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

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:Ochsen Gespann (Oxen Team) (3588574277).jpg. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Ok, I uploaded it with a different name.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

==a3cb1

By the way, I saw that it continues to delete my requests, suspecting that I am this a3cb1 loader of menzongne ,,,, I would like to point out that I am beating for the restoration of some user files Глинистый сланец, since many of the files Uploaded by him have passed very few copyright strikes, and therefore only absolute exclusions from copyright issues, all the files argued by him are just paintings, portraits and vintage photographs I would like to hear the complete analysis of the deleted files of this user, because not everyone has infringed copyright, "I do the possible, but always useless, since you do not even want to hear those files," a solitaire file was analyzed That's enough, the rest has been deleted without even being taken into account by the administrators, "I want to let them not confuse me for a puppet," that annoys me--Andrassy66 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Koppitz

Sorry for delay in replaying, but I was kind of on a little Commons semi-break. Your upload for File:KOPPITZ 0003.jpg is pretty good, and the July 27th upload on File:073-Rudolf Koppitz, c. 1920.jpg doesn't suffer from the horizontal dotted lines that the July 26th upload did, but it still seems like it's more your personal interpretation than "restoring" to the its original status... AnonMoos (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I have uploaded the larger image I found https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/llimagevaultraw/raw_51001_51500/51142.jpg as displayed by http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/4765272854511424365846928/ , which I consider too dark and low-contrast, even when compared with the original upload by Ultimate Destiny. You are welcome to try to improve it. Others: The previous discussion was archived to User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2017/July#File:073-Rudolf_Koppitz.2C_c._1920.jpg_and_File:Nude_woman_by_Rudolf_Koppitz.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Azulejos vs Decorated tiles

Please see that the english wikipedia has an article about azulejos in en:Azulejo before you make any more moves like i commented in Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Move_.22Azulejos_of.22_and_.22Azulejos_in.22_to_.22Decorated_tiles_of.22_and_.22Decorated_tiles_in.22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tm (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 August 2017‎ (UTC)

@Tm: Ok, I'll stop, but it seemed like a good reason for me to get some experience with Cat-a-lot.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

And will you revert yourself or do you need any assistance? Tm (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tm: If you feel that strongly about it, perhaps we should have a wider discussion at COM:CFD. We do prefer category names in English.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Alas there is en:Azulejo, so this name exist also in english and the language policy states that proper names shouldnt be translated ad hoc. Also moving dozens of categories when this kind tiles have a proper name (Azulejo) to a generic one, particulary when several users created this categories several years ago is ill advised. So these categories should stay in azulejos instead of an generic one, as azulejos is one kind of decarative tiles. Tm (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tm: It's a word, not a proper name, so I reject your premise. Also, when you make edits other than uploading files, please leave a descriptive edit summary so that others know exactly what type of changes you have made, especially when making potentially controversial edits. Summaries such as "added abc, removed xyz" are generally not as helpful as summaries such as "added abc because of xyz".   — Jeff G. ツ 05:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Please read en:Azulejo, in particular where it says "Azulejo (Portuguese: [ɐzuˈleʒu] or Portuguese: [ɐzuˈlɐjʒu], Spanish: [aθuˈlexo] or Spanish: [asuˈlexo], from the Arabic al zellige زلي]) is a form of Spanish and Portuguese painted tin-glazed ceramic tilework.". Again this name exists in english and has its own article in the english wikipedia. This is one kind of decorative title, not the portuguese or spanish name to decorative tile, or how do you explain its own article on the english wikipedia? Also this is a proper name is, as defined by merriam-webster as, "a word or group of words (such as “Noah Webster,” “Kentucky,” or “U.S. Congress”) that is the name of a particular person, place, or thing and that usually begins with a capital letter". This is a thing a special type of tile, usually associated with Portugal and Spain, and per Commons:Categories#Category_names in "Particular individual object (a specific person, building, monument, artwork, organization, event etc.) uses a singular form usually (but not always). Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form." or "Category names should generally be in English. (...) However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version)". Even so the established name in english is Azulejo so i dont understand why the attempts to upper move the files and categories related with Azulejos. Tm (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Overwriting a comment

