User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2017/May

Kendra Haste on Eng

Hi - you recently approved this image on the Haste page, yet there are three other images on the same page, from the same source, the actual guy who took the photos - Patrick Davies - that appear to be in limbo. Those images are

• File:3.Haste-Elephant at the Tower of London.jpg (not highlighted for some reason, i.e. not on Commons?)
• 10.Haste-Polar_Bear_at_the_Tower_of_London.jpg (highlighted)
• File:11.Haste-Baboon on the Brick Tower at the Tower of London.jpg (not highlighted etc).

Could you please just approve the outstanding three (above). I all but created this article - tried to use images under Fair Use - and when that was not aggreeable I persuaded the copyright holder to upload them to Commons - the bureaucracy is killing me. Please help. Mark^Dask 23:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markdask: I am sorry about the confusion, but the relationships and derivative work aspects of the permission emails were rather difficult to understand without your context above. Please have Kendra Haste (as sculptor) and Patrick Davies (as photographer) email their own permissions for each set of sculptures (or a whole class of them, such as all photographs (of the sculptures) by Patrick Davies within a certain time period) and each photograph (naming all the photographs by URL in our system) to permissions-commonswikimedia.org, making sure the following is in the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2017022010011531]. That should give me enough documentation to get the other three restored. Also, in the article, it would be best to distinguish more between the sculptures and the animals they depict.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Kendra Haste: this concerns you.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Jeff. I emailed the agent, Patrick Davies, and linked him to this page; (he created the Kendra Haste ID for the purposes of uploading the images but will not have gotten your ping). I provided him the three URLs for his convenience re his Own Work and he will email you shortly with the ticket no. you provided in the subject bar, as you recommended. Other images in the article are covered by email permissions Mr. Davies has recieved, some of which he has submitted to existing ticket numbers.

Perhaps it would be simpler if he forwarded the various email permissions directly, with use of the ticket number you provided; in which case you will shortly have his email address and can deal with him directly. Mark^Dask 17:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Markdask: It is best to use the ticket number and our system to document the permissions and the extent to which Patrick Davies is authorized to act on behalf of Kendra Haste, both for these uploads and in the event of future uploads. It appears we are on solid ground with reference to COM:FOP#United Kingdom.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jeff. I thought I'd give you some background to help with smoothing along the copyright stuff on Kendra Haste's page. I have worked with Kendra for over 20 years and we are a team. I deal with all the admin stuff on her behalf, hence my access to her commons. I have co-ordinated all the copyright stuff with each photographer and sent through to commons. There are a number of images that I took myself and I have forwarded my copyright agreement, too. I hope this helps. Patrick Davies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendra Haste (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kendra Haste: Thanks, I'm working through them today between errands.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kendra Haste and Markdask: All done.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

		The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
		For your contributions to the "synergistic relationship of English Wikipedia with Wikimedia Commons", specifically on the Kendra Haste page, and otherwise general niceness . MarkDask 14:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!   — Jeff G. ツ 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

One detail Jeff - I was checking for images Patrick uploaded that are not approved, and found this image that has been OTRS approved. I had wanted to use the image but Patrick told me the photographer, (Glenn Copus, see metadata, with whom Patrick spoke recently), is unwilling to give up copyright, i.e. will only allow its use in the Haste article, in which case it needs be deleted. Could you just check the permissions for the image and if there is an email from Copus then great, but if not then delete. Thanks again. Mark^Dask 18:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Markdask: I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Patrick's gallery had licenses on file from the other photographers. One for which that is not the case can be deleted fron Commons and uploaded to English Wikipedia for fair use, but more than one would be pushing it. There has already been resistance about the number of photos in the article.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries Jeff, permissions for the other images are fine and I have no wish to add any further images. My only reason for mentioning the Lions image is that the license Patrick possesses for that image relates to his own site only. I removed it from the Haste article once Patrick had told me of the photographer's conditions. I think the conditions set by the photographer, Glenn Copus, preclude its inclusion on Commons so perhaps better to delete it.

