User talk:Collard/Archive 6

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

I hate you

I am struggling to move french architects photographs to wikis accepting fair use buildings like en, fr. Think twice before mass deleting or propose an issue for the mass movings, hopefully found a Perl script by Eloquence to ease the task, he s a good admin. Greudin (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I love you too. I think you might misunderstand fair use if you think that such pictures should be mass moved, but whatever. You're free to temporarily undelete them when you need to, so don't be such a crybaby. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

French Architects

Hi Collard. Sorry, I think I made an error with one of the pictures in the request. I was just checking through them to see which ones could still be of use at German Wikipedia (where Schutzlandprinzip allows those pictures) when I noticed that one of the images had a source that showed different information than the image description. It's Image:Prouvé La Maison Tropicale.jpg. The image description says that the building was returned to France and restored, the source says that the building is currently exhibited next to Tate Gallery in London and that the image was made there. And since UK has a better FOP-law, I think, we could restore that image. What's your opinion? -- Cecil (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I've restored it (this is definitely in the UK, you can see St. Paul's Cathedral in the background ;)). I don't think that merely being designed by a French architect (or, for that matter, having taken a trip to France one time) is enough for it to be subjected to France's FOP laws. Good catch. :) <3 Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Croatian footballers' photos

Hi Collard


On this page you can the permission for using ALL the materials from the funds of Croatian football federation .it is in Croatian , but still clear.

So ,I really see no reasons for deleteing the following images

--Anto 07:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


There is a Google translate program. You can check the permission text there. --Anto 07:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Grateful for your support on my Flickr Review request.--Londoneye (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Most welcome. :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Attack Cake

The attack cake is NOT a lie. Enjoy. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
HAHAHA oh my God!! :D <3 <3 <3 <3 :D :D Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Command scanned picture

Hi Lewis!

Could I upload this picture to commons??

The explanation is on en.wiki. Is it sufficcient??

--Anto 08:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Can it be uploaded as "public domain" . It is the political document of self-proclaimed state that exists no more (RSK).

The copyright holder is that "country" which no longer exists.--Anto 08:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well. That country ( RSK ) has never been recognized as independent country. Neither by Serbia!

It was placed on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. Republic of Croatia was recognized as independent intertnationally in the 1992. 1995 that territory was officially Croatian and so that document should belong to Croatian government. --Anto 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Law in Croatia says that these kid of documents are not under copyright law protection . (ČLanak 8 )

See the English translation

--Anto 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

from Članak 8 .

(2) Nisu predmetom autorskog prava:

1. otkrića, službeni tekstovi iz područja zakonodavstva, uprave i sudstva (zakoni, uredbe, odluke, izvješća, zapisnici, sudske odluke, standardi i sl.) i druga službena djela, kao i njihove zbir­ke, koja su objavljena radi službenog informiranja javnosti,

2. dnevne novosti i druge vijesti koje imaju karakter običnih medijskih informacija. 

Translation:

(2)The issues not under copyright law:

1.discoveries, official texts from the field of judiciary, administration, legislation and law (laws, edicts, decisions, reports, written records, decisions of the court, standards 2.daily news and other news that have a character of ordinary media information.

--Anto (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


This is the copyright law accepted in october 1st 2003 (1.listopada 2003.)--Anto (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dejan Savićević photo

Hi

Also the photo of Dejan Savićević transferred from sr.wiki

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:1997-YUG_Savicevic.jpg

uploaded with the perminssion on sr.wiki.

--Anto (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


1997-YUG Savicevic.jpg

the same name as on the Serbian wikipedia --Anto (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked from wikimedia commons

I have been blocked for uploading uploading "unfree files" on commons. I assure you that those files were definitely free but had no copyright information associated with them. I did not understand that if this is the case by default they are considered to be copyrighted. I am only going to upload media which is entirely my own work or of which I have all necessary permissions.

