Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

I have since reloaded an image under copyright discussion. I have now correctly noted that it is copyrighted and not open for 'free use' I hope you respect this change I have made. I apologize for the misuse of the image uploading.

I already removed it from the KCPT page, realizing that taking a photo of the building myself would be better than using someone else's photos whether it is considered fair use or not. Plus, that photo was of the backside of the building and not the front (a view of the front would be better). Therefore, feel free to remove that photo from this site. It will not be used. --CastleBuff

I reviewed your message. Thank you for your comments. I want to inform and ensure to you that this Wikipedia entry was not created by Barry Klarberg. We share the same last name. With regards to the headshot image used, I have reached out to my friend who took the photograph and will receive an email from him confirming the permission to use the image. This email with the author's explicit permission will be forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Rklarberg (talk)User talk:rklarberg

• I like to assume good faith, especially with administrators, but these contributions [1] [2] [3] [4] makes me come to the conclusion that you either misunderstand what's going on here or you're just seeing things the way you want to see them. Basically, there is currently no consensus on how to change WP:PORNBIO, but there is a consensus on the guideline in general (because if the latter were false, the guideline wouldn't exist, would it?). Your delete !votes seem rather biased. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, really? That's all an admin has to say? And I notice that you're not actually denying a bias either. But fine, I'll go away. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is unable to just sit their twelve-hour block out. This is a bit ominous as well. -- tariqabjotu 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from Reuters who said the use of Aaron spelling image is "fair use". You may reply there. --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I honestly don't know why I did that but it has really been awhile sense I have uploaded pictures (probably sense November 2011) and ever sense my last upload wikipedia introduced the new format and that just confused me. Anyway I can give you proof that I am the creator via my pictures I uploaded in the past. Just go here User:Arsenalkid700#Pictures. Copy and paste into the search bar at the top right and you will see that all these pictures are of my own work. Very sorry for the inconvenience but like I said I am learning how to upload via the new picture upload format. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got permission; you may reply there. --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed the Megitza image from Queue 6 (DYK) - I have sent the permission from Megitza to the permissions-commons email. Could the image be added back on? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you deleted files of people and said they were "obviously replaceable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs)

According to WP:NFC, non-free photographs of living people are almost always deemed replaceable with free alternatives, because it is always possible for somebody else to go and take a new photograph of the subject and release it under a free license. Normally, with replaceable non-free images, you'd get a notification and two days waiting period before deletion, although in a case like this it wouldn't in the end make any difference, because the deletion would have been 100% certain. However, in this particular case, the image File:GordonHugenberger.jpg also fell under WP:CSD#F7a ("Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag"). In your image description, you had claimed (a) that it was a "unique historic image", (b) that it was "object of commentary", and (c) that "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work". All of this was blatantly false. This made the image deletable immediately, without notification. If you can't be bothered to provide at least a correct, truthful description of what the image is, you should not be too surprised if other people can't be bothered notifying you about the problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood the criteria... and your insinuation that I was untruthful is a bit insulting. This kind of assumption of negative intent, and the smug tone you're taking makes me not want to contribute to Wikipedia any further... rather than blast me for misunderstanding the criteria you could perhaps explain what was incorrect about my understanding. The image is both unique and historical, in that it depicts a historical figure and is not a reproduced or easily reproduced photo. The article is a discussion of the subject of the photo, does that not make it the object of commentary and dedicated to this work (the person photographed?)ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a photograph and the thing it shows. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and V-J Day in Times Square are articles about photographs. Your article was an article about a person, not about a photograph. You are by no means alone in not understanding this difference, and I have been struggling to understand why so many uploaders fail to grasp it. I really don't know how we could make it any clearer than the upload form does it now. Honestly, if you could make me understand how and why people keep misunderstanding these instructions and how we could improve them, I'd be glad. What is unclear about: "the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article. The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows.", and abut "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this particular photograph/painting. (It is not just about the person or thing shown in the picture.)"? I wish I knew. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it was because I could not find a category that was for a portrait of a living person. I read "the image itself is the topic of discussion" to mean "the thing imaged itself is the topic of discussion" as opposed to posting a picture that is unrelated but might add to the article (in my article about Bruce, posting a picture of the college he teaches at, or a painting he likes or has influence him would be an example of what I would have thought this is prohibiting). Honestly, since there was no clear category for a picture of a living person I assumed it was an oversight and picked the closest thing I could find. The second one is another case of thinking that since there was no clear category which a portrait of a living person fit into, in my mind I had replaced "photograph or painting" with "subject of the photo." Especially since the categories to select were not limited to photos (picture of architecture was in there, historic photos, other categories not limited to creative works). I don't know about others, but if there was a clear category for what to do about photos or portraits of living persons, I would have gone with that... but there isn't. What SHOULD we do for photos of living persons?ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this explanation. I really appreciate it – you are the first who has ever made this explicit in this way. Well, the answer to "what should we do about these" is: Not upload them. That's the whole point about not having a category for them. Maybe I'll have to try and add some examples of such cases to the language under option 3 (where it now says "This file doesn't fit any of the categories above"), to make it clearer to people that the omission of this kind of case really isn't just an oversight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So articles about living persons can never have a picture in their info box of that person?ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it's freely licensed. You could of course write to the person in question and ask them if they would release an image under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA license. If you could get such a release, that would be great. If you want to give it a try, please make sure you get them to explicitly confirm they allow free re-use of the image, not just on Wikipedia but also elsewhere and for any purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if I take a photograph? Am I the owner and am able to grant such licence?ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. If you have access to the person in question and can take a pic yourself, that's the easiest and best way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have given proof of correspondance. You may reply. --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Ashish Kapoor.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

