Commons talk:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 30 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 500 days. For the archive overview, see Archive/. The latest archive is located at Commons talk:Village pump/Archive/2021.

Unclear deletion of file[edit]

Hi everyone. A file I have uploaded was deleted for reasons that remains unclear to me, and on that particular discussion place, it was suggested that I try discussing it here.

This is the deletion request project.

The file in question is an image of an artist I made an article for, and was in the process of detailing it. Since I am not the owner of the image I wanted to include for this article, I asked its owner to make it available. The owner did so and made the image available for free use, with proper license, on Flickr, per guidelines I read on the OTRS and [[1]] sections of WikiCommons. Even so, the image was flagged for deletion because of suspected "flickerwashing". I did my best to explain everything in the discussion of the deletion request project, but I received no answer, nor suggestions on how to correct any mistakes that may have happened. Finally, the image was simply deleted without anyone ever giving me proper notice on what the issue is. The Flickr account belongs to the owner of the image and he assigned the image the adequate license. If there is anything else he can do to further substantiate his ownership and will to relinquish the image for use on Wikipedia, I am happy to inform him on what he has to do. But I absolutely need to know what it is that he is supposed to do. Please, any information will be greatly appreciated, I am simply at a loss that it's this easy to delete someone's time and effort, without proper background work. Dribflow (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dribflow: Hi, and welcome. Please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the photographer (not the subject) post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work (or mention that Flickr account) on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the photo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: - hi, thank you for your response. The image in question wasn't used under fair use, it was explicitly given Attribution sharing rights, per WikiCommons guidelines, which can easily be seen here. So, if I understood correctly, the owner should just acknowledge his Flickr account on some other confirmed site, such as his personal site?
What I'm less clear on is why no one bothered to actually discuss this with me in the appropriate discussion page, so that I have a chance of correcting the mistake within the specified time given, instead of needing to re-upload it again, and needlessly bother the author of the image to jump through additional hoops, when he was already kind enough to make it available in the first place... I did my best to explain and asked for input, but no one ever answered. This means that the person who deleted the image in the end did so without bothering to look at the discussion first, or he/she saw it and ignored it. I guess this is just me venting now, but if there's a way to somehow submit a complaint on the way things were conducted by the involved parties, I would love to know about it. Thanks again for your time. :) - Dribflow (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dribflow: I don't see a process problem here. According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vladimir Lalić - slikar, muzičar, kompozitor - 2020.jpg, User:Smooth O nominated this for deletion 3 January 2021 as suspected Flickrwashing. They left an appropriate notification at User talk:Dribflow. A week later, you had not responded, and seeing a claim with no refutation, User:Gbawden deleted it according to a nomination to which no one had responded. I'd have done the same.
(Speaking of process problems, why did you start this discussion on Commons talk:Village pump rather than Commons:Village pump? This talk page is intended as a place to discuss issues about the Village pump.)
If you believe the decision was wrong, take it to Commons:Undeletion requests, but if you want to be taken seriously there, you'll need to provide some reason to think this is not Flickrwashing, and I suggest you don't complain there about a process that seems to me to have been entirely correct, unless you can actually show something that was wrong about it. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dribflow: Re-reading your initial complaint: what sort of notice did you expect that you did not receive? - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dribflow: (ec with Jmabel) This is about DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vladimir Lalić - slikar, muzičar, kompozitor - 2020.jpg concerning File:Vladimir Lalić - slikar, muzičar, kompozitor - 2020.jpg, which you uploaded. 19:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Smooth O nominated it for deletion and notified you in this edit, which advised you "We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry." You chose not to do that on the appropriate page exactly; instead, you wrote on the DR talk page Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Vladimir Lalić - slikar, muzičar, kompozitor - 2020.jpg. You also chose not to notify deleting Admin Gbawden with a proper ping on that page in this other edit, like I just did (per mw:Extension:Echo#Usage, you must link to another user's page and sign in the same edit in order to effectively mention, notify, or ping them, and even then only if they have "Notify me when someone links to my user page" set (which is the default here)). It is a rare Admin that reads DR talk pages, but whether or not Gbawden read the DR talk page is immaterial at this point. Turning now to the uploading and deletion, where is it exactly that "Wikimedia Commons specifically advises users to create Flickr accounts and upload the materials there, so as to license them properly"[2]? Alleging that someone is the "owner" of a printed photo is not enough, as the author or copyright holder of a photo is generally the photographer (who owns the negative or raw digital image and all rights), rather than the owner of a photographic print, who has few rights. Per COM:EVID, we need sufficient evidence to follow the chain of authorization from the photographer to Commons to protect his rights and indemnify Commons and our licensed reusers, and we just don't have that yet. What the photographer could have done is create an account here and upload directly, publicly specify a license or his official Flickr account on his official website or one of his official social media accounts linked from there (Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook), or emailed us per COM:L and OTRS with a carbon copy to you. You could have advised him to do that, and you still could. Once we have verified that all is in order, any Admin here can undelete the file after noticing this discussion or a request at COM:UDR which mentions this discussion.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion appears to be caused by User:Dribflow responding on the deletion request talk page, instead of on the deletion request page itself. It seems probable that nobody noticed the talk page posts. We should assume good faith and make allowances for new users. We should assume that Dribflow inadvertently edited the wrong page, just as they initially posted on the Village pump talk page and used the syntax @Gbawden to try to alert the closing admin instead of {{ping|Gbawden}}. Gbawden, please confirm whether you saw the talk page postings when you deleted the file, and if not then please review your decision. (It might be better if deletion request pages did not have talk pages, I am unclear when they should be used.) Verbcatcher (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I did not see the talk page but that would have not influenced my decision. On the face of it this rationale was valid - flickrwashing by a recently created account with 1 photo and 0 followers. A decision to delete is not unexpected. I have tried to point this out in a discussion on my talk page.