Was this edit intentional? Storkk (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Never mind... appears moot now. I think Jcb got it correct, and perhaps I should have just gone ahead and assumed your intentions to be a reply. Storkk (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Storkk: The overwriting wasn't intentional. I conflicted with Jcb trying to fix it, and with you trying to explain. Sorry.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

nbsp

Hi, i would appreciate it if you could stop replacing the nbsp in my signature, as you did again here. I understand this is sometimes difficult to avoid when manually archiving content or facing edit conflicts, but none of that seems to apply to the linked diff.    FDMS  4    14:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@FDMS: That was entirely unintentional. My only issue with your nbsps was that I haven't figured out how to use them in my sig yet (to separate from what I'm signing without using six characters. Yours just look like whitespace to me. I am positive I was using my favorite Puffin Browser Pro on my iPad, as Safari and Chrome don't mess with three characters in each of your sigs they encounter like Puffin does. I don't mess with people's signatures on purpose. I will try to avoid it in the future.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

AN/U topic

Hey Jeff G.,

I closed your topic about banning a certain user because this is not how we usually handle things. Normally we have a discussion and than an admin/crat will close the debate writing their final conclusion. We do not however, decide via some vote if someone should be banned or not. Natuur12 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ, Nick, and Natuur12: Sorry about the format. I asked at the bottom there, but perhaps it is better asked here: Can we at least discuss extending the block of DL to indefinite?   — Jeff G. ツ 23:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion we need to wait for a statement from the crats before proceding with anything. Though I would not close a debate which is not formatted as a vote. Since my opinion about what should happen with INC is know I won't initiate any block myself. Natuur12 (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Platforming

I'd suggest that when an edit is almost certainly vandalism, you needn't feel bound by protocol to go out of your way to give it a platform. (Special:Diff/255271522/255272612). Storkk (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Storkk: Ok. Do you think that user is here to improve this project? I suspected not, so I wanted to give it some more rope with which to hang itself.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think they are here to help the project... but I also don't think that re-adding the nonsense request to the list was particularly helpful. They are quite capable of hanging themselves with the rope that they have, and it almost certainly won't happen in an undeletion request. In any case, I'm not sure that getting oneself blocked (this is what you mean by "hang itself", I assume) is something that should be actively encouraged. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jeff G./Fixed photo

User:Jeff G./Fixed photo 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 user page, 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!

Denniss (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Ibero Cruceros Grand Holiday 01.JPG

Please redo your changes/improvements but ensure you retain all Exif data. Exif data should never get lost upon modification. Please check your other modifications for similar issues. --Denniss (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jeff G./Improved photo

User:Jeff G./Improved photo 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 user page, 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) 14:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

COM:OVERWRITE violation again

Hello, You have been warned here. Please stop overwriting existing files as per COM:OVERWRITE as you did here and revert all uploads which have been made in violation of the aforementioned guideline. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Additionally: You have a lot of warnings on your talkpage and in your talkpage's archive. You have to slow down a bit because it may be considered as disruptive editing. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I considered that upload to be a minor improvement as allowed by COM:OVERWRITE. The previous uploads of that photo appeared to display discoloration from age or process, mine didn't. How is that not an improvement? For new uploads of derivative works, are the suffixes "(fixed)" and "(b&w)" acceptable? I have had very few complaints as a percentage of all the fixes I've done, so I need some guidance as to which fixes do and don't need to be reverted and uploaded as DW. RL issues now, will check back later.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Discoloration? This is sepia. It is controversial thus not covered by COM:OVERWRITE. You have to stop. And please revert all the wrong overwriting asap. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jeff G., I would like to second Steinsplitter's concerns. See, for example, File:651st Bombardment Squadron - Emblem.png which you rotated for apparently no good reason as the original orientation appears to be horizontal (see here). Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In this case he was just acting upon a rotation request set by someone else. But (as usual for strange looking rotation requests) it should have been checked/verified. --Denniss (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Denniss, this was indeed requested by someone else. However, as pointed out by Commons:Media for cleanup#Sideways pictures or pictures with noticeable camera tilt this is reserved for cases where we have photographs that were uploaded with wrong orientation or which are tilted. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter, AFBorchert, and Denniss: Ok, I won't overwrite with any more fixes, I'll work on reverting b&w and File:651st Bombardment Squadron - Emblem.png overwriting, and I'll look extra hard at strange rotation requests.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done with reversions of b&w. File:651st Bombardment Squadron - Emblem.png was already reverted.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, please stop the spam. This is the third time you try to add you'r cat in a wrong way to files. You are not the original uploader of the file. And please remove {{Jeff G./Fixed photo}} from uploads such as here because it is copyfraud. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Steinsplitter: I found and uploaded the bigger, current version of File:Boll weevil monument.jpg, did I not? I was waiting for a verdict on my reversions before making another pass to remove the transclusions. Also, {{Tl}} does not seem to work the way you intended for user space "templates".   — Jeff G. ツ 13:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you the original unloader? Did your upload created any new copyrights? Why you want to tagg all yu'r overwriting with a cat (you can use the upload log, etc)? Until the issue with your two templates (incluing the copyfraud issues) and the COM:OVERWRITE issue is resolved, please refrain from creating/adding new stuff/templates/cat to files. A lot of users are not happy about that stuff. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)l

