably following Bridgeman. Switzerland is clearly with it, but Scandinavia goes the other way. Note that the WMF policy covers only works that are strictly 2D, so that even coins are not included.
I'm commenting at length here because I think that Admins should be thoroughly familiar with Bridgeman, as it, and FOP issues, are the two most confusing and controversial areas that Admins must explain to new users.
@Jim: Well, when I say "copyfraud", I mean "abusive claim of copyright", which may be slightly different than the legal definition of "copyfraud". These claims are ethically and morally abusive, even if not legally wrong. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK -- you and I completely agree with Bridgeman, but I think we need to keep firmly in mind that a significant part of the world does not agree with us. To say that they are committing copyfraud seems a little strong when the laws of some respected countries explicitly disagree with us. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been nominating things based on if the source webpage considers itself copyright. I nominated a series of photographs of Tibetan art because I noticed that every page the works came from was marked at least (c), two of the sites have extremely restrictive re-use clauses, several of the uploader's photographs are from published sources and less than 70 years old. If (c) doesn't mean (c) then we have a problem. Please advise. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, (c) does not always mean (c). First there is copyfraud -- claiming of copyright when the claimant knows that he does not have one. We see that fairly often. We also see sites and books which have a copyright notice, but don't really mean it to apply to material that they know is not under copyright. If someone quotes Lewis Carroll in such a place, we all know that the (c) doesn't apply to the text of Alice in Wonderland, but we must also remember that it doesn't apply to John Tenniel's illustrations either. Then there are sites in countries where Bridgeman is not the law of the land -- they may claim copyright and actually be able to enforce it in their own countries. The point to remember is that if the work that is the subject of the image is both 2D and PD (and the 1271 Tibetan piece certainly is both), then it is OK for Commons under WMF's adoption of the Bridgeman rule, without regard to claims made by the source. Equally important to remember is, as I pointed out above, that the Bridgeman rule does not apply to anything that is not strictly 2d -- it does not apply to coins -- and the work that is the subject of the image must be PD in both the source country and the USA. You might want to read the article on Bridgeman v Corel -- it is a recurring issue and an active Admin needs to be thoroughly familiar with it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann & Jim: In the case I think we're talking about it's (c) the British Library, (c) a large collection of Asian art, (c) actual photos (not art) of at least two living photographers and (c) news photos of at least one dead photographer who died after 1960. I don't think it has anything to do with copyfraud. I've read the Bridgeman ruling which is a lower court legal ruling in the U.S.; the British Library is in U.K.
Any file hosted here must normally be freely licensed or public domain according to both the law of the United States and according to the law of the source country, if different: see Commons:Licensing. ... In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable license. Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified, along with the original source where the file is a derivative work. Also, the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable. If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence. (Bold, mine)
Initially, prior to the deletion discussions, most of the images I nominated did not provide source information, copyright holder information, or proof that the copyright holder released it at all. Once I found them all, I discovered that all of the images that I nominated from the Tibetan gallery were clearly marked (c) from reputable sources; the Copyright that the webpage owner thinks they have was clearly explained, which I linked up to the discussions. All of the pages being clearly marked (c) show that the copyright owner has not released it under a suitable license. Further down the same page on scope it reads:
Precautionary principle: Commons' users aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed. The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted. Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, run counter to Commons' aims: (*)"The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to." (*)"The copyright owner will never find out." (*)"The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work." (*)"Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter." (*)"The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained."
Several of those unacceptable arguments were used in the discussions about both the early Tibetan artwork and the 1950s and 1960s news photos in the same gallery. I do not think the British Library thinks they have abandoned copyright; in fact I think the opposite - else why would they bother adding (c) to their page templates? I think if the British Library gets annoyed at Commons for swiping pictures labeled (c) just "because of some American law" that - at a minimum - the P.R. repercussions will be huge. Why go through all the rigamarole of defending the point of (c) from reputable sites if by some legal justification which only applies to the U.S. other images clearly marked (c) from reputable sources are "oh that's ok, it's old."
Besides, books and scrolls - no matter their age - are not 2D art. The scrolls I nominated are clearly on rollers which are not 2D. Even the flat parts of scrolls and books are 3D objects, not a flat like a one-sided paper print, a one-sided painting or a one-sided postage stamp. Anyone who has ever tried to take good photographs of a book or scroll rapidly learns they are not dealing with a single, 2D flat object. Scrolls roll up on rollers, their backs may be elaborately brocaded or embroidered, books are 3D objects and book pages use two sides of the paper, hence they are 3D and subject to the more rigorous defense of copyright put by their owners on their owners webpages.
For the gallery I nominated with the lack of attention to the requirements stated above (prior to the nomination process causing the uploader to tighten up the sources and attributions), I don't buy the "we can get away with it due to some American court case" argument, especially in the case of the British images. I also think the uploader played very fast and loose with the images taken by living or recently dead photographers and had missing sources, and 404 sources throughout the gallery and a "who cares, it's all over the internet" philosophy. Based on the policies stated above, I nominated images clearly marked and defined copyright by their original sources - after extensive searching in some cases to find the source. If they end up Kept I want to go on record that I disagree with this kept and the rationale that Bridgeman covers these works because I do not believe that U.S. lower court rulings apply to U.K. law, even assuming they will stand up to the higher courts in the U.S. It's all way too much "assumption" and "personal opinion for me." I think if the British Library is declaring copyright, we should respect their declaration.
The issue is also bigger than "is it covered by Bridgeman or not". Before the uploader changed things following the nominations, the pages were not properly filled out with source and/or license. The deletion nominations - if nothing else - have caused some of the required information to arrive in the descriptions/sources and licensing of the affected images. Perhaps in future that user will not upload more recent news photos and photos of contemporary photographers, under the argument "they're all over the internet", fail to source the images, and subsequently provide those images with open licenses - which is what drew my eye to their gallery in the first place. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bridgeman doesn't apply in UK, but following a clear opinion from WMF legal department, the Commons community decided to disregard that. And for our purpose, anything on paper is 2D, at least for the copyright status of the content. So, yes we don't respect copyright claim by various institutions, including the British Library, the French National Library (Gallica), Google Books, etc. Each of these claim some coopyright on the content they host, but we copy these documents here under a PD rationale nevertheless. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Files using this exception should be using {{PD-Art}} or {{PD-scan}} templates to be clear why we are not worried about copyrights of the person digitizing those works. I also agree with Yann and Jim that there is a lot of bogus copyright claims related to historical images. It seems like many website administrators do not know much about copyright status of the images on their sites: they often copyright public domain files or "release" to public domain copyrighted stuff. --Jarekt (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yann has it right. WMF counsel and the WMF Board decided in 2008 that all WMF projects will act as if Bridgeman was the law world-wide. Again, I suggest you carefully read the Bridgeman v Corel article and Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag. Because Bridgeman is a UK company, the original Bridgeman decision was based on UK law. When it lost on that basis, Bridgeman came back and wanted US law to govern -- it lost on that too. It's notable that Bridgeman could certainly have brought the action in the UK -- as I said, they are a UK company and Corel certainly has a legal presence there, but they chose to bring it in the US, almost certainly because they thought their chances were better here than across the pond. I am obviously not a UK copyright lawyer, but my understanding is that if a Bridgman-type case were brought in the UK, it would fail. That has been the rule here on Commons for more than five years and so far the few complaints have gone away in the face of our firm position. The text of the opinion implies that that WMF would go to court to defend the policy if a strong complaint were made.
While it is true that books and scrolls require more careful handling than paintings, the 2D/3D distinction is based on the fact that if you are copying a 2D work, there is no room for creativity based on lighting or camera angle. Being careful to get such works flat requires care, but not creativity, and so all 2d works are covered by the policy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having come across this discussion by accident, I am taken aback. I do not understand how anyone trusted with sysop tools would fail to have sufficient experience, or be confused about our position on faithful reproductions of PD 2D works. If I have misunderstood the above discussion, I would be happy to be put right. --Fæ (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ I see administrators discussing the fine points and learning from each other all the way through the deletion nominations, so prety much everyone trusted with sysop tools is still learning. And of course the laws keep changing and evolving and we all must continue evolving with them.
This discussion was one of my learning experiences on the fine points of 2D art and Commons. Jim and I have previously had long discussions on other fine points of copyright and he has taught me much of the convoluted nature of what you all understand so effortlessly and newer admins still struggle to learn. In this specific instance, I nominated the entire gallery due to the appearance (perhaps not true - but the appearance) of multiple copyright violations, missing sources for the art claimed to be ancient, missing sources for recent news photos, missing sources for recent photographs marked (c) to other people on the source website, etc. Some of this user's files will probably be deleted, and the others were properly sourced and licensed due to the nominations which ends up being a good thing. It is not up to the nominator to fill in the proper license information but the uploader and in this case (and the only case where I've nominated PD-old art) it was not provided accurately until after the deletion nominations were made. I read what I was told to read, didn't understand it 100% and Yann & Jim straightened me out on it. I'll be the first to admit I'm perfectly capable of making errors - probably good ones - but they will be with good faith and the ability to learn from them. INC - who nominated me - assured me that if I really screw up images can be COM:UNDEL. Also please notice I didn't delete the works in question, I only nominated them based on apparent licensing issues. In future, I won't be nominating any properly licensed 2D works of ancient age, but I will continue to tag those which say "own work" and are obviously not. And I will continue to work on learning all the fine points and staying out of the areas I do not understand. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin, On one hand I appreciate work you are doing. We definitely need more people working with deletion requests. However for someone doing so many nominations and closing of deletion requests we are just surprised at the misunderstanding of the most basic rules. Like for example this surreal discussion about why it is a bad idea to be deleting scans of old PD books. We frequently have to explain basic rules of Commons to other users, just not very often to other admins. Unfortunately often incorrect nomination end up in deletion since we do not have enough people working with DRs. As it happen in the already mentioned example where User talk:Fastily deleted PD-old book you nominated, as out of scope. --Jarekt (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellin: Just keep doing your best to learn and advance. You'll be fine. The only reason other admins don't make mistakes and show inexperience in DR is because they never close any! It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, but a bit tougher to really play the game. INeverCry19:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with INeverCry that the "only reason other admins don't make mistakes and show inexperience in DR is because they never close any". We are all always learning and especially with changing standards, things which were OK few years back might not be OK now. So may be my advice would be to specialize in one (or few) type of issue until very confident in those and than branch out to neighbor issues. Do not try to come up to speed with too many diverse types of issues. --Jarekt (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you review this deletion closure please? There can be no copyright issue for pre-1946 photographs taken under the jurisdiction of the Government of Japan. If your deletion was on copyright grounds, then there seems good reason to take this to Undeletion requests. --Fæ (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Fæ. I read every page of the book - and looked at the subsidiary images on each page - when I read the nomination for deletion for all the pages. The part I'm missing in this scrapbook discussion, and is where the Government of Japan enters into the copyright of a missionary's scrapbook, to which the family of the recently deceased is claiming copyright? You made the nomination as as part of it you wrote "The source USC web page states "The University of Southern California has licensed digital access to this material from Dr. Victor Wellington Peters whose estate retains the rights to the information in the individual items."" As I read what is available to the common reader on that page and the pages of the scrap book, the missionary made the scrap book, it was in his papers which went to the University who digitized it. The images are uploaded to Commons and the family objects, laying copyright claims. I see a chain of ownership from the missionary to his heirs and no clear understanding of how the Government of Japan gets into it at all. Please clarify where the Government of Japan has any copyright to pre-1946 images relates to this series of scrap book scans? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was explained in the DR. The photographs were taken in Korea under Japanese colonial rule. See KOREA#Japanese_occupation and the links provided in the DR. As a consequence there is no possible claim of copyright by either the photographer, his estate or members of his family. --Fæ (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ellin. I like you better than INC... Having to jump through some hoops now to prove I own the damn picture, but as you say, hopefully it should be simple enough. This seems like a massive pain in the neck just to stick a picture of a cat on Wikipedia page, but I guess I see why it's necessary. Cheers, Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but yeah, this has not been a good first experience - it's hardly encouraging me to do more. Didn't expect such an immediate and aggressive negative reaction to simply trying to use my own picture. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry I don't understand? Why would this be of an advantage or a change? It looks like my links there are already descriptive. I'm so very sorry I simply do not understand your point. I am not disputing a thing. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being one of the users involved in my DsR on fictional flags, please have a look at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue for a general discussion on that topic.--Antemister (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the head's up. There is a game called "Micronations" from which a pile of utterly fictional flags of micronations were uploaded. Those are the ones I filed deletion requests on previously. For the fictional ones, I personally agree with you that the encyclopedia should only maintain clearly useful and correct flags - even if the country they represent no longer exists. But to upload hypothetical flags to me personally makes not much sense. I have read all the arguments pro and con and still do not find educational purpose in purposefully incorrect uploads. That seems to me more like hoaxing or pranking. However, I am not an old enough admin here to know all the ins-and-outs of all the rules yet and perhaps there is some subsection which covers this - but I have not as yet found it. Personally, however, I agree totally that correct flags are in scope, and phantasmagorical ones are not. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Tyrer photo
You have posted a suggestion that a recent photo I have posted of Edward Tyrer could be a candidate for deletion because of possible copyright infringement ( as well as being low resolution)
When I uploaded this the Upload Wizard jumped the gun and did not ask me to fill in the usual questions about copyright ,licence who created image etc. This was the first time this has occurred. I tried to find an "edit' feature so I could add to the information supplied but was unable to find it. In spite of the low resolution this image deserves to be retained because the only other surviving image of this past very senior Hong Kong official is of even worse resolution (see Wikipedia website about this man).
If you can help me add to the copyright info, the facts are this . The pictures is copyright expired ( if ever claimed) because it was been in the public domain since 1956. It was published widely in both newspapers and in official Government public information media. Additionally the British Colonial government which originally published this no longer exists because Sovereignty has lapsed.
Hi User:Chinarail, I think we can fix this! Check out this image I just uploaded which shows where "Edit" and "History" buttons are located on Commons files pages. You need to be logged in to see it like this. Click the "Edit" button and it will open a page of coding, you can then add to the description fields and license information. Please put your remark above on the actual deletion discussion page here, so that other administrators know what is going on. Please do not forget to put four ~~~~ 'tildes' after your name to sign and date your remarks. I am putting a talkback tag on your page in case you are not yet a "Watchlist" stalker! Thank you for getting back to me! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doubts
I have been on and off in my opinion about you ever since your Adminship was up to vote. Some times I fear I am being too severe in my evaluation of your work here (although not as much as others are with other adminship candidates’ work, not by a long shot), other times, well, things like this happen, and I know that you’re not really Commons admin material. The fact that you’re even so probably a better admin than hav of our current lot only makes that worse. I however wish you the best, and hope to find reasons to change my opinion about you some time soon, as it is not really that hard. -- Tuválkin✉22:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tuválkin. I'm sorry you have a poor opinion of me. I am not an expert on well known Italian personalities, and there was no name of anyone in the description line. The image was stated to be too old to have been taken with an iPhone which was introduced in June 29, 2007. Is the issue that I added a comment to explain my opinion before I deleted what looks to me to be an out of scope photo? The file is titled "File:Amazzonia venezuelana.JPG", Amazonia in Venezuela which didn't help as to the educational purpose of the image. I was following the guidelines that say it's up to the uploader to provide information; I can't do it for them. I am sorry if you have a poor opinion of me for this action. There's always COM:UNDEL if you feel strongly about it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion request File: Salle Saint-Jacques (Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne).jpg
Hello
regarding to web pages unlikely to be own work this file: Salle Saint-Jacques (Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne).jpgweb page results
I don't see any images that predate the upload on Commons. Can you be more specific why you think this image with metadata strikes you as "unlikely to be own work?" Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Duleep Wijesekera's Photograph
Good Day to You !!!
Dear Ellin
You have Deleted the afore mentioned Photograph claiming that its a Copyright Violation,But Its NOT,I never do such Violations here intentionally,I sent an email to OTRS on 4/01/14 regarding this,but they never replied me,So who is Wrong ?
GreetingsMediaJet: The file was marked "missing permission" 06:18, 1 April 2014 by User:LGA. A tag was placed on the page showing that the file was missing permission and after over a week, the files that were missing permissions were deleted as is standard. I notice on your original uploading statement which reads author = The captioned Photograph is “solely owned” by Hon Mr Duleep Wijesekera who has given me his expressed permission to publish same in the Wikimedia Commons.If anyone needs any clarification of the said works,Do please contact me through my email address as mentioned herein mediajet...[edited for privacy] I'd suggest in future starting with an OTRS because it is not up to the administrators to contact you to provide permission; it is up to the uploaders to fill in source, license, date and description. See Commons:Project scope/Evidence for more information on this. Even so, when the OTRS admins have a chance to get to your correspondence, if the license is at that point correct, the file may be restored. Please do not be offended by the automated system messages attached to the deletes, but please take a few minutes to review all your other uploads for any other missing licenses or permissions. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your cooperation Ellin ,I have sent all necessary details regarding this work through a detailed mail to the OTRS,Even my Personal contact details,including Phone number address and NIC number,but still they haven't replied me.There are few other Photographs in my Uploads which I prefer to have an OTRS ticket.--MediaJettalk10:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I formally want to complain because you deleted 7 files I uploaded in commons (some of those a year ago) concuring with EugeneZelenko inconsistent deletion proposal.
I explained that I fully respected the offical policy. I personally took some of the picture. I am in a picture as well (of course a different camera was used). I personally got the authorisation for publishing the others. I provided the justification in time when requested. Nobody answered nor contacted me.
Do you think in case of doubt is better to delete?
Is this in the spirit of wikipedia?
I do not think so.
If you want people to stop creating and improving voices you are in the very right direction.
Hello Ant.da, I'm really sorry, but you're upset with the wrong person! I'm neither the nominator, nor the admin who deleted the files! At the deletion discussion, please see: Deleted: Please send evidence of permisison to com:OTRS User:Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC) The line below it where I close the form reads: Deleted: Housekeeping, files were deleted by another admin. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I found the files removed and the discussion open, so I closed the discussion in much the same way that one person will close a door after another or shut off a lightswitch left on. I'm sorry that you are upset about the files being removed. Did you know there is a COM:UNDEL process for situations where the uploader feels the files were wrongfully removed? With best wishes, Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me awnser the question why they have been deleted. You never stated which photographs are your own work. Those would probably okey. For the other images we don't have any evidence that you indeed have the permission to realease them under a free license. This permission has to be validated via com:OTRS in order for those files to stay. Since it as unclear which files where okey and which not, it is up to you to provide that information according to com:Evidence, I deleted them. It's not up to the closing admin to sort things out. I call them as I see them. There are simply to many deletions request and to less admins to hunt for evidence and that is the uploaders task anyhow. I hope this helps you understand why they have been deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ellin Beltz, I am not happy with the situation but I can try to understand your point. I am not sure this is the right place to answer to Natuur12. If not please let me know.
Moving to Natuur12, unfortunately I completely disagree with you for the following reasons:
1. Most of the deleted pictures were uploaded last year and nobody complained. What changed though?
2. All the pictures were upload as own work because either I was in the picture or I made the picture and asked the persmission for using those for the regiment wiki page or because there was nobody in the picture as happened for the last I uploaded.
3. I answered to the deletion request in accordance with the current regulation ... did not you note that?
4. And the fact you mentioned above "it as unclear which files where okey and which not" is not a good reason to delete them all. As I asked in the previous link you had to tell me which one is not and the reason! It cannot be up to me to defend myself from a generic and inconsistent charge.
I think that the last picture I uploaded was seen by EugeneZelenko. He noted some pictures I uploaded in the past did not have the rights to be in commons (for a good reason I fully understood) and deleted all the others. Then you approved. I am sorry but this is not professional nor polite with people just trying to providing something for free.
Therefore I would be grateful if you might recover the files and ask me if something about the copyrights is not clear to you or other admin.
Thanks in advance for cooperation.
--Ant.da (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was up to you to prove which files where okey according to com:Evidence. You can disagree with that of course but that doesn't make the closing wrong. Than there is also com:PCP. In this case there was a reasonable doubt that the files are not free since you failed to tell which images are own work and which images need in fact validation via com:OTRS. Than there are some other problems. File File:Arcangelo VIII.JPG is most likely not covered by com:FOP so this file won't be restored anyhow. A good start would be that you provide a list of files which are own work and which files are made by others. And sorry for using your talk page for this Ellin Beltz ;) Natuur12 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Version 129367328 von Dateientlinkerbot (Bot: Entferne Commons:File:Josef Bruckmann.jpg (de) da die Datei gelöscht wurde. (Copyright violation, see Commons:Commons:Licensing))[Bearbeiten | Abschnitt hinzufügen]
Hallo Ellin, warum hast Du mein Bild entfrernt? was stimmte nicht an meinem Bild und wie kriege ich es wieder rein? Bitte um Infos, vielen Dank.--Andre Fahnenbruck (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Hello Ellin, why did you (delete?) my picture? what was wrong with my image and how to get it clean again? Info Request, thank you -. Fahnenbruck Andre (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andre Fahnenbruck. The picture File:Josef Bruckmann.jpg was removed for lack of source, so there was no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. There is a system for proving ownership and permissions, it is called "OTRS". Please provide (1) a link to an appropriate webpage with license information and a statement of exactly where the original image was obtained, or (2) send an email with copy of a written permission of the original photographer (not a rephotographer) to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Please see [COM:OTRS this page]] for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.
If you have already sent a permission, wait a fortnight for the OTRS volunteers to reply before sending duplicate correspondence. Please do not re-upload the image while you are waiting. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file may be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests, providing a link to the File-page on Commons which was previously deleted (File:Josef Bruckmann.jpg) and the OTRS number which you will receive if it is approved.
I see from your talk page that there is another of your images nominated for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait.jpg. I suggest taking a look at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Portrait.jpg: First it is a very small image and the upload screen asks for the largest possible. Second it is an old portrait picture, yet the camera used was an iPhone! Notice it says Source Own work. That is not possible for such an old photo to be taken by an iPhone! So please go to that discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait.jpg and explain how you think the image is yours to license freely. Thank you! I do not speak/write German enough to attempt it here, I am sure Google translate will do at least a halfway job on explaining what I am saying here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted photos
Mr Beltz,
Many of my images were deleted due to possible copyright violation. I'm new to this and I understand that I didn't put enough information about the source of these images and I want to make it available to you so that they can be restored. How do I do that?
Hi Lecramduaner: To have files restored, go to Commons:Undeletion requests, providing a link to the File-page on Commons which was previously deleted and which you wish restored.
Unless you can find a license statement compatible with Wikimedia Commons on the JournalLePelletier page - or obtain OTRS permission from them, I think this image also will have to be removed. Just finding something on a web-search doesn't make it free. I really strongly urge you to re-read the information linked on your talk page about licenses and uploads, especially COM:L. Thank you for taking the time to write, I am sorry that our processes may have confused you, please do not hesitate to ask any more questions. Cheers! (Ms.) Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer and your explanations. Even if I still have some reading to do, I know a little bit better now. I'll certainly use the undeletion link you provided me, but do I have a time limit? About the Wilfrid Pelletier picture you're talking about, since that image is all over the internet, I thought I could use it but I see I may be wrong. I'll most likely try to find another one. Thanks again. --Lecramduaner (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lecramduaner: I'm not too sure there's a time limit to OTRS something, they're overloaded and behind (as are we all) and perhaps are not in a huge rush to get yours too! If you have an interest in helping us out with images with license problems and copyvios, please let me know, I'd be happy to show you the first steps. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination of Deleting Sebastian Achilles 2014
Dear Ellin,
you nominated my picture 'Sebastian Achilles 2014' because you saw some blur effects in it.
I'm the Owner of the Copyrights.I prepared the photo for wikipedia and I can garantee that no watersigns or something were removed.
Please contact Sebastian Achilles himself via his eMail adress office@sebastian-achilles.de
He will confirm that. Please delete your nomination.
Best regards
Bart
Dear Bart: It is up to the uploader of the image to provide proper licensing. Please go to the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sebastian Achilles 2014.jpg and state your ownership of the image. Please don't forget to be logged in and sign your name with four tildes ~~~~ . It is entirely possible that I am completely wrong and have nominated your picture in error. The other admins will make the final decision, in this case I am only the nominator. And a nomination is not the same as a deletion! If you are not the photographer, but you have permission from same, please ask the photographer to follow the instructions at OTRS and when the proper information is received, the file can be restored by you going to COM:UNDEL, providing them with the OTRS ticket number and voila, problem solved. Sincerely, Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ellin,
I 'm new to that stuff and I wonder where I have to state my ownership with 4 tildes. When I follow your Link Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sebastian Achilles 2014.jpg, what do I have to do next and where ? Choosing 'edit' behind the link leads me to the source code of your nomination ... could you please give me further instructions ? Thank you very much.
regards
bart
Greetings again Bart: I have added some instructions to the nomination of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sebastian Achilles 2014.jpg. Just go there, click edit, and there's a line of type to guide you where to start. You then explain how this image came to be yours and "sign" with the four tildes. All they do is that the system will then autoadd your signature (if you are signed in). Please be signed into comment on the deletion nomination! I know it's really complicated, but it will all work out in the end. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
undeletion of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lane Oct 2011.jpg
Hi Bluerasberry. I did explain the deletion for a picture nominated 27th of March, it reads "Deleted: Despite being in use, the uploader says it was taken by another and OTRS was not received despite extra time being allowed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)" You are correct though, COM:UNDEL is your next step, but they probably will also advise you to file an OTRS ticket which will solve the whole problem. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bluerasberry. The fullest explanation I can give you is the same as you find on COM:L, the photographer holds the license to the image. That's pretty much the beginning and the end of this question. The photographer of the image needs to file an OTRS to provide a valid license for your image. As the subject - you can't do it. Proof? Otherwise the paparazzi would go broke for no business - the celebrities would own all the photos and there would no financial incentive to hide in the shrubs for a photo of Kate Middleton's naked torso! So just saying "I had a friend of mine take this picture for me, doesn't give you the copyright to the image. The photographer still retains copyright unless you had a formal, written agreement about it which you can provide to the admins at OTRS, or if your photographer can provide same. This is same message people been saying over and over on this image for a couple weeks now. The answer isn't going to change much, it's part of Commons policy. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment about the NASA licenses. I didn't realize they had to be replaced. All of the NASA images I uploaded here onto Commons have been fixed. Many thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had forwarded the appropriate permission email from the copyright owner to OTRS on April 4 and tagged both of these images with {{OTRS pending}} at that time. Shouldn't deletion have been stayed pending an OTRS ticket outcome? Jmozena (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ellin! I notice you added (then commented out) a historic-sites cat to the church photo that was mentioned on the Help Desk. Please note that I created a category for the building, which should probably be what gets any further categories to do with the site—as opposed to cats relating to characteristics of the individual pictures. It’s already in Buildings of religious function on the National Register of Historic Places in North Carolina, which isn’t broken down into counties (or hasn‘t been yet). I’ve just added the NRHP template for good measure.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Odysseus1479. I added and blanked it because I noticed that the church category also went to the National Historic Register page for that county. It was an *oops*, hence the wipe-out. There was no reason to call your attention to my mistake in categorizing it in both the higher and lower level category simultaneously! So sorry, you are absolutely correct and once I saw your logic in the system; I backed out! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Licenses
Ellin Hello! I thank you that you made the comment about "my collection" of newspapers. I have corrected the problems, I think. The error was not properly understood the instructions. Excuse my poor knowledge of English. Thanks. Magenri
Hi Magenri. Thank you so much for putting correct licenses on all your Reus newspaper images. That is a big help for the project and much appreciated. The deletion request on this one Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reus1973 .jpg was also closed "kept."
Les meves disculpes per qualsevol traducció incorrecta, que utilitzen Google Translate! Hola Magreni. Moltes gràcies per posar llicències adequades en totes les seves imatges dels diaris Reus. Aquesta és una gran ajuda per al projecte i molt apreciat. La sol · licitud d'eliminació en aquest cas "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reus1973 .jpg" també estava tancat "mantenir-se".Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Anton: Good catch again! Those two images you noted were nominated by Hedwig of Washington. BTW, are you the nominator of André Furtado de Mendonça for WikiDYK? If so, I'm your reviewer, please feel free to make me fix all the problems I noted if they're not easy for you to do! I already fixed the image to a slightly cleaner digital version and then did some Photoshop on it to remove some of the extra ink. Follow the link to the left to the cleaner version. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, I'm afraid you've deleted a poster I'd uploaded («File:Cartel de La salvacion.jpg») due to "Copyright violation", but I can asure you that it's an original work of mine and it has GNU Free Documentation License (CC BY-SA 3.0) as you can check at the film's oficial website: http://blog.acrofilms.com/p/la-salvacion.html
Hi G\.: Well that was a big oops on my part. It's restored. Thank you for your understanding and patient notice to me that I deleted it in error. I will go visit the image and make sure any other administrative tags are off it, etc. Again, thank you for pointing this out and my apologies for the error. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Ellin, sorry to bother you but I've a question and maybe you can help me. Is it possible to do something in order to avoid that the file Cartel de La salvacion.jpg can be erased or nominated for deletion again in the future? Thank you, G\. (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi G\.: I put a note inside the file (you have to open it in edit to see it). Otherwise, if it ever gets nominated, please just refer to the History of the page to show the new nominator that they're making the same mistake I did. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ellin! I've get an OTRS ticket for File:Cartel de La salvacion.jpg (#2014041610018794). Do you think it will be enough to stop the deletion nominations? Regards, --G\. (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi G\.: I see the OTRS template on the image now. That will be enough to stop the problems. Thank you so much for sticking through the process the entire way. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nico Vega image deleted
Hi Ellin,
A photo I uploaded of the band Nico Vega was deleted - Nico Vega-3- Credit Catie Laffoon.jpg. The photo is wholly owned by the record label Five Seven Music of which I am a representative. When I received a request to prove permission, I emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the verification including a link to the record label's website www.fivesevenmusic.com where the photo is clearly featured on. I'm not sure what else is needed to prove we own the content and to get the photo uploaded again to Wikipedia Commmons.
Not simple to understand, too complex to implement, Message "violation, see commons:Commons:Licensing"
Monsieur ou Madame Ellin Beltz,
I am french, my grand-father is André Détolle, mayor of Caen, a public man for 20 years before the second world war.
WIKI have recently installed a new Copyright control system, i discover it as i want to let new documents.
All documents i have dropped before has been also deleted.
I want to tell you that my grand-father is not very well known to day, by the public, and by historians.
There is a very few information, and perhaps one or two pictures available on internet.
In my family, i am the unique guy to look for his history, public and personnal, to make it live.
I have many informations to put in wiki, i want to communicate the truth :
- first of it, Jean-Marie Louvel, another major of Caen has let a public speech. He adress a copy to my grand-mother in 1962, he was died.
- My grand-father have hosted Lebrun, french republic president in 1932, another public man who was died.
- many pictures from 1900 up to 1940, they all are died.
In that period, photographer don't sign, it was like a painting made by anonymous people.
So, the system ask me an ORIGIN. I enter my name, an estimate date. I can't do more.
After that, i receive many alerts that asked to fulfill more information. I tried, but it's too complex, all i do have no impact on the system.
I am lost, can you help me to find concretly a solution.
Ellin, I am offended to know that you believed my photo of Brian Higgins to be a copyright violation. I took this photo of him at SUNY Day in Albany, at his office in 2000. It is a scanned, cropped upload of the original. I see that it has been maintained through the efforts of another editor. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniellagreen: It would help if you could rescan and upload a larger size copy of File:Brian Higgins at his New York State Assembly Office in Albany, NY, February 2000.jpg at present it is only 25KB. The Commons upload instructions say "the largest possible." I am sorry you were offended; Commons deletion nominations are a process not a judgement call. If it's any consolation, I have had images I uploaded deleted (long time ago before I learned what was required for uploads). If you were the photographer of an image that had been swiped (and I'm not saying you are, just sit on the other side of the fence for a second), you'd be happy that our extremely small team of admins is doing anything at all to stem the tide of the dozens of real copyvios uploaded every week. There's a tutorial linked at the top of your talk page, and if you need help for anything not covered in there, follow the links to the Village Pump. I have seen multiple photographer/scanners make a request for help at the Pump and end up with their images installed absolutely perfectly with no problems at all. COM:L is really confusing and I see from your talk page you're having some trouble with the fine points, so please don't hesitate to ask for help before hand! I wish there were an emoticon for "I wish you weren't mad at me," but I have to rely on . Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin, Thanks for your follow-up. Yes, I am learning, and have learned alot as I go along. Regarding the photo of Higgins, it is actually the largest one I have. I've actually uploaded and have used smaller photos. If you look at the page on which it is used, it actually looks very good. Thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Some time ago you deleted this picture due to lack of permission. It turns out that the owner had forgot to send a confirmation to OTRS. She has now promised to fix that. Could you please keep an eye on incoming permissions and undelete the file when appropriate? Thanks, GAD (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GAD, I don't work with OTRS, but when she does it, just go to COM:UNDEL, state the file name and the OTRS number and an admin will help you restore the file. Poke me again for more help, but I don't have any way to see when the OTRS is done with the file! So sorry! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dobrý den, pane Pochylý,
moc Vás prosím, jestli by jste mi dovolil dát na Wikipedii dvě fotky. Obec mi nic z projektu MŠ neposlala. Já jsem si narychlo stáhla z Vašeho webu toho slona a domeček z Korolup, ale bez licence nebo Vašeho povolení mi to zruší. Nemám z projektu jedinou fotografii.
Na Wikipedii je článek Korolupy a pak dodělávám historii, tak se mrkněte, jestli by Vám to nevadilo. Ráda k tomu dodám podle Vašeho přání komentář. Lenka Lyalikoff
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korolupy
Hřiště 8D
Milá paní Lyalikoff, budeme rádi, když se fotky našich zvířátek na wikipedii objeví , mailem posílám co jsme u vás nafotili, použijte dle Vašeho uvážení cokoliv. Rychard Pochylý/ Hřiště 8D
(talk page stalker) Do the authors understand that pictures posted here may be used for any purpose, by anyone at all? It would be best if they specify a licence for the pictures, CC-BY-SA for example: "for Wikipedia" is not general enough.
Google-Czech: Myslíte, že autoři pochopili, že obrázky zde zveřejněné mohou být použity pro jakýkoli účel, by vůbec někdo? Bylo by nejlepší, kdyby zadat licenci pro obrázky, jako je CC-BY-SA. Chcete říct, že jsou "na wikipedii" je příliš úzký.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of King and Queen of Sweden
Hello, (excuse me for my english is bad)
You delete all pictures of the court suede
I joined the site with information
I downloaded the image directly on the site, I put the name of the website of the Court of Sweden, and the name of the photographer and do more ....
