User talk:LX/Archive/2007: January to March

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Morlachs maps

Alex, I am new to Commons wikipedia and I am sorry for my mistakes. I am correcting the information on the "Morlachs maps", as you requested. All the maps were in my old computer databank, so I have made the mistake of believing they were copyrighted. I have just found that two (Hungary with turkey in europe.jpg and romanian origin map.PNG) are already (!) in wikipedia commons. The other two (Bosna2.jpg and MORLACCHI.MORLACCHIA.jpg) are from old maps in my databank. The fifth (a photo I have done some years ago, and scanned on my computer) is a personal creation, and you should decide the classification if you don't agree with me. I hope to have solved the problems, so you can remove the tags. Have a happy new year. Bruno.--Brunodambrosio 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. I'll do the requested corrections. Bruno.--Brunodambrosio 16:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Images marked free for private and educational use

ref Orkney pages in de.wkipedia and your comments ...

Whatsoever might have been written/left on the pics/maps themselves or in the description: Everything was clearly labled and licenced GNU/CC from me the author. I simply got rid of such stupid discussions and will delete all my contributions to WikiCommons and/or de.wikipedeia, both texts and pics/graphs. Nice to meet you ... Islandhopper 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bildetik/regler

Hur illa är det att registreringsnummer på bilar på en parkeringsplats syns i bilden Image:Lugnet.JPG? Finns det regler kring sådant. Och hur är det med privata hus i t.ex. foton från villastadsdelar? Radera gärna Lugnet-bilden om den inte är OK. Jag vet ej hur man gör. Skvattram 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hej Skvattram! Jag har letat lite, men inte lyckats hitta att Commons skulle ha några regler angående registreringsskyltar. Däremot hittade jag Category:License plates, så det verkar ju inte vara några problem. Sedan vet jag inte om personuppgiftslagen har några märkliga invändningar, men i de flesta länder gäller att man inte kan ha särskilt höga förväntningar på integritet på allmän plats. Jag är inte administratör här på Commons, så jag kan inte själv ta bort något. Om du hittar något som tyder på att bilden borde bort kan du anmäla den på Commons:Deletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Licensing derived images

Continued at User talk:Tintazul as per notice at the top of this page.

Help please

Could you please help me. I requested deletion for two images Image:Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant 1.jpg and Image:Charadehepburn.jpg and you rightly noted that they did not conflict with copyright policies. I have uploaded new versions of the same images without the URL stamp that I thought was problematic. I should have just done that in the first place. I don't know what to do now. Should the deletion request be closed? Should I now remove the tags from the image pages? Thanks. Rossrs 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, deletion requests are only closed by administrators. I don't know whether or not it would be in accordance with common practice here for the user filing the request to withdraw it. If it is, I guess you would simply follow the instructions for administrators. It might be wise to ask an experience administrator first. In any event, an administrator will probably close the issues without deletion within a week or so, unless someone comes up with a reason not to, seeing your comments. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fair so I will wait and let it run its course. Thank you for your advice. Rossrs 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

50px

- How do I give myself permission to upload this image? --Profero 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Commons:Email templates. You could also ask the original author to put a statement on his web site adjacent to the source placing it under one or more free licences and link to this. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I took the picture - why don't you ask me for permission to use it? I'll give it to you. --Profero 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The image originally said "uploaded with permission from photographer Robert E. Haraldsen". This implied that the uploader and the photographer were two different people. It looks okay now. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

why do admins at wikicommons hate freedom of artistic expression ?

I understand that Europeans elected Hitler willingly, but that was over 60 years ago. Why is facism slowly creeping back into the European mindset?

Please ask yourself: What would the world be like if photographers were restricted to taking only photos with "consent of subject"? We surely would lose millions of beautiful images. As far as I know, only taliban destroys photos of human beings. This is what European culture has become?

Now all my photos have been flagged for deletion. This is obviously in retaliation to my first appeal. Wikicommons admins clearly punish all resistance, a sick kind of electronic gestapo that tolerates no dissent.

