User talk:Revent/Archive 15

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

Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr

Carrying on from the off-topic discussion at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Pokéfan95: It did strike me as rather a long time for a trial. If it was only intended for testing and not continued use, why hasn't it been closed? Does nobody have the relevant permissions? Seems a quick thing to do and then change the contents of the page to reflect it. Samsara (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samsara: Yell at the WMF. The Upload Wizard is a mediawiki extension, that we have very limited control over. Unfortunately. I suspect it's simply that LRs being able to do so has never been a significant source of drama. Reventtalk 15:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
We seem to have reached the point of drama now. Your userpage says you are an admin. Samsara (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Samsara: I am indeed, and an oversighter, but I was not trying to 'warn you' about anything.... I have seen no indication that you have been even remotely a problem. Reventtalk 16:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Samsara: Just chiming in here. Commons has seen various attempts in using tools for license review etc. Some of these worked well, such as bot uploads from flickr that use the license on flickr (which are reviewed by a human prior) while others did not work so well. These tools sometimes frustrate the community. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@とある白い猫: There is still ongoing discussion on this subject at my talk. I believe that a sensible technical solution to this is possible and should be pursued. Samsara (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Samsara: FWIW, the current situation is not just applied to Flickr, it's that image reviewers get the 'upload_by_url' user right (non-reviewers cannot transfer files directly without using external tools). I totally agree that it needs to be reconsidered... it's really unconnected to 'image review' and the external sites still have to be whitelisted via a request to the devs on Phabricator. Reventtalk 16:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes - I think we have two issues now, only one of which I ws originally interested in. One issue is the lack of separate user rights to do separate things, the other is that as far as Flickr uploads are concerned, there has to be a better solution than telling people to defer work on pictures (pinging Elisfkc as that is their edit). Samsara (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A fair number of people just let the bot kick such Flickr uploads back out for human review... not a great solution either, really. Reventtalk 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Samsara: phab:T89131 is the blocker. Has been around for almost two years but not much progress is done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Samsara: I forgot to put your talk page on my watchlist. Flickr2Commons does not always reject images that have an improper license (I've been able to individually upload images from NASA Kennedy Flickr stream and the Marine Corps Flickr stream in the past that, according to their flickr license, should not be on Flickr (in reality, they are allowed under their respective Public Domain tag). I agree that waiting until the review is done is not the best solution possible, but at the moment, it seems to be the only one that works. Many of the images that end up in Category:Flickr images needing human review are originally uploaded as matching their Flickr version, only to have a new edited version get uploaded before the bot can review the image. By waiting until after the review, it lowers the load on us license reviewers. Elisfkc (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: How many such uploads had I made by the time you put out that advisory? Samsara (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Samsara: I had just ran into two of them (File:Macarons téléversés par Samsara 05.jpg & File:Macarons téléversés par Samsara 04.jpg) but I was just trying to politely make a request from you. I apologize if it came across as more of a warning. Elisfkc (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks Zhuyifei1999 - I don't know if this is the best venue to continue this, but if I understand the phab record correctly, nobody is saying that server side can't be done; rather that it can't be the only means because it would cut off some users or communities, and then "server side" within the phab record's scope as I understand it means mediawiki server side rather than toolserver. What I'm arguing for is giving us at least one tool that can do upload+review near-instantaneously so that if one uploads an edited version half a minute after the original flickr pull, one can do so without it being a problem. Samsara (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

About deleting game logo from wikipedia page

Can you explain pls how every other game in Wikipedia has its logo on its own page, even if logos are not under free licences. And only logo in Heroes of the Storm page is removed? Explanation was "There is no evidence (and it is unlikely) that Blizzard has released this under a free license..)". But every other game logos (or most of it) are not under a free licence too, but they are still on wikipedia. EchoBlu (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@EchoBlu: This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Copyrighted logos can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under fair use, per the non-free content criteria there. Commons does not (and is not allowed to, by the WMF board) accept fair use content, under our licensing policy (content on Commons must be either public domain or freely licensed). You need to upload the logo directly to the English Wikipedia under a fair use claim. Reventtalk 01:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking up the specific links, you should read en:WP:Logos, and use the copyright tag {{Non-free logo}} (which is a speedy deletion template here, but a fair use claim over there). Reventtalk 01:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

