User talk:Infrogmation

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

en:User_talk:Infrogmation

Older disussion has been moved to User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 1, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 2, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 3, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 4, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 5, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 6, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 7.

Please add new discussion to bottom of page.

June 2009

botchecking

this is at commons.. [[1]]

and this is at en.... [[2]]

I looked and could see the transfer was complete... what is wrong with the transfer?

regards (Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The bot screwed it up with garbage. Please look at the text, not just the image. Athaenara fixed the worst of it, which was bot related markup problems which made the entire section displaying the description and actual source NOT VISIBLE, just a big blank. Look at versions in history. I'll fix some other junk. Very wrong indeed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Columbia 5pts aerial.jpg Deletion

Hello Infrogmation,

I have several questions about this deletion. The first question is that the reason named "GFDL licensed images copied without the required attribution are copyright violations." is not clear for me. What do you mean in this case, which attribution do you mean?

I am one of the administrators on zh-wp who patrol through the files uploaded there from the users. Images that are released from the user as GFDL and which has certain quality are uploaded from me to Commons and then deleted on the local project. This is to my understand what Commons for. It is important for me to understand where here is the problem to avoid future problems because I totally agree with you that copyright issue is very important for Commons and at the same time it doesn't make sense to keep free images on several local projects. So a clarification would be appreciated.--Wing (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GNU Free Documentation License is not the same as being PD. Preserving authorship credit is required. Copying a GFDL file without attribution breaks the license. In this case you neglected to give any credit to the creator of the file. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what you mean. I thought in the upload formular I had wrote the username of the original author? (Maybe I am wrong, it is some time back, I cannot remember every detail). Or do you mean I should keep the original image on zh-wp so that the authorship and history is granted? Again I need to understand this so that I would not make such a failure again. Thanks for the explaination.--Wing (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That particular image you transfered 2 years ago, and didn't give any attribution-- no mention of the photographer/original uploader at en:Wikipedia at all. When transfering images to Commons be sure to include the information from the description page; these are often deleted from the local Wiki after the image is availible on Commons. I restored the local copy on en:Wikipedia for this one. I see more recent transfers you've done that have given proper credit. Maybe you just forgot to add the info with that one. I wanted to alert you about it in case you didn't know GFDL licensed files needed to be attributed. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the explanation. I will be more careful the next time.--Wing (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon in Ottawa

Thanks for the note. I'm not sure that I agree with you that the "US by decade categories show things within the USA". We are supposed to assess categories on what they reasonably could contain, not what they may happen to contain at any given time. How much poorer would these decade categories be if they could not contain images relevant to the American experience in a given decade, but that happen to have been taken abroad (files like this, this, this and this, all synonymous with the United States and the relevant decades, would be excluded from this category tree (not that the Nixon in Ottawa image is nearly as notable as those)). I am also not aware of any discussion limiting these categories in that way (although let me know if I have missed it). However, your compromise suggestion of creating a category along the lines of "International relations of the United States in the [decade]" would work, at least insofar as this image is concerned, so thanks for that. Regards, --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MysticShade sockpuppets

As Herbythyme is away could you possibly take care of these accounts and associated image uploads please?

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy changed?

