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 #135[edit]

Please stop with your anti-Fae campaign[edit]

Michael, I am extremely disappointed in you with your public calls to silence Fae on a public Wikimedia mailing list. The more I look at it, the more it appears that this dispute between you/WMUK and Fae has caused you to exercise extremely bad judgement on this project as it relates to Fae.

As you are fully aware, some months ago I indefinitely blocked an editor on this project who has a long history of harassment against Fae. So much so, that this editor was indefinitely banned at the Fae Arbcom case on English Wikipedia; not that English Wikipedia should affect their status here, but it certainly can be used as modus operandi. That editor also engaged, and continues to engage, in unacceptable public commentary as it relates to Fae on external non-WMF sites. After this editor again engaged in unacceptable commentary on this project, it caused Fae to respond with a comment that goes to show how the level of harassment has affected him. We, as admins, editors and human beings, owe it to each other to ensure that harassment is not tolerated on our projects. With that in mind, I reverted, revdelled and indefinitely blocked the editor, with an edit summary of "contact me"; so as to not draw attention to the obvious harassment.

In response, you sent an email to Fae in which you suggested he seek psychiatric help. Given what was going on in the background at WMUK, this is unacceptable as you can imagine that your email was not welcomed. You also sent an email to the Bureaucrat's mailing list in which you raised the issue of the block; Odder made the fact known that you had sent an email in public on #wikimedia-commons IRC channel. A short time after you posted this on my talk page demanding an explanation for the block, and furthermore pointing out what you already knew. You knew what the reason was, but it appears you were more interested in continuing the WMUK shitfight here on Commons and wanted to make Fae squirm.

It was also disclosed by Odder in #wikimedia-commons that you did not wait until other crats had time to comment before racing ahead and pushing for a desysop of myself. From that discussion:

  • You quoted Commons:Blocking policy which says "Provide a reason for the block." Given the circumstances surrounding the block, and with human dignity in mind, I DID explain the circumstances and the reason for the block to numerous admins, PRIVATELY. You will see in that policy that there is NO requirement on this project for any blocks to be explained publicly, it merely says "Provide a reason for the block"; which I did. Just not to you. This was a very conscious decision on my part given the email you sent to Fae and the email you sent to the crat mailing list; why didn't you contact me privately like you did those parties, especially as you know why the block was placed?
  • I did refuse to discuss the block on IRC with a couple of parties. This, again, was a conscious decision on my part. And was done for the reasons above.
  • You also went ahead and unblocked the editor. The block I placed was undone by another admin. From that point on, the block is out of my hands. The block was re-done by another admin, who at that thread stated:
“Restored block: Yann is in a conflict with russavia. I have added a block reason (looked into Michaels edits, and looks like long term harassment to me). Maybe someone else like to review the block, i am not familiar enough with the Fae / Michael case. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)”
  • At this point you should have discussed the block with Steinsplitter but you neglected to do that. Your unblock was wheel-warring with Steinsplitter, and it wasn't undoing my block, but a block made by an independent admin who reviewed the initial block made by myself.

With all of this in mind and also taking into account the email/letter that you sent to Fae in which you essentially blackmailed him (i.e. don't do this, or we will do that) and also recalling your posts to Wikimedia-l in which you are continuing in your attempt to silence Fae and to isolate him from our communities, you are being placed on notice that any future behaviour like this from yourself towards Fae will see further action being taken. To make things simple, don't use your tools on this project again as it relates to Fae because the level of involvement and hostility is simply too high for you to credibly claim that you are not involved, and sincerely, 'common sense' will open a wholly different can of worms for you.

