User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2007/June

Image:Sarahvulva.jpg

Hello,

Well, seeing that he probably lied when uploading this picture, I have a problem using his opinion. This site is not just some pictures of his wife... Yann 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's lots of pictures of his wife. And some videos. And some friends' wives. With no commerce in sight. And no mention that his wife's name is not Sarah.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I could have been mistaken, but I don't really remember the reasoning since it was several months ago. It seemed like it came from a commercial porn site. Sorry for the late reply. --Tom (talk - email) 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but where's the commerce, or the commercial aspect? I just didn't see it then, and I certainly don't see it now, as http://www.myfunasianwife.com/ currently displays "Sorry! This site is temporarily unavailable." You may review the site's history via this link. To my recollection the uploader never actually named the site, someone else found it and accused the uploader of a copyvio. Would you please reconsider your decision? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the "fun asian wife" site now, you can see that it now reqires people to pay to view the site. It is now a commercial, members-only porn paysite. Plus everything on the site is copyrighted (quote from site: "All Images, Photographs, Graphics & Intellectual Materials are strictly ©2007 myfunasianwife.com"). Additionally i find it suspicious that the original uploader never said anything in his own defense, and mysteriously seemed to disapear... a sign of him being guilty of stealing an image from a copyrighted porn site, perhaps?. One way or the other it would be a very bad idea to put any of the "sarahvulva" images back on this site, since they are copyrighted images from a members-only adult porn paysite. 70.17.149.101 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so he finally ran out of cash and had to go commercial, and then while updating his site added a copyright. That doesn't mean that it was not the same guy uploading a picture of his fun asian wife Sarah's vulva here on 13 April 2006, and both of them explicitly putting that picture into the public domain in the upload summary for the larger version six days later. Please see this log and the tag and upload history in this archive for details. Who's to say that that picture is still on that site? Also, he didn't completely disappear; his last edit on English Wikipedia was at 18:13 on 12 April 2007 (UTC), ignoring my last edit to his user talk page there a month earlier. I'm still not convinced.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the uploader was the same guy that owns the site, why didn't he object to the deletion? Why didn't he say when he uploaded it that the image was from his own website? If i recall correctly, the original picture on the "fun asian wife" website had "My Fun Asain Wife" written on the bottom corner, and yet the version uploaded to the commons had that "My Fun Asian Wife" watermark suspiciously cropped out. When the whole issue about the picture being from a porn site came up in the first place, he could have came forward and said it was his site, and presented proof of that claim, but he never did, and mysteriously (or rather, suspiciuously) remained silent during the whole thing, and as you said, he ignored the comments you left for him (suspicious, don't you think? if he was the legitimate owner of the image, he would have said somthing). There is no evidence that the uploader actually owned the picture, and he never gave any proof that he was the owner of that website. I think it's likely that he stole the image. And I'm guessing that the picture still is on that site. As best as I can tell, the new paysite version of the site has all the same galleries it had before, and thus still has that picture. Of course the only way to know for sure would be to pay $20 to see the site, and I'm not going to spend money on a porn site. Putting the picture back on the commons without proof that the uploader actually owned the picture would be a very bad idea, especially since it's a picture from a porn site. Amatuer porn or not, it's still a porn site (paysite now). Besides, I don't think any Wiki would use that picture, knowing that it originally came from a porn site. I mean, there are already people on Wikipedia complaining about having images of nude body parts in articles (and accusing Wikipedia of distributing porn), and using a picture from a known porn site would fuel the arguments even more. (By the way, my appologies if my message was overly long) 70.17.149.101 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You've made some good points. I wasn't aware of the cropping of the watermark, do you have a ref for that?. I am disturbed that he ignored my message on his user talk page, and that prior to that he blanked both of his pages. Hopefully, we can get some good-quality really free images of vulvas on this site and put this issue behind us. I will be asking the owner of the next vulva I see to participate.  :)   — Jeff G. ツ 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

About the cropping, unfortunatly I don't have a ref on that, but I can say that I had both the original image and commons version on my computer a while back, and I saw for myself looking at both versions that the watermark was cropped out. But unfortunatly I can only give my word on that, but I do stand by it. But my other points (about the uploader never proving ownership, and ignoring the message you left him, and my statments about Wikipedia likely not accepting it do to the website it came from) still stand. Anyway, I'm sure someone will eventually upload a quality image that can be comfirmed as being a free image. 70.17.149.101 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

checkuser template/sample fixes

thanks for those improvements, much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for your improvements, as well!   — Jeff G. ツ 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

