User talk:LX/Archive/2013: 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The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived.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.

Copyright

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:TheJoker#File:007LogobyJKR.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) 09:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi LX

I removed the comment at the Village pump in the support section of the proposal to apologise to Dimitri about the mishandling of his userpage. Please feel free to re-ad support, or something to the discussion section, I didn't re-add the comment there myself, as it seemed on second glance to simply incite. Possibly you could consider the light hearted remarks left by others in the spirit they were written. Not that I'm saying pouring petrol on a bad situation isn't the wikipedia way, but the purpose of the exercise was to put out a fire, rather than start several more. Penyulap ☏ 17:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what? On what basis did you think it was appropriate for you to censor my comment on Commons' main discussion board? I don't see any indication that the comment I replied to was in a section reserved for "support" or immune from rebuttal. What exactly are you saying that my comment incited? Is asking others to mellow worse than suggesting that fellow contributors be "hung, shot, and then drawn and quartered"? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstood, I hope you're not upset here, it's hard to tell sometimes. The section with just support in it followed the proposal and then there was another section called discussion right under it. It's easy to make more sections and please feel free.

The expression 'hung, drawn and quartered' is a figure of speech, or at least it has been since the 14th century. It's not meant to be taken literally and I don't think that we actually have the ability on commons to do that to a person. I think it's safer to figure it is used in a deliberately humorous or dramatic manner. I'm not trying to censor your comment so much as save some embarrassment, feel free to take the comment seriously if you really feel strongly about it. The purpose of the exercise is re-affirm the purpose of the project, and to try to fix what has so clearly gone wrong.

How do you feel about it btw ? I mean this whole thing where his photographs are so massively award winning and do you know I finally just checked one of the links just that moment for the first time, and National Geographic, and a bunch of other industry sites feature his work. That's pretty cool. Some people have mentioned that it all comes down to jealousy. Do you think that there could be people who are jealous of all those industry awards ? do you think that might have something to do with all of this drama ?

Where you mention about being mellow, I agree, that's a great idea, how can that idea be applied to the 'drawn and quartered' comment ? or my -(o)-(o)- glaring comment do you figure ? Penyulap ☏ 18:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

here is the part that I removed. At first glace, because of the highlighting, it may seem that only your comment was removed, but looking carefully, it wasn't your comment that was removed, it was two comments that I removed, one each from you and canoe1967. That's the 'incite' part, it's not your comment so much as both of them that were going off into that scene from the movie Zoolander where the supermodels are playfully splashing each other with the petrol hoses at the gas station. To sort of help out with keeping the 'support' section about 'support', I took them out. THAT is when I had such trouble finding an appropriate place for them. I still don't know where such comments could go. do you ? Penyulap ☏ 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I still don't see anything stating that comments directly following your proposal were immune to rebuttal, and I don't see why I should need to make a separate section to discuss something on a discussion board. I'm more baffled than upset; I'm not used to comments just being removed like that.

The user who removed the links from Dmitri's user page (and who has undone that edit and apologised) edits under his full name. I did not find the suggestion that he should be shot particularly humorous. I'd rather we didn't use that kind of hostile rhetoric. If anything, I would have expected that comment to be struck. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

He didn't say just shot, he mentioned hung, drawn and quartered. There is an article on the topic on english wikipedia. If you really feel he was actually making a death threat then by all means take it to the admin noticeboard, but don't say I didn't do my best to save you the embarrassment of as canoe1967 puts it not knowing "the difference between a firmly worded anecdotal opinion and a death threat.". I tried my best, but some people insist on looking the way they do. Penyulap ☏ 20:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And Sarah Palin didn't really mean for Gabrielle Giffords to get shot in the head when she put a crosshairs symbol on the map of her district and asked supporters to "RELOAD" – it just happened to happen. Even Canoe1967 doesn't seem to suggest the comment was intended to be funny, but rather "firmly worded" opinion. I disagree with throwing such "firm" words around, and I'm not at all embarrassed about that. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Going to stop my Wikimedia commons account

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Whitetararaj#Copyright violations. 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) 16:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Omegahouse.jpg from Wikimedia Commons

I am asking that you reconsider my request to delete the subject photo, considering that I uploaded it. The picture was originally used for an article on Wikipedia for self-promotion purposes, which is why the article on the fraternity got deleted from Wikipedia. Given this reason, I believe this photo should also be removed. I don't believe there is any value of keeping it here, and as the person who originally took the picture it is my wish to see it removed, especially since the original article linking to this picture got deleted for that specific reason. Victor8698 (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Victor! You've nominated the file for deletion twice. So far, none of the reasons for deletion you've given have been based on our deletion policy. I left a comment on one of those discussions (which you did not respond to), but I was not the one to close either discussion. I suggest you discuss the matter with the administrators who closed the requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Licence Help

I've recently gained permission from a flickr author to upload his images from flickr. What licence do I need to use please? IJA (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at Commons:Upload help#Licence help. Please don't crosspost. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

On models...