Hi Dunkerqueenflandre: The license given by the Royal Court of Sweden here, from the website: http://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/mediacentre/imagegallery/usingimagesoftheroyalcourtsweden.4.70e7de59130bc8da54e800024470.html is not compatible with the Wikimedia Commons free licenses. The licenses granted by the Royal Court of Sweden are too restrictive to be free: please see merely the following from that page after it talks about how they're only for personal use, that no derivative works are permitted, etc. and so on "Images elsewhere on the website are protected by copyright, and must not be copied." It's that line plus all the preceding conditions which got those photos tagged "no license" and speedily deleted. So sorry! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
deletion of cropped Ringo Starr and Joni Mitchell images
Hi. I'm disappointed to see the deletion of these two images, which I'd cropped from existing Commons images and included in relevant Good Articles on the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately I've been logged out and did not see the notifications before deletion went ahead earlier today.
Following the links from my Talk, your rationale for each deletion was "Small size, poor quality crop from [existing file], out of scope due to poor quality, low resolution and being essentially a duplicate of a file already available." I'm confused by this, because I've seen countless permutations (eg various crops) of images from White House archives on Commons, yet in these two cases you're objecting to the fact that a crop is "essentially a duplicate of a file already available".
I would like to upload new cropped versions of the Starr and Mitchell images because I think they complement the song articles I'd expanded. So, higher resolution next time around is obviously important. As far as the level of cropping goes, perhaps it was overdone; but again, I've seen similar licence taken with other Commons images. And when it comes to that "essentially a duplicate" point, well … of course, it's simply a resizing, (partly) in order to work within spacing restrictions in the articles, caused by the positioning of headings perhaps.
I could well be missing something here, I admit. But would you be able to tell me what to do to ensure that you or others won't take exception to any replacements I might be uploading? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When preparing to crop, open the largest size file available and work from that. For example, [1] for Ms. Mitchell and [2] for Mr. Starr. Starting with the largest files available instead of the 300x300 (approximately) size previews will result in better images that are less likely to be deleted.
Also, please acknowledge by http:// ... the actual source of each picture. So if you use something that is already on Commons, please don't say "found on Commons" give an actual clickable link to the image reference page. For Ms. Mitchell, then it would show like this
That will show any subsequent tagger the actual source of the image as well as the page which shows the license. Please take one minute to scroll down my talk page and see that one of my images was also tagged last night. I failed to close a pair of }} curly brackets and so my license information failed to show!! So it's not just you, Commons admins are being extra careful about copyright violations.
I agree with you that you have seen lots of cropped images; the difference is that the size that was used at the start of the cropping was large. Yes, those will be "essentially a duplicate" but as long as the size is large and the quality high, they usually are retained. It's only the crops that start from small size files and make them even smaller that usually get tagged like that. If you have any other questions or wish to continue dialog, please do not hesitate to write back. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz. Thanks so much for your reply, that's very helpful. And I appreciate the comment "So it's not just you" – because, yes, I was starting to take it a little personally, given the number of deletions!
Thanks for uploading File:BenjaminKelsey.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
Greetings Jarekt: I found on the File:BenjaminKelsey.jpg image that I had forgotten two }} closing curly brackets which prevented the rest of the template from printing. There was a license (PD-old & PD-US), but it was invisible due to the typo. Mea culpa! I have made sure that it is PD-old-80 as the photographer died 98 years ago, it's only two years short of PD-100(!). I took the liberty of removing the tag at the same time; I hope that is ok, but for sure that image has a license as does the one of his wife File:NancyKelsey.jpg. Both images were taken by Carleton Watkins (1829-1916) and are from Humboldt State University Humboldt Room in their Library. I hope this is ok, please let me know !! :) Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jarekt, I do not know that the pre 1923 publication tag is correct for this image as I do not know if it was ever published before 1923. My source is a flat photograph from the Humboldt Room at Humboldt State University. I'm not changing the modification you put on the photo's record page, but I am not 100% certain it is correct. I am sure that it is PD-old-80 as the photographer has been dead 98 years. But you are most likely more expert on this than I am and so I am not changing what you put. I really like that trick with the auto-dating for the photographer's death year. I did find the image more recently published here showing it with the photographer's signature and without the overlaying oval. The image is also in use here showing again the photo out of the case and with the handwritten notes at the bottom. I chose to eliminate all that in my upload since someone would come along anyway and crop it all out. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I switched US license to {{PD-US}}, although I do not like it much since it does not tell you why is it PD in US. The other 2 versions of the image do not seem to be much better so I would just leave this version. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of April Byron images
Hello,
I see that the images for my April Byron page have been deleted, and I would very much like to have them appear, as they're fabulous archive material for the page. I'm hoping that you can offer some advice on how to properly enter the images so they won't be deleted? I'm in possession of all of the original photos/clippings, which have been left to me by a collector, who is also the photographer of several of the photos. Can you please let me know how I should go about entering their info so they can be used? I tried to re-enter them with the correct credits/info, but Commons won't let me upload the same images that have previously been deleted. If you can help at your earliest convenience that would be greatly appreciated!!
Thank you!
Unsigned 21:58, 23 April 2014 Amyhausen
Fabulous images they are, and the very best to illustrate the pages, however, the license and source have to be clearly given in order for Wikimedia Commons to host them. Please see the illustration at the top of this page for a fast overview and read COM:L for the full details.
For your specific deleted images from a deletion request to which you didn't respond. Part of that nomination reads Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Amyhausen ... All claimed simply as "own work" with no further explanation. Several of these images clearly taken from newspaper sources and/or appear elsewhere at this page. Resolution appears to be higher in these uploads though, but the background and origins of these images, as well as the relationship (if any) of the uploader to the singer is unclear. The nominator was User:Ubcule; after the week had lapsed, seeing no reply from the uploader, I removed the files. There is another current deletion request on one of your uploads. Please go to Commons:Deletion requests/File:AprilByronTelebird.jpg and reply there.
If you wish to ask that your other images be undeleted, please visit COM:UNDEL and put your request at the bottom. You will be required to show that you own the copyright on the images, which means you can't take newpaper or magazine pictures and call them own work because those images are still copyright the original photographer (with a few exceptions - and your pictures are not old enough to be exceptions yet).
Yes, that last bit is essentially why I nominated the images; they appear to be taken from newspaper or magazine sources with insufficient evidence that the uploader owns the copyright and/or has permission to do this.
It's probably a fair guess that the vast majority of uploads copied from printed publications and claimed as "own work" with no further explanation are no such thing (either because the uploader wrongly thinks that re-photographing existing material makes it "theirs" or because they don't care). If the uploader *did* own the copyright or permission and knew what they were doing, chances are they'd have mentioned this.
So yes, we require some confirmation that Amyhausen owns the right to upload these images under a free license (or that they're out of copyright). If she simply rephotographed and uploaded some newspaper clippings, chances are they aren't free, and useful or not they don't belong on Commons- sorry. Ubcule (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your closing comment "If the uploader had provided proper licenses, some of these images might have been retained.", did you actually bother to check the licenses of the files? I added the valid {{Polishsymbol}} license to several where it applied. Fry1989eh?16:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did check to see if the uploader provided licenses. I saw that you had changed a few, but COM:PRP the entire gallery seemed to be a problem, and so I zapped them all. I will apologize in advance if that was in error, but the uploader did not change the licenses, which is required by COM:EVID: In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. I realize that we may change a license for people obviously confused on the concept, but this gallery didn't seem to have that kind of confusion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, Could you please restore this file? We just got the confirmation from it's author via OTRS. Regards. Ticket#2014042410017878 ~ Nahid Talk22:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Please revoke your deletion here. After having asked a Commons admin to restore the file, I've added the OTRS received template with purpose as I'm currently talking to the copyright holder. Please also restore the file talk page. Thanks, —DerHexer(Talk)23:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the usual procedure when a ticket was submitted. Additionally, there was an open question at the talk page which I was watching in order to confirm the file donation. Cheers, —DerHexer(Talk)23:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. For some of my last OTRS approvals, I asked Commons admins to restore the files concerned when an approval reached OTRS. But in this case, there aleady existed a valid approval by the owner which I was about to confirm when another user raised the issue that the owner might not be the only right holder due to their membership in a selling syndicate. By having deleted the talk page, the owner will not be able to respond to this claim anymore which forces me to start-over the process on my own at OTRS. But well, it might have saved me more time anyway if I had done so or have asked another sysop to restore this file again. Anyway, I think that I have to start-over the process in order to reach a valid statement. Cheers, —DerHexer(Talk)23:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DerHexer: Problem seems to be fixed now, but notice the tag reads An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lilic: Could you give me a bit more information about your question? For example "same" might be "one image cropped from another" or perhaps "one image is jpg, the other is svg". "Same" might also be same building but five years apart. All of those three examples would be under the guidelines as long as their source and license were also correct. Please let me know specifically what information you seek. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My question is in relation to this, [3] , the two images are basically the same. The guy uploaded my map. Are we to allow ten more people to do the same? (Lilic (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
Hi Lilic: I think with those two that you are showing me, the map we shall call L's map and the other one to be called T's map only because I think it may make it easier. Ok, so they show the same information and same size and same color. The major differences right now are that T's map has been linked to a different sr:Wiki page, and has really good multiple language description fields. T's map was uploaded to sr:Wikipedia first in 2013 and then transferred over to Commons (Transferred from sr.wikipedia to Commons by Tresnjevo using CommonsHelper. Transferred from sr.wikipedia to Commons by Tresnjevo using CommonsHelper. The original description page was here. All following user names refer to sr.wikipedia. 2013-12-31 19:15 Tresnjevo). Then in 21 February 2013, 22:08:57 L's map was uploaded directly to Commons. The two are apparently identical althought T's seems to be older and in use on twice as many Wikipages. Then L nominated T's map for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Srbija - Udeo srpskog jezika po opstinama 2011 1.gif and after everyone had a good go round, I kept both of them to sort it all out later. Like I said in my "Kept", It won't kill the project to have two maps the same. Now I will go ask a senior editor named Jim to help out here with this Gordian Knot. I appreciate your patience in this regard, let us see how this all works out. Commons was not built in a day, it won't hurt the project to have two things 99% the same until it gets sorted. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I read between the lines here, I think it is true that L's map predates T's map, but I think T is claiming that he drew the base map on which L based his map. You need to ask them both where they got the base map from which they drew these. Since the two appear to be identical, if those facts are correct, then we should probably keep T's version, since L's version is based on T's base map and, since it does not give credit to T for the base map, L.s map is a copyvio.
Ellin Beltz, you are mistaken. T's map was uploaded second. L's map was uploaded almost a year early. Check those dates as you are mistaken. Either that's accidental or deliberate, do say which one.
Jim, L's map clearly lists gives credit to T for the base map. Here is what the legend says : Republic of Serbia, Percent of serbian language by municipalities in 2011, map autor (L), administrative map (T). Is there ANYTHING controversial there? I think not. You are mistaken and I think that this is an accidental mistake on your part. Am I correct? (Lilic (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
Hi Lilic: You are correct, I got the upload dates backwards. L's map was uploaded 22 February 2013, and T's map was 31 December 2013, so L's map is indeed first uploaded to Commons. Mea culpa. I became confused trying to sort out all the statements on the deletion nomination. But I don't read Serbian, so I don't read/understand the map legend. I see "own work" for source in the upload form which says
=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Map of the percent of people whose mother tongue is serbian, in serbia, according to the 2011 population census.}}
|date=2013-02-21 22:08:57
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Lilic|Lilic]]
|permission=
|other_versions=
|other_fields=
}}
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-3.0}}
Thank you for the clarity on where the credit was given to T, I had simply not caught that in the deletion nomination form and I knew I was missing something because you were so clear that credit had been given but I could not find it, due to my inability to read the legend of the map! Yet another good reason to write a small book on that upload form so that others really understand. But since T's base map should be credited as the source for the map itself - or for a partially colored map(?) I am still not clear. Either way, if T was the source of any part of that map, I think L's upload form should read something like "source = based on administrative map URL by (name credit), this map author (L....)" and then add a description of what you did to the base map so we can appreciate your input to the creation. It is the upload form that matters for the Commons administrative process; the creator needs to be sourced on that form so it all can be sorted out by computer.
I apologize that I got the upload dates backwards and not understanding where the credit was given. Can you give me a link URL to the base map that T made that you used to color in this one? I can't find a plain blank on T's uploads, but then again, I don't read the language nor understand the map legends.
Basically, L (myself) made that map. T has posted some maps of the country for previous dates. Now, borders do not change much, and to answer your question, he has not posted a blank border map. This is why I listed him as the source of the administrative map on the file that I uploaded. Now, I did not check this 100%, but this might be the same or similar administrative map - [4] - the date is slightly off but form year to year there are very few if any changes.
Other wikipedia users and myself who post some similar kind of maps often do not write in the upload form some of that stuff, primarily because much of the stuff is already mentioned in the actual image itself. For example, in most of my maps I state the data source, being census of a particular year, and in this case, the author of the administrative map. I am guessing that I should go back and improve that description in the form itself even though it is in the image? (Lilic (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
OK, I think I now understand the situation. A few comments:
Thank you for changing "you are lying" to "you are mistaken". The two are very different and the first is unlikely to be the case from an Admin on Commons.
Second, this would not have happened if you had credited T in the summary box of the file description. This map is not "own work" as you claimed there -- the base map is T's (or perhaps someone else's -- I understand you are not certain) while only the coloring of the districts is your work. I don't mean to minimize the effort required to correctly translate a table of information onto a map, but the map creator also is entitled to credit. Attribution in the map legend is good, but is neither required nor sufficient for Commons. Commons is a multi-liingual project. Google translate is essential to our work, but it cannot be used for an attribution that is in an image. That is why we have the description form that automatically appears in each user's preferred language.
I think that the DR should be revisited after L has corrected the file description. The T map can be deleted, provided that first all of its uses are changed to the L map.
Hi Lilic: It sounds like we have a solution! Please let me know when you have updated the file description and transferred all the uses of the T map to your (L-map). Also please take a few minutes to update your other map images in case anything similar happens again? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your guys input. I will try to do this tomorrow. I am just a bit busy at at the moment!
In general also, I think that wikipedia should have a policy regarding copyright though. For example, people might click on the image and not look at the infobox. That is why I explicitly take care to attribute an author of say an administrative map, in the rare that that I use such a map, in the file image itself. For example here, [5] , I explicitly cite the author of the administrative map on the file's image. I guess I should edit that image as well, and an occasional such image? But could there be an official rule to explicitly cite the author of the image in the image itself, not only the infobox? (Lilic (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
In almost all cases, internal watermarks which cite the author of the file are not only not required, they are discouraged and will be removed if the image is in use, see COM:WATERMARK. Although maps that have an internal legend are a special case, in a multi-lingual world and, in particular, on this very multi-lingual project, attributions within an image file which cannot be translated as required by a machine translator such as Google are not very useful. I would be very surprised if you could gather any support for such a policy. I, for one, would oppose it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I am just overwhelmed with several things at the moment, will get back to you guys soon, in the next few days. (Lilic (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)). I'm not lazy I swear, I am just so overwhelmed at the moment! Talk to you guys soon. (Lilic (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
I was not aware of this discussion until I saw another deletion request that was created two days ago for same file. First of all, description is not the only problem, but I am glad that Lilic corrected it on file that he uploaded because it's definitely not "own work" of his. I already explained in discussion from few months ago that files are not identical since Lilic used older version of administrative map that I created. So if file that I uploaded gets deleted, only map which is less accurate would remain on Wikipedia. Second, there are other reasons why it's not fair to remove my map, such as fact that I told Lilic in advance that I will upload this map same as I did with all other maps of Serbia which he obviously ignored and rushed to upload the map same day when census results were published. I am under impression that Jim didn't read the previous discussion, and gave his opinion only based on upload dates.
Hi Anton: All but the two images of the man were speedy-delete, I think the remaining two images are nominated. Thanks for the heads up, your help is most gratefully appreciated! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi h-stt: I left a message with the editor who marked the initial image for deletion. Perhaps he will be better suited to help with this having already considered the first image. Please remind me in a few days if nothing seems to happen? I'll try to become an instant expert on moving images of steam engines. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sunny Thompson Picture
Why do you want to Sunny Thompson photo file deleted? I work for her and www.marilynforeverblonde.com and I'm trying very hard to get her and show's Wikipedia right. I'm even trying to get the Facebook wiki links and pages right with photos and I'm not getting any luck. This is all very very hard for me and you wanting this photo gone is uncalled for. Why on earth would you do this?
Sincerely,
David Eaton
Director of Social Media
www.marilynforeverblonde.com
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.0.198 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are complaining about the deletion of File:Marilyn Forever Blonde! Poster.jpg -- it is hard to tell, because you don't name the file and you have not signed in with your user name. If that is the case, then the reason the image was deleted is simply that it is very unlikely that User:SunnyThompson2013 is actually the owner of the copyright for the poster. We get many fans who use star's names to upload fan material and this looks like such a case. In order to restore the poster, we will need permission from an appropriate officer of the show's organization, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note, please, that the permission will have to speak to the copyright for the photograph as well as the copyright for the whole poster, as most licenses for the use of a photograph on a poster would not include the broad license required by Commons.
Hi Ellin, I noticed that you removed a variety of images that I had posted on the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus page. I also noticed that you removed the image of their building as well. Could you please explain why? And can you advise me how I can get the images back up? I thought I had gone through the correct protocol. Thank you.
Previous unsigned by User:Stko123User_talk:Stko123
The method for getting them back is stated also in the box on your user page.
This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. Please see COM:L for more information about licenses and/or Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own (or which appears to no be yours). You can request undeletion at COM:UNDEL but you will need to provide them the file name/s, your name and the OTRS number of the completed application.
Thank you for your patience with the process. I'm sure you can understand the reasons why the project has to be so careful. PS... Don't forget to sign your name with four "tildas" ~~~~ which will put your signature and time stamp on all notes you leave! If I can help you understand any of the foregoing or you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to leave me a note just below this one! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Werieth: If it's still there, take a look at how it's tagged now. The source given led right to the image, but it's less than 1/2 inch away from a (c) symbol; hence a speedy-delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that you are a Commons Administrator and you can, why did you speedy delete this file out of process instead of bringing it to XfD? And why was this file at Commons in the first place, since the law of the jungle instead of rule of law reigns here and I make it a point to upload at En-WP and Template:KEEP LOCAL??? Carrite (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Carrite: I have no idea why it was transferred to Commons. I am doing "no source, no license and no permission" patrols through a category with over 67,000 images. I nominated it as a speedy because of three separate copyright claims on the same page. I have no idea what "Template:KEEP LOCAL" is, as it wouldn't load for me. The image was deleted 18:12, 2 May 2014 Krd (talk | contribs | block) deleted page File:22-Vorovsky-Genoa.jpg (Copyright violation: Three separate claims of copyright on one page!) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log). If you wish to leave a note at COM:UNDEL as to the actual copyright status of the image, I'm sure they'll be glad to help you! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a thing to defend it since it got speedied out of view. I don't know the image or any of the attached details to the image... KEEP LOCAL is an En-WP template for uploads there that makes sure that if the file is transferred to Commons the En-WP version is retained. It's effective anti-vampire garlic that deters transfers altogether, I have learned. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Carrite: I restored the file, and converted it to a deletion nomination, please take a moment to fix the licenses and comment on the DN that you have done so? Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore the following deleted file: File:Sweaty-Nipples-Richard-Linklater-Issue-30.jpg. This image is a scan of the cover of a publication--Paperback Jukebox--that I was sole owner, publisher and editor of during that publication's entire life-cycle.
If you require confirmation of that fact, please let me know. I stopped publishing Paperback Jukebox nearly two decades ago. It's likely the most readily available documentation I can provide is a scan of Paperback Jukebox's masthead (which has my name on it), along with a scan of my photo identification.
Hi Davydog: The process is to go to this page: OTRS and send them an email using their format as shown on the handy templates here COM:ET. Then after the OTRS editors have processed your application, either they will restore the file, or you can go to COM:UNDEL, list the file name/s and your OTRS ticket number and have the helpful editors over there magically restore it. The process is to protect the copyright holder of the images, thank you for your patience and understanding. Please do not hesitate to write back if you need more help. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
.
I modified source and author's informations, but I don't know if it's right and if my file won't be deleted. This is my own work, an original creation.
I read informations about licences, but I it's not easy for me. Please, tell me if what I did it's right or not.
Best regards,
Rodolphe PEROT
Hi Rodolphe. What software did you use to create the map, otherwise what is the source of the base map? Thank you so much for the information, I'll do my best to get this file right with you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz. I used Adobe Illustrator to create a vector map. I used IGN maps on the web site Geoportail (it's like Google Map) to draw the roads and the cities. I also used "Oradour" the Jean-Jacques Fouché's book and "La Division Das Reich" the Philip Vickers's book to know the positions of the troops. Pictograms are my own work. Should I put all of these informations in the field "Sources" ? Best regards, Rodolphe
Hi Rodolphe. Yes it is best to put all the information on the source section of the file. Also put long descriptions. Can you also find a good category for your map? You could start in Category:Maps of Germany or Category:Maps of World War II which contains maps of battles. Please poke around in there and find where your maps will fit best, then put the category on the upload page when you edit the source. If you can't figure out how to do it, just type which categories you wish included and I will do them for you. Then please take a look at the finished product, and go around to all your other uploads and do the same?? Thank you so much! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz. I have put details on the source sections of all of my uploads and found a category : Maps of World War II-Europe. I hope it's good. Best regards, Rodolphe
(talk page stalker) @Rozol 77: Please consider uploading your maps in SVG format rather than (or in addition to) JPEG: the former is resolution-independent, so the artwork will look clear at any size, and makes it much easier to edit or adapt. Moreover the files themselves are often much smaller than any high-resolution raster version could be. (And among raster formats, PNG is usually better than JPEG for maps and diagrams that lack texture or shading, because of its lossless compression method.) Adobe Illustrator can export its artwork directly to SVG, so no additional software should be required.
Please don’t take this as a criticism: I just would like to see your fine work represented as well as possible. Feel free to contact me (aussi en français, si ça marche mieux pour vous) if you need help with the conversion.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:9 Eck.jpg
Dear Mr. Beltz
Thanks for your important advice
This is my own work. Please help to solve this technic problem. Please correct this page with:
|Date=2011-11-19 |Source=Eigenes Werk |Author=Sergio Fabris |Permission= |other_versions= }}
Greetings Sergio Fabris. Thank you for your help pointing out the technical problem which I have fixed. There was an extra set of curly close brackets }} after a URL which was preventing the image from displaying correctly with the source and license. I also fixed same error on File:Dreiteilung_des_Winkels_nach_Fabris.jpg. Both are fixed now, thank you for your note. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the Best!
Today you're the greatest Men on earth.
Thanks a Lot to solve it.
Sergio
I don't understand your rationales for deleting this file. "User no longer on flickr" is certainly not a reason for deletion. The user was on Flickr, and he did upload the image in question under a free license; the upload bot has documented both. In fact, the person behind the Flickr account, one Mikey Baratta, is still on Flicr, only with a different account: https://www.flickr.com/people/mbaratta/. He also has a website, http://www.mikeybaratta.com/.
I'm not sure what you mean with "image cannot be found": If it is the fact that the file is no longer available on Flickr, see above, that it was available there under a free license was evidenced by the upload bot. Free licenses are irrevocable and do not depend upon the continued presence of files at the sites where they were taken from originally.
That leaves the last rationale, "possible flickrwashing". You know the official definition of that at Commons:License laundering? Do you really think I (as the Commons uploader) took not only that picture, but the whole photo series about that particular video shoot (there are more images, all available here and taken from said Flickr account) from somewhere (where?), then created a Flickr account posing as "mikey baratta", then uploaded all of those images and perhaps even more to that Flickr account and finally transferred the images I wanted to Commons? Come on, how realistic is that? If you need an affirmation, I can tell you that I most definitely did not do that. I also do think that the former Baratta account on Flickr was genuine. His website tells you he's from the San Francisco area and "alternative" people seem to be among those he photographs. If you look at his new Flickr account, he lists kink.com on his resume, which means he had access to such shots, was probably employed to take official pictures for the site. These "behind the scenes" images were most likely a byproduct of that.
So in summary, there was no reason to delete the image. I respectfully ask you to change your decision to kept and restore the image accordingly. Else I'll have to go to COM:UNDEL with this matter. --Vydra (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supression d'une illustration drone Maya sur le site Alcore Technologie
Vous avez décidé de proposer à la suppression une image présentant le drone Maya sur le site Alcore Technologie et la raison invoquée est la violation de copyright. Je suis prêt à accepter votre proposition si vous me donnez le nom du supposé propriétaire de l'image. Dans le cas contraire, il serait judicieux de votre part de rétablir cette illustration car elle permet au lecteur de comprendre le texte.
Je vous remercie par avance pour votre honnêteté. Previous unsigned message by User:Luavet 18:14, 5 May 2014
Google translate of the foregoing, with understanding that Google translate is less than perfect. Suppression of an illustration drone Maya Site Alcore Technology You have decided to offer to delete a striking image with the Maya drone on Alcore Technology and the reason is a violation of copyright site. I am willing to accept your offer if you give me the name of the supposed owner of the image. Otherwise, it would be wise on your part to restore this illustration because it allows the reader to understand the text. Thank you in advance for your honesty.
Hi Luavet: The file in question File:Dronemaya.jpg was listed for a week due to lack of source. Source information is required for the uploader to provide, see COM:EVID. Hence I cannot give you the name of the supposed owner of the image; that is the "source" and it's required - as stated on the form on which you uploaded the image. This file was missing information about where it came from and/or who created it, both are needed to verify its copyright status. The file was deleted after it waited one week for additional information. If you wish to try to restore the image, I suggest filing an OTRS form to indicate your ownership of the image. If that's accepted the editors at OTRS can restore the file; or you can put a note and a link to the concerned file File:Dronemaya.jpg at COM:UNDEL. Thank you for understanding this is a process to be sure the images offered on Commons really are free images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I answered to his/her user page. Actually the file had a source, so I restaured the photo, and suggested that a permission should be sent. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Canadian Space Agency Coat of Arms.svg
Hello. First off, I wanted to thank you for your time and for even reading half of that somewhat lengthy discussion on the DR.
I was wondering if you'd be able to specify exactly which argument you found compelling. If it is simply whether or not the images look alike, I'd like to point out that there are elements in both images which are not present at all in the blazon, proving that the original and copyrighted image was used as a reference. Second, COM:DW states that "It doesn't matter if a drawing of a copyrighted character's likeness is created entirely by the uploader without any other reference than the uploader's memory. A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, drawing nor sculpting". I've consolidated a variety of references here if you cared to explore the issue in greater depth yourself. In any event, please don't constitute this as an affront to yourself in any way, simply my desire to explore this decision a little more fully. Thanks once again for all your time and efforts. trackratte (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi trackratte: First please understand that no matter what the deciding admin decides to do to an image it's 50/50 that we get it right plus 50/50 that any given person agrees with us, and sometimes discussions have to end. I looked at this image which seems to be the original. I see below it the heraldic description. I see on the image uploading page links to three *svg files hosted on Commons which are the elements of the image:
Meuble_héraldique_Loup_ravissant.svg The animal on top of the shield has been changed quite a bit from the "Meuble heraldique" but the changes are nothing I personally could not do in Photoshop, so that seems ok. The creature is very different than the creature on the original file cited above which reminds me more of the jackal of Anubis than this sort of bear/dog thing, but it's not my art.
Those three images plus some fast box drawing and a gradient behind the stars ends up with the file in question.
I looked all over the Canadian Space Agency website for any form of clarity on if their coat of arms is copyright and could find nothing on the topic. I don't even know after reading their site if it's really 'theirs', government issue or fan art. I couldn't find an image of the original one for comparison. So all I'm left with is the words which describe the image. I had to then decide if I read a list of things like "Put a blue dog on a shield covered in stars with a Canadian Flag at the bottom" is copyright, and at that point my brain exploded.
After looking at everything and reading every word (!), I said to myself "I think this image looks like it was made with three images already on Commons," looked at the arguments, saw that Fry had said it first, credited Fry and pressed "keep." I do a lot of image editing and illustration and I didn't see anything in the finished image which could not be done from those three source images. The picture appears to be DW of free images from Commons and not obviously a copy of anything from the Canadian government.
I did not in any way mean to diminish or discredit your arguments but after the discussion sat there for days over time, I did the COM:PRP analysis, decided it was "probably ok" and kept it. That said, I won't be upset if it gets nominated again with a more careful nomination succinctly pointing to the exact problem and including some links for non-Canadians to find the sources of the problem in a new nomination at some reasonable time in the future. The file is presently not in use having been uploaded to Wikipedia from Commons and was kept in the article.
There's some days that presented with the Gordian Knot of old deletion nominations that using Alexander's method begins to look pretty good. Thank you for your understanding that being a Commons admin has a lot in common with old socks - darned if you do and equally darned if you don't. I will read the page you linked later and will re-read it if you renominate that image using some of its points. There's a lot there. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for such a detailed explanation. I know it must be annoying having to deal with relatively new folks here, and I appreciate you going to such lengths to discuss it.
That image you linked is the official image, in Canada, the Register of Arms, Flags and Badges run by the Canadian Heraldic Authority is the only legal authority when it comes to Arms and is run out of the Governor General's Office (representative of the Canadian head of state). In the case where works are prepared for government, they automatically fall under Crown copyright under Section 12 of the Copyright Act.
As you can see from the above quote from COM:DW (doesn't matter if a drawing is created without any other reference than the uploader's memory) and also the threshold test applied in King Features Syndicate Inc. v. O.M. Kleemann Ltd (where an original 3D sculpture based off of a 2D artwork was still a copy vio), the threshold I was operating was significantly lower, ie a 2D drawing of a 2D drawing.
As you can see at this ongoing DR here, I think the user brought up a perfect example. If I asked you to draw the Canadian or American flag right now, you could probably do a pretty good job just from memory. It would be your own original rendition (under U.S. copyright law, a derivative is by definition an original work or else it's just a copy), however if the source flag was copyrighted, your own work would be a copy vio. However, since ideas can't be copyrighted, if I described the flag to you in general terms, ie a field of stars on a blue background in the top left, with red and blue stripes on the rest, your own work based on that would be your own without any copyright restriction. However, a drawing based on such a description would probably look drastically different than the American flag, maybe only 3 stars and huge stripes running from top to bottom instead of from left to right for example.
The main issue with this rendition here, were things like the staff was described simply as a "a staff Or" (a golden staff), where in the original drawing and the Commons derivative, the top of the staff both have the exact same maple leaf staff head on top. Another thing is they have the exact same maple leaf design on the shield, which would be impossible to arrive at based on the blazon alone. In this case, it would be impossible to arrive at these same images using the description alone, so incorporating or copying these elements could have only been done through reference to the copyrighted image, either from a memory of the image, or from direct copying. Either way, it runs against U.S. and Canadian copyright law, case-law, and Commons Official Policy in COM:DW. The problem is (in my mind anyway ha), the user has been applying an essay at COM:COA where essentially any redrawing of an image automatically makes it PD, and this consensus has been what has been applied here in the past. My problem with this was simply that COM:DR states that "consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy". Obviously, being somewhat new here, I have no idea what has been applied previously, and am only going off of reading Official Commons Policy to get myself up to speed, and the applicable sources which I consolidated at my User Page.
My apologies for hitting your detailed reply with such a long-winded one! And thanks again for such a welcoming and open attitude. trackratte (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you raise very valid points and suggest perhaps a renomination of the image based on what you put above. It would never occur to me that the heraldry page was official, or that any logos or stuff belonging to a government are copyright (without looking it up for each country). This line they automatically fall under Crown copyright under Section 12 of the Copyright Act is the one to document on any subsequent nomination. I think the editors need to see the linear chain... badge at (website), under Section 12 (website), etc. Nominations of complicated material need to be short, sweet, with many links and direct to the point and then they get the attention they deserve. A nomination (not saying this one was, but hypothetically) that reads "Uh, this looks like a copyvio to me." may or may not get the desired outcome. A nom that says "this is a copyvio because see website name," or "this is a copyvio because the artist (name, dates) is living or died x years ago"... those we can understand and act on. So yours clearly laying out the logic aids the editor in deciding. And you don't have to make ANY of the prior arguments, just refer to the previous deletion discussion and trump the argument by sticking to copyvio and why... section 12.... heraldic website... all works for Canadian gov't copyright (please cite that)... Thank you for understanding our long and probably slightly irrational process is just a bunch of volunteers trying to do the best they can with vastly conflicting instructions. I'm not always right, but I'm working from good faith and with the other editors for the best outcome for the project whenever possible. Please do not hesitate to ask/tell more, this entire process is a learning experience for me. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin, I apologies for adding something to an archived discussion. Thankyou for your input. I haven't nominated the file for deletion again since I don't want to be seen as 'Pointy' and continuing to push for something until I 'win', which I obviously don't believe, however I've been accused of being Pointy for simply adding Trademark templates and for that list of consolidated sources that I made (in good-faith). Thanks again for all your time! trackratte (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A1: As soon as the OTRS is received the file can be restored. The effort here is to protect the copyright of the copyright holder until their direction is received. Thank you for your understanding! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin's Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar is awarded to an administrator who made a particularly difficult decision or performed a tedious, but needed admin task.
Hi! It has come to my attention that you have removed a warning which says that a file doesn't have enough information about the source or license conditions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this information is still missing and I have restored the tag. You may either add the required information or, if you think that required information is already given, put the image up for a deletion request so that it won't automatically be deleted. Thank you.
