User talk:Revent/Archive 18

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requesting for deletion

Hello,
I uploaded a photo of myself on commons a few days ago. [[File:Usernamekiran.jpg]] Later, i requested that image for deletion. But it is taking a lot of time. Would you please delete it? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: ✓ Done You opened a 'regular' deletion request... they typically run for about a week. "Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused image" is a speedy, just add {{SD|G7}} to such an image and it'll be noticed faster. - Reventtalk 17:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Another image uploaded

File:Gehana Vasisth March 2017.jpg

Hi again
(sorry I keep on nagging you. But, even though I have been behaving with good faith, and precutious about not violating any wiki policy, I am not having a good time/experince on wikimedia)
Few minutes ago from now, I uploaded another image of the actress. Would you please take a look at it, and tell me how is this image doing on legal levels? Thanks a lot, and i apologise again.

PS: How to request renaming of a file uploaded by someone else, and how to change the description that file? Images like these is the reason why I had requested for the authorisation of renaming images (thats how you n me met) [[File:TheTwilight.jpg]] —usernamekiran (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: That image looks perfectly okay to me... since it appears to have never been previously published, your simple assertion that you were the photographer is sufficient.
To change the description of a file, simply edit the file page. To request renaming, you would add the template {{Rename}} to the file page. There is a gadget, Help:RenameLink, that makes doing so easier.... it should be turned on by default, if it's not you can turn it on in Preferences. - Reventtalk 18:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: Yeah, I remember such stories about Ambien back when it was new. - Reventtalk 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
well, they are true.
If some a person whi has extremely high IQ, but is goofy, with vary diversed and in depth knowledge (including computer science, pscychiatric medication, electronics, chemistry, and physics including many other feilds), knowledge which can be applied in daily life, then it is very risky if that person doesnt sleep after consuming it, or if he wakes up while ambien still has influence on him. Some people become even more goofy Template:Smily
If you know what I mean —usernamekiran (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Weekly Summary #252

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Edith

I sure have the hamsters turning, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshea8400 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 01 January 2017 (UTC)

Mbox for user closed accounts?

Is this reasonable? User:Sfan00 IMG

It's sufficiently rare that it doesn't need it's own template. 

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Looks good to me.... I'd actually just assumed you'd redirect them, but actually explaining also works. - Reventtalk 20:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama

So many files in this category remain unreviewed. I suggest either you or someone act fast before their source links suddenly disappear. Because if the links are dead, you can't save the files from deletion. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Will do... I've seen the backlog in there far worse, though. - Reventtalk 23:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Picture

Hello Revent, My name is David Mattei, the author of Christopher Mattei's draft Wikipedia page. I made a mistake when uploading a picture of him and am now trying to remove the file from Wikimedia Commons, because it is not a very good picture of him (and is not being used on the current draft Wikipedia page).

Here is the image I would like to remove:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christopher_M._Mattei.png#file

Can you help me with this?

Thank you for any guidance and assistance.

Sincerely,

Dave Mattei (David Mattei (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)) (David Mattei (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Mattei (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Mattei: The new DR is the way to ask, but the community is likely to think it's a good idea to keep both images, since they are freely licensed. - Reventtalk 06:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Revent — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Mattei (talk • contribs) 12:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You deleted an image that I photographed myself