Please have a look at my other candid photographs and explain why they are being deleted. Graham Wellington 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally agree with requiring permission for photographic subjects, but if the law in the country where the photograph was taken requires it, we have to respect that. Like I said on your talk page, you're unlikely to rally support by antagonising others. —LX (talk, contribs) 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Karl Gerhard

Hej LX!

Jag har nu kompletterat Karl Gerhardbilden med uppgift om källa. Som framgår faller den under PD såsom tagen av okänd fotograf och publicerad före 1944. /FredrikT 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of Smile

Hi, I got an answer from the Chapter's Secretary. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Order of Smile.svg. Kpalion 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps, maps, and more maps

Hi! re: Category talk:Maps (please join the discussion, because This edit is very contrary to what is going to go on with any map--they'll all eventually have tons of different map pages categories. The correct move on that date would be Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages and Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages because of "Roughly spans the years: 1000 AD—1300 AD;", emphasis on the roughly. The map re-categorization project (sic) has been on going here since May, paused over the late late summer and fall, and is soon to be a many handed steady effort again... Please share your wisdom with us.

And then also that 'Europein1328.png' page's talk, considering this: [1], where the accuracy of the map is in question. Do you know whether there is a resolution group here to turn to on that issue? Nice to meetchya! Regards // FrankB 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S.--I'll fix that cat issue now, need to go to that talk anyway.)

That was a few thousand edits ago, so I can't say exactly what I was thinking. I believe my concern with Image:Europein1328.png was that I thought that Category:Maps showing 14th-century history was a subcategory of Category:High Middle Ages (via Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages) and Category:Late Middle Ages (via Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages; this would be similar to how Category:Maps showing 11th-century history is categorised, and perhaps it ought to follow the same scheme, as I seem to have assumed it did).

If this assumption had been correct, the map would have appeared in multiple levels of the same hierarchy. As you might know, this is called overcategorisation, which should be avoided. Diagrammatically, here is what I thought the partial category graph looked like and where the image was categorised:

• Category:High Middle Ages ←
  • Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages
    • Category:Maps showing 14th-century history ←

• Category:Late Middle Ages ←
  • Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages
    • Category:Maps showing 14th-century history ←

Category talk:Maps is on my watchlist, I do express my views there occasionally, and I have taken an active role in the categorisation of maps (mainly helping to move broadly categorised maps from Category:Maps to its subcategories.

I'm afraid I know far too little history to comment on the accuracy of the map. Maybe some kind participants of en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages could help?

—LX (talk, contribs) 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur with your thought process... save I'd have killed the parent Middle ages categories, as clearly it's a map and should be in a rib off that skeleton, so to speak. Whether it should be listed in both the latter kind, or just one with the centuries being arranged under the period span is something we need to hammer out. They are both periodization schemes, but only the centuries one is fully in place on the commons. On en.wp, there is a set of articles matching a navigation template... so that is a work in progress here, and I'll have to further explore what was happening over there. WikiP's server is currently down, so I came here for a bit.

I'm an engineer, but have an avocation in history, and I don't know the answer to that one myself. Thanks for reminding me to research it a bit more. As we get into modern times, such periodization classifications will become far more complicated as at the same time the body of work to be classified will be far larger, whilst fitting such into any era category save 'Contemporary times' may well be impossible--hence the finer discrimination of the by centuries blurs much in our recent past and present. I think I just convinced myself the maps by centuries should be the tagging cat, and the other hold those!

I sort of consider the wide-timespan categories in periodization as aggregations -- galleries collecting a lot of all in the era by type data. A similar case would be coins or pottery by era. Do late Roman empire coins and Greek coins from the era of the Persian wars belong together? Both are in 'Antiquity' per current era classifications, so I would say so... if it's recognized as such a 'tracking category', not as a primary schema in and of itself. Regards -- thanks for the long answer. I'll refer this to that talk. // FrankB 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Auroranorth

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Stereographic polytope 8cell.png

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mellotron

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Chourah

Thanks for picking it up - again! I've protected them from recreation now which hopefully leave us with time for other things - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

About Mangareva 2006

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image "Lost Temporada 3"

