User talk:Alexis Jazz/Archives/2018/November

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

OTRS-alternatief

Hoe ver ben je trouwens met het maken van een alternatief voor het OTRS? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: nog helemaal nergens.. Dat zal een meerjarenplan worden vrees ik. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Van wat ik kan zien bij Overleg gebruiker:Russavia/Archief 20#File tagging File:FlyVista Boeing 737-300 taking off from Kiev Zhulyany Airport.jpeg had Russavia een alternatief voorstel, lijkt dit voorstel op iets waar jij mee kan werken? Persoonlijk denk ik niet dat een OTRS-alternatief die buiten Wikimedia functioneert gaat werken. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ik had net even een wauw 😲 moment en dacht aan een OTRS-alternatief waar als een persoon waar jij toestemming voor vraagt een inlogcode ontvangt met de instructie om deze aan hun Wikimedia contactpersoon te geven. Met deze code kan je dan in een speciale omgeving inloggen en (Wikimedia Commons) administrators kunnen ook ten aller tijden alle binnengekomen brieven bekijken en misschien ook een derde groep zoals mensen die nieuwe pagina's patrouilleren maar dan moeten zij wel toestemming vragen (gelijkwaardig aan het OTRS dat wij nu hebben). Misschien kan elk toestemmingsprofiel ook ruimte bezitten voor notities en andere methodes om de aanvrager hun identiteit vast te stellen (ik weet niet hoe OTRS-agenten dat nu doen). Graag ontvang ik terugkoppeling voor hoe dit mishandeld kan worden zodat ik aan een beter voorstel kan werken.

Het liefst ga ik met WikiPensioen sinds Wikimedia Commons te verslavend voor mij is maar ik wacht nog steeds op een aantal OTRS-kaartjes die ik had aangevraagd, één daarvan is meer als 500 (vijfhonderd) afbeeldingen waard dus hoop ik dat er snel een mogelijkheid is om daar z.s.m. aan te beginnen. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: mishandeld = misbruikt, meer als 500 = meer dan 500.
Wat ik in gedachten had was eenvoudiger dan waar jij nu aan denkt. Wat betreft verslaving, ik voel met je mee.. Jimbo is gewoon een dealer van Wikicrack. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: oh ja, ik vergat te zeggen: mishandelen is gewoon een correct woord, maar alleen van toepassing op levende wezens. Misbruiken van objecten is soms verkeerd gebruik maar meestal vandalisme. Misbruik van mensen slaat vaak op seksueel misbruik, maar je kan ook misbruik maken van iemands vertrouwen of gulheid. Als iemand zegt "ze maakt misbruik van hem" (b.v. in de context van een gold digger), dan wil dat eigenlijk zeggen "ze maakt misbruik van zijn vertrouwen/gulheid". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, bedankt voor de uitleg, in het Engels bestaat die onderscheid niet dus ik ging er vanuit dat het in het Nederlands ook zo werkte. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Dat onderscheid. Mishandelen kan overigens wel voorkomen bij het antropomorfiseren van objecten. "Je moet de versnellingsbak niet zo mishandelen!" - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Coeur D'alene, Kootenai County, Idaho. LOC sanborn01581 006-1.jpg

Shortly after I asked the uploader of File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Coeur D'alene, Kootenai County, Idaho. LOC sanborn01581 006-1.jpg about the PD-USGov template, you added a PD-1923 template. As the description suggests, the map is from 1954. Perhaps you could take a closer look at the image and then remove the invalid template? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: alternatively, you take a look at the image notes I just added and say "my bad"? I've inspected the actual map and the latest date on it is October 1950 (second correction, by Swan). The image is part of a series of 38 sheets, the 1954 date is for the whole series. This one is older. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
If the copyright was renewed in 1949, how can this be PD-1923? If this image includes (copyrighted) material from 1950, how can it be PD-1923? I'm happy to own up to a mistake, but you're going to have to explain your reasoning. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: published before 1923 means expired, including any renewals. See COM:HIRTLE. In 1948 and 1950 only corrections were made. I don't know the whole story behind this map, not even who exactly (Swan and Palmer, but who are they?) made those corrections and what was corrected exactly. Possibly government officials. I'm not sure all the physical cut-and-paste work would be done by the map company. And if it somehow was, there is no copyright notice for it (so expired). If you still have a problem with the file, you should figure out exactly what part is a copyright violation and why. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the renewed copyright was (at that time) only 28 years, so you are right, it has also expired. My bad. ;) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Wilson Lima GOV Amazonas.jpg