1. Deleting images caused distortion in the articles.

2. Some of the images you deleted have special rights, but they are related to the articles topics.

3. Most of the images you deleted are commonly used on websites and newspapers.

4. You deleted an image that I photographed myself.

5. If Wikimedia continues deleting images, it will become a primitive Wikipedia.

6. Inserting images in the articles helps the reader to understand the discussion in the articles.

7. For example, this image was in an article discussing the movie’s idea : (إيرول_فلين.jpg)


8. If you see that I'm wrong, let me know how to get the license.

9. Tell me how to upload images, which will not be deleted later.

11. I want a detailed explanation about how to obtain a license to upload the image.

جبران الغافري (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@جبران الغافري: If there was some image in that that was legitimately your own work, it was buried in a large number of obvious copyright violations, all also claimed as 'own work'. You yourself state that "most of the images you deleted are commonly used on websites and newspapers." Such images are copyrighted, and not only cannot be claimed as 'own work', but cannot be hosted on Wikipedia Commons without a free license from the copyright holder. Please read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT.
Commons administrators are allowed, per COM:CSD, to speedily delete obvious copyright violations. The community also allows us to speedily delete an editors uploads 'in bulk', per the COM:Precautionary principle, when it is apparent that the editor is primarily uploading copyright violations under obviously false 'own work' claims.
You may not upload images to Wikimedia Commons as 'own work' unless you, personally, created the work and own it's copyright. When uploading images that you did not create, but instead obtained elsewhere, you must clearly indicate where you obtained the image, and that source must provide evidence that the work is either freely licensed by the copyright holder, or in the public domain.
Some of the images that you uploaded might be allowable under fair use, but Wikimedia Commons is specifically prohibited from hosting fair use images (they must be uploaded locally to the project where they are used) and such usage still requires a clear attribution of the author instead of a false 'own work' claim. - Reventtalk 04:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I wrote in the source field that this image (ساكستون_وويلز.jpg) from this site (http://www.imdb.com/)

I wrote in the source field that this image (عنترة_وعروة_والشنفرى.jpg) from this site( http://nadialarab.com//)

image that I photographed myself (Sarat_Arabia.jpg)


جبران الغافري (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@جبران الغافري: For the images from imdb and nadialarab, you merely provided links to the websites themselves. The content of both of those websites is not only copyrighted, but they both have explicit copyright notices, and neither one releases their content under licenses that Commons accepts. Please, again, read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Also, Commons policy (COM:EVID) states that the provided source of a file obtained from the internet should be a page on the source website that contains the specific file, so that the information is verifiable.
File:Sarat_Arabia.jpg appears to the the only image, out of the 36 that you had uploaded, that was not an obvious copyright violation, and it was reasonable to also delete it as a precaution in view of your other uploads. Also, it is an extremely small and low resolution image with no EXIF information, of the type that is commonly taken from websites. I will happily undelete it if you can provide a higher quality version as evidence that it is indeed your own work. - Reventtalk 02:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #254

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • A warm welcome to our new intern, Lucas Werkmeister! You may now him for his work on queries as WikidataFacts. He will work in the team for the next months.
    • Attending to Wikimedia Conference, talking with Wikidata and Wiktionary users
    • Improving performance on Special:Entities pages (phab:T161631)
    • Tracking the number of identifier properties on an item in page_props (phab:T114617)
    • More work on Senses (phab:T161523) and Forms (phab:T160524)
    • Improving the autocompletions of Query Service (phab:T150950)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Wikidata weekly summary #255

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Preparing for making more ArticlePlaceholder indexable by search engines on Welsh Wikipedia (phab:T162244)
    • Preparing the deployments of Cognate and geoshape data type
    • Lexemes: starting adding sections for forms and senses

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

File:Honour 1938 Poster.jpg

Hi! Can you explain what is exactly the problem with a file uploaded under the license template:PD-Russia-2008? The template specifies that shots from Soviet non-amateur movies that were first shown between January 1929 and January 1946 should be in public domain. --Deinocheirus (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Deinocheirus: It's not a screenshot (er, read 'film still', lol), it's a poster. The particular (old) law that resulted in point 5 of that template specifically only applied to 'audiovisual works'... the poster itself is a creative work (though presumably a derivative of the film), and it's copyright term would depend on the lifetime of the creator. The problem is we don't know who that is. - Reventtalk 17:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see. Then I have one more question: when you say "old", do you mean this is no more valid? I am asking because potentially there may be actual screenshots or even short sequences from this movie that could be uploaded under this licens IF it is still valid. --Deinocheirus (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Deinocheirus: It actually took me a while to figure out this exact thing, recently. Basically, only the 1928 Copyright Act, that was in effect until 1962, gave audiovisual works a post-creation copyright with 'authorship' assigned to the production studio (and only a 10 year term).... the previous law, and the later laws, considered the authors to be the actual people, with copyright terms based on the author's lifetime. The law passed in 1993 then restored the copyright in those works, with a retroactive 50 year term.... some were too old to get restored. The term was then, again, retroactively extended to 70 years in 2008, giving us the new end date for the 'pd period' of 1946.
1946 audiovisual works may still by copyrighted in the US, however, despite being in the public domain in Russia, because of the URAA... the restored 50 year copyright was still in effect on the URAA date of 1 January, 1996. Such works from 1929-1945 should use {{PD-Russia-1996}} (the 2008 version is a redirect), and ones from 1946 should use a combination of {{PD-Russia}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. - Reventtalk 05:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to be more correct, the 'Russia' templates should only be used for the works of film studios that were located in the RSFSR... in the Soviet period, each of the 'republics' passed it's own copyright law (though they were essentially the same), and works from each one were copyrighted under that law... for instance, works from the Kiev or Odessa film studios need to be looked at with reference to the Ukrainian post-Soviet laws from there. - Reventtalk 05:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again! --Deinocheirus (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Revent,

I want to thank you for your work with the quick script that you developed to solve my problem. I will be consider this solution if this occurs again.

