User talk:Kelly Martin

Archives

• /November 2006 — Everything up to November 2006.

Barnstar

I really appreciate all the images you have contributed to Commons, so I gotta give you this spinny star. Messedrocker 01:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Favorite picture?

Kelly, do you have a favorite picture that you have submitted? Alan.ca 07:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Clematis jackmanii.jpg

This is not 'Jackmannii'. Probably a cultivar named 'Gypsy'. epibase 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It was sold to me as a jackmanii. Perhaps the merchant was mistaken. Kelly Martin 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Blimey

You're the one who took that Stephen Colbert picture! I nearly fainted when I saw it in your collection :) I'm particularly taken with the Mexican melting cheese for some reason, but the old St. Louis Courthouse is well, absolutely picture perfect, nice work. --Alf ^melmac 20:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Soviet

I'm continuing this discussion off VP to avoid general confusion. On that simultaneous publication bit: I had, when that PD-Soviet hullaballoo exploded in my face, not dared to bug Soufron too much, and thus I never got to know his reasons why he thought Soviet works were to be considered simultaneously published in all CIS nations. In fact, in all my research on all this since then, I have not found that position mentioned... Michiel Elst (Copyright, Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, 2005; ISBN 9-004-14087-5; a comprehensive 700-page treatise) emphasizes the strict territoriality of copyright laws, and makes a number of references that lead me to believe that actually this "per-SSR" interpretation may be right. Also, the internal structure of the USSR and its legal system seems to support this view. Union-wide federal laws had to be implemented at the SSR level by individual laws in each SSR. All these SSRs had their own copyright laws! These republic laws could not contradict the federal law, but they could go beyond the federal law and they could and did differ between SSRs. The efforts of Russia after the demise of the USSR to coordinate the copyrights on Soviet works amongst the CIS nations (the Moscow agreement in 1993) further corroborate this strictly territorial view.

Also, the simultaneous publication theory gets truly complicated if we start looking at the three Baltic states, which are not CIS nations.

If you're interested, I invite you to take a look at this and at this. These are two working drafts; I'd appreciate any constructive criticism, improvements, and error corrections... :-) The third article (on the 1993 law and its amendments, and on the new Russian Copyright law that will become effective on January 1, 2008) is still in the works offline.

Cheers, Lupo 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I should emphasize that I do not know with absolute certainty which interpretation is right—territorial or simultaneous. Which is why I didn't protest too loudly when the simultaneous publication bit was ignored in PD-Russia. See also Template talk:PD-Russia and Template talk:PD-Soviet-revised. Lupo 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was operating on the assumption that Soufron's interpretation is correct. If it's not, and the "successorship" that the United States is asserting merely means that each state is--independently--bound by the Geneva UCC, then a territorial interpretation would also possibly make sense. This is complicated by the fact that many works published in the USSR were, as a matter of fact if not of law, likely simultaneously published (in the UCC Geneva/Berne sense) in all of the CIS republics anyway (certainly any work broadly disseminated throughout the USSR would have been simultaneously published in all of the republics), and so the simultaneous interpretation may work out to being the same thing. And I agree, the Baltic states present even more complicated issues. Kelly Martin 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know for sure which is right. Maybe you could ask Soufron about it again. (I fear I had bugged him too much already back when...) Just two things:

1. "Independetly bound by the UCC" -- that's exactly the contents of the Moscow agremeent in the framework of the CIS. The CIS states agreed to be considered UCC members as of 1973-05-27, the date the USSR had joined. The UNESCO lists them all as member of the UCC (Geneva text, 1952) as of 1973-05-27.UNESCO list, see the footnotes, just like Circular 38a. The CIS nations also agreed to apply the UCC amongst themselves for Soviet works, even for works published before that 1973 date.
2. "certainly any work broadly disseminated throughout the USSR would have been simultaneously published in all of the republics" -- I'm not so sure. First, Newcity (Copyright Law in the Soviet Union, Praeger Publishers, New York 1978. ISBN 0-275-56450-9) writes (p. 49): "These Fundamentals of Civil Legislation [referring to the 1961 Fundamentals as amended in 1973—Lupo] [...] constitute detailed standards to which the civil codes of the 15 union republics must conform. Under the Soviet federal system, the central government of the USSR is empowered to adopt such legislative standards, but the final responsibility for actually adopting laws rests with the individual republics. [...] The RSFSR is the largest of the 15 union republics that make up the USSR and includes the two major centers of publishing in that country, Moscow and Leningrad. The overwhelming bulk of Soviet publishing is done in the RSFSR. Thus, in most cases, the copyright law of the RSFSR [i.e., the 1964 RSFSR Civil Code, as amended up to 1978 when Newcity wrote this—Lupo] will be the statute governing disputes concerning authors' rights. ..." Second, if a Moscow publisher distributed and sold a book also in the Ukrainian SSR, would that also make it "simultaneously" published? I don't think so. The fact that I can buy books in, say, France that are printed and sold by a publisher in the U.S. doesn't make these books simultaneously published in France, does it? But if a Ukrainian publisher printed and sold the book (under some license agreement with the Moscow publisher) within 30 days, then it would be simultaneously published. Or am I wrong about this?

Cheers, Lupo 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Janice T. Pilch also seems to operate under the territorial interpretation. She never mentions simultaneous publication, and the case examples she gives in her article series make only sense if one assumes strict territoriality of copyright. See her articles:

• Understanding Copyright Law for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Materials, SEEIR 4(1), pp. 75 – 101; 2003.
• Current Copyright Legislation of the CIS Nations and its Relevance for U.S. Library Collections: The Laws of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, SEEIR 5(1/2), pp. 81 – 122; 2004.
• Current Copyright Legislation of the CIS Nations and its Relevance for U.S. Library Collections: The Laws of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, SEEIR 6(1), pp. 101 - 141, 2005.

SEEIR is the journal Slavic and East European Information Resources published by the Haworth Information Press; ISSN 1522-8886. Pilch is a librarian, not a lawyer, but it appears she got help from both Michael Newcity and Peter B. Maggs for these articles. Maggs and Newcity appear to be the leading U.S. authorities on issues of Soviet copyright law.

I'm presenting this info here not so much to defend the territorial interpretation but to show why I personally have come to think that it may be right after all, despite Soufron's one-time statement in favour of simultaneous publication. It's still possible Soufron's right; I might be missing something. But at least the territorial interpretation does not come out of thin air. Lupo 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan-PD

Could you please make the template? Jahongard 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure that the reason in the new template is valid.--Jusjih 10:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is, or at least, was, an ongoing discussion (at the village pump) as to deal with Afghanistan works; it would be premature to develop a template until that discussion reaches a conclusion. Kelly Martin 12:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Did it reach any conclusion? I think we can at least consider the old Afghan governmental works in the public domain. Jahongard 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulation! I just granted you adminship per wide supports despite a few oppositions.--Jusjih 10:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

An assessment

I have been contemplating nominating myself as an admin. I have been on the commons for more than a year, and have more than 2800 edits. Before I officially nominate myself I wanted to get some feedback. Thanks! --Evrik 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Can you use some help on OTRS? If so, I'm happy to volunteer. I tried asking UninvitedCompany as suggested at Commons:OTRS, but UC doesn't seem to be around much at the moment and Pfctdayelise has directed me to you. --MichaelMaggs 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please contact Cary Bass or Kat Walsh. I'm just an OTRS volunteer, with no administrative responsibilities. Kelly Martin 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reward Board

Hi Kelly,

I see that you have rescinded your Reward Board offer of $10.00 to anyone who brought an animal article up to Featured Article status. en:user:CasLiber was wondering if your original comment, here, still applies. I would love to see Cas get the prize: it's a small reward, but he is deserving. Also, I do realize you are very busy with other things, which is part of the reason I didn't write sooner. If this is something you can no longer do, for whatever reason, a brief note would suffice. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was Image:CentrifCompressorCross-sect.png deleted?

Kelly Martin: I have just learned that you deleted or removed the Image:CentrifCompressorCross-sect.png about a week or so ago for some reason.