Hi LX, from your comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fiat 880 DT tractor.jpg, I gather you have an interest in models, or have at least been somewhat following the outcomes of related discussions. I've tried to assemble thoughts and support at User:Elcobbola/Models and I was wondering whether you’d be interested in giving me feedback. I’m largely hoping to learn whether or not you feel it is clear/understandable/accessible/etc. and, maybe more importantly, whether you think it successfully makes the case. Эlcobbola _talk 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't claim to have a special interest in scale models, but it is an area that I do come across from time to time when dealing with copyright related matters in general.

A few comments on your essay:

• The essay is a bit US centric. Of course US copyright law always applies to Commons, but other jurisdictions might also be at play, so it's worth noting that copyright laws of other countries are based on similar principles.
• Some of the strongest points are made near the end. An introductory summary should mention that case law and official US copyright registration forms confirm that models are eligible for copyright protection.
• "illegible for copyright" should be "ineligible for copyright [protection]"
• I personally try to avoid linking to policies and guidelines by their page names or shortcuts, so instead of explicitly pointing to COM:UA, I'd link the text "does not protect useful articles." This also shortens the sentence.
• While we're on the topic of the link to that page: the points you make in the background section should really be incorporated in Commons:Derivative works#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!, which currently reaches the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.
• Do you have a reference for the claim that Mondrian's simple geometric shapes are eligible for copyright protection? If not, bringing up a potentially controversial example might detract from the actual topic.
• In general, the background section might be a bit long. I personally don't mind it, but I'm afraid most of our readers' attention span only stretches so far.
• The case law contains quoted text with nested quotes. The inner quotes should use single quotes.

In general, I think it's ready for the project namespace. Good initiative! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Good points, all. Thank you for taking a look. "A bit US centric" is being far too kind; it is entirely US-based. This is deliberate, as works on the Commons must be free both in the U.S. and their country of origin. Given that U.S. considerations thus apply to all works, it's the logical first consideration. In an unfortunate sense, it doesn't matter what other countries say, as U.S. law will be the test (as an example of precedent, U.K. law grants copyright to faithful replications of PD works. The U.S., however, does not, so Commons policy is to ignore U.K. law–even for U.K. works). One could perhaps call this imperialist--and I have some sympathy for the notion, not being American myself--but ultimately it’s just simpler to confine discussion to the dominant jurisdiction. If this essay becomes something more formal, I would nevertheless hope others would contribute information from other jurisdictions. Эlcobbola _talk 19:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, everything needs to clear US copyright law as a "first hurdle," and when it comes to scale models, US copyright law is pretty much always going to be the most limiting factor. I still think it's worth pointing out that this focus is a deliberate one to avoid objections in cases involving models from other countries. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi LX, I've tried to implement your suggestions and drastically shorten the explanation to arrive more quickly at the punchline, so to speak. If you're still interested, I would appreciate any feedback you're willing to offer. Эlcobbola _talk 23:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you've addressed all my comments (except a couple of remaining nested quotation marks in the case law section) and made some other major improvements in the process. I'd say it's even more ready for the project namespace now. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, again. I think I've fixed them now. Эlcobbola _talk 19:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No subject

From Itapirkanmaa:

Insufficient license and not supported by source; source merely says "vapaasti julkaistavissa" (publicly available/freely publishable) and does not articulate whether derivatives are allowed, whether this applies to commercial usage, etc., as required by COM:L. Note user uploaded a similar image (File:Oasisazipods.jpg) saying it was "Copyrighted free use provided that the use is non-commercial" which suggests a failure to understand the level of freeness required by the Commons. Эlcobbola talk 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The phase "vapaasti julkaistavissa" means plainly, simply and irrevokably "freely publishable". Who made the other faulty translation for you? By all means publicly declare your expertise in the Finnish language if you are able to read Finnish that well yourself.

Moreover, the picture has ACTUALLY BEEN CLEARED PREVIOUSLY FOR CC by the request of the user Makele-90 (who seems to have some authority somewhere), after he had kindly contacted the originator of the work the Finnish press agency STT. Please contact him.