@Steinsplitter: Category:Files by User:Jeff G. and Category:Files created by User:Jeff G. have assertions of copyright. They are subcats of Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G., which does not have such an assertion of copyright, just a statement of fact that I uploaded a file. Please don't conflate them.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Would it be ok to subst all my uses of User:Jeff G./Improved photo, replacing it with the active version of Category:Photos improved by User:Jeff G.?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Am Ende meiner Nerven

Guten Tag Jeff, Ich bin Laramie1960 und Sie haben mir beim Help Desk heute geantwortet. Leider bin ich jetzt am Ende meines Lateins. Mein Englisch ist vielleicht nicht perfekt, doch ich glaubte ich habe alles klar erklärt. Ich versuche es nun noch auf Deutsch. Doch zuerst, ich entschuldige mich ich das ich nicht richtig unterschrieben habe - ich wusste nicht das man Tides chreiben muss sonst hätte ich das schon lange getan. Ich habe immer Laramie1960 geschrieben und habe gemeint das sei meine Unterschrift 1. Ich habe das Bild mit den Blumen auf dem Friedhof selber gemacht und kann nicht verstehen dass ich das bestätigen muss. 2. Das Bild von dem Schauspieler Gérard Chambre bekam ich per Post. Der Mann lebt in Paris – ich aber nicht. Das heisst nun das ich ihn belästigen muss das er mir eine Bestätigung per Email schreibt das er tatsächlich der Inhaber dieses Bild ist. Nachdem das Bild seit 2012 bei seiner Wikipedia Seite von mir 2012 aufgeladen wurde? 3. Das Bild von der Schriftstellerin Juliette Benzoni wurde 1963 im Büro eines Verlages (Editions Trévise) der nicht mehr existiert aufgenommen. Das ist doch unmöglich das ich da von irgendwem eine Bestätigung bekommen kann. Die Person auf dem Bild starb noch dazu letztes Jahr 1920 – 2016 - und die Andern die dort im Büro waren sind auch vor vielen Jahren gestorben. 4. Das Bild das Juliette Benzoni im Garten zeigt ist aus einer französischen Zeitschrift von 1985 das ich einmal gekauft habe. Das ist doch unmöglich das sich da jemand noch erinnert, vermutlich arbeitet der Photograph gar nicht mehr dort. 5. Das Bild das die Schriftstellerin mit ihrer Auszeichnung zeigt habe ich selber gelöscht. Bei dem Bild von dem Schauspieler, das kann ich verstehen das Wikipedia das bestätigt haben will. Aber bei den andern, muss es doch eine Ausnahme geben. Ich fühle mich nun sehr entmutigt nochmals Bilder aufzuladen, wenn ich das gewusst hätte, hätte ich es unterlassen. Vielen Dank das Sie sich die Zeit genommen haben mir zu Antworten. Nun muss ich mich wohl damit abfinden das meine Bilder gelöscht werden. Mit freundlichen Grüssen, Laramie1960 Laramie1960 (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Laramie1960: Thank you for your message. I do not understand German. Google Translate tells me that you are writing about the photos addressed at your user talk page and the Help desk. I am not an Admin here, so I do not have the power to delete or not delete. Some Admins read the Help desk, including people who use German, but even with the information above, I doubt they can help you, other than guiding you to submit permission via Commons:OTRS/de. Specific information about the author, source, and permission for each file needs to be documented on the file description page.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Alasdair Fraser.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Alasdair Fraser.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Alasdair Fraser.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Arthur Crbz (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alasdair Fraser.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Info: changed tag to OTRS pending --Denniss (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Foothills of Kabir Kuh.JPG deleting request

