User talk:MichaelMaggs

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Talk page archives: 2006-7, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Wikidata weekly summary #143[edit]


See Commons:Village pump#WLM 2014 winners announced - did anyone notice, or care?.

You might guess I'm a bit underwhelmed by the results, both at national and international level. It is an awful lot of work which I see partly undermined at the final jury stage, but also limited by the quality of material we attract. To attract great contributors, we need to publish amazing winning images on the photography forums and magazines, along with the call for entries. But some of our "winning" material isn't sufficiently good, technically, to publish, never mind outstanding enough to inspire. I'm not sure of my position for 2015. Seems that FP is good at selecting great images and the Photo Contest is achieving some success at recruiting new users. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Colin. I'll email you about this as soon as I have a moment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Who shot William Fox Talbot?[edit]

You stated here that you're the author of the photograph ... so how can it be that it's pd? You're still alive ;) Cheers --Sargoth (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted! Now fixed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Have a nice evening --Sargoth (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #144[edit]

File:George Chakravarthi Portrait.jpg[edit]

Thanks for sorting out one of the images I uploaded. I don't know what to do about this one. George Chakravarthi is the subject and photographer of the image, so what do you need?Emerald (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing you need to do. Mr Chakravarthi has just this minute confirmed by email, and I have updated the file with the approved ticket tag.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Resurrection by George Chakravarthi.jpg[edit]

This image is of a photograph, but you have moved it from a photograph category to a painting one, why? It definitely isn't a painting. Thanks for sorting out the other image!Emerald (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see now. I have changed it back. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. All done now. Have a great day.Emerald (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pittsburgh Sealer[edit]

Thank you for robbing us of plenty of content that has not been proven false. Copyright is not a concern because the images were DWs of our Commons files of the seal and COA of Pennsylvania, you should have only deleted those proven not to be true. Fry1989 eh? 15:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you disagree, but "not proven false" is not a criterion for hosting content here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe you are sorry one bit, I believe you are being overly broad in your reasoning to delete. Considering copyright is not of concern for these files, and only 2 out of over 50 images have been proven untrue, there was no valid reason to delete them all. And I find it ironic for you to state that you don't wish to "impugn the good faith of the uploader" when that is exactly what you have done by deleting all of them based on only 2 images that are false. They should be evaluated individually. Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #145[edit]


Hi MichaelMaggs. I see he didn't inform you, but Odder reverted your closure. Odder, will you never learn to contact people first... Trijnsteltalk 18:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I just saw. Thanks for letting me know! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, Mentifisto already assigned the rights to INeverCry. Trijnsteltalk 18:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No need to do anything unless there is a complete turnaround in the next few hours. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Laurelle Mehus[edit]

This was originally 11 DRs, one for each image. I combined them for our convenience in making comments -- I thought I had captured all of the original comments, but I might have missed yours -- sorry. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I was a little confused, but didn't think it was worth following though what had happened. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi, The link you edited [1] goes to a dead tool. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, though there is someimes a delay after hitting the submit button. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #146[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #147[edit]

Request to post of one of your photographs on Facebook[edit]

Dear Mr. Maggs,

I am interested in posting this picture of yours on my Facebook account, giving proper attribution. May I do this?

Yours respectfully,



Yes, that's absolutely fine. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #148[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #149[edit]

Globally locked users may not create pages on this wiki[edit]

Of course they can't but you were the one who was blanking the page. I am going to restore it. -- Rillke(q?) 23:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

AN/V report[edit]

MichaelMaggs (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploadsblock user, cf. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MChS) Mil Mi-8MTV picking up water near Nezhin.jpg, please close this account. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #150[edit]

Copyright question[edit]

Hi Michael,

I stumbled across a deletion request for an image of a public artistic performance taken in Australia and my feeling via a fairly rudimentary legal argument is that it should not be deleted (if nothing else than the fact that it would be a shame and possibly a precedent for many other images of public performance art to be at risk of deletion), but I don't have complete certainty about my position as I suspect there could be a number of competing legal positions at play. I appreciate that it's not your particular area of expertise but perhaps you could help to clarify the situation? Thanks, David. Diliff (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Diliff, I didn't see an entry for performers' rights at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter or Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. It may be wise to make a post at COM:VPC to get a more professional opinion if you've further concerns. Jee 11:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jee, more opinions and ideas are always welcome. You're probably right that it's a good idea to post at COM:VPC but sometimes this simply opens a can of worms and we end up with too many opinions that aren't necessarily legally accurate. I'd rather start with someone I know and trust the legal opinion of first and then escalate it elsewhere if necessary. ;-) Also, Michael, I know this isn't necessarily your area of expertise either, but I recently noticed that our official guideline on consent requirements for the UK are overly vague on whether one can "take a picture", "publish a picture" and "commercially use a published picture" without consent - each one is listed as "it depends on circumstance". As I mentioned on the talk page there, this may be technically correct but is misleading IMO because it seems to imply that there's no inclination one way or the other, whereas the truth is that in the vast majority of cases, there are no good reasons why you would not be able to take or publish a picture if the person is in public without an expectation of privacy. As Fae mentioned on the talk page, consensus would be required to change the guideline but I'm loathe to bring it up on the Village Pump as I think it would inevitably devolve to opinions on what people believe should be the case, rather than a legal opinion on what actually is the case. What do you think is the best way to get a strong legal opinion that doesn't play it too safe and end up being unnecessarily vague? :-) Diliff (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
OK; I respect your decision. May be Clindberg can comment here or in that DR without attracting all the VPC crowd. :) Jee 13:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the question here, thanks, and will respond shortly on the DR page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there Michael. Less urgently, but do you have any comments about the guidelines for consent requirements that I mentioned above? Do you think the best course of action to get the guidelines amended to be more prescriptive is to post a proposal or RfC on the village pump page? Diliff (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I really don't understand how Commons:Country specific consent requirements became an official guideline, as it makes little sense. If I recall correctly, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people was in a reasonable state a few years ago, then people started adding country-specific entries to it, without a lot of legal analysis, and importantly without clarity as to whether the entries were supposed to represent community requirements for hosting on Commons (guideline) or the requirements for local re-use (help). The country-specific table then got spun off into a separate page while keeping the 'official guideline' heading. I think the whole page needs to be re-written from scratch, once its purpose has been clarified. I'd suggest having one person lead, with some specific recommendations, rather than a free-for all on the VP. That is something I would be happy to work on, but maybe not just at the moment; I'll add it to my list of things to do. By the way, you are quite right on the UK entry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #151[edit]