User talk:Coat of Many Colours/Archive 1

Howard Coster

one response might be to go through NPG catalogue, and upload fair use, all the missing headshots at english wikipedia. given that commons is stiffing NPG over the PD-Art thing [1] & [2], didn't really want to push it when artist died 1959. cheers. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the NPG case is very unfortunate, the more so it seems they have little recourse. I view the whole thing as reflecting US hegemony on the internet, about which I am conflicted. I'm taking a wikibreak BTW, just a reflection I've been editing too much recently. Thanks for your input. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

i completely understand. if you're ever in DC, come to a meetup, we may have something at the NMAI one of these days. [3]. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 21:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! Thanks very much. I'll keep an eye out. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

Stefan4 may be wrong on some things, but he is right that you are engaging in personal attacks. This, for example. As an uninvolved user, I do retain the right to say to stop doing that, please. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that's a personal attack. Just a matter of fact statement about the effect he has on contributors. He came close to driving me off Wikipedia and the point about the ANI is that he driving people off Commons. However I'll go back and edit it in a less robust way. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record here's my response to his claim of a personal attack at the ANI.

"I was expressing matter of factly a sense of harassment and stalking. That's not a personal attack and I did notify you on your Talk page at the time here at Wikipedia:User_talk:Stefan2#File:Eva_Hesse_-_Repetition_Nineteen_III_.280.1_MP_reduction.29.jpg. on 20 February (diff) A normal response would have been to express regret and to seek some resolution. You did not, neither did you defend yourself against my charge of harassment either directly or by pleading "personal attack" as you do now. It was quite plain that I was really upset over the Chilkat blanket, but you did nothing to smooth things over. Rather you justified your deletion tags on Eva Hesse. The overall effect you conveyed was of self-satisfaction."

Understand this Magog. I will be retiring from editing Wikipedia and that is entirely because of the attentions of Stefan. I have a personal commitment to fulfil and then beginning April or so I shall stop. It is very unlikely I will return to Wikipedia. I am totally creeped out by all this and editing Wikipedia absolutely no longer one of the 100 things I want to do before I die. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well as it turns out I shan't because she seems to have gone away. I don't care where she turns up again, but she should totally stay away from me. I hope that's as completely clear as I can decently make it.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You have the right to say away from Stefan so far as you are able. If, in the normal process of maintenance, he works in the same area that you are working on, it is not fair or reasonable to ask that he refrain from editing there. It is reasonable to ask that he avoid doing so in a way that constitutes harassment. Cf. w:WP:HOUND. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog, but I'm packing up here anyway, my issues with Stefan only a small part of my disaffection (perhaps too strong a word, just a gradual realisation that by nature I'm not really suited to Wikipedia or Commons). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Villa L'Ermitage, Villefranche-sur-Mer

This, if I follow it correctly, says the villa was in "Avenue Cauvin". I can find a road with this name in Nice but it couldn't possibly be described as being in Villefranche-sur-Mer. However, there is an Avenue Victor Cauvin in V-s-M and I see this place, which is in this road, giving its address as "6, avenue Cauvin". The road is very steep and winding with magnificent views as described in the book. If that is the right road its coordinates are about 43.704N,7.307E (43° 42' 14", 7° 18' 25") as you can see here. BTW, it's me again! Thincat (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. I'll research that directly. I've been in touch with Salomon's principal biographer by the way about the American 1963 publication (which is certainly there in Library of Congress catalogue but strangely omittted from all the references I have). She couldn't help, but she suggested I contact the obvious institution and indeed I've emailed them - yet to get a response :). I shall read Salomon's biography and edit her article accordingly. It's a fair effort but there many omissions that need filling. Thank you again for all your help. Really appreciated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent source from Griselda Pollock you located there. I'll have a good read. I admire her very much but when she brings out her big guns, which are very big indeed, I lose her completely. But this of yours looks very readable. Just turning to Google Earth, big favourite of mine. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmhh. Mieke Bal I see ... another one-click at Amazon :). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well that's got to be it, because of Rue L'Ermitage. There is an aerial phto in one my books I can use, and there's also a description of a vist by her 1981 editors that might help. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating also on JHM 4291, which was next on my list. I'll certainly add that to the write-up when I do it. Thanks so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There's an aerial view of the Villa on p.23 of the 1998 Royal Academy exhibition book (Waanders, Zwolle) and you can clearly make out Av. Gènéral du Clerk and thus more or less pinpoint Salomon's cottage in the grounds (as far as I can make it out from the photo). It coincides pretty well with the Google coordinates for 'Rue de L'Hermitage' at (43.703977°, 7.305241°) and indeed a stone throw your coords (43.704,7.307), so I'll use one or the other tomorrow when one is a little more clear-headed than one is usually wont at this late watering-hour :). So pleased, thanks again. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