Thanks again for all. Mark^Dask 11:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Markdask: It will probably be removed soon. There is no need to ping anyone on their user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FU using user :)

Aloha! Sorry, I saw your warning on the user talk after I blocked him for the day. Didn't mean to interfere with your warning or override you. Thought I better let you know. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Thanks, I was working through that user's contributions, contemplating a mass DR but have yet to see one that's not a clear copyvio, and was pleasantly surprised.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I could have/should have looked a little harder. But then I think the use of the FU term usually warrants at least a day long block. Anyhow. Good luck with your RfA! Seems to be working for now. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Thanks. Every file examined and tagged as copyvio. That user seems not to be here to build a free and legal file repository.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Jeff. Here we are: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G.. Once you've made your acceptance statement, I will start the clock and add the RFA to the RFA page. Now hurry it up! Daphne Lantier 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Daphne Lantier: . I am pleased to accept your nomination.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, the RFA is up and running now. Good luck! Daphne Lantier 19:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 22:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello, Jeff. Noticing you are nominated being an admin I come here to ask you: I would really appreciate, if you made your signature a bit smaller. One section above I looked on it to see, how you do this, and … well … It would be good not to use the <font> tag anymore, a tag deprecated for almost 18 years now, cf. <font> - HTML (Mozilla Developer Network) and versions timeline in en:HTML. Instead I want to suggest the following:
Replace

• <font size="4">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|G. ツ]]</font>

with

• <span style="font-size:115%">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|G. ツ]]</span>

which looks like: Jeff G. ツ. It shouldn’t be bigger in my eyes. — Speravir – 20:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC) (Yes, I know, that there are many more affected users.)

@Speravir: Ok, how is this?   — Jeff G. ツ 20:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion and . It may be, though, that some users consider it still too tall. — Speravir – 20:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

File:12.Haste-Lion&Lioness.jpg

Hi, files with {OTRS received} are typically deleted 30 days after the date entered in the template, so in this case the date of your last message should be used, so that they have 30 days from the date of that message. Jcb (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: It was originally badly tagged as OTRS pending on 20 February in this edit, and it seems we won't be getting permission from the photographer per section #Kendra_Haste_on_Eng above.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

We will see, the file will be deleted around 5 June if nothing arrives. But you have tried at least. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RFA close?

Hi Jeff. It looks like the RFA is sunk. Let me know if you want to withdraw. It's up to you of course, but I'd rather not see you having to look at a growing heap of opposes. Daphne Lantier 03:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: I'm sticking it out, but what about what Ruthven did? How is that justifiable?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussions that involve religion, race, or ethnicity are like a minefield. As your RFA nominator, I don't think it would be a good idea for me to take either side in this one. I have to remain neutral since I'm involved. Daphne Lantier 03:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, Revent agreed with you that Ruthven should not have expanded the scope of the CFD but to be honest with you, I don't think people are interested in what Ruthven did. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ad. Duplicates

According to http://www.president.lv/pk/content/?cat_id=10404 there is no rosettes and no gold/silver wings on on the ribbon bars of any class of the Latvian orders. Ribbon bars was created according to polish rules, because some polish guy was thinking, that every country has the same regulations. Jakub Kaja (✉) 12:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jakubkaja: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

File:12.Haste-Lion&Lioness.jpg

Hi Jeff - apols for taking so much of your time but I received an email from Glenn Copus, author of File:12.Haste-Lion&Lioness.jpg, saying if it aint deleted immediately he will seek a fee for its existence on Commons. I unwittingly marked the image as OTRS pending cos there were other authors who had donated their images to the Kendra Haste article and I assumed Copus was on board also. I can let you have a copy of the email but, suffice for now to say, the image needs to be deleted immediately. If you can give me the ticket number and address to forward the email I will be most grateful. Mark^Dask 14:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Markdask: I marked it as a copyvio. The ticket number is 2017022010015054, please put [Ticket#: 2017022010015054] in the subject of your message to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Background is at sections 1 and 5 of User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2017/May.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted - Jcb (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb and Markdask: Thank you both.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark^Dask

Rollback

Rolling back other people's edits with no explanation is unacceptable [1]. The IP I responded too is evading the block of the main account. The main account made no constructive edits at all. We don't need editors here who are going to play games and create messes. Daphne Lantier 19:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: Sorry, I fatfingered that.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Just a bit of a head-scratcher to see that in my watchlist... Daphne Lantier 19:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:OTRS autoresponded

Template:OTRS autoresponded 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 template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Steinsplitter (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Jeff G., we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