Dear Alexis Jazz,

Do you see a copy of this exact clip on the video? I thought it appeared around 8:35-8:52 but it doesn't. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOgdxRx7WCc&t=5m13s - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User pages

You recon we ought to put together some type of proposal to clarify something in the wake of the ANU thread? GMGtalk 12:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: wouldn't be a bad idea. Any thoughts about it you (or any talk page watchers who read this) have are welcome. Instant removal of deletion notices is not uncommon for socks, so at least new users shouldn't be allowed to delete warnings within, say, 2 weeks? Archiving to a subpage could be allowed after 1 week maybe. For autopatrolled users, allow deletion after 1 week and allow archiving directly. Something like that maybe? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems simpler just to say that established users are permitted to remove warnings. Probably leaves less room open for folks to break out their ledgers and spreadsheets on a noticeboard and debate whether someone broke a rule.
I'm not sure I really understand all the hubbub about the whole thing. I mean, most of the people who are going to have the wherewithal to remove warnings are going to be socks (who don't care about the rules anyway) or established users. GMGtalk 01:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I agree socks (and to some degree all new users) are the main issue. While socks may not care about the rules, removing warnings allows them to fly under the radar for longer. If I see nothing on a user talk page, I'll often just move on. I can't investigate everyone. If a user gets warned not to remove notices within some time period (and their old notices are restored) but they just delete that warning as well, their ass can be dragged straight to ANU. Here's another example by the way: Werxa. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I realize that coming from en.wiki as my home project, I am definitely biased in favor of seeing policy there as the norm (speak of the devil). Given, commons is a little bit of a different animal, since such a comparatively huge portion of the project is purely uploading and deletion related.
Possible we should just leave policy alone, since it doesn't actually forbid, but just discourages removal, and then just fix the template. Who would be the guru to get that changed in all the different languages? GMGtalk 22:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: just fix the English one. If you want, poke some people who can translate (I can do Dutch). Incnis Mrsi and Jeff G. also know some languages I think. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Started a thread at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Updating Template:Dont remove warnings. GMGtalk 13:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

AN referral for wikihounding.

See here: [[1]]. I await your reply. DaneGeld (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if this makes me laugh or cry. I feel a bit sad for you. It must be hell inside your head. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hearing_aid&diff=6296914&oldid=6289093 is strong… even for such “interesting” community as simple.Wikipedia. I generally criticize Wikipedian authoritarianism, but understand that Wikipedians embraced it to defend editors against many kinds of crankery, such as this inflated self-importance idea of the author of a simple photo. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
What's with the serif I? Just curious. Vermont (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: DaneGeld explained his behavior at simple:User talk:DaneGeld. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Cantillations by Gershon Sirota

Hello Alexis Jazz, Gershon Sirota was a hazzan, an interpreter, not a creator. It is not appropriate to describe him as the author of the cantillations he recorded. For traditional Jews, the music is as old as the text itself and there is evidence of very old manuscripts with cantillations marks. I suggest modifications such as this one should be reverted. Cheers, — Racconish 💬 17:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Racconish: he is the person who sings, so PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1943 is correct. PD-old-100 would only be valid for the written text, which you may put on Wikisource (if it's not already there). Gershon Sirota is the creator of these versions. The best solution is probably to add information to the description about the source and age of the text. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The person who sings is the performer, not the author. Per the 1961 Rome Convention, performers are defined as "actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works". He is not the author or the text not the composer of the melody. As said here, Sirota "himself never composed". He is not an author as defined by the Berne convention and other international copyright treaties. Being a performer and not an author, he is not entitled to a copyright but to a related right, as defined by the Rome convention. The performer's right is not based on a death year computation, but on the date of the publication of the works. He is entitled to a 50 years protection from the date of the publication (extended to 70 years recently and only for recent works), regardless of the date of his death. Therefore, Sirota's death year has no relevance to the computation of his performer's rights on his records. — Racconish 💬 20:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Racconish: please this issue to COM:VPC, I'm no expert in neighbouring rights. He does interpret it, not mindlessly sing it so.. I just don't know. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done [2]. Cheers, — Racconish 💬 21:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