Hi, I nominated this image a while ago. You denied the request. I'd like to resubmit my request on the basis of the fact that the image does not really represent anything of great importance and lacks basic artistic features. It also seems to have been heavily retouched. Thanks. --Milad2017 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:57, 19 August 2017‎ (UTC)

@Milad2017: I voted to delete it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foothills of Kabir Kuh.JPG. You must have me confused with someone else. Where did you get the photo? You are welcome to explain in Persian your reasons for not displaying it at fa:بحث:کبیرکوه.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

File:- panoramio (3356).jpg

File:- panoramio (3356).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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Taivo (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Jeff, thank you for your warning. I was not aware of the copyright violation. I uploaded 4, and only at one of them did a red color warning appear, and I thought that copyright concerned only that one, not the other three. There are no such rules but concerning Nepalese media news cuts in Nepal, and I have uploaded only images of photos made of newspapers (including text and photo). But if this is also not allowed, than I am sorry. So what should I do now? Kaliage —Preceding comment was added at 10:38, 21 August 2017‎ (UTC)

@Kaliage: You appear to be misinformed. Wikimedia Commons respects copyright law, in Nepal, in the United States, and in most countries of the world via the Berne Convention. The authors of those newspaper articles, the photographers of those photos, and/or the newspaper publishers hold copyrights to the works you have uploaded for at least 50 years in Nepal, and at least 70 years in the United States (if the author is known, those years start the year after the author's death), so scans of clippings from those newspaper articles will not be allowed here on Wikimedia Commons for at least 70 years after publication of anonymous works or the author"s death (70 because the US rejects the rule of the shorter term). You can read Nepal's "The Copyright Act, 2059 (2002)" in English at http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/documents/2015/08/copyright-act-2059-2002.pdf on the Nepalese Government Law Commission website if you don't believe me. As far as Fair Use, it is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons, but it is allowed under strictly proscribed circumstances on English Wikipedia. Also, you are allowed to cite those articles without reproducing them in English Wikipedia articles - see en:WP:REFB and en:Template:Cite news for details on how to do that.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thank you for the thorough information and taking the effort to share the links. I will study them. OK, I understand. I was just trying to add some illustration to the article and news cuts seemed to me fitting due to the title (Media...). Otherwise it is not so crucial to me to use these images, so I don't need to add any argument to keep them. Concerning the photo (named Ram Bahadur Bomjon in 2011): is that allowed, when it is a private photo, taken and given to me by a friend of mine? Tinyeye does not show anything. But again, that is also not so crucial to me. I am grateful that I could learn again some new things. So just delete those which violate anything if you did not do yet. User:Kaliage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 August 2017‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kaliage: You're welcome. You can tag any of your recent uploads with {{db|G7}} to ask for their deletion.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Daphne and the Karsh images/LAC