Ellin, Please do not remove {{No license}} templates, like you did here, without adding the license template. All files are required to have a license and OTRS templates are not substitutes for licenses. The uploader still have to know and provide the license to files covered by OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jarekt: I am glad I only made this mistake one time, and I promise I won't do it again. I asked another admin what to do when there is license missing and OTRS tag and I have obviously misunderstood their reply that the OTRS tag was good enough to leave. My bad, so sorry! Won't happen again! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eldorado A
Hi Ellin, I'm a it.Wiki sysop and I would like to have some information on a file you deleted, File:Eldorado A.jpeg, since I was enrolled as judge in a school project it is involved in. In particular, I would like to know the date of upload, the uploader and if possible the original source from which was it copyed. Could you please reply me in my it.Wikipedia talk page, or by email? Thanks a lot,--DoppioM 12:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doppio: Per your request, please see your talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bananalady.jpg
Your reasoning for deletion is rather specious. I won't contest it because we don't have a general use for it, but if they have a course on Copyright, you may wish to review it. Deletion request is here. There are some basic elements that apparently commons are unaware. Firstly, the court doesn't have carte blanche authority to include copyrightable material in their documents. They are subject to constraints just like every other government agency that uses copyrightable works. The overwhelming justification, however, is the transformative nature for which it is being used (i.e. depicting the plaintiff in a picture to illustrate what is not copyrightable vs. an ad for a lady in a banana suit). To wit, using the image to make a legal point is transformative and therefore is at least "fair use." The fact that it's in a court document makes it rather difficult to argue otherwise or that only portions of the decisions are "free". Secondly, the case itself threw out copyright infringement and the image is a poster child example of what is not copyrightable. It seems rather farfetched to logically conclude that a single picture included by the court to illustrate what is not a copyright violation somehow becomes copyrightable even if the court case is referenced as the source. At the very least, it's used to illustrate the court case and is not a copyright violation. This wasn't an archive of continual pictures depicting a commercial artist, it was a screenshot highlighting a published court case in which Wikipedia was mentioned. It is free to use as an uncopyrightable excerpt of a court decision that used it in a depiction unrelated to a commercial purpose. As the newspaper that republished it was well aware of copyright law and framed it exactly as transformative use in a court case by citing the court as the source, it is clearly free of copyright. The only issue is citation to court who used the image. The source gives its rationale for both use in the document and the decision that it was not protected by copyright. If it is the view of commons that a piece of work, included in a court document, and transformed into commentary on what is not a copyrightable picture can somehow be a copyright violation, there are no free images currently on commons. Indeed a screen shot of a picture in a court case that highlights what is not copyrightable, cannot become a copyright violation. It's logic stood on its head to conclude otherwise. --DHeyward (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DHeyward: Thank you for your commentary. The image had source/licensing issues not solved by the time I closed the discussion. I agree with you that the court doesn't have carte blanche authority to include copyrightable material in their documents. However, there is no fair use on Wikimedia Commons. You might wish to upload the image to the English Wikipedia if you feel it is needed in an article; I think they accept "fair use" arguments. I am very sorry you feel this was an incorrect decision. The COM:PRP essentially states that when in doubt, protect the project rather than the single image. There are avenues available to you to COM:UNDEL the image! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"fair use" is the minimum. "Edicts of Government" makes the entire court document and its contents free. This is well established law. The court weighed the use of the image and quite deliberately included it. It cannot be in the court document if it were not free. Publishing it as a legal decision makes it free beyond doubt. --DHeyward (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DHeyward: Please feel free to work with the admins at COM:UNDEL on this image. I feel its beyond my personal scope to undelete it, but I also will make no argument in favor/or against your undel except to note that since the image was unused, the entire argument was moot and I closed the deletion nomination. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to undelete and it would be POINTY with no practical use without a corresponding policy change or guideline. It was an illustration of a case where Wikipedia was cited by a court. It didn't evolve into an article though. If there is a COMMONS "free" assessment policy page or guideline, I would be happy to make the proposal there. I am not as familiar with COMMONS policy and procedure. My argument would be that edicts of government should be presumed free including full copies, excerpts and screen shots. Where are nuances to "free" decided on commons? --DHeyward (talk) --DHeyward (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of separators between multiple deletion requests
Hi Ubcule: I left a message at that user's talkpage after reverting his edits. The deletion header clearly states to NOT make any changes to the discussion pages. I don't think I am qualified to override that template, and have reverted the edits based on clear Bold Red policy statement quote: This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy... . And so on... The directions seem very clear, I would be interested to know the user's motivation, but reverted it prior to finding that out based on the policy statement. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What licence or copyright info is appropriate here?
The photograph I want to use is a scanned photograph by unknown person, owned by daughter of the subject which she sent to me. I really want to upload it properly with the correct information on copyright, licence, creative commons license. I am lost in the backrooms: wizards and tags and templates and if someone could just talk me through the locks. I tried to rename the file and upload again, just for the time being, but this did not work. I do not want to infringe anything and understand that issues of rights are crucial, but need some guidance Psychetube (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problems here are "unknown" and "gave". How old is the photo? What country was it taken in? Have you searched online for the exact same photo, or from the newspaper or magazine it was published in, if it was published? If it was published, what is the source, date & publisher. With all that, I can either figure it out or ask for help from a more experienced editor. Meanwhile, grab your camera/phone and take some great photos from the area around you and practice uploading with the simple {{own}} and {{PD-self}} tags that one uses for own made photos. You may prefer one of the other PD licenses. I keep reference material on my user page. You can get direct to the information about the licenses on my User page, just scroll down and follow the links. I too found all this very confusing when I started, don't feel alone. But while we're figuring out your conundrum, please contribute some local interest to the project? Check out my user uploads for ideas. I take my camera everywhere and when I see what I call a "Commons picture" (no advertising if possible, nice angle, well lit, flat horizon, in focus, not cats-kids-family-personal) the camera goes click. As you can see by my upload dates, I tend to upload in batches of two or three pictures, just because I too find the uploading process something to be carefully done and for me that's easier when I'm doing multiples. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, Can you inform me where this file was originally published or email me the text of the file? I'm investigating an OTRS ticket related to it. Regards. ~ Nahid Talk14:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can use your mop wielding power to see the source text, you don't need to undelete the file first. However, If you wish to undelete the file it is also okay with me. Permission for this file seems fine to me. After all, if the OTRS confirmation failed, i obviously nominate the file for speedy again. So nothing to worry :) Happy with what ever you think is the best way. Cheers! ~ Nahid Talk05:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this only needed a revision deletion, as the new upload (of the salt without any packaging) did not have the same issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, I have restored files you have deleted from this deletion request. The author Dan Garry have edited each files with a comment that clearly shows his approval of the licence [6], i.e. we don't need to add burden to the OTRS team.
Hi PierreSelim: It still doesn't hold the WMF people to the same standard that we ask of other contributers, but I am not going to argue over it. In future, it would be helpful for these "special cases" if the deletion nomination were closed "kept" before it became past due. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your efforts with this. As an OTRS agent, I'd like to second what @PierreSelim: has said here -- what I typically look for is a verifiable record of what needs to be confirmed, and an email in the OTRS system is only one way of establishing a verifiable record. In fact, an edit like those @DGarry (WMF): made is, in my opinion, preferable to an email, because it is publicly visible. (I'd note one detail, I think Dan overlooked one of the files -- but I don't think that's a big deal, as his general intent was very clear.) At any rate, I am very happy to see support from Commons administrators for the notion that WMF staff are not exempt from the policies we have in place to address attribution and other basic rights. -Pete F (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi! you deleted the images in my article, the Philippine Institute of Architects.
I am well aware of the metadata of the pictures for they are just copied form the official website of the said organization. However, the past president of the PIA, Arch. Joel V. Rico,fpia, talked to me personally and commissioned me to do the Wikipedia article. I have his permission to post the pictures that you have deleted.
I have a very busy schedule and if you could please undo the edit you have done.
Thanks and you immediate action is appreciated!
Hi Xethxethxeth: Your files were marked for license reasons by Túrelio 9 May 2014. After nothing had been done to repair their licenses, I deleted them eight days later - as the notices placed on your talk page said would happen - on 17 May 2014. Please read COM:L for more information on the licenses available for uploaded images. Your statement copied form (sic) the official website of the said organization is where the images got into trouble; the entire series was lifted directly from a website without attribution, permission or license. Your statement that someone talked to me personally and commissioned me is not sufficient license for use on Wikimedia Commons. The president of the PIA, may or may not even have rights to the images, so please take a few minutes read the details about what kind of images can be uploaded to Commons. If after that you feel you have a case for undeletion, please follow the process at COM:UNDEL. FYI, we all have busy lives - yours no more than mine. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jarekt: I totally understand what you mean, I do a similar volume but in older files. It was my error entirely, I didn't see that the license given on flickr was non-commercial until after I had converted the no license to a nomination, which I then closed because you were right the first time! Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Images
Hello Ellin Beltz,
If you have questions regarding some photos I've uploaded, I'd like you to ask me personally; that helps much more than individually nominating each one for deletion. Nearly all of my recently uploaded images are under the ownership of the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society, and the Society's Presidents granted me to scan and upload the images under the CC BY-SA license. The Society is very young, being formed in 1974, and as such, has very few records. Of all of the images I uploaded, I could only find dates for a few, and none had original author or publication information. Regardless, the photos follow all copyright law; there is no reason why you should think to request their deletion.
Hi Ɱ The system templates are standard for this situation and I'm sorry if you think they're not friendly enough but I'm working through a file with about 68,000 images backlog and I don't usually send private messages to photographers - unless it's obviously their own work and they just made a mistake. I suggest that a simple "Source = Files of Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society" would do for source, and for permission, you could select one of the "old" licenses as the images are apparently old enough to possibly qualify. If any of them were published, that may make it easier. I do not disagree with you that they could/may and possibly do meet copyright law, just the way they're tagged right now, they don't meet the upload requirements of Wikimedia Commons which isn't quite the same thing. Please see COM:L for a discussion of the available licenses; CC-by-SA can't be given with photographer unknown - because it is the photographer who holds that right, not an historical society. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. One question - where is it stated that a historical society cannot release images under CC BY-SA? The society is the current copyright holder of the images, and therefore should have the right to publish those images anywhere under whichever license it desires, right?--ɱ(talk)00:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) ISTM there are a couple of possible scenarios here. If the images are all old enough to be out of copyright; they can simply be identified as being in the public domain. (A society providing such images can certainly request acknowledgement, having donated curatorial & reproduction services, but can’t make it a condition of the licence—which -BY- implies.) If, on the other hand, the images are still in copyright, more documentation will be required: the issuer of a licence must formally assert ownership of the rights (typically through OTRS) before we can publish the material. As Ellin implies, ownership of a photographic negative, slide, or print does not automatically confer ownership of the copyright on the image as intellectual property, so in this case either the licence would have to come from the photographer, or the society would have to document the transfer of the rights to itself as well.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. Many of the images date to before 1923, meaning that they should be in the public domain, but there are quite a few that aren't, and quite a few that likely cannot be dated so specifically. I wish the society had records of photographers, image dates, publication dates, etc., but they do not, especially because there are no active members of the society who are knowledgeable in copyright law, and several think that just because it's on Google, I can use it...
Also, does the society have to have documentation of these image transfers as releasing all rights to the society? Because, as indicated before, the society would not even think to ask for this documentation. Could the society assert on paper that the images and their copyrights were transferred to them? And many of these images likely were never published, and I can tell that several have been taken right out of scrapbooks. Are unpublished/unknown-author images in the public domain any earlier than others?--ɱ(talk)10:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don’t know the details of the documentation usually required (nor have I any personal experience n the process), but where none exists I expect the society’s assertions concerning provenance and dating would be acceptable, assuming nothing arises to cast doubt. As I understand the intent of the rules, it’s to make the society answerable for any legal claims it makes, and to permit the WMF to demonstrate due diligence if legal disputes (no matter how unlikely) should arise. As for unpublished works by unknown authors in the USA, I believe they retain copyright protection for 120 years from the time of creation, putting anonymous photos taken before 1894 in the public domain. If not anonymous, unpublished pictures are in the public domain if the photographer died before 1944 (life plus 70 years). The 1923 cutoff is for date of publication, and does not apply to works that have never been publicly distributed, sold, or leased.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'll try to have the society determine dates images were taken, among other details. From the point that I had uploaded these, I had hoped that nothing would arise to cast doubt, because I was careful to only upload encyclopedic images for use in articles and include as much documentation about each image as possible. Still, would the society's written assertion (that the images and their copyrights were transferred to them) be enough to allow them to release those images in a usable license?--ɱ(talk)18:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the society also can research "local photographers" from the approximate time of the images. There usually were not that many people taking pictures in a given area and it is possible that one or more of these images are from the same photographer. Things to look for are type of paper, any unusual lens shape / dust marks / typical scratches / watermarks or pencil marks front and rear / inkless stamping front or rear / or any other unifying signs. It's a shame the society doesn't have accession records on these parts of their holdings to at least say from which family or donator the images may have come to help identify their source. But at the end of all this, what a wonderful article for your newsletter! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tips, I'll be sure to ask them more about the images and look for such indicators, and update licenses if I can. Still, are you able to answer the question I posed in my last comment? Thanks.--ɱ(talk)16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best answer I can give you is a firm "maybe" and that Odysseus1479's comments are excellent. The society needs more research and when we know what they know about these images we can all offer a better opinion. As you know copyright is complicated and the situation contains further complexity as international copyrights and Wikimedia Commons upload rules for hosted images are not 100% identical in all aspects. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I relayed the problem to the society today; one of the co-presidents reiterated that the society has no records of photographers, although I'll try asking the other co-president and other members. I will have the society assess each of my uploaded images to determine more precise dates they were taken. Should I try to inquire on Commons somewhere if the society can assert its copyright ownership over them, or should I have them produce that and use it for verification, and only invest more effort if other users find it inadequate?--ɱ(talk)20:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they know nothing about the images, I question the educational suitability of the images for WikiCommons. The uploads are a series of images of a building, dates unknown, photographer/s unknown. I really don't see that a license can be created from that. Ownership of a print - or even a negative - is not the same as ownership of copyright at any level. Perhaps the society could start its own website and decide what constitutes fair use for their own site? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, I only asked the one co-president who was there, and I will inquire to other members. And although donors and the society likely have little knowledge of these complex copyright laws, the society has told me that when people donate images to the society, they also grant the society full rights to use and reproduce the images, and therefore the society feels that they should and ought to be able to reproduce the images under their copyright. Also, I'm not quite sure why you mention a website and fair use, could you explain that in further detail? (Also, the society does have a website) I hope this explains more. ɱ(talk)10:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked in the book Our Village: Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. 1902 to 1952. Historical Committee of the Semi–Centennial. 1952 for copies of these images? I went through parts of the images that have been uploaded on this place and several of them date from the 1950s and 1960s based on internal evidence and/or statements on the various wiki pages on which the images have been used. And because of their obvious ages I have nominated a few more for deletion. The society cannot just "say" that they have rights to something. Each image needs to be sourced and dated correctly on the WikiCommons templates and with the proper sources and dates, decision on each one can be case-by-case. Before you get too mad at me, look at your watchlist and notice that for images where it was obvious they were old enough and had been published prior to 1923, I changed the troublesome 3.0 licenses to PD-old-auto-1923. So several are fixed and a few more are nominated. I did not work through your entire opus. I suspect many of these old images were put in the book Our Village: Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. 1902 to 1952. Historical Committee of the Semi–Centennial. 1952. I was unable to find a copy of that book on Internet Archive, so it is not yet public domain and uploaded there. I could not find a copy in any nearby library, but it's likely your historical society has one, perhaps you could check ? I mentioned using the unsourced and unknown images on the society's own website because it is possible that they may not be able to be hosted for you on Commons without full data. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through that book several times, and used it in the Briarcliff Manor article a number of times. The village library and historical society each have a few copies, and it isn't available online. Regardless, the few images that the publication uses have no more useful information for dates or authors, if that's all you think the book would be useful for.
I am not mad at you whatsoever, because it appears that you are following copyright laws and Commons rules as best as you are able, although perhaps I am slightly dismayed that you are already pushing through for these images' deletion before I have enough chance to justify their retention. Also, you mentioned the society's website because you feel it may be better to host the images there, where they would hardly have any access from/on Wikipedia? The best I could do is an external link at en:Briarcliff Manor, and that doesn't even follow the en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline very well.--ɱ(talk)18:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point of "are they in the book" is "who holds copyright to the book"? If they are in the book, then whoever holds copyright to the book files an OTRS form and the problem is solved for those images.
I continue to nominate problem images because it looks to me like you uploaded images that don't fit the hosting guidelines of WikiCommons (not deliberately to cause a problem but in the best COM:AGF) and we have seven days (at least) to sort it out before any other editor nominates them and may not know that you and I are working through this pile and have them in action. By nominating them, I see any changes made to the files and am in a better position to work with you through the process.
Did you perchance look at your watchlist and see the license changes I made to images which were old enough to be retained with proper license? Those will now not have problems in future because they are now fixed.
I didn't do any more nominations than for those I can prove are too young to be published before 1923, for example the post office with the zip code (post 1963) and the early 70s K-body car on the right of frame. IMHO, there's a whole series of pseudo-sepia images which date from around the time of your 50th anniversary and are quite likely all the work of a single individual. If we're lucky, all or most of them are in that book (see previous)
For the "see also" it was in an odd place between notes and references which broke up the flow, as stated in the guidelines (which are not "rules" but "guidelines") the overarching idea is for the text to flow well from section to section. With only one link and one portal in "see also" it was very disruptive to the flow. I will not be bummed if you change that back, it was merely an appearance edit, but it puts the page on my watchlist over there - again to be helpful to getting these images all straightened out. I looked up a bit on your founder - there's more to be found with a simple Google scholar search, but I didn't add it. I also tucked your WikiBook down with the other icons for the project and clicked the links to make sure they all worked! Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can find answers about ownership of the 1952 book from the historical society; their precursor organization (with many of the same original members) wrote it. If I find the current copyright holder of the book, is it correct that you're saying that they could fill out an OTRS to give permission for the use of the 1952 images used? I did see that you improved some image licenses, thank you. The one photographer I have found so far was listed in the 1990 "The Changing Landscape". Charles C. Daly took some photographs for the book (although unhelpfully it appears I uploaded none of those). I plan to investigate further. Regarding your edit to the Briarcliff Manor wiki article, that now makes sense, thanks. Can you link me to what you found on Walter Law? I had believed that my biography on him was largely complete, but there is probably more information out there. --ɱ(talk)20:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Historical Society co-President told me today that expecting so much documentation for photographs donated from a wide variety of sources during the early years of the society's existence is just an impossible concept. As well, the co-President told me that the images in the BM-SHS records that are not already labeled are FIC (Found in Collections), where any works that have been extensively researched and no documentation has been found become FIC and that the society ultimately has responsibility over the items. There are legal details regarding ownership of FIC items on the FIC website: http://www.foundincollections.com/ under the heading "The Legal Dimension" (about 1/4 through the page). I am not sure whether Commons has an applicable license for FIC items, although FIC solidly affirms BM-SHS ownership over those images. I'm not trying to cheat copyright here, both me and the co-Presidents would love to have such important photographs documenting early Briarcliff Manor included on Wikipedia for public viewing, and we will continue our work to establish that while considering copyright and Commons policies.
As well, how it happens, I came across a digital copy of Our Village: Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. 1902 to 1952 today at the society, and I made another copy. I can upload it to Google Drive or another hosting website if you'd like to see it. As it stands, the only images on Category:Briarcliff Manor, New York that are also used in this book are File:BriarcliffPublicSchool1.tif and File:WalterWLaw1910.jpg, although I scanned the originals, not the low-resolution images in the book.--ɱ(talk)22:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MJ, so sorry to bother you on holiday weekend. My question "are these on the society website" is a valid suggestion that if these images were on that website, then a simple OTRS form would cover all those images. If the images are in the book and the current society is the same entity as the previous one, then they can OTRS for those images as well. I don't think "found in collection" relates to photography because the FIC thing is for objects, not apparently for photos. I don't for a minute believe you intend to do anything but operate in good faith. I would love to see a copy of the book; please send me a url of the hosting point or dropbox. I totally understand the difficulties with pulling information which doesn't exist out of thin air, we do it all the time to keep historical images for the project whenever possible. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Title and ownership, and all rights now and in the future, of and for the photo shoot images remain exclusively with Showmasters Ltd. Photo shoot images will be available to download for personal, non commercial use after the event for a set fee."
The cropped Charles Dance image is a photoshoot and the owner is Showmasters Ltd.
Previous unsigned comment by 08:33, 24 May 2014 Animalhumour (talk | contribs | block)
On Sun, 25 May 2014 11:41:39 +0000, Janwikifoto wrote:
Hello Ellin,
Apparently you have used some bot to find pictures where the source is not fully correct.
To help in fixing this
(a) keep messages as email, I have NO time for commons logins. You may copy email to your talk page, though censor personal email address and telephone
b) I have no idea why OWN SOURCE is missing from a few pictures in a large upload. Most pic have OWN SOURCE
(c) fix it yourself, you easily see that all pictures have category "Category:Stage_international_d%27a%C3%AFkido_de_Lesneven_2004" and you just need to copy from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tamura_a4dn894_9148.jpg source OWN WORK to all other pictures.
(d) even better, to make me happy, apply to all pic for this category source as "http://aikidoinfo.se" and apply licensing so it says people have to quote "http://aikidoinfo.se" as the copyright holder
I look forward to see this speedily fixed! Thanks!
"Janwikifoto!
time consumption this message: 15 minutes
This email was sent by Janwikifoto to Ellin Beltz by the "Email user" function at Wikimedia Commons.
Sorry Jan, but it's up to the uploader to do that, especially for photos so light on description that they just look like holiday snaps. I did not use a bot. The images are missing source and several admins are working through 68,000 images to clear this problem. It is not obvious that these are your own snaps, they are missing metadata and very light on useful descriptions. Most of the images tagged by me are not even in use on the project other than in your own photo gallery. I'd suggest that you go back through your images and fix the sources, since you know what you're doing with it, and obviously the rest of us don't. It would probably take far less time to fix the images than it will to continue to contact me about it. I am not going to apply licensing as you stated below, these aren't my pictures and at present they are licensed "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2" so I think it would be way out of line for me to change it as you say. I will be moving this thread to my talk page, per your statement below, stripping personal information. It is a holiday here in the U.S., I'll be back intermittently until Wednesday. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange of course that this uploader has 15 minutes to spent for writing this email while he doesn't have the time to log in and fix those sources. He used many different camera's over the years. Okey, that is possible but it is a bit strange. Some appear to be published elswhere but the source is cited correcty in most cases and the websites look like amateur websites. Asuming a little bit of good faith I would say that it is possible that he is the copyrightholder. On they other hand he doesn't mention a free license at those websites. It seems rather impossible to me to fix the sources exactly the way he wants but I see less harm in adding own work to the file discription but it would be better if the uploader just adds the source himself. I got the feeling that there is something wrong but I Can't lay my finger on it. Natuur12 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains it. He is using Commons to sell high rev versions for his files... A lot of them seem to be out of scope and others are usefull. Natuur12 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can only go image by image. I left a comment on the one I deleted today. I would urge calmness, peace and good will throughout the project, there's no good reason for editors to chew on other editors. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
so there is a double standard now? one image from the same stream is deleted, the rest are not even though they all have the same licensing...--Stemoc (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to nominate any other images you find! Each image will be judged on its own merits, the arguments based on other images may/may not be relevant to the discussion of any subsequent images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I?, the only reason I uploaded that image in the first place was because the 'more experienced' admins gave the flickr stream a thumbs up and here you are contradicting them..so please make up your mind, either restore that image or delete them all..from my count there are atleast 86 images from that flickr stream on commons..lets not have double standards, there is no law regarding the date those images are uploaded..An admins' job is more that just randomly deleting images--Stemoc (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't randomly delete any images. If you feel that others from the same stream have similar problems, please feel free to nominate them. This image comes from a webpage which says it can't be used for anything other than personal use, and Commons cannot use that for a license as images here must be totally free. A non-commercial use restriction is outside the available licenses. I can't help what someone did to put an image onto flickr which may not have had the right to go there. I can only look at image by image, comparing them with source and the license information on that source and make the best decision possible at that time. Each image must be judged on its own merits, or lack thereof. The entire steam may have seemed ok to whoever reviewed it; that particular image is not licensed correctly for retention. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why would I, I agree with Dennis and JuTa's decision, I believe that LunchboxLp have the rights to use those images (lower resolution) on their flickr stream and i have said so in the DR, I'm just saying if you delete that image for the reason you quoted in the edit summary, then you should follow up on your decision and delete the others too. What if (when) others add more images from the same stream, would you delete them as well? as i said; double standards, there is no difference in terms of licensing between that image and say this one, again, I URGE you, either you delete them all using your "reasoning" or restore the one you deleted. If you don't want to read the link i provided, then read this...--Stemoc (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc, your reasoning is faulty. First, please read Other stuff exists which applies here on Commons just as much as on WP:EN. Second, please remember that Commons has more than 20 million images. My best guess is that more than one percent -- 200,000 images -- should be deleted. The active Commons Admins are doing there best to work on those, but the fact that ten other similar images may exist that ought to be deleted is not a reason to keep the first of them -- you have to start somewhere. As Ellin said, if you see other images that you believe ought to be deleted for the same reason as this, then please do your part to help make Commons better by tagging them with {{Delete}}.
As for this particular image, it clearly has a Walmart watermark and therefore it seems to me that the Walmart terms of service should apply. Since they include NC, they are not acceptable on Commons. You have repeatedly said that LunchboxLP has the rights to post these on Flicker, but I haven't seen any proof of that -- it is up to you to prove that beyond a significant doubt. So far, I've seen nothing to show that this is not simple Flickrwashing. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what does this mean to you Jim? ..no difference between the file Elin deleted and the one you restored, same flickr stream, same watermark, same copyright policies..I'm not here to cause problem, i work hard on the images uploaded to commons and their licensing so it irks men when one i uploaded following the 'previous laws' set by administrators gets turned down by a new admin without even reading through the whole deletion request or doing her own research....--Stemoc (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. You appear to be correct. It would have been helpful if you had provided the link earlier in this discussion -- active Admins deal with thousands of cases and I, at least, can't possibly remember them all. Ellin, I think he's right -- Lunchbox actually creates the image for Walmart, so their Flickr license applies, notwithstanding the Walmart watermark. Stemoc, I suggest that you link both the LunchboxLP web site and the previous DR in any future uploads of these images. I'll leave it to Ellin to restore this, as I don't feel comfortable undoing another Admin's work, even when it appears to be an error.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I provided 2 links in the above discussion and a few in the DR, that is why i'm angry, the person that DR'ed the image didn't know of the previous discussion we had regarding this so i explained it clearly in the DR..--Stemoc (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I a reading the nomination for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selena Gomez - Walmart Soundcheck Concert.jpg, and @Jim I am still not seeing how the license from Walmart would open this image given that the Walmart terms and conditions read "You may access, view, download, and print the IP and all other materials displayed on the Walmart Sites for your personal, non-commercial use only; provided, however, that you (1) retain all copyright, trademark or other proprietary designations contained on all IP; (2) do not modify or alter the IP in any way; and (3) do not provide or make available the IP to any third party in a commercial manner." Commons wouldn't constitute personal, non-commercial use. Also, Jim, it's fine if you revert this file if you think that it's ok; it's just I'm still confused about it and I still see a very firm "personal use only" there. As for all the other pictures of this week's crop of celebrities that are floating around on Wiki; I personally think most of them should be deleted. Most of these people will be footnotes in a generation regardless of how important they think they are this week. Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is that LunchboxLP owns the Flickr site. They actually do the work for Walmart and Walmart licenses their images for use in its stores and on its web site. However, LunchboxLP is apparently free to use the images that they have licensed to Walmart on their Flickr site and their own web site. I say "apparently" because it could be true that they do not have the right to use the Walmart images, but I think that is well beyond a significant doubt -- Walmart is a major customer of LunchboxLP and LunchboxLP is itself a major player in the industry -- witness the number of stars they have worked with -- so that I think it extremely unlikely that LunchboxLP is acting outside of the bounds of their contract with Walmart. So, while we have contradictory licenses, I am satisfied that we can rely on the LunchboxLP's Flickr site as a source under its CC license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The chances of a correct deletion nomination closure are the same as selecting for a full dominant or full recessive in Mendelian inheritance; one in four
File:Selena Gomez - Walmart Soundcheck Concert.jpg has been restored. I have removed the promotional language from the description and source. The URL which formerly was in the description led nowhere but a 404-not found page. It would be the greatest help to people working with deletion nominations if commentators kept the discussions fully professional, provided all reasonable links, refrained from sarcasm (which can so easily be misread as true opinion) and anger. This is only a process. The chances on each nomination closure or retention decision of being 100% accurate are 1/4 (see image), and those of us burdened with the big scissors appreciate well written discussion to assist in the process. Thanks Jim for the clarity! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that Lunchbox created this file? It clearly contains a Walmart watermark and is clearly from the Walmart website.[7] Regarding the link that Stemoc provided, there are flaws with that discussion:
"Lunchbox Studios clearly owns the rights to these images" - No, it's not clear at all. Lunchbox's rights are not obvious at all.
"Lunchbox took the image, as proven by the lists of artists here" - Again, no. That site says nothing about images but simply says "Artists we've worked with". It doesn't say they produced the images.
{{PD-CAGov}} states that works (including photographs) of the State of California, and municipal agencies are public domain. This would obviously extend to the photograph in question at the DR. The media guide you mentioned, whilst does suggest how the media should use their mugshots, this can't override their copyright status.
This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.
We, of course, don't recognise such restrictions as they go against what the actual law is.
He's right, Ellin. Anything created by California or Florida state employees or employees of the two states' political subdivisions in the course of their work has the same status as Federal employee works. The only exceptions I'm aware of are for the California Universities, which retain their copyrights. The sheriff has it wrong. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, thanks a lot for your reviewing the closure and undeleting the file. Keep up the fantastic work :) Cheers, russavia (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--------------------- June 2014
Template
[8]: Is there something objectionable about {{w|article name}}? I find it a far more maintainable way to make links then to have to write something like [[en:article name|article name]]. - Jmabel ! talk21:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jmabel : It's not "objectionable" but the template was broken, causing the image to end up in "no source." Rather than suggest it be deleted, I teased apart the template errors, most of which occur around the curly bracket characters. I'm more familiar with the [[en:article name|article name]] format, so I changed the {{w|article name}} to the "en" type which permitted me to find the mistake which formerly prevented the correct source from showing on the image file page. This diff is from before, notice no source and no author; but scrolling down, the information is there, just the template was broken. Thus I fixed it to remove it from the nearly 60,000 images missing a source. It's fine to keep using the "w" style rather than the "en" style, just when I have to go through piles of curly brackets to find the mistakes, the "en" format makes it easier to fix the pages. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what kind of information is missing in that file : I'm the author of the animation (made based on Excel graphics), as stated by the template:animated constellation, Star positions and magnitudes are taken from the Yale star catalog, and the sketchy connection (which in itself is a de minimis) is inspired by "The Stars - A new way to see them".
(talk page stalker) I think all you need do is put “Own work, see below“ or something similar in the Source field of the information template: its being blank is apparently what‘s put the file(s) in a problem category.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michelet-密是力: All you need to do is put "own work, see below" or use a {{own}} in the source. Because there's nothing in source at all they get dumped into "images missing a source" and thus become liable for deletion. I am trying to avoid even putting the "no source" templates on the files by contacting you for assistance changing your wonderful animated star maps so they are not in the "images missing a source" category. One of the awesome Commons editors just removed nine thousand images from that category by changing the "no source" to the name of the book that the uploader had only put in the description line. Computers being stupid, it didn't know that was "source" and so dumped all 9,000 images into "images missing a source" which are - of course - liable for deletion. I don't want that to happen to yours! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[9]: Is there something objectionable about {{w|article name}}? I find it a far more maintainable way to make links then to have to write something like [[en:article name|article name]]. - Jmabel ! talk21:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jmabel : It's not "objectionable" but the template was broken, causing the image to end up in "no source." Rather than suggest it be deleted, I teased apart the template errors, most of which occur around the curly bracket characters. I'm more familiar with the [[en:article name|article name]] format, so I changed the {{w|article name}} to the "en" type which permitted me to find the mistake which formerly prevented the correct source from showing on the image file page. This diff is from before, notice no source and no author; but scrolling down, the information is there, just the template was broken. Thus I fixed it to remove it from the nearly 60,000 images missing a source. It's fine to keep using the "w" style rather than the "en" style, just when I have to go through piles of curly brackets to find the mistakes, the "en" format makes it easier to fix the pages. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what kind of information is missing in that file : I'm the author of the animation (made based on Excel graphics), as stated by the template:animated constellation, Star positions and magnitudes are taken from the Yale star catalog, and the sketchy connection (which in itself is a de minimis) is inspired by "The Stars - A new way to see them".
(talk page stalker) I think all you need do is put “Own work, see below“ or something similar in the Source field of the information template: its being blank is apparently what‘s put the file(s) in a problem category.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michelet-密是力: All you need to do is put "own work, see below" or use a {{own}} in the source. Because there's nothing in source at all they get dumped into "images missing a source" and thus become liable for deletion. I am trying to avoid even putting the "no source" templates on the files by contacting you for assistance changing your wonderful animated star maps so they are not in the "images missing a source" category. One of the awesome Commons editors just removed nine thousand images from that category by changing the "no source" to the name of the book that the uploader had only put in the description line. Computers being stupid, it didn't know that was "source" and so dumped all 9,000 images into "images missing a source" which are - of course - liable for deletion. I don't want that to happen to yours! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whiskey needs to pass thru the mouth potentially further irritating the ache. Take these drops instead, crush them up and snort away. And don't forget to party on!