As I said to Dribflow, the best would be to follow the OTRS process which would remove any doubt Gbawden (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who invested their time in this discussion, which I now realize should have taken place elsewhere. I'll try to be concise and respond to everyone, pinging appropriate participants, where needed. I will start by acknowledging the now obvious, that @Verbcatcher: is correct in assuming that I, being new to Wikipedia in general (and WikiCommons in particular), did not realize that the discussion on the deletion request page, as well as this one, is to be conducted on the Project page itself, rather than their respective discussion sections. Had my first discussion started on an already busy project, I might have realized it by browsing the content of the page, but this was a simple deletion request, so I followed the logic that discussions should be started on the section with that name. I am also just getting the hang of various ping-type notifications, which also contributed to some of the resulting confusion, for which I am sorry, too. I already established my 'noviceship' here, and I'm thankful that you took the time to weed out where the actual problem began. At the same time, I apologize to everyone involved, and especially @Gbawden: , for any confusion I might have caused, but I hope you can appreciate how this whole process looked from my perspective, thinking I had done a lot to inspire more than just a flat deletion. I understand also that admins and other users on here cannot be expected to delve into minutia of every deletion request out there, but being new and at a loss as to what exactly was the problem, I had to stir up some dust to make sure I get some feedback. Feedback I got in the end, and I really appreciate all of it. @Jmabel: , this also answers most of your questions/explanations regarding the process. I wasn't aware that no one was aware of my attempts to put forth an argument.
As for the issue itself, thanks to @Jeff G.: for a more in-depth explanation. I already explained that I am not the owner of the photograph and, while appreciating that the best way to do something is best for a reason, I saw no problem with doing it another way, which was also offered on the same infopage. I am currently having trouble finding that exact section, but I assure you, the only reason I went with Flickr is because it said so there. In fact, the only reason I knew what to do in that respect is because I read it here. As for that particular choice, my reasoning was that it's the least trouble for the owner of the photo, so I picked that way to license it. I contacted the owner of the photo, whom I know peripherally, explained that I am making an article of the artist whose pictures he took, and pointed out the image I wanted to upload. He agreed and followed the steps that I advised. The only reason it's a new account with only 1 photo is because that's the purpose of that account - to allow the use of that particular photo. It's now pretty obvious to me that he has to somehow take ownership of said Flickr account, but I wasn't aware at the time on how he is supposed to do that, nor that the presumption would be that it's fake, just because it's fresh. And I definitely wasn't aware that an image can be deleted without proof that the Flickr account is fake, although I grant you that I probably could have realized how much work it would take for each such account to be thoroughly checked. I simply don't have enough experience to instantly understand all these things.
What I gathered from this discussion is that he could just link this Flickr account to his website, or some similar recognized account he already owns. I will look into other options and try, if possible, to do it directly here, as suggested. Thanks again for your time and effort. Dribflow (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to provide some comic relief, I will share that I also talked to the owner of the photo today, and he told me that he actually has an older Flickr account, but he couldn't remember the password for it, so he just made another. In light of the fact that there's a much more believable account with the same name on Flickr, I'm pretty sure that would have been a slam-dunk reason to flag this new account anyway. Back to the drawing board, I guess. Dribflow (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dribflow: Welcome to Commons and it sounds like we'll be fine moving forward. Do please allow that most people here, and virtually all admins, are acting in good faith (this is with respect to your statement that you weren't given "proper notice"), but sometimes things get tricky. Also, a distinction worth making: "owner of a [physical] photo" vs. the much more relevant "owner of the copyright" or "owner of the intellectual property rights" for the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I don't really doubt that people here operate in good faith. The criticism, ill-informed as it turned out to be, came more from a feeling of there just not being sufficient understanding or help in bridging the first and hardest hurdles as a newbie, rather than there being a lack of care for the platform in general. Obviously, you guys are proving me wrong in that department as well, but I just wanted to clarify the place I was shaking my fist from. It just felt a bit cold and discouraging, but it no longer does. :)
In this case, and to my knowledge, the owner of the photo is the owner of all relevant rights, but I should have paid more attention to the wording. Thanks again! Dribflow (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dribflow: Please make the photographer aware that he can use if he forgot his password for his original Flickr account. See also en:WP:THREAD.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I already mentioned password recovery to him at some point, but our communication is not that extensive, and he seems absent-minded (or this just isn't that important to him). I don't really know him well enough to venture too deep into what and how he does, that's why I wanted to simplify as much as possible. I guess if all else fails I can always try to obtain a different photo of the subject of the article I was making... And thanks for the threading pointers! I obviously bit off more than I planned on chewing with this article, but in for a penny, as they say. Thanks for everything, will see to it that your investment in this thread doesn't go to waste. Dribflow (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Núñez de Caceres[edit]