Thank you for reading, no comment required. russavia (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Russavia, I will not be responding to these allegations as in order to do so I would need to engage with your narrative, which is of course exactly what you want. Anyone interested in what you have to say can look into the history themselves. I would just say that the charges set out in your dramatic narrative depend critically on several statements that you have expressed as 'fact' even though they are flat-out untrue. They include "your campaign", "your public calls to silence Fae, "you sent an email to Fae in which you suggested he seek psychiatric help", "... you essentially blackmailed him", "you are continuing in your attempt to silence Fae", and "pushing for a desysop of myself". I understand your tactic of making pre-emptive strikes against others, such as this one, and then using those strikes later to argue that an editor or admin has permanently disqualified themselves from taking action on bad behaviour due what you then try to re-define as 'involvement' and 'conflict'. Your threat is noted, but let me make it clear: I will continue to do my best for the community here and to comply with policy without fear or favour, and that includes speaking out and where needed taking action against bad behaviour no matter how much bluster and drama-making there may be. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Michael, you state that things are un-true. Do you remember the email which you sent to Fae on 17 May 2014, in which you told him to talk to a medical professional and that one's mental and physical health is important. Don't come the raw prawn with me, and try to tell me that you meant that he should see a podiatrist. Under the circumstances, and with knowledge of the obvious game you were playing, it is very clear what you were saying.
Yes, this could have been raised at the time of it occurring back in May, however, it wasn't done so not to fall into playing what was a very petty, and unbecoming of your position, game on your part. It was also not raised then so not give those harassing Fae a win by drawing attention to everything; you wilfully chose to try and do that.
This is very clearly an attempt to silence Fae, disproving your un-truth comment once again. You are free in future to comment on Fae, as you see fit, but you most certainly are not free to use the tools on issues relating to him, and the further action comment isn't a threat, but a clear promise. If anything, you and Fae should steer clear of each other; it's advice I've given to Fae, and it's advice I'm giving to you too.
Again, no comment required. russavia (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Making a legal threat Russavia? ("you are being placed on notice that any future behaviour like this from yourself towards Fae will see further action being taken"")
You could've emailed this to Michael. oh but wait, you love to cause drama and protect your friend Fae. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WMUK's MacMini[edit]

Can you please review User_talk:Fæ#Advice_and_suggestion and offer your opinion on whether WMUK would be amenable to writing off the MacMini (or selling it to Fae for a quid) in return for him unsubscribing from WMUK mailing lists and refraining from commenting on WMUK from WMF hosted sites and mailing lists for a period of 12 months. Fae's work on Commons needs to continue, and him being in permanent possession of that MacMini will allow for that. We all know that it is being put to good use, and will continue to be put to good use in the future. By the end of that 12 months the actual value of that MacMini will be negligible anyway (one quid payable then), we get good value from Fae's work here on Commons, and WMUK can set whatever course it wants for itself without having to deal with Fae.

If he breaks the agreement (i.e. comments about WMUK on WMF projects/mailing lists), he would be required to return. Conversely, I would also expect that WMUK employees and trustees, etc also refrain from discussion/comments on Fae on WMF hosted sites/mailing lists, and the agreement would voided (with Fae keeping the MacMini) if that occurs. I would also expect that placing WMUK templates on uploads are not expected.