One more time, thank you.

Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión 15:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanhercaz: You're welcome. BTW, you should not store javascript on pages like this, as it's possible for random people to edit it and add malicious code. - Reventtalk 15:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. Do you know any other option to replace the public javascript? I have thought to request the protection of the page as a possibility. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión 18:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanhercaz: Really, you should simply include the code on your common.js page, which only you and administrators can edit. - Reventtalk 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
All right, Revent! I have move the code and propose to deletion the subpage. Thanks. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión 22:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanhercaz: Good thing you mentioned it, as the templates don't actually work on .js pages. Speedied. - Reventtalk 22:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Block request

Would you mind blocking Discanto for repeated and intentional abuse of the no-source template? Aside from repeatedly adding the template to File:Juan Carlos I y Jaime McVeigh.jpg (with {{Self}} in the license template, the source claim is obvious), even after my leaving a warning on his talk page for this abuse, he's making threats over my use of rollback. This is precisely the kind of abuse that's led to the situation at COM:VP/P, and it's time to clamp down hard on this kind of abuse, especially when it's being done by admins. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Revent, please read COM:AN/U#User:Nyttend before acting, thanks. --Leyo 22:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Sorry for the slow reply, but I was offline yesterday. I'm not going to block Discasto, however. While I agree that the templates are not appropriate when the information is there (even if it's clearly wrong) it's something that many people have been doing for a long time, and I seriously doubt if it was intended to be disruptive. Handing out blocks for it, at this point, really isn't a good answer IMO. I think it's more accurate that your use of rollback (instead of declining them with an explanation, or converting them to DRs) was wrong, honestly, and others seem to agree. - Reventtalk 16:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #256

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Events/Press/Blogs

Other Noteworthy Stuff

Did you know?

Development

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Monthly Tasks

Principles of Psychology

You will need to revert all the changes for made to the books and illustrations associated with The Principles of Psychology. You added the wrong William James as ""Creator". And, no, you can't simply substitute the correct William James, because most of the illustrations in The Principles of Psychology came from other sources by different authors. William James was the author of the text, but not the creator of the illustrations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Thank you for catching that, I rolled them back. Really, though, the actual images shouldn't be attributed to him if they are not his... it would be better to just list him as the author of the book that is the source, though glancing at it make it appear they were anonymous anyhow. My main concern at the time, though, was just trying to knock down the insane maintenance backlog on those. - Reventtalk 23:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The images are not attributed to him; he is identified as the "author", since he is the author of the source document. No, the images are not anonymous; it is possible to find the locations in the text where the source articles are identified from which the illustrations were either copied or adapted, but it is not a quick or easy thing to do. Hence, I have not tracked down all the original sources at this point. I have no idea what "backlog" you are referring to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: It's not really a big deal either way, IMO, for stuff that is nearly 130 years old and obviously PD, but most people would assume that being in the 'author' field of the information template would mean he was the author of the actual image.... I think 'best practice' would be to just use {{Cite book}} for the source, with the url, but nobody does.
The backlog I was referring to is Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used... it's really just a metadata cleanup thing.... there were, for instance, at least a thousand images of old master paintings in there (it was well over 40k before I started trying to get it caught up). Sorting them out makes it easier to try to clean up all the uses of {{PD-old}} (which is deprecated, and often misused) since the Creator templates should have the actual dates when known. - Reventtalk 00:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Creator template mod