--12.4.195.228 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

k. what's your username? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your satirical(?) comment at Commons:Deletion requests/National Portrait Gallery images (first set)

Hi, I do not think that this comment was in any way helpful as you implicitly suggest — this is my impression I got from your comment — that all those who voted for keeping these images had no points to be made and even more that they are ready to ignore law deliberately. The very only point you had yourself in this debate was this comment that attempts to belittle all those who were not immediately ready to delete these images. Why is it so hard to accept that there exist informed opinions that Wikimedia does not necessarily violate UK law by keeping these images? But independent from this, why do you deem it appropriate to raise additional tensions and to alienate further those who are already critical to some of the practices at Commons? (I do not know whether you got aware that some heated comments came from Wikisource admins who suffered multiple times from something that they attribute as "deletion mania" (see here for a recent case or look at this collection of images that have a warning that they must not be moved to Commons). Please accept that reasonable people with diverting opinions exist from time to time and please be mellow to them even if you openly disagree. Thanks for your time, AFBorchert (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to imply that even those people who have made arguments based on UK law (as few of them as there were that hadn't stated opinions that had already been refuted) were doing so because of a cavalier attitude to copyright. Those were not the people I was satirising.
As for alienating people, well, there's a case to be made for alienating certain people, in particular, those who either a) loudly and explicitly say that they don't care for our policies (those who want to adhere to them, are welcome here) b) think zerg rushing a deletion request with "Strong keep" is acceptable behaviour c) are Wikimedia higher-ups who are willing to change our policy on-the-fly regardless of whether that's coherent with the Commons mission ("free media repository", not "site hosting images that Wikimedia can get away with using" or "political activism organisation fighting to put material in the public domain").
I make no comment on the Wikisource incident. But that warning on the German wikipedia does not, as far as I can tell, have anything to do with people not liking Commons. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think I interpreted your message as being directed at those attitudes that you describe here, so at least to me, the meaning was clear. I do think that it was a useful comment in that it highlights the far-fetching and absurd implications of abandoning our core values for the sake of saving a few images of questionable freeness. As for the intensity of the argument, it's more than what I would have employed, but then I'd be more likely to shrug it off and move on to other projects if this one turns from free as in free speech to free as in we can get away with it, and I'm not sure that's a more helpful approach if I'm honest. Good on you for that passionate defense, I say. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Good and even justified satire can be both, enlightening but also alienating and tension raising. Even if I can understand that it is tempting to write such a contribution it can be unnecessary unfriendly to those who are targeted. My perspective is not just that from Commons but also from the community at the German wikipedia and my intention is simply to make you aware that this kind of satirical comment does not help to bridge the rifts between Commons and some of the other projects. Please note also that not all editors from the German wikipedia feel comfortable to write lengthy contributions in English if they think that all relevant points have already been made and just want to express that they support an opinion. There is no need to make them feel unwelcome here. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

zomg

No objections; though somewhat disappointed there was "LOL, unblocking to change duration". —Giggy 12:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image renaming

HI Lewis!

Image:Orebić port-cloudy.JPG

could you rename this image into

Image:Korčula port-canon.JPG

I made a mistake because there is not preview. --Anto (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put a {{Rename}} tag on it (don't try this yourself; it will only allow admins and a certain group of trusted users to do it). The bot will take care of it in a while. HTH. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Szczepan1990__and_mass_deletions

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, how you've said it could use work in places. en:WP:BITE and all that. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to the bottom comment here. WP:BITE does not apply here, because we're not talking about newbies. My comment was directed especially at User:Multichill, who has been here quite a while and really should know better. Perhaps that comment wasn't as mellow as it should have been. But try to understand where I come from: I think that if an admin spots what he/she thinks is an obvious copyright violation, then it doesn't matter one tiny bit who it upsets. It should be deleted, immediately. That is what Sczepan1990 did, rightly or wrongly (and there seemed to be very little discussion of whether they were derivative works or not, and far more complaining about deleting them without consensus and "out of process", blah blah blah). I feel that the mindset which says "we should be less willing to delete what we think are obvious copyright violations because it might upset people at other projects" deserves to be rejected as forcefully as we can muster. The law is what it is, and if this project is going to have any integrity at all the law must always take precedence.
tl;dr yes that might have been over the top, but maybe not quite so much if you see how serious I think the issue is. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, some people stay newbies for longer than others. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC) PS Have you seen Only say things that can be heard?
Not before just now. Interesting. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Heath Ledger in period movie.jpg