The original uploader's images have problems. Please read the page history and look at the original uploader's name/talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lenka Lyalikoff: I'm really sorry, but I think google mangled the translation here beyond what I can understand. Please leave any messages about images on the image deletion pages, thanks! What you write here really has no influence on the deletion decision. The person who nominates the image is not the person who will delete the image. Cheers! via google translate Hi Lenka Lyalikoff: Je mi to líto, ale myslím, že satelitní rozbité překlad tady rámec toho, co mohu pochopit. Prosím, zanechte žádné zprávy o obrázky na vymazání obrazu stránky, díky! To co píšeš tady opravdu nemá vliv na rozhodnutí o odstranění.Osoba, která navrhuje obraz není osoba, která bude snímek smazat. Na zdraví!Ellin Beltz (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reichserbhofgesetz.jpg
Reichserbhofgesetz.jpg smazat - obrázek je nepěkný.--Lenka Lyalikoff (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC) via google translateReichserbhofgesetz.jpg delete - the picture is nasty. - Lenka Lyalikoff[reply]
Hi Lenka Lyalikoff: Please leave any messages about images on the image deletion pages, thanks! via google translate Prosím, zanechte žádné zprávy o obrázky na vymazání obrazu stránky, díky! Na zdraví!Ellin Beltz (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sailko! The Commons upload form (and all the instructions) point out it's up to the uploader to source their own images! Please take a few minutes and look through your other images for more of same. Since both Hedwig in Washington and I found images without source at opposite end of alphabet (for the image titles), there's probably more. We're really not supposed to assume and put; the uploader knows and needs to put it. I've been adding "source!" as you can see from my contributions but only when "source!" was already there, but the template was broken and it didn't show. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ellin! If you have a list maybe I can give a look. I uploaded 108k images, I cannot check them all. I am sorry for possible mistakes, but it's human. These mistakes mostly comes for an early period when the information template was not commonly displayed, and you had to select licence manually. I don't know why licence have disappeared 6 years later. Thanks for understanding. --Sailko (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sailko! While I don't have 108K images, I went back to my earliest images and in addition to a wonderful walk on memory lane, found a couple and fixed them. It's apparently most of your 2006 uploads. Looking back to the earliest version, you didn't use a template at all. And it's up to the uploader to provide source for the images. Basically if you made a little template from "description" on down you could zap through these fairly quickly as it is all your earliest Italian images that are affected. It's really not up to the admins to do this for your images, sorry! I reviewed several pages of "user uploads" today and found only the rarest of problems after 2008 when the bots categorized your images. No rush, no pressure; but please don't be offended if you get a few "no source" tags as we go through cleaning up. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found another very fun section of the backlog to work on, this will help missing source project as well, since the "bot move to commons" is very often the way that a source gets lost and later has to be fixed. Check out Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review and notice that some of these have as few as three or four images in each subcategory. Of course some others have more, but it's a lot less than the ~50,000 images in Category:Images without source. It's quick and easy to work on this because very few of them require "ns" "nl" "speedy" or deletion nominations, they just need their categories and license lines checked and edited if necessary and done! I highly encourage it as an intermezzo for some of the other less fun tasks around here. I really can't see that any uploader would be upset with these edits, thus reducing the possibility of cranky correspondents. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound so easy … yet there’s no guarantee that transferred files were properly sourced & licensed when originally uploaded. For example, quite unrelated to the above posting I recently came across File:Breadalbane.jpg, which is similarly tagged for review. The Date & Author parameters refer to the upload, not the original publication. Its true age would be expected to make it PD, and indeed this appears to be acknowledged in the description—yet it displays licences demanding attribution to the uploaders (either or both?—not specified). So what to do: nominate for deletion based on the false attributions & spurious copyright claim? Take it on oneself to correct the apparent problems? ISTM that either course of action might well upset the uploader(s). Now this may be a rare aberration, but it‘s the sort of thing that gives me pause when contemplating getting involved in such maintenance tasks. Isn’t this the sort of thing that only admins & licence-reviewers are qualified to decide?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Odysseus1479: I'm starting a new section below for Breadelbane. It seems easy because it's less likely to lead to people unhappy because their images are being deleted - at least not at the rate of working through Images without a Source or the Today's Uploads page. It's also easy because I can choose to skip any that are too complicated, leaving them for someone more experienced. In this category, most of the images have nothing wrong with them at all. The problems are mostly common typographical errors that break into the following types:
User's own work from Wikipedia being transferred over here to Commons; the images have no advertising in them, they have metadata consistent with the uploader being the photographer, it says "own work" or makes another assertion of original work to the original uploader somewhere on the page, the image isn't of something that "shouldn't be" on Commons, and so on. Sometimes broken code keeps the information from getting into the template. They all have migration licenses. Assuming good faith and that the images had some age to them prior to the transfer, images like that can be cleared from review by users with the proper set of permissions.
Template typos: most often these have two extra }} curly brackets somewhere in the upload template, which causes the template to fail. If it blocks source the image is sent to "no source" and is liable for deletion, so fixing these saves agonized correspondence with uploaders later. Fixing two curly brackets to repair the template is a minor edit.
Some of the images are from NASA or other Government agencies, where it gives all the information, but only on the description line; those also get bot-tagged for "no source" and it is a simple fix to just duplicate the information from the description to source, author, date and so on.
Some of the images still have active uploaders. In those cases, I leave a message on the uploader's page asking them for help with fixing the templates they uploaded.
And yes, some of the images have incorrect licenses. You may have seen I've done a few deletion nominations on those, usually the images are kept but I also get everyone's help in sorting them out.
I also have a list of things to go back to, any that I can't figure out easily may end up on that list for a while until time permits. I also do not always remove the bot migration tag unless I'm happy I've improved the template, that it works and that the license is correct. I also try to create links to the subjects of the image to the wiki projects and sometimes copy over the "Mr. X (dates) was an (nation) (occupation) ...." from the top of their Wikipedia entry, with just their name linked up. Also same for locations "XYZ _(building)_ at (location)...." and so on. I hope to leave each page a little better explained than when I found it, and if that's not possible; I leave the file for someone else.
Remember I have no hope of ever finishing anything here. I can grab the low-hanging fruit and leave it to some other admin in the future to figure out the harder ones. Some days I feel like helping the project but I don't feel like categorizing or deleting or nominating for deletion. Commons wasn't built in a day. I personally find fixing a few typos here and there that saves non-problem images from deletion nominations or no source, no license or missing permission when the information is right there on the page a change from constant deletion patrol. It feels more like saving than removing. I need to keep that yin/yang balance. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Puzzle of Great Confuzzlement
Specifically regarding the question of File:Breadalbane.jpg, this image says it's from a fading mezzotint. We have two similar but much smaller images on Commons:
File:Campbell of Breadalbane (R. R. McIan).jpg Description "Campbell of Breadalbane". A plate illustrated by R. R. McIan, from James Logan's The Clans of the Scottish Highlands, published in 1845.
Date 1845.
Source The Clans of the Scottish Highlands.
Author Robert Ronald McIan (1803-1856).
Usage on en.wikipedia.org User:Czar Brodie/sandbox 4
The two latter images are from https://archive.org/stream/highlandclansofs01eyreuoft#page/n5/mode/2up, published in New York in MCMXXIII, so it's {{PD-old-100}} for works by authors who died more than 100 years ago, if nothing else. The illustration is facing page 36 of the book, in a chapter subtitled "The Campbells of Breadalbane." Incidentally, R.R McIan about whom Wiki says (1803 – 13 December 1856)... with the encouragement and collaboration of his friend James Logan, utilised his skills to produce The Clans of the Scottish Highlands in 1845.
The scan of the fading mezzotint is not the same (note particularly the tartan itself, the angle of drape, details in the hands). So could it be assumed that it is an 1845 DW from the book as claimed, or not? Should one or the other of the book versions be merged into the other, would it be better to replace both of those with a better upload from the Internet Archive? Enquiring minds want to know, mine is now totally confuzzled. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk page stalker comment) I found a slightly higher quality image at Drennan Antiques and have scaled that up. I've uploaded it to the fading mezzotint file because it appears to be the oldest of the three and I've marked the smaller ones as duplicates. I agree that it is a PD-100 because McIan died in 1856 so any copyrights would have vanished by 1926. Green Giant (talk)00:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the differences that you've both pointed out, I'm not quite convinced. I think that File:Clan_Campbell_of_Breadalbane.jpg looks different because it may have been scanned in at a slightly different angle. The tartan difference and the hands detail in both of the smaller ones might be because they are lower resolution images. Either way I'm not sure they are significantly different to warrant keeping them both. Perhaps one but not both. Green Giant (talk)01:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might have to do with colour-response or sharpening differences, but a couple of details of the small image that particularly caught my eye were the prominence of the pale stripes in the tartan and the disappearance of the pens from the desk.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I zoom in to the smaller images I can see two very faint slightly-curved pale streaks above the book on the table, which I think are the feathery ends of the pens. Green Giant (talk)10:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke with a rare prints dealer last night who told me it was common at that time to produce two sets of plates, one for the book at (x) size, the other for framed wall prints at (z) size. If at any time the plate was damaged, a new one was cut. Also plates were discarded rapidly, so if a second edition were required, a new artist would cut a plate from the appearance of the old one. I find the tartans quite different between the book plate and the wall mezzotint. But I can't make a decision, so will be happy to go with whatever everyone else wants to do with it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, now you put it that way, I suppose it is worth keeping at least one of the smaller images; the question is which one or maybe both? Green Giant (talk)15:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general I’d prefer to keep variants of this nature, but here their small size and their uncertain provenance both reduce their value in my estimation. Were any of high enough quality to reveal details of the engraving & printing techniques, and reliably sourced as to publisher, edition, or date, I’d vigorously oppose their deletion.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chhandama: I'm in preop, but I did take a look at those images, to find that someone else had already nominated them for deletion, so I added a comment about them being Zombies and where to see the evidence of same, and am sinking back into the comfy chair of "do nothing" til they get to me. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images by Pol
Dear Ms. Beltz,
I have seen you verifying some of my pictures.
As you would like to delete some, it should be useful to talk about.
I would like to explain about my pictures published in wiki, my future actions and the relations with the European program LoCloud and Europeana.
Please leave me some message, can also be done on my E-mail polmayer@yahoo.es
I intend to publish much more information on the 12000 pictures I published in wiki until now, information through metadata systems. I also want to include categories.
Please note that all of this is of considerable amount of work!
You can have a look at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&search=PMRMaeyaert&limit=500&offset=0
Cheers,
Pol
Sorry Pol; Discussions about Commons stay on Commons, you will not be receiving an email. Please continue the dialog here. Most of the problems remaining on your images are typos in the template as far as I can see. I am not an expert on FOP in any of the countries in your images, my only concern is that the templates be correctly filled out and the images do not arrive in "Images without a Source" with 58,000 others of their ilk. As a long time and prolific uploader to the project, I'm sure you do not wish to see deletions for simple things like template errors! Please reply here, as above, I do not reply via email for general Commons affairs. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, Russavia asked me to help out since the uploader speaks Dutch.
Beste PMRMaeyaert, een deel van uw uploads missen cruciale informatie. De bestanden die Ellin genomineerd heeft voor verwijdering missen een bron. Ik weet dat er een hoop in de EXIF-data staat maar dat zal dus op een andere manier beschreven moeten worden. Een deel van deze foto's zijn reproducties van twee dimensionale werken die ondertussen vrij zijn van auteursrecht. Enkel de bestandsbeschrijven en alles zal dus een beetje opgeknapt moeten worden. Ik heb dit bestand als voorbeeld alvast gedaan. Dit voorbeeld kunt u bij alle bestanden gebruiken die een letterlijke kopie zijn van een twee dimensionaal werk wanneer dit werk in het publieke domein valt. Het zou wel welkom zijn wanneer u de bron specifieker kunt weergeven. File:Ieper St. Charles de Potyze-PM 50435.jpg heeft een ander probleem. Dit is namelijk een foto van een standbeeld in België. Dit standbeeld heeft een eigen auteursrecht. In sommige landen is er een uitzondering die panoramavrijheid heeft maar België heeft niet z'n uitzondering. De maker van het beeld dient dus 70 jaar overleden te zijn. Dan vervalt het auteursrecht. Dit geld ook voor moderne architectuur en twee dimensionale gebouwen. Wanneer u de sjablonen fixt zijn de meeste afbeeldingen die u geupload heeft gewoon toelaatbaar. Misschien is deze tool handig om nieuwe bestanden mee te uploaden. Dan gaat er in theorie minder mis met ontbrekende parameters zoals bronnen en blijven de sjablonen als goed is intact. Heeft u hulp nodig kunt u altijd een bericht achterlaten op mijn overlegpagina. Natuur12 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright vs. own images
These files have mixed of copyright and own images. Earlier uploads clearly seems like copyright violation. Many pictures do not have Metadata/EXIF info and others were taken by more than 5 type of cameras. Take care of them. --AntonTalk08:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anton: In this case, I think this may be the user's own work. I found http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asia/India/East/Orissa/Bhubaneswar/photo843512.htm this upload with first name of uploader also "Sujit", photo of uploader looks same to me as User:Sujit kumar @ Commons. I went through the his flickr file (as linked on his profile see here) and found the photos. He seems to have a job where he travels a lot, and the changeover of the cameras is not unexpected over the last 8 years, I've had several myself in that time, and currently own 3 although it's the purse Panasonic that does most of the work for Wiki. I'll take another look when my head stops hurting and I'm sure the TPS crew will as well, but I personally don't see anything of concern in the oldest images. This doesn't mean stop looking; I appreciate you watching very much! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to delete a few hundred pictures more - pic-politik
Hello Ellin, You have suggested that pictures with a template be removed. Since I am not a native-english-speaker, I have asked you to re-phrase the template, but you choose not to do so. Instead you asked pictures to be deleted, and I agreed - proveded _all_ pictures labelled with the template would be delted. Now only _one_ picture is deleted, and a few hundred lost the template. That is not what I agreed to. Please either re-phrase the template for me, or give accurate information to how it should be formulated. Or delete a few hundred more pictures, that used the tenmplate. The same goes for your recent deleteion requests, I would be happy if you put them on hold, until the situation is cleared for the pictures that should now be deleted. Ot do you sincerely mean that a template with source information and a link to the source is not allowed at all? Further information would be appreciated very much. Best Regards Janwikifoto --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the result is that I agreed, to make you happy, and to save time for me, to delete the template, if and only if all pictures associated with the template would be deleted as well. However, only one picture was deleted. Now you state that the uploader is happy to delete, which is not entirely correct. It is easier to communicate with you in one place, my mind cannot handle multiple places at this time. It would be halpful if you insetad suggest how to re-phrase the template. Best Regards Janwikifoto --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Janwikifoto: The process has nothing to do with "making me happy." In fact I am really unhappy whenever I have to enforce the project guidelines on good pictures. The "conditional" delete of what you wrote is not possible as far as I know. Please read the upload guidelines again. What was up for discussion was the template and one photo. Please continue to work the process and also read the very top of this page in a green box. I am not presently doing anything complicated due to ongoing series of surgury. Please contact User_talk:Jameslwoodward for assistance, I am sure he will be happy to explain the issues here in better detail than I can at present. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cheposo: I changed it to a deletion nomination to permit the community input on the source and license of this image, please follow the link and reply over there. Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--So, the image is Going to be Deleted aniways? I drew the image my self on illustrator. I now the copyright stuff, that image has text on text i japanese kanji. kanji is protected by copyriht?
--Cheposo (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I am just overwhelmed with several things at the moment, will get back to you guys soon, in the next few days. (Lilic (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)). I'm not lazy I swear, I am just so overwhelmed at the moment! Talk to you guys soon. (Lilic (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
Hello. Sorry for taking so long regarding [10] Things have been quite hectic, still are. But, I finally have some time as the CAG conference is over. How does this look, are the changes sufficient to proceed? [11]. (Lilic (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
Because I just had two rounds of worse than expected dental surgery (please read top of page) and I can't think reliably all the time. Weren't you going to take care of replacing some image and nominating the other one for deletion or something? It's been quite a while and I do remember the discussion leading up to the solution was confusing and harsh. Since I won't be up for a lot of intellectual work for about a week, you can also contact the other admin who was involved in the discussion for assistance. The rest of your discussion is in one of those archives up above. Sorry to not be of more help atm. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File information
Hi, I've just read the message you left on my talk page. I uploaded that file (that anyway is in the public domain, since it is more than 100 years old) transferring it from en.wikipedia, as you can see in this edit. I don't know why the bot deleted that information. Can you help me to fix it? --Nastoshka (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nastoshka: It's fixed now, sorry for any difficulties. I see the problem with the bot a lot trying to clean out "images without a source", unfortunately I missed that on this one. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind that, when I uploaded that image, we regarded Afghanistan as one of the nations that had eschewed all copyright protection.
Since then we learned that Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, had signed the equivalent of a US Executive Order which could be considered enough to regard Afghanistan as a nation with domestic copyright protection.
Legally, images from Afghanistan are still public domain. Legally, they will remain public domain until Afghanistan's legislature passed a bill adding its signature to an International Intellectual Property agreement. Afghanistan's domestic copyright law would have to be consistent with the International Intellectual Property agreement, particularly that portion that laid out the reciprocal agreement to honor the intellectual property rights of citizens of the other signatories. So Afghanistan has (arguably) taken the first of several steps that would be required to take images made by its citizens out of the public domain.
Then why is the Commons treating images made by citizens of Afghanistan as if they were already protected? Wishful thinking? Neo-colonialism? Sympathetic magic? It was a notion of Jimbo Wales that when a nation begins the steps to joining the nations with intellectual property rights protection we should treat their images as if they were already protected.
If you meant to imply I had applied an inapplicable license through deceit, or dim-wittedness, I hope you now understand this was not the case. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination cast no aspersions on you at all. I saw a tag which said it was public domain due to author being dead 70 years, which is clearly impossible and nominated it. Mis-tagged images happen all the time, it's like rain out of dark clouds. Please put your comments also in the deletion nomination page so that the closing admin can take them into account. To answer your questions about WMF and Afghanistan: I have no idea why Commons policy is what it is. Truthfully sometimes some parts feel contradictory, but I'm not in charge, so I do the best I can with good faith and in the interest of the project - as it is defined at that time. In the case of this 2010 politician and a license that said the creator had been dead 70 years, the conflict between the two triggered the nomination. I'm sure you can understand how that might not quite add up. Please do not be upset at the process, it's not intended personally at all. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vikoula5: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:(R)(R)Copie 4.jpg where someone else has nominated these images for deletion. It's pretty clear they're copyvios, and the nominator could have chosen the {{speedy}} tag and the same explanation given for each image and they'd probably (<personal opinion only) have all been speedy'd. But they will most likely be gone in one week. Please feel free to comment on that deletion request if you want! You have very sharp eyes, thank you for letting me know of any questionable images you find. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright fair use
This is a quote from the "fair use" wikipedia page:
Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
The use of copyrighted materials falls into the responsibility of the person using the image. My use of this image falls within the fair use examples: commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
So... you have to ask yourself... are you trying to follow copyright law or are you limiting the educational value of my post?
I predict that you will disregard what I just wrote and continue deleting my and many others' posts but know that you are not helping Wikipedia. You are hurting it and making it less of an educational tool and more of a legal dispute.
Hi anonymous editor: I am afraid you are mistaken in one small, but critical, detail. Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. The rules about fair use on Wikipedia are not available on Wikimedia Commons where there is no fair use. Please see Commons:Fair use and Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not Wikipedia for a full discussion of the topic. You wrote " My use of this image falls within the fair use examples: commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship." but included no indication of your user name or the image URL in question. If you wish to continue the dialog, including your signature and/or the image about which you are upset. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored that file because I think it should go through a regular deletion request. Perhaps I should have used COM:UR but given it was used in one of our help pages and uploaded by an administrator, I've chosen the pragmatic approach. Maybe it's due for deletion because of the OS controls but that's a matter for a deletion discussion, I think. If you disagree, with my actions, please bring them up at COM:AN/U. Kind regards -- Rillke(q?)18:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rillke: I do not disagree with giving this file a regular deletion request at all. It was in speedy and I saw no reason to disagree with that; given it's in use for a help page I have no desire to disagree with its restoration. It will be interesting to see the discussion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please undelete this file which was with wrong argument deleteted. It was my own work and because of missing threshold of originality it was as PD-licence. Thanks for advantege. --Codc (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz,
Thank you for leaving me the messages in regards to some of the images I have uploaded to Wikimedia.
Should I respond to each one individually or discuss the matter generally? I have sought and received various permissions and am in ongoing contact with Brahma Kumaris administration about the image usage, so please do afford me the opportunity to rectify anything you have found that I haven't done correctly. The image used have received positive feedback from BKWSU, so if further permission/authorities are required, that should be possible too. Because this was my first time uploading and doing, I apologise if there are mistakes on my part - it took a long time to get the images and everything to this point. Your feedback is much appreciated. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Danh108: The COM:L licensing rules state that only the copyright holder of an image can release it via the licenses available here. The administration is unlikely to be the creator of all the visual imagery you uploaded as it appears to be by several different artists - some even looks like 3D environment art or religious online wallpaper. So even if the administration gave permission to use it and likes how it looks, if they didn't create it - and the original creator has not given permission - it may not be allowed to stay. The best thing to do is to click on each of those tags where it says to "comment at its entry" and mention that you are attempting to obtain permission from copyright holders (that won't be the institution, but the actual creators of the images). Remember that even if the deletions go through, if you find the copyright holders at a later date and they grant permission, you can apply at COM:UNDEL for restoration of the images. The general concept of what you can and can't upload is illustrated very well in the drawing at the top of this talk page, and you may find more clarity by following links on my user page as well! Thank you for writing here, please do write on the "deletion nominations" because nothing written here affects the deletions. Thank you also for understanding that this is a process not a value-judgement on you or your participation here at Commons. Many newer uploaders go through this (I did too!). Surviving the process we become better contributors to the project. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz: Thank you so much for explaining how it works. I really appreciate that. Sorry for being a bit slow to respond - weekends are my best chance to give time to these matters. What if the images were created by someone 'working for' the organisation? Because it's a spiritual organisation, mainly people volunteer their services, and it's not always possible to trace the original creator of work. But the materials are freely distributed by the organisation, and the Art department based in India that freely distributes the materials gave the permission for the images use and provided the soft copies.Danh108 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz: In relation to this file, I'm not sure why it's said the source isn't specified. I have checked my emails, and found what I think is the proper template which was emailed to Wikimedia by the original creator of this work - I was put in touch directly with the 3D graphic designer for this image (where as some of the others are just old photo's, this has a known living creator - thank goodness!). Sorry to be the uneducated new user troubling you, but I'm not sure what I didn't do properly here. I can forward the template email he sent? Thanks heaps, Danh108 (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Danh108: That picture has multiple images on it. The source of each image showing that is is a free image must be included for the final "derivative work" created by the original creator. So for this collage, the world map needs a source, each of the images around the edge need proper source, and all images on it must have free license. It would be like making a collage of people's pictures from facebook and then saying "I made this collage, it's my work." Unfortunately it wouldn't be, because each image has copyright of its own. Making a derivative work from other people's images doesn't make their images free. I hope this helps understanding. You are absolutely not bothering me, ask any questions you want. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you Ellin Beltz. Then my other question is about when does the intellectual property vest in an organisation rather than an individual e.g. if I'm employed to do something, my employer owns my output, not me. In many instances this is the case with BK things. It seems a fairly informal group from the contact I've had, and designers/artists often refer me to the administration when I approach them about their works. Feel free to delete the world map - I'm almost certain the designer provided me with a copy without the photo's. I should be able to find it soon. Thank you! :-) Danh108 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Hopefully this map will be fine: A map depicting the expansion of the BKWSU from it's Indian origin to the establishment of various centres and retreat centres around the globe. Thanks for your help so far. The answer to the above question should help me rectify the remaining issues raised about licensing. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tamil Language Flags
Hello
On may22 you have deleted my mikimedia page ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tamil_Language_Flag_2.svg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D ) was deleted by sayig that i have to give proper explanation for the content & colors which has been used in that page . i have the copyrights as i am the proper owner of all the contents,i have sent a message with proper details and requested you to undo the deletion of the page . Till now i haven't received any feedback back from you, can you please reconsider my request on the deletion page. expecting a positive replay form you . Thank you Unsigned comment by Anubes666
Hi Anubes666. This is your first message at this talk page, so it is not possible for me to reply to you before. Looking at your user talk page, I see that the four files were nominated by Anton on 13 May 2014. When the time required for fixing the files had passed, I deleted them. To apply to have them undeleted, please take your request, showing whichever of the four (or all four) file names you are asking for undeletion. Please provide them in any format, to make it easier for the Undeletion Editors :
to COM:UNDEL where admins who specialize in issues like this can help you. Please do not forget to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically print your signature and make it much easier for people reply to you. I am very sorry, but I do not see any former correspondence from you in my talk page or that of Anton, so when you write for UNDEL, do be sure to include a link to the page on which you said asked for help but were ignored. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi billinghurst: The sheer volume of new uploads per day results in many first user's contributions being rejected. Mine were. Commons relies on the uploaders to know and explain the educational use of the image in the description, as well as source, author, date and for places, location (even to country would be helpful).
I urge you to take a quick tour of the elephant.
First stop on tour: this page, note the date and that it is only 1/4th of the calendar day. Check out the number of marked tags that have already been applied. This is to protect the Commons project from copyright violations and inappropriate images.
Second place to look is the other end of the backlog, here (watch out someone has uploaded some NSFW at the top) where 58,000 plus images await having their templates repaired, sources found, or tags added. Between the two ends of the system are potentially another 100,000 problematic images - and that estimate may be low.
The group of people who works on this is small; I urge you to become involved in the process. The Images without a Source category can be picked at easily; 90% of those images are perfectly fine, but their templates are messed up. Many are broken from bot usage or interwiki transfer. I save a lot of images from the rubbish bin also on the "no license", "no source" deletion process too, because I try to be as careful as possible that the images really are eligible to be removed and I've gotten at least one admin upset with me for converting tags (missing license, source or permission) to deletion requests to buy more time and get more eyes finding the sources. I've seen it happen that someone who knows what the picture represents appears, labels and fixes the template. Then the nomination is withdrawn. So there are many sides to this huge puzzle, but to go back to your question, couldn't we ask first, yes we could possibly if there were 128 hours in the day and another 300 people doing this. As it is now however, there would be no time for anything else, and the backlog would grow while we wrote, waited and attempted to follow up for every image with a problem. The admins are pretty stressed by how bad it is now, I can't imagine having volunteers have to do all that manually for every image.
Please take the tour, and really truly think of volunteering in this end of the project, we can use all the polite, helpful people we can get. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs don't make a right. That we have backlogs, and any other number of administrative tasks does not mean that we should treat anyone poorly. We do not wish to scare away good contributors, and end up with our own elitism. I more equate the approach to “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” I understand that it is all imperfect. Re my contributions, I do my bit here, and elsewhere, and I understand the need for more hours in a day, or legal cloning! — billinghurstsDrewth10:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi billinghurst: You and I are obviously of two different opinions about two images out of the hundreds of thousands of images in "images without a source." I nominated them to get help finding out where they were taken and help with the source. For some reason you seem to think that a Deletion Nomination is a problem and not just a part of the process.
Let me be frank. I know the user received instructions and warnings on the upload at the time of upload. I have been told that these instructions are in hundreds of languages. For other images (not the two about which you are chewing on me about) I have notified users prior to placing tags (please check my contributions). They need to be active users and apparently to have made an error for me to contact them. There is no requirement to contact users other than by using the templates. I see you have notified the same user I have a couple of times about missing sources, did you notice? Our notes were on the same talk page. That I did not notify one particular user and upset you is not going to change. What annoyed you has already happened and you can hang onto it as long as you want, but time does not go backwards.
Despite your opinion, I do not feel that using system templates for notification of users with problem images is a "wrong", else we would not have the templates available. Meeting your expectations is not something that is or ever was on my to-do list and I don't appreciate your statement that I treated someone "poorly" by using system templates. I do not appreciate being called "elitist" especially after inviting you to participate in the process. Notice that it is your posts which are accusatory of me, for doing nothing out of the ordinary on this project. It seems to me rather impolite to arrive on my talk page and continue to complain to me for no apparent reason other than I did not fulfill your personal standards. What I did do is something I do many times a day: I nominated two images with no source and no description which were uploaded a while ago by a now-inactive user. I don't see any reason whatsoever to engage in dialog in that case and I let the templates notify the user.
As for this complaint session - it is now over for seven days. I give fellow users two complaints a week. I see both of yours above (i.e. "wrong" and "elitist"). Further discussion of these points will do absolutely no good as what ticked you off is now moot. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Ellin. Our system is badly flawed because we do not have enough active Admins willing to do the necessary work of marking and deleting around 1,500 files every day. Thus we simply tag for deletion, rather than looking into the circumstances behind each image. It is not helpful to suggest that they way we do things is bad without making any suggestion about how to fix it. Simply saying that we should spend more time on each image doesn't deal with the question of what then happens to the images that we don't have time to deal with at all. It is better to discourage a few new contributors rather than allow Commons to fall into the copyright mess that characterizes most of the other image sites -- our one virtue is that we do a pretty good job of policing our images. If we lose that, we might as well quit and let Flickr do the same thing.
You also need to remember that a DR is a chance for the whole community to look at an image and decide whether it should be kept or not -- a simple note on the uploader's talk page does not give the image that exposure.
One thought that I have had is that we should rename "deletion request" into something more friendly, such as "request for community discussion of image status". Although I generally like to call a spade a spade, I think that a gentler name for the system would make the process less threatening. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk-page stalker comment) - the gentlest and simplest name would be either "File review" or "Files for discussion". On the question of sources or lack thereof, perhaps we could have a bot to check such files that haven't been attended to, say about 3 months after being tagged, and the bot could leave a user talk message. If there still isn't a response after another 3 months, perhaps the bot could tag them for human review (maybe in a separate category). If you don't like that idea then you are obviously prejudiced against bots :P Green Giant (talk)17:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for bots -- anything that can reduce the load on the most active Admins (and all the rest of the editors, for that matter) is a good thing. And I like your new name. Mine was far too long and clumsy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this thread for a while. In a broad way, I very much agree with the perspective expressed by @Billinghurst: -- I think it's important that we develop processes that give new content contributors a polite and coherent introduction to the site and its norms. I think we have a long way to go, and it's not clear to me what the best path forward is; what we would need is a rather dedicated approach, in which we:
Assess the entire user experience (beginning with things like account creation, the upload wizard, and the mobile upload tool, and also including things like the kind of notifications people get on their talk pages in various circumstances)
Articulate a goal for how that experience would ideally look
Prioritize various tasks, and enact them in a coherent way that moves us toward that goal
Assess the effectiveness of the approach, and adjust as needed
Unfortunately, that kind of thing is very difficult to do an ad hoc, volunteer-driven project like this one. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. I think it might be worthwhile to create some essays and wiki pages that begin to capture our shared knowledge around assessment and goal articulation. I believe we'd find that regular Commons contributors have a fairly consistent view of these things, and it would be worthwhile to explore how accurate that belief is.
As a side-note, when I started engaging more heavily with Commons a few years ago (after many years working on Wikipedia and other wikis), I was really impressed by the Javascript-based tools for doing things like tagging images for deletion and doing associated tasks like notifying users. This is tremendously useful functionality. But it's a little opaque to me, how we could go about adjusting the phrasing, and otherwise improving the tools. It would be great to clearly document that stuff (or if it's already well documented, maybe somebody can point me in the right direction?) -Pete F (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started the whole matter with a question, if it seemed to be an accusation, then my apologies, it was not my intent. In order to understand one needs to ask the question and evaluate the answer. One needs to clarify, asking why, and why, and why, and to politely challenge. I don't jump to solutions until I have sought information and had time to think.
I do see deletion nominations with that name as being problematic, and more so for new users. It will scare off some people who will take it as a personal criticism, and I don't see that as a preferred outcome, when it is an education or a process issue that needs improvement. I think some of the comment above that says to look for some more neutral language in the naming is really helpful. Here we are talking about an transactional process, 1) asking for fixes/updates/more information/proof, where that fails it then moves to community decision of whether to delete or keep.
If this is a broad, problematic practice, I would think that what we are wanting is the description field to be made mandatory at Commons Special:UploadWizard. It presumably was not in the initial phase for a reasons, however, we should have sufficient evidence to push for a change if it is needed.
If the descriptions being provided is insufficient in any field in the upload, then we should look to get better help, the little question mark is obviously insufficient.
If we have many files that appear with insufficient description, then maybe we can look to a similar gadget to [no source] that tags with a template, and messages user that says "better description required" that explains/links to the process. Preferable that a bot could do that check, enWP seems to have some nifty bots that check every edit, so couldn't we have one that checked every upload?
As a start, we seem to have loose agreement that "Deletion Request" needs a better name in order to be less intimidating. Can we reach agreement here and then take it forth to find a community consensus? "File status review"? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with taking a name change forward and I think your proposed name has just about the right balance of neutrality and seriousness. Green Giant (talk)11:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like "Files for Discussion" personally and I'd like to rewrite all the templates to make them less harsh and more "this is a cooperative enterprise, help us out!" Also I think that we still need a lot more people helping with the process no matter what it's called. Any file with a blank spot on template should automagically apply a message to the uploader that says very politely "please fill in your blanks". If that message is ignored for 30 days, image goes POOF, also automagically. The huge 58,000 piece backlog needs to be cleared out, I'd love to see a task force aim all their efforts on fixing that. Interwiki transfers that fail to fill in the templates correctly should be rejected instantly by the system and not allowed to pile up nearly 60K units of fail. The system needs to do a lot more work than the admins and at present IMHO, it's the other way around. I'd be so happy if there were autosystem messages that didn't sound evil or mean, too. I'm glad all this came up on my talkpage, I have no idea what a Wikimania is or how to proceed, I'm assuming the rest of you all will carry forward? Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ billinghurst... As long as you don't use the words "wrong" or "elitist" aimed directly at me on this for the next five days, you're fine to be here. I only topic ban, not personality ban! I do not mind discussion, I don't like accusation, blame and drama. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It must be usage issue. Word "wrongs" was to describe something as being awry and amiss, and it is an expression used around this house. Simply that "we are busy" as a reason, means that we are single-focused, which hardens our thinking and reactions. And I used word the word "elitism" and tried to look at the collectivist point, where we are having classes of contributors, and deterring those who more challenged by technology, and than confronted by Commons users, and scared off. It was not directly aimed at you, and I was not trying to beat you about the head with it; though I was trying to offer an alternate PoV. Maybe I needed something like a "having a coffee" chat symbol. <shrug> FWIW I don't do blame (occupational training), and I try not to cause wikidrama (first is pointless, and for the second ... life is too short) — billinghurstsDrewth00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellin, as a casual observer, I didn't think that sDrewth's negative words were "aimed directly at you." It seemed to me that he was interested in discussing the general dynamic -- something it seems we all more or less agree is worthy of exploration and improvement. This is your page of course, so just consider this my gentle observation/suggestion. I hope my jumping in has been worthwhile, I can see that the discussion is maybe worth taking to a more public venue, but I appreciate that it got started at all. -Pete F (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Pete F The first post was fine, and got an answer. The second post was personally aimed - and it also got answered. Conceptually, we are in agreement. The system appears too harsh to users tagged. I disagreed with the accusatory words, and banned two words for one week. I fail to see who else they could be aimed at when they're on my talk page. It didn't look like a lament about "the system is evil" it appeared to be accusatory of me for using the tools provided by the project. Many times I hear concerns about "retaining new users" let's also consider not being evil and helping to retain the users we already have - including me - by not going off on the user for operating within the system as provided. I think that a rational discussion of the topic would not begin with "Two wrongs don't make a right" which is accusatory as it clearly states that two wrongs have been committed. Perhaps discussing this sort of thing on a Village Pump or an administrative page would be more productive. As stated before, I'm just one of the newest admins, no power, no powerbase - jump on me all you want. Just remember, none of us have to do any of this and admins chewing on other admins is counterproductive - and as we have seen with INC can lead to good, valuable people leaving the project. I strongly recommend in future commentary of this type having a clear statement of "we need to discuss this thing" not "you're wrong, you're elitist" and - from another message left on my talk page - "you lie." I can do without all those - this is a cooperative project, let's just cooperate. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then let's consider it a gentle suggestion that I back away from :) Your talk page, your interpretation is the one that counts. I really do agree though, we do better when we discuss possible solutions, than when we try to figure out where to assign blame. (On this point, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about this blog post I wrote recently.) -Pete F (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin:
Sorry to reach you this way - I am so bad at this I don't know any other method. I'm completely illeterate in HTML. I can't seem to find your original correspondence in "Talk". I'm much more a one-on-one person than a discussion or board form person anyway.