Dear Jeff,

I asked Admin James Woodward about the Karsh images and he made a response here If Karsh donated all his images to the Government of Canada, the Government of Canada (through the LAC, etc) should be the copyright owner today, not the Karsh estate. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Who got the copyrights, and how do we know?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopaedia says so here Karsh donated all his "collection of negatives, prints and transparencies produced and retained by [him] between 1933 and 1987" to the National Archives of Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) makes a reference to the collection in this story here and mentions the fact that the 'Karsh estate doesn't allow commercial use'....but since Y. Karsh donated his images to the National Archives of Canada--basically a department of the Government of Canada--the Government of Canada is the real copyright owner now and can license images that really are PD as CC BY (copyright expired in Canada)...whether the Karsh estate likes it or not. Why are they (the photos) in the Canadian Library and Archives collection if Karsh had not done so? So, far the LAC has been releasing only very small amounts of Karsh photos from the 1930s up to 1948, if I recall, on their flickr account on a CC BY license. In Canada, {{PD-Canada}} means images are copyright free if taken before 1949....or if the images are subject to Crown copyright and published 50 years ago. But the LAC can license post 1949 images on a CC BY license if they wish if they are the copyright holder. However, the LAC has not licensed a single post-1948 Karsh image on their flickr account on a CC BY license so far; so they have been cautious. I have to sign off now as I am a bit tired. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment:: Could I just say something? When I asked other Admins on the Admin Noticeboard complicated questions about copyright, many users told me to contact Admin/Bureaucrat/Checkuser James L Woodward. That is what I often do now. I see that he has been closing DRs concerning copyright issues now that 'Daphne' is gone here and here So, if you are considering a launching a DR concerning an image with an uncertain copyright or just inquiring about a copyright problem, ask him first. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is his reply today on a separate copyright issue. He knows copyright. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Leoboudv and Jameslwoodward: I firmly believe that Karsh's heirs have not released his copyrights to LAC because that is the only explanation of LAC's Flickr uploading pattern (other than insufficient resources), and we should follow LAC's example by applying COM:PRP to Karsh's works which have not yet fallen out of copyright in Canada or the US.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Well, since Karsh donated his images to the Government of Canada, it seems reasonable to conclude that Karsh's estate no longer own's copyright over Karsh images which are out of copyright. But Jameslwoodward should give his reply. All I can say is that LAC has been following the {{PD-Canada}} template for his images on their flickr account since their last Karsh image dates to 1948. He is having surgery on August 23 from this edit and may be away. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeff, I would completely agree with you if the donation was only a collection of paper prints. However, we are told that the donation included the negatives. I think that that shows the intent to transfer copyright -- there is not much point in giving the LAC the negatives unless they also get the right to make and sell copies. Equally, there is not much point in keeping the copyright if you have no means of using it. Surely the Karsh estate wants copies of the works out in world, provided, of course, that either they or the LAC can profit by it. Although I can cite only a very few examples, I suspect that they kept the copyright to images that are likely to have significant ongoing value -- Churchill, for example-- and donated those, such as the ones under discussion, that are not as likely to prove very profitable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Re:

By the way, I have seen his oppositions as to the two requests submitted, the following paintings listed, can not be restored to be analyzed, the licenses of the following files are correct, they can not have any copyright problem, if not So I would not even have made the request, but I find this thing though--Andrassy66 (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andrassy66: Krd and Jim can do their analyses without restoring. I oppose the undeletion requests at COM:UDEL per COM:CSD#G3. These files were uploaded by a sock of User:A3cb1.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I just think these files have the right to a restore to show their community their good faith, "I personally do not share your personal idea at all, so I think you should have nothing to do here. Commons: Undeletion requests if you feel so annoyed heehehehehehehehe;)--Andrassy66 (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the pictures I uploaded

Hello,

Thank you for your message. I am not sure when was I notified before of copyright violation to get this ultimatum. I only saw your message about this. We were welcomed and encouraged to take pictures of everything in the library of McGill University as part of the Wiki North America conference in Montreal. I thought since the library staff knew who the whole group was and our purposes from taking pictures, they allowed us to upload them to commons. So, that's the story behind the pictures. No copyright violation intended. They could have at least told us so in the library so that we don't post them to Commons.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Reem Al-Kashif: Hi. You were told "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content" in our welcome message of 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC). You were further told there was "No FOP in Qatar" by Elisfkc 19:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC) in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Qatar National Convention Centre. You neglected to post in that discussion, as well as in the current discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Russell Reid Design.png. I'm sorry for the "last warning" language in my notice on your user talk page, but surely it is no surprise to you that Commons respects copyrights and only accepts free content. Where did you get the name "Robert Russell Reid Design"? Did you see "Copyright, Eastern Corporation. 1948" on the work depicted in File:Robert Russell Reid Design.png? Why is that photo so blurry?   — Jeff G. ツ 16:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Let's just take a moment to remind ourselves of assuming good faith. I am not active on Commons a whole much, so I'm not sure if I even saw that I should reply to the discussion on the deletion of the pictures I took in Qatar. I had no idea there that pictures were not allowed on Commons. I just recently came to know about the freedom of panorama thing. I thought if it is labelled for deletion and it violates rules, then delete it, of course, I wouldn't mind. To answer your so-full-of-accusation-tone questions: "where did I get the name?" I came up with it. "Why is the picture so blurry?" I don't have the best camera and I am not a photographer.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