Hi, one question for cases like this one: It is accepted to propose such images for speedydeletion with {{copyvio|Reason: copyvio on flickr}} or so? Maybe i can name the film to substantiate the suspicion. Or is the normal deletion more appreciated on commons? Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

thx for your answer. --Martin H. (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rocketbot is a pretty cool guy.jpg

LOL! DRBot srsly needs to stay on top of his game. No, actually it was me f'ing around with the {{delh}} template, creating a new CSS class, and then not telling anyone... :D Good thing we got bots to fix mistakes other bots make and vice-versa. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

:D <3 Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Holy moly Rocket, you didn't know about this image until now??? —Giggy 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes these things get by me... :) Rocket000 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

:D

:D :D :D. Brynn (talk!) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How would you react if I actually struck your vote as COI? —Giggy 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
An hero? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I saved you the effort and struck it myself. :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently epic confused and am considering becoming an hero if it will result in an explanation. —Giggy 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
See also below. (considering letting Giggy be the hero if it will result in an explanation) ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Image-New Names Canadian WW1 recruiting poster.jpg

Hello Lewis. I think you forgot to delete the image after closing the nomination. --Kimse (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry! Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No problemo! --Kimse (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL wut?

Oh HAI... So, wtf? What exactly WAS your COI? There's nothing wrong with supporting your sister, you know. K thx BAI. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

mostly irrelevant now, since she has withdrawn... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I still want to, for some demented reason, know... I feel like I'm not in on some joke. I hate that. Don't make me hate you... ++Lar: t/c 05:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes Lar, this is all a joke, just to screw with you. ^_^ --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You asked ...

Hi at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:080040 - 015 Sen Kim Carr 24 Jan 08.jpg, you asked Would you care to provide us with excerpts from such discussions? - and since you asked ...

First some background - reported in the Australian news that politicians have been altering their wikientries [1] and [2]. Specifically mentioned was one Kim Carr : On Tuesday the page for the Innovation Minister, Kim Carr, was changed to remove slabs of personal details and a paragraph saying he had been criticised for branch-stacking.. His staffer had signed on as w:User:Feadering and the talk page of the article has the first notification from Feadering:

Purging: The previous material was contentious and poorly sourced, the current bio is from the ministers official website. Please do not revert to the previous bioFeadering (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Accompanied by the rewrite according to the officially sanctioned biography ( Full article history ) . Feadering then proceeded to replace the photo - the previous image was taken by a wikipedian who was subject to an arbcom case and no longer edits here (or not identifably so) and is ... aagh the politics are complicated but lets say that the taker of the photo is not necessarily a friend to Kim Carr politically (this person is mixed up with the photo taker and also of early publication of the parliamentary wikipedia editing shenanigans [3] ).

Anyway Feadering then proceeded to upload a "better" (more flattering) photo ... [4] . As he was advised by User:OrderinChaos [5] he sought to release it under Creative Commons.


So - uploader's comments to me

  • Kim Carr owns the photo, he was not the photographer but all rights were relinquished to Kim Carr as the owner. The photographer does not need to be attributed. [6]
  • G'day I have just read the copyright disclaimer at the bottom of the referenced image. Turns out that there was no need for a creative commons license after all as the copyright disclaimer releases it for public reproduction. see below. The material contained on this website constitutes Commonwealth copyright and is intended for your general use and information. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice, and any headers and footers) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. You may distribute any copies of downloaded material in unaltered, complete form only (retaining this notice, and any headers and footers). Apart from permitted uses under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.
    As the website is referenced i see no problem with copyright.    [7]
  • In legal speak the minister is the commonwealth of australia and he is able to release the photo.[8]
  • The constitution can be found at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/sh/homepage if you are interested [9]
  • Advises User:Brunn here on Commons The only reason why the photo res is different on the source cited is beause the full photo didn't fit on the ministerial website. The photo is free for public use, it is distributed with the Ministers press releases.[ [10]

My comments + those of Timeshift can be seen at w:User talk:Feadering#Photo

In addition to the comments, it needs to be read in the context of the uploader's actions on Commons and other editors in relation to the image licensing:

So - where am I coming from ... I dislike the actions of the ministerial staffers to manipulate wikipedia. I quite seriously and genuinely believe that User:Feadering is incompetent when it comes to permissions and restrictions concerning text or image. I think also he was responsible for the upload on the minister's website and that that upload was incompetent as per the authorship on that site claimed by Kim Carr when Feadering admitted elsewhere that Carr did not take the picture and someone (User:Feadering?) finally corrected the ministerial website to acknowledge Auspic.