delete or no consensus? --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Meant "no consensus". Thanks for the notification. Didn't see that the stupid "tfd top" template works differently from "ffd top" and expects the result as a parameter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you're one of the few decent admins around nowadays, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Could you keep an eye on Germanic peoples? There have been a few problems there recently, with new User:Prophet of Hell, an IP from northern Italy and a few other accounts insisting on inserting one of the most ludicrous ethnic infobox collages Wikipedia has ever seen (it contains both Hitler and Jörg Haider). I and other users keep removing it but Prophet of Hell in particular insists on its reinstatement. He's not very communicative, possibly because - I suspect - he is using machine translation. This was his latest declaration of intent on the talk page [5]. Since then he hasn't bothered justifying his reverts. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you warned XtremeFanatic about uploading copyvios: he has received a number of warnings for disruptive editing but just blanks his talkpage and keeps going. I think a block is long overdue. Thanks,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the picture I have used for my page and I now believe it complies with copyright laws. Apologies for the original mistake. I am quite new to wikipedia editing

Hello, thanks for responding. If you mean File:St Bartholomew's Church - geograph.org.uk - 488691.jpg, yes, that one's fine. Actually, the other copy didn't have a copyright problem either, I just removed it because it was a redundant copy of a file we already had.

About the other two images you are using currently, since they are basically just text in a table, may I make a suggestion: they would actually be a lot more readable and a lot more useful if you replaced them with an actual table in your wiki text. Here is how it's done:

{|class="wikitable sortable
|+ Occupation groups in 1881
|-
!Occupation !! Male !! Female
|-
|General/local government || 9 || –
|-
|Defence of the country   || 1 || –
|-
|Professionals            || 34 || 34
|-
|[…]                      || ... || ...
|-
|}

which gives:

Just a suggestion. – That said, I still wonder if you could respond to my earlier question. Is there some way I or some other person from wikipedia could communicate with your group as a whole, for instance through your teacher? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Happy to talk, although the deadline for the articles our students are supposed to do is tomorrow, so there's probably no point. We made our students aware of potential copyright issues, but it is obviously a complex issue, especially for first year students. Alex 14:00, 2 May 2012

Ah, hello, good to hear from you. Yeah, one of them told me about that deadline. Good luck to all. Let me first say I think this is a great project overall. I'd only wish I had been able to help the students more efficiently earlier on, because it was a bit of a strain having to communicate the same things to so many people going through the same difficulties. (I'm afraid some of them may hate me now, as the great destroyer of images.) If you do a project like this again some time, it might be a good idea to look at Wikipedia:School and university projects and maybe create a central place for communication on-wiki – e.g. a list of all the user accounts and articles involved, and a talk page that can serve as a kind of noticeboard. The points about images I would have liked to get across to the students were the following:

1. If you want a photograph (e.g. of the village, the village church etc.), it has to be a freely licensed one. Don't try taking one from the web and declaring it "fair use" / "non-free"; that won't work for that kind of image.
2. Photographs from geograph.org.uk are great and can be used freely. However, before uploading one, try searching on Commons if it isn't there already, just to avoid extra work. Most geograph pics were imported to Commons at some point.
3. Non-free images of data charts taken from the web are a bit of a problem: even though it might seem a tad nitpicky, we have to treat them as non-free and replaceable with free alternatives. So the best way is to simply re-create a chart from the underlying numeric data, in your own spreadsheet program, and then upload that as your "own work" and tag it as a free file.
4. For images that just represent data tables, consider the alternative of writing a real table directly in the wiki text – it sidesteps any copyright issues, is much easier to read, and you can even make it sortable and have other useful features.

If you could do me a favour, maybe it would be possible to still have a list of all the articles involved in this round? It might be useful for some Wikipedian to go through them and see if anything needs fixing.

Best regards, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your help. We have 160 students on the unit, so the list would be major; not sure whether that is feasible. Plus, it is part of the assignment to get the wikitext right, or to see me to get a hand. If they submit with faulty wikitext, or Wikipedia editors have to fix it, they'll get their mark reduced. So for now, we are kind of ok with unfixed pages.

1. We told them that they just can't rip-off photographs from other websites, but some of them apparently thought they can get away with it. :-/
2. The charts are from our own website "Vision of Britain" and we gave them permission to use them for the assignment. They should have mentioned that in the upload form...
3. I mentioned wikitext tables in the lectures, so am a bit puzzled that some of them tried to upload screenshots...

Best wishes, and thanks again for the help. Should we ever do anything like this unit again, we'll take in your advise. It was a bit of a learning curve for us lecturers as well. Cheers, Alex 14:50, 2 May 2012

I see. About the chart graphics, I sort of figured out something like that was going on, but we had no clear statement of a free license – especially since formally it would not have been enough to know they were licensed "for this assignment", but for free re-use everywhere and for all purposes. About general wiki technicalities, I'm glad to say most of them seem to have done pretty well; at least I didn't see any major problems. Orthography and grammar were a bit problematic in some cases. About the need for corrections, I'd just like to say that we are of course supposed to be a collaborative project, so I'd be a bit unhappy if anybody were to feel they'd get into problems just because somebody else intervened and fixed something for them. We are generally quite happy to help newcomers about such things, and I'd certainly prefer seeing newcomers who are communicative and eager to sollicit help, rather than newcomers who are anxious to get everything done by themselves and feel like they have to guard "their" work. (For instance, just now I did a few things on Great Bolas, and I'd hate to think I got the student in trouble for that. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been (and is until tomorrow) an issue with students being annoyed with someone else editing their page. Unfortunately, those who started editing their pages early and who had their pages edited by a Wikipedian, apparently spread the message that their assignments get "messed up" (to quote a student), which deterred the other students from adding their text. I.e. a lot of them are waiting until last minute to add the material to their assigned page, rather than adding bits and pieces and learning from the experience. We communicated to them several times that this is not an issue, and that they should regard this kind of scrutiny as help and not as nuisance. Not all got the message though, it seems... :-( If it is simple technical issues that need editing (i.e. syntax errors in, say, the infobox), that wouldn't be held against them. But leaving it to the last minute means errors won't get picked up by Wikipedians and they "submit" a faulty article, which is an issue. Again, thanks for your advise, much appreciated. We'll keep it in mind should we do another assignment like this. Alex 16:30, 2 May 2012 (GMT)