zombietool

I saw your message which mentioned zombietool. Is f2c one? Tyler de Noche (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tyler de Noche: yes, at least in my opinion. The duplicate detection is broken causing lots of work and frustration for admins, uploaders and other users who try to help clean up the mess. And the maintainer doesn't respond to anything. "open a ticket on bitbucket please", Magnus Manske says. So we did. Twice. Nothing happens. Maybe we should set his talk page on fire. For now I've asked Jimbo himself to provide us with a WMF programmer to fix this bug - you know things are bad when you resort to that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


I dont think he truly cares anymore. Ive been scolded by too many admins and editors who say I upload duplicates and I dont check. Sigh. Tyler de Noche (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remain calm and collegial

català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ עברית ∙ +/−

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Fun, a mystery quest! I swear quite a bit, so I'm not sure what this is about. Could be several things, but probably something Jcb related. I'm not taking any of that back. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I could write "all of those things", but I'll save you the labor and give you this link.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I suspected it was that one. Jcb is being ridiculous and that comment was well deserved, and imho, quite funny. Also note that two out of three files had additional licenses (besides {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}) for both the source country and the US, yet Jcb insisted we needed "permission". Also note that Ronhjones who initially tagged the files has now undeleted them. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop!

Stop editing Jan's youtube frames. You appear to be simply removing all EXIF data from the files. This is vandalism. If you don't stop, I shall ask for you to be blocked. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Colin and Fæ: vandalism? Jan Arkesteijn is the vandal here. I didn't stop because of you btw - I was just fixing stuff to overwrite faster. Your accusation of vandalism is an obvious violation of COM:AGF. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
No. Look, for one thing, please stop altering images that are under discussion in a DR. I'm sure I've asked you before to not do that. There is no rush and it just disrupts the process. The EXIF data is useful and it has not actually been determined to be wrong. I'll add comments to the DR but the CC4 claim by Fae is actually wrong. It is perfectly valid to take a CC3 work and publish a derivative work (screen grab) with CC4 licence. They are upgradable. In addition to the EXIF information you have removed (which contains sourcing) you have also removed the colour profile, which is necessary for all users to see the correct colours reliably. This is basic vandalism. Please spend the rest of the day reverting your uploads. -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: I shall revert nothing, I'll just upgrade the files. Which I should now be able to do more easily. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Btw, "you have also removed the colour profile, which is necessary for all users to see the correct colours reliably". I agree that was sloppy of me, but this must be a joke. Necessary for users to see colors reliably? We are talking about Arkesteijn! These images don't have reliable colors anyway. Fifty-fifty chance they'll look better without a color profile! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Since you have refused to stop, and seem to be preparing to continue at a rapid rate on the rest of the images, I have reported you at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Alexis Jazz trashing EXIF and disrupting DR. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: and all this seemingly because I had misread your "They are upgradable" as "The files are upgradable" (fixable) when you were talking about the license and you misread my "I'll just upgrade the files" as "I'll destroy the color profiles on everything". Now we all lose. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Everipedia

Commons:Everipedia has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this project page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fæ (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point

Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this project page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Assuming worst case copyright has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this project page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Autotranslate|1=File:U.S. Copyright Office circular 34.pdf|base=Image permission}} And also:

Yours sincerely, Ruthven (msg) 19:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ruthven: wut? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. --Ruthven (msg) 19:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven: no problem, but if I may ask: how did it happen? I'm curious because 34 and 56 seem to have been randomly selected out of 81 files. I see it was part of a batch, but I don't see the relation with the other files. I wonder how they got selected together. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I did a search for "cover album 2018", and selected the covers – or what appeared to be one :-)
I'll check myself the other ones. I dunno why the LicenseReviews didn't appear. (PS: Feel free to rollback) --Ruthven (msg) 20:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. I was positive it was allowed under fair use but was removed from Wikipedia as well so I wanted to see what was going on. Based on reading your page information I might have an idea of what's going on now. #HorribleAdmins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazart (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Fazart (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fazart: we have some severe problems (the confusion between Wikipedia local uploads and Commons being just a minor one), but you uploaded the logo to the wrong place. I uploaded it to w:File:PHP-Fusion logo.png (notice the w:!) where it most probably will stay. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thank you for your help! I'll be sure to identify the correct prefix in the future. Appreciated!
Fazart (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Fazart: actually, it doesn't really work like that. If I want to link a page that only exists on Commons while on Wikipedia, I need to use the c: prefix, like c:Commons:Everipedia, c:Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a point and c:Commons:Assuming worst case copyright (if you want to read my essays, you should do so before they're gone..)
Next time, use the upload form on Wikipedia. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Alvanhholmes Corner

Apparently you deleted two files without notice to me. Is that customary?Why?

One file you deleted is from an 1880 source the Harlean Society, Visitation of London, if that isn't copyright free, then what is, could you please explain?

This file:

This is a picture of the Farrer Coat of Arms, from the Visitation of London. Farrar CoA is same sans the Gorget

This source: https://archive.org/details/visitationoflond01stge/page/n9 if that isn't public domain, then what is?

Can you please explain why the source is not copyright free?

You, and I believe it is you, have deleted almost all of the files that I uploaded, sans explanation except for The Lord Farrer letter, then you simply cut off the conversation and deleted the file. The requirements for publishing are not clear.

This requirement is confusing: I found it on the Internet — I'm not sure I believe this work is freely licensed or legally in the public domain. I understand that if I do not add the necessary licensing information in a timely fashion, the file may be deleted.

If something, like Harlean society publications, which are over 138 years old, they don't have licensing, so how is it they aren't in the public domain.? I don't understand and no one explains. If there is no explanation how am I to know, and not make the same mistake again.?

There seems to be a mindset that users like me, have the same level of knowledge or understanding as users like you. We don't. When we ask questions we need clear understandable answers. Not ignored or treated off handedly.

More confounding is that these beautiful colored Coats of Aerms, and more I am sure, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Coats_of_Arms_of_the_Crown_of_Castile apparently are acceptable. Why? How? Certainly the person(s) who posted them on commons did not draw them all themselves. So why are they acceptable and the Coat of Arms from an 1880 publication not?

Thank you Alvanhholmes (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: I guarantee you that I have deleted absolutely nothing.
Because I'm not an administrator. I can't.
I have nominated one of your files (File:Westwood - Letter from Lord Farrer 1930.jpg) for deletion. The file was about to be deleted without discussion. By nominating it for deletion, I forced Commons to delay deletion and give you a chance to defend and explain why it is in the public domain.
Three of your files have been deleted: File:Farrar's Island today.jpg, File:Farrar's Island Marker K199.jpg and File:Farrar's Island Marker.jpg. According to the administrator who deleted them, the last photo was taken from http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM4RYP_Farrars_Island. If this is correct, I ask you again to read "I found it on the Internet".
I fairly often mentor new users. Unfortunately due to circumstances I don't have the time to do that now. That's why I gave you links to the Village Pump and other places. There are usually several people who are willing to show you the way. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I owe you an apology. I didn't know that you didn't delete the file, nor am I knowledgeable about the command structure of wiki and of who has rights. I thought it was you who deleted my images. But I am more than p.o.'d that admin is so high handed that they delete photos without advising the party concerned.

As regards the Farrar coat of arms. I was editing the file John Farrar the Elder when I noticed that there was a no wiki notice in front of the file, then after you mentioned that it wasn't deleted I checked it again and it was back. I don't understand what happened.