Note that on Wikipedia w:Template:Non-free AUSPIC tags images by AUSPIC with Non-free image copyright. A Sydney Morning Herald article from 2003 talks about Auspic and image release in a different context

If he'd [PM at the time Howard] had his way, Australians would not have seen either Brown or Nettle rise in their places to address the president, either in a photo or on film. In one of many firsts of this occasion, he banned press photographers from the gallery reserved for the media. He decreed that the government's official photographers, Auspic, would take that position, behind Bush, looking out to Brown and Nettle. The arrangement was that Auspic would supply pictures to all media. The government later banned Auspic from distributing their pictures to anyone.

The way I see it we have been manipulated by Government ministers and there are several wikipedians who are pleased about and complicit in this:

  • User:Sarah I've raised this image with the APH Parlimentary Librarian. She's indicated to me, in an unrelated discussion, that the Senators and MPs ask for, and get, consent to license their own material (their own parliamentary bios and images) for whatever purpose they want, so it sounds like Sen Carr can license the image this way if he wants. My only concern is that they understand that this means licensing it for use for any purpose by anyone because we don't do "only on Wikipedia" licensing and can't control downstream use. I'm just waiting for her to get back to me but I hope it isn't deleted in the meanwhile because some of us are trying to find constructive ways to work with the Australian politicians. [16]
  • User:OrderinChaos: While there might have been a copyright issue without the formal release on innovation.gov.au, the circumstances in which it has been disseminated clearly makes it a CC free use image and our volunteers are grateful to the Minister's office for doing this (it's a win-win really, as it means he gets a decent photo on his article instead of a paparazzi job.)[17]
  • User:Timeshift's enthusiasm on the deletion debate speaks for itself

User:Timeshift has questioned my motives [18] In relation to comments I made on his talk page - specifically presumably We don't need the photo - we have an excellent photo of Mr Carr as it is :-) [19] which referred to this picture Image:SenatorKimCarr.jpg - ie a freely licensed image of the subject. Well before he had made that comment, I had raised with User:Feadering the issue of the unflattering image and tried to clarify the matter.[20] I am disappointed that Timeshift fails to assume good faith. But I note he isn't the only one at present.

So - you asked ... sorry to rant at you but yes I was here because of the manipulation of the article and image by a politican's staffer. The colour of the politics doesn't matter to me. Integrity of wikipedia (and commons) does and others seem to be very willing to overlook issues with the licensing to get a "win-win" outcome. If Feadering had uploaded the image with the correct license in the first place both here and on the minister's website I would not have queried it and wasted my time and energy or anybody else's. He didn't - hence the saga. --Matilda (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Setting up auto-archiving

Did you make a mistake on this edit? Or are you intentionally archiving Brynn’s talk page to subpages of your talk page? —teb728 t c 07:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion requests/Image:Knol on Wikipedia.JPG

Was it "fair use"? I don't know. I would have appreciated an explanation as to possibilities for a licence, rather than a blunt deletion without so much as a notification on my talk page. Is there or is there not a way to re-upload the image under a correct licence? Thank you in advance. Aridd (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I understand now. Aridd (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award you the Commons Barnstar for your great work in deleting copyvios. Well Done! Anonymous101 talk 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yay! :D <3<3<3 Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Perugia_omofobia.jpg

is used on voice Forza Nuova [New Force (Italy)] is an Italian far right political party, often described as neo-fascist, to repeat the insult--Capitano007 (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you so much for the nomination--it passed! :D rootology (T) 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Liso_wiki.png#Image:Liso_wiki.png

Could u see one more time there? Image is not used now... --Liso (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

done. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanx! :) Have a nice day! :) --Liso (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

images with ©

Hello Collard, I´ve got a question, can you delete this three images, because all have copyright: Image:Pervinca, Vaniglia, Grisam e Flox.jpg Image:Fairy oak2 incanto del buio.jpg Image:Cubierta 3.jpg

Thanks, MiniEnE (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!! MiniEnE (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My Drawing process

