This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have grantedautopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry17:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Your signature
Hi, I'm concerned that your signature is inappropriate. Primarily, it's too long (at 275 characters and 10 times the length of, say, the section resolved template) and there's the issue of linking to a proposed project on Meta, the link could be broken and it may be necessary for you to alter your signature to reflect that, which isn't a brilliant idea given the way signatures should be permanent and unchanged. It's probably not the best thing to include in your signature given the temporary nature of the proposal and the way it will eventually make all of your signatures out of date, and there's a potential issue with canvassing of your proposal every time you sign a page, as we have seen at COM:AN recently. Nick (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Nick: Thank you for the message. I couldn't see anything at Commons:Signatures that prohibited the particular style I chose. I can see how it could be interpreted as canvassing but to be honest you're the first person on any wiki that has raised any issues with the signature. However, I'm a firm believer in being civil to others so I've changed it back to a plain signature because you've asked so politely. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons and copyright violations
You've added a few messages to my talk page about copyright violations. These photos are my own work. They might appear to be copyright violations because they also appear on our personal website:
but if you look on the home page on that website, you will see the owners of that site are my husband and myself and I self-identify there as a Wikipedia contributor (my user name is my real name). I am planning to upload a number of church and cemetery photos that are on our website onto Commons for use in articles about Queensland towns. How can I avoid this copyright issue arising on each file? Thanks. Kerry Raymond (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Please don't be offended, because we have to make sure that Commons remains free of copyright images. I removed the copyvio messages when I saw that the website said "Kerry Raymond". Basically, all we need is some sort of confirmation that the images are released under a free license. You can do one of two things:
On your website, put a clear message saying something like "Images released under [insert free license of your choice]" with any licence from COM:CAL#Common free licenses.
You could use the OTRS system by sending an email from your website to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, using the format at COM:ET. Usually OTRS are backlogged so it might take over a week, but on confirming your permission for Commons to host the files, they would issue you a ticket(s) which would be placed on the file pages. Note that your email would need to be clear about whether you are licensing one or many photos.
I cannot change the licensing on our website as a whole (I'll skip the long story as to why). But can I send a single email saying that anything *I* upload is OK if it also appears on our website. Clearly I don't want to have to send an email on every single uploaded file. We have hundreds of photos of churches, cemeteries and war memorials, which could be included in articles. Also we just did a driving holiday where we took a couple of hundred photos specifically intended for Wikipedia articles, but these too will shortly appear on our website in our holiday photos collection. While I won't be uploading all of these photos today (will probably happen in drib and drabs over the next several months), I need a solution that works over time and over a large number of photos. Thanks Kerry Raymond (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
My past experience of trying to email anyone on OTRS is that I either don't get an answer or I don't understand the answer because it is full of jargon, hence why I am seeking a clearer answer. Kerry Raymond (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: , then I think the best solution is to have a two-way link:
On your website, expand that note that says your name to mention your Wikimedia user name and include a direct link to your userpage.
Create your userpage and put a clear note identifying your Wikimedia account with your website.
As a final safeguard, I'd highly recommend adding a direct web link in the source parameter of the file pages for each photo that also appears on your website. With this in place you'll basically confirm that you are who you say are. Green Giant (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I think I have that in place now. But, and I realise this is a larger discussion than you and me, I can't be the only person in this situation (having a personal website or using a service like Flickr in a similar way). Would it make sense to propose some kind of whitelist database, associating a username with a personal website and/or service account to which they have a one-off demonstration of their relationship? If so, where would I propose it? (I am an en.WP person who does occasional photos to support articles I am working on, so I don't know much of the processes here on Commons). Kerry Raymond (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: I'm a Wikipedian by origins too. The best place to propose such things would be Commons:Village pump/Proposals, but bear in mind that Commoners would probably point at OTRS and say that it serves much the same function. You're right about not being the only one in the same situation. Just a couple of months ago, Daniel Maidman (a notable artist in his own right) tried to upload some images from his own website and eventually succeeded but only after emailing OTRS. There are some very hard-working people here who are just overwhelmed by the sheer number of unacceptable images being uploaded. I didn't believe it myself until I saw the Deletion log; just last month I counted at least 15,000 files deleted in one week for one reason or another.