This is a pretty simple solution to what I am seeing is a problem on both sides of the equation, and will ensure that Commons continues to benefit from Fae staying in possession of the MacMini. A simple gentleman's agreement would suffice here I would imagine. Are you, as head honcho trustee at WMUK, amenable to that? Reply here, and not on Fae's talk page. russavia (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice to Fae. Your interest in the workings of a chapter half a world away from where you live is gratifying, but I am not sure why you have posted this here on my Commons page. I'm sure that Fae and the chapter are quite easily able to discuss chapter matters between themselves by direct email. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so much worried about the workings of the WMUK, as I am in the continuity of the ability of a productive editor to contribute to Commons by doing what they do best. I think WMUK would be well advised to stay clear of Fae, and likewise Fae should stay clear of WMUK. It is evident that both sides harbour deep animosity towards each other. I believe in openness and transparency, and because the very public shitfight between WMUK and Fae has the potential to affect Commons, why not have the conversation in public?
I think what I have proposed is a pretty simple solution to what could become a problem in the future. This is in no small part due to the fact that with Fae's exclusion from WMUK, he is unable to apply for grants and is unable to use WMUK equipment; and WMUK could ask for the MacMini back at any stage and for any reason. I am willing to be corrected on this if it is incorrect; it's simply my understanding of what I have read in WMUK materials.
If WMUK isn't amenable to my suggestion then will you publicly state what WMUK's intention is as it relates to the WMUK MacMini that Fae is utilising to contribute tens of thousands of images to Commons with. This is especially important because I am in the midst of getting hundreds of permissions for Commons, which will see hundreds of thousands more aviation images for Commons, and I need to know what is happening, or bound to happen in the future; I don't have the technical expertise and means to bulk upload, Fae does; this will also hold true for other projects Fae is working on as well for the benefit of Commons. If WMUK isn't amenable, then perhaps a public guarantee access to the MacMini won't be revoked so long as it being used to the benefit of Commons will go some way to allaying concerns that I, and others, hold. russavia (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Michael, my interest in having this discussion publicly is partly driven by Chris Keating's comment on Wikimedia-l where he linked to the report written by yourself on WMUK's governance and included the quote:
““For the stage that Wikimedia is in its life cycle it compares well with similar UK charities. Its transparency about its procedures is a beacon of best practice, and its conflicts of interest procedures are robust and well-tested””
On the issue that brought me, whilst I am not a member of WMUK (but may apply in future), I am a stakeholder in this project, and the issue directly affects my own activities as they relate to Commons. Hence why I think it might be a good idea to have this discussion publicly, and civilly as it is thus far. Thanking you, russavia (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Why does everything have to be done in private, why has openness and accountability disappeared ? Fae, to make the hundreds of thousands of useful contributions needs support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and because of the unique (and completely broken) way WMF works, he needs the support of his local chapter, but of course he can't have it, because he and the people currently running the local chapter have fallen out in an embarrassing game of one-upmanship, the same people have in turn fallen out with WMF as far as I can ascertain (I've still not received a satisfactory, plain English explanation about why there's no ability to collect Gift Aid). It's just a demoralising mess of internal and external politics, blundering incompetence, staggering arrogance and pigheadedness by all involved - you, Fae, Sue Gardner and others.
The people who suffer, apart from all the key players in this ongoing soap opera, are the users, who could be deprived of high quality free content if Fae has the MacMini forfeited, or he needs financial support for further IT equipment or services to continue, which he is unable to obtain from WMUK.
Everytime I look at WMUK, all I see is a pitiful state of affairs.
I like to consider myself reasonably impartial in all of this - I'm not a member of WMUK, don't intend to join, don't wish to pursue a role within the charity and have never requested funds. I sit up here, in North Scotland, and look at the WMUK operation in London the same way people in Scotland view Westminster, and we know how strongly they made their feelings felt on 18 September. Put simply, the organisation you run is broken and it needs to be repaired.
Nick (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I wasn't aware that you live in Scotland, though I see that I could have guessed from your user page... I'd like to extend a warm welcome and invite you to engage with your local chapter to see for yourself whether those of us who are helping the chapter do some excellent open knowledge work are quite as reprehensible as you suggest. You will find that we do try to stay more focused on our charitable mission than engaging in too much non-productive public wikidrama.
Did you know, for example, that we have been working for almost 18 months with a Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland, that one of our trustees (Gill Hamilton) is Digital Access Manager at that same organisation, that there are regular independent Scottish meetups in Edinburgh and Glasgow at which you might well meet our volunteers and members, that top of our list of priorities at the moment is widening our volunteer base and improving our engagement with volunteers, that last weekend we held we held the first of a planned series of volunteer strategy gatherings to which members were offered travelling expenses, and that three of your compatriots made the journey to Birmingham to join us?
You've indicated you consider yourself reasonably impartial: please come and help us do better. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, Fae has now commented on my suggestion, and he is down with it. What is WMUK's official line on this suggestion? There's no rush, obviously a little time will be required for you to put it to the Board for discussion. Will you put this suggestion to the Board for a gentleman's agreement on this? russavia (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, I have been alerted to this and I have to say it is a good decision on the part of WMUK in that it allows Fae to keep his distance from WMUK, and WMUK from Fae. We all have no doubt that the gifted MacMini will be put to good use by Fae for the betterment of this entire project. Thanks, russavia (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #136[edit]

New level {{User PH-4}}[edit]

Hi ; new level 4 for you ?--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. Not sure what the community's view on that is. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #137[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #138[edit]

Leonard Landy[edit]

Hey, could you please response to this? Thanks! OscarLake (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes all the difference, and I've restored the image. Thanks for looking out the evidence so quickly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Permission copyright from "Erik Pevernagie" to User:onlysilence[edit]

Dear Michael Maggs,

Thank you for your kind reply Below I send you permission for publication of the works Erik Pevernagie in category : Erik Pevernagie