Hello. I think that I will let you understand my drawing method with a picture. I will think that you understand, if you look at these pictures.--El torero (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(images omitted, see here)

Commons Scope - Pdf and Djvu files

I have added some text dealing with these based on the discussion on the talk page. Users are by no means unanimous about which files should be allowed, and I have tried to follow the majority opinion. Thus, the suggestion is that if a Pdf or Djvu file is educationally useful even to a single other Wiki it should be kept. Would you like to comment before this page goes live? Please do so at the bottom of the talk page. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Flower

Looks to me that Image:Daisy-looking flower.jpeg could be an w:Gazania. Just a quick search on google came up with these (Gazania Daybreak White), (Gazania-Talent-'White'), (Gazania-Kiss-'White'). Bidgee (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it definitely looks like one. Thanks for the tip! :D Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugly PooPoo

It is actually very ugly of me to take away from you and your new toy. Ugly like PooPoo and I am sorry about that.

Try to get photographs of the weeds before someone pulls them up! It is interesting, predictable and kind of sad here how there are more photographs of rare flowers of some species than there are of common weeds that might be considered to be pests. My experience with this is with Category:Malva sylvestris and Category:Malva neglecta there were two photographs of neglecta and so many of the sylvestris. The sylvestris is cultivated and invited into gardens while neglecta is removed. An introduced plant here in sunny CA, the photographs I took I think are of a very beautiful flower and the plant was nice also. That poor plant grew very close to the porch door and every time that opened got roughly opened over and was still a very beautiful perky little plant until its natural life was completed.

My most interesting relationship in CA so far was the one I had with Category:Senecio vulgaris here that started to grow right after Christmas here. It had pretty much lived its life fully and was on its way out when the rains beat it to the cement and the frost killed it while it was down. I should upload those dead now photos. The species can have three different generations per season, so, that tragic end was really at the end, but still, I get a little misty eyed when I think about its horrible death.

And no! No photographs of dandelions! Promise! -- carol (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is your first digi-cam!! Wow, have a ball! UglyPooPoo is what you will have in a few years, I think, when you start to know that you are better than your camera. You should probably really start to enjoy GIMP more now -- I know I did. Pixels of my choice to feed that hungry app! Have you experience with cutting images out of larger images yet? I started pasting sandwiches to foreheads and oh, extra fingers onto hands and well, there is more you can do with that than there is time remaining in this new century. -- carol (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be my first, though I've occasionally borrowed a tiny point and shoot when I've not wanted to wait till I wasn't too broke to get film developed.
What will be nice with the GIMP will be able to use it for enjoyment, rather than because I have to remove dust, correct scanner hazing+white balance idiocy, boost the saturation, get the levels right, and so on, with every damned film photo.
About the weeds: there is (at least when the rain eases up; apparently it's an even worse thing to get water in a digital camera than it is into a 35mm) very little in a ten-mile radius which won't be photographed in the next few months. :) Being able to throw away shots feels like a huge luxury to me, and I intend to make the best of it. That is seriously a huge thing to me, that I don't worry about where the money's going to come from to get a film developed (and the inevitable disappointment days or weeks down the line when none of them turned out right anyway), and so have to take it easy and maybe miss some beautiful shots (the butterfly one, which I'm especially proud of, would never have happened if I had my 35mm with me). Life just got a little bit better. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Flowers :)

SBJ is my user of choice for such identification! And have fun :) --Herby talk thyme 07:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/"Drawings" by El torero

You've withdrawn this deletion request. I don't quite understand why. It doesn't matter whether he draws these images from scratch, or just applies Photoshop transformations. In either case, his drawings are derivative works of the original photographs. He must disclose which photos were used as a base, and then demonstrate either that the licenses of these photos allow derivative works to be published under a free license, or that he has the permissions of the copyright owner of the photos to publish his derivative drawings. Otherwise, his publishing these drawings are just copyright violations. Would you consider withdrawing your withdrawing the deletion request? :-) Lupo 07:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

From what he posted on my talk page, it does look like he's capable of doing them from scratch (see link above). I'm not so happy anymore assuming that he did, in fact, draw from a photograph. If you want it re-opened, then go for it. But the evidence is not as compelling as I thought it was. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Images by El torero already one open Lupo, was no need to re-open that one. I made this one on another link so it wouldn't get so big (size) on the other DR. --Kanonkas(talk) 09:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Didn't notice this one. Anyway, already reopened. Lupo 09:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