As for my image in question, you can tell I have no idea what I'm entering in the file description. I would be delighted to do it properly and add all the pertinent information in the proper format and sequence if I knew how. Lets sit down over a beer and get this sorted out. I have hundreds of additional crests including several which are the only surviving copies, which I would love to add to Wiki's World Global database of images if I can get a template up and working and down the road, update or write articles on the topic.
If not, I fully expect to have this image deleted and I've accepted that will be the most likely outcome. I'll just find another form for publishing my images which of course won't be as permanent as Wikimedia.
All the best,
Wayne
wlogus@telus.net
Hi A_much_better_place: I am replying to your note above via email per your request. I'm not 100% sure this image will get deleted, so chin up - we'll do what we can! I have asked for a review by another editor before sounding the all-clear. Watch for the message in your email shortly. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, understood. If it's not PD-textlogo and it's in "images without a source" it gets a "no source" tag. There is also no reason NOT to provide a source for all files, regardless of PD-textlogo. In this case, uploader should have specified where the image came from as it is not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, even for a PD-textlogo file an uploader should specify the source. I have found the source and completed it for this file. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The images were uploaded by Chris Mosdell himself, who is the author of the images and copyright holder. Could you advise? Thanks!
Readyforlara (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Readyforlara: The images were removed from the Wikipedia page by an automated bot. The images were marked "no source" by another editor and placed in suspension for one week. When no one came forward to identify the sources of those images during that time, they were deleted. The files may be COM:UNDEL, by visiting that page and following the process. Mr. Mosdell may need to file an OTRS on the images. It is possible that both images being "album covers" had something to do with the "no source" tags. It's also possible we totally screwed up and UNDEL will fix it! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mass deletion of work by user Manoj Penworks
With reference to the mass deletion , I would like to clarify that the recent contents are being used as promotion material for Tamil Wikipedia 's initiative which is something similar to Wiki Gnome .In Tamil , we don't use gnomes , hence the firefly icon is being used . Its a precursor to preparing a colourful manual for new comers . In addition to it , the contributor has tried to prepare various types of celebration logos for Tamil Wiki 10 years celebration which was held some 6 months back . That's the reason you see "10" logo . Many pictures which he has created are native to Tamil Nadu and I strongly believe they would be useful in future Tamil wikipedia articles . And yes he has put some contents which are "advertisement" in nature . We can sort out what they are and delete them specifically . Also placing this in the comments section of the deletion request .Declaring conflict of interest : I know the user in person . --Commons sibi (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz,
I think my question must have gotten lost in the length of 'Brahma Kumaris' post above. If you're not sure of an answer, if you could refer me on that would be great. As per the subject, the question was around when individual copyright/intellectual property rights gets taken over by an organisation. This was the point I was trying to clarify - particularly with the early 1960's photo of the Brahma Kumaris president. I did enquire again with the organisation and have been given a book where the organisation has used the same photo as a book cover (cropped version), and the only copyright is to the organisation i.e. while as you stated, the organisation didn't take the photo, there is evidence they have asserted intellectual property rights over it. Thanks heaps for your support! I'm very grateful. Danh108 (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added DR for 1, 2 & 3 files due to copyright violation, and all DR tags have been removed by uploader without explanation. --AntonTalk02:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You tagged this file as having no source. Looking through the history it looks like the metadata was vandalised a few years ago, removing this info, or else it's in the original work this was derived from. You might want it have a look and restore the data. (I would do this but I'm travelling at the moment and that's a non-trivial thing to do from an iPad). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin,
If you had a moment, I was wondering if you'd care to have a look at a DR to let me know if the opening sources/statements are clear. I would just like to avoid a repeat of the Canadian Space Agency badge, where the central argument/evidence I was (attempting) to get across was lost in the subsequent discussion/noise. If you don't have the time, no worries, I know you're busy! Thanks. trackratte (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ellin, don't take my comments at COM:AN/B to be including you, because they don't in the slightest. I just like seeing otherwise unproblematic content being deleted simply because of who created it. This is not something that we generally practice here on Commons, but seems to be the modus operandi of some (but not all) on English Wikipedia. All I ask is that we look at things objectively and not get dragged into hysteria. :) russavia (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi russavia: Thanks for the update and I agree that hysteria is bad, I just don't see it in this case. I've commented over there to not clutter over here with the details! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures Bert van Loo
Hi Ellen, I noticed you deleted the pictures of Bert van Loo. I can assure you that he personally gave me these pictures, that he took himself, from his own sculptors for use in Wikipedia. I send the written permission he gave me to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Could you be so kind to undelete his pictures please? Or please help me to provide you or Wiki with the appropriate means to undelete his pictures. Please help. Thank you Madhu Gopal (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ellen, I understand Bert van Loo needs to sign this http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ right? How does he do that, or is the contract he send me enough (which I send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)? Could you please help me, I really want his pictures restored asap? Thank you. --Madhu Gopal (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Madhu Gopal: Please visit the OTRS page where this issue can be solved. Once you send permissions to the email address you give, it's the OTRS editors who will be helping you. They are as backed up as the rest of us, please be patient with your requests to them. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Missing sources
Hello,
Thank you for your email.
I don't have much time right now but i will do my best to get it al done.
I have lots of photo's on my computer wich i want to opload too but i didn't get time for that too.
i am still figuring out how it all works.
Greetings Rob Hille User talk:Rob Hille
This relates to the bottom half of [12] where many of Mr. Hille's images need descriptions. They were his earliest images. If any other people who are good with flowers are interested in helping out, that would be great. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the Human Heart image. I am the author of the image and allowed National Geographic AND Wikipedia to use it under the wikipedia guidelines.
http://bryanbrandenburg.net/wikpedia-heart-3d/
Please undelete. Thanks.
Preceeding unsigned by WhatIfWeCould
Hi WhatIfWeCould: Thank you for your note. I'm so sorry about that! I have undeleted the file and left a note on the talk page explaining my error in the deletion. Again, my apologies! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found another sleeper account based on Horvitz's admission that he uploaded a photo for a particular Wikipedia page (and actually edit warred to keep it in use).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, Was it you that I had the conversation with about the so-called art project with the guy posting images of "back view of man on beach", mostly on California beaches? If so, I found another one today. Invertzoo (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source information is not only used to write something in a source field. The reason for providing sources is also:
Allow users to verify that the description matches the content. Thats important since many of our users dont put any effort in what they upload, sometimes they just grab a file from google imagesearch and the subject they searched was only mentioned on the website they found but isnt shown in the file. See en:Wikipedia:Citing sources#When and why to cite sources, the scope and educational purpose of Wikimedia Commons sources is not different.
of legal nature for international users, see COM:ART. For non-US users it indeed is important if the photo was taken by e.g. a British photographer or from a British institution/source.
I am really sorry but the "source" you provided cannot possibly be the source of the image on Commons. The source you gave leads to image file [13] which is 231x280 pixels. The Commons image is (353 × 456 pixels, file size: 15 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg). In Photoshop, making both images the same size shows that the one you gave cannot be the source of the Commons image as it pixelates dreadfully when made bigger.
Looking here you will see that the Commons image is the largest of all the available ones on the web, it has none the exact same size, and none larger.
Comparing the original upload image here shows a white border not found on the one you suggested as source.
I suggest just finding any old candidate as source on the internet is less correct than recognizing the age of the image puts it in public domain and that it is obviously a faithful reproduction of a 2D image. When I can find the obvious source from museum or collection I add it, otherwise I don't presume to guess. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[14] is 799 × 659. The number of pixels of the cropped version is the same. The extreme JPEG artefacts at the black clothing are exactly the same. The white frame bottom left is from bad photoshoping/removing the frame. The Commons image is not photographed or scanned off frame. There is more editing, a white spot has been removed/smeared at the Commons image. I absolutely agree with you, so dont assume that I not checked if it realy is the same photo. --Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin, you asked me to comment here, so I will, although you may not like it. Martin is entirely correct -- the exact source of an image should be correct because some countries don't follow Bridgeman/WMF policy. In the case of old masters, at a minimum the listed source should be the name of the institution where the painting is housed. Preferably, one would show, as Martin did, the actual page showing the image used to create the Commons image, if it came from the Web, or the source of the paper that was scanned to provide the image (poster, book title, etc.) if it was scanned by the uploader.
As for the case in point, Martin's cite was entirely correct -- Commons policy is to cite the page where the image is located, not the image file itself. This allows others to check description, licensing (which matters in some countries even in the case of PD-Art) and so forth. It is not usual to list both, as you have done in your final version of the page, unless there are many images on the source page, but I see no harm in it. His cite leads both to the thumbnail, which you found and objected to, but also to the full image which, as he says, is probably the source. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Martin H.: Why do you think that it is important to know the source country of a PD-Art photograph? According to Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, the outcome of a court ruling may not depend on the source country of the material. You therefore only need to know in which country you are using the material, but not which country it comes from. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A reuser from a country that protects reproductions of 2D works will need to ask for permission. Therfore it is important to know where the media file comes from. --Martin H. (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a user of the material needs to know who the rights holder is, so that he can ask for permission. However, knowing the identify of the holder of the rights is not the same thing as knowing the source country of the work or photograph. Why do you think that it is important to know the source country of the work or photograph? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@(Jameslwoodward): It's not a matter of "like" or "dislike"; I want to be sure I'm doing things right here, and I've seen many many images with source = mechanical reproduction. You will recall our discussion about Asian Art, that one ended where it didn't matter where the material came from as long as it was old enough. Being sick all week and confused, I don't want to do anything which isn't right for the project and so asked you for clarity. I have also seen Art listings with Three things on source, the art main page, the actual image copied and a link to their copyright statement for the art. There seem to be many ways to do things here and I do not wish to do them incorrectly. Thank you all for the clarity. Many of the art images say where the painting is housed, is that sufficient for source in those cases? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your final question, it is always better to have the actual source of the scan or photo of the art. Then, if you are a user in a country that does not use the Bridgeman approach, you know where to go for permission. Note, too, that there are countries that follow Bridgeman if the image is a scan of the old art, but give a copyright to a photograph taken of the same work. For me, that's silly -- they are both imaging systems that are mostly mechanical, non-creative processes, but no one said that copyright law was logical. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if the uploader didn't provide the source, a larger source doesn't appear on google search or tineye, what are we to do? Some of the images I've been working through date back to 2005, the uploaders are inactive, the images are in use all over the project, we can't just put a DN on those or risk angering everyone from Anteater to Zymurgy. Should they just be left "no source" at all, leaving any possible "reuser from a country that protects...." up the creek without a paddle? Or what? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they should be left. Some invented placebo source information will not change the situation. The only purpose of such information is to fill up the templates so that the symptoms of a missing source will not longer bother us. Thats manipulation of our own templates, but its not educational usefull work and brings no use for the viewers or users (reusers who need copyright info, viewers who need reliable external information since Commons is a host/aggregator, not a source on its own). --Martin H. (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi INC: I'm sorry I've never renamed an image. Will be happy to apply category when I have brains back from being sick. I came in only to see my watch list and found someone recategorized ALL the historical plaques in the counties here from where you can see them all together to splitting them up into cities, towns, whatever and totally losing the utility of seeing the plaques together - knowing which ones have already been photographed, or seeing the totality of what is considered historical. EG: now the entire town of Category:Ferndale, California was chucked into historical, when only the historical district is historical. If I had any wits, I'd be at wit's end. The new recatter of course doesn't live here, has no clue about the area and has now rearranged practically the entire county. Some of it makes sense, a lot of it doesn't. And we have new Beach Buem images too. Did you see any of that discussion? Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear you're still not feeling good. Once you categorize the cat, I should be able to find a French translation of it for a rename. Let me know. In regard to the mass recategorization of places you refer to, I've seen a lot of big problems and disagreements and AN threads in that area. Leaving well-enough alone is about as uncommon as "common" sense... INeverCry17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi INC: Chocolate Tabby Cat.jpg perhaps? I cat-egorized it, I'm 99% sure it's a chocolate tabby. I could be 100% with a view of the side/belly. I didn't wikilink it in French, but I put link to Tabby Cat for en-wiki. I am coming to terms with the fact that my health will never fully improve and that each new infection takes a chunk more than the last one. I hope you are feeling better; we are in rather the same place, I am afraid. Chin up and keep petting the kitties. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You initiated Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fareeda Kuchi.jpg. The image was one of over one hundred similar Afghan images I uploaded years ago.
In these comments I explain that the image was compliant with policy, at the time I uploaded it, and that the WMF's lawyer explained that WMF projects are free to impose extra restrictions on our images, these Afghan images are still, legally, in the public domain.
One of the administrators who deleted some of those images used very nasty wording in the deletion log, but yours was the most recent nomination -- that is why I left the explanation after your heads-up. Geo Swan (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) User:Geo Swan: For what it is worth, the file was not compliant with policy when the file was uploaded, but {{PD-Afghanistan}} contained incorrect information for a period of several years. When the template was created back in 2008, the information in it was already outdated by several months, and this wasn't corrected until March 2012. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with this interpretation. As the WMF lawyer made clear, extending this protection to Afghan images is a choice. It required the recognition of the existence of Karzai's decree, and it requires agreement that the decree goes far enough to start considering these images as protected. That is not a foregone conclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings User:Geo Swan: I hope you're discussing this at the deletion nomination discussion page! I am not personally invested in the image one way or the other, so what the community consensus decides will be fine by me. I hope you did not feel there was any form of judgement or upset with you, merely my confusion about the licensing of the image. Please be sure to comment on the DN as well as here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You took off Bernard Cerquiglini's picture "Bernard Cerquiglini in Kinshasa" on his notice.
The picture was given by Bernard Cerquiglini himself to me. The author of the picture has given him the rights for free to use it.
So could you put it back or tell me what to do ?
Thanking you in advance,
Best regards,
Lausanne
Hi Lausanne: I hope you see this message as you forgot to login and/or give your user name for reply. The string of ownership of the image you describe and how to handle the licensing is a question best taken to the Village Pump for help from the community. With best wishes, Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken and given by friend and colleague Peter Brusse himself to me. The author of the picture has given him the rights for free to use it.
So could you put it back or tell me what to do ?
Thanking you in advance,
Best regards,
Theo10
Hi Theo10: The string of ownership of the image you describe and how to handle the licensing is a question best taken to the Village Pump for help from the community. With best wishes, Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you paint the signs that were in the photos? I didn't think you did, although I don't doubt it was your camera which photographed the signs. If you are sure I am wrong, Commons has a way to get these COM:UNDEL - undeleted. I'd suggest going to that page and following the instructions there where an UNDEL editor can assist you. I hope you have a really good day. Commons and copyright can be confusing, please read up on COM:L and ask any questions you want here or at the Village Pump. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would point you to this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Serbia As you can see, the law says: "It is permitted to make two-dimensional reproductions of works permanently located on streets, squares or other open places accessible to public, and to distribute such reproductions, without author's permission or paying author's fee." Since I took these images in Serbia, I have not violated any copyrights. So, can you undelete my images or I should open an official undelete request? PANONIAN (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrong with the "Lobos Negros #1" & Lobos Negros #2". Check it!!!
Dear Ellin,
The leader of the Lobos Negros group, Luis Martín Gil, gave me this two photos (Lobos Negros #1 + Lobos Negros #2) from his personal archive and the permission to use.
This two photos was made from Jesús Alcaraz in 1987 and 1992.
Check it now and tell me because you are wrong.
I have the permission of the musical group and the photographer to use it on Wikipedia.
Hi Hansmuller: The image "Watercolour portrait of Jacob Por manufactured by HW Rosema in 1910" needs provenance. Was it previously published, if so where? It would require the pre-1923 publication source to use PD-1923 license. Otherwise, what were the dates for H.W. Rosema's life? I'm not arguing with you and the file can be restored if a proper license can be provided. There's editors at COM:UNDEL who can help you with the reversal of this action. I hope this helps. I appreciate your understanding that this is a process not a judgement. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Stefan, here rights have been settled. The image was already publicly available from a Dutch government site.
Dear Ellin, I think you have been too rough. In the first place you should have nominated this file for nomination, instead of removing without due process. But all this is unnessary. Of course we should keep illegal material out, but here copyright had been settled correctly: the image is part of an 460.000 image donation of public images, hosted by the Dutch State Heritage Agency (RCE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijksdienst_voor_het_Cultureel_Erfgoed), who has the rights to these images, see the license https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:RCE-license. RCE donated this image to Commons under CC-BY-SA-3.0 as you could see. The image is publicly downloadable from RCE website too, http://beeldbank.cultureelerfgoed.nl/alle-afbeeldingen/indeling/gallery?searchfield=aquarel+jacob+por+rosema. There was a link to this source on the description page, under CC-BY-SA-3.0. This image is free to use under CC-BY-SA-3.0 anyway, anyone can upload it legally to Commons.
So please put this legal image back, we need it for, e.g., https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Por. Por is an unsung pioneer of Dutch monument restauration.
Seeing the dispute above: Photos of technical innovations typically are published as an illustration of an actual report.
Therefore, anybody postulating to hold the copyright would have to prove that nobody has published that image before himself.--Ulamm (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ulamm: Even images which are "too old..." need to have a source of where they came from so that their age, publication history and so on is known to the end users. If you feel the image was deleted in error, please take your points to the editors at COM:UNDEL for help having the image restored. The process here is that one editor nominates; another deletes. I saw nothing to contradict the nomination, but I won't oppose your UNDEL actions. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you are a quick deleter, causing much trouble and waste of time that could be avoided.
(Sorry to repeat, but you seemed to have missed my message to you before. "Hi Ulamm: Even images which are "too old..." need to have a source of where they came from so that their age, publication history and so on is known to the end users. If you feel the image was deleted in error, please take your points to the editors at COM:UNDEL for help having the image restored. The process here is that one editor nominates; another deletes. I saw nothing to contradict the nomination, but I won't oppose your UNDEL actions. Cheers!" Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am very sorry for the logos, I'm a new user and did not know where in place to put them under an acceptable license. My native language is Spanish and it makes me a little hard to communicate with you. You can verify that the logos are mine and are under a free license.César J. Paiva on Flickr
Hi C.Jonel: Even if you made these logos on your home computer and uploaded them to your flickr account, they are still derivative works of album art by others and as such not permitted by Commons. "Own work" means something you created entirely, not copies of Katy Perry's Roar logo, not a copy of TS 1989 (Taylor Swift album cover), etc. You cannot just redraw art by others and claim "own work." Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flying Pho GIF
We added the following text, but I am unable to determine if I should still use the category "Own Work", or if there is a more accurate category for the Commons. Please let me know.
"Marcelo Träsel is the author of the original photo from here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/trasel/3357933855/ He created this photo under the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) license which states:
"You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original."
To create this new image Gorham and Giffen knocked out the background, added wings, changed colors, and created an animated gif to be used as a small part of an extensive art exhibition around themes of digital imagery, appropriation, open sourcing, and virtual space."
Preceeding unsigned was by User:Scottygorham
Hi Scottygorham: If you do derivative works of other people's images, those people have to be credited in the source line of the file. Who is the Giffen? I see that your username includes Gorham, was this your work or the work of others? Please don't forget to sign four "tildes" (~~~~) to make it easier to write back to you! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flying Pho GIF #2
Chrysta Giffen is already listed as a co-creator. We are an artist team that operate individually and under my name as a brand. I will update the source to include where the original image was found in the appropriate line and leave the information also on the bottom. Scottygorham (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scottygorham, with two creators, and one account it is probably a good idea to file an OTRS form for educational images created by more than one person. BTW, what is the educational purpose of a "flying pho?" Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flying Pho GIF #3
Hey Ellen,
As mentioned before (and after the image) the GIF "is to be used as a small part of an extensive art exhibition around themes of digital imagery, appropriation, open sourcing, and virtual space." It will be debuting in a free art exhibit at the King Library in San Jose October 6th-December 17, 2014 in the second floor DiNapoli Gallery, the Atrium, and the 8th floor. It is an exhibit by artist Scotty Gorham, who as mentioned before produces work individually or as a team under a brand name. The concept of the artist as a brand has been around for centuries, ranging from the apprentice studio model of the Renaissance (including masters like Michelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Raphael) to more contemporary canonized and internationally recognized artists like Jeff Koons, Ai Wei Wei, Takashi Murakami, and Maurizio Cattelan. If you are based in Silicon Valley and would like to stop by and see the show, I would be happy to meet you and discuss in detail the complex themes of this sculpture, installation, and digital media art show that hopefully become more clear when the show is viewed in its totality. The GIF is art. Thanks.Scottygorham (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Scotty
It would still be best if you filed an OTRS form on all common work, provide all sources for work and explain in the description the educational purpose for the image. So far it sounds like a promotional image for your show, no? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of File:Portrait of Andy Russell, Eddie Condon's, New York, N.Y., ca. Aug. 1947 William P Gottlieb graphic.jpg
Hi Ellin,
I'm writing about the above file I tried to upload back in July, 2014.
I now have the correct tag:
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is from the William P. Gottlieb collection at the Library of Congress. Rights and restrictions. In accordance with the wishes of William Gottlieb, the photographs in this collection entered into the public domain on February 16, 2010.
Hello, you just deleted 3 pictures from me without asking. I own their copyrights and they were perfectly legal : could you please bring them back please ? I am all yours for discussion if needed. Regards, FredD (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FredD: Please help me out with the three file names? I deleted "no permission" photos (about 90 of them) from the daily reports earlier today. Mistakes do get made, please understand this is a process not a judgement. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, a malevolent user put the "no permission" banner on my pictures with no reason, refused to talk and threatened me with banishment if I removed it : this is why you removed them. But this Commons account is shared by many scientific photographers, and the {{own}} licence was accurate. The pictures were
I hope you can restore them without losing all the features. I asked the user "Biopics" how I could do with OTRS for setting a better copyright, but he never answered me but let the pictures being deleted instead, which I found particularly rude. If you know an easy way to licence many thousands scientific pictures from tens of different contributors without drawning them and me under paperwork, I'll do it, but I had been told before that it was okay with the "own" formula. Best regards, FredD (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FredD: Oh what a nuisance for you! My best suggestion for the different contributors would only take about two (2) minutes per contributor - have them file an OTRS form which covers all their photos from certain Website. Then the OTRS number can be applied to the image as contributed with the corresponding OTRS number (template) and photos will not ever be deleted. For OTRS, you just fill out a cute little email and let the OTRS editors contact you. If that takes more than 30 days *after* filing the forms, please let me know and I will do what I can to encourage the process. Meanwhile I'm going to fully restore those images; if there are additional problems while we sort this all out, please let me know directly here on talk page - or if you feel threatened or bullied, please use the email link to the left to contact me directly. So sorry to have been more hassle for you than was needed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins have to be impartial and not circumvent the rules, don't they. So would you kindly delete those files that were not authored by FredD himself. And there are plenty others while you are at it. Or is this a new policy that I'm not aware of? Biopics19:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Biopics I think the three images can be restored long enough for OTRS forms to be filed to cover the situation. This is not unusual circumstance, please see the discussion on quite a few of the other images in the user gallery. I do think it would be better if all the photographers filed OTRS forms as fast as possible, but I don't see any reason to break tons of content in the project while sorting this out. I've restored the three photos for now, you are certainly welcome to take the situation to Deletion Nomination, but I'd advise doing it on a photo by photo basis not a group nomination of all three hundred possibly affected images. This is not a new policy, Deletion Nominations are a common way for images to be discussed for keep or delete by the community. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FredD: Do please get all the photographers in your project to file OTRS forms at their earliest opportunity to prevent future difficulties of this sort. Fixing those 300 images with appropriate numbers will not be hard; don't use it as an excuse for not getting the forms filled out quickly. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Biopics: I fail to see any bullying in the sample you provided. Perhaps a TPS could assist? Or you could take your concerns to the appropriate forum. BTW, please update your user page to show your current activity - as of this morning it claimed you were inactive by choice - however there are quite a few actions on your contributions. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, my understanding (as a TS) is that Bp is no more uploading his own images; but still active in the maintenance of Category:Crustacea (he is a subject expert). I read FredD's TP too and my understanding is that no formal authorization for uploading/licensing "Philippe Boujon" works by FredD. FredD had agreed that he will approach OTRS for help; that is why I forwarded that matter to Commons_talk:OTRS#User_talk:FredD.23Please_do_not_remove_warnings. I don't want to support or comment on Bp's semi-retirement; my comment here is only about FredD's third party uploads. Jee02:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Biopics for calling me a bully : I am not the one deleting other people's work without accepting discussion and closing my talkpage saying that I'm not active any more. I did not dare reporting your behaviour to other admins for complain, but I see that you were not as polite as I was. Anyway, Philippe is sending an e-mail to OTRS, so we will need a bot to change all the pictures from him : I don't know how to do it. By the way, if you were a true subject expert on crustacea, I think that the quality of Philippe's work (including numerous species never-pictured on the web, and even non described species confirmed by true expert colleagues like Joseph Poupin) would have prevented you from such rudeness. Zeal does not forbid politeness and good will, especially on collaborative websites. Regards, FredD (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlphaTangoVideo: The image didn't contain sufficient information in the accompanying file for a reasonable person to understand that the source is released as you say. I don't feel qualified after having made this error to work on the COM:UNDEL of this image. Please go to COM:UNDEL and have one of their administrators help you with the restoration of this file. Thank you for your understanding. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
have been deleted per Copyright violation, notwithstanding the PD-FLGov permission and the OTRS pending labels: could you please undelete them?
Thanks, --Pietro (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pietro: Those images have also another template you didn't mention, see File:WikiCommons-OTRS_not_received.jpg for a screencap from "Tres Puentes.JPG". It reads: It has an author and source, and it has been claimed that permission has been sent in by email. However, the permission has not been received by the Commons OTRS team for verification... Unless verification of permission is given, the image can be speedy deleted 15 days after this template was added and the uploader was notified (12 September 2014). I deleted the images eight days after that minimum notification time had passed. Once the OTRS team does receive an email with valid release on it, they can assist you in undeleting the images, none of which were in use. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pietro: I think it is best to let OTRS admins sort this one out. I do not see any evidence of permission for these images despite who may or may not have sent them to you. The OTRS was not received as per the template on the files. Please feel free to take this to COM:UNDEL, I won't oppose any action on these images there. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File deletion
Hi, I noticed your deletion of File:Hakan_Fidan_on_War_with_Syria.ogg This was a leaked voice recording and is widely available in Turkey for the public. I believe leaks of this nature (documenting gov't corruption) are not subject to copyright. Otherwise Wikileaks would be having a lot of problems with that. Would you please recover / undelete this recording and its associated captions? Thanks Mehmetaergun (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mehmetaergun "widely available" is not the same thing as "no copyright." WikiLeaks has nothing to do with Wikimedia Commons other than four letters in common in the name. Please take your request to COM:UNDEL where editors can consider your discussion regarding this file. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your timely response. I put my request up, though I suspect it will be denied (unless I take the time to study wikipedia bureaucracy). I am surprised you took offense at my wikileaks analogy. The purpose was to draw an analogy between the PD status of leaked documents demonstrating gov't corruption and various actors' (e.g. Scientology, Ecuador, etc) efforts to use copyright as an excuse to remove said documents from internet archives. The aim was to exemplify that such documents should not be perceived as copyrighted and that if such leaked documents were classified as copyrighted in the U.S., Wikileaks, The Guardian, and The New York Times would most probably be prosecuted for copyright breaches (distribution of copyrighted material, i.e. piracy). The analogy had no relationship with similarities and differences or organizational conflicts between Wikileaks and Wikipedia. Anyhow, I was surprised that the recording stayed up for that long, since the Turkish govt usually tries to take it down from websites whenever it can (and blocks them, when it cannot). The deletion of the file without notice and debate is sad to me mostly because it had taken me quite a bit of time to write the captions, put up a summary, find wikipedia pages that can use it, and so on. Thanks again for your response. Mehmetaergun (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Edit: the undelete entry: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Leaked_gov.27t_correspondence_was_deleted_for_.22copyright.22Mehmetaergun (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original uploader would have been notified about a week ago about the problem with the file; I didn't delete it out of thin air, it was on a page with other files for review. I don't remember the exact specifications of each of the files I worked through today, but they were of the groups "missing permission" and "missing source". I see your UNDEL request so suggest any further discussion be over there. I'm not angry about Wiki/Links & WikiPedia, I just couldn't tell if you knew the difference based on what you said. And still "widely available" doesn't equal "open permissions" or every widely available photo on the internet would automatically be able to be entered here - and they can't. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the deletion was confirmed. The reason, as stated, is that since the Turkish government used extensive measures of internet censorship, the media in question should be considered copyrighted. Reading that was fun :) Mehmetaergun (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that sucks, but please be aware that there's no FOP in the U.S. and so every picture of government issued metal signs in the US are automatic copyvios if they were made after some arbitrary date which I can never remember. Governments do stuff like that; sorry that Turkey is even more restrictive than some others. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New Topic
Hi Ellin Beltz, this is Nino Weinstock. First: I think it was not correct to delet my work about Robert Smithson. There are so many usefull new facts in it. Of course it is easy to press the delete button. But there is no reason for. Second: You er wrong when you think, the pictures are copyrighted bei the artist. The artist has never seen this Pictures or this Indian snake. preceeding unsigned by 13:29, 21 September 2014 Ninoweinstock
Hi Ninoweinstock Re: File:Robert Smithson Seine Zeit, seine 350 Werke.pdf which was a catalog of artists work, the artist died in 1973 and there were photographs of his work in the catalog. The artist still owns the copyrights to his work for 70 years after death. Thus the amount of "usefull new facts" or "never seen this picture" doesn't enter into it. The photographs were of copyrighted works of art; whether he was alive when they were photographed, doesn't change his copyright on the underlaying piece. And one more bit of mis-statement in your note above, the piece was deleted by INeverCry. I am very sorry you are disappointed that this lengthy paper on this artist was deleted, but it was out of scope - in that Commons is not the repository for the text of a document of that sort and it was a COM:COPYVIO for using photographs of copyrighted works by the artist. Thank you for writing again, I hope this repetition of information previously explained is more lucid for you this time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General response to your copyright tagging spree
I've responded on all the relevant file talk pages, but more or less, my understanding is that the MacArthur Foundation images are CC-BY-SA 4.0 International (I've provided a better link demonstrating that), the Ryser image is a 2.0 license (I've provided a link to that, but double check me), the Reed image is a product of the federal government (it's an official federal judge headshot, which is probably why it got reused in the obit), and is therefore PD, and that you're probably right about the decoder ring. Please drop me a note if you have any concerns related to any of these images except the decoder ring. Thanks. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe Decker: Copyright patrolling is what I do here! Hardly a spree, more like a quiet Sunday morning and a long list of files to review. Based on the information provided, the MacArthur foundation images were all copyright (the page you linked in the talk pages very specifically reads " Our policy is to broadly share and build upon the work we support to advance collective knowledge while respecting the intellectual property of others. Therefore, except as otherwise noted, a Creative Commons license applies to all content on our website that the Foundation has created, owns or has a contractual right to share. As set forth more fully in the linked site, this license permits you to copy, distribute, and display such content as long as you mention and link back to MacArthur and do not change the content or use it commercially."). Since the pages where the images came from were marked "copyright", I'd suggest that is as "otherwise noted" and not covered by the CC license. The Reed image needs to be proven to be an official headshot, not just assumed to be PD, and thank you for noticing the decoder ring problem! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, no worries, I undestand this is important, I do a lot of copyright (text) work at ENWIKI.
I still think you're wrong about the MacArthur Foundation links, and would ask you to take a second look. Take Eberhardt. The link I provided, [15], says "Hi-res photos for download. Photos licensed under a Creative Commons license. Courtesy of the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Right-click on the links below to save the file to your computer." It would be cleaner if they had specified which CC license immediately at the download link, but I don't believe there is any real doubt given this and the information page that CC-BY-SA 4.0 International was intended.
I would too, your assertion of copyright on those images, and not a CC license, is in direct contradiction to "Photos licensed under a Creative Commons license" at [16]. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading their pages for the fourth time, I withdrew speedy nominations on the MacArthur Foundation images, labled "per discussion". Please add any relevant additional info to those discussion pages. I do think they could be a lot clearer on their licenses on that page. Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have preferred that too. Thanks! I will (in the next couple hours) try and update the file pages with all the relevant links. And I still owe you a resonse on Reed. Cheers, --Joe Decker (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't talked about Ryser, I see it's been deleted. If you will examine the deleted version, you will find the link to the appropriate CC 2.0 license, which was added before deletion. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reed is still a tough nut. No EXIF information, the site is clearly USGOV but otherwise unmarked. I sent an email to the webmaster, I'll let you know if anything comes back from that, but I understand if you need to delete it. (I disagree, but understand!) I can probably fair use it on ENWIKI for his biography there (I'll ask there) if you need to, and in some ways I can see where that might be cleaner to treat Reed as a fair use case if I can't get a clearer indication out of the Nevada District Court. Cheers, --Joe Decker (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be nice? I remember digging hard to find anything of Reed at all. :) If I hear back from the court folks I'll definitely enquire about what they have, it might be too much to hope, but if they have a whole bucket of larger PD images and can verify that to our mutual satisfaction, I would be glad to take on the work of getting them all uploaded and properly marked. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Advice from another admin "When you see an obvious sock like this, I would recommend an immediate block, deletion of uploads, and pinging CUs like @Trijnstel:, @Tiptoety:, @Magog the Ogre:, etc. I've blocked and tagged Ctgeo as a sock of Albianmoonlight. Good find btw." Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
September 2014
If you don't see your discussion here, please see the relevant archive page, and leave your new message at the bottom of this page!
