User talk:LX/Archive/2010: October to December

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived.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.

Overcategorization and the Archipelago Sea[edit]

I have a problem with the Categories Category:Archipelago Sea and Category:Archipelago National Park: A big part of the Archipelago Sea is in the park's "interest area". In that area many of the major islands partly belong to the park. Putting the islands in the park category makes them disappear for somebody seeking an object that is not in the park (and makes private property on those islands seem like being part of the park) and vice versa. I have thought overcategorization is the least evil in this case. Do you have any thoughts?

(Where should such issues be discussed? The talk pages of categories are seldom on watch lists.)

--LPfi (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. Creating Category:Islands of the Archipelago Sea should help avoid overcategorization. What do you think? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most photos of the Archipelago Sea include islands. And parts of those islands belong to the park, parts of them do not (the same problem sustains with other subdivisions). A bunch of {{Cat see also}} and some explanatory text might help. I think that is needed regardless of how we categorize the files.
May be Category:Archipelago National Park should be a mostly empty category, containing only information signs, maps and other files that are relevant only for the park, and reference Category:Archipelago Sea for everything else. Hm, a category for the part of the Archipelago Sea in the interest area (ah, the correct term might be cooperation area) could also help a bit (that area has a reasonable border line).
--LPfi (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. It always helps if the entities we use for categories have good, clearly defined borders. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent]
A proposal (if it seems somewhat reasonable the discussion should probably be copied or moved to Category talk:Archipelago Sea):

Splitting out the cooperation area seems to make other area categories necessary for symmetry reasons. The Åland part doesn't yet seem to be categorized as part of the Archipelago Sea, but I've understood that everything east of the Åland "mainland" belongs to the Archipelago Sea. The "central and northern" is clumsy, but there is no well defined border here. The cooperation area makes the "southern" well defined, even if the term as such is vague. The eastern part is well defined by the traditional division between western and eastern Åboland, but as part of this area is in the park, we probably have to put some media in both this and the "southern" category.

The municipalities are a bit problematic, as the cooperation area consists of parts of several municipalities. I would suggest having the municipalities in the area category where their centre is and in a separate municipality category (I think only one former municipality has its centre in the cooperation area and can there be regarded as an island group).

I think islands and islands groups in the northern, central and southern Archipelago Sea should be both in the area categories and the municipality categories, as the municipality borders are not necessarily well known (and often irrelevant). This could of course count as overcategorization.

(For Åland and the east using only the municipality categories might be ok, I know less about those areas.)

--LPfi (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've responded at Category talk:Archipelago Sea. Sorry for taking so long to write back. I wanted to give it some thought, and I've been rather busy lately. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan drawing[edit]

Sorry about that, I don't knew that this image not could. Truu (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. All the user accounts have been blocked now. --Eldarion (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info[edit]

Thanks for the note on the DR which led me here. I just blocked some socks and closed some other bad faith DRs. Might be worth keeping an eye. Thanks anyway --Herby talk thyme 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson (TV version): I have had it with these monkey-fighting sockpuppets on this Monday-to-Friday wiki! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pics[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Danieldnm#File:BSS Sverigedemokraterna 1.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE the picture Maurice de Bevere[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Codeholder#File:Maurice De Bevere.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

Dear LX, I regretfully read that you marked as copyright violations all of my latest photos. As i wrote in their entry, this is not a copyright violation according to italian laws.

You wrote that there is no evidence that it was first published in Italy, but can you demonstrate that it was first published some elsewhere? Can you tell who is the author? I can't. And, unless you show me that I'm wrong, I can assume that they were first published in the book that I quoted as their source. Furthermore it's impossible to discover where they were published for the first time and if you want I can even say that, because we're talking about Ferraris, they were surely published on italian press at that time, what it counts it's that they were published in Italy more than 20 years ago. Furthermore, by giving the source of the file, I demontrated that it was published and created in Italy. If you want i'll attach you the photo of the book where i took the photos.

Surely I'm not a copyright expert, but nobody explained me how to handle wikimedia's rules and never had time to read them all. I only try to do my best with public domain photos which are no more eligible for copyright....... Digioman 22:18, 15 November 2010 (CEST)

The onus is on the uploader to provide credible evidence to support the licensing or public domain claims made, and on the balance of probability, I think it seems unlikely that photographs of such high-profile events would go unpublished for 35 years. The way {{PD-Italy}} is written, the very fact that the photos were not taken in Italy makes the tag not applicable to these photos. I don't know for sure whether or not that's actually the case; usually, it's the country of first publication that's relevant. If that is the case here, we would still need to determine that they were not published anywhere else before. Let's keep the discussion at the individual deletion discussions, though, as circumstances may differ. I appreciate your responsiveness, but I still urge you to take the time to read through Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see I answered also at the individual deletion discussions, later these days I'll try to determine the country of their first pubblication. But a couple of phots you marked as copyright violations where surely taken in Italy, I'll later specify the ones. The fact is that it's very difficult to determine the author, all the photos are anonimous, and actually impossible to find where they were first published. I also found that, for the photo taken at the Swiss GP, could be applied the {{Switzerland-photo}}, I'll later let you know because I have to some how transalte the swiss law which is in german and I don't speak german.I'll let you know also for the other ones at the individual discussions Digioman 20:58, 16 November 2010 (CEST)
Dear LX, in the individual deletion discussions I marked the photos which can be deleted because I found new photos which were for sure taken in Italy and that can replace the ones I actually uploaded so that there are no troubles with licenses. Let me know, but please don't think that I deliberately tried to violate copyright laws, the fact is that I still don't handle very well those rules. byeeee Digioman 13:35, 17 November 2010 (CEST)
Thanks again for your responsiveness and for researching the sources further. I don't doubt that any mistakes you made were based on good intentions. I see users who do deliberately upload copyright violations on a daily basis, and it's quite easy to spot the difference. I'll follow up on the individual discussions where I feel like I have something to say, and for the rest, we'll just wait for other users to chime in or admins to take action one way or another. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Dagane#File:FuerteChacal.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assist me![edit]