Hi Infrogmation, I'm wondering about the following list (It's not complete). Have I missed a policy change here? But there are still the both old templates as Copyright not renewed and the other. And why I don't get a note about this? And why one should ask for a deletion request Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Gladys_George,_Bob_Burns_-I'm_from_Missouri,1939.jpg , when another can make it speedy. Is commons finally a playground for bored admins with bad manners? I am really astonished. Regards Mutter Erde 85.181.243.158 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello. Have I done something rude? If so please point it out; rudeness is rarely my intention. As far as I can tell, I have had no connection to most of the images you list. For many, it looks like User:Klodl tagged them for speedy deletion and User:Zirland deleted them. I think a deletion request rather than a speedy tag would have been more appropriate unless Klodl had evidence the copyright statement was false. You might wish to ask Klodl and Zirland about them. You might wish to request undeletion, especially if you can show some evidence in support of the copyright status which Klodl apparently disputed. Does that answer your question, or part of it? If there something I did in relation to these images which I've forgotten, let me know; I checked the history for some of them and didn't see any edits or action by me. I'm not sure what you're asking me about. If you can please be more specific, maybe I'll have a better answer. Thanks -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, thank you. The reason, I have showed you this case is simply that you are NOT involved :-). I have shown some of these redlinks to others as Lupo and Clindberg, but they are - how should I say - a bit confused too. It's a bit complicated. But my first question is only: Has commons changed its policy? Or in other words: Why commons is still keeping these both templates for promo pics until 1964, when in fact these sstuff gets deleted with no (or a fake) reason? Regards Mutter Erde 85.181.243.158 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not aware of any policy change. From what I've looked at, I tend to think that unless Klodl had some specific info that the license was wrong, Klodl was too fast to tag them as speedy rather than a chalenge at COM:DR. Zirland may have been to quick to accept the speedy tag without checking. If you got no notice, I agree that was inappropriate. The speedy delete tag specifically says that the uploader should be notified, and includes a copy & paste template to make doing so easy. I question Klodl's procedures here. You might wish to check with the deleting admin. Unless either Klodl or the deleter has a specific reason why they think the images are copyright violations, I would support undeletion as inappropriate speedy deletions without proper notification of the uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's a time-consuming work to search for nice big files, check their copyright status, give a description to these "stars" from the old days starring in forgotten films, often never released in Germany. You, me and every troll can tag files within some seconds for a speedy delete.
I have found some more links by Klodl. [3]+ [4], [5], [6].
But why someone like Klodl gets any support? Zirland is no newbie, I guess. And the next question would be: How many more files he has deleted with no reason? And why he is still an admin? Regards Mutter Erde 78.48.19.183 16:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Jan Brewer

I e-mailed Jan Brewer's office and they responded that the photo can be used. I uploaded the photo and I was wondering if there is anything else I need to do? (File:Governor Jan Brewer.jpg) Thanks -- Tennisace101 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for emailing them to check. Two things: 1)The permission you quote at File:Governor Jan Brewer.jpg doesn't specify a license-- it says "you can use" it; we need to be sure that anyone can reuse it as long as they abide by the license. Unless you already have confirmation that they authorize the free use attribution license you tagged the image with, I think it would be a good idea to check with them that the license is okay with them. If they have questions, you might wish to point them to Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses for other acceptable licenses. 2)Once you have info confirming the license, forward a copy of the email to Commons:OTRS per the instructions there. Then the license will be on record with Wikimedia, and everything should be taken care of. Thanks again. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

Hi neighbor - 'cause I'm in Mississippi -, could you help me out with File:Eudora Welty.jpg please? It's on one government site, which they attribute to another gov't agency, LOC, but I can't find it at LOC to get details such as photographer and date. What do I need to do to get this image compliant or is it fine under the general gov't license? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 05:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good question. Okay, I went to loc.gov. Then I did a search for "Eudora Welty", then clicked the "Prints & Photographs Online Catalog" only, and redid the search (usually a good way to find LOC images). It turned up 3 images, none of which match this one, and all of which are restricted (not PD). All I can say is that Welty looks older here than her 1962 photo at LOC and younger than the 1980 LOC photo. I'm not sure what to say about the photo you uploaded. I don't know that the PD-USGov tag is accurate; no indication that this is a Federal Government work-- while the majority of the LOC's online photos are PD for various reasons, a large number (maybe the majority) did not originate as Federal Government works. I'd guess it's likely to be PD, since if there were any restrictions on it LOC usually gives credit and information. Though I guess there's a possibility that it should have been credited and isn't through some sloppiness by whoever made that webpage. Sorry I can't tell you anything more useful. I suppose you could try emailing and asking. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking. I would hope that if it weren't PD, the NEH.gov site where the photo is would credit the source instead of the LOC as it does. I've found her image on several gov sites and they all credit the actual source such as her estate museum or Associated Press.. this is the only one I found that credited another gov agency so it does seem plausible that it's PD. Again, thanks for looking. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poland Ave gas station

