User talk:Evrik: Difference between revisions

Home	Talk	About me	Articles	eMail	Contributions	Images	Archive	Sandbox	Todo	Toolbox

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Bahasa Indonesia ∙ dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ euskara ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

--AlbeiroR24 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--—Angr 11:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--—Angr 11:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for usurpation in ro.wiki has been solved. Razvan Socol (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the ticket. What is the ticket number please? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--dave pape (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, then where is it?--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no OTRS tag on these images. If there's a mass OTRS from the PA H&MC, then that is good to go. Otherwise, these images are up for deletion.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm following correct procedures. You're the one who's reverting deletion tags. If you disagree with the deletions, feel free to make your case.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [1] I meant "make your case" on the deletion notices, not the admin board. Historically, the PA H&MC has threatened suit over copyvios exactly like these. --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am sorry that you felt my actions were too quick and contrary to the policy of cultivating consensus. But, I am trying to cultivate a consensus: if you take a look at the deletion nomination pages, you can see that I responded in a serious way to your concerns over copyright. Nominating things for deletion is up to the individual, but consensus comes on whether to delete, not whether to nominate. The admin notice is fine, you gotta do what you gotta do. The most likely result from this is they'll tell us to stop bickering, and I think we can do that without being told to do so. So, we can hash out the copyright issue here and on the deletion pages.

Here, maybe I can clear up some of your confusion regarding copyright. Basically, anything created by humans is copyrightable. And sine the 1970s, things are automatically copyrighted, even if the owner is unknown and never files for copyright. Now, things can pass into public domain several ways, by copyright expiration (if they were created before 1923), by the author dying 70 years ago, or by release by the author. This is where OTRS comes in, since wikipedia wants to keep email record of the authors' copyright release into a "free license" (either Public domain or a close substitute like cc-by). Also, an object may escape copyright protection by freedom of panorama, which says that you can take a picture of anything that is visible from a public area. This is important, because things like buildings are copyright. So, that means you can take a picture of the Sears tower, but you cannot build your own. But, freedom of panorama is not 100%, there are exceptions to the exception. Things like sculptures, art, and other human-made non building things maintain their copyright even if they're visible to the public. (Here's a perfect example of a sculpture in the public's view that is exempted from freedom of panorama: Chicago's The Bean. That image has a "fair use rationale" because the freedom of panorama does not apply). Images in the commons may only be under free license, so things like The Bean and the Ten Commandments plaque must be deleted.

If you like, these images can be added to wikipedia under a fair use provision. Fair use is when a copyright work is used without the author's permission as an object of critical commentary, like quoting a book in a book review. If you like, I am pretty experienced in fair use images, as you can see here: w:User:TheZachMorrisExperience/FairUsePictures, and I can help you get them ready to go for wikipedia. I would do it, but I can't see these images getting much attention in articles. Except w:Image:JohnBirchSocietyUSOutOfUNSign.jpg and w:Image:PittsburghPenguinsBannerGrantAve2008.jpg, which I have preserved with fair use rationales on wikipedia. I have discussed some copyright issues with w:User:Bobak, an attorney, and he might be able to answer any of your other questions.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. On the image titled Image:Tony Gilkyson.jpg, you added the {{Otrs pending}} template. Unfortunately, after conducting a search, I could not locate the ticket containing the permission to use the image. Please respond on my talk page if you have the ticket number, or if you would like to send me the permission. Please note that if you do not respond, the image may be deleted. Thanks! Rjd0060 (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested, I've sent you an email. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation for Image:Tony Gilkyson.jpg. Sorry I missed it the first time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not resolved yet. I received some of your emails, asking the copyright holder for permission. What I didn't receive was the copyright holder agreeing to release that, as well as a license specification. Do you have this? - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have it. Unfortunately, it needs to be a bit more clear than that. He really needs to say something to the effect of "I am the copyright holder of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tony_Gilkyson.jpg and I release it under the <licence name>". I know it seems like we're making you jump through hoops, but this is necessary. Is there any way you can contact him again? Sorry for the inconvenience. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have not received the necessary release, the image will likely be deleted soon. If you end up getting the permission, please let me know and we can get the image restored. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Evrik, it was from this source here, where they have it set as All Rights Reserved. It was a Speedy Deletion from a flickreview. rootology (T) 04:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope I haven't seemed rude with my edits at Image:Tournament-of-Roses-Chariot-Race-1908.jpg. My purpose is to try to have accurate information on image description pages. The interwiki transfer bots can be useful tools, but by nature they are stupid, often producing misinformation unless users keep a close eye and make corrections during the process. If bots with default setting for images original to Wikipedia are used to transfer images that did not originate with Wikipedia, the information displayed will generally be wrong unless the uploader takes care of fixing it. Yes, I find image description pages with bot generated garbage frustrating. If you have suggestions for improving the situation, I welcome hearing them. Thanks for your attention. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you on my talk page. But as perhaps we have conflicting definitions, maybe we should bring this up for wider discussion somewhere for category definitions and guidelines? Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I assure you, I am not trying to be disagreeable. I really don't understand the point of the changes you made with this edit. Frustrated, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Santos is a city in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. It is not the town of Santos Dumont in the state of Minas Gerais. That category really shouldn't have been redirected; now there are dozens of Santos-related files in Category:Saints. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Santos, São Paulo should do it—Santos Dumont, Minas Gerais is certainly not appropriate, as it's another city, in another state, hundreds of miles away! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, after this, SieBot has moved them to Category:Santos Dumont, Minas Gerais. Is there any way to revert these quickly or will I have to undo them manually again? All the files currently in Category:Santos Dumont, Minas Gerais should be in Category:Santos, São Paulo—is that fine by you? Fvasconcellos (t·c)

17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, not a big deal :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on the purpose/rationale for the February 1 gallery? It doesn't seem like a particularly notable day, and it's not clear what some of the images you've included are related to the day. If we're going to create galleries for each day of the year, that should probably be discussed somewhere first. 75.214.74.91 (really, w:User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]