Personally I think there is a wider problem across the Wikimedia community, where new users are often struggling. The impression I've gained from related projects like Wikiquotes and Wikiversity is that new users face the bewildering task of trying to work out what they can and cannot do, where to ask for help, and sometimes a blasé response when a new user makes the mistake of mixing up two projects like Wikipedia and Commons. Until fairly recently we had to create separate accounts on each Wikimedia project and this has encouraged a sense of "them and us", when looking at fellow users who may have started on other projects. It has changed a little with the single login system but what bothers me is that each of us potentially has 700+ user accounts, one on each of the hundreds of separate wikis. So far I've visted 357 seperate ones because I'm a curious person.
Leaving aside the question of different languages, there are numerous Wikimedia projects that an English-speaker might be interested in such as Wikipedia, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikiquotes, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikivoyage, Wikispecies, Wiktionary and a whole menagerie of "backstage" ones like Meta, Wikitech, Tools, Wikistats, Wikimania etc. It doesn't make sense to have so many red linked userpages, when most people will be happy with just one. Wouldn't it be easier to have just one talkpage, one watchlist, one contributions list etc? Sure if you wanted more than one userpage, there is nothing stopping you from having a separate subpage for each project. Feel free to click on any of the tabs at the top of my talkpage and see how empty and bare some of the other talkpages are. It's because many of the other projects don't have the same user infrastructure available.
Earlier this year I proposed a UserWiki, which would basically bring all the user accounts into one place while leaving the actual projects separate. It is still in proposal stage and slowly gaining support but I think it has been boosted by a message from yesterday, which confirmed that many of these things are being worked on by developers separately. The only problem is that I don't like canvassing and so far it has been people who looked at my Wikipedia page and then went to the proposal page.
Ultimately my aim is that UserWiki would be like a "reception area" with a "customer service desk" for all users, so that when a new user creates an account, they would start at UserWiki and have a comprehensive help system to support them, covering subjects like uploading files, how to use citations, what exactly Wikisource is about etc. Somebody did ask whether this could be done at Meta-Wiki but that is really just a coordination wiki and tends to be quite formal and technical. What users (old and new) need is a "single point of contact" when they are starting in projects like these, somewhere they can ask questions and find answers about anything to do with any Wikimedia project. Instead of scratching their heads and wondering "whats the difference between uploading to Wikipedia and uploading to Commons?" and then getting potentially terse replies at the separate help desks, they could just ask at UserWiki. So many times I've seen the response "Commons is not Wikipedia" that they have a special section of the NOT page dedicated to this issue. It is not really helpful though because it seems like a user is asking something and the respondent has out up a hand to shush them and then pointed at a sign, as if it is explanation enough. Green Giant (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, you have my vote on the common User Wiki concept. I think it should be the default and allow people to create separate per-project User and User Talk pages only if they need them (use of different languages being the most likely scenario I can think of). Kerry Raymond (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Green Giant, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:
Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Hi Green Giant, I recently requested a file move for an image file with an extraordinary long name and offered an alternative. You went ahead and made a file move, but on retrospect, the name you substituted is still quite long and is a complete sentence that attempts to actually describe the event, which is what prompted me to request a file move in the first place. Since the file has a complete account of the event in its description field, I was hoping that you would reconsider using a shorter version for the file name. If not the name I provided, one that you might come up with. In any case, thanks for your time and effort. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation at the delete request, it helped me to see your point of view. I agree with you that some people just try to make an excuse to show their "ego" rather than contributing to be examples of topics. I took the skin problem image a bit more serious because I have my mother with skin problems that affects all her body (head to toes) and I would like to Commons have some examples to show that, also to make people aware how big can be some problems. The fact I made notice to your argument being exactly the same, and I understand your point that some cases are really very similar, is because some people don't look deeply into the deletion request, making prejudice comments. I had my doubts about your argument, which were just doubts and not statements (as in facto), and I'm sorry if they looked like statements. About the file history, I have seen administrators deleting some images from there, so we could ask someone to do that because I agree with you there is no infected area in the groin, that's why I cropped it. Another solution is uploading the cropped file as another name. The reasons are the mentioned above. Once again, thank you for your explanation! Regards, Btmpnr01 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Btmpnr01, thanks for the message but no need for apologies because you spoke your mind and I have a thicker skin than most people (or maybe it is just subcutaneous fat). Anyway I can take heavy doses of criticism without flinching. I'm sorry to hear about your mum and I hope she is able to overcome such problems. I have a close friend who suffers from psoriasis and so I understand the effect it has on daily life. I would agree about uploading the cropped file but the problem will be that the original was deleted as a courtesy and even the cropped version is still copyright to the original uploader. Obviously if he was to upload a cropped version or give explicit permission for someone else to upload it then there would be no problem. Green Giant (talk)13:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Cleaning and Mopping
This Barnstar is awarded to Green Giant who performed a tedious, but needed task by sourcing over nine thousand images from an ancient encylopedia (and making it look easy). You Rock!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Well initially I thought he might be camouflaged or something, being a soldier and all that. You've got to bear in mind that the image was from an Imperial museum no less, so they must be right. :) Green Giant (talk)05:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I scanned the picture for a soldier as well. I haven't thought the the picture is the soldier. I wonder how he'll clean a latrine, hope he won't dissolve. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)01:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Clan Campbell of Breadalbane.jpg and the former Breadalbane.jpg
Hello, Green Giant! I notice you tagged File:Clan Campbell of Breadalbane.jpg as a “scaled down” duplicate, but if you look closely you can see it comes from a different engraving or version of the portrait. Ellin Beltz notes a couple of points of difference among the reproductions we have. Now this particular image is low enough in resolution that its value is limited, so I wouldn‘t object to its deletion; I just wanted to register my opinion that “exact duplicate” is misleading. I wouldn’t even call a low-resolution image known to be downsampled from a given original an exact duplicate.