The only thing I see is "These netcasts are released under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license. TWiT® and the TWiT Logo are registered trademarks of Leo Laporte." As you point out, that license is insufficient for Commons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hello, and thanks for pointing out some photo problems , I posted some photos but if you wish to please speedy delete some of them thats ok. Welcome, I am sorry my photos are not too good, I am not well aware of rules etc but many friends here too, sometimes like them and share them, so I thought maybe I can also share? Best wishes, Rangbaz (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Rangbaz[reply]
Hi Rangbaz: Please read COM:L before uploading more pictures. The two images that I removed yesterday were taken directly from someone's website and put up here without concern for actual license, which is why I suggest to you that reading COM:L would be a good idea before uploading more. You cannot upload photos taken by others and published on websites (with a very few exceptions). Taking photos from other people's websites is the very fast way to have the photos removed. I am particularly concerned by File:Lahore 5.jpg because that one came from a website which is marked "all rights reserved." See: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sarfrazh/2591887831/ and look lower right side, it says "all rights reserved". That means you can't "share" those photos here on Commons. We're not a social media site. Your own pictures as far as I looked at them seem ok. But recently you swiped a whole pile of photos from the web, and those cannot be uploaded here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mattpbarry: Please go to COM:UNDEL and state the reason you wish the file restored. I don't have OTRS rights or permissions - that's a different subset of administrators. I'm sorry I cannot confirm or deny the validity of your OTRS number but the COM:UNDEL editors are experts at all that. Please accept my apologies for the trouble of the process. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RightCowLeftCoast : That crest had a source that went to a non-functional web-page and it was removed for no source. Images - even those of the U.S. Government - require a valid source for the file data set. Thank you for your inquiry. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how can you delete media File:JIIT-Library.jpg when a discussion is ongoing. You did not read the talk page before deleting it. The original message I were posted there:
The link (http://jiitianseducation.blogspot.in/) you have mentioned that file is copied is illegitimate. The contents on this websites is copied from Wikipedia Article en:Jaypee Institute of Information Technology. Moreover, you should also check time stamp of the file when it was uploaded on Wikipedia. If somebody is putting media on this personal blog then there is also a possibility that person copied media from Wikipedia just to get more visitors. What is the person credibility that the media is his own work? For example, I can create my own blog too and then will render all the Wikipedia media on my blog. Will the media on Wikipedia violate copyright law? No, it will not. Do you think so? If you still think that this file is violating copyright law, then probably you should do more google for another media and then do a reverse engineering to search the media on Wikipedia commons and put a speedy deletion tag to it. Thanks!
Second issue with media File:JIIT-OAT.jpg
You have deleted the media without reading the talk page. The original message I were posted there:
The link (http://worldheritage.org/articles/Jaypee_Institute_of_Information_Technology) you have mentioned that file is copied is illegitimate. The contents on this websites is rendered from Wikipedia Article en:Jaypee Institute of Information Technology. If you google then you will find several websites of this kind. If you still think that this file is violating copyright law, then probably you should check another articles on the same website (http://worldheritage.org/) and you should also but a speedy deletion tag to all the media you will find there.
If you are an administrator on Wikipedia that does not mean that every time you are right. Thanks!
Chu86happychu 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Chu86happychu: I'm operating under the systems and processes put in place by Wikimedia Commons. The images which I deleted this morning had been placed for speedy deletion by another and so I looked at your file list to see what else you had uploaded. You seem to be confused on at least one point: There is no discussion time on speedy deletes. Regular deletion nominations have a week and discussion, clear COM:COPYVIOs are removed immediately. I nominated a couple more of your images for deletion process, which is not the same as having deleted them. There is a week available for you to comment on the deletion nominations, the links are on your talk page. Please leave your messages about them on the project page links provided on your talk page. To speak to some of your special concerns: We do check the dates of upload versus the dates of publication on outside pages. If you feel these files have been deleted in error, please go to COM:UNDEL and state your case with a different administrator, that way there will be no bias or conflict of interest. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hello Ellin, thank you for the message sorry about your the loss in your family.
Hi Ellin Beltz, yesterday you deleted two logos, File:Houben-Elektro-Akustik, HEA - Firmenlogo 1.jpg and File:Houben-Elektro-Akustik, HEA - Firmenlogo 2.jpg, both speedily on the ground of a supposed copyright violation. Both were wrongly tagged with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-at}} and the uploader named himself as author. This is irritating but a common mistake by users who are used to upload their own photographs but occasionally upload something different, like a logo. Both logos consist of letters and a diamond as a simple geometric figure. These are the logos of an Austrian company, thereby Austrian laws applies. As you can see at de:Schöpfungshöhe#Österreich, Austria requires a minimum threshold of originality for works to be eligible for copyright. In particular, they must be recognizable as piece of art which is significantly different from other works of art. Such an individual expression is, however, not to be found in these two logos. Regular Grotesk typefaces and simple geometric figures (diamonds and rectangles) are used with just one foreground color. In summary, I do not think that a deletion was justified and I ask you to undelete these two logos. I would fix the license templates afterwards, i.e. {{PD-textlogo}} would apply. Kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AFBorchert: With apologies... someone uploading the work of another and claim it as own is very common behavior on Commons. These sorts of files are sent for speedy deletion all the time. I think I deleted several hundred of the type recently including one of Mickey Mouse with an own work tag and a PD-self license. And while theses two files may be Austrian logos, the servers for Commons are in the U.S. and so Commons rules need to be followed in addition to the rules of all the countries. I'd suggest going to COM:UNDEL where I won't argue for or against and you will get a second opinion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry to hear of your loss Ellin. I have no fear of death myself, but I dread such losses of loved ones more than anything. My thoughts are with you and your family. Don't worry about Commons; I can handle questions posted here if needed. They won't find me as nice and patient as you, but I'll try to be as gentle as I'm capable of being... Anyways, you've always struck me as a pretty tough chick, so I won't get too mushy here. Just know that I care, and I feel for you. INeverCry01:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you INeverCry. I am really grateful for everyone's good wishes, most particularly yours since you talked me into the mop and bucket in February. I think it will take a while to get back to full ordinary life, but the closing details are almost done. I did finally sleep for 12 hours last night after a week of having to be up for everyone else it was a good thing to just crash for me for a while. I have been poking the edges of Commons when I had a signal as something "normal" to do, spent some time categorizing images, uploaded a couple and so on. Commons is good for me after a long day of relatives, trust me! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Condolences
We do not know much, but I think it is important to express you my sorrow for your loss. It is not possible to know the great pain that feels unless you are in a similar situation. Maybe it's time to forget the computer for a while and focus on sharing with your loved ones. There's no doubt suffering that overwhelms you is something I always smash for the rest of your life. I want to feel you can count on my support, a hug. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H.!! I have been spending piles of time with loved ones, and - truth be told - Commons right now is an escape from some of the details of the situation, which are almost finished. I thank you so much for your support and your hug!! Really appreciated, Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re help
Dear Ellin,
My sympathies to yourself and family.
I wrote asking help, if you would, in regard to posting a page for "Funtasy Island" on Wikipedia. No the spelling is correct. Search and it comes up with good old Fantasy Island.
Funtasy is a group of three Indonesian Islands, just off Batam.
They are being developed as 500 villa resort, with Eco Theme Park and many resort facilities.
It is a 40 minute ferry ride from Singapore.
Could you please help me to , or explain slowly, how I could ad a page.
Many thanks,
Ron Egerton.
re help
Dear Ellin,
My sympathies to yourself and family.
I wrote asking help, if you would, in regard to posting a page for "Funtasy Island" on Wikipedia. No the spelling is correct. Search and it comes up with good old Fantasy Island.
Funtasy is a group of three Indonesian Islands, just off Batam.
They are being developed as 500 villa resort, with Eco Theme Park and many resort facilities.
It is a 40 minute ferry ride from Singapore.
Could you please help me to , or explain slowly, how I could ad a page.
Many thanks,
Ron Egerton.
Hi Ron: I'm not the person to talk to about the ins-and-outs of adding pages, but let me point you in the direction of (Help:Contents) for Wikimedia Commons and for Wikipedia. On both you'll find links to how to get started tutorials on your talk pages on both projects. Remember all photos you upload to Commons must be your own work - own photo, not a rephotograph of some book or brochure, and neither Wikipedia nor Commons are to be used for promotion, self-promotion or social media purposes. Personally, I'd suggest putting the information on {{w:https:Batam}} as a subsection. Experienced editors familiar with your area will immediately pounce out of the woodwork (some may be cranky, beware!) but they will help you get your information - and citations - in the right place after they understand you're not there for social or promotional purposes. Sounds like an interesting project and probably (no guarantees, I'm not an expert WikiPedian) very interesting addition. Sorry to not be more precise help, let me know if I can point you in any other directions? Don't forget to sign your name with four ~~~~ tildas it makes it a lot easier to click back on your name and write back. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PD-old
I'm a bit confused. Did you know, what Pd-old means? This means, we KNOW, the artist is dead since at least 70 years. This means, an image that was made in 1947 never, never, NEVER EVER can be in the Public Domain because ao age as for exaample stated here. No image inthe worls could this, that was made after 1943. 1947 is after 1943! So why do you think, you can take away the speedy deletion request? Nearly the same with the images File:Würenlingen, Altersheim.jpg and File:Würenlingen, um 1936.jpg. The Uploader must give the proof, the image is free. As long he can't do this - and not knowing an photographer of an image from the 1930s is such a moment - images must be deleted at Commons. This is not a wish. Or a request. Or a recommendation. This is a must. If you don't do your job and delete these images, please don't take out the deletion requests and let other Admins do the work. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marcus Cyron: These three images were converted to Deletion Nominations for assistance from the community of editors/admins for the age and whether they could be kept or not. They will certainly be deleted seven days hence if nothing further is learned about their provenance. I think I'm doing my job and holding up my corner of the Admin mop, tysvm. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Indigojones666. I'm a bit confused here. The image File:John boyd.jpg is clearly labeled copyright at the source page ( http://johnboydhats.co.uk/milliner/biography/) to "Garry Rigby" but was marked here on Commons as own work of Indigojones666 with a release of copyright. Since this image was the only upload from this account, and the account name has no apparent bearing on the name of the photographer, and the source file is marked copyright in a couple of different places, I think perhaps the best thing for you to do is to go to COM:OTRS and fill in their simple email form. When accepted by the OTRS staff, the image can be restored. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your nomination for deletion:
I added preciser origin indications.
I got a few glass plates and paper enlargments from persons, to whom they were given from Ernest de Ganay himself.
These photographes were commissioned by Ernest de Ganay himself, the photographer is unknown. Ernest de Ganay seemed to have acquired the copyright, otherwise he wouldn't have had the glass plates, that were given to me, in his possession!
Illustrating the beginning of the french wikipedia article to honor Ernest de Ganay is in the sense of the persons that gave me the photographs. And: the house in the background is my property.
So: please don't delete!
Imágenes borradas
Hola Ellin, no entiendo el porque fueron borradas las imágenes Gilberto_Smith_Duquesne.jpg y Gilberto_Smith_Duquesne_1.png , según usted por Violación de Copyright y estas imágenes fueron tiradas y donadas por Raúl G. Smith Mesa, hijo de Gilberto Smith Duquesne para el artículo Gilberto Smith. Él la dono para que las personas pudieran copiarla y utilizarla libremente por lo cual la hace una imagen CC. Mi pregunta es: ¿El estado de Copyright lo da el creador de la fotografía o los moderadores dueños de Wikipedia?
Translation: Hello Ellin not understand why were erased and Gilberto_Smith_Duquesne_1.png Gilberto_Smith_Duquesne.jpg images as you by Violation of Copyright and these images were shot and donated by Raul G. Smith Mesa, son of Gilberto Smith Duquesne to Article Gilberto Smith. He donated so that people could freely copied and used which makes it a CC image. My question is: Copyright status is given by the creator of the photograph owners or moderators of Wikipedia? Regards, --Javiermartin.cu
Hola Javiermartin.cu: En este caso los derechos de autor pertenecería a la persona que realmente tomó la fotografía. De lo que usted escribió que parece haber Raul G. Smith Mesa. Debido a que la persona que ha subido estas fotografías no era la misma persona que el fotógrafo, los permisos dados por los derechos de autor eran insuficientes.
Por ejemplo: María toma una foto y se la da a Marco que carga a Commons. La imagen será borrada o nominada para ser eliminado, porque Marco no tiene derecho al trabajo de María.
La solución al problema real sería para usted y el señor Mesa a que visite la COM: OTRS página y rellenar su formulario de verificación de correo electrónico. Después de que haya procesado y aceptado las admininistrators OTRS restaurar el archivo / s. Saludos, Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: :Hi Javiermartin.cu: In this case the copyright would belong to the person who actually took the photograph. From what you wrote that would appear to be Raul G. Smith Mesa. Because the person who uploaded these photographs was not the same person as the photographer, the permissions given for the copyrights were insufficient.
For example: Maria takes a photo and gives it to Marco who uploads it to Commons. The picture will be deleted or nominated for deletion because Marco has no rights to Maria's work.
The solution to the real problem would be for you and Mr. Mesa to visit the COM:OTRS page and fill in their email verification form. After that is processed and accepted the OTRS admininistrators restore the file/s. Cheers! Ellin
Hola Ellin, entiendo el punto de vista que expones, la cuestión es que nosotros vivimos en un Cuba, un país bloqueado económicamente, comercial y financieramente por los Estados Unidos desde hace 50 años, el cual impide acceder a muchas de las tecnologías, entre ellas Internet, por lo cual acá no todos tienen acceso a ellas, por ello el autor de las fotografías Raul G. Smith Mesa, a la cual conozco personalmente, me las entregó para compartirlas con la comunidad de Wikipedia. Ya entiendo porque no existen muchas fotografías de Cuba, si se aplica ese punto de vista, nunca tendrán fotos cubanas. Ya que uno de los principios de Wikipedia es el Principio de buena fe. Disculpe las molestias ocasionadas. Saludos, --Javiermartin.cu (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Translation: Hello Ellin, I understand the point of view that you expose, the issue is that we live in a Cuba, a country economically blockaded, commercially and financially by the United States for 50 years, which prevents access to many technologies, including Internet, so here not everyone has access to them, so the author of the photographs Raul G. Smith Mesa, whom I know personally, he gave me to share with the community of Wikipedia. I get it because there are many photographs of Cuba, if that view is applied, will never have Cuba photos. Since one of the principles of Wikipedia is the principle of good faith. Sorry for the inconvenience. [reply]
Hola Javiermartin.cu: Es mi entendimiento de que el COM: OTRS proceso permite que las formas de OTRS para ser enviadas por correo. Sí, el servicio de correo directo entre los dos países ha sido un problema durante el último medio siglo. Sin embargo sé que es posible enviar correo a través de amigos en el exterior - no directamente. Entiendo personalmente su punto acerca de COM: AGF, pero esta página no es el lugar para discutir sobre estas fotos. Las reglas de Wikimedia Commons, con sede en los EE.UU., se enumeran en COM: L y como lo siento yo a estas circunstancias personales, no puedo cambiar las reglas de Wikimedia Commons. Por favor, ponga sus comentarios en la página de Nominación borrado, alguien con más experiencia que yo pueda tener una manera de ayudarle - pero sólo si usted trabaja a través del proceso y escribir en la página de nominación eliminación, y no en esta página. Escribir aquí no va a ayudar! ¡Salud! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: It is my understanding that the COM:OTRS process permits the OTRS forms to be mailed. Yes, direct mail service between the two countries has been a problem for the past half century. However I know it is possible to send mail through friends overseas - not directly. I personally understand your point about COM:AGF, but this page is not the place to argue about these pictures. The rules of Wikimedia Commons, based in the US, are listed on COM:L and as sorry as I am to these personal circumstances, I cannot change the rules of Wikimedia Commons. Please put your comments on the Deletion Nomination page, someone more experienced than myself may have a way to assist you - but only if you work through the process and write on the deletion nomination page, and not on this page. Writing here won't help! Cheers!
HISTORIAS DE BILBAO EN FIESTAS
Dear Ellin:
I write you en name of Plaza Nueva Idazleak (ALPNI). I am the secretary of this association of writers sited in Bilbao. ALPNI has organised the "Certamen internacional Bilbao Aste Nagusia de Relato" since 2013 and the photograph you discuss belongs to the cover of "Historias de Bilbao en fiestas", book edited by our association with the best stories presented at the event. The cover is designed by us yearly, so we are the owners of this design. ALPNI has the copyright of this book, contents and cover. Under the image, the text explain the origin of this photo, but is possible that the translate to english difficult the mean. Sorry for my bad English. I hope that my explain will you understand the mean of this image and ensure the origin. Best Regards: Jim Bilbao (Wikipedia user).
Thank you very much for your help. Is first time for me like wikipedia user, and the system send me to your talk page everytime to discuss this cuestion.
Best regards: Jim Bilbao
Restoring images
Hi, I was looking at my father's wikipedia page, and saw that you deleted all of the images. All of the images were family photos that I uploaded. As far as I was able to tell, I uploaded the photos properly. I just went to add the photos again and it's preventing me from uploading them because of your deletions. Is there a way to restore the photos? Thanks, Treblamah
Hi Treblamah: What you describe "family photos I uploaded" is indeed the problem. Who actually took the photos is the issue. Just having a photo in a family album doesn't mean the owner of the album owns the copyright of the photograph. And yes, trying to reupload the same images again is quite frowned on here. There are processes including COM:OTRS and COM:UNDEL to which you can take your request for photo restoration. The removed file names are:
I am leaving a talkback tag on your page and also sending you a "please reply on Wikimedia Commons" reply to your email of this morning. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
October 2014
Regarding my flag
Dear admin, I have now added a simple licence and source to my flag. It is indeed my own work, and that is exactly what it is. I have made the image myself, and I grant everyone the right to use it, now if there is still something wrong with the system I'd appreciate if you see that it is fixed (such as any nasty warning messages) You see, I care for my flag, and don't want it to be disrespected in any way, even deletion, an artist cares for their creation you see. Thank you very much.
- A good friend
Hi: Since you logged in anonymously and didn't provide a link to your image, I'm not too sure what I can do to be helpful to you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eunji Gardiner
I was google about our family history the other day. Gerald Gardiner is my father in law's uncle. When I googled him on Wikipedia the list of 'Lord of Great British' there was no his picture. So I did upload. The picture is from our house wall one in big frame.
That was first time I did upload something on this web site and I don't have any plan to put anything else. Oh! and I just realised this is 'Wikimedia' not 'Wikipedia' All I want to do was upload that picture on Wikipedia.
The picture from family so I don't know who painted it.
If this picture can be problem just let me know what can I do. And if i have to delete it could you please tell me how to do? this web site is quit complicate to me even It was so hard to find that how to respond to you!
Thank you. Previous unsigned comment by 101.162.24.213.
Greetings: Without knowing who created the painting File:The Lord Gardiner.jpg it is impossible to know how to license it. Because the subject died in the 1990s, it is likely that the creator of the image is either still alive, or has not yet been dead 70 years. The image will be automatically deleted in a few days if you don't do anything. Yes, I agree this site appears complicated, but so are Facebook and Twitter, Pinterest and Instagram, so if you take a short while and read the instructions, it will all be a lot more clear. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I restored these, and created a DR instead. However I am not sure if this permission sufficient for this document. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ellin: You deleted a photograph from the above article due to unclear copyright. This file was scanned from an old photograph (>50 yrs) that I physically own. It was taken by a family member who has given me permission to use it. Would you please let me know how I can go about using this picture without violating copyright policy.
In addition, I have another photograph of the subject of the article that I personally took. How do I upload it correctly so that the copyright is not disputed and the picture removed.
Sorry for the basic question, as you can tell I don't do this a lot. Thanks
Hi Pparang: To answer your questions... on the old photo, please go to the page COM:OTRS and have the photographer fill in the form, it's really easy. When the OTRS editors have received your form and accepted it the image may/can/will be restored. They do have a backlog so please mark your calendar to follow through at about two weeks after you send the form in; but don't let it slip entirely, if it goes over a month, please get back to me and I'll ask what can be done. You will receive an "OTRS number" at that time which will show that the permissions were accepted by an administrator (assuming they are - I cannot speak for that side of the process). On your other photo that you personally took, you upload it as {{own}} and your user name for "who made this picture", license it as you desire (see COM:L) and it should be ok. If you need any more help, please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Banksy in Bristol
Hi Ellin, regarding the image of Banksy's work in Bristol, thanks for your message:) I was concerned because I did not want to violate copyright. If it is ok, I am relieved. I should have a look on the difference between mural and graffiti soon though.--Xlc (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xlc: For more info click on COM:GRAFFITI - and it links to "murals". There is of course a huge section of Category:Banksy murals in Commons including your great photo of "Adultery" in Bristol. There's also COM:FOP to take a look at for other places in the world. Some of the ins and outs of Commons rules on copyright seem really arcane but after a while they all sorta make sense. All the ins and outs of Commons are listed in a very handy table, if you add {{TNT|Commons policies and guidelines}} to your user page, a links table will autogenerate which may be of help to you with finding everything! I know I can't move without my copy! Hope this is of some help. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
------------- November 2014
Arbitrary reason given for deletion - there is zero indication of copyviol
I don't understand this problem that you just arbitrarily assert that some hunch of yours "suggests copy viol" and now I am even blocked from s this file. I took this picture myself as I put on the page when I uploaded it. Since when does "small size" of the fact that a page is "unused" give you the right to arbitrary summary deletion when a user certifies they own the picture. I am thoroughly disenchanted with WC especially since I cannot even replace this photo now I seldom have anything to do with WC as most of my photos are NOT up for grabs CCL and this incident only underscores why WC is not cool at all. Regarding thisL Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pitbull muzzled American Staffordshire Terrier APBT Pibble Pittie dangerous dog breed specific legislation Model is LLondon.jpg you have absolutely zero evidence suggesting there is any copyviol whatsoever you are just going on a hunch. It was not used yet so what does that prove? Appreciation (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not even online thanks. Are you intending to undelete this or do you personally get to simply blank delete and vandalize at will? Why is there not someone on cakll now to undelete this? There is mostly a lot of POV material on that topic I think that photo is very much needed on various projects and you are blockading it. Maybe yoiu just don't like dogs.You are ruining the possibility of peaceful dialogue there are people who kill pit bulls and you are blocking a peaceful education project now. There are public agencies also that mass exterminate pit bulls and you are refusing to allow the discourse to procede because of your unsubstantiated hunches. SHameful that a WMF project would allow this kind of arbitrary fix.Appreciation (talk) 01:13, 6 Nll ovember 2014 (UTC)
Please just undelete and unblock my picture I had to take twenty to get that one and I don't want a big drawn out war over this, I put in all the metadata if it did not take I will put it back in WHy is there no admin on duty who can undelete this you are off on some kind of other job now while jamming up the works. A hundred pit bulls are being "euthanized" per hour while you are gone and have wrecked this work. I will try to make this my very last interaction with WP if at all possible. Appreciation (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for some reason the other admin involved in this deletionist fiasco does not have an edit link on their talk page just pictures of cats. Guess you peopole just don't care that there is a mass extermination going on against our animals just your own. This kind of administrative arbitrariness would never be permitted on other projects. Appreciation (talk) 01
24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Lousy policy autoblock my reupload attempts per the below
Pitbull muzzled American Staffordshire Terrier APBT Pibble Pittie dangerous dog breed specific legislation Model is LLondon (2).jpg
There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted.
Ikeep getting this message and no help from WC. I am prepared to re enter any meta data. I don't think you are correct anyway I filled in all the pertinent material as I recall and am prepared to do so now. I have lost faith in this whole process now you are not even on line nor is anyway who is willing to fix this you are just letting machines thwart human and canine endeavor. There are machines that are designed also to kill our dogs that are running while you are doing whatever it is that you are doing right now and where is the rest of WC? Cat owners are always going into hearings demanding that our dogs be killed for some reason or another and now this? 01:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
If you have a very hectic work week then you have absolutely no business messing up other people's work and then going offline. This reflects badly on cat owners and this incident will be discussed on dog f orums worldwide and will be held against cat owners as well as WC people. It is a small world. 01:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
So cute!! Take a deep breath and pet this guy, it's a lot better than ranting at a volunteer.
2) It was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2014, for smalls size, low resolution and no metadata. The file was deleted eight days later by INeverCry after no comments to the contrary were received.
3) Commons has an COM:UNDEL process. Since you find yourself unable to work with me and have such a negative opinion of me, may I suggest going to the UNDEL editors. Please remember that like all other humans they too require sleep and offline time.
4) The pictures on my talk page have nothing to do with your deletion, nor did I even think of the animal negatively, only the copyright status of the image. You make a huge assumption that having cat pictures on my page means I have any negative opinions to animals not cats. Usually I find my cat pictures calming when I work here. That INC and I both have cat pictures causing bias against you is a meaningless statement. We both have hair too, but that doesn't mean we have it in for pictures of people with bald heads. Take a moment to review your rants and realize that you're more likely to get good customer service if you keep your polite side up instead of being impatient and illogical as above.
5) As for lack of useful pictures of pit bulls, please see Category:American Pit Bull Terrier, Category:Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and/or Category:Bull Terrier where over 1,000 images of this breed of dogs are already available for use on the project. Deleting one image of questionable provenance does not make Commons or any of its volunteers responsible for dog euthanasia or any other political movement.
6) If you, User:Appreciation uploaded the image, why does it show User:AdvancedCanineScienceInformatics as the uploader of the file? You make several clear statements that you uploaded this image, but the records show a different name or a COM:SOCK.
This is my first time logged in from Windows so I was not "notified" of anything. I was on Linux before and did not remember the password but now here I am on WIndows and the password is automated. I scanned over your reply and am quite surprised that the file was not already undeleted. I think that I did certify that I own the picture did I not? I don't know what you mean by metadata I presume you mean what kind of camera etc but that is irrelevant. Now did I inadvertantly click thumbnail making the photo unusable?
Anyway now you have your answers. My photo, my model and I can prove it with government paperwork. But I thought I had a right to confidentiality? There are people who hate pitbulls and pit bull owners why should I have to give up anonymity on a WMF project.
Yes I do stand by the point that WC is unduly deletionist but I do understand the reasoning. But wait a minute is it guilty until proven innocent? I certify that the photo I took it myself I am the legal owner.
You are mistaken I find NO EQUIVALENT IMAGE which shows a MUZZLED STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER. The one which is there now and in use is IMO very POV because it includes a human model who is super casually dressed as per a stererotype.
What meta data is supposedly missing? Please advise. I took the series of shots, of which this was the best, on a Lenova Thinkpad using the default settings. WHat other METADATA do you think is needed?
As for sizing, please inform me if I erred and made it too small. Really? It was the default I thought for the camera. I am not a professional photographer. I don't know what proof is required further. This is not a picture of Obama which suggests access to a limited press pool. There are millions of dogs and a dog picture how often is that a "copyright violation".
Yes, I stick to the observation that on any other WMF there is not a presumption to delete. I don't know why you deleted it honestly it seems utterly contrary to the whole WMF philosophy but if you reverse the delete fine the issue is over. If you now wish to direct me to bureacratic process at WC I have to question whether this is good faith on your part unless you can explain what it is that gives you this presumption that there is a copyright violation. I even gave the name of the dog so google it it is in the name of the photo do you see any copyrighted material on this dog? Do you really think that someone is going to sue WC because you are being told this is a photo I took and you are willing to assume good faith? No. There would be no grounds to sue WC until and unless someone notified WC that there was a Copyright violation. THere has been no such notice. I do not see any good faith reason to hold up the project.
" As for the contention that it is not being used I was already to post it but you have quashed that option haven't you. How odd to now use that as a justification. I was being deliberative and waiting to build up support for the use and editorial consensus and timing and the time was right but now you for the most spuriours reasons are holding us up. Please explain yourself I do not see why you now have not restored this photo don't you have that perogative? Are you deliberately saying NO just to get back at me for perceived insult? Is that how it works at WC now you as an admin are keeping content deleted to show off your power? I think you are obligated to restore the deleted content you have no rational basis to allege it is "copyviol" just because the file is small and I have not put a bunch of superflous data on the page. Please advise me how you wish to proceed I will log on again in windows next time so I will see if this WC group is capable of fairness or not. Meanwhile, I will draw my own conclusions about whether or not your obvious bias for cats is relevant - probably not, but possibly. Let teh people judge. AdvancedCanineScienceInformatics (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder who it was that gave you the idea that if you threw a big enough temper tantrum you'd get what you want? Why don't you get yourself under control and ask me calmly and respectfully to review this deletion? Otherwise, I'd suggest you post an undeletion request at COM:UDEL and see how your ranting fares there. If you continue to harass Ellin, you'll quickly find both of your accounts blocked. INeverCry03:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for undeletion
This is to make it explicit that I am requesting you personally to perform the undelete or state whatever metadata you need or if you are simply refusing as a way of demonstrating the power to exact revenge because you don't like the fact that I am very upset and possibly not quite as diplomatic as you can afford to be. In other words, is it now the case that you really have no real objection to the photo you just don't like me and want to make a point? I am very upset anyone would be. I worked a long time to improve WMF converage on this issue and you are holding things up for what appear to be spurious reasons that annoy me and then you point to my annoyance and seem now to be refusing to do your duty to the community to make an example...a vicious cycle contrary to the spirit of WMF. But the dog community will hear of the injustice,. Now why is it that the software is rejecting a completely different photo? DO you find this amusing? Ultimately WMF cannot uphold your digging in of your heels. I am respected on WMF and in canine world and your deletion is anathema...and I don't understand how you can be an admin and not be attending to your account flags. I am not an admin I am not deleting other peoples work so yes indeed I have limited internet access. You however have power to destroy other peoples work and thus should be accountable and not offline so much. WHat a shame I never thought WMF would treat anyone so badly as it has in recent months...I await your reply and hopefully something other than defensive accusatory rationales which are unlike WMF and more like snail mail bureacracy and catch 22 kind of stuff the internet supposedly frees us of.AdvancedCanineScienceInformatics (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings AdvancedCanineScienceInformatics & Appreciation. The process for an undeletion is to go to COM:UNDEL and make your requests over there. As both of you claim ownership of a single image, you will need to explain how that is possible. Continuing the dialog here will not restore your image. I explained this to your other account above. Once you have made a statement (and here you have made many statements) accusing the deletion editors of bias, the only possible thing we can do is step aside and have you work with the different editors at COM:UNDEL. In the time it took you to create the multiple diatribes above, you could have worked with someone else to restore the image, so your arguments are as counterproductive as your accusations are without merit. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.,
No that small size, low quality and missing metadata image was not the only image of a pit bull (1,063 says search), nor the only one muzzled. Here are the first four muzzled pit bull images I found, all of which are of much higher quality and with valid metadata. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New information/conditions and conciliatory tone should hopefully permit reconsideration of deletion thank you
Ms. Beltz I can see that you are very devoted to your work at WC and do appreciate that. No doubt in perfect good faith you felt that my minimally metadata-d upload at amatuer-level resolution did not appear consistent with the high falutin' file name and my user account name. And so if for these reasons you and your colleague deleted the file pending additional information, and I happened to not be online at the time, I don't have a problem chalking this up as a misunderstanding. I am providing any metadata requested such as the use of my Lenovo tablet to take the photo and anything else that may be requested.
Please note that there had been discussion on an allied WMF project in which there was local consensus that the existing file was prejudicial. In fact, that was one of the files that you have profferred in which a dog is being muzzled with a muzzle which IMO is very cruel, not allowing the dog to breathe properly or eat. Also, it has a human handler in very casual attire with his head truncated. That is simply poor photography composition.
I carefully crafted my upload as a possible replacement photo in which the dog, and only the dog, is in the frame. That would resolve the possible NPOV problem created by inclusion of a human handler in a photo that is supposed to be strictly about the dog. Also, I carefully fitted a wire muzzle for proper fit and posed the dog in over a dozen shots, bracketing and so forth. I selected the best one for uplaod.
As it currently stands, other editors have removed the original offensive photo in at least one application, which showed the cruelly muzzled dog with the head-truncated handler. However, it was replaced with a "cute pit bull" photo. I was going to suggest that we could more accurately mirror the intent of the section, Breed SPecific Legislation, but using a photo of a muzzled pit bull which rather nicely splits the difference. It is not an unmuzzled "cutey" but at the same time it is not an oddly truncated shot of a dog in a muzzle which really is quite ugly indeed and possibly cruel to the animal. I have no agenda it is just something to discuss with the editors on the project.
I don't think that you mean to say that you are deciding that WMF has "enough" muzzled pit bull photos and I don't think that you intend to unilaterally close WMF to any further uploads of muzzled dogs. I think you meant to counter my concern that the photo I uploaded had unique value. Well, let's not quibble about that. I am feeling that this has become rather silly and freely admit that my own sense of outrage and wounded innocence ("no good deed goes unpunished") probably contributed as much as the bad luck happenstance that I happened to be off line.
I have taken a hiatus from Wikimedia to review the Five Pillars and to meditate a bit and on this basis hope that we can now move forward in collaborative spirit which I am sure is the general preferred mode with which you administer. I do apologize if I abrogated the Assumption of Good Faith or made you feel that your administrative contributions are underappreciated. (And actually when I was stuck in Linux with no password I created an account so I could contact you asap, and the account name of User:Appreciation was intended to reflect this appreciation for your good faith contributions to WC; an intention I freely admit was not very apparent in that I had become quite upset by the deletion.
Now that you understand the context and the intent, to provide material to imrprove WMF offerings on the often contentious topic of animal rights, breed specific legislation and Staffordshire Terriers, I hope and expect that you would be happy to accept my tone of concilatory collaborative cooperation and review this deletion. Please advise me if there is missing metadata which is required - or even merely helpful - and any suggestions or recommendations which you may be able to providwe me to help assure that in the future my contributions will be properly understood.
Please understand that the existing photos provided are IMHO not really proper and adequate but that ultimately it must be editorial consensus on the various WMF projects to decide what to use and neither I, you or "INC" should allow our personal viewpoints, emotions, or desires to enforce civilty in any way color the nuetrality of content on the projects. It is not fair to WMF editors, readers and the underlying equities to have the content affected by any personal considerations, least of all an impulse to punish me personally for being upset about the deletion. Wikimedia Foundation is really above that sort of thing. Even if I, and perhaps other pit bull topic interested persons, are impulsive and undiplomatic, that does not really constitute "harassment" if it is in response to a content deletion, and even if it is, it is not fair to WMF to distort content availability for that reason.
But that is probably irrelevant as I am reframing this and acknowledging that my own sense of righteous indignation has probably contributed to the rather fruitless deadlock. I hope that you will recognize that my criticisms of the existing photo inventory are a perectly legimate perspective and will free up the content without further ado.
Thank you in advance for your kind reconsideration and again, please feel free to post suggestions on how to in the future improve the initial format of my contributions.
Hi AdvancedCanineScienceInformatics : Thank you for the clarity, however after your repeated prior accusations of bias (and also against INeverCry), I have (as stated before) stepped aside in this discussion and refer to you to COM:UNDEL for assistance in restoring the image in question. As you say, I operate in COM:AGF; the deletion nomination was not personal, but as you have repeatedly accused me of bias, I have repeatedly stepped aside and cannot proceed in your case. Please take your issues to COM:UNDEL and please feel free to point them in the direction of this discussion so they see exactly why I have stepped out of this situation. Most sincerely yours, Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeesh: New information. Really a big musunderstanding here...