I sm very puzzled as to how some images, which are clearly from the internet, such as the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, of which there are two sources on the internet are OK. I checked the site The Battle of Guilford Courthouse and some of the images are from the government, but others aren't. How do they do it.

There are also the images for other Coat of Arms some of them colorful and beautiful, but it will take some convincing that they were all produced by the uploading user. So I am wondering, is there a double standard? or Have some users found a work around? I will no longer use found on the internet. I suppose the only acceptable sources are self (first checking that there is no other image like it on the internet) or US Government.

If self, or from a friend or relative who shared it with me, how do I prove that when I uploaded it? Again apologies Alvanhholmes (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Huetter Welcome Sign.jpg

Welp, I tried to split the difference in a manner that would inform the other projects of what is going on but apparently the delinker bot had completely other plans. Wasn't really expecting it to take the first log entry instead of the last one. I'm not entirely sure what to do with this now. Since you were the one who did the modifications to the image so that it would comply with copyright restrictions I thought I would ask your thoughts on the matter. --Majora (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: I can't order CommonsDelinker around.. but you can. In this case however, only 2 wikis used the image. (you may think 9. no, it was 2) So I'll fix it by hand. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: One more thing, can you hide the first revision in such a way the uploader and original size can be seen, but the thumbnail/download is disabled? (I don't know what this is called but have seen it before) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I know I can issue the bot commands. The manual commands are not deletion based though. The delinker is automatic and the edit summary left on the projects is based on whatever is put into the deletion log. I thought I had control over that by doing it how I did it but apparently I was wrong and it takes the first deletion log rationale, not the last one. Thank you for putting the image back. As for the second thing what you are thinking of is revision deletion. Technically what you requested is doable but the way I closed that DR and processed the image makes it so doing so would massively mess with the logs of those pages even more than they already are. To preserve edits I performed a history split of the original file, splitting off your overwrite into its own separate instance as if you had uploaded it that way to begin with. Instead of just downloading it and uploading it myself which would have put it under my name instead of yours. To reintroduce the original upload would require me to undo the split. Which again, is technically doable but would require a lot of additional steps. I'm honestly not sure this is required provided the original attribution is there (which it is). You could even add an author switch to the licensing template if you wish ({{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|author=Howpper}}) if you want to give that additional attribution to the photographer. I'm not entirely sure if your blurring is enough to constitute its own copyright anyways. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: my main issue is that File:Huetter Welcome Sign - blurred.jpg doesn't have a valid source to point to and was uploaded by me instead of the photographer. Now I don't care too much about it generally speaking, but sooner or later somebody is going to tag that file with "no permission", I may not be around to defend/repair it when that happens and the file will be deleted. I didn't know about the possibility of a history split, but if I understand correctly the only way now to make the original uploader/photographer visible again would be:
But I'm open to suggestions. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Eh...if that is what you are worried about I think it may be overestimating the problem. I made some additional tweaks. Those along with the retouched banner at the top should avoid any speedy related deletion. Any DR would just be closed as kept. And barring all of that I've put it on my watchlist and I'm never really gone for that long without at least checking my watchlist so if it is tagged I can just decline it. Remerging a history split image really messes with the logs of a page. So much so that I'm really not sure it is worth it if the concern is just hypothetical future deletion tagging. --Majora (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: I've been watching some admin actions lately. And I'm severely disappointed with some of them. Quite a few actually. And no, you are not on the naughty list. But I doubt Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hadi Hajatmand at the Eighth Ammar Film Festival (01).jpg (also a valid file of which the source was deleted, for questionable reasons really) would have been kept without my intervention. Which wasn't exactly a freak accident, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amrollah Ahmadjoo at the Closing Ceremony of Eighth Ammar Film Folk Festival 01).jpg was initially even tagged speedy. With your tweaks though, it'll probably be fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Complaint

I felt obliged to ask for measures on your handling of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Westwood - Letter from Lord Farrer 1930.jpg, so I did: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Alexis_Jazz. Your attitude sucks. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC).