Anyway, thanks for fixing the licence on File:Breadalbane.jpg. In general I’m uneasy with the substitution of a different image instead of uploading afresh but, considering that in this case the original description was wrong (not a mezzotint AFAICT, but a lithographic halftone), on top of the attribution problems, what value it might have had for historical comparison was minimal.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Young dancers, Pirin, Bulgaria, June 2006.jpg
Thank you for your response; the problem is that the picture has already been used in different wikipedia articles as a representation of bulgarian traditional costumes. The misleading title must have been the reason for this. I am not an expert, but they look turkish to me, or possibly pomak (these are both minorities in Bulgaria). --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe we need to investigate this further. I will ask at WikiProject Bulgaria and WP:Dance. Could you tell me which articles had this image? Green Giant (talk)21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I already replaced it by this one, which undoubtedly represents traditional Bulgarian costumes; as one can see, there are some obvious differences. The photo was used in the English article about Bulgaria in the section demographics. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Green Giant, We met recently when I requested a filename move for this image, (among one or two others) which you granted. I just uploaded a photo of the "Blue Giant of the Orient", which is the largest sapphire in the world. The photo can be found in numerous places about the internet, esp on Jeweler's web pages and blogs, and so I believe it is in the public domain. (Do a Google for "blue giant sapphire".) I believe it is a trivial work, never copyrighted, as it is a photo of a world famous object that was once put up for public auction in a famous auction house (Christie's Auction House, in Geneva Switzerland). Would you give the image a check, per licensing info, etc, because I want to use the photo in an article I am creating and hope to submit it for a DYK nomination. Any and all help and feedback here would be greatly appreciated. (I have also posted this message on Ebraminio's talk page.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Google suggests the image was originally posted on 13 October 2003, on three separate websites. I can't see any obvious links between the three, so I think it is safe to assume that the image is actually older than that date. However, there is also a quandary because the gem itself appears to have been hidden from public view for almost a century, emerging on an auction list between 12-19 May 2004 when it changed hands from one anonymous owner to another anonymous owner. So, the question is where did this image come from if it was taken before the public appearance.
Thus it is highly unlikely that a Wikimedian could reasonably take a free photograph of this gem because in the ten years since its appearance it is still not known who owns it now. The auctioneer is very unlikely to reveal this information unless you've got a spare couple of million dollars and express an interest in buying the sapphire.