Wow I just found out that, contrary to my initial impression, INC is not some kind of dark censor operating without a discussion page or a normal user page. For some reason my new browser drew a blank and I guess I should say I jumped to the conclusion that I was being targetted from a very un-WMF kind of set up. Well now I see that INC is in fact not the incommunicado account I had thought! I have therefore, and cc here for your edification, thismea culpa, "My badm pardon the misunderstanding. ~
Hi AdvancedCanineScienceInformatics : Yes, I think there were many misunderstandings created here, but not by me or INeverCry. Please take your request for image restoration to COM:UNDEL - due to repeated accusations of bias, I am stepping aside from even discussing this file anymore. Thank you for your understanding. Most sincerely yours, Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for image undeletion
Hi. I uploaded two images image recently, titles 'Mahawish Rezvi.jpg' and 'Misha emmy.jpg' respectively, to my client's Wikipedia page that I'm working on, but it was deleted. Here's the fine print of the copyright:
Please note that they are licensed for personal, publicity, website and internal corporate use only.
Images are copyright registered. All images ® 2014 Marc Bryan-Brown.
Please contact us directly for advertising and other licensing fees.
CREDIT REQUIRED: Marc Bryan-Brown Photography
Please address the issue at the earliest.
Regards, Zakyr
Greetings Zakyr: The license you give above is incompatible with the Commons license policy page which reads "All copyrighted material on Commons (not in the public domain) must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose... ". Please read COM:L for a full explanation. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
For your kind offer to help with the deletions (on my talk page). I had flagged 32 images which user juta reverted, those can be found starting here with the edit summary "Please try to raise COMPLETE deletion requests as I descripted on your talkpage, thx.". I think Commons is better off without those files. Thank you again. Palosirkka (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Palosirkka: Done. Most of them were sent to speedy, no permissions or no source, there were a couple where I don't see anything wrong with the files, if you wish more action on those please specify what exactly is the problem. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Text document possibly promotional, outside of COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (Conversa) 19:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This document contents a bibliography and other informational resources created by an Academic Library with educational purposes, related with the promotion of Science. Ramón Verea was a Galician mathematician who created one of the first calculator machines and this document provides a group of sources required for a better understanding of the History of Technology and Science. It also serves as an example of how to cite bibliographical records correctly. I firmly believe that this document complies with Wikimedia Commons´ scope. Please look at Article about Ramón Verea to know more about this mathematician (1833-1899)
If the request of deletion is due to the name or the terms of description of the file, those could be changed. Please remove the deletion request as soon as posible, because we expect to work with this file tomorrow 8th of November (within less than 12 hours) with a group of university students, who will create more works on calculators, Mathematics and Ramón Verea. Thank you.--Biblioteca Intercentros de Lugo (USC) 20:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Neptunia : So sorry, obviously I didn't comprehend what I was looking at on the ESA image; they were not always licensed like that. As you say, thanks ESA for opening up the permissions. I have restored the file and apologize also to INC. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, your file restore process resolve all issue ;) And yes, this is the first time that ESA releases its works under a copyleft Creative Commons license and I encourage them to do the same for others works from the space agency. Thank you very much Ellin Beltz ! Your sincerely, --Neptunia (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Midnight bird: Actually the picture was removed because without a source it's impossible to tell what year it was taken or to verify what it represents. Sources are required for all Commons images. Because this image had no source, there was no way to verify the age or that the picture was published prior to 1976. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. First sorry for my poor english.
You wrote: "This media may be deleted... (File:Бензин Калоша Нефрас C2-80 120.jpg) Please see this page for more information..."
So I looked at Commons:OTRS page and I see: "When contacting OTRS is unnecessary: I took the image myself and it hasn't been previously published (and there is no other copyright involved)..."
This is my case. I took the image myself, with my "Samsung NV8" camera, just for wiki article!
When I uploading file, I submit: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
So I don't understand why you ask something more?
If you want to delete this file, so let it be. It's just image of half bottle of gasoline-solvent, heh. But such politics would be disappointing and demotivating.--Hint000 (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hint000 : No politics. The label design on the bottle isn't yours, although the photograph (as you say) is your work. Unfortunately you cannot release the copyright on the bottle, and hence the image is "missing permission." Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly refers to right now, during an artist's exhibition. But I found it of interest and filed it temporarily where I can find it again. Today's happy dance is finally finding a good size/resolution photo of Joseph C. Gayette, now if I could only find his birth/death dates. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised by the tag you added to File:MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg regarding the lack of a source. The image is clearly tagged as "own work", and I gave feedback to FireflySixtySeven while they created the various versions of the file, so I'm pretty sure that "own work" is indeed correct. What else would be needed? Huon (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi : Please provide the source of the information in the diagram. You and the other uploader made all kinds of color changes, but where did your original idea arrive? Are you copying a diagram from a book, for example? And what software was used to create this image? Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the software used to create the diagram be relevant? Anyway, I have provided the information you asked for (except for the idea of displaying Maslow's hierarchy as a pyramid; I doubt there's a single identifiable source for that idea beyond Maslow's comments about "higher needs" that emerge when more "basic needs" are satisfied, and I also doubt that idea meets the threshold of originality; thus its source isn't relevant for copyright purposes); please consider removing the tag. Huon (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I own exclusive rights to the picture that I uploaded and it was deleted? How is it violating any copy rights when I took the picture from my camera and uploaded it? Does not make any sense. Unsigned comment 12:55, 13 November 2014 User talk:Kushagr.sharma1
Hi User talk:Kushagr.sharma1: How came it then that this image in much larger and older format can be found all over the internet? On google reverse search the pile of sites which used this image before your upload was long, and several of them claimed copyright to their contents before your upload here to Commons. Rarely do private citizens have perfect air photos - the gear needed to take them is not the same as regular cameras. The sizes of your images were also problemattic, they were of a very small size, when the upload form says clearly "send the biggest one you have", to send under 720x___ size images shows that at least some part of the instructions on the upload form were missed. If you'd like to pursue having these images undeleted, please click on this link: COM:UNDEL and have the editors over there help you with your undeletion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern, This picture was uploaded on both the official website hinduvision.com aswell as the official facebook group before being uploaded on facebook. Usuing the official camera of the Hindu Heritage Centre, this picture was not taken from a drone or helicopter. There is a radio tower on the corner of the property, under the supervision of a technician, a picture was taken from the radio tower of the Hindu Heritage Centre. As for the size, I can easily send the biggest size if that is really an issue, as the photo is still on the camera. Again I want to make clear that I as a representative of the Hindu Heritage Centre own full exclusive rights for the image, I am also the admin for the offical facebook page and website page which explains how the picture has been found all over the internet. All i want to do is educate readers on the architecture of the Hindu Heritage Centre by providing a good image taken from a height. Unsigned comment 13 November 2014 User talk:Kushagr.sharma1
Hi User talk:Kushagr.sharma1: I was unable to find this air photo on the official Hindu Heritage Centre website, but I found it everywhere else! Please take your concerns to COM:UNDEL. I nominated your images, they were deleted by others. The path to getting them back again is in the COM:UNDEL process. Also please sign your messages with four 'tilde' characters, like this ~~~~. This will automatically sign your messages and give the responder an autolink to write you back. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is another picture that I own exclusive rights to, the reason for this picture is to educate readers on what Acharya Surinder Sharma looks like and how he leads prayers as he is one of the most well known hindu priests in canada. Unsigned by 12:55, 13 November 2014 User talk:Kushagr.sharma1
Hi User talk:Kushagr.sharma1: You apparently missed the instructions on the upload page for large size, high quality images for this one. The size shows the file is the same size as most images on Facebook. No metadata from a camera was recorded for this image, which is also common when a file is taken from Facebook to Commons. As stated above, please take your request for undeletion over to COM:UNDEL and see if they can help you. Also please note by reading the deletion discussion that you had seven days from time of notification before the images were deleted and that INeverCry was your deleting editor. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If i own the rights to the picture, does it matter if I took it from facebook? you can view the offical facebook page which I am an admin of and see that I uploaded it. Before submitting it to commons, I cropped the picture so it would only include acharya surinder sharma as he is the relevant party. Thanks! Unsigned by 13 November 2014 User talk:Kushagr.sharma1
Here's the feral mother cat and one of her kittens that I feed. There's another lighter kitten off to the left. I've been feeding the mother for close to two years. The kittens just started eating in the last week or so. There's also a dark little calico that I feed now and then. My neighbors each have a few they feed. There's about a dozen that stick to our shared 3 or 4 acres.
These were taken with the camera I use for pics of Ebay items. You've really got to try hard to get good results with it. These are middling. I miss my Minolta XK and XE7 and my Mamiya RB67, all of which I sold at a loss years ago... Atleast I've still got my old Manfrotto tripod... One of these days, I'm going to have to steal buy myself something better. INeverCry03:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|INC Awwww so cute. The orange one is the same kinds of colors as the eldar cat of mine who just died. So lovely to see again in full color and not as an ancient old lady determined to breathe her last rattly breath in her own home with her family around her. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get message about You deleted the link " File:Стаья в Журнале "Кот и пес" - А на собаках лучше!.pdf " from the page "Болдырева, Марина" who is in incubator. I'm the autor this article, I have all copyrights on this product. What need to make, that this link be return on page about "Болдырева Марина"?
Sorry to trouble you. I noticed a deletion of File:Corvus_orru_map.jpg. This image has been around for years and was used as an example on the English Bird project page and therefore thought to have been created on and for Wikipedia. It would be useful to know where this was copied from and who uploaded it, if it was a violation. I am only interested in the source, the map itself is fairly trivial to recreate in better formats like SVG. Shyamal (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, there is no source, which was the reason for the deletion. There is supposed to be something after all those equals signs, unless it is below the int:license-header as license or categories. I found a couple of good sources just by looking up "Corvus orru map". Thank you for your inquiry if there's anything more I can do, please don't hesitate to ask? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that User:Steve_nova was active from 2004-2008 on the en.wiki where that image was uploaded in 2004 - a time when Commons did not exist. The image was then copied to Wikimedia Commons (and the image on the en.wiki was deleted), and the copy should I think have been marked as self-made by User:Steve_nova - it seems to me that there may have been some vandalism resulting in the bad metadata. In any case I believe there was a year cutoff before which Commons permissions are meant to be examined differently from fresh uploads. As far as I can tell that image was original work of the author and there are no copies of it on the Internet from an earlier date that it was a copy of. Shyamal (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the image file File:Left-Capt-DEH-(London-Feb1919) Right-FSLT-DEH-(Coudekerque-FR-1916).jpg solely as a visual aide to the proposed article I submitted. However, the article has been rejected at this time, so it only makes sense to delete the image also, although at this point, I do intend to edit the proposed article and resubmit it. The Harkness family, of which I am a member, owns the two photos which comprise that image. The image was photographed by my long since deceased grandfather during WWI.
JTHarkness (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings JTHarkness : It was nominated because of your claim of own work for photos obviously too old. Did you reply to the nomination on it's discussion page? If not please click Commons:Deletion requests/File:Left-Capt-DEH-(London-Feb1919) Right-FSLT-DEH-(Coudekerque-FR-1916).jpg and put what you wrote above in that spot. Nothing left as message here is cogent on the deletion discussions. Do you know your Grandfather's birth and death dates? Based on those dates, I would consider withdrawing the nomination, but if so I would like you to upload the two pictures separately and not linked together. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo
Könntest Du mir mal bitte sagen, warum Du meine Grafik (open-closed) gelöscht hast?- war schon im Oktober da hatten noch andere Leute in meinem Beitrag (Bewegungskontrolle) rumgepfuscht. Da hatte ich viel zu tun das alles wieder in Ordnung zu bringen. - Ich kann die Datei deswegen jetzt nicht neu laden. Deswegen bitte ich Dich DRINGEND!! das in Ordnung zu bringen. Du hast kein Recht EINFACH SO eine Datei zu löschen, ohne dem Autor zu sagen, warum und ihm eine Chance zu geben, seine Wahl, sie einzustellen, zu begründen. Hast Du eigentlich eine Vorstellung, wie viel Zeit es mich gekostet hat, dies alles herauszufinden? - und sie - eei Datei - ist ja noch nicht wieder im Text - Den Add Topic Button habe ich nicht gefunden --Jakarandatree (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate hello
Could you please tell me times, why have you deleted my graphics (open-closed) - Beginning in October because other people had in my post (motion control) rumgepfuscht. Since I had a lot to do anything to bring back in order. - I can see the file so now do not reload. So I ask you URGENT !! the put in order. You have no right JUST SO delete a file without telling the author, why, and to give him a chance, his choice to hire them, justified. Do you have any idea how much time it took me to figure this out anything? - And - eei file - is not yet back in the text - the Add Topic Button I have not found --Jakarandatree (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2014
As I am not aware of my involvement with the above transactions, I do not understand why you are leaving an upset message on my talk page over eighteen months after your files were deleted?
As far as I know - or the system records - I have not been involved with any recent transactions with you.
Why are you leaving a confusing and upset message on the talk page of someone who did not nominate or delete your files?
Please advise which images, by name of file, you would like assistance?
Google translate : Hallo Jakarandatree: Sie scheinen zu verwechseln.
Jedes Bild für angebracht "schnelle", "keine Berechtigungen" oder "keine Quelle" wäre auch eine Nachricht auf Ihrer Seite generiert; es gibt keine zusätzlichen Hinweise.
Zu Ihrer Benutzer-Diskussionsseite Jakarandatree, gibt es eine Meldung der vorgeschlagenen Streichungen gesendet Sie von User: Leyo.
Diese Dateien wurden von gelöscht User: INeverCry 0.45, 12. Februar 2013 (UTC).
Wie ich bin mir nicht bewusst mein Engagement mit den oben genannten Transaktionen, weiß ich nicht, warum verlassen Sie für eine Überraschung Nachricht auf meiner Diskussionsseite über achtzehn Monate nach Ihrer Dateien gelöscht wurden?
Soweit ich weiß - oder zeichnet das System - Ich habe nicht mit der jüngsten Transaktionen mit Ihnen beteiligt.
Warum möchten Sie starten eine verwirrende und verärgert Nachricht auf der Diskussionsseite von jemandem, der nicht zu nominieren hat oder löschen Sie Ihre Dateien?
Bitte geben Sie die Bilder, von Name der Datei, möchten Sie Unterstützung?
Thank you for contacting me on my mistake, I am the both the author and source of the image File:Mexicana de Aviacion-Nieders Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg as well as File:Image 1- Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg. The reason I uploaded the image again was because on the Wikipedia article "Tijuana Cross-border terminal" on the list of references number 8, the File:Image 1- Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg was highlighted in red color saying it was not available so I upload the image again and as it indicated it was a duplicate and asked that I change the description, added more specific information (such as the actual San Diego parcel number) and after re-uploading the image, the reference number 8 is now blue, but I obviously made a mistake. In both images, I am both the author and source. If one image has to be removed or combined please let me know so that it is not removed from the article since this first image was used to initiated the concept of a Tijuana cross-border terminal in 1990. I am still a bit confused by the upload process and contacting Wikipedia. Thank you Rnieders (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally confused on how to contact you or where to write, I drew, own and did the text content of the images which have been uploaded by me to the Wikipedia article Tijuana cross-border terminal. They all appear to have been nominated for deletion, could this be clarified as to what I need to fill out?? Thank you Rnieders (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the tutorial, do I reply here?? Has this image already been deleted??? I looked at the upload questions, what do I have to add as I both own and produced the images uploaded to the Wikipedia article?? Cannot tell where to fill out the information once it has been uploaded, do I hit edit?? Thank you Rnieders (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a link to an "existing photo which had been uploaded and..." Also the date of photo would be very far off, you have 24 November 2014, when the image was taken in 1954 by Spencer Alley. Even if Mr. Alley had dropped dead within seconds of taking this photo, it wouldn't be out of copyright yet. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This the upload log for the wikivoyage itinerary that I am in process of creating.
several weeks ago I uploaded several pictures before I had the copy-right information.
You deleted them. Thank you.
I now have the copy-right for the 6 pictures that I erroneously uploaded earlier.
I would like to upload the new pictures now using the same names as the previous names.
My question is "can I upload pictures with the same labels as the ones that you removed."? For example If you removed a picture labeled "STOP 3 Pic 6" can I upload an new picture with a proper copy-right labeled "STOP 3 Pic 6" or must I choose a different name such as "STOP 3 PIC 6 - Hadley Crossing"
If I am able to do the upload will I get the accompanying box where I can insert the copy-right for each new picture. The copy-right is in Wiki format.
Hiya Sloflash : The problem is that you took base maps or images from other sources, ex: File:Stop 3 Hadley crossing PIC 4.jpg and didn't credit the source from which the map or image was taken. That's not own work even if you pasted letters on top of the source image. You do not need to reupload any images; if you can show the copyright information, please visit the page COM:UNDEL and ask that the images be restored. You cannot upload new images on top of old ones. However, I would point out that your comment for description "English: I don't know any other language" and complete lack of other information about the images renders them less than useful for general educational purposes. You may know what they are, but if no one else can tell and there's no locality data, they lose educational purpose for everyone else. And as none of us live forever, please expand all the descriptions of your images from the comment quoted above to something with more utility for others.
Other problems include several of your other images which were obviously copied from a book or other published source. But which one, and how old? Who wrote it and who holds copyright to them? Own work doesn't mean "Oh hey, I added some letters and numbers to someone else's map or photo and so now it's mine. It means something you created entirely by yourself. The recent deletion nominations on your uploads are very clear why they are nominated. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Strahlengang im Teleskop mit Okular.svg
Hi Ellin Beltz,
just a question - you have marked my media File:Strahlengang im Teleskop mit Okular.svg by an NOSource tag, claiming there is no source and license attached to the file.However, when I check the entry, I can see both: the source set to own and a license block in the file. What exactly are you complaining about? --Alturand (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz, the information was taken from the article and the illustrations linked to the article. It was created to have a single picture illustrating most of the terms.--Alturand (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing pictures
Hello Ellin.
This message is a follow up to my follow up to our discussion about some pictures I uploaded before I should have.
The verbiage that theses pictures are intended to accompany can be found at Wikivoyage file;
User:Sloflash/A self guided tour of the Pacific Coast Railway in San Luis Obispo County
It occurred to me that you may not be able to view this site since it is my work space so I include the text here.
A self-guided automobile tour of THE PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY (PCRY), as it went through San Luis Obispo County, California during the years from 1876 until 1942.
Contents
[hide] INTRODUCTION
[+] THE AUTOMOBILE TOUR
APPENDIX
INTRODUCTION[edit]
This material is motivated by a desire to locate, in modern terms, the remnants of the railway described in the excellent resource " The Pacific Coast Railway by Kenneth E Westcott and Curtiss H Johnson".
It was found that for the most part that the references cited there were to locations no longer on current county road maps. Our effort has been to tie the path of the railway to roads and locations that currently exist in a manner that would allow interested persons to use current roads to follow the path of the railway from San Luis Obispo (SLO) to Arroyo Grande (AG).
The results of our investigations have been summarized in this pamphlet, which contains the following sections:
THE AUTOMOBILE TOUR DESCRIPTIONS - There is a description of each of the eight stops on the automobile tour, what to see there and the way to move from one stop to another.
MAPS - Eight maps, one for each STOP, which help you navigate to each site. The path of the railway is also shown on most of these maps.
PICTURES - Nineteen pictures (Pics) of the eight STOPS to help identify each location so that you will know that you are in the right place. They also point out certain significant features at that site.
THE APPENDIX
1.A three page chart entitled PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY (PCRY) which gives locations of the remnants as referenced to both auto and railway mile posts including some directions to various sites.
2.A list of references and resources used in this presentation.
3.Comments by those who heard of our work and gave us personal family experiences
4.Information about the authors
THE AUTOMOBILE TOUR[edit]
From these resources, our frequent excursions to the area and discussions with local landowners who have studied the railway and whose families were participants in granting the original rights-of-way to the railway company, we have compiled an automobile tour which identifies all of those locations where there is sufficient remnants of the Pacific Coast Railway (PCRY), those which are visible from public highways,to warrant a stop and look.
You must remember that these sites are all on private land and at no time are you permitted to trespass.
AN OVER VIEW OF THE TOUR[edit]
The tour starts in San Luis Obispo Ca. (SLO) and proceeds southeast to Arroyo Grande (AG) via Broad Street which becomes state highway 227. From AG it turns back northwest on Corbett Canyon Road and ends at “Narrow Gage Road” a side street off of Corbett Canyon Road. See the map labeled OVERVIEW.
Since the rails were all removed for scrap for the war effort in 1942 and the ties were all dug up for fence posts or the like, about all that is left is the raised rail bed and several cuts through hill sides. These are enough however to locate the path of the former railway which is just what this tour is trying to show.
It would be helpful if you have a county road map and a magnetic compass for this tour.
Also a copy of the reference book would be handy at most locations.
The details of the tour[edit]
For each of the following stops, we provide detailed information on what to see there, the map number on which the STOP can be found and one or more pictures of the STOP to assure that you are at the right place. You should have the maps and pics of the next site handy before you leave the previous one.
STOP 1[edit]
The tour starts at the intersection of South Street with Broad and Santa Barbara Streets in SLO. See the map for STOP 1 and the pictures (Pics) 1 and 2 for STOP 1 .
What to see
There is a monument on the sidewalk in front of the fire station, which describes some history of the railway. See Pic 1 for STOP 1.
[Although not on the tour I recommend a visit to the railway museum just off Santa Barbara Street where you can see two narrow gage boxcars on some narrow gage track on the street side of the building. Then cross to the rear of the building to compare track sizes and spacing with the full size Southern Pacific (SP) rails and spacing. The Museum and its narrow gage cars are shown in Pic 2 for STOP 1.
Now on your way to stop 2] . Have your STOP 2 map and pics handy as you start to proceed.
STOP 2[edit]
From STOP 1 you travel about 2 miles south on Broad street to a left turn onto Tank Farm road and then a right turn onto Poinsettia. See the Map for STOP 2.
What to see;
Go about 200 yards on Poinsettia to a site on the right where the raised track bed is visible. See the Pic 1 for a view of this STOP. It is OK to exit your vehicle here and proceed into the site where you will see where the roadbed crossed a deep ravine. The raised bed is outlined in red in Pic 2. This is the least impressive site but it will provide the observer with an indication of what to look for at the other sites.
STOP 3[edit]
From there proceed south on Broad Street, as it becomes State Route 227, to a right turn to a right turn onto Price Canyon Road towards Pismo beach.
Proceed about 1/4 mile on Price Canyon Road to the overpass over the Southern Pacific (SP) Railway tracks. Note the path of those tracks as they proceed to the left under the overpass toward Pismo Beach.
What to see
At about 70 yards past the centerline of the overpass you will see the remnant of a road leading off Price Canyon Road at about 30 degrees to the left. It is thought that the PCRY passed just to the right of this road. Obviously the road was built up to accommodate the current overpass
It is too dangerous to stop here, so proceed on for several hundred yards to oil company gate 4 on your left where you can park on either the right or left shoulder. Map 3 provides a layout of this stop and a pointer to the location of the former Hadley Crossing. Also see Pic 2 for a view of Gate 4. This stop is called Hadley Crossing. Unfortunately we cannot get closer to it, but we provide some good pictures and information as to what went on there.
Hadley Crossing is about 2,500 ft distance at about 30 deg to your left from where you are parked. It would be 300 feet past the tall metal electrical tower you see there, see Pic 3.
As the GPRY approached those steep hills beyond the Hadley Crossing, it turned to the left and followed the creek along the base of those hills toward STOP 4.
To assure yourself that you are really at Hadley Crossing, look behind you, away from the tower, to see some hills. Compare those hills with the hills in Pics 5 and 7 which are actual photos taken from Hadley Crossing in the 1800’s. This association gives you your our first sure site location.
As a reminder, Pic 3 is a telescopic view of the power pole that is in line with your position and the previous location of Hadley crossing.
Picture 4 is a surveyors map showing distances and radius of various curves used to lay out the track around Hadley Crossing. It shows the path of the PCRY, colored green, as it arrives at Hadley Crossing from the northwest, from SLO, and then turns southeast towards AG. Note how the Southern Pacific (SP), colored red, arrives from SLO from about the same direction but turns to the south at Hadley towards Pismo Beach.
Since the PCRY was already there first, around 1878, and the SP came later in 1890, the SP had to chose a path that would cross the PCRY to get to Pismo Beach. To insure no collisions, the SP built a manned station there, Hadley Crossing, and installed a derailer on the SP line, which would derail a SP train if it happened to arrive at Hadley at the wrong time. The derailer was moved to the PCRY line sometime later.
Picture 5 is a good view of the hills behind Hadley toward the 227. It also shows the Liquid Asphalt co.
Pic 6 shows the cross track and the Hadley Crossing tower as it originally was.
Pic 7 sort of sums it all up showing the hills in the background, the cross tracks and the industries there at Hadley. Note the SP train coming in from the upper right on its way to Pismo Beach
STOP 4[edit]
Return to Route 227 turn right and Proceed 2.0 mi SE to the stop .
While traveling along 227 to stop 4], if you look to the right and down the hill, you will be able to get a feel for the path of the PCRY path along the foot of the steep hills in the distance.
Pic 4 is the view of the STOP from the location where Patchet Road enters 227 from the left. Note the location of the warning horn.
STOP 4 is anywhere you can park near the warning horn.
What to see
The 36 inch high 6 feet wide roadbed is visible on both the left and right sides of the road
The one on the left side is at a point 100 ft N of the power company warning horn. The roadbed meets the road from the left from a forward angle of about 45 deg. As you view the bed to the left, look up the valley a long way along the creek as it winds it way toward Corbett Canyon and STOP 8. The roadbed is 30 feet to the right of this creek
The roadbed crosses 227 from the right at a point 250 feet south of the center of the bridge. As you view this roadbed look down the valley a long way along the creek as it winds it way toward Hadley Crossing SEOP 3 which you just came from. The roadbed is 30 feet to the left of this creek.
Stop 5[edit]
Proceed 4.5 mi SE on 227 toward Arroyo Grande which you will enter from the east on E Branch Street.
Just prior to AG notice where Corbett Canyon Road joins the 227 from the left. You will return here when you have completed STOP 5.
What to see
Map 5 will assist you as you navigate to the exact location of this stop. It also identifies the two features of interest there.
On the right as you enter town there is an old wooden structure, 415 E Branch Street, with a sign out front CHAMELEON STYLE. See Pic 5a. This building, with slight modifications, served as the original mill and loading dock for the AG area. There was a spur there to allow the main track to remain clear while the cargo was being loaded to and from the mill.
The main track proceeded across Branch Street to a passenger depot which is no longer there. It then crossed the creek on its way SE toward Nipomo. This is as far south as this tour will take you.
Be sure to stop in the shop and discuss the railway with the owners, Camay or Win, who will be glad to fill you in on the details of the building as they found it and what renovations they have made.
While at this stop, cross Crown Hill Street to the kiosk located there which displays several GPRY items along with items of general AG history. See Pic 5b.
STOP 6[edit]
Now go back to the junction of 227 and Corbett Canyon Road and proceed NW on Corbett Canyon Road toward SLO.
What to see
Pic 6 is a view of what you will see looking up hill from Verde Road just before the crest the hill at STOP 6 .
Proceed up the hill to the zone marked as STOP 6 on Map 6. The location of the trench, marked in red on the right of the road, runs for about 400 yards. There is room there to stop and view the trench, but use care.
STOP 7[edit]
Proceed along Corbett Canyon Road for 0.7 mi to a cross street from the right called "Narrow Gage Road".
What to see
Refer to the map for STOPS 7 and 8 where we point out the entry and exit points of the railway as it makes its famous “horseshoe turn”. Later in the text we will provide an explanation for this unusual design.
As you face “Narrow Gage Road” look to your left to notice a flat area about 200 feet wide. which is shown in Pic 1 This is the area where the railway crossed the current location of Corbett Canyon Road on its way behind the hills where it made the horseshoe turn.
Pic 2 shows the exit point on the hill as it looks today. You can barely make out the cut for the exit point just above the reddish-colored bushes above the gray trash cans.
Pic 3 shows a train, at some time in the past, at the same point on the cut as shown in Pic 2, as it heads towards AG
SO WHY THE HORSE SHOE???
The before
We can surmise that before the Horseshoe turn was made and the trench was dug, the elevation change, the grade, was 240 feet/6000feet = 4% grade, which is much greater than acceptable for reasonable railways. Such steep grades are difficult to climb going up and even more difficult to brake your speed as you come down the grade.
See Pic 5 for comments from the reference which describe the unacceptable operational conditions, congestion, which motivated the following steps to reduce the grade.
The after
To reduce the grade, the engineers laid out a “horseshoe” turn where the railway would gain about 30 feet from entry to exit. Since this was not quite enough they dug a 10 foot cut at the top of the hill, the trench you saw at STOP 6, to reduce the height of the roadbed there. Those combined efforts reduced the change of elevation for the last mile of roadbed from 240 feet to 200 feet or a grade of 200feet/6000feet = 3.33% which is about the upper limit of good railway planning. Trains now could pass over the top of the hill without stopping and unloading
The chart in Pic 4 shows the affect of this effort.
Whether to 1]make deeper cuts or 2] make longer horseshoes is just the type of job that you hire railway engineers to do.
STOP 8] Now look in the opposite direction of the horseshoe, to the other side of Corbett Canyon Road, down a dirt lane leading to a house. This lane was a segment of the old Corbett Canyon Road.
The Map for STOPs 7 and 8 identifies this lane as a combination of Dairy Lane and Little Dipper Road both of which identities are contested by long time-owners of near by properties.
What to see
If you look just a little to the right you will notice a line of trees. See the Pic for STOP 8.
Those trees mark the location of the same creek you saw as you looked up to the left at stop 4]. The roadbed is about 30 feet to the left of this creek.
This ends your car tour. We hope you have enjoyed your day and learned something about a part of our County history, which is slowly slipping away.
APPENDIX[edit]
References and resources
1."The Pacific Coast Railway" by Kenneth E Westcott and Curtiss H Johnson. This book was the inspiration for and contains the most pictures and descriptions of the PCRY that we are aware of.
2.Maps of the original deeds which granted rights-of-way to the railroad Company.
3.Original railway surveyors’ maps.
4.Discussions with land owners over whose property the PCRY passed
5.Discussions with those who remember the railway as little children.
6.Comments by those who heard of our work and gave us personal family experiences. 1.A person who recalls that her parents rode the train some time in the 1930’s from Los Alamos to SLO to get married in the “big” city.
2.Saved for the next comment.
7.Information about the authors
Michael Maurer is a retired Professor of engineering. Elliott Marshall is a retired avionics engineer.
They both enjoy the exploration of a mystery.
It is my desire to link the pictures with the verbiage so that a user will have the whole package but as a newbie I don't know how to do that yet.
There is also a topic in Wikipedia, the other wiki, about the Great Pacific Railway which I hope to link this tour to.
The tour is intended for locals and visitors both. Most locals are not aware that the Railway, which was removed in 1944, even existed. My tour takes them to the remaining path and those remnants which are still visible.
To hopefully clear the air I duly confess to uploading certain pictures copied form a source, which by the way is referenced in the verbiage. This was a test , which turned out to be a bad idea, to see if my work could be uploaded at all (size, type...) or would wiki just say "go away".
But now that that is behind us I request that the following be removed completely, both the image and the name, so that I can upload better versions of the same pictures using the same names as that which was removed. They will be tagged with the authors consents in wiki format.
As you can see the pictures are a vital link to the stops mentioned in the verbiage.
The pictures are;
STOP 7 Pic 4 Gradient.jpg
STOP 7 pic 5 The need for the horse shoe
STOP 3 Picture of crossing Pic 7.jpg
STOP 3 Hadley Statio and hills beyond
STOP 3 Hadley station showing cross tracks Pic 6.jpg
car tour of the great pacific railroad in san luis obispo county ca..jpg
I need to have not only the existing pictures removed but the memory of those titles removed so I can upload the better new images, with the same titles, from the author of the resource with his wiki consent.
I apologize for creating such a mess and using administration time that could be better spent. How ever, judging by the number of "when is it going to be ready" inquiries from acquaintances, I am convinced that this tour will be a benefit to both locals and visitors alike Thank you for your help.
WHEW
Well User:Sloflash, that's all great, but the problems are the copyrights on drawings and maps which you didn't make but claim as own work. I suggest all this better included on the nominations pages of the various images than my talk page because nothing you write here will have any effect on the nomination. For the images that you really did make, the over printing needs to go - and the descriptions need to be educational. Today's note from you is the first time these images have been identified even to state of the U.S. For all upload requirements and restrictions, please see upload guidelines at the top of the upload form. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, like a deus ex machina you appeared on the stage... I have a problem: at one hand I don't have any desire to open an edit war with Biopics (whatever his names are), on the other side I am trying to correct wrong categorizations. But correcting cats are not worth any anger with people unwilling to accept good will, and not caring whether files are categorized where they should be or otherwhere. Biopics makes fine pictures, and when I see some things to make better I would like to help him. But it seems difficult, and before I do something more I'll wait for any reaction. Or do you have better ideas? sarang♥사랑12:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sarang: Keep operating in good faith towards the improvement of the project. Biopics has lovely pictures, agreed. I take some pictures too here for Commons and other people recategorize them, and I don't get upset. I don't understand sometimes; maybe we never will. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
images on Tijuana cross-border terminal article
How can I contact you? The images uploaded by me rnieders I own and created, meaning the drawing and text content of the images which now seem to all bee selected for deletion, what do I need to fill out?? Rnieders (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rnieders Please follow the links & instructions on your talk page. As I've pointed out before, you need to reply at the deletion nomination, not at my talk page. I'll go over to your page and try to point at the links too. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I wrote in response, but forgot to log in and am not sure I placed in the right wiki page. Obviously I did everything wrong with the images and my ownership is being question with the remark that one person could not do all this. One person did. I simply do not know how to respond when no one looks at the references. What I did was published in the Wall Street Journal in 2001. The images referenced below were originally drawn and then scanned and were prototype images I developed of the terminal, in the first picture the background people were scanned upside down. They were used in the presentation made in Washington DC for the Partnership for Prosperity (Fed2002 and referenced in the article)
Comment Perhaps I can be more clear by splitting the nomination into sections:
Three promotional images with over printing and no sources for the base images.
The images reference below, an aerial picture was taken from a Cessna 210 and then and airport was painted and airbrushed to give an idea of how the Tijuana cross-border terminal would appear when finished (produced and created by me), but then during the counter-proposal stage of negotiations between Mexico and San Diego, the image was expanded to show a modified TwinPorts rendering and at the center would be the cross-border terminal, this image (as well as the color renderings in the prior group) was published by Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) and is referenced the article.
The next set of images was created and produced over a period of 10 years. The Mexicana rendering is in Spanish because it was presented in Mexico City and was hand drawn and was part of a letter of intent, it was the first rendering of the Tijuana cross-border terminal ever made. The Twinports proposal was done almost 2 years and the third Casey Development was computer generated four years later (and also used in the Caltrans article), all were produced and created by me as part of the promotional process.