PD inquiry and something else

Dear Sir/Admin, Can you clarify what exactly is public domain? If I visit my University in Vancouver, Canada and take photos from several books that were published in the 1920's, could I release them under the pd tag onto Commons? If the answer is yes, would you suggest I record the title of the book, its author and the publication date? As an Aside, what happens if I place a photo on Commons and then a web site (in future) copies it for a promotional page because all Commons images are free. Will someone in the future accuse me of a copyright violation because a viewer saw it on promotional web site X,Y or Z? I ask this question because there are so many mirror sites of Wikipedia and many of them merely copy texts from Wikipedia and images from WikiCommons. Thank You --Leoboudv (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Flickr images

Dear Sir, If a Flickr image has a CC BY SA 2.0 copyright and also a Non-commercial use tag, can it be uploaded on Commons? I was just looking at the flickr license of this image which is of historical importance--a royal pyramid in Nubia (Sudan) Image:Sudan Meroe Pyramids 30sep2005 7.jpg

  • PS: It is unfortunate that many images of historically important objects on flickr have the 'cc' tag since they can't be used placed on Commons. I've tried contacting the uploaders to change the license to CC BY SA 2.0 but haven't received any responses. I wonder if you have any other suggestions for getting copyrighted images onto Commons. Cheers from Canada (where we still have not won any Olympic medals unlike Australia!) --Leoboudv (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope. All images on Commons must be free for commercial use. The best you can do is hope for a response from the Flickr user. (Although that image *was* under a acceptable license; Slomox reviewed it as such.) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Is this image legit? It shows a web site as its source: Image:Sacrifice.gif Strange, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Deleted as a copyright violation. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a test

How are ya? ;> This is just a test. xenocidic (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just like new. :) Nice to see you again. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
heh, you too. that test was just to see if commons was having the same problem as the 'pedia. i.e. Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 13164 seconds might not be shown in this list. LOL ! –xenocidic (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh. :D Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

hey there :D

I know I'll forget to ask you this if I wait until tomorrow, so, will you have a look at this photo and the links provided by the uploader, plox? I'd originally tagged it as a copyvio as it's published on flickr under an all rights reserved license, but since then the uploader has added more links to a permission message he received from the copyright owner. I'm not sure one way or another if what the copyright owner agreed to is broad enough to satisfy Commons' requirements. Kthx! :D ilulcc Brynn (talk!) 03:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would advise the flickr user/uploader/whoever to leave the comments made in Flickrmail publically (as comments on the image page) so they can be verified by everyone. Better yet, change the license on the Flickr page.</Collard> —Giggy 04:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What he said. ILUEBL :D Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC copyrighted image

Dear Collard, This image Image:Psametih III.jpg by Crucifixion is actually copied from this BBC link I believe the BBC takes copyright violations seriously. I remember seeing this BBC story one or two years ago so Crucifixion must have copied it from this site before he uploaded it onto Commons in January. Some of his pictures seem legit but some are copyrighted. I hope this helps. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Dear Collard, This image Image:ThutmoseI.jpg is tagged pd-art but no source or photographer is specified. Actually it was copied from this site http://images.suite101.com/390585_com_thutmosei.jpg which is banned by your web filters. Before you delete it, do you think you could tell me if it is a 2 dimensional form of art..as I think it is. Thank You --Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty 2D to me. But I'm not totally sure; if you think there might be an issue you may want to nominate it for deletion. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy

You made admin ten days after trying to get a one-of-a-kind, valuble educational image deleted on the non-existent grounds of "Jesus Christ, what the fuck", the only person to vote delete except for a porn spammer. [21] I find that nearly outrageous. -- 71.87.52.158 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Go be outraged about it, then. Let me know when you get a life. *blows kisses* Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You think it's funny that someone's concerned about an admin acting based on his personal feelings that are blatantly counter to consensus and the guidelines? You don't think it's a serious issue when an admin acts that way, and then reacts this way? That's more evidence that you're utterly unsuited for the job. -- 71.87.52.158 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's funny; I think you're retarded. Get out of my face, ankle-biter. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No thank you. I'll do this instead. [22] -- 71.87.52.158 02:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
K. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

