User talk:Mo Billings

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Mo Billings!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to licensing
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:Ruralnewyorker99bi 0021 1.jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

العربية  Deutsch  English  español  français  日本語  മലയാളം  polski  português  slovenščina  svenska  Tiếng Việt  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−

This file is not PD, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/278307#page/21/mode/1up show info panel states it is infact cc-by-sa-4.0--Zppix (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zppix: You're saying that a magazine published in the United States in 1949, with no apparent copyright statement, is not public domain? Is that right? Mo Billings (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is listed by the source you provided as cc-by-sa-4.0. Zppix (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zppix That isn't the question. Is a magazine, published in the United States in 1949, with no apparent copyright statement, in the public domain? Mo Billings (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a copyright statement, made by the source that you provided. Can you prove that the cc license isn't correct? When it is published is irrelevant if theres a source claiming a certain license, unless you can provide a source that does undoubtedly prove its PD. --Zppix (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zppix Please address the question so we can move on. Is a magazine, published in the United States in 1949, with no apparent copyright statement, in the public domain? Mo Billings (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a copyright statement, made by the source that you provided. Zppix (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zppix I don't mean to be insulting, but you clearly do not understand what public domain is or how licenses are applied. The magazine is in the public domain. No one can claim a copyright or apply a license on public domain material. Feel free to ask about this on Commons:Village pump/Copyright if you need it explained further. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zppix Per Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag then scanning a 2D work does not give you any copyright. So basicly we do not care what the website says. What we care about is if the magazine that was scanned is PD or not. I think that US copyright is complicated but looking at {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} it does look to me as it is in fact PD. --MGA73 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:President Donald J Trump looking at Japanese cartoon pornography.png 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!

Zppix (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


COM:AN/U

[edit]

Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  Nederlands  português  sicilianu  slovenščina  svenska  Tagalog  Tiếng Việt  Türkçe  македонски  русский  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  العربية  +/−


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

--Zppix (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war

[edit]

Deutsch  English  français  italiano  magyar  português  sicilianu  русский  日本語  +/−


You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users’ contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.

--AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping"AntiCompositeNumber Once again, you've got this completely backwards. Mo Billings (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Surreal Barnstar
I enjoy reading your view points on commons policy. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:It's me!.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!

BlueCrabRedCrab (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User page blanking

[edit]

@: , I don't like this person either (due to their combative and uncollegial attitude), but blanking their user page (for smaller screens) seems a bit excessive. I don't think that it's a good practice simply to blank a user's user page simply because they are unlikely to (realistically) return, plus it seems to be practice that has never been written in any policy on any wiki I could find, I'm not going to restore it, I just find it odd as it reminds me of "gravedancing". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deliberate trolling of others by a locked account is not gravedancing. This was done quietly, without the need to draw attention to it or its contents. The photograph that was on this page is of an unknown person, and may itself be harassment. Removing it is a cautious action.
Keep in mind that it is entirely possible, likely based on the editing pattern on Wikipedia, that this was a disposable account of several. A sock farm is an easy way to game processes such as deletion requests, in this case using sock accounts with around 1,000 global edits or less. -- (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]