And thanks for the promoting of the poll Jeff - bit slow I'm afraid, I only just spotted it. Going to work on part 2 when I'm back <g> - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - I've been trying to keep the promotion low-key and unobtrusive, but my sig is geared for more than that. :)   — Jeff G. ツ 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Soon as I have anything workable (when I'm back) I'll let you have the link to it Jeff (re-admin etc) cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Herby! Unfortunately, pfctdayelise, Bryan, and Ram-Man shot down the transclusion of my sig template in Commons:Village pump#Edit summary reminder.  :(

Enjoy your vacation, I'm enjoying mine in Austin.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fides

Hi jeff, how can I ask to upload images from Agenzia Fides with a bot? --Jollyroger 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are three steps I see:

1. Consensus that the images will be acceptable as far as licensing is concerned.
2. To ask for a volunteer.
3. To have someone volunteer.

I think we're still at step 1.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, it's damn hard to get info from you :-D !

I asked some bot-owners to do the task. I did that in their talk page, isn't there sth like a bot request page or so? c'mon, we have one in our little it.wiki and there is none here? where bot use should be massive?

Thanks anyway --Jollyroger 11:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Fides images. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I don't remember the image you notified me Image:2006 0202 iran nuclear 600.jpg. But I have another problem with a license. That image Image:Iran 2 rusari.jpg used to be CC when i uploaded it, but the license was changed by the uploader on Flickr, so I'd like you to delete it. Thanks in advance. Regards, Fabienkhan 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your last edit to Image:Iran 2 rusari.jpg. It used to be a problem that Flickr users can change license anytime and that is why the process of Flickr reviewing was started. Flickr reviewing means that licenses are doublechecked so that the WikiCommons community can know for sure that photos are properly tagged. Photos that have been reviewed properly can stay on WikiCommons even if the Flickr user decides to change license or delete his/her Flickr account. I have taken the liberty of reverting your last edit to the image description page, and if you are still uneasy about this you can either leave me a message or ask about this at Commons talk:Flickr images. Regards, Thuresson 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see now. Per this edit, 'one can't "revoke" the licenses', that is, a Flickr user such as Zoghal can't revoke the license Thuresson reviewed in this edit, so that user was right in reverting my changes. However, there is another issue, in that the subject of the photograph appears to be a recognizable live human, in which case we need the subject's permission per {{Personality rights}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the beautiful red banners on my page... I feel like the worst copyright sneaker, whereas I told the admins there was a problem. Jeff G, please revert those "pay attention to copyright" banners, I do not really think they're appropriate. Errare humanum est Fabienkhan 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, those banners are gone.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spamming

Hello,

Please, don't spam my talk page with templates without a valid and explicit reason. I plan to create a new template “Abuse of templates”. --Juiced lemon 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment here is a perfect example of what I was commenting about in this comment - you just clicked on the [edit] link associated with the last section heading in my user talk page and added nothing to the edit summary, rather than using the plus sign to "Add a comment to this discussion" and letting the edit summary reflect the subject of your new comment. And please be civil.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit is in a talk page, not a page. There is no need to systematically use the summary for talk page edits. You don't always fill the summary neither. --Juiced lemon 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I use a proper edit summary in over 99% of my edits. I was looking at your recent edits to the Village pump when I wrote this comment. Where do you find justification for your statement that "There is no need to systematically use the summary for talk page edits"? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated spamming

Don't spam my talk page with templates without a valid and explicit reason.--Juiced lemon 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I think you can assume that Juiced lemon has read your messages. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, what's the story? Take a bit of care with these template warnings. Before you use one, think about whether they are going to improve a situation or merely anger the other person. They're incredible impersonal and somewhat patronising. So, for my 2c, stop worrying about Juiced lemon's conduct (there are a million other more useful things to be done around here, after all...), and use template warnings with a bit more care. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rudolf Harbig Stadion

You may "Blick" play with the currently Mozilla Firefox (Download) or the Windows Media Player11 (Download). Regards--Kay Körner 18:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I got it working in Media Player Classic by installing the latest Media Player Classic, then installing the latest VLC Media Player.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Enjoy your cake.