There is also the copyright question because it is possible this image comes under COM:CB#Jewelry. I think it might be PD because it was worked on rather than being an uncut gem and it was originally sold shortly after discovery in 1907. However, it might be challenged and in such a situation, I think the best option will be to upload this image as a fair-use directly at en-wiki. Green Giant (talk)14:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
'Fair use' images are not allowed in DYK nominations, which is what I was hoping to do with the photo and article here. If there is no copyright designation to be found anywhere, it would seem that no one could challenge the image for being so protected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see, you wanted it next to your hook. Then I think your only option is to go with the "jewelry sold before 1989" argument. Green Giant (talk)17:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hiya Green Giant: I have been watching category edits by a fairly new user. I have cautioned them in their editing so have a couple of other editors, but the odd categorization edits continue. Perhaps you could drop into [1] and see what you think of the contributions? I appreciate your help and opinion in this regard, I became aware of this person when local categories appeared to explode with changes, rather messing up years of arrangements by others. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: , from what I can see in the most recent thousand edits or so, they have generally been acceptable ones, for example moving files from Category:Acadia to Category:Populated places in Acadia. There are some questionable moves of Mountain categories out of Geography categories and into Landform categories, which are technically correct but I think many people would understand Mountains to be simply part of Geography. I also get the feeling that the user may be trying to mimic some en-wiki categories but I will keep checking. However, I am doubtful about the "newness" because they appear to have made 350,000+ edits across projects since 2007 and they are a sysop on one project. Unfortunately they have not opted in to the Labs edit counter so it is difficult to work out if they have been editing regularly or in spurts like me. Green Giant (talk)00:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking, the edits that blew my mind were a short while ago where she took all the images of populated places in counties in California and dumped them back in the upper category "County Name, California". I cautioned her not to do that, and saw on her talk page other people complaining about category edits. With the latest round of changes also getting squawks from other users, I thought to check with someone more experienced than me. Thanks for letting me know! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Foto Max
Hallo Green Giant
ich bedaure, dass das Foto so rasch gelöscht wurde, obwohl ich den Urheber und dessen OK etc. ausführlich angegeben habe (unser Mailwechsel dazu ist leider auch verschwunden). Ich bin neu hier und habe mir Mühe gegeben, mich einzulesen und die ganzen Lizenzvarianten durchzuarbeiten. Ich habe jetzt Josef Beyer gebeten, selber die angegebene Mailadresse permissions-commons@wikimedia.org zu kontaktieren - er weilt aber grad in Asien. Ich hoffe, dass das jetzt klappt und nicht allzu lange dauert… Danke für allfällige weitere Hinweise, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthea schreibt (talk • contribs) 08:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Andrea, keine Sorge. Sobald das OTRS-Team bestätigt die E-Mail, werden sie das Foto wieder herzustellen. Wenn Sie weitere Hilfe benötigen, zögern Sie bitte nicht, mich hier zu fragen, oder zumin Commons:Help desk. Bitte beachten Sie auch, dass mein Verständnis der deutschen ist sehr niedrig, aber die Verbesserung, also bitte verzeihen keine Fehler. :) Green Giant (talk)17:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Please note that I fully anticipate that the first few days will see a number of additional options proposed, so it may be a good idea to check back periodically on the RfC.
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
ISSUE: line 1 character 91: Script URL. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");', 'Perform batch task', 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand');
Hello. I saw you deleted the file outlaw_mkd.jpg.
They are my friends and they gave me the permission to put this on wiki commons. :) --M4r51n (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello M4r51n. I tagged it is because of copyright concerns but if you click on the red file link, you can see that the file was deleted by Fastily. If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, you can email the OTRS team to get the file restored, but it does take a few weeks because they are backlogged. Green Giant (talk)10:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: Fernando Llanos
Hi Green Giant. I sent the same day a notification of OTRS trough e-mail since I don't have response. I will send again the e-mail with the autorization. Regards, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Bonjour, votre message m'est bien parvenu. Les auteurs ont déjà envoyé personnellement leurs permissions et le ticket a été délivré. Je ne comprends pas votre message.--Mocaya (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, please do not tag an OTRS received file with no permission. You are interfering with a procedure. Files with OTRS received for more than 30 days will be reviewed and if necessary deleted by a member of the OTRS team. Jcb (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Jcb, I was trying to help with backlogs, one of which was Category:OTRS pending where it said "This category has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced editors." and "30 days ago eligible for tagging with {{subst:nopd}} or deletion:". It didn't say that tagging is to be done by OTRS-members only but I'll leave those categories alone from now on. Green Giant (talk)19:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think some of these categories could use better documentation. Maybe I will find time for this once. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Steinsplitter, before you updated the talkpage of the Commands subpage, it did have a cosiderable backlog with some requests having been there for several months. The message said to use Cat-a-lot for "individual non-controversial or consensual moves". Since many editors seem to be unaware of this gadget and the ability to move categories, I saw no harm in helping with some requests. Can you blame me if the notice also said "there are insufficient administrators working on this page"? However, you guys seem to have things in hand so I'll leave that area well alone. Green Giant (talk)19:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether your image is a digitally altered one. What matters is that the original image has not been licensed for reuse by anyone. If you are the copyright holder of the original image, please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the format at COM:ET. If you are not the copyright holder, please provide evidence that the copyright holder has released the original image for reuse under a Commons-compatible license. Green Giant (talk)00:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't knew about this as I saw lots of non-free digitally altered images uploaded at Commons, so I thought it is acceptable at commons as long as you altered it from the original one. Thanks for explaining that to me.--Jockzain (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for thanking me using the notifications system regarding this new addition to Commons I uploaded. It's a unique pizza, and its addition serves to expand the Commons' pizza content (e.g. Category:Pizzas). Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The agreement was given by the president of the Foundation and the explanation of authorship was that the logo was created as a work for hire by anonymous artist. According to Polish copyright law - the copyright of work-for-hire belongs to the employer, and if there is agreement of anonymous publication of the work there is no need to provide the name of the artist. Polimerek (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Thank you for the barnstar! The audio files still need a lot of categorization and it looks like it's gonna take a while to sort through them and I still need to get around to fixing up all my audio files too. :) Mikemoral♪♫21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Pssst!!