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the correct procedure, but I'm newbee here, please be patient. The user, who uploaded that image (Temporada 3), uploads now Image:Lost_Tercera_Temporada.jpg. I think this is copyright infringment, but i'm not sure (otherwise I insert speedy delete). I apologize for my english. Bye.  ELBorgo (sms) 19:28, 18 Mar 2007 (UTC)

Free Pictures

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

please delete

Would you please go ahead and delete Image:D2JSP screenshot.jpg for me... I forgot about the fact that the image would only qualify as fair use. I have uploaded it to wikipedia instead. Thanks! Pedant 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't – I'm not an admin here. However, it's been tagged as a non-free screenshot, so its deletion should be imminent. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Make a warning template for Copyvio claim to don't be

Hello, I found thqt you edit this :

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALainhRien&diff=4847730&oldid=4847516

And I perfectly agree with you, for 'This case', and for 'such cases'. We have new vandals uploading copyrighted image under free licenses. For such cases, we need to put then face to the fact that the uploader is legaly responsable of the copyvio. This case becoming frequent, I think we need a new template.

I did the template "{{Wait}}", but it may be (and need) both improvement and renaming. Please feel free to improve and rename the template {{Wait}}, to have a more efficient tool of warning.

--Yug (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (administrator too ;)

Yeah, you might have noticed I got some inspiration for the wording from your post on the village pump. :) I threw together {{User:LX/Copyright claims}} for now.

I'm not sure about your idea of integrating warning and blocking messages. It would be good for us non-admins to be able to warn users without claiming (incorrectly) that they've been blocked, and warning users give them a chance to show

• that the work really is their own or
• that they hadn't understood what they were doing (giving them the chance to come clean by tagging their own uploads for deletion) or
• that they intend to proceed in bad faith, ignoring all warnings. (If and when this happens, blocking is in order.)

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeap, I have the same idea : we have to send a kindly notification, to encourage them to make good contributions. And obviously, we have not to block them on the minute.

In the template Wait, we can change :

• "you were block" by "...from now, you may be block to allow copryrigh checking..."
• The Wait name, by {{User seeming in copivio}}, or something like that (my english is not good enough to make shorter)
• add a section such "you are legaly responsable of your upload [...] wikimedia may share the informations keep about you [...]"

Can you build something in this 3 ways with a "Standard English" ? Then it will be ok to add it. ;]

(In fact, the work is almost exactly to merge Wait and your User:LX/Copyright claims)

Yug (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I started by substing the {{Wait}} template on user talk pages where this hadn't been done, to avoid changing the contents of messages that have previously been left on user talk pages. (Substing templates with headings also helps avoid editing of the template, as the edit link for the heading leads to the template unless it's been substed.)

I'll make some changes to the template in the next few minutes based on this discussion. Please keep an eye on it, and let me know of anything you don't like or anything you think I've overlooked.

—LX (talk, contribs) 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know what you think. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship for Tintazul

Hi LX! I have proposed myself for adminship; please go to the nomination page and support me with your vote. Thank you! – Tintazul ^talk 11:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I had to think about this for a bit, and I notice in the meantime, you appear to have effectively withdrawn your request. I do hope that you are not too disappointed with the outcome, and that you continue to contribute to Commons as you have done for the past couple of years.

To be honest, I would hesitate to support your request. The willingness to experience what adminship is like, both from a social and technological perspective, indicates some level of curiosity, which I think is a good thing, so that didn't bother me. What did bother me is the solicitation of votes (particularly as you not only encouraged people to vote, but to vote in a specific way) and the discussion we had earlier about licensing of derivatives of GFDL-licensed works.

I'm sure you've learned from that discussion, but my fear is that it might indicate that there are other weak points in your understanding of this complex area, which I think is absolutely crucial to Commons administrators. I know I could be wrong here, and I know I set the bar high here, but sorting out licensing issues is the most important job of administrators here, so I do want to err on the side of caution.

That said, we do need Portuguese speaking administrators to deal with the increasing quantity of copyright violations of Portuguese speaking uploaders, and you do have a long history of valuable contributions, so it's not a simple decision to make.

—LX (talk, contribs) 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

Please keep discussions where they started, as requested. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)