User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2011/January
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
File:Vaso-cananeu
Hi, Jeff G. Not a "vase". Not "cananeu". It is a Mesopotamic knife. See: Gebel el Arak Knife. louvre.fr
Français : Poignard "du Gebel el-Arak". L'homme qui maintient les deux lions dressés est un motif que l'on trouve en Mésopotamie à la même époque.
. Regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for that information. I moved File:Vaso-cananeu.jpg to File:Gebel el Arak Knife.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 11:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you explaine your edit? Why you change license?--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that the original design of the USS Los Angeles (SSN-688), the first Los Angeles class submarine, and consequently your File:Los Angeles class submarine profile.svg, was by Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and its personnel (as work for hire for the United States Navy) and/or the Navy and its personnel, and thus is {{PD-USGov-DOD}}. Your image is a derivative work of that design. They way you present the licensing, it appears like you designed the USS Los Angeles (SSN-688). Did you? — Jeff G. ツ 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. I can't use any elements of submarine in my work, so picture is not derivative work of submarine. (See same pictures from other authors in Category:Drawings of submarines). But I asked to change name into SSN688 as others. Could you change names of other pictures in same way?--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I could change the names, given specifics. Where did you get the information you used to create that profile? Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Change them.
- From internet, of course. Excuse me, english is not my native language. You can ask another author of same pictures about copyrights, derivative work and so on. May be, User:Alexpl will help you. Or somebody else.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which files in Category:Drawings of submarines need renaming, and to what names? Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 04:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I could change the names, given specifics. Where did you get the information you used to create that profile? Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. I can't use any elements of submarine in my work, so picture is not derivative work of submarine. (See same pictures from other authors in Category:Drawings of submarines). But I asked to change name into SSN688 as others. Could you change names of other pictures in same way?--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is en:Wikipedia:Edit warring. Don't do so.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I took "OK. Change them." to mean that it was ok to change the licenses back. If you did not design the profile of the USS Los Angeles (SSN-688), then you cannot term that design as "own work", your profiling is derivative work. The chain of derivations of this design is as follows:
- Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and its personnel (as work for hire for the United States Navy) and/or the Navy and its personnel
- "Internet"
- Mike1979 Russia
- File:Los Angeles class submarine profile.svg
- — Jeff G. ツ 04:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. It means "rename others". But now I asked you to change the name of file File:Los Angeles class submarine profile.svg as I asked first to SSN688.svg.
- I think, your edits is en:Wikipedia:Harassment because there are a lot of pictures in Wiki created in same way.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- What license should have File:JAS39 Gripen.svg, File:AkulaProjekt971klein.png and File:Leopard2A4.jpg, for example.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- For two of them, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:JAS39 Gripen.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leopard2A4.jpg. File:AkulaProjekt971klein.png has detailed information about sources. — Jeff G. ツ 11:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. The third file should be deleted too. The source of file is Own. The chain of derivations of Akula design is as follows:
- «СПМБМ „Малахит“» and its personnel (and copyrighted)
- "Books & Films"
- Alexpl
- File:AkulaProjekt971klein.png
- It seems to me you confused the term "source" on commons and in wiki. Or it's simple en:Double standard.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that it was enough to just refer to the sources in the description field, but that appears not to have been enough for you, so I made this edit. I hope it meets with your approval. — Jeff G. ツ 05:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. It doesn't matter what the intermediate author used: drawings and photos from books, films or internet pages. We discuss the original design which is not belong to author of picture. So your edit doesn't change anything.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it does matter. "Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided."[1] is official policy as a part of Commons:Licensing; you may find a Russian language translation of it at Commons:Лицензирование. — Jeff G. ツ 07:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK. You don't understand difference between source on commons and in wiki. Reread the previous quote from rules. The source of all three files and my was {{Own}} that corresponds to the rule and real situation. The books and films in description page of Akula file are not source, in other case the work of Alexpl is deriative work of them and copyrighted because the authors of books and films is alive and there are no OTRS letters from them on description page.