Hi Jeff, thank you ever so much for your contributions, especially on my talk page - they have been greatly appreciated. I hope to see you around on IRC sometime. Lcarsdata 06:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi Robert, you're welcome, and thanks for the cake, but it was way too big. :) I'm trying ircatwork.com as JeffGent because JeffG was taken and "Jeff G." was illegal.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

Note: Remember to always substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | interiot's tool | page moves | block log | block list]

June 2007

Warning for repeated vandalism

---

Jeff G.

(talk|contribs) Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikimedia Commons.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.39.49 (talk • contribs) at 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's rich! What did I allegedly repeatedly vandalize?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

re: individual features

Image:Kazimierz Bagiński.jpg (1945), Image:Antoni Skulbaszewski.gif (ca 1948), Image:Adam Bień.jpg (ca 1944), Image:Wolinska.jpg (ca 1948), Image:Eugeniusz lokajski.jpg (1938), Image:Montwill mirecki.jpg (ca 1900), Image:Borys Sawinkow.jpg are trivial passport photos, which are making automatically today and in the times , there were made, it was mass, daybyday production of anonymous craftsmen, paid at once for a work done who had not and has not any claims for copyright of the work done.:)

In Poland it is not a subject of copyright at all . According to EU-directive adn Polish copyright law "the work has to be an "manifestation of creative activity, possesing an individual character" to be broadly secured by law. Not every photo in the individual one , not ever photographer is an creator. That's all. There is of course many questions in connection with : difference between personal and material ownership to the work, possibility of expiring material rights to work previous sold by author ( even in the life of author) and so on.

We have to take it in common sense first.

All this photos was cleaning from such my commentary ( as above) by Polarlys. Best regards:

Andros64 08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Childish behaviour

Stop to act as a kid. Your comments on my talk page are pathetic. --Juiced lemon 18:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I read that as uncivil, and a personal attack. Again, please stop being uncivil. Please do not make personal attacks. Again, please don't forget to provide a proper edit summary for each and every edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pasoop_rhino.jpg

Thanks so much for hippopotamizing that "rhino". -- {Write me here} Haruo 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Guile-title.jpg

Again, I corrected license, See en:Image:Guile-title.jpg, this image from GNU Guile project (in gnu.org) have license [1], GNU General Public License V2 or later, because is former to files of projects.--Shooke 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: If the license of image is wrong, the license of images of The gnu.org are like license of the image Image:Slackware distrowatch.png ?? --Shooke 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks better, let's see what MECU thinks.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thank's --Shooke 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Handicapped Accessible sign.svg

The image cannot be on Commons, since it is copyrighted by the ICTA and not released under a free license. See Commons:Deletion requests/International Symbol of Access. --NE2 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What text on what webpage documents that copyright? Who exactly holds the copyright? Can we please ask them for permission? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

for keeping an eye on my talk page for the past few days. Please let me know when I have a chance to do you the same favour. Cheers! Siebrand 12:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Would you mind looking into the recent behavior of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk · contribs) and his not-logged-in alter-ego 24.168.39.49 (talk · contribs) with an eye toward longer blockage and perhaps involvement by an Administrator who is fluent in the Russian language? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked a native speaker to take a closer look at it: User_talk:EugeneZelenko#Please_take_a_closer_look_at.... Cheers! Siebrand 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:CB USSR.jpg

1. Soviet Union hadn't any copyright for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk • contribs) at 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please present proof of this statement.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• На нет и суда нет.

2. Any art of gov., communist or comsomol parties as you see here didn't being copyrighted in USSR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk • contribs) at 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please present proof of this statement.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• На нет и суда нет.

3. This is my personal work and my copyright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk • contribs) at 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept that claim for the photograph, not for the 3D article it is a photograph of.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Это моя работа и моё авторское право. Остальное иди и ищи, если тебе надо.

4. All my work & photo contributed only for a virtual "Wiki" & can't be print or use for any ather progects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk • contribs) at 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is incompatible with Commons licensing in general, and with the GNU Free Documentation License you used in particular. You must accept that your contributions will be used elsewhere - please read the GNU Free Documentation License more thoroughly.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Это моё авторское право и я передаю свою работу на основе моих правил, а не только написанных здесь. Никто не имеет права использовать мои работы без указания авторства или издавать в печатном виде. Кроме того мои работы не могут быть опубликованы вне проекта "Вики", кроме меня самого.

