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

Edit to Template:Copyrighted free use provided that

Please explain what you're trying to achieve here. And tell me you're not special-casing a single user in the template itself. If a user is misusing this template, I am surprised to have to tell you that modifying the template in this way is not a decent way of solving the problem. I'm reverting this edit; please comment on the template's talk page if you change it back. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Category:Pages that do not follow the directions in Template:Copyrighted free use provided that - putting this in Category:Commons is not particularly useful since no one is ever going to find it except by accident. What is the intention of this category? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users are creating or modifying image description pages that are using this template and its redirect Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat incorrectly (that is, without parameter 1, making the resulting image description pages contain invalid nonsense). Category:Pages that do not follow the directions in Template:Copyrighted free use provided that was intended to catch those pages so the users could be notified of the correct usage. I'm considering reimplementing the portion of the template that includes this category, perhaps with a friendlier name like Category:Copyrighted free use without provisions.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Creating a category to catch the cases where this template is incorrectly used, is fine. Other templates do that I think. But when you do that it just helps if you explain what other people should do when they come across this category. Should the files be deleted? Are they 'to-be-fixed'? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I have sufficiently explained what other people should do on Category:Pages that do not follow the directions in Template:Copyrighted free use provided that.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns, I have commented on the user's user talk page instead.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

URL vs. Wikilink

Hi. As I asked at User talk:White Cat#CFD and perhaps you missed, "Why would you want to use an insecure-only URL rather than a protocol-independent wikilink?" Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I moved your comment here to keep the thread in one place. I will watchlist this page. Please reply here if you want to reply.

In reply to your question, it didn't matter to me at the time I wrote my original comment. And it is against w:WP:TALK to "correct" others' comments. --Timeshifter 04:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To wikilink is not to "correct". The intent was the same. Comments are wikilinked all the time on Commons.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

more about this mess of mine

Between when I saw your message on my user page and when I recently saw that the deletion request had been completed, I was thinking that the template {{rename image}} and the suggested process was to request that the uploaded and wrongly named images get their name changed by an administrator and that the second upload of the correctly or better named image was discouraged.

Now, I reviewed what you did and I am pretty sure that my understanding was wrong and that the template instead marks an image as being okay to delete without a bunch of discussion.

I have booked marked that page which is actually quite clear (and I thank you for that since there is a wealth of information everywhere and having the information I need available locally seems to help sift through the wealth) I guess I just need to make sure that my newer understanding of the process is the better one: that you don't want to rename uploaded images....

Didn't I see a 'duplicate' template somewhere? Mostly, I would like for there to be a way to skip the first and second thing I do at the beginning of every new day as well as the second to last and last thing I do at the end every day so that I don't have these problems and make problems for other people (like you). -- carol 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use {{Badname}} for renames of your own images; use {{Duplicate}} if it is not one that you uploaded yourself. Administrators can delete images tagged with those two templates immediately without waiting for comment. Please see badname at Commons:Deletion_requests. Thanks to both you and Jeff G. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for clearing up this matter.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Flickr images page started

Hi, Jeff. Remember that Kamui99 image you uploaded? I've decided on your punishment. :-)

I've started a page called Commons:Questionable Flickr images that lists Flickr images and users like that, that try to release images they probably don't really own. It lists Kamui, and a few others, and the idea is that when you run into a Flickr image that looks too good to be true, that you check there to see if it, or other images by the same uploader, have already been discussed and decided too questionable for our purposes. My request for you is two-fold:

1. If you are part of any more discussions about Flickr images or users like that, to list them there, along with a link to the discussion where people decided their images were questionably licensed.
2. To tell two people who are interested in uploading Flickr images about this COM:QFI page. Then they each have to tell two people...

