User talk:Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. March 2008
  2. April 2008
  3. May 2008
  4. June 2008

Contents

[edit] Mickey 117 pics

Hey Kelly, actually most of those political party emblems are not copyrighted , but you're right such a license would be better anyway. However, about those presidential pictures, the problem is that I didin't know how to license them properly! here's the source of most of them: www.presidency.gov.lb, but anyway, I don't think they should be deleted because these are official presidential pictures (most of them) as I know, they are usually in the public domain.... anyway, the rest of the presidential pictures come from personal collections of mine, they have absolutely no copyright. Thanks in advance! Mickey117 Mickey117 (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Heh, duhh! I should have spotted that. All I saw was the CC license; I didn't see the links. Deleted now. :) By the way, when the page is on the Commons but the image page exists here, and the page is empty, can I delete it? I'm missing out about six CSD's because I wasn't sure, and as I've seen your name with images more than anyone else's I thought you'd know. :D Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought so but I'm quite new to image deletion and there is quite a backlog. Helping out where I can. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DivinylsHomebake2007.jpg deleted

Image:DivinylsHomebake2007.jpg appears to have been deleted.

Earlier today I had received a note at my talkpage from User:Kelly (User talk:Kelly) on 01:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC) which indicated it would be speedily deleted, I responded with a hang on plate but feel that I may have been too late.

On the talkpage for the article Image talk:DivinylsHomebake2007.jpg I responded with:

On 14:27, 1 June 2008, I found a photo on Flickr of Divinyls performing at Homebake on 8 December 2007 uploaded there by MikeLikesStuff and I uploaded it to the wikipedia article on the same band. I believe that such images are allowed to be used by wikipedia provided that the author is acknowledged, which I did, and that no profit is made by uploading it. Is Flickr no longer suitable as a source of Creative Commons photos?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no desire to breach copyright, could you please clarify the status of images on Flickr? Do I have to get direct permission from the author or do I only obtain free images from Creative Commons?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now where I made my error - when searching for a Divinyls photo - I inadvertently didn't check the CC search mode at Flickr. I apologise for uploading the above image and concede it may be CV. There is no need to reply. I will attempt to ensure I don't make this mistake in future.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the note. Kelly hi! 13:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weird tags

Hey Kelly, so if your page User:Kelly/Image license templates‎ is looking a bit weird, I'm probably to blame. I'm going through all the tags and changing them to the Non-free X style. But its leaving a lot of redirects that were once tags. Now if I left the redirects, people could begin using them again and break the whole machine readable goal. But if I delete them, it makes lots of wikilinks where they were once referenced look weird, so I'm using {{softredirect}} to maintain the connection to the new template name, while making them unusable as license tags. if you want a crib sheet to my work, its at User:MBisanz/BotR. Figured I'd give you a heads up since you do so much work with them. MBisanz talk 08:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bellucci

[1] Could you explain what this is for? There's no particular pattern of adding unsourced claims. It's actually the other way around. Two birthyears are common in reliable sources. Most people agree one of them is right, but have been unable to reliably and verifiably rule out the other. There's no real BLP issue here. Gimmetrow 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're averse to this being added. It does no harm and puts extra eyes on the article, just leave it, please. Kelly hi! 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If you "blpwatch" articles unnecessarily, it fills the category and makes it more difficult to keep tabs on the articles that need it. Gimmetrow 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There's like, 100 articles in the category? I don't think the watchers are overloaded. Kelly hi! 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image copyvio

Please see User_talk:Howcheng#Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images.2F2008_June_6.23Image:Villianc.svg, thanks. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hi Kelly, if you upload to Commons any of images I originally uploaded, could you please ask on the image page that a local copy be kept — particularly if they're animal rights-related images, which tend to disappear on Commons, even when they clearly have a free licence. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|edits 02:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why they would disappear, but you can tag them yourself using {{KeepLocal}} (for images not yet on Commons) or {{NoCommons}} (for images already on Commons). Kelly hi! 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain why you're doing this and similar? That image has been released by the person who took it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I'll leave a consolidated notice on your talkpage shortly. I didn't want to spam you with templates. Kelly hi! 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're doing here. For example, what makes you think that the Barry Horne images were not taken by the ALF? Two of them are of him and his son during an ALF raid on a dolphinarium. Who do you feel takes images during ALF raids if not the ALF? SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Were those images specified in the OTRS ticket? Kelly hi! 03:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Which OTRS ticket do you mean? The images you've listed have several tickets. But you didn't answer my question -- what makes you believe that an image taken during an ALF raid was not taken by the ALF? Could you answer on the unfree image page you created, please, as you're creating a bit of a forest fire here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to keep the discussion on the PUI page, as opposed to forking. Thanks. Kelly hi! 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, could you please post all your notes to me on the image or deletion pages? There's no need to cross post to my talk page; all it does is create a forest fire. I'm still waiting for a reply about the Barry Horne images, by the way, and who you believe might have taken them if not the ALF. SlimVirgin talk|edits 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again, please add that the local copy should be kept if you tag any images I've uploaded that are being used in AR images. You seem to be trying to create a lot of unnecessary work for me here, and for yourself. SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you're saying "again" in reagrds to notes to you, this is the first time you've asked me that. Anyway, the message I left was a warning about removal of deletion tags, not about any particular image. And I did reply at WP:PUI about those Barry Horne images (I struck out two as likely taken by the ALF). But that doesn't resolve your other problems with WP:C compliance. Also, if you would like for local copies of Commons images to be kept, please add the {{KeepLocal}} or {{NoCommons}} templates yourself - I told you this already. Kelly hi! 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Do not post any more "warnings," or indeed anything else, on my talk page, please. If you want to discuss an image, do it on the image page or the Ifd page. No more forest fires. No more trying to force me to respond to you. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
User conduct warnings go on user pages, not image pages. But, aside from necessary warnings, I won't post on your talk page. I assume this means you won't help straighten out the the copyright violations in your uploads? Alrighty then, I'll start tagging them. Kelly hi! 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly: Rather than tagging images with {{badfairuse}}, you should consider tagging them with {{fairusereview}}, as it seems that your assessment of these images is not 100% correct for lack of background on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, I haven't tagged any images with {{badfairuse}}. Could you point out the errors you're referring to? Kelly hi! 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Please check my contribution page: [2]. Indeed I have edited mostly one article (or to be more accurate - the article talk page). I have made my best to obey all wikipedia rules and regulations but if any of my edit is in violation of any policy - please notify me where I broke the rules. If my edits are all according to policy the issue of being an SPA does not really matter. (Please see WP:SPA) thank you. --Julia1987 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