Best regards and happy New Year

Erik Pevernagie

"Permission to publish the files under a free license in Commons Wikimedia , Files uploaded by Onlysilence and International-critics . Erik Pevernagie, artist, Avenue A. Lancaster 118O Brussels Belgium Tel <redacted> <redacted> I am the copyright holder,painter, photographer and creator Erik Pevernagie (<redacted>) and have given permission to publish the files under a free license in Commons Wikimedia , Files uploaded by Onlysilence and by International-critics My work is catagorized under category : Erik Pevernagie. Best regards Erik Pevernagie" • Date :25/12/2014 • Sujectline: • permission for Files uploads by User:Onlysilence and by User:International-critics . ‏ • • • • File:Z- Halte dans la fuite.jpg • File:Z- A flair of inspiration.jpg • File:Kein Schwein ruft mich an.jpg • File:Disruption.jpg • File:C'est quand le bonheur.jpg • File:Unfulfilled meeting.JPG • File:Waiting for the unexpected.jpg • File:Life out there !.jpg • File:Is Heaven is a place in the sky?.jpg • File:A change of vision.jpg • File:All the words he always wanted to tell her.jpg • File:Loss of urban benchmarks.jpg • File:One drink after work....jpg • File:Quest for the real moment.jpg • File:Even if the world goes down, my handy will save me.jpg • File:Those journeys of love.JPG • File:Going back to yesterday.jpg • File:The Postman came twice.jpg • File:Uber alle Gipfeln ist Ruh.jpg • File:Mes cliques et mes claques.jpg • File:Final decision.jpg • File:Blame storming.jpg • File:When is art ?.jpg • File:Waiting for emancipation.jpg • File:Tout compte fait....jpg • File:The dirty bike.jpg • File:The day the mirror was talking back.jpg • File:The daily job.jpg • File:Steps into the unknown.jpg • File:Rooting hogging or....jpg • File:Only needed a light.JPG • File:Not without the past.jpg • File:High noon !.jpg • File:I seek you.jpg • File:Could time be patient.jpg • File:Bread and satelite.jpg • File:Consumers' Dream.JPG • File:Alors Tout a bascule.jpg • File:Not without you.jpg • File:Should I shave first.jpg • File:Brussels with a view.jpg • File:Twilight of desire.jpg • File:Ruling the waves.jpg • File:Words had disappeared.jpg • File:Absence of desire.jpg • File:When forgetting the rules of the game.jpg • File:Tiptoeing into a new life.jpg • File:Waiting for a place behind the Geraniums.jpg • File:The upper lip must never tremble.jpg • File:Lost the global story.jpg • File:Letter that came too late.jpg • File:Waiting for the smoke signals.jpg • File:In the doorway..jpg • File:If he doesn't play ball..jpg • File:Everybody his story.jpg • File:Hinter der Mattscheibe.jpg • File:Give me more images..jpg • File:Fear of the white page.jpg • File:Man without Qualities 1.JPG • File:Just for a moment.JPG • File:Words flew away like birds.jpg • File:Why an egg every day?.jpg • File:Low profile.jpg • File:Waiting for the pieces to fall into place 100 x80 cm.jpg • File:Sweet smell of Submission.jpg • File:No monsters.jpg • File:New York at arm's length of desire.jpg • File:Step on the gas.jpg • File:Homeless down in the corner.jpg • File:The sorrow of Belgium.jpg • File:This is no chicken food.jpg • File:Woman in progress.jpg • File:Trompe le pied.jpg • File:Thank God for the Belgian chocolate.jpg • File:Swim or sink.jpg • File:News of the world.jpg • File:Penis envy.jpg • File:Measuring space.jpg • File:Knowing somebody was waiting.jpg • File:Could the milkman be the devil.jpg • File:Digging for white gold.jpg • File:Juicy rumours.jpg • File:I am young and have no dog (100x100cm).jpg • File:Happiness blowing in the wind.jpg • File:I am young and have no dog.jpg • File:Labyrinth of the mind.JPG • File:Voices of the sea.jpg • File:On a doggy day.jpg • File:Only silence remained.jpg--Onlysilence (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Onlysilence. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Pictures of my dad[edit]