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- So what is your work in this case a derivative work of? — Jeff G. ツ 07:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK. You don't understand difference between source on commons and in wiki. Reread the previous quote from rules. The source of all three files and my was {{Own}} that corresponds to the rule and real situation. The books and films in description page of Akula file are not source, in other case the work of Alexpl is deriative work of them and copyrighted because the authors of books and films is alive and there are no OTRS letters from them on description page.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it does matter. "Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided."[1] is official policy as a part of Commons:Licensing; you may find a Russian language translation of it at Commons:Лицензирование. — Jeff G. ツ 07:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Other two files you nominated to deletion with comment: "I doubt that the uploader designed the depicted equipment". Do you think that Alexpl is designer of Akula class submarine?--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, but he did not pretend that he did design the Akula class submarine with an unexplained {{Own}} like you did; instead he explained with sources. What are your sources? — Jeff G. ツ 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not true.There was {{Own}} in the field "source" only.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That was supplemented by the extensive description field. — Jeff G. ツ 07:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not true.There was {{Own}} in the field "source" only.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, but he did not pretend that he did design the Akula class submarine with an unexplained {{Own}} like you did; instead he explained with sources. What are your sources? — Jeff G. ツ 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. It doesn't matter what the intermediate author used: drawings and photos from books, films or internet pages. We discuss the original design which is not belong to author of picture. So your edit doesn't change anything.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that it was enough to just refer to the sources in the description field, but that appears not to have been enough for you, so I made this edit. I hope it meets with your approval. — Jeff G. ツ 05:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. The third file should be deleted too. The source of file is Own. The chain of derivations of Akula design is as follows:
- For two of them, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:JAS39 Gripen.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leopard2A4.jpg. File:AkulaProjekt971klein.png has detailed information about sources. — Jeff G. ツ 11:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The original design of the submarine, as a utilitarian object, is not subject to copyright and hence is irrelevant here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unsourced claims that one has authored something that is actually a derivative work are disingenuous, at best. I have requested comments at Commons:Village pump#RFC:_Derivative_works_claimed_as_own_work_without_sources. — Jeff G. ツ 12:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your edit is en:Wikipedia:Civility because you should discuss the file but not uploader.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- You neglected to answer the question posed in the creation of that page here; I was commenting on that question and the nominator's doubts. — Jeff G. ツ 10:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- First I prefer finalize the discussion about 2D pictures of technique.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- You neglected to answer the question posed in the creation of that page here; I was commenting on that question and the nominator's doubts. — Jeff G. ツ 10:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
B95-Bild
Hallo Jeff, Du hast bei Category:Langenleuba-Oberhain das "delete" herausgenommen, aber das Bild File:Bundesstraße 95 Sachsen01 2009-04-01.jpg ist inzwischen in Category:Penig gelandet. Sollte das Bild wieder beim Teilort Langenleuba-Oberhain kategorisiert sein? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jeff, you removed the delete tag, but still the image is in cat Penig and cat Langenleuba-Oberhain remains empty. --KlausFoehl (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Klaus, I am sorry that I did not understand the reason for the original deletion request. Thank you for posting here in English. Now that I understand the reason, and since all three of us agree to deletion, I have marked it as "{{speedy|empty; merged to parent; all three editors agree to deletion; see [[User talk:Jeff G.#B95-Bild]] (German Language)}}", so it should be deleted soon. — Jeff G. ツ 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Jeff, now things are consistent. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Du bist willkommen. — Jeff G. ツ 03:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Jeff, now things are consistent. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Klaus, I am sorry that I did not understand the reason for the original deletion request. Thank you for posting here in English. Now that I understand the reason, and since all three of us agree to deletion, I have marked it as "{{speedy|empty; merged to parent; all three editors agree to deletion; see [[User talk:Jeff G.#B95-Bild]] (German Language)}}", so it should be deleted soon. — Jeff G. ツ 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)