A series of three maps with different base maps and overprinting:
The next six images, were created by CADD, (line drawings) and printed, they were done in 1991-2 as part of the counter-proposal, the printed pages were scanned and then text added explaining the different proposals, this was created and produced by me and originally in Spanish, as for being mentioned so many times, that can be changed, but I originated the concept and kept it alive from 1990-2007, and that is why I also give names of the key players and dates from the originating concept, the negotiations, the counter-proposals, the reports, to the current Tijuana cross-border terminal footprint under construction and supplied so many references. It was not a simple project, no one wanted to spend neither the time nor effort to make this happen, and Mexico-US politics is at times very difficult to understand without presenting the background. This was a lifetime of work, it is hard not to be specific and almost all of it done at my own personal expense. I am no longer involved with this project and I hope it was not a mistake and wasted effort writing this article on the Tijuana cross-border terminal Rnieders (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following six drawings/documennts appear to be from same or similar software:
I also point out that the name of this uploader appears forty-three times throughout the article and article references; possibly too close to subject and too promotional by habit. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Rnieders (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images selected for deletion Tijuana cross-border terminal
The images listed below were selected for deletion, I created the concept of the cross-border terminal in 1990 and promoted it until 2008. The images uploaded in the article Tijuana cross-border terminal I produced and own and were used by me to explain and promote the project, the titles such as Mexicana de Aviacion, Aero Charter, SACSA, Casey Development, etc., are used to show the corresponding images to the year and people/companies involved, they do not own nor created the images I uploaded. The booklet I created for GAP (The Mexican parent company of the Tijuana airport) while a employee of theirs, I DID NOT use as I asked Wikipedia and was told I could not use it, but the images I created before and after, I produced and own. The images explain the process and development were an integral part of the work I did in this project on my own personal account. Could you please tell me ho to clarify this issue before all the images are deleted??? Thank you Rnieders (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
_Affected:
File:ASA 1991 Tijuana airport development plan with second runway.jpg[reply]
And also:
File:ASA 1992 Tijuana airport development plan.jpg
File:Valenzuela-Nieders Tijuana-San Diego phased airport development 1992.jpg
File:Valenzuela-Nieders cross-border airport concept.jpg
File:Tijuana phased cross-border airport development 1992.jpg
File:Tijuana cross-border promotional cover Nieders 2001.jpg
File:Tijuana cross-border terminal modular design concepts Nieders 2002.jpg
File:Tijuana cross-border promotional cover 2001.jpg
File:GAP Tijuana airport phased master plan 2000-2015.jpg
File:Casey Development-Nieders Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1996a.jpg
File:Aero Charter-Nieders Tijuana cross-border terminal counterproposal 1991b.jpg
File:ASA Tijuanal airport development plan 1992.jpg
File:San Diego TwinPorts airport proposal 1991L.jpg
File:Aero Charter-Nieders Tijuana cross-border terminal concept 1991a.jpg
File:SANDAG San Diego-Tijuana bi-national airport proposal 1990.jpg
File:ASA Tijuana airport development plan 1991.jpg
File:Image 1- Mexicana de Aviacion Tijuana cross-border terminal proposal 1990.jpg
Rnieders Please follow the links & instructions on your talk page. As I've pointed out before, you need to reply at the deletion nomination, not at my talk page. I'll go over to your page and try to point at the links too. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jcornelius: Since the image in question was liable for deletion on the 20th of November and I removed it nine days late with a note that it can be restored by OTRS editors when/if the permission is received, I don't see what is the problem. The point here is protecting the rights of the actual creator of the image. The image was long overdue, the OTRS was not approved, files cannot be left open forever. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin. The rights are granted, I'm just having a discussion with the OTRS team regarding the best way of mailing them the conversation with the "actual creator". Nevertheless, notifying is an act of courtesy. Best regards, --Jcornelius (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jcornelius, I see that you are one of the most senior of all Admins on Commons. However, seniority does not give you the right to restore your own uploads when they have been deleted, whether or not the deletion was appropriate -- none of us are allowed to use Admin powers on our own images. The image has been here without permission from the author for almost six weeks, so its deletion was entirely correct. I have, therefore, deleted it again. Unless an appropriate license is received and processed through OTRS (see below), it cannot be restored without going through an UnDR.
At OTRS, the only recent ticket with your name in it (#2014111410015911) relates to a different image. OTRS searches on several of the words in the image title yield no results and a search on "skyscraper city" yields only the ticket I cited above.
As for the lack of notification, you certainly are aware that the volume of work done by the 25 most active Admins -- over 1,500 deletions every day -- does not allow for individual notifications in cases like this. It is up to the uploader to ensure that permission is in place promptly and you certainly knew when you uploaded it that without permission the image was liable to be deleted quickly. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin, I've noticed that you have deleted this picture File:Liv_Opdal.jpg giving the reason "2014-12-01T18:29:07 Ellin Beltz (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Liv Opdal.jpg (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (global usage; delinker log)" [17]. Is there a specific reason for the deletion? As far as we know there is no Copyright violations here (see OTRS Ticket#2014102310007913). Nsaa (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nsaa : I see the OTRS has now been approved. The image was taken by one person and uploaded by another. I think at the time I removed it, that OTRS had not been approved, however, if it was I apologize. I don't have OTRS rights, so I can't check the incoming log. I tend to remove overdated OTRS pendings from the "no source/permission/speedy" pile in the interest of protecting the rights of the creator. If the image has been posted for a week, and still no OTRS, it is better to remove the image pending OTRS approval than leave a potential copyvio laying around. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC) PS, while you are here could you check the OTRS status of File:Avenida Julius Nyerere entre Sommerschield e Xiquelene 1.jpg which is claimed to be pending, but the source is a blog clearly labeled (c). The uploader (look up the correspondence here) reverted my delete with no OTRS confirmation. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ellin. In November you deleted the files below, but on 10/10/2014 the owner of images sent a letter to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with evidence that all the photos were posted on Flickr.com under free license and that he is a grand grand son of Leonid Kuzmin and the owner of the family album. Today he have sent this letter one more time. Could you explain possible reasons, why nobody haven`t answer our letter to wikimedia and what should I do, if nobody answer our letter one more time? I kindly ask you to restore the photos, when the letter will be accepted. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 --Nataliaseverina (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nataliaseverina: The email instructions are to be found on COM:OTRS. I wrote on the summaries "Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing: OTRS not received, when/if it is received and accepted, file may be restored." Also there may be a copyright problem because owning an image isn't always the same thing as owning the copyright to that image. I'm not an OTRS admin. I suggest going to the page COM:OTRS and sending any followup emails by their system. If the OTRS is accepted, the OTRS editors are able to restore the images without the uploader doing anything more. However they had sat around for quite a while without OTRS acceptance, and so I removed them pending any decision. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question who can i be an File renamer or remuver ??. i am one of the organiser of wiki loves monuments earth and afrika from algeria, and there are a lot of fils withe not real names or with copyvio--Vikoula5 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing of the File "ITMO University logo.jpg" from wikicommons
Dear Ellin, on December 10 you've removed the file "ITMO University logo.jpg" uploaded in Wikicommons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ITMO_University_logo.jpg). Can you please recommend me the Licence I should specify for it. This is an official logo for the Russian ITMO University (ifmo.ru) which is going to be publsished at (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_State_University_of_Information_Technologies,_Mechanics_and_Optics). Thank you.
Thank you Ellin. Can you please explain how University can provide a license? Actually I officialy represent the ITMO University at Wikipedia. How can I provide the license? By the signed rector's message? User:Maodit19:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
There is a problem in the description of the uploading procedures.
I thought I was following the appropriate procedure!
1. I contacted a member of the OTRS team:
Here is my question and the reply
OTRS procédure
Bonjour,
Je vous ai trouvé sur la liste OTRS et j'ai une question sur la façon d'accorder des licences pour les photos.
La situation: Je suis en traîne d'écrire un article pour Wikipedia sur l'iconographie des modillons sur les églises romanes (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:William_Ellison/Brouillon ). Mon objectif est de recenser le maximum d'information et d'images pour mettre dans 'Commons'.
J'ai trouvé deux sites, chaque site a environ 1000 photos prises par le propriétaire du site. Les auteurs sont tout-à-fait d'accord de les republier sous un Creative Commons, qui je téléverse sur Commons etc. Absolument pas de problème. Mais, l'idée d'avoir a échanger 4000 courriels, deux pour chaque photo, les rebutent (et moi aussi !)
Es-ce qu'il y a une procédure ou l'équipe OTRS peut accorder l'autorisation 'en bloc' ? (William Ellison (discuter) 4 décembre 2014 à 07:31 (CET))
Bonjour,
Désolé pour le retard de ma réponse mais j'étais assez occupé ces derniers jours.
Il n'y a pas de souci pour qu'un même auteur de photos qui accepte de les placer sous licence libre fasse une seule autorisation en bloc dès lors que le courriel d'autorisation soit bien explicite et que les fichiers concernés soient aisément identifiables, notamment en étant regroupés dans une même catégorie sur Commons.
Cordialement, Pymouss |Parlons-en| 6 décembre 2014 à 22:47 (CET)
2. I created a Category : Romanesque corbels - Photographs by Joël Jalladeau.
3. I put an OTRS pending banner. I put a text saying that the photos were waitng for authorisation.
4. I followed the procedure described in the Help section: namely I uploaed the photos and asked the author of the photos to e-mail 'Permissions' with the standard letter model.
All on the same day!
Here is my e-mail exchange with Joël Jalladeau:
Bonjour Monsieur Jalladeau,
Comme convenu je vous contacte pour compléter le processus de validation des droits d'auteur pour Wikimédia.
J'ai mis vos photos sur Wikimédia Commons dans un category spécial: [[:Category:Romanesque corbels - Photographs by Joël Jalladeau
Les administrateurs de Wikimédia attendent de vous la confirmation de mes dires que vous êtes d'accord de me laisser utiliser vos photos.
Ci-dessous vous trouverez le 'courriel type' à compléter avec vos coordonnées et de l'envoyer (avec notre échange de courriels) à : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Ensuite, les administrateurs mettront votre nom et l'adresse de votre site sur chaque photo et il sera obligatoire que chaque personne qui utilise vos photos doit vous citer comme auteur et d'indiquer votre site.
Très cordialement
William Ellison
Courriel à envoyer à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'œuvre publiée à l'adresse [20]
Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette œuvre sous la licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence.
Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées.
Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc.
Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia. [10 décembre 2014, Joël JALLADEAU, ((address redacted))
A inclure aussi dans votre courriel:
ÉCHANGE DE COURRIELS ENTRE William ELLISON et Joël JALLADEAU
Bonjour,
J’ai pris connaissance avec beaucoup d’intérêt de votre courrier. J’ai même visité votre « brouillon »wikipedia. Félicitations. Quel travail. Rien à voir avec de nombreux petits essais.
Inutile de vous dire que vous avez mon agrément entier pour les documents que vous souhaitez emprunter.
Dire que j’ai reçu un jour un pps sur les modillons sur lequel un grand nombre venait de mes sites sans aucune allusion à ces derniers…
Si l’on met gracieusement sur la toile des travaux c’est pour en faire profiter des personnes qui sans cela n’aurait aucune idée de certains thèmes ou ouvrages.
Donc pas de problème. Bon courage pour finir votre recherche si riche.
Bien cordialement
Joël Jalladeau ((address redacted by page holder))
Le 1 déc. 2014 à 17:54, ELLISON William ((address redacted)) a écrit :
Bonjour Monsieur Jalladeau,
J'habite près de Bordeaux et depuis quelques mois je m’intéresse beaucoup dans les églises romanes dans les environs et surtout aux modillons !
Wikipédia avait lancé un projet de photographier les monuments historiques en France, car avec une patrimoine exceptionnelle, très souvent, les monuments historiques étaient 'sans image'. Donc, je me suis amusé de découvrir les églises romanes !
La richesse de l'iconographie des modillons m'a beaucoup surpris. Suite à mes pérégrinations j'ai décidé d'écrire un article pour Wikipédia sur les modillons.
L'article est toujours un brouillon et ne fait pas parti de Wikipédia.
Mon objective est de recenser toutes les églises romanes du Nord de l'Espagne ; Aquitaine, Normandie, Angleterre et Irlande, avec des liens vers les photos des modillons correspondants.
Comme vous verrez, à la fin de l'article, la Gironde est bien représenté, mais pour la Charente et Charente-Maritime, il manque cruellement des images.
Vous avez trois sites qui contiennent des photos exceptionnelles et je voudrais les utiliser pour illustrer mon article.
Wikipédia est très stricte sur le problème de Copyright et les Droits d'Auteur et on peu utiliser une photo seulement si son auteur donne expressément l'autorisation.
Acceptez-vous de publier vos photos sous un des licences 'Créative Commons ?
En gros, avec une publication sous 'Créative Commons', vous garder les droit de propriété intellectuelle, si quelqu’un utilise votre œuvre vous êtes cités comme l'auteur, mais, par exemple, il peut utiliser une photo dans un livre sans vous payer une redevance.
J'ai également contacté M. Anthony Weir (Satan in the Groin) ; il a accepté de publier ses photos avec un 'Créative Commons'.
Si vous voulez plus d'information je suis à votre disposition.
Cordialement William Ellison ((address redacted))
WHAT DID I DO WRONG?
Cordialement
William Ellison
PS. M. Jalladeau just sent me this e-mail:
Le lien ne fonctionne pas
J’ai donné mon accord à Wikipedia
Cordialement
JOEL JALLADEAU
Le 10 déc. 2014 à 07:36, ELLISON William ((address redacted)) a écrit :
Bonjour Monsieur Jalladeau,
Comme convenu je vous contacte pour compléter le processus de validation des droits d'auteur pour Wikimédia.
Les administrateurs de Wikimédia attendent de vous la confirmation de mes dires que vous êtes d'accord de me laisser utiliser vos photos.
Ci-dessous vous trouverez le 'courriel type' à compléter avec vos coordonnées et de l'envoyer (avec notre échange de courriels) à : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Ensuite, les administrateurs mettront votre nom et l'adresse de votre site sur chaque photo et il sera obligatoire que chaque personne qui utilise vos photos doit vous citer comme auteur et d'indiquer votre site.
Très cordialement William Ellison Courriel à envoyer à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Dear Mr. Ellison: Forgive me for not replying sooner but my electricity was off due to a large storm. Please leave a very short message at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard to find out the status of M. Jalladeau's email. I am not an OTRS editor but one who works with deletions to protect the copyrights of the image creators. Over at OTRS, when/if his permission is received, verified and accepted, the OTRS editors are able to restore the images. He says he has written Wikipedia and that the link you gave him didn't work. Perhaps his email has gone to the wrong place? In any case the OTRS editors can help you and as said before if everything is ok the images are able to be restored with no further effort on your part. I have slightly edited your Long Letters formats above to make them a bit easier to read. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Ellin,
I am quite new with wikipedia and you send me a notification for 3 images that would not be tagged correctly.
i can assure you that all were prepared by myself and I am the author of them
File:Lettrage client.png and File:Écritures.png were created specifically for the purpose of the wikipedia articles I updated
File:SO PlusValue.jpg was created a while ago for an article I wrote in 2011 and was published by finyear, but I am still the owner of the copyright due to the standard agreement I have with the publisher.[reply]
Is the fact that I changed my user ID recently (switch from my first name + last name to some cryptic ID, as recommended) a possible explanation ? On the 2 first files, they were still tagged with hold wiki account ID, I changed them. But the last one was uploaded with the new ID ...
Hi Objet Pourpre Rayé : Oh gee, I remember when I was new to all this too! We shall work together for the best possible outcome, ok? If I sound tough or mean in typing, be assured it would sound very friendly in voice.
The problem is there is no source of the data. Images claiming to have educational use need to show where the information came from as well as who made it. Otherwise, I could draw any old thing, say it's "Global Economic Data" and put up the image, only to hopelessly confuse a student or future researcher. So the diagrams which show things have to come from somewhere: Was it a book, online? That's the meaning of source... whence came either the image or the data which created it. Hope this helps. Remember there's an COM:UNDEL process so if you feel these were removed wrongly, please make a short statement at UNDEL, including the names of the images.
One other tiny, wee point. We're not Wikipedia over here, but a sibling project called Wikimedia Commons. That means we have different upload rules than the other projects - for Commons, images have to be provably open permission with known sources. The various "-pedias" may have lesser standards for images. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS, just sign four ~~~~ "tildes" to sign your name.
Dear Ellin Beltz,
I have noticed that you deleted the photo Myo Zaw Aung.jpg. I am comparably new to Wikipedia, but I have been trying to write wikipedia articles about living persons and remarkable places in Myanmar. I personally asked Myo Zaw Aung for his picture and he gave me the photo taken at his A2ELP workshop. I noticed that the same photo is on flicker, but he said he has the same file and allowed me to use his picture. Can you undelete the picture or should I take his own picture? What do you suggest?
My office is mandated with full power by the Heir of the deceased painter Aloys OHLMANN for communication. As the owner of drawings, watercolors, engravings, prints , paintings , sculptures Aloys OHLMANN , we claim the right to broadcast on the Internet. This is why the demand for withdrawal of Indian ink " CORRIDA ANDALOU " from the collection "CORRIDA DE TORO" is moot. Finally, I confime the date of death of the painter Aloys OHLMANN is 16 September 2013 .
Removing of the File "bird photographs" from wikicommons
I have copyright regarding your Deletion requests: Hello @EugeneZelenko, I have received your deletion requests at the below URL. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Toumoto The all photos are mine, and I'm making them on public with appropriate licensing scheme. For obtaining the permission to show on wikimedia, I'm sending an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a link on my domain space. [21]
Please do not delete those listed photos, and necessary processes are ongoing. Thanks, OPi.Toumoto
@Toumoto: The problem was that since the website said "c" you can't then hand an open licence to Commons. This is to protect the creator's rights. Otherwise anyone could make a name for Commons account and then upload all the photos from a website and claim to be same person. Just file with COM:OTRS and once they accept your email, they may restore the images with no further work on your part. The editors at OTRS are very experienced and will help you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just to let you (and EugeneZelenko) know: despite the fact that the website was mentioned in the "Source" field on the files listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Toumoto, these pictures don't seem to be copied from the website (at least I could find no "original" for these on their website). Instead, it looks like the intension was to ask reusers to use that attribution. The uploader sent us from the domain email address and I added tags to be on the safe side, but I honestly feel this added unnecessary work both to OTRS agents and the uploader. Simply asking the uploader might have been a better option in this case. whym (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi whym : I'm glad it worked out that Toumoto was indeed the creator of the images and wished them to be on Commons. So often it is the case that uploaders take copyrighted images and try to pass them off as their own; that it is truly gratifying to see a situation where this was not the case. My apologies if you feel your time was wasted; I try to assume good faith of all other editors here and regard the people who really waste our time as the uploaders of copyrighted images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me if this sounds accusing; that is not my intention. I can't write better prose than this in English, which is not my first language. Thank you for your response. It sounds like we might understand this case differently, and I would like to share my understandings and hopefully extract a lesson or two from this case. We have three types of responses at OTRS: 1) "it's accepted, thank you", 2) "we cannot confirm this permission in its current form", and 3) "well, you actually didn't need to send this". Often it is not up to us but up to the sender (in particular, there is not much we can do about #2) and I won't blame anyone on Commons in those cases. However, #3 can and should be avoided as much as possible by being careful when deciding contacting OTRS is needed or not, and I would like to see such carefulness from those who request people to send emails to OTRS. For example, this shows no "source" issues to me, and I don't see what OTRS agents are supposed to do. While this contains a URL as part of the "source", it is clearly labeled as "飼い主" (pet-owner) - irrelevant to the copyright status. (Other files might have misplaced information as I explained earlier, though.) whym (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ whym, I explained above to Toumoto why the images appeared to be covered by (c) for this particular situation. I am sorry you feel I display a lack of customer service and care in my response to people asking about their images. It can often be hard to sort out the ownership of copyright, especially since it can be hard to sort out the legitimate copyright holders in some cases from the vast majority of non-copyright holders who claim to be one or more of these:
the owner of the website where photos were taken;
the official representative of the owner of a website whether personal or corporate;
the owner of entire pages, or clippings from, newspapers and periodicals;
the owner of a print of the image;
the heir of the subject of an image;
the alleged owner via a long shaggy-dog story;
the recipient of a gift of a print of a photograph;
the recipient of permission to use a photograph from family album or other private source;
the recipient of permission to use a photograph from the web regardless of (c) or no (c) on the pages;
the creator of professional images up to and including Getty and Reuters files; and/or
someone with a really long arms who can take selfies from 100 feet away.
I'm sure you would agree that due to privacy concerns, it is unwise to have people post personal information all over Commons. Due to that concern the OTRS system was established.
When I refer people to UNDEL, COM:L or OTRS, I'm telling them to "Go read the page." I can't read it for them and I am not the one wanting the image restored. If people feel their images are to be removed/have been removed in error, I am performing customer service to the uploader by referring them to the other pages and summarizing briefly that other editors may restore the file if the process is followed. If the information on those other pages doesn't suit their situation, they don't have to send you an email. If it does, the system is there. I'm not forcing people to send you emails you do not wish to receive - in fact I fail to see how I can predict at the time of the customer service just which emails to be sent in the future will be categorized in your #3 above. Perhaps you could send me a fully functional Mach-III-a3.14 crystal ball Java application for that?
In the actual situation which began this thread, the uploader has now filled out OTRS form with you and his images will not have a problem in the future. I think that referring the actual copyright holder to OTRS after a DN where the referred turns out to actually be the copyright holder is not a bad referral or a waste of anyone's time - its how the system is designed to work.
I'm going to paraphrase Jim here and point out that active Commons editors work on thousands of deletion files per day. If I were asked to summarize the outcome of most of my post deletion correspondence, I'd say that less than 10% of uploaders are even referred to read the OTRS page. I cannot stop doing customer service and attempting to explain this complicated system in a perfect way, so I refer people with a beef to UNDEL and OTRS for further reading to resolve their situations.
Earlier this year I worked with an uploader for about three months to get him through the OTRS process after his first upload was nominated for deletion. I'm sure Jim remembers that one as well - it took most of the summer for the uploader to track down the heir and then another month or two to get the OTRS permission approval. That was - to me - one of the most validating experiences I've had on Commons because now we have a whole series of Canadian military and service patches that tell a unique history and represent the artistic vision of their creator which we would never have had without the OTRS process. It took a lot of extra time helping the uploader - but I never felt that time was wasted. I view these extra situations as an opportunity to meet new people through the Commons process. I would hope they would regard me as friendly, informative and responsive to their questions.
I personally cheer every time an image is saved from the trash can due to helpful people knowing sources, and offering suggestions for how to fix the issues before the files disappear. And I cheer even louder when OTRS rides in with their white hats on and helps an uploader like Toumato... doing their job and being part of the tripod of uploader, deletion editor and savior which stabilizes this otherwise unwieldy system.
I am really very sorry you feel your time is being wasted by me or anyone else here on Commons. All I can suggest for that is to take some time off and do something more fun than dealing with 99% of people with a beef and no bun. Because in the end - in the entire thought of a single human life - all time is really wasted unless we fill it with meaningful things to do. As Hobart Brown once said "Our problems are our blessings; if we don't make problems for ourselves, the universe will make them for us.Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
whym, although Ellin has alluded to it above, I add like to add my request that you keep in mind that Commons gets more than 10,000 new images every day. More than 1,500 of those are deleted. 90% of that work is done by only 25 Admins, so we mostly work fast and occasionally make mistakes. Those are remarkably rare -- fewer than 1% of deletions go to UnDR and fewer than 10% of those are restored, mostly based on facts the deleting Admin did not know. Since we work fast, it is inevitable that when we see an image the cites its source as a web site that does not have a free license, we will suggest a message to OTRS. Occasionally that will be an error. I wish it were possible to more thoroughly research every deletion and be more helpful to every newbie, but unless we get a substantial increase in the number of active Admins, it's not going to happen.
With respect to referrals to OTRS that should not have been made, unless it runs into tens of mistakes every day, I'm afraid I simply shrug. I I'm sure this error rate is less than 1% and reducing it further would take substantially more research on many other cases. We have substantial backlogs in both places, so I think it is reasonable to value a minute of one as equal to a minute of the other. Therefore, I see a negative trade off -- saving a little OTRS time at the cost of significantly more Commons Admin time.
Ellin, I like your 11 points -- although you forgot "I had paid for the portrait so I own the copyright" and "So and so gave me permission to use it of his article on Wikipedia". I too want a "Mach-III-a3.14 crystal ball". Christmas is coming, maybe I'll get one? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from my point of view, it is not an afterthought that would have required oracle to predict, but that I don't see what lead to questioning the validity of the permissions at that time. I thought that just a quick look at individual file pages would have shown what I explained earlier by the two examples [22][23]. Note that these links go to the versions at the time of the deletion, not after. Do you think these versions contain something that raises significant doubt? I don't believe we usually request an email verification from people using website addresses as part of attribution they ask for. I admit that the misplaced information I initially pointed out might be too obscure if you haven't encountered similar cases, but I believe these are significantly more obvious. Or, was it an error or an oversight among the vast majority of good judgments, as Jim described above? I fully understand that if that is the case. But I also hope you will understand that I didn't get that sense from your earlier responses by 18 December. Best wishes for the year-end/new-year season you might celebrate. whym (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely do not understand your closing comment here -- or your closing this as a keep.
Unless someone can show that its copyright has expired, the work shown in the image plainly has a copyright as a sculpture. The fact that you can't find a toy robot that looks like it is completely irrelevant.
Perhaps you misunderstand the status of toys. Toys do not have a copyright as toys -- the copyright law does not mention toys. Toys have copyrights as sculptures. It does not matter what this is, toy, robot, or just a sculpture, the fact that it is a work of sculpture makes it copyrightable.
So, as I said in my nomination, the image infringes on the copyright belonging to the creator of the object portrayed and we will need a license from its creator if we want to keep the photograph of it.
I would appreciate it if you would think about this, and either reopen the DR or explain your reasoning here more fully. From my point of view, this is so obvious that I would delete it on sight except for the fact that we don't {{Speedy}} DWs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After a lot more looking through the Commons Category (536 images) named Category:Tin toy robots, I find this toy to be a "replica Atomic Robot Man" with the mention of "Schylling", perhaps a toy company? There are 23 images which are similar to this one, some are painted and others are plain. I totally accept your statement that the toy has copyright, and all I can say about the kept is "oops." I'll reopen the DR; you're right. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha -- thanks. I didn't understand that you thought that the image and the object might both be the work of the uploader. That's not unreasonable, although as a general rule if I see an "own work" image of a copyrighted work, I assume that "own work" covers only the image and the object is the creation of another person unless the description explicitly says that the artist and the photographer are the same. Ninety percent of the time I'm right and the other ten percent the creator says so in the DR, so no harm, no foul. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just a few words about your closure of this deletion request. Your justification is "No statement of free use on source page." I am not really opposed to the deletion, but your justification is irrelevant imho. If the logo is below the TOO, there is no need of any statement of free use on the source page. The image would be copyright-free because it is too simple to be copyrighted. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrightRaven : As an artist, I felt that the mirroring of the gradationally shaded and colored letters showed that this image wasn't just created from fonts; the removal of dark tones and gradational shading and fading of the background were not an accident, and the (c) on the source page made it clear that logo likely is not considered free by the person who created it. As a creator, I'm very interested in creator's rights - hence the number of nominations I put forward to protect the art in the background and living artists. There was no discussion on that nomination so there is no way to know what the community thought, TOO or notTOO. It's entirely possible that had the entire discussion hinged on TOO rather than the user's claim of own work and the image being found on a (c) website - that the outcome would have been different. And PS, I'm not emotionally hung up on about 99% of the deletes I do - merely as part of the system. If you wish to reopen this one at COM:UNDEL, I won't oppose it. Thank you for everything you do on Commons and please never hesitate to disagree with me at any time. It's the net result of all our best efforts which ultimately improve the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. As stated above, I do not care much about this logo either, but I think this kind of DR should be closed by making reference to the threshold (and if possible the threshold in the country of origin and in the US). I know that closing DR's is a burden, so I thank you nevertheless for closing them. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think there is a misunderstanding between us of the "file" copyright status and the "original picture"'s copyright status. The file what I've uploaded is my own (!) work regarding scanning, restoring retouching, cropping, etc. The original picture was copyrighted by Laszlo Iklady who transferred the rights to the widow who has transferred the rights to me. I do not think that you have any right to investigate about it and I do not think that you legally can accuse me that my words are not correct even far from the truth. On the other hand somebody has deleted that picture when I signed that is work of the late Laszlo Iklady. So I think you could clear what type of copyright status abbreviation I have to use in the above mentioned case. Regards Cyberguy999 (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin Beltz,
The flags of the following municipalities of Piquerobi, Icém, Paranapuã and Cândido Rodrigues, State of São Paulo, Brazil, I made using Microsoft Paint, and I already knew the flags, then they are my own work. I didn't copy the files from some website.
You didn't pay attention and I didn't view the license {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} in this files.
Hi again Renan Siqueira Azevedo : Please leave separate messages instead of editing your former comments. I did pay attention to the license on the image, however as a derivative work of the unsourced crest, that license is not applicable to this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Renan Siqueira Azevedo: Please understand that admins are not machines, nor are we being paid. I cannot answer your questions when I am asleep. You need to read up on COM:DW, the discussion of Derivative Works to see why own work on copied items is not the correct license. In brief because you did not make the crests of the municipalities, you took them and added them to your own images which makes your images Derivative Works of the images you swiped. This showed very clearly because the flag stripes are very distinct and the crests are blurry and of very poor quality. As uploader it's on you to provide a correct license, the choices are discussed at COM:L but in general - unless the image you took and used is available with free license - you can't incorporate it into your work. Even if it were free licensed, you still have to acknowledge where the image came from. Since your images are Brazilian, please take a look at Category:PD Brazil Government/Category:Flags of municipalities of Brazil by state to see if perhaps your work may be duplicating images already on the project which are correctly licensed and of good quality. I'd particularly suggest you look at File:0.472156001270671637 badeira 2.jpg to see how flags of Brazil need to be sourced and licensed. To let you know, I converted all your uploads to a Deletion Nomination, the link will be on your talk page. Do not go around removing that tag as you did the no source tag on File:Flag of Paranapua SP.jpg, File:Flag of Icem SP.jpg, File:Flag of Candido Rodrigues SP.jpg, & File:Flag of Piquerobi SP.jpg. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Emphatik: "No source" here means "where did you get the data for these two lines." And what is the meaning of two lines, there's no scale on the side of the image, no clue what it's about. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok I had done it myself. I understand. You may take it off then. thanks.
Dear Ellin, I recently received a notification for deletion of an image I recently uploaded. I included a better description of how the image was created, including a program in which the image was created along with a citation for the mathematical model used. Please let me know specifically what other information is needed for this image to be considered properly sourced.Thanks! Mgibby5 (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi russavia: FYI I don't have OTRS permissions, so I can't just go check tickets received as you suggested. At the time I commented, there was no publically available information on the file to show it was free. The page from which it was taken has no copyright information at all. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to edit the description, because I considered these logos very bellow the Threshold of originality, adn therefore, PD-Text-logo, but you deleted them before I save the edit.
Why? Unsupported accusation of copyfraud by a national archive is not a valid reason for deletion. There are hundreds of publicity shots of US actors on their website, many with a solid evidence of being taken by a Dutch photographer in the Netherlands. Materialscientist (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Materialscientist: The problem for me is the unknown creator. "Photographer Unknown / Anefo". If you think I'm wrong, and I don't dispute that you probably know more about this particular image than I do, please go to COM:UNDEL and ask a different admin to restore it. That way you get a second opinion and - of course - I won't dispute your request, ok? Thank you for understanding this is a process done by humans and can always contain flaws. Next time however one of your images gets nominated (if it ever happens again), please stay up on the nomination and fix questions like this before the image is deleted. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got your message about the image going-to-be-deleted... but I am not its author. I reuploaded it, true, but I almost didn't change a thing. It is in the description of the reupload, I only re-timed the individual frames of the original file. All I did was I downloaded the image, opened it in an editor and "told" it work faster. That is my whole trick there. I didn't even made the fading efect, all were done before me, I only changed the timing of existing frames. Otherwise I didn't change a thing, not even a single pixel. The question about the origin and licensing of the file has to be asked somewhere else. By my guess the file is made from several religious symbols already uploaded on commons, put in a line in a fading-animation sequence. Niusereset (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niusereset: To be properly sourced, this animated gif would need a reference for each of its pieces. It may have been lurking around for a long time until the reupload, but even so it needs correct licensing for each of the Derivative Works. If you can find the "several religious symbols already ... on commons", you would put that information in the currently blank "source" file. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Late... but even then I could not, for I do not know the sources, it was my guess... and original uploader is probably inactive (also my guess). My only interest in that image was to correct the animation (original timing was kind of annoying). --Niusereset (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ellin! I`ve got a notification about nomination for deletion the following files:
Affected:
File:Кладовка.jpg
And also:
File:Log.jpg
File:Log.gif
File:Sm-2 .jpg
File:Stab1.gif
File:Sm-1.jpg
File:Sm-3.jpg
File:Tblefb.gif
File:Notnozzle.gif
File:Ejektor.gif
File:Reika.gif
All the pics were drawn by me in paint for using at my own site. Image "Кладовка.jpg" was drawn for the button at the site, that`s why it has so small size. Images Log.jpg and Log.gif have a watermark, because i`ve got a free destributed pic, that has no copyright, as a background.
Cheers! Intelaida
I like your beautifully constructed messages on your userpage. Could you please license them under, say CC0, so that I can use them without haveing to say "written by Ellin Beltz - CC-By-SA 3.0" every time. THank you! Josve05a (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a very lazy (:P) person, and I tend to use boilerplate messages in DRs such as "Family snaps and/or images of some guy/girl/babies/families/pets doing various guy/girl/baby/family/pet things". Josve05a (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
INeverCry 19:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree with INeverCry that the "only reason other admins don't make mistakes and show inexperience in DR is because they never close any". We are all always learning and especially with changing standards, things which were OK few years back might not be OK now. So may be my advice would be to specialize in one (or few) type of issue until very confident in those and than branch out to neighbor issues. Do not try to come up to speed with too many diverse types of issues. --Jarekt (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment This seems to be about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icecreamblackface mx.png. Comment most likely from User:Write99999 so I am moving it to the deletion nomination page for completeness. Cross-wiki check provides link between this anonymous ISP and User:Write9999. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Done I looked at all the images carefully and cast individual votes based on my findings. See the DN. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)