JCWTF

I have to say that what's going on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Collard_is_a_very_badly-behaved_admin is a load of old bollocks. I wouldn't take it seriously - but at the same time - I wouldn't respond either: I sense the presence of someone green skinned who would normally be living under a bridge seeking "Moar drama". Save the kitties, Keizer Soze! Ceiling cat. etc. Megapixie (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I made a response and thought it was nonsense, too. Anyway, Mr. Collard, is there a reason why a Flickr bot would place this Beijing Olympic games image under the category of 'needing human atttention.' The image license seems right: Image:CyclingTeamPursuitBeijing2008.jpg It looks like a great picture. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for cleaning up that flickrbot glitch. That was a beautiful timeless image of the Olympics--the kind Commons needs. Not more 'porn', that's for sure! Keep up the good work on Commons, With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear Mr. Collard. Are images which failed flickr still kept on Commons indefinitely?. I found this Assyrian image here which failed flickr review in December 2006 but is still available: Image:LA County Museum CA1.jpg I wonder what are Commons policies here. Strange: according to this, Commons has a large cache of images which failed Flickreview like LA County Museum and yet are still on file. I don't understand Common's policies. I had thought all images which failed flickr review would be deleted after a grace period of 1 or 2 weeks. But then what do I know. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Leoboudv I don't speak for Collard, but I did find your observation to be interesting and write here about it. Especially the new admin here (probably not Collard but others) read some of the scope things and do know how to paste C:THINGS not unlike en.wikipedia admin do but do not seem to actually accomplish anything with the exception of accusing other admin and voting on things and requesting that things they do not understand be removed from community view. This is not all of the admin, but if all of the admin who were having a problem with Collard or who have learned how to paste COM:THINGS here would actually spend some time doing the things that admin are supposed to do, like clean out those old Flickr problem files, observers like me would not have opinions like this. Oh and also, just for the record, any new admin who can type COM:THINGS can politely Kiss My Sweet White ASS! -- carol (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Leo: some of them that fail review were uploaded by a bot (the FlickrLickr system), and so some of those are kept, but otherwise, they're deleted (looks like someone else got to it before me. Carol: "violates NPOV OR RS and V" is like having a cheese grater applied right to my nerves, and I really don't like seeing that meme creeping into Commons. I don't suppose it'll get any better now that we have SUL, so whatever. :\ Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

question for a dodgy admin

Three on a tree? No power steering? Is that a what a dodgy admin is? We need more of those!!

I have a question for you. A serious question for you. I requested a rewrite from the decent people here. The statement was something like "Did you kiss someones ass for that?" and the rewrite (that I requested nicely, btw) was this:

I copied your last two comments from my talk page and place them above to keep the discussion together. Please review, and take to heart, W:WP:CIVIL. Incivility is a barrier to effective communication. Commons:Talk page guidelines, especially its advice to be concise and to make others feel welcome (even longtime participants; even those you dislike), may be helpful to you as well. I don't think I can be more clear than those pages which are the work of many editors and represent that consensus of the community on these matters. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And it must be the rewrite since I asked for it very civily. Does it have the same meaning to you? -- carol (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Carol, is that there is no nice way to say "did you kiss someone's ass for that?" It is not the wording, it is the sentiment behind it. It is saying "there is no way he could have placed that support vote because he thinks it deserved a support vote". There's no way you can reword that in a friendly way. With that said, if you had said something like this to me I would have shrugged it off, and wouldn't have demanded an apology on your talk page or whatever. So, *shrugdances*. Tempest, teapot, etc. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Request

wrong proportion
right proportion

Hi Collard. On 2008-08-02 you decided to keep the picture Image:Gedenktafel Bonner Str 2 Helene Jacobs.jpg. Maybe I didn't make claer what's the problem with this pic. The real plaque isn't quadratically, it is a rectangle. I think the uploader made a mistake when he was resizing the picture and the right proportions got lost. Maybe you can reconsider your decision. Sorry for my bad english, greetings --axel (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, what is it with people digging up old DRs? Okay, the other one is distorted, but it doesn't have a huge bit of tree in the way. If it troubles you, re-nominate it, but I don't care enough to delete it. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a message