These are the exact coordinates (43.691556°, 7.330430°) of the Hotel 'Belle Aurore' in St Jean Cap Ferrat where Salomon finished Leben? oder Theater?. The hotel still stands, looking much as it does in the photo at p. 30 of the RA book - I expect the swimming pool is new. I'll add these in in time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thincat: Thanks so much for your help with the coordinates. I've transferred them to Salomon's Creator page here and I'll add them to article space when I edit there. I've heard from the Joods Historisch Museum now: they agree there seems to have been a US publication, but have no record of it. Indeed that's correct, it's Carl's discovery entirely. I knew about the 1963 book of course, but was entirely unaware of the US publication. If I had known that I would have uploaded to Commons from the start. I shall wait for the copy I've ordered to arrive. After that I'll follow Fae and contact the JHM to let them know I plan to transfer those first 80 gouaches to Commons and get their reaction before embarking on the major project. Thanks again. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

To continue with this. The copyright on the 1963 publication was not renewed in the US and Salomon's work illustrated there thus went into the public domain in the US in 1992. This was relied on in at least one publication before 1996. Whether the 1963 publication qualifies for URAA restoration depends on whether or not the US publication was simultaneous (within 30 days) with the overseas publication. I suspect that will be rather hard to discover. I'm in contact with the publishers now to try and find out. As noted above, I've retired here. I will do some remaining housework on the Salomon transfers so far, getting the remaining Fair Use files transferred, either today or within the next few days. A colleague of mine, rather more expert on Salomon than me, will be taking over the Salomon transfers if we manage to get confirmation of the PD status of that first tranche of 80 gouaches (the 1963 publication) and a bulk transfer is viable.

Thanks to everyone at Commons who helped out here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now got the 1963 American edition. It's a Helen and Kurt Wolff book and it makes no mention on the copyright page of publication elsewhere. The fly jacket mentions "Published internationally, this book reproduces ...". I've also heard from the publishers. They can't provide a precise date for publication. I'm inclined to think the American publication did indeed pre-date the other publications and the work isn't eligible for URAA restoration. I've putting a note about copyright on Salomon's category page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ken Thompson and Nafissatou Diallo.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ken Thompson and Nafissatou Diallo.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Ken Thompson and Nafissatou Diallo.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Underlying lk (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Underlying. It had a Commons transfer tag on Wikipedia from User:Sfan00 IMG so I assumed it was good. I'm actually about to retire my account here (nothing to do with this issue), this file transfer being a last request I was making good on. I'll see what I can do, but I suspect the original claim that the file was on the US Justice Department website is spurious. 08:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it does look spurious. Pity, it would be nice to have an image of Nafissatou Diallo on Commons. Just delete it unless Sfan can come up with something. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help?

I don't believe that retiring or creating a new account is the best way of improving your situation. There are people here willing to help and speak to you. Have you tried Commons' IRC channels? There are friendly people there, and I'm sure that you'll find people who'll have your back and aid you in your time of need. You can also Email me.

Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Thanks for this. I've actually changed this to "semi-retired". I might be more active again at Commons at least. But I'm just totally fed up with it all. At Wikipedia the rigorous NFC rules means that I simply can't add the kind of content I would like, while at Commons we have this URAA situation, which I agree is practically intractable. And to cap it all when I edit somewhere (I mean at an ongoing trial in the public eye) where the boundaries should be clear I get stiffed by an experienced user obviously chasing a personal agenda. So I'm pretty fed up, and for me the answer doesn't lie in debate. I just want to add content without all this quite fantastic hassle.