MBisanz talk has noticed you do not have your email currently setup and is requesting you enable your emailuser function. Thanks.
Hi, Matthew - I'd prefer not to, thanks. Kelly hi! 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I understand. MBisanz talk 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts on I8?

Hi Kelly,

You seem to have image policy as your Wiki specialty, so I'm curious as to your thoughts on an issue that has me a bit puzzled. Specifically, I've been occasionally tackling the I8 "now on Commons" backlog, and I find myself wondering as to the benefit of deleting the local copies. "Deleted" pages are still available and accessible on the servers, so I don't think we're saving any space. Do you know what the reasoning is? I tried looking through some old archived discussions, but I couldn't find the answer.--Kubigula (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kubigula...good question, I hadn't really thought about it before. I guess my response would be for the same reason that we don't keep multiple copies of articles. Images and their descriptions evolve and improve over time just like articles. The images are cleaned up, cropped, renamed, replaced with better versions, etc. The descriptions are improved, sources are updated, licenses refined. The images are occasionally challenged and have to be deleted. Centralizing all of this in one place prevents having to repeat this actions in more than one place.
Some people don't like their images moved to the Commons. Apparently this is why the {{KeepLocal}} and {{NoCommons}} templates were created. Based on what I've seen, it's sometimes an "ownership" issue (people think they are losing control of the images - admins seem worst in this regard), sometimes a convenience issue (they no longer show up on the person's watchlist), and there is also an impression among some that images are "randomly" deleted on Commons. When I have investigated cases of this, the image on Commons was invariably deleted because of copyright problems, but en users don't necessarily see this process or understand the reasons. Admins on Commons are chosen mainly based on their knowledge of copyright, where many admins on en Wikipedia are almost astonishly ignorant of copyright law.
That being said, I think that the way the wind is blowing, all freely-licensed images will eventually end up on Commons, with only non-free media remaining here at en Wikipedia.
Regards - Kelly hi! 02:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - the best rationale I could think of was along those lines, and there are certainly benefits to centralization. The only down side that I can see is that the uploader may not be active on Commons to address questions or issues that may come up. However, as the project continues to evolve and with global accounts, the interaction with Commons should be increasingly seemless. Thanks for your response.--Kubigula (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ARBPIA notification

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with your notification and I thank you for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images taken under illegal circumstances

I don't think ALF is entitled to copyright protection, thus all of their content is defacto PD. First, they are a criminal organization which has been convicted of multiple felonies involving domestic terrorism. Second, they are labeled by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization. In the case of the former, I believe it is federal law to deny organizations convicted of felonies the right to own content related to their crimes. The reason, obviously, is to discourage profiting from movie rights, book rights, footage of the crime, etc. As to the latter, I believe terrorist organizations are not afforded any privileges such as copyright or trademark protections based on the fact that the US does not see them as being lawful entities. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I suspect you're right, but do you know if it's ever been the subject of case law? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you'd need to cite something more specific. To the best of my knowledge, copyright law itself has no such exceptions (for "criminals" or "terrorists"); there are laws (I think one is called the "Son of Sam Law" after the killer of the late '70s) denying criminals profits from writing about their crimes (not sure if they're just state laws or if any are federal), but I think that simply results in royalties being redirected to a victims' fund rather than the author, but doesn't eliminate copyright protection. And if the criminal/terrorist organization isn't a legally recognized entity, then any copyright to photographs taken by a member would belong to the individual member him/herself; he/she might be barred by the aforementioned laws from profiting from the images, but they wouldn't become public domain. A court might order ownership of the copyrights transferred to a victim or the government to cover unpaid civil judgments or fines, though. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Dan is correct - copyright lies with the photographer, regardless of the circumstances of the photo being taken. Kelly hi! 04:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we have a specific license for material of criminal organizations at {{Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions}} and its a non-free image tag, not a free iamge tag, all NFCC rules apply. MBisanz talk 04:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The only possible parallel situation I can think of would be photos of graffiti - over in the Commons Casebook, those images are treated as free (as opposed to photos of legal murals) because the authors are anonymous and the art was created as a criminal act, the person is unlikely to make a copyright claim. The legitimacy of this position is a matter of some debate on the talk page there, though. I have seen at least one image here (can't remember the name, but it's a photo of a monkey with a word tattooed on its forehead) which was apparently taken under illegal circumstances, but the photographer did in fact come forward to claim authorship (and was incarcerated as a result). Kelly hi! 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)