A number of photographs taken by my father of artworks he created, and some snapshots of my father at work, that I uploaded were deleted. This was done in a rather aggressive way which I do not understand. My father died ten years ago. There's no discussion of copyrights here, there are no copyrights involved, they're just snap shots of him and his work. I scanned the pictures I own and used some of them for a Wikipedia page about him and his work. I would like an explanation. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about that. I expect that any deletions were for copyright issues, as all photos attract copyright protection, but I'm not sure as I don't know who you are nor which images you are referring to. If you could let me know, please (for example by giving me the exact name of an image that has been deleted), I'll happily look into it for you. With best regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The pictures are below. I should add that most of the artworks depicted in these scanned photographs are (or were) in public spaces, were paid for by community funds and were created for the enjoyment of the public. So they are by definition in the public domain, just like any other monumental work of art. As these artworks are made of glass, some of the older ones do not exist anymore today because the buildings were demolished in the meantime or the artworks themselves did not survive. They are documented by these pictures and should be available to anyone who wishes to view them. I replied to the notifications by explaining what the pictures are and that I am the owner of the original pictures. Therefore I have no idea why you went ahead and deleted them unless there was a complaint, which I very much doubt.
   File:Glas-appliqué in Begeleidings Centrum v h Onderwijs Amsterdam 2.jpg
   File:Profeet. Zwevend glas in lagen gestapeld, niet verlijmd..jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in gemeentehuis Dalfsen 2.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in gemeentehuis Stede Broec.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Amsterdams Lucht en ruimtevaart laboratorium.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in gemeentehuis Zederik.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in gemeentehuis Dalfsen.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Coöperatieve Begrafenis Onderneming Bussum.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué detail.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Begeleidings Centrum v h Onderwijs Amsterdam.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Rode Kruis Ziekenhuis Den Haag.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Gemeentehuis Emmen.jpg
   File:Glaswand Technische Hogeschool Eindhoven.jpg
   File:Miskelk Sint Willibrorduskerk buiten de veste.jpg
   File:Ramen Zaandam Paaskerk.jpg
   File:Willem van Oyen sr..jpg