Have you ever considered being a Commons admin? I can't speak for anyone but myself, nor canvass, but if I saw your name up for admin, I'd be a big green YES. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Ellin, thank you for the vote of confidence. I'd like to help the Commons as much as possible but I'm not sure if I have quite enough experience and knowledge of Commons to be an admin yet. Green Giant (talk)16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... well I'm going to have to read some of the admin literature and then I might be ready to run the nomination gauntlet, so to speak. However I'm not willing to self-nominate, so if there's anyone willing to nominate me... Green Giant (talk)18:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the nomination. I have put in an acceptance statement but it is probably too much blathering and not enough substance. Green Giant (talk)21:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
These are images of sculptures in their natural environment, not violating any copyright rules or other reasons to remove the photos. Images are used on multiple pages on Wikipedia. Please stop stop your attempts to remove images from pages without reason!
Carsten R D
Hi! You should read this:>>Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. Buildings may be freely depicted.<< This is the case here. Ekebergparken Sculpture Park is a public park. Carsten R D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsten R D (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Carsten R D. I fully agree with you that that is what the law says, but please also note that "since Commons requires that all images be free for commercial use, buildings are the only copyrighted works in Norway for which the FOP exception applies for Commons." The sculptures which I tagged were all by people who are still alive or died fairly recently. In Norway, works are protected until 70 years after the death of the author/artist/sculptor. For example Dyre Vaa Huldra died in 1980, so his work is protected in Norway until 1 January 2050. For similar deletion requests, please also have a look through Category:Norwegian FOP cases. Green Giant (talk)09:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi.Take the tags off. Your arguments to keep them are just a desire for destruction and have no legal relevance at all! Carsten R D
What you use as an argument to keep the tags on at files of Ekebergparken Sculpture Park has no effect because these are sculptures located in a public park. You can not use the year of the artists death as a legal argument. I demand that you immediately stop the destruction of the files. Take the tags off!!! Carsten R D
Copyright law can sometimes be very complex and confusing, so I fully accept that this will seem destructive to you. However, please try to understand that Commons simply cannot host media that is not free for anyone to use for any purpose, even commercially. Norwegian law does not permit commercial use of photos of sculpture, even in public places. Please look at the links to copyright rules more carefully, because almost every country follows a rule of copyright being X number of years after the death of the author. In the case of Norway it is 70 years, so each of these works will be copyright protected until 70 years after the authors die. The only way to keep these images would be if you could demonstrate that a sculptor has explicitly put their work into the public domain. Please note that public domain is not the same as publicly available or viewable. Additionally, you could try arguing against the deletion by commenting on the deletion request. Green Giant (talk)10:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, you are entitled to your opinion but it doesn't change the situation. Norwegian law is not made by Commons, but the freedom of panorama concept is widely accepted on Commons. As I said earlier, you could try arguing about this at the deletion request page. Green Giant (talk)11:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi!Stop pretending that you are presenting the correct interpretation of Norwegian law !! The sculptures in the park may be permitted published and there is no commercial intent, according to law. Year of death has no relevance. This is a public space and a public park. Which private reasons do you have to destroy? Carsten R D
I have no idea what you mean by private reasons but let me clarify again that this deletion request is based entirely on Commons policies. Perhaps you are mistaken in thinking that Commons is like Flickr but on Commons we take copyright very seriously. In the Norway section of Commons:Freedom_of_panorama it states clearly that we only accept images of buildings but not of sculptures in Norway. The obvious exception is work by people who died more than 70 years ago i.e. before 1944. Please tell me what is difficult in this explanation and I will try to make it more simpler. Green Giant (talk)11:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
From when do you imagine that you are advocating for the Commons? Carsten R D
Green Giant! I realize that you execute the power of Commons and destroys for us who are trying to create. An advice is to be careful with this, because it can damage both the creativity and quality of the Wiki articles. User talk:Carsten R D
Carsten, you can wilfully ignore reality all you wish, but I did not make that policy and I did not delete the files, so please stop trying to blame me. Neither I nor any individual Commons editor have ever unilaterally made Commons policies. It is regrettable that we cannot keep those images but the policy will not change unless Norwegian law changes. So, you will be better off expending your energy on persuading the Storting to change Norwegian law. If you want a really good example, tell them to look at Russia, which until this month had similar restrictions on photos of buildings. The Russian Federal Assembly has changed the law to allow such photos, so now Commons administrators are going through old deletion requests and restoring large numbers of files. Seriously though, isn't there a little voice in your head saying "five Commons administrators have told you the same thing"? Is it really that difficult to understand? Green Giant (talk)22:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Steinsplitter, as far as I know it is one of the two places where the license can be put. Please look at the Example usage section of {{Information}} where license information is included in Permissions line.