Is there a name for the gas station you have multiple photos of on Poland Avenue, Upper 9th Ward? I would like to put them under a category. Xnatedawgx (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the name for the vacant gas station. It is at the corner of Poland Avenue and Robertson Street, if a geographic identifier is helpful. It probably had a name, but I didn't see any signage naming it when I photographed it. It might be identified by a pre-Katrina New Orleans phone book/yellow pages; I don't have one handy at present. Sorry I'm not much help there. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Adambro Drork (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, I have a question. I don't know all the ins and outs of uploading pics vis a vis copyright, but am I correct in understanding that only public domain pics can be used on the Commons, and that copyrighted pics can only be used on Wikipedia under Fair Use? I used to think that copyrighted pics could used on WP if permission of the author was obtained, but then I learned that pics can only be used under Fair Use and P.D. circumstances. I ask, because the Summary on this pic's page indicates that "permission" was given to upload it. Wouldn't this indicate that it's copyright protected? I tried going to the talk page of the user who uploaded it, but it's been deleted.

Part of what spurred me to ask is that the subject of a Biography of Living Persons article, one who has taken an extremely strong interest in his article, and has at times employed my assistance in addressing issues of privacy and sourcing in his article, has requested that the photo in his article be changed, and had indicated that he has "permission" of the person who took it.

Can you explain to me the ins and outs of this, or point me to someone who can? I don't use Commons talk pages much, so can you respond to me here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Commons don't have to be public domain, but they do have to be free licensed. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses for an explanation and overview. "Permission" can be a vague term. Commons doesn't accept, for example "you have permission to put in such-and-so Wikipedia article". The permission needs to be a type of free license-- so that not just Wikipedia can use it, but anyone can, as long as they abide by the terms of the license (for example a Creative Commons license requiring attribution crediting the photographer by name). If a third party (someone other than the user doing the uploader) has given permission to allow a copyrighted work to be reused under a free license, Commons policy is to get a confirmation of permission by email kept as a record of the permission; see Commons:OTRS for how to do that. I hope this helps; if you have more questions you can't find an answer to, feel free to ask. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just noticed the image File:Mia_St_John_1.jpg is tagged as having OTRS permission on file. If you have a question about it or see some potential problem, Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard is the place to bring it up. Thanks. - Infrogmation (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your speedy reply. But what exactly is the difference between public domain images and free licensed ones? Isn't the practical effect the same--namely, that anyone can use it for any reason? When I release my images, I use the Attribution license, which means all someone has to do to use it is to credit it to me. What's the difference between this and p.d.? If the person I mentioned uploads it to Commons on a free license, in what practical way, or for what extents or purposes does he/she retain the copyright? Nightscream (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer; I'm sure some other people can give a much more nuanced explanation. The end result may be similar in that the works are allowed to be reused without payment, but legally the two things are quite different. My understanding is that public domain is a legal construct, refering to stuff that is out of copyright. Free licenses like Creative Commons attribution are not public domain; works licensed under CC-by- for example are still under copyright but the copyright holder has allowed them to be reused under generous terms. (Note that reuse of an attribution required licensed work without attribution is a copyright violation. There is no legal requirement for attribution of public domain works, but Wikimedia tries to include author credit when known because it seems a good policy to have information availible.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply.

I have replied on my talk. Please don't suggest that I am removeing templates without checking, (Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please apply good faith and if you can complain then I am sure it would be better to help. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

User:sputnik99

  1. what's the reason for your question? I don't understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sputnik99 (talk • contribs)

I replied on my talk page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sputnik99

User:sputnik99 again

Permission was sent sputnik99

Speedy help

Hi Infrogmation - could you please have File:Transgender at NYC Gay Pride Parade by David Shankbone.jpg speedy deleted, as it is causing the subject distress? --David Shankbone (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The naked truth