Don't know if I've come to the right place. File above should be moved to José Núñez de Cáceres (accent on the "a"). Thanks, --Maragm (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth 2021 in the Philippines[edit]

Please support Wiki Loves Earth 2021 in the Philippines by endorsing my proposal. Thank you! -Maffeth.opiana (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christie's -copyright[edit]

Sorry; I have very little knowledge about copyright; I see that there are a lot of pictures from Christie's

But is it possible to upload images from here? Huldra (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The general idea is that a photo of a 3D object (such as a stela) is a creative process, and therefore for such photos both the object and a photo must be out of copyright. For 2D object such as paintings the process is not creative, and therefore if a painting is out of copyright its photo of any provenance can be uploaded on Commons. I am not so sure about the books (I hope someone will give an explanation), butreliefs and jewelry unfortunately can not be uploaded on Commons unless the photo is old or a photographer has released it under a free license.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Ymblanter; sigh, I suspected that was the case, thanks for confirming it, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magdalena Strozzi's portrait paintings by Raffaello Sanzio[edit]

Message :no wikidata found, I think there is a link which is "Portrait of Maddalena Doni (Q2607055)"

I don't know how to fix up

--Io Herodotus (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Io Herodotus: Wikidata is one of our sister projects, so you have an account there, even if you've never edited. Its interface and scope are pretty different from Commons, so it may be a bit confusing at first how to add a new item, but that is the way to fix this issue. I'll add it now and let me know if you have any questions about Commons or Wikidata. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, there is no village pump for Wikidata. --Io Herodotus (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Io Herodotus: , happy to help, mon frere. Wikidata's equivalent is d:Wikidata:Project_chat. Heads up that we are also discussing on the talk page of the Village pump, which is really for talking about the Village pump itself. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Retraction of my nomination for deletion of someone else's image[edit]

@Daltonsatom: moved to Commons:Village pump#Category:Retraction of my nomination for deletion of someone else's image - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process[edit]

@Shyamal: moved to Commons:Village pump#Deletion process - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]