I've also noted that quite a few people are confused when the license is in a separate section - see Template_talk:PermissionOTRS#Clarify_the_second_sentence where I highlighted that people often come to the OTRS noticeboard thinking OTRS can grant permission to reuse an image. I think it makes it clearer for people if they see the license immediately next to the OTRS template, hopefully reducing the potential confusion about who the permission is from. Green Giant (talk)11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Ha! You kicked ass in that RFA! Congrats! Now I'm 5 for 5 in my last 5 RFAs. I've got to find the next victim... If you haven't already, you'll want to go to Preferences/Gadgets/Tools for authorized users and turn on DelReqHandler, Instant Delete, Autodel, and CleanDeleteReasons. I also have some scripts at User:INeverCry/common.js that you might like. PS - I've removed the filemover right from your account, as it's redundant to admin. As an admin you have all the user rights, including Image Reviewer, Patroller, Filemover, Rollbacker, and IP Block Exempt. If you have any questions or need help, let me know. My best advice is not to be reluctant to use the admin tools (especially that [Delete] button). Mistakes are pretty easily avoided, and can be fixed quickly when they happen. INeverCry00:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I needed the prod and the nomination to get it going. I will look at your js page. I've left you a cup of tea, enjoy. Green Giant (talk)00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Ellin could use a cup of tea too, if you haven't already given one to her.
The King of Hearts close udel script would be especially helpful for you if you want to do restorations or other work via undeletion requests. It will give you a "close" option in the drop-down list when you edit the section that will provide an automated done/not done field, followed by a field to enter a reason if needed. Then you hit ok and save the page. The standup user script gives you info on a user's rights, activity, etc, at the top of their user/talk pages. The mass rollback requires caution, as it can rollback about 35 edits per minute. It opens a new window for every rollback, so it can crash a browser too. I only use it for multiple vandal/sock edits. The marked block script will score thru the usernames of all blocked users, and can be helpful in many ways too. You'll get the hang of it all pretty quickly I'm sure. INeverCry00:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
And she's lost a family member, so I've left some condolences, though I know that isn't much. As for the mass rollback script, it gives you a "rollback all" option in the drop-down list when looking at a user's contribs. I use it to deal with Jermboy27, Wikinger, and IP spammers. INeverCry01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
Dear Green Giant:
May I ask for your timely help to revise the above-referred image file which I recently uploaded and was nominated for deletion due to having initially quoted a wrong URL source. This has been fixed since then. As you may see in the file records and corresponding talk page, a copyright authorization email was timely and rightly sent by the author and copyright holder (Pierre De Meyts) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org
Your generous help to fix any pending matters to aid in the file´s survival will be most appreciated.
Neuralia (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Natuur12 and Gustavoper, I have merged this email to an earlier one which was for just one file. This email is for a further two files, which I have restored. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Green Giant (talk)11:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Green Giant!
Hi Green Giant! I am Ink in the trashy2! Thanks for deleting my user page. I was going to delete it myself, and try to delete the copyright violation photos. Or can only admins (like you) do it? Well...thanks anyway. I am going to upload photos I took myself.
Have you ever considered being a Commons admin? I can't speak for anyone but myself, nor canvass, but if I saw your name up for admin, I'd be a big green YES. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Ellin, thank you for the vote of confidence. I'd like to help the Commons as much as possible but I'm not sure if I have quite enough experience and knowledge of Commons to be an admin yet. Green Giant (talk)16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... well I'm going to have to read some of the admin literature and then I might be ready to run the nomination gauntlet, so to speak. However I'm not willing to self-nominate, so if there's anyone willing to nominate me... Green Giant (talk)18:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the nomination. I have put in an acceptance statement but it is probably too much blathering and not enough substance. Green Giant (talk)21:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Steinsplitter, as far as I know it is one of the two places where the license can be put. Please look at the Example usage section of {{Information}} where license information is included in Permissions line.