Hello, LX! I'm the uploader of File:Tamil_Culture.jpg. As I am a newbie of this stuff, I have no idea what to do with source information. Can you please help to figure out what actually I supposed to do? I don't want to let the image deleted. Rather, I seek proper help to provide copyright info with my contributions. Thank you! --Chuckraverthy (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tamil Culture.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg[edit]

{subst:Fdw-puf|Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg}} 75.112.150.226 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, seven five dot one one two dot one five zero dot two two six! Based on this, I assume that you are TucsonDavid. (Or do you prefer Brian?)
We don't have en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files here at Commons, there is no Template:Fdw-puf here, and templates require two opening brackets to work. You might have been looking for Commons:Deletion requests.
I can understand if you're upset about this, but if this is intended as retaliation, I urge you to find a more productive way to vent your frustration.
You seem to be concerned with the fact that File:Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg is showing up in Tineye searches.
The first match is from tuning.sk, who have also added their watermark to it. As you can see, it is much lower resolution and a tighter crop than the image stored here, so there is no way that I could have derived the file from the copy on their site. Furthermore, that page is dated 2007-06-07, whereas I uploaded the file to Commons on 2006-11-10. I have been in touch with Peter Kuttner of Cobra Tuning Ltd. regarding their infringing use of the photo in August last year, and frankly, I'm disappointed to see that they have still not taken it down or removed the fraudulent watermarking.
The second match was from subarutunersofmaine.com, which appears to be a parked domain now. Note that this site's inclusion of my photo was actually a deeplink to a low-resolution version here on Wikimedia's servers. I did also try to contact them in 2009, but they're RFC ignorant, so mails to info@subarutunersofmaine.com and postmaster@subarutunersofmaine.com all bounced.
There are also infringing uses at academic.ru, flagworld.com and cafecomf1, but it should be pretty obvious for similar reasons that they're violating my copyright and not the other way around. I hope that clears up any concerns you may have had. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrwashing File:Pinacograma.png[edit]

Is there evidence for the statement, or is that your suspicion? If so, based upon what? Not doubting, just seeking information so I can progress deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The specific format of the source link shows that the Commons uploader is also operating the Flickr account, and sure enough, it was also uploaded to Commons right after it was uploaded to Flickr. It also shows up in Tineye searches, including a blog entry which predates the upload to Flickr and Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I agree with LX --Herby talk thyme 17:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sortering av kategorier[edit]

Alfabetisk ordning är i stort sett en slumpmässig ordning. Det kan variera väldigt mycket beroende hur kategorierna namngetts och vilken bokstav olika ord börjar med. Till exempel hamnar manskategorin före people by name, medan kvinnokategorin hamnar efter. Ett annat exempel är att på svenska Wikipedia skulle dödskategorin komma före födelsekategorin Det är bättre att ha de viktigaste och mer specifika kategorierna först. En statsminister är mest känd för det uppdraget (kanske med något undantag som jag inte tänkt på), så statsministerkategorin kommer först. Alla personer föds, dör och har ett namn, så de kategorierna är väldigt ospecifika och kommer sist. Däremellan kan det vara svårare att avgöra, men det går ofta att gruppera olika typer av kategorier och om det inte går så kan ju alfabetisk ordning vara lika bra som något annat. /Ö 18:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hej och tack för förklaringen! :) Utan redigeringskommentar såg det lite underligt ut, men nu förstår jag att det finns en tanke bakom ändringen, även om jag ändå inte är säker på att jag håller med. Alfabetisk ordning kanske kan tyckas slumpmässig i någon bemärkelse, men den förefaller i alla fall mindre godtycklig än alternativet. När man jobbar systematiskt med kategorier tycker jag att det är lättare om man vet var i listan man ska titta efter en viss kategori. Om man börjar vikta till exempel statsministerämbete mot Nobelpristagarskap tror jag att utslaget beror alltför mycket på vilket perspektiv den som redigerar har utifrån till exempel härkomst och vilken kategoristruktur de håller på med för tillfället. Så hur går vi vidare? Commons:Categories ger ingen vägledning. Ska vi ta upp frågan på Commons talk:Categories? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!![edit]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Rudeby88#File:Eminem and Rihanna.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted[edit]

The obvious issues :) I've also sprot your user page but let me know if you want me to revert that. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's probably fine to leave it like that. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users banned according to your list. I will try to keep an eye on the list. Thanks. --Eldarion (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LX/Archive/2010:_October_to_December&oldid=56858780"