Good idea? :-) --AnonEMouse 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Flickr image permissions

Hi, you commented on my page a while back about the author permissions for several Flickr images that I got permission to use on Wikipedia. Although I don't have the copy of the e-mails, I discovered that I didn't delete the Flickr messages themselves, but just the e-mails. Since the messages say the same thing, can I take a screenshot of the message and attach it in an e-mail that I send to OTRS? --Nehrams2020 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply on your user talk page, where this discussion belongs. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Medalla de las Señoras de Lima .jpg

Hello Jeff English for Sorry my poor:)

Good, first I thank for the interest. If, Mr. Villalba took knowledge from such image and he supported all its in writing to me.

the message at issue is this: I need to know if the license is the correct one. Thanks of before hand

> cheers to Me to see that the youth of Chile likes incentive, force and > by our happening, I allow felicitarte by its initiative like > tambienpor the respect that you demonstrate when soliciing material of the Museum > for > as interesting project as the one that you indicated to me. Soliciing support is > better form to obtain a certain endorsement and, ten my consent stops > to use the photographic material that requests in the mail to to me which I respond since > I see the aim is praiseworthy.

> Atte

> Marcelo Villalba > Director Museum www.guerradelpacifico1879.cl > > > In English: < http://www.guerradelpacifico1879.cl/ > > “They consent ten my to uses the photographic material that requests in the > mail to to me which I respond since I see the aim is praiseworthy. “

-Daga 00:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Español: ¿Cuál es la fuente Española de esa traducción? ¡Gracias!

English: What is the Spanish source of that translation? Thanks!

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple more questions

Sorry for bothering you again, but I have just a few more questions. I'm starting to move my images from the English Wikipedia to here, and wanted to make sure I am doing it right. I recently uploaded Image:GFAFBMissile.jpg using the CommonsHelper tool, and for all of the images I have taken I want to update all of the licenses to GFDL CC-By-3.0 ("Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported"), but I am not sure if I need to delete the old licenses when showing the history of the image on the English Wikipedia. Do I need to keep them, or do I just replace the old ones with the new license? Also, when I checked the license of the new image I uploaded, it still shows "this file" and "this document" as a red link. How would I fix that to prevent it from occurring again? Once I have finished moving the images, as an administrator on the English Wikipedia can I just delete the original image there? By the way, I have sent the first e-mail to Permissions for the Flickr images and am waiting to hear back on that. Again, thanks for your help. --Nehrams2020 04:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:GFAFBMissile.jpg currently shows three separate areas with licensing:

|Permission=CC-BY-SA-3.0; Released under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]].

----

== Licensing ==

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}

I believe the last form is the best form, but it is in the wrong place (that is, after the categories), and you need to decide whether or not you want "-sa" and implement that decision. You could add "|author=[[user:Nehrams2020{{!}}Nehrams2020]]" or "|author=[[user:Nehrams2020{{!}}Your Real Name]]" to the last one, depending on how you want the attribution to look.

New uploads show "this file" and "this document" as red links until the processing of the queued database updates that change them to blue links, plus the purging of the caches of the squid proxies; the solutions are waiting, refreshing, and purging ("action=purge" instead of "action=edit").

I believe you would be in your rights as an English Wikipedia administrator to delete your original images there ("I moved to Commons" would be an appropriate deletion summary); it would be helpful, however, to change the "is/was" language generated by CommonsHelper to "was" so as to make it more definite.

You're welcome, and thanks for sharing your images with us and for being proactive with your questions!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable images

I have some images that I've taken that show brand names of hotels/drinks/restaurants, etc. and I was wondering if they are allowed to be uploaded here. Although I obviously don't have the copyright for the brand, if I took the image is it allowed here or should I only have the image at the English Wikipedia? Examples of images I am talking about include: w:Image:MESAGrillLVNV.jpg, w:Image:Hooters Casino HotelLV.jpg, w:Image:Parkaybutter.jpg, w:Image:Slurpees.JPG, w:Image:JoesCrabShack.jpg, & w:Image:DrewCareySD.jpg. Would any of these be compatible for including here or what would you recommend? --Nehrams2020 04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Such images are allowed here in certain cases, depending on the locations of the buildings photographed - please see COM:FOP. For USA locations like w:Image:MESAGrillLVNV.jpg, and w:Image:JoesCrabShack.jpg, NO, because the exception in 17 USC 120(a) "applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures"[1] or, I'd say, signs. For w:Image:DrewCareySD.jpg and w:Image:Hooters Casino HotelLV.jpg, YES because those are pictures of a building's façade and a whole building. Images such as w:Image:Parkaybutter.jpg (you might want to rename it though because the product is not actually butter) and w:Image:Slurpees.JPG, YES, they should be usable because the items pictured, even if photographed in the US, have use (as containers for margarine and beverages).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat

If you don't approve of images using {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} don't you think you should nominate the template for deletion and not every single image? Samulili 07:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The template itself is fine. The problem is the (relatively few) users who have misused it by failing to provide an actual provision. This may be partially due to an inheritance problem from w:Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided, which I think I've now fixed. I am now down to a mere 18 media in Category:Pages that do not follow the directions in Template:Copyrighted free use provided that. I have fixed the ones I could, seen that some are already candidates for speedy deletion, for the rest notified the uploaders on their user talk pages, for the uploaders that have email emailed them (and noted the email on their user talk pages), and for the rest nominated them for deletion. Sorry if that activity filled up the log in the last day, but I only can devote substantial amounts of time to Commons on Sundays and Thursdays due to RL issues. I expect one more round of deletion requests next Sunday or Thursday, and there to be very few (if any) media left in that category; the two pages User talk:White Cat/Sandbox 3 and User:Rorybowman can stay, as the use of the template there is by way of example. And now my pillow is calling....   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

en:User talk:White Cat#Commons images

Hi, mind taking a look at this discussion. I have failed to explain the user why he should use COM:DEL... -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He says "I thought I had tagged all of the images I removed for one or the other of the Commons deletion processes". Is that correct? Should Template:PD-USGov-NARA and Template:Military Insignia really be replaced with Template:Nld on older images where there is no proof on the image description page for the public domain status of the work, or only if some research has been done? Might it be better to change those templates to read that attempted deletions for older images should use Help:Mass deletion request (if applicable) or COM:DEL instead of Template:Nld? He does have a point, in that "what to do about older images" should certainly be separate and distinct from "what to do about newer images" in both templates.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg

Could you please get the copyvio tag removed from this image. It appears to have support for keeping it.

Thanks -- Swtpc6800 14:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I already removed the copyvio tag in this edit. Now, if you really meant the delete tag, removal of that is contingent upon a Commons Administrator closing Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg. Sorry, I am not a Commons Administrator.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Louisa May Alcott headshot.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Louisa May Alcott headshot.jpg 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Liftarn 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I have posted at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Louisa May Alcott headshot.jpg.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:RoseWilderLane01.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:RoseWilderLane01.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Liftarn 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Porters five forces.PNG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Porters five forces.PNG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Liftarn 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Name mistake

Sorry about calling you Jeff Q! I will be more careful. / Fred J 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology cheerfully accepted! Thanks for posting it!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Porters five forces.PNG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Porters five forces.PNG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Liftarn 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Name mistake

Sorry about calling you Jeff Q! I will be more careful. / Fred J 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology cheerfully accepted! Thanks for posting it!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn

Just some friendly advise, Jeff, but I would suggest you lay off of Liftarn for now. This is beginning to look a lot like a witchhunt on your part, and any constructive criticism is going out the window real fast. Templating him with "Please use edit summaries" and making a note at the village pump is unnecessary, and some of the files you have put up for deletion simply look mean-spirited. I ask you now, please let this go for a while. Patstuart 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but please be specific about "making a note at the village pump". I haven't touched COM:VP in months.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon, that was Fred J that made the request (silly me!). Patstuart 19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon granted, thanks for requesting it! But seriously, re this edit creating Commons:Village pump#Importance_of_edit_summaries_on_Commons.3F: Template:Summary2, Template:Summary, Template:Editsummary, and the text around "Edit Summary" on my user page and my RfA all reflect my current thinking on the subject of the Edit Summary. See also: COM:AES AKA Commons:Automatic edit summary and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Jun#Edit_summary_reminder (the last of which was not opposed, but has improved as Template:Summary has improved).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

re "some of the files you have put up for deletion simply look mean-spirited", sorry, I was taking Liftarn's "Take it on a case by case basis"[2] literally. There have been exactly three of those (deletion requests from me concerning files Liftarn had something to do with) in the past week (since I listed all of Liftarn's files for deletion).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Collapsability of boxes on Commons user pages

Another great use is this. I am glad it was fixed, although it still needs improving. --Digon3 ^talk 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)