That drawing came from a page on the website of the Sundyne Company, whom I presume were the originators of the drawing and therefore the copyright holders. I exchanged a series of emails with them asking for them to grant Wikipedia a GFDL license to use the drawing. I first emailed the Sundyne Company CEO, Mr. Phil Ruffner, who referred the matter to Mr. Tom Macekya (the Business manager of Sundyne). I then had an exchange of emails with Mr. Tom Maceyka, which included my referring him to where he could read the full explanation of a GFDL license.

On January 29th, 2007, Mr. Tom Maceyka (the Business Manager of the Sundyne Company) sent me an email very clearly granting the GFDL license I had requested. The Sundyne Company is a large corporation and I am quite sure that they granted the GFDL license only after a thorough review. On that same day, I uploaded the image and I also sent an email to Permissions@wikimedia.org to which I attached my exchange of emails with Mr. Tom Maceyka of Sundyne (including the one in which he granted the GFDL license). On February 15th, I received an email from Permissions@wikimedia.org thanking me for the information that I had sent them.

In view of the above information, I don't understand why you deleted the subject image. Would you please explain why? And also how can I get it re-instated as a valid image?

If you will give me your email address, I will send you all of the above emails with the Sundyne Company and also the emails with Permissions@wikimedia.org.

Please let me hear from you as soon as possible. My email address is mbeychok@cox.net and my user name is Mbeychok both on Commons and on the English Wikipedia. - Mbeychok 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image; that was done by User:EPO. However, I recommended its deletion. I have already reviewed the correspondance in question; it was my determination that the conversation as recorded did not sufficiently indicate an intent to license under the GFDL. I replied to that effect. There is no need to send me a copy of the correspondence as I have already seen it. For your reference, the relevant OTRS ticket number is 2007012910019421. Kelly Martin 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kelly, I had contacted User:EPO before I contacted you. In fact, he gave me your name as the one who had tagged the image as being without a valid license ... so please don't bounce me back to him. I don't want to be bounced back and forth between two administrators.

I have sent you emails, the latest one urging you to reconsider your opinion that the Sundyne company did not sufficiently indicate an intent to grant a GFDL license. I repeat that I informed Sundyne about where to read the full explanation of a GFDL license and they responded by clearly stating that "Sundyne grants Wikipedia a GFDL license". All of that is documented in the emails I sent to Permissions@wikimedia.org and to you.

As I said in my last email, I simply cannot go back to Sundyne and tell them that we think they did not know what they were doing. It would insult their intelligence. Once more, please reconsider! - Mbeychok 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is your behavior appropriate for an Administrator?

I thought that Administrators were supposed to help those who requested help. Is that not true? In your case, let me recount the recent events concerning the Image:CentrifCompressorCross-sect.png (discussed just above).

• I exchanged a series of emails with the Sundyne corporation seeking their permission to use a compressor drawing from their website. I clearly referred them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL to read the complete explanation of a GFDL license. The Business Manager of the Sundyne Corporation stated in an email that "Sundyne grants Wikipedia a GFDL license" to use that drawing. I uploaded the drawing and sent the email exchange to Permissions@wikimedia.org.
• About two weeks later, you tagged the uploaded drawing as not having a valid license and User:EPO subsequently deleted the drawing because of your tag.
• I posted a message on your Talk page (see just above) and politely asked you why you decided the GFDL license was not valid. I also emailed you and attached the emails that I had exchanged with Sundyne and again politely asked why you decided the GFDL license was not valid.
• The only explanation I have had from you as yet is that you were "unconvinced" that Sundyne truly intended to grant a GFDL license. In effect, that means you don't think that Sundyne, a large corporation, knew what they were doing. But you still have not answered my question as to specifically why you were "unconvinced".
• I posted another message on your talk page (see above) and politely asked you to reconsider the matter. I also emailed you to request that you reconsider.
• You have failed to respond any further to my questions and requests for reconsideration.