Luckily not nearly as much as yours. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, just to let you know, I deleted three of your subpages following this : Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal attack pages. To create such pages again would be badly perceived, disturbing toward the community as well as potentially towards all the users quoted in such pages. Please don't do this. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

And also avoid intervening in disagreements, when your goal is not to calm the game, please, e.g. [3] Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: please undelete the pages I merely created to hold admins (yes, plural) accountable for bad actions and apologize for your actions. I hadn't published the rating system yet, so I'll be slightly more forgiving, but deleting the page was the worst possible offense listed. However, also part of the rating is the option to redeem oneself by undoing a bad action, extra points for a credible apology. So you have a chance. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Please act, talk and edit with restrained. Note that I have absolutely nothing against collecting links of differences and / or links to specific pages which concern one or more users. However pages looking as campains against one of more editors, pages done in a more warlike than constructive spirit (just as a simple example, game scores for actions ?!?, lists of users that you do not like and which is "banned" from your pages) are not welcome in this project. Whatever your primary motivation, the result, these pages can be perceived as attack pages, and therefore can be speedy deleted. No I'm not going to undelete anything here.
Your are an experimented user of this project and I can not believe you are experimented if you do not like this project, so if you are having any difficulty or frustration now, which prevents you from contributing serenely then I'm sorry for that, really. But in no way I apologize for having deleting these pages. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
That's too bad really. That's a FTA. You haven't calmed down the situation either. You just poured gasoline on the fire. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Screenshot of CC Video

Hey Alexis Jazz, I just saw the screenshots you made of Fedor Holz. I haven't seen something like this before so I ask as a precaution: Am I allowed to upload screenshots of World Poker Tour asks players which country is the best.webm and Lynn Gilmartin Previews WPT Montreal at Playground Poker Club.webm to Commons if I give the same license as you gave in Fedor Holz WPT interview 2016 1.jpg? Greetings, M-B (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@M-B: absolutely, but I was already preparing a bunch of screenshots from File:Lynn Gilmartin Previews WPT Montreal at Playground Poker Club.webm. The problem I have is that I don't know who many of the people in the videos are. File:World Poker Tour asks players which country is the best.webm probably has more famous players in it, but I don't know their names. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I can help you with that. In World Poker Tour asks players which country is the best.webm I mentioned Tony Dunst at 0:23 and Dario Sammartino at 1:19. In Lynn Gilmartin Previews WPT Montreal at Playground Poker Club.webm the presenter Lynn Gilmartin at 0:09 is a poker player by herself and has articles in english and german wikipedia. The winner at 0:27 (the sitting man with the beard) is Ole Schemion. -- M-B (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@M-B: see Commons:Village pump#To all the poker players and the files I just uploaded. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Lasvegavegas.com images

Can I ask why you've tagged many of the images as being admin review needed? The source site (when it was up) was all clearly Creative Commons licensed. For instance, a look at the Wayback Machine page for File:Vivian LaVey at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2011 1.jpg found here clearly states at the bottom "All material © LasVegasVegas.com under the creative commons license", which was CC BY-SA 3.0. Tabercil (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tabercil: not admin review needed, license review needed. They should have been tagged when they were uploaded. Sadly only a handful were. And the longer we wait, the harder it gets to review any of these. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

PD-old-assumed

Hi, I have swapped this template on File:Theo_van_Gogh_1878.jpg as this was a named studio portrait. As such copyright is not calculated from a death date and the warning template is not helpful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: PD-old-70 is the wrong template. There is no death date.- Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
However the calculation is still 70 years, just from creation date. Not sure we have an alternate PD-old for this type of usage.
Would you care to take to VPC rather than reverting? --Fæ (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: {{PD-anon-70-EU}} may apply, but either PD-anon-70-EU should be made more clear or we need another template for this situation. PD-old-70 should not be used unless there is either a death date or it's simply impossible for the author not to have been dead for 70 years. Commons:Assuming worst case copyright had calculations for that. VPC, yes, I'm not sure if I asked the same thing before but sure. For now however, revert is the right answer. PD-old-assumed is correct (though likely not optimal), PD-old-70 isn't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexis_Jazz/Archives/2018/November&oldid=332766206"