91.9.96.0/19

You range-blocked 91.9.96.0/19 on August 20 [1]. Seems back as 78.55.176.69. [2] Seb az86556 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Seb az86556: I'm by far not the person most familiar with that case, but I'm not seeing the 'specific' MO that I used before to aim that block (it took me a bit, actually, to figure out which person it was about). If it is indeed Tobias Conradi, he' changed ISPs (though the geolocation seems consistent). I'd suggest poking it at ANB. Reventtalk 07:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

About User:Benzoyl's overcategorization

Hello, Revent. You wrote to User:Benzoyl "Please don't overcategorize images by every item that is incidentally visible" at User_talk:Benzoyl#Categories. I think so, too. However, Benzoyl does not seem to know its meaning. Benzoyl has not stopped to overcategorize. I'd like you to tell Benzoyl again from you as an administrator. --Ralth Galth (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ralth Galth: Indeed... I've scanned his latest categorizations, and killed a few as ridiculous. I don't think I can specifically 'warn' him, really, though I have seen a bit of a tendency to edit war with you, simply because there is not a clear rule about what is overcategorization. What I think I can say is that continuing to fail to listen to the concerns of other editors might result in the community deciding to sanction him. Reventtalk 09:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment and editing. --Ralth Galth (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ralth Galth: I'd be doing more, except that phab:T153488 is my current priority. Reventtalk 09:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@:Revent File:NAMIHAYA DOME 2007 (2033060013).jpg whatever..
You did'nt touch File:NAMIHAYA DOME 2007 (2033060075).jpg. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Benzoyl: I didn't remove the cat because it seemed at least 'marginally' useful for depicting the mascots since you can at least see them both and what they are doing. The point is that the consensus on Commons has been that images should simply be added to categories where they are useful to people looking for images of the topic of the category, not simply added to every 'possible' category, as doing so makes the categories themselves less useful. The main concern with your editing behavior seems to be an unwillingness to listen to the objections of other editors. This might be a language issue. Reventtalk 11:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: This time, I realized again, difference between the two files (add cat or not). thanks to your judgment. I will be careful. --Benzoyl (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #240

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.

Licensing related doubt

To whom it may concern (I mean you):
I, Bender, bid you hello! You don't know me, though you may have heard of me, but that's not the point. Long story short...I need help.

  1. What happens if someone would use a media licensed in Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC 3.0) for commercial use(let's say making it as the company's logo; selling the media on websites like 500px)?
  2. Also, what happens if the media is licensed in Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) but:
    1. is used without proper attribution? (is not attributed; or incomplete attribution is provided)
    2. is used without licensing the remixed, transformed or build upon the material, but did not distribute the contributions under the same license? (let's say using an older CC license; using a new version of CC or using MIT license?)
    3. uses a watermark of copyright(©) on the media?
    4. tries to obtain a copyright of the media (let's say: uploading the content to some platform saying "I own the copyright of this photo...")?
      It would really helpful if you would answer my queries.
      Damn, one rock short of being rescued 🍺💲🚬 20:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bender Bending Rodríguez: Essentially, in any of those cases (where someone is using a work in violation of the license) it's simply copyright infringement. The CC licenses explicitly state that the license 'terminates automatically' if the reuser fails to comply with the terms, though the 4.0 licenses allow for reinstatement of the license if the problem is corrected within 30 days of discovery. The author can simply pursue whatever legal recourse is open to them, if they want. Usually a DMCA notice is sufficient. Reventtalk 20:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for a quick and helpful response. But, isn't DMCA limited to the United States? What if the author and the reuser are not from the US? And, is the reuser liable to pay royalties for the violation?
Damn, one rock short of being rescued 🍺💲🚬 21:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bender Bending Rodríguez: The DMCA is limited to the US, but it's actually a matter of if the reuser (not the author) is in the US... in most of the cases that come up, that's the case. If not, it really depends on the law of whatever jurisdiction is reuser is in, and that's going to vary a lot. As far as damages, I suggest reading en:statutory damages for copyright infringement, and the relevant section of the law... it's US-centric, unfortunately, but in most cases the 'economic value' of works published under CC licenses is pretty minimal, and so any claim for actual damages wouldn't really be worth pursuing.... it's more if they ignored a DMCA notice, and so you could make a claim for it being 'willful' and going after statutory damages. I can't really give legal advice, though. Reventtalk 21:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Revent!
Hi Revent, thank you for all your valuable contributions on Commons. This help fulfill the number 1 goal of Commons: To be a free, educational media repository for everyone.