Regarding the other one of my pictures, I will therefore need to ask my contact person ABB Finland again for a licence in these very words:

"I, Mr/Ms XX, acting on behalf of and as the representative of the ABB corp, who is the legal originator of the enclosed picture, hereby declare for all intents legal and otherwise that the said picture is free for ALL kinds of publication in the entity known as "Wikipedia Commons", this including, but not being limited to, commercial, non-commercial, educational, institutional and private uses. The picture can be resized when and if needed. In all instances, the picture must be accompanied by a written indication to the effect that the copyright holder of the picture is and remains ABB Finland."

What the effing thing is a "derivation" of a picture? Where does it say such licence has to be explicity applied for?

(You will excuse me for having filed for an author account at one of Wikipedia alternatives actually.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itapirkanmaa (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Please read the instructions above. You failed to sign and date your post, and you posted it under a heading about the copyrightability of scale models. Your entry seems to have nothing to do with that topic. In fact, I have no idea why you've come to my user talk page to discuss this matter. You seem to be responding to a deletion nomination over at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azipod, early design with retrofitted fin..jpg, which I've had absolutely nothing to do with. Please keep discussions where they started. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

one copyvio

please go to my user page becaues I uploaded a photo of the glitch pokemon and its from bulbapedia and needs to be deleted. --Starship9000 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete files. If you know of something that's a copyright violation, just edit the file description page and add {{copyvio|Explanation of why it's a copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Add this on my talk page:

== [[:File:TenQuestionMarks.png]] ==

{{Autotranslate|1=File:TenQuestionMarks.png|base=Copyvionote}}

Thanks!--Starship9000 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The only purpose of that template is to let you know that a file has been tagged for deletion. If you're the one requesting the deletion, there's no point in me or anyone else notifying you. Anyway, File:TenQuestionMarks.png does not look like it would be eligible for copyright protection; see Commons:Threshold of originality. (I took the liberty of formatting your message a bit.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For the clever catch with the DR of Rumanareaz. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! —LX (talk, contribs) 11:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/B post

Hi LX. Can you take another look at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Juan esteban daza reyes? I can't fathom why Sanandros converted these obvious CSDs of yours to DR. They were all sourced to "internet" and a quick Google search easily found them on skyscrapercity. I'm left scratching my head on this one. INeverCry 21:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm as puzzled as you, so I have no good answers. You said pretty much what I was going to say. Thanks for taking care of it. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Nordstrom, important

Hej, jag är journalist och arbetar för en berömd tidning i Turkiet. Som ett team, med mina kollegor, vill vi utveckla biografier av kända personer. Det kan tyckas en upphovsrättsbrott, men det är det inte. Alla bilder är tagna av vårt team, men jag laddar upp dem. Vi bestämde oss för att beskära dem och ladda upp till Flickr. Det finns ingen kränkning alls. Jag kan bevisa hur du vill. Du kan kommunicera med fotografer. Jag ber dig att återställa dem. Najpoznatiji (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Tror du att jag är dum på riktigt eller? Hitta något bättre att göra med din tid. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi LX the user Marocdima scan from the books thank's --— Mouh2jijel ^[Talk] 20:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed the remaining contributions and nominated some for deletion. If you have additional information to provide, please do so in the deletion discussions. You'll find the links on the user's talk page, starting at User talk:Marocdima#File:Ifni war.jpg. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your revert...

I'm honestly impressed how users are threated in this wonderful wikimedia-project. I really hope, you never have problems in any projects here. Thanks for your help! --93.212.89.246 11:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean this revert? As it says right at the top of the page, Commons talk:Community portal is only intended for discussions about the contents of the page Commons:Community portal. It is not intended for general questions. General questions left on that page tend to remain unseen and unanswered for quite some time, as evidenced by the three questions above yours, dating back to November of last year. Also, please don't crosspost – especially not without mentioning that you have. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, WHERE to post my question. I'm now trying it here. It would have been helpful to show me where to post it. I'm active since 2005 in various Wikipedia projects, but I don't understand the structure of commons. I'm just trying to get my login back on. --93.212.89.246 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, it says right at the top: "Posts addressing the general public on Commons are best placed at the Village pump." Commons:Forum is the German language version of that page, so you've found the right place, and you'd already done that by the time I removed your comment from Commons talk:Community portal. Therefore, I didn't think you needed any more help with that part. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)