Saflieni (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll review and will get back to you here shortly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. While you're at it: I wish to upload pictures of a lamp, designed and produced on an industrial scale by my father in the sixties. To prevent problems I obtained permission from the current owner of the specimen in the pictures by email. Their statement: We (Nate Lights) hereby give our permission to use our photos from the lamp "Chartres by Willem Van Oyen" ( for free use at Wikipedia. Is this enough, or else, how do I go about it? Saflieni (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Saflieni, I haven't forgotten this. I expect to be able to reply on Monday. Thanks for your patience --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Saflieni, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We would be keen to keep the images you uploaded of works created by your father, but as I mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Saflieni we would need to be quite sure that we have proper permissions from whoever now owns the copyright.
Even though the artworks are on public display, it's often unlawful to photograph them and re-distribute the resulting images without permission from the holder of the original artistic copyright. There are nearly always legal restrictions on photographs of public art in public spaces, even those paid for by community funds and created for the enjoyment of the public. The rules differ by country, but the laws in the Netherlands are complex and some of your images are definitely problematic, including the closeups and the school images: see here for more details.
On Commons we take copyright seriously, and that means I'm afraid that there are a few hoops we will have to jump through before I can restore the images. I'm happy to help you through them, though.
We ask that copyright releases in respect of professionally-created art be recorded on OTRS, to ensure that we have a definitive record of such releases. Could I ask you, please, to make contact with me via email to to start the discussions? If you could include the text 'for MichaelMaggs' in the subject line, that will ensure I'll be able to find your message easily when it arrives.
In your email, could you please let me know who (or which company) now owns your father's artistic copyrights? In the Deletion Request, it was stated that the photos "were supplied and uploaded by the heirs of the artist (his sons)". If you are an heir and you now jointly own the copyright with your brother(s), we'd need permission from all of you. Alternatively, if the copyrights are now owned by a company (eg, we'd need permission from the company. Could you clarify, please?
In addition to copyrights in the original artworks, there will be separate copyrights in the photographs. Do you know who took the photographs and under what conditions? If they were taken by employees of your father or his company, copyright will most likely be held by the same person or company that holds the copyright in the works themselves. If the photographers were not employees, the photographic copyright will most likely be held by the photographer and we would need his or her permission as well.
On the question of the lamp, again we'll need permissions both from the current lamp copyright holder and from the photographer. What is the relationship with Presumably they have a licence to produce the lamp for sale, but who took the photo? One of their own employees?
I'm sorry that this all seems pretty complicated. It is, but that's the nature of copyright, and we do have to get this right. I look forward to receiving your email. If you could post a note here when you've sent it, I'll look out for its arrival. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I already told you several times there are no copyrights on my fathers work. What you are asking is largely impossible. How to prove something which isn't there? Of course I can send you a message of my brother who is the current owner of Bevo glaskunst, no problem, but what stops you from asking the same questions afterwards as you do with the lamps for instance. There are no copyrights to that design. As is written in the Wikipedia page they were being copied widely already in the seventies. My father never pressed charges, not did the company that marketed them and they ended up something common for hobbyists to make in their attics until the design was finally outlawed because of sharp edges. Everybody moved on from there, except you apparently. By the way, have you looked at Nate-lights at all? They are re-selling vintage products. The company that used to market the lamps, Raak, has gone bankrupt a long time ago. Again it would be impossible to find out who might or might not own copyrights if there were any to begin with. And really, snapshots of my dad taken by a colleague, or a visitor, or my mum, or a delivery boy, or whoever passed by his studio in the 1950's, how am I to find out such a thing? Which law is relevant here? If I follow your reasoning I couldn't even upload a selfie, because how do I prove I took it myself, and there might be somebody who holds copyright to a building or a passing car in the background, who knows, and how to find out? I don't believe it works this way. So again, If you haven't received any complaints about copyrights in any of my pictures, why did you decide to give me a hard time? Saflieni (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid you may have been misinformed about copyright law. There most certainly are copyrights on your father's original artistic works (they came into effect automatically when he created them). Likewise, there are copyrights in the photographs (they came into effect automatically when the shutter was pressed). Once copyrights come into effect they normally last for 70 years after the artist's or photographer's death, which is why we cannot host recent works without formal permission. We need to satisfy ourselves that where the uploader is not the artist he or she is either the current copyright owner, or is able to obtain a licence from the current owner. (Copyright may be transferred by written assignment or on death).
If you are not prepared to address the question I posed, or if you really do not know the answers, then I am afraid we are not able to host your images. In particular, if the photos could have been taken by anyone who "passed by his studio in the 1950's" it seems that we will never be able to find out who the copyright owner is, and without that information we can't accept the pictures. I know that that might sound unreasonable, given that most social media websites would never bother with such a thing, but Commons takes care to ensure to the best of our ability that all images we host are properly licensed or copyright-free. The problem we have here is that these are so-called 'orphan works', where we know that copyright exists but we cannot tell who owns it. There are many, many millions of such historic photos held in libraries and archives throughout Europe and elsewhere that can't be used for exactly the same reason. Copyright advocates are at this very moment lobbying the European Commission to try to get the law changed so that such photos can be lawfully re-used, but for the moment we have to work within current legal restrictions, even though we may think they are ridiculous. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You keep refusing to answer my question. If there is no complaint about possible copyrights violations, and the possibility of this ever happening is zero, why are you making a fuzz? I did address the questions. You are just ignoring everything. I told you I am the owner of the pictures and offered a waiver issued by myself, by my brother, and in the case of the lamps, by the current owner of the lamps and the pictures of the lamps. If you keep being unreasonable I will consider this harassment and lodge a complaint. Saflieni (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason for what you call a 'fuss' is that we have a formal policy here of allowing uploads only of material that is freely licensed or in the public domain both in the US and in the source country (The Netherlands) - you can read our policy here: COM:L. The fact that nobody has complained so far is not a good argument, as we have no reason to suppose they will not do so in the future. Please see COM:PRP, and in particular the common argument that "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter." Our long-standing policies seem to be fatal to hosting the snapshots of your father and his work here. The lamp image might be possible, if proper permissions can be provided. Let me re-post for convenience the questions I asked about that:
  • On the question of the lamp, again we'll need permissions both from the current lamp copyright holder and from the photographer. What is the relationship with Presumably they have a licence to produce the lamp for sale, but who took the photo? One of their own employees?
When your father died, what happened to the copyrights he held in his works, including the lamp design? Did they pass jointly to you and your brother, or did they pass to BEVO Glaskunst? If the latter, presumably the company would be prepared to grant the necessary free licence?
In order to work through this, if you want to and if it's legally possible, I need you to send an email to the OTRS address I mentioned above. There really is no way round these formalities. I am trying to help you, but you must be prepared to work within the rules. More complaints aimed at me here will not help. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


09:38, 2 January 2015 MichaelMaggs (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:MichaelMaggs from bureaucrat and administrator to bureaucrat, administrator and OTRS member (Noting re-admission as OTRS memebr)

Hello, Please remove self from OTRS group, you are blocking phabricator:T78814. The OTRS group is now global. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #139[edit]