I've also noted that quite a few people are confused when the license is in a separate section - see Template_talk:PermissionOTRS#Clarify_the_second_sentence where I highlighted that people often come to the OTRS noticeboard thinking OTRS can grant permission to reuse an image. I think it makes it clearer for people if they see the license immediately next to the OTRS template, hopefully reducing the potential confusion about who the permission is from. Green Giant (talk)11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Ekebergparken Sculpture Park
These are images of sculptures in their natural environment, not violating any copyright rules or other reasons to remove the photos. Images are used on multiple pages on Wikipedia. Please stop stop your attempts to remove images from pages without reason!
Carsten R D
Hi! You should read this:>>Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. Buildings may be freely depicted.<< This is the case here. Ekebergparken Sculpture Park is a public park. Carsten R D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsten R D (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Carsten R D. I fully agree with you that that is what the law says, but please also note that "since Commons requires that all images be free for commercial use, buildings are the only copyrighted works in Norway for which the FOP exception applies for Commons." The sculptures which I tagged were all by people who are still alive or died fairly recently. In Norway, works are protected until 70 years after the death of the author/artist/sculptor. For example Dyre Vaa Huldra died in 1980, so his work is protected in Norway until 1 January 2050. For similar deletion requests, please also have a look through Category:Norwegian FOP cases. Green Giant (talk)09:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi.Take the tags off. Your arguments to keep them are just a desire for destruction and have no legal relevance at all! Carsten R D
What you use as an argument to keep the tags on at files of Ekebergparken Sculpture Park has no effect because these are sculptures located in a public park. You can not use the year of the artists death as a legal argument. I demand that you immediately stop the destruction of the files. Take the tags off!!! Carsten R D
Copyright law can sometimes be very complex and confusing, so I fully accept that this will seem destructive to you. However, please try to understand that Commons simply cannot host media that is not free for anyone to use for any purpose, even commercially. Norwegian law does not permit commercial use of photos of sculpture, even in public places. Please look at the links to copyright rules more carefully, because almost every country follows a rule of copyright being X number of years after the death of the author. In the case of Norway it is 70 years, so each of these works will be copyright protected until 70 years after the authors die. The only way to keep these images would be if you could demonstrate that a sculptor has explicitly put their work into the public domain. Please note that public domain is not the same as publicly available or viewable. Additionally, you could try arguing against the deletion by commenting on the deletion request. Green Giant (talk)10:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, you are entitled to your opinion but it doesn't change the situation. Norwegian law is not made by Commons, but the freedom of panorama concept is widely accepted on Commons. As I said earlier, you could try arguing about this at the deletion request page. Green Giant (talk)11:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi!Stop pretending that you are presenting the correct interpretation of Norwegian law !! The sculptures in the park may be permitted published and there is no commercial intent, according to law. Year of death has no relevance. This is a public space and a public park. Which private reasons do you have to destroy? Carsten R D
I have no idea what you mean by private reasons but let me clarify again that this deletion request is based entirely on Commons policies. Perhaps you are mistaken in thinking that Commons is like Flickr but on Commons we take copyright very seriously. In the Norway section of Commons:Freedom_of_panorama it states clearly that we only accept images of buildings but not of sculptures in Norway. The obvious exception is work by people who died more than 70 years ago i.e. before 1944. Please tell me what is difficult in this explanation and I will try to make it more simpler. Green Giant (talk)11:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
From when do you imagine that you are advocating for the Commons? Carsten R D
Green Giant! I realize that you execute the power of Commons and destroys for us who are trying to create. An advice is to be careful with this, because it can damage both the creativity and quality of the Wiki articles. User talk:Carsten R D
Carsten, you can wilfully ignore reality all you wish, but I did not make that policy and I did not delete the files, so please stop trying to blame me. Neither I nor any individual Commons editor have ever unilaterally made Commons policies. It is regrettable that we cannot keep those images but the policy will not change unless Norwegian law changes. So, you will be better off expending your energy on persuading the Storting to change Norwegian law. If you want a really good example, tell them to look at Russia, which until this month had similar restrictions on photos of buildings. The Russian Federal Assembly has changed the law to allow such photos, so now Commons administrators are going through old deletion requests and restoring large numbers of files. Seriously though, isn't there a little voice in your head saying "five Commons administrators have told you the same thing"? Is it really that difficult to understand? Green Giant (talk)22:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Ha! You kicked ass in that RFA! Congrats! Now I'm 5 for 5 in my last 5 RFAs. I've got to find the next victim... If you haven't already, you'll want to go to Preferences/Gadgets/Tools for authorized users and turn on DelReqHandler, Instant Delete, Autodel, and CleanDeleteReasons. I also have some scripts at User:INeverCry/common.js that you might like. PS - I've removed the filemover right from your account, as it's redundant to admin. As an admin you have all the user rights, including Image Reviewer, Patroller, Filemover, Rollbacker, and IP Block Exempt. If you have any questions or need help, let me know. My best advice is not to be reluctant to use the admin tools (especially that [Delete] button). Mistakes are pretty easily avoided, and can be fixed quickly when they happen. INeverCry00:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I needed the prod and the nomination to get it going. I will look at your js page. I've left you a cup of tea, enjoy. Green Giant (talk)00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Ellin could use a cup of tea too, if you haven't already given one to her.