5. Soviet Union and that government does not exist -- is not existing any more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk • contribs) at 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The CIS or the Russian Republic did not inherit its intellectual property?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Россия -- это Россия, а Советский Союз -- USSR, распался с 1991 года.

6. You should to know the copyrights laws not only the USA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk • contribs) at 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how is this work not covered by the Russian copyright law of 1993 and its amendments of 1995 and 2004 (Федеральный закон от 9.07.1993 № 5351-1)?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• А ты его читал?!!! Что ты на него ссылаешься?)))))) Вот поди и почитай, ежели такой умный.))

7. If you do not like my work, remove all that has been loaded and I leave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk • contribs) at 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the power to do that, sorry.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Если не имеешь прав таких, то нахер лезешь туда, чего не знаешь?
• ТЫ ДУРАК ИЛИ ПРИТВОРЯЕШЬСЯ?! Вот иди и ищи их. Детский сад какойто.
  • In case you missed the lack of a "ru" tag on my user talk page, I placed {{User ru-0}} there just for you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Да... видал я ДЕБИЛОВ и таких, как ты, было предостаточно.))) U so STUPID!

Warning for repeated vandalism

---

Jeff G. (talk|contribs) Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikimedia Commons.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.39.49 (talk • contribs) at 11:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing pages, I am restoring legitimate warnings to your user talk page. It is you who are vandalizing your user talk page by removing those warnings, despite repeated attempts to get you to stop, by accusing me of vandalism without sufficient justification, and by calling me "so STUPID". You are no longer welcome here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm so HAPPY! The same to you too. I'll be glad to see more the stuped as U here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.39.49 (talk • contribs) at 13:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy your time away from Commons. I hope you learn to be civil, I really do.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for the welcome! Where can I find a page of backlogs on commons? ~ Wikihermit 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but you will probably find Commons:Welcome log, Special:Newimages, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard interesting.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much

... for taking care of my talk page. I really appreciate this. --Zirland 09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, to start - I'm just curious, not angry or anything, would just like to know: On Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Iruña armarria.gif you state that I requested the duplicate of this image for deletion against policy - do you mean that having a duplicate is against policy? Or do you mean that my request was against policy? And if so, why? Thanks! Deadstar 07:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I was a bit harsh, but I thought that once a regular delete tag was placed, that precluded any speedy deletion procedures at all until the regular delete discussion had run its course. The fact that Iliberri failed to follow through certainly muddied the waters. Why did you choose not to just follow through on behalf of Iliberri? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually do this a lot, when I see a deletion tag that is not complete, but is clearly meant to be a duplicate/badname/copyvio tag, and where I without much hassle can find the duplicate (it's usually mentioned), I change the tag. I figure that the person that put it on in the first place isn't familiar with Commons deletion processes (as obviously the deletion request was incomplete). It saves a lot of effort (IMHO) to use the alternative tags instead of the main deletion one (no need for the subpage etc.). And I don't see the difference between using {{delete|with reason saying this is a duplicate + filename}} and {{duplicate|+filename}}? I'm just going with being bold and calling them as I see them, and then it's up to the community to correct me ;). However, if this is against policy, then of course I have to mend my ways. Deadstar 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BM-Hannah-Arendt2006.jpg

English: Hi Jeff G., my english is not so good. But this two Images of the german stamps of Hannah Arendt are completely shown. the delete request is not valid. I therefore removed him. --kandschwar 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Deutsch: Hallo Jeff G. mein Englisch ist nicht so gut. Die beiden Abbildungen der deutschen Briefmarke von Hannah Arendt sind komplett abgebildet und sind somit frei genug. Der Löschantrag ist damit ungültig. Ich habe ihn deshalb entfernt. --kandschwar 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You must wait until the deletion debates are closed.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Jeff, bei diesen beiden Löschdiskussionen muss auf nicht auf die Löschung gewartet werden, da diese ungültig sind. Die beiden Abbildungen der Briefmarken sind vollständig und damit erlaubt. Die gelöschte Version war nicht vollständig gewesen und von daher hatte ich diese Versionen löschen lassen und die richtigen Abbildungen hochladen lassen. Viele Grüße --kandschwar 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

With a translation softwar translates:

Hello Jeff, with these two delete discussions must be waited for not for the deletion, since these are invalid. The two figures of the stamps are complete and thereby permitted. The deleted version had been and from therefore I these versions delete had let not complete and the correct figures high-load to let. Many greetings --17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)