First off thanks, that is a nice way to credit the author that you ran on some of my pics. My question for you is can we do it on all of them? I remember that Ellin and Jee had a script that was said to mod all my author refs, it would be nice to run it with the creator tag "|author=Creator:D Ramey Logan" <remark brackets removed >I have a lot of uploads and am doing this one at a time but, that is going to take forever. {u|Revent} if you might be so willing to run a script to replace that field on all of my contributions, I would be most grateful. BTW, I did take every pic I have uploaded here. Cheers! --Don (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@WPPilot: I was (as mentioned in the last section) working on the massive backlog in Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used, that some people have 'user' Creator templates is just a nice side effect. :) The ones where the exact text you used in the author field matched the template name showed up there, so they got in the list. I'm glad you like it, though. I edited the template to link your user page... just revert it if you don't want that.
I'll run VFC across your uploads again, and see if I can pick up the rest. - Reventtalk 09:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Great yes I do like it. Thank you very much... I had run VFC in the past and it seemed to only work on the last 4 or 5 years contributions and did not get to the olds ones from 7 years plus back... Have a great day, nice job. --Don (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@WPPilot: You have to make sure to keep telling VFC to 'load more images' until it gets them all... also, your exact way of attributing yourself has varied over time, and I'm matching on the specific text. - Reventtalk 09:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ohh my, I only used it once and am prepping for a journey. Perhaps I can talk you into running it on them for me, pretty please :> --Don (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Yes, I'm doing so, the search term incategory:"D Ramey Logan" -insource:"Creator:D Ramey Logan" is useful. - Reventtalk 09:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You rock, thank you much..--Don (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I have used a few variations of the spelling on my name over the years, I like that this creates a standard template all of them will have in the creator tag. --Don (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That looks like it did it, thanks again. I did see a bug to report.: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&dir=prev&user=WPPilot&ilshowall=1 has a few files that were left unchanged (of the Royal Palace in Tokyo), that happened before. I can just do that by hand now, but I wonder what keeps it from updating those last files? --Don (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@WPPilot: Yeah, for some odd reason VFC seems to dislike a few of those.. (shrugs) It still picked up the vast majority. - Reventtalk 09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@WPPilot: Just for fun, I also made the file page for File:Temple of the Dawn 01 Photo D Ramey Logan perspective.jpg more fancy. Hope ya like it. - Reventtalk 10:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent oversight activity

Was it you who deleted user and talk pages of the user who had uploaded File:Rar.tif? I am asking because I thought that I had forgotten to block him and I added him to Category:Users suspected of abusing Wikipedia Zero just before I noticed that some oversighter's action had been taken. --jdx Re: 22:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jdx: I was not the one who pushed the button, but I did ask another OS to (since I was 'involved' as the target). - Reventtalk 22:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: I re-suppressed it. No worries. - Reventtalk 23:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

WIKIMEDIA FILES

HI.I am wanting to talk with you about the WIKIMEDIA. Please gave me YOUR Facebook account to Speak about this subject. IN the Facebook.we have an groupe .This groupe is the opposite OF wine media.

  1. I am not speaking English .but I could Writing plenty of sentences. . Gogddo bko (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Gogddo bko: My Facebook account is purely personal, and I do not use it for wikimedia-related activities. You can, however, email through the wiki. - Reventtalk 23:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave you the GROUP .IS THAT'S GOOD For You? BECAUSE THIS GROUP IS VERY DANGEROUS.OK. PLEASE BLOCK THIS GROUP BECAUSE IT ISN'T GOOD FOR WIKIMEDIA COMMENS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogddo bko (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gogddo bko: Thank you very much. - Reventtalk 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

COM:AN

Then he could have responded on the said talk page instead of involving (again) all the admins of Commons. If you are letting this thread go, then fine, but I would like to note that by doing that, we are back to zero and the efforts at COM:BN would be useless. ★ Poké95 12:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: We have, here, Colin privately asking that an admin sanction Fae for, basically, stating why he's not replying when Colin talks about him. Fae's been asking Colin to leave him alone for something like a year now.... obviously the long discussion at BN did not solve the problem, and Fae has the right to bring the issue to a wider audience again even if it boomerangs on him. - Reventtalk 12:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Hi Revent, I give you this humble recognition for helping me erase material out scope The Photographer 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #257

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Changing Special:NewProperty to not have a datatype selected by default (phab:T138295)
    • Restoration of deleted items broken on Wikidata (phab:T163144)
    • Making notifications when page is being connected to Wikidata ready to deploy (phab:T110604)
    • Writing basic documentation for WikibaseMediaInfo extension (phab:T159710)
    • Hiding header image gadget when sitelinks are floated below the statement section (phab:T160530)
    • Making the "add" button display the "add Form" form (phab:T162342)
    • Getting the datatype to link to tabular data sets on Commons ready to deploy (phab:T160048)
    • Showing supported data formats in Special:EntityData (phab:T162870)
    • Setting meta name="description" on article placeholders (phab:T157466)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_18&oldid=242626702"