The King of Hearts close udel script would be especially helpful for you if you want to do restorations or other work via undeletion requests. It will give you a "close" option in the drop-down list when you edit the section that will provide an automated done/not done field, followed by a field to enter a reason if needed. Then you hit ok and save the page. The standup user script gives you info on a user's rights, activity, etc, at the top of their user/talk pages. The mass rollback requires caution, as it can rollback about 35 edits per minute. It opens a new window for every rollback, so it can crash a browser too. I only use it for multiple vandal/sock edits. The marked block script will score thru the usernames of all blocked users, and can be helpful in many ways too. You'll get the hang of it all pretty quickly I'm sure. INeverCry00:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
And she's lost a family member, so I've left some condolences, though I know that isn't much. As for the mass rollback script, it gives you a "rollback all" option in the drop-down list when looking at a user's contribs. I use it to deal with Jermboy27, Wikinger, and IP spammers. INeverCry01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
Dear Green Giant:
May I ask for your timely help to revise the above-referred image file which I recently uploaded and was nominated for deletion due to having initially quoted a wrong URL source. This has been fixed since then. As you may see in the file records and corresponding talk page, a copyright authorization email was timely and rightly sent by the author and copyright holder (Pierre De Meyts) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org
Your generous help to fix any pending matters to aid in the file´s survival will be most appreciated.
Neuralia (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Natuur12 and Gustavoper, I have merged this email to an earlier one which was for just one file. This email is for a further two files, which I have restored. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Green Giant (talk)11:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Green Giant!
Hi Green Giant! I am Ink in the trashy2! Thanks for deleting my user page. I was going to delete it myself, and try to delete the copyright violation photos. Or can only admins (like you) do it? Well...thanks anyway. I am going to upload photos I took myself.
I am one of organisers of Wiki Loves Monuments in Ukraine and I have noticed you have deleted one or several images illustrating Ukrainian monuments. We would like to copy these images to Ukrainian Wikipedia (we do accept non-free content) and we want to use them at least in monument lists and articles about cities and villages, and also in articles about monuments (we will have an article contest in November) and about people connected with monuments (if it's a grave, a plaque etc. or created by a notable author) if those exist. Those images are very valuable, as many of these monuments have no illustrations on the Internet at all. Unfortunately, deleted images can't be undeleted via API, and I understand that undeleting identical images is a useless work (as we will only copy one main image + possibly some images of important details), so I kindly ask you to do the following:
Please undelete the image of the best quality for each concerned monument (to be used as a main article image)
Please also undelete all useful images of details of each monument (especially plaques for notable people living in buildings, we will use them in articles about those people)
Once you undelete these images, we will move them to ukwiki using bot (an example of bot's work is uk:Файл:War museum, Kyiv 6.jpg) and I will inform you once it's done so that you can delete them. If you do not want to undelete these images, please consider uploading them locally to Ukrainian Wikipedia, and we will correct descriptions ourselves.
Thank you for undeleting them. We actually needed only one of them (as all four illustrated the same monument), so we have already moved it and you can safely delete them back. Thanks — NickK (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Nora Carolina Méndez
Hola Gigante Verde, no sabía donde dejar este mensaje. Soy colaboradora de la página llamada Nora Méndez y vi su mensaje acerca de solicitar permiso para el uso de mi imagen. Podría ser tan amable de revisar si he enviado correctamente dicho permiso? O debo esperar la respuesta? Muchas gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nora Carolina Méndez (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
... and you can grow into the new toys once you have them. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
INeverCry 21:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Natuur12 and Gustavoper, I have merged this email to an earlier one which was for just one file. This email is for a further two files, which I have restored. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Green Giant (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