COM:OVERWRITE violation again

Hello, You have been warned here. Please stop overwriting existing files as per COM:OVERWRITE as you did here and revert all uploads which have been made in violation of the aforementioned guideline. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Additionally: You have a lot of warnings on your talkpage and in your talkpage's archive. You have to slow down a bit because it may be considered as disruptive editing. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I considered that upload to be a minor improvement as allowed by COM:OVERWRITE. The previous uploads of that photo appeared to display discoloration from age or process, mine didn't. How is that not an improvement? For new uploads of derivative works, are the suffixes "(fixed)" and "(b&w)" acceptable? I have had very few complaints as a percentage of all the fixes I've done, so I need some guidance as to which fixes do and don't need to be reverted and uploaded as DW. RL issues now, will check back later.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Discoloration? This is sepia. It is controversial thus not covered by COM:OVERWRITE. You have to stop. And please revert all the wrong overwriting asap. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jeff G., I would like to second Steinsplitter's concerns. See, for example, File:651st Bombardment Squadron - Emblem.png which you rotated for apparently no good reason as the original orientation appears to be horizontal (see here). Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In this case he was just acting upon a rotation request set by someone else. But (as usual for strange looking rotation requests) it should have been checked/verified. --Denniss (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Denniss, this was indeed requested by someone else. However, as pointed out by Commons:Media for cleanup#Sideways pictures or pictures with noticeable camera tilt this is reserved for cases where we have photographs that were uploaded with wrong orientation or which are tilted. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter, AFBorchert, and Denniss: Ok, I won't overwrite with any more fixes, I'll work on reverting b&w and File:651st Bombardment Squadron - Emblem.png overwriting, and I'll look extra hard at strange rotation requests.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done with reversions of b&w. File:651st Bombardment Squadron - Emblem.png was already reverted.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, please stop the spam. This is the third time you try to add you'r cat in a wrong way to files. You are not the original uploader of the file. And please remove {{Jeff G./Fixed photo}} from uploads such as here because it is copyfraud. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Steinsplitter: I found and uploaded the bigger, current version of File:Boll weevil monument.jpg, did I not? I was waiting for a verdict on my reversions before making another pass to remove the transclusions. Also, {{Tl}} does not seem to work the way you intended for user space "templates".   — Jeff G. ツ 13:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you the original unloader? Did your upload created any new copyrights? Why you want to tagg all yu'r overwriting with a cat (you can use the upload log, etc)? Until the issue with your two templates (incluing the copyfraud issues) and the COM:OVERWRITE issue is resolved, please refrain from creating/adding new stuff/templates/cat to files. A lot of users are not happy about that stuff. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)l

@Steinsplitter: Category:Files by User:Jeff G. and Category:Files created by User:Jeff G. have assertions of copyright. They are subcats of Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G., which does not have such an assertion of copyright, just a statement of fact that I uploaded a file. Please don't conflate them.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Would it be ok to subst all my uses of User:Jeff G./Improved photo, replacing it with the active version of Category:Photos improved by User:Jeff G.?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Would it be ok to repopulate hidden categories Category:Photos fixed by User:Jeff G.‎ and Category:Photos improved by User:Jeff G.‎ and add {{Retouched}} where appropriate?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I see that you have been editing since I wrote that. Barring your reply, I will proceed.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a evasion of the DR decision (= playing the system). As elaborated before and in the relevant deletion requests, your edit pattern regarding adding your personal categorys to files is controversial and thus you may not add such category to files with minor overwriting because it is considered disruptive. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: So even if I were to create hidden categories like Category:Photos cropped by User:Jeff G.‎ and Category:Photos rotated by User:Jeff G.‎ and apply them to files for which they are true for the current version, you would consider that disruptive? If so, why?   — Jeff G. ツ 17:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I won't repeat myself. Don't play the system and use common sense then everything is fine. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Help fixing a photo

Hey Jeff G, would you mind helping me fix this photo. It has an issue with the orientation of the thumbnail previews which I don't know how to fix. I saw on the Help Desk that you recently fixed an image which appears to have the same issue. Thanks in advance. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Samuel Wiki:  Done, see image (right).   — Jeff G. ツ 13:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Norman Foster 1.jpg

File:Norman Foster 1.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: The actual license on https://diario.madrid.es/contenidos-libres/ is "licencia CC by 4.0", with the same legalcode. I have marked the file description page as such, and removed your erroneous tag.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Headshot-type images seem to be one of the more commonly copyright violating. Sometimes there's false positives. As long as everything's sorted out. TimothyJosephWood 14:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)