So I've managed something with Charlotte Salomon and see how that goes. For a while I'll withdraw.

Thanks again. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Relaxing and not becoming too invested in debates is a good idea. Also, if you're operating under a new account, you should abandon that account and return to your Coat account. Being caught sockpuppeteering would only cause more problems. If my suspicions are correct, then that account isn't hard to find. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

They never are ;}. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy lesson by docter Tulp

Hi, I reverted your upload on File:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg because it was once promoted to the status of a featured picture. People weighed the pro's and con's on this file, and I think it is not proper to have a new file suddenly be featured without any discussion. Please, upload it as a different file and follow the appropriate promotion procedure. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I notice you also overwrote an another picture with a featured status, File:Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) - The Girl With The Pearl Earring (1665).jpg . Please revert that. Thanks. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I should have been happy to do what you suggested if you had pointed me to an appropriate policy. The Featured Picture blurb does say to be sure to upload a better version if you have one and the file does allow file overloads. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn't depend on what you think is proper. I expect you know the Mauritshuis was recently revamped along with its site. I know the Vermeer like I know the back of my hand and I can assure you the new image is a better one. Perhaps you believe otherwise. You would be wrong. Other editors are likewise engaged in updating their images, for example at File:Fabritius-vink.jpg

As for that edit I made on the template it was, as I said, an accident. I don't know how I found myself there. I was intending to update a file provided by Durova, and was unawre that there was another high resolution file of the same subject.

In conclusion I don't care for your bossy attitude. Don't come back. Thanks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware that you made an edit on a template. The Fabritius image is not a featured picture. Commons has a (non-compelling) guideline on overwriting files. Featured pictures on different language Wikipedia's have different rules. Common sense advises you not to overwrite pictures, people have looked at and voted for. As for the bossy attitude, look in a mirror. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty lame, Jan. That new Tulp image you reverted is a reduced version of the high resolution Mauritshuis image File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 007.jpg you yourself uploaded. I shouldn't have bothered uploading the new version if I had seen yours first. Common sense should also tell you that shouldn't be a problem. But you can have it my bossy little friend, revert away. Just don't come back, seriously. Water you little patch and leave me alone. Thanks so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Overwriting existing files

Please respect guideline Commons:Overwriting existing files, mainly the parts about overwriting of Featured Pictures, Quality Images and Valued Images. Thanks. --Jklamo (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that we should be at pains to upload the best possible images of artworks to Commons. Better images do become available over the years. In this case we have a new medium resolution image from the Mauritshuis, a museum which like the National Portrait Gallery of London is making available medium resolution images in the pious (and vain) hope of keeping its high resolution image service viable as a commercial proposition . It makes sense to upload that to the most linked page, in this case a so-called Featured Image which manages to be both inauthentic in its colour values and in its cropping, in the plainest violation of Featured Pictures guidelines. I don't really see why I should pay the slightest attention to that. I'm not sure I shouldn't be nominating it for delisting.

But have it on me, friend. Just don't come back. Thanks for your cooperation. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the original nomination for the Vermeer. Enjoy! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Mistake(s)

Hi CoMC,

I've asked for a rename of your Girl with Pearl Earring, because you made a mistake "Maurtishuis" instead of the good "Mauritshuis" in the title of the file.

It appears that because of that, your FPC nomination has gone away. I don't know how to correct this, and I'm just sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, tried my best. I have issues with visual acuity at my age and I make typos all the time. I hope that Commons file of mine is still there somewhere . I spent a good part of this afternoon doing that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it the best I could but I can't manage further. It makes me nervous when I strain my eyes and I simply have to give up. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

All fixed now. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Rembrant van Rijn - Self-portrait as a young man with mouth open - BM Gg,2.253.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rembrant van Rijn - Self-portrait as a young man with mouth open - BM Gg,2.253.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I guess it was the unfortunate typo in the title that threw you. I added the relevant template. Thanks for helping! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)