George Marrett Photo

Hi Jeff G. I uploaded this photo through OTRS with ticket number 2017022510011469, but I read your comment that something is not right with the supporting documentation. If you would please let me know what is missing/incorrect, I will attempt to fix. Cheers! Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skeet Shooter: Thank you for asking. Perhaps you didn't get my email reply. As Jan Marrett was the photographer, please have that person email us the permission directly in plaintext.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Apologies - I must have missed your email reply. I requested that Jan Marrett email the permission directly to OTRS in plaintext. Thank you! Skeet Shooter (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skeet Shooter: You're welcome. I look forward to seeing that request fulfilled.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sufficient release

Hi Jeff, hope you're well. I had a question for you if you've got a moment. I'm working with MSK (one of my clients) to obtain proper permissions for the release of Alexander_Rudensky.jpg. So far they just have an invoice from the photographer (Juliana Thomas) for "Unlimited usage by Memorial Sloan Kettering of Alexander Rudensky images." I'm assuming this isn't enough to demonstrate a transfer of the rights, but I wanted to get a definitive answer before moving forward. Thanks again for all the help.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: Hi, and thanks for asking. That invoice might be enough, please email a high-res scan of it.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Jeff. Another quick question for you: regarding File:Bottega_Veneta_logo_3.png, my understanding is that it should be tagged as a public domain logo and trademarked, not released from copyright. Can add the appropriate tags myself, or does an OTRS member need to review it first?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: You're welcome. This edit should suffice, but I wonder if that logo has to have so much whitespace. You could have done made that edit. Re Dr. Rudensky, could someone who is willing to license compatibly take another good photo of him? I would bet MSKCC has an ad budget that could pay for that.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent images from Italy

Hi, File:Stanislav Seman - Cecoslovacchia - Euro 1980(1).jpg is probably not OK. It is most probably under a copyright in USA irrespective of URAA. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: I agree. Would you see any problem with a DR for the files in Category:Files transferred by User:Rcclh from Italian Wikipedia? I was working toward that when I had to take care of RL stuff.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, but check for the rules first. Ask @Revent: . Regards, Yann (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: I think these files and their uploader deserve more attention than the 8,555 other files in Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. - what do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ 20:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Just glancing at the thumbs, they seem likely to be a source of problem files, yes.

The specific file is almost certainly a copyvio due to a subsisting US copyright. The relevant entry from the Hirtle chart (since it's post-1978) is "Published either with or without copyright notice, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date", and it has the same US term as a US-source work (this due, to, specifically, to the Universal Copyright Convention).

Only works published (in countries with bilateral copyright relations with the US) between 1 January 1978 and 28 February 1989 that were both published without a copyright notice AND PD in the source nation on the URAA date can be PD in the United States. Since any photograph published Italy after 1975 was still under Italian copyright on the URAA date, those conditions are impossible to meet. Any URAA claim for a photo published in Italy after 1975 is spurious.

I've made a category at Category:Deletion requests for files with incorrect URAA claims for DRs of files where a URAA claim was made for a work where the URAA is clearly not relevant... one of the things on my to-do list is to look through the 'copyrighted in the US' files for subsisting copyrights. - Revent^talk 04:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I decided that maybe this was not quite clear enough, since talking about multiple files... for post-1978 photographs from Italy, these are the possible cases....

1) 1 January 1978-28 February 1989

a) published without notice or registration - PD in the US due to failure to comply, potentially restored by the URAA due to still being under copyright in Italy on the URAA date, and now PD in Italy

b) published with notice or registration - copyrighted in the US, without reference to the URAA, for the full URAA term.

2) 1 March 1989 - 31 December 1996 - notice not needed, so simply copyrighted in the US for the full term, now PD in Italy

3) 31 December 1996 to present - copyrighted in both the US and Italy

The only case where a deletion could be potentially controversial due to arguments about if we should delete URAA-affected files is 1a, and we would need an indication that the work was actually published without notice in that period.... the default assumption would be to delete due to a US copyright unrelated to the URAA, without proof of no-notice. - Revent^talk 05:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yann and Revent: Thanks, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files transferred by User:Rcclh from Italian Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: is it alright to use these images on the different projects or will they be deleted at any time? Lotje (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lotje: I predict they will be gone as soon as the DR closes, which should be shortly after 06:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC). One can transfer them (or any file from Italian Wikipedia) per M:NFC, paying attention to the licensing rules at the target project.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)