I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
   ★ Poké95 01:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Best Wishes!

Best Wishes, Revent!
Hi Revent, I wish you all the best for the Holidays and a Happy New Year 2017. Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #241

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

Merry Christmas and Happy new year!

Merry Christmas, Revent!
English: Hellow Revent, Merci/Gracias/Thanks my friend for do it posible, this family of Commons, beleave that we can change world improving the educational media disponible. Take care by your self --The Photographer 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

--The Photographer 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


The image Front Montgomery was published in the Thai wikipedia

Perhaps I marked it wrong. I believe it is free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downtown dan seattle (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Downtown dan seattle: The image is th:ไฟล์:ฟร้อนท์_มอนท์โกเมอรี่.jpg, where it's under fair use, and described as being from a magazine shoot in the 90's via Facebook. You are not the copyright owner, and cannot license the image. Reventtalk 21:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Revent. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Winkelvi (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Revent!

Happy New Year!

Revent, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Wishing you a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2017! Winkelvi (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • When a {{#statements:…}} property couldn't be resolved, a tracking category will be added (phab:T50799)
    • Rewrote Special:NewItem and all other Special:New… pages to use OOUI error handling (phab:T150205)
    • Getting ready the basic Lexeme prototype (phab:T146662)
    • Continued work on federation basics (phab:T149580)
    • Release version 1.0.0 of the DataTypes component
    • Enjoying the holidays and getting ready for this year's challenges. Hope you do to :)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Richard Burton photo

Sorry to bother you, but a question came up about File:Richard Burton - The Robe.jpg at en:WP. Have just been to newspapers.com and through many, many newspaper pages, searching for a copy of the published photo. Came up with the following:

The quality of the scan is very poor and at times, it appears to me that the hair in the news photo doesn't match. Going on the area of light at right near the shoulder, the angles seem to agree. (Anyone with a WPL subscription has a basic one only, so we can't view their premium newspapers.) This is obviously from the same sequence, but in this one, Burton is looking more to the side.

The possible match is from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle 28 December 1953-page 4. Copyright.gov shows no information for the newspaper title; presses stopped in 1955. I don't want to add the links and/or change the license to PD_copyright not renewed without someone else's opinion on whether it's a match or not. Thanks! We hope (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: I'm looking. My first comment, from seeing the image on eBay, is that it the editing before upload here was terrible. - Reventtalk 17:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@We hope: I think it's the same image, though it's really hard to tell. The deciding point for me is the 'unshadowed' bright triangle on the right side of his neck, that is also visible in the newspaper scan. That's pretty distinctive.
The Online Books Page list of "First copyright renewals for periodicals"[3] says for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle:
"Brooklyn Daily Eagle: no issue renewals found in CCE or registered works database; contributions renewed from January 6, 1933; see 1961 Jan-Jun"
They would rather obviously not have renewed the photo as a 'contribution', since they don't own it. - Reventtalk 18:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle has been quite helpful for other things over time. ;). You're focusing on the same "bright area" I am, but the bottom line is whether it's felt this is enough to make the changes. Thanks! We hope (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@We hope: I think we're fine here... it appears to be the same image, and published at the time without notice. - Reventtalk 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Despite the insult from him, I'll make the changes. The user still has the same concepts re: uploading to WMF projects as we saw here recently. We hope (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@We hope: Yeah, no surprise, unfortunately. Also misstates what publication is... There were undoubtably other unpublished images taken at the same time, and they then published the best ones. - Reventtalk 19:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again-had to vent there, though. "And you never take off your "know-it-all" boxer shorts." :-D We hope (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #242

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.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_15&oldid=229971090"