Hello! I think that someone left a message to you about the comment you did on my vote page. So, if you want, you can take a look at it and don't to forget to stay Mellow.--Sdrtirs (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't respond to that. I was caught flat-footed by Marcus' irrefutable Internets psychology assessment. I intended my comment as a kind of shorthand for "your attitude sucks and doesn't belong here" (inb4 calling me a hypocrite). But Marcus got to the true reason I said it: I wanted to make myself feel better. My e-penis was ripping a hole in my trousers last night because informing someone that they have an attitude problem brings me more happiness than anything else in the world.
Seriously, though. If he wants a response he will need to say something worth responding to. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Image:Copyright_paranoia_is_awesome.svg

Image deletion warning Image:Copyright_paranoia_is_awesome.svg 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 image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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 ∙ +/−

-Nard the Bard 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-shape}}?

Hello,

I've been wondering, why did you reverted this change on Image:Roche.gif? Whatever the license chosen by the author, I think these PD templates override the author's choice. Otherwise, Yarl could claim copyright on Image:Microsoft wordmark.svg if he wanted to…

Thanks in advance for your reply. Howdy! Diti (talk to the penguin) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it was drama reduction. It was a stupid thing to edit war about, so we left it with the CC license. It was protected for that reason. Cheers, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hum. We don't override international copyright laws just because of an edit war. You should read 2nd articles of both the Berne's Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (there is a reason for why those templates do exist). Cheers. Howdy! Diti (talk to the penguin) 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
What do copyright laws have to do with anything? I'm fully aware of what copyright law says. We aren't "overriding" it here; we're humouring his claim in order to avoid drama. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag

Could you look at this proposal and comment please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

van Gogh Cleanup Project '08

Hi Lewis, you'd be more than welcome to give feedback on Category talk:Vincent van Gogh to my ideas on thisone, and to promote it among competent people. Most of it is technical "how-to", about sub-categories, filenames etc. -- therefore no absolute need to be an expert in art. Thanks, --W. (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

hi,from Paul Miller in Kings Lynn ,the unknown class 03 loco is D2182 at Leamington Spa,Park.

Where are you?

The title says it all. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Besoin de soutient contre suppression de photos abusives.

Bonjour JCollard,

J'ai besoin d'aide, une personne veux supprimer mes photos pour des raisons de droits qui me paraissent abusifs. Voua avez apprécié mes photos, pouvez vous me soutenir contre cette suppression? C'est ici: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Fire_breathing_2_Luc_Viatour.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Fire_breathing_3_Luc_Viatour.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Fire_breathing_1_Luc_Viatour.jpg --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're such an unbelievable asshole...

Really... the load of shit you have stacked trough the stuff you did here (I had to look at it for the last 30 minutes) is even outsmelling Bono (if you have seen the south park episode).

You need many years of therapy... many, many years of therapy...

Hokay. 1) What are you referring to? 2) Who pissed in your cornflakes? Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Keith Moon

You rejected my upload of Keith Moon. If you saw the photostream of Jean-Luc Ourlin on Flickr, you'd see that the photos are his, indeed. I haave been uploading a few of his photos without incident. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then, sorry about that. Way to complain about a deletion I did ten months ago, anyway. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know to whom to complain or comment. I've had a bunch of problems primarily with Jean-Luc's photos, of which I email and request each time. Sometimes it says the photo wasn't uploaded right, (to Flickr, I guess?) and so nothing happens as far as any photo upload. He is much older than his photos from the 1960s-1980s and since he has glaucoma, is willing to donate the photos perhaps as his legacy. What should I do when an Admin stops me from an honest upload, SA-BY-CC, or even BY CC, before it's completed? Also to whom can I mention some attempts at uploads that are duplicates? I've been editing the english Wikipedia for a couple of years for long hours daily, but this area is still a mystery to me. In particular, I tried to upload many copies of the same Emerson, Lake, & Palmer photos. Embarrassing, but what to do? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Win

Hello. You're welcome!
Yes, this scan gave a lot of work and I'm glad to know you liked my post-processing. Not perfect of course, but better at least. I thought it was a pity to see this image in that bad shape after so much time and as it is used through several WPs, something had to be made!
Greetings. Sting (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collard/Archive_6&oldid=372583002"