For example, File:1881 Norton le Moors Occupational Orders.png and File:Chart displaying the occupational structure of Kildale,1881.png have recently been uploaded. What should be done with them? Normally, I would tag the first one as "replaceable fair use" and the second one as "no evidence of permission", but you (Alexander von Lunen) wrote that there is some kind of permission for files from Vision of Britain. What kind of permission is that? In order to be kept, it would be necessary to publish the images under a free licence, and it would be necessary to have some method to prove that permission has been given by the copyright holder. That said, the table would better be typed in as a wikitable instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. In the first case, I think the uploader has in the meantime taken my advice on board and done a wiki table, so that case will be moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tables should be tables. As far as the copyright for the charts is concerned, I'd have to check with the unit leader, who is also the copyright holder for the Vision of Britain website (I was just the programmer of it, and am assistant teacher for the unit). He told students it is ok to use chart images for their pages, so I reckon he must have been aware that this would imply releasing them under a CC license. Alex 16:20, 2 May 2012 (GMT)

Hello, I see you have re-edited my page again. Was it just for the sentence saying the village had hardly changed? If so can I not just edit this out and keep the rest? As it seems clear that the information is justifiable and appropriate for anyone wishing to read up on the village. Thanks too for removing the picture I posted, I realise now breached copyright but as a new user I didn't fully understand how to upload a photo! And still don't to be fair... Thanks for your time. Josh

can i have rollback rights? :) Baboon43 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I see no evidence that you have any experience in vandalism cleanup. The only thing you've been doing is getting involved in contentious editing and edit-wars. If you think rollback could help you with that, then rollback isn't for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually those edit warring was with socks and i was a newbie but yea i guess i need experience in vandalism cleanup first Baboon43 (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fut. Perf., I'd just like to give you a heads-up that I have mentioned you in the course of a request for the enforcement of a community sanction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community sanctions enforcement request: Delicious carbuncle, concerning the violation of a community-imposed interaction ban. You are welcome to comment if you wish. Prioryman (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You deleted this picture. I guess I don't understand the license system properly. Can you give me a brief rundown on the reason for deletion & what license I need to be able to use the picture please? Thanks, Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas_Neill (talk • contribs)

File:Bracknell Town Centre and Water Clock.jpg was sourced to Flickr [6]. You uploaded it once as a non-free work under fair use, and once tagged as a freely licensed work. The first time it didn't work because it didn't match our non-free content criteria – its use was not necessary, because it could easily be replaced with some other picture that somebody else might take. The second time it didn't work because the license the original Flickr author put on it didn't match. It is a license "for non-commercial use only", which unfortunately isn't "free enough" for Wikipedia (because images here need to be freely re-usable by others for other purposes).

The only way you can use this picture is if you contact the author on Flickr and get them to release it under a more liberal license (e.g. {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}}). Or, of course, you could go and take your own photograph instead, or ask a friend to take one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in knowing Namuslu's behavior is currently at ANI (WP:ANI#Namuslu's ownership issues at Istanbul). -- tariqabjotu 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we have time to redeem the situation between you and JCAla, raised at AN/I by you proposing WP:Dispute Resolution over the proper way to represent the source. It appears that, at this point, neither of you have much capacity for AGF toward each other but hopefully you can rebuild that. This is really a content dispute, that if it goes further may require an interaction ban. I will note at AN/I that I have proposed DR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is absurd. There cannot be a "content dispute" about taking a source that says "X was responsible for war crimes" and use it as a citation for the claim that "X wasn't responsible for war crimes". There cannot be any rational dispute resolution with a person who believes that if source A says P, and source B says !P, it is okay to claim that A also says !P, and can see nothing logically wrong with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people make mistakes or they just don't cross all their t's and dot all their i's. If you would consider that might be the case, here, you could work through that. Perhaps this Massoud deserves to be praised and damned in equal measure; perhaps he deserves to be damed more than praised, or vice verse (wherever the sources lead) but that is a content dispute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I give a flying f... about whether Massoud deserves to be more praised or more damned? I have no nationalist dog in this fight, unlike most of the people who have been slaughtering the article. What I care about is that we don't attribute a viewpoint to a source that in reality expresses its exact opposite. And to do so, in a case as blatant as the one I stumbled over today, is not "forgetting to cross one's t's". It is inexcusable. And I must question the fitness to work in this project not just of any person who engages in such behaviour, but also of any person who attempts to excuse or downplay it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]