First of all, I refined the cats to the appropriate categories. I dropped the other two, because ... really ... the placement of that image is gratuitous advertisement for suicide girls. I'll add the telephone one back in ... perhaps we should create Category:naked people looking up? Evrik (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images which may have been uploaded with intent to promote something specific, if free licensed, may be potentially useful in additional ways as well. Categories can indicate things the image is relevent to and potentially useful in illustrating, whether or not the uploader had that in mind or not. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1963 Cleopatra trailer screenshot

Hello,

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:1963 Cleopatra trailer screenshot (40).jpg, I wonder why you deleted the first image and closed the DR without completely addressing the issue. Isn't the uploader to prove that the movie is not copyrighted? The rationale is the same for all images in the category, so why deleting one and not the rest? Not that I really care, but wondering... Yann (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At 4' 36" there's a note: Released by 20th Century Fox. http://www.archive.org/details/Cleopatratrailer1963 Is this a copyright notice?
Anyway, the company had to renew the copyright of the trailer (= the first publication) separately 28 years later. But no major company did. For films, which were released in 1964/65/66 ff, were was no longer a need to the renew the copyright for its trailer or its first published promotion stuff seperately, because the American law has changed. Mutter Erde 78.49.55.122 21:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed it on narrow grounds. While I this was technically per Commons protocal, looking at it more it seems to leave relevent questions unanswered, so I have reopened the deletion request and added some more comments. Thanks for the feedback. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking again.

Again? Well, what I can tell you is that I would have a good look at the information and transfer it and have a good look to see if the information had turned up and then saved it. I can only say that perhaps I was not allowing enough time to check, I should have had a longer look... In my defence.. I have transfered over 1200 pictures from wiki en and if 3 or 4 have been a bit wrong then I am sorry. I have now stopped checking them and leave them for a trusted user to check. If you like I can also stop transfering them. I was not doing it to be destructive. I can see from the diffs that the original source and date were missing, and the description and the cats were wrong..I stopped the bot doing that by stopping it using wikisense .(Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes? Is that enough for you? Can you help? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I was not trying to discourage you from transfering useful files. Please do so if you wish, thanks. I was trying to discourage you from removing the bot move notice from images with what seems to me to be very obvious problems in need of correction. When transfering images, I encourage you to take time to check the images and their descriptions-- meaning make sure everything displays ok, and that all the information fields appear to be accurate. At least a basic check of the categories is helpful too-- not that you're expected to have everything in the best possible categories when you're not too familiar with the subject, but the bot sometimes generates suggested categories that any human looking at them can tell are wildly inaccurate, so at least removing the most bizarre and obviously wrong ones helps. If you're willing to take the time to look at the images you transfer and make corrections as needed, great! That's an excellent help to the project. If there are some details you don't understand, ask. If you don't care to take time to review the uploads, well then, don't remove the bot move notice. The bot move notice is an alert that the image was removed by a bot that often mangles things, so there may be misinformation, and the image info can benifit from human review. In short, either do the review, or don't remove the notice. Thanks much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, thanks. I'll take your advice on board. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the category fixing. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Atlantis silhouette.jpg

You recently deleted the image of the Space Shuttle Atlantis transiting the sun. While I see that on his personal site he claims full copyright, this seems to contradict NASA's website,which while giving him credit, also claims credit. This can be seen in NASA's image of the day gallery (not astronomy image of the day where many of the files are under copyright.) NASA's copyright policy clearly states that any image on the site is in the public domain unless otherwise noted. On this images page (currently number 49 in the image of the day gallery [8]) their is no mention of copyright, leading me to believe that the image is in the public domain as a work of NASA and the photographer is unlawfully asserting copyright per NASA's copyright policy [9]. In any case I would like the image to be restored so that a full discussion may take place before deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request that this file be undeleted at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests if you wish to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New user overkill?

Hi, I wonder if the last part of this edit [10] is a bit of overkill for a new user. They didn't actually upload any copyvios since the first warning (all were uploaded before), so they did not continue to upload despite the warnings. Is there not a simple "stop" message template to use, before we get around to threatening to block them? Also you didn't sign the message so they can't leave you a message if they have further questions :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infrogmation&oldid=23336673"