Is that an appropriate way for an Administrator to behave? Refusing to explain why you were "unconvinced"? Refusing to respond at all to my requests for reconsideration? The least you could do is to advise me as to how I might appeal your tagging of the drawing as not having a valid license. - Mbeychok 03:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kelly hasn't edited since your last response. Can you please have some patience and treat Kelly with a little respect? --Gmaxwell 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, thank you for your interest in this matter. I think that all of my postings have been quite polite and respectful. I have not raved or ranted ... simply stated facts and asked for reasons and for reconsideration. As for impatience, I probably have been guilty of that ... because I am upset by the fact that the image I uploaded was tagged as having no valid license and then deleted without anyone having the common courtesy of even contacting me about it. It seem to me that in cases such as these, the original uploader should be notified before an image is tagged as having no valid license. In any event, thanks for your interest. - Mbeychok 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mbeychok, I've already responded to via OTRS and via email. I've nothing to add to those responses and I am tired of you harassing me on this issue. You can either go back to Sundyne and get a permission statement from them that isn't logically inconsistent, as I said originally, or you can forgo uploading this content. You may not attempt to browbeat me into changing my position by badmouthing me here. Thank you, and have a nice day. Kelly Martin 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kelly, you will not hear further from me. Thanks for your polite and respectful comments using words like "harassing", "browbeat" and "badmouthing" ... very nice of you. I don't suffer from the loss of that image because you are "unconvinced" that Sundyne meant what they said... it is Wikipedia that suffers. - Mbeychok 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

COM:DW

Copyright doesn't deny protection to works created in contradiction to some other law. That's just one more common misconception.[1] --Rtc 09:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I never said that there is no copyright protection in such works, just that such copyrights would be difficult, if not impossible to enforce. De jure there is a difference, but de facto it amounts to the same thing. Kelly Martin 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It reads "are generally not protected by copyright". To me that does not sound like "I never said that there is no copyright protection in such works". We do not accept such gray areas of the law. Factually, these are copyrighted, and we shouldn't encourage people to upload by claiming that it would be hard to enfoce. We have rejected such gray areas for nazi pictures, for Sowjet pictures and all such. --Rtc 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Five most common errors"

You blogged about trying to find the Geek Social Fallacies document - note that is a joke, not something to cite as a serious reference. (Neither your blog (typical Google broken eyetest with 404 audio alternative), nor your advogato page, nor this page gives any way to contact you more directly, so posting here. I post this comment also under Expat-style terms, because FDL is adware-ready. advogato.org/person/slef/ )

TfD nomination of w:Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

w:Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:La_domination_masculine.jpg

Why do you consider that the picture "La_domination_masculine.jpg" contained gratuitous nudity?

User:Maurice_Marcellin —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

I'd also like to know. For the record, the full reason was "Gratuitous nudity is out of scope for Commons". Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 05:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Would like to use the Ed Jones Dome image

Hello. I am working on a large ad campaign for a securities company located in Saint Louis. We are interested in using your photo of the Edward Jones Dome. We'd like your permission. How do we get in touch?

Administrative notice

Deutsch

Dear Kelly Martin. I am writing to you to inform you that because of inactivity, you may lose your adminship on Commons.

Commons has a new policy on admin activity, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, taken into use on June 13, 2007 (after a two-week poll on the proposed policy's talk page).

If you want to keep your adminship, you have to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days. Note that if you don't make 5 admin actions in the following 5 months, you will then lose the adminship anyways.

Thank you — Mike.lifeguard 16:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am writing to let you know that as you did not sign the page mentioned above within the permitted 30 day period your admin rights have been removed for inactivity, as required by our policy. We very much appreciate the work you have done here, and hope you will feel free to re-apply for admin rights if at some time in the future you feel able to contribute again. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Kelly Martin!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 17:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Small shotglass.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Cemetery Enterance location

An unimportant question: Do you know if File:Cemetery enterance.jpg (maybe now at File:Cemetery entrance.jpg) is at St. Adalbert (6800 N), Maryhill (8600 N), or Ridgewood (9900 N, just over the line in Des Planes)? I looked on Google Street View but all have green fences and apparently correct signs now, so I can't figure out which one this was. --Closeapple (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Vinca.jpg

File:Vinca.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!

Dschwabe (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)