Thanks for closing that. I hope the 'enough' wasn't an expression of frustration with me for the (I admit) TL;DR comment at the end, but I felt it was worthwhile to make it blatantly clear that it wasn't a matter of an 'allegation' that the URAA applied, but a specific case where it obviously did, since there seemed to be a likelihood of more people piling in. Revent (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all. Actually, I was typing the closure at the same time that you were posting your final comments, and had an edit conflict when I tried to post. 'Enough' referred to the preceding unhelpful attempts to re-open old policy arguments in a forum where we should be discussing the lawfulness or otherwise of specific uploads. I've taken the word out, as I agree that it might be incorrectly read as directed to your final comment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello Michael Maggs,

I mentioned you her -- Geagea (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Michael, Commons delinker (the bot which removes deleted files from wikis) dos not work perfect (not working on all wikis and all namespaces, a lot of bugs). Delinker need to be written completely new (phabricator:T66794). It was suggested to build a extension to replace the existing functionality of delinker. Does WMUK can help with building such a extension? See bugreport phabricator:T86483. Have a wonderful evening --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steinsplitter. Not sure. I'm not in charge of deciding which projects WMUK gets involved with, though from a personal point of view I would love to see this being worked on and will happily do what I can to try to get support. We have a WMUK tech committee meeting next week, where I could bring this up. What sort of support do you think the chapter could best provide? Are you looking for a volunteer programmer, for technical maintenance support, or for funding? If this were to be a Mediawiki extension, shouldn't the Foundation staff do the coding? Or perhaps they may not have the time/inclination to work in this area? Any background you could provide would be helpful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The WMF have a lot of other things to do (no time to write such a extension). I am searching a (volunteer) programmer to build such a extension or to rewrite the bot. The current delinker bot dos not work very good (i have ssh access to delinker - but i am not profi dev, all the dev's (Siebrand, etc.) don't have time to rewrite delinker). And i have the feeling that delinker will stop working soon (big error log) :( --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I will ask. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I tried Magnus Manske, and he has kindly agreed to work on it. He has followed up on Phabricator. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #140[edit]


Hi MichaelMaggs. I found three emails (I merged one) which were explicitly send to you: ticket:2015010710017814 & ticket:2015011210009028. Could you take care of these please? :) The person speaks apparantly Dutch, so if you need help with that, just poke me. Thanks in advance. Regards, Trijnsteltalk 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look. Thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Trijnstel, I've left a note for you on ticket:2015010710017814. Could you help in Dutch, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done. Trijnsteltalk 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Trijnstel, thanks for your note. In view of this and the user's comments directed at me on OTRS I have withdrawn from this matter. Please feel free to pick it up if you like! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Michael,

re Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-01#File:1989_Joe_102.jpg: I've been in contact with Charlie Samuels through e-mail. When I contacted him via the e-mail address given on his web page, he confirmed that this was his own account. He has forwarded our e-mail exchange to (and CC'ed me, that's how I know). In private, he wrote to me that he planned to upload many more images. Furthermore he confirmed that the account en:User:Charliesamuelswiki was also his; if needed, I can forward that last part of the e-mail conversation to OTRS, too. I've taken the liberty of undeleting all his uploads (see Special:ListFiles/Charliesamuels) and have tagged them again as {{OTRS pending}}. Could you please take care of this OTRS ticket soon? It took some 10 days for him to reply to my original e-mail, but when I answered then, he got back to me within a day. Would be a shame to lose a professional photographer just because of the usual OTRS delay...

Thanks, Lupo 21:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good news. ✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. What's the procedure for his future uploads? Shall he add {{PermissionOTRS|id=2015011410021064}} to all his future uploads of his own photos? Do we tag his user page with that tag and state that the account has been verified as being Charlie Samuels? And what, if anything, do we do with en:User:Charliesamuelswiki and his uploads? (One of which is apparently an own work uploaded as "fair use"... but the other one is tagged for transfer to the Commons.) Lupo 13:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
{{PermissionOTRS}} can't be added by non OTRS people. I think a simple mentioning like this on his user page is enough. Jee 15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
All right; so I've done that at least. What about the en-WP account? Lupo 15:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you can do the same. It will be nice if the user mention his EN account in Commons and vice versa. Jee 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
All right, I'll tell him to do so. And if he doesn't, I'll forward the rest of our e-mail conversation (where he states that that is also his account) under the same ticket number to OTRS. Lupo 16:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you please add {{PermissionOTRS|id=2015011410021064}} also to File:Earl Manigault.jpg? Lupo 05:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Jee 06:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #141[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #142[edit]