User talk:BU Rob13

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, BU Rob13!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Projeto de Pesquisa - Marília Reinato Carrera.pdf[edit]

Hello. Thank you for looking at the OTRS procedure for this research project, that focuses on using Wikimedia projects as means of scientific dissemination in Brazil. I was wondering if you could instruct me what I should do in order to attest adequately what should be done to have this document stay on the Commons, please. This research project has been used as a reference for other research projects. Thanks! --Joalpe (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joalpe: Hi! The sender of the OTRS email should have received a reply with information on how to continue. Due to the confidentiality of OTRS emails and responses, I can't say much more than that on-wiki. ~ Rob13Talk 03:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
BU Rob13. OK, got it! My bad... I have replied via email. Thanks a lot for taking the time to check on our request. --Joalpe (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear license reviewer[edit]

If you use the helper scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.

Hi BU Rob13, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.freenode.net. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! Poké95 10:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Congrats !! :D — Wiki Mopper ?? 13:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Face-smile.svg ~ Rob13Talk 00:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Reason for PD on Flickr[edit]

What is meant by this?[1] What other reason can be given than that it is listed as such on the Flickr page? FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: The Creative Commons Public Domain Mark isn't actually a free license. It's just a mark used to indicate that the image is in the public domain. It's an assertion of fact, but in order to retain the image on the Wikimedia Commons, we need to actually verify that fact. Unless we can identify the reason why this file is asserted to be in the public domain, we won't be able to keep it. If the copyright holder intended to release the image under a free license similar to a release into the public domain, they could return to Flickr and change the selected license to CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. This is an actual free license stating that the copyright holder is waiving all rights associated with the work to the fullest extent of the law. Basically, it's the difference between asserting "This is in the public domain" and actually stating "I am releasing this into the public domain, to the extent allowed by law". We need the latter. Let me know if you have further questions about this. ~ Rob13Talk 10:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
So what's the point of using the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark for the owner? FunkMonk (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: The Public Domain Mark is just a notation that the image is in the public domain. For instance, if a user on Flickr uploaded a simple photograph of the Mona Lisa, they could mark it with the Public Domain Mark to note its status. They aren't releasing it under any license by doing this, just noting its status. ~ Rob13Talk 11:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I suspect this is not their intention, though, and that for example when this university's Flickr page uploads a picture that they state they own, yet also mark it as public domain, that it means they think they have released it? FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
They probably do think that, yes. Unfortunately, it's incorrect. It would be a good idea to reach out to them on Flickr and ask them to consider using CC0 instead. See this discussion for more info. Keep in mind also that stating "I release this into the public domain." is not a valid release in many significant countries, which is why {{PD-Author}} has fallback text saying that you waive all rights allowable by law if a release into the public domain isn't legally possible. We definitely don't have that fallback text from PD Mark, at the very least, and that creates serious issues. ~ Rob13Talk 23:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Patroller![edit]

Hi BU Rob13,

You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.

As you know already, the patrolling functionality is enabled for all edits, not just for new-page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users here on Commons.

We could use your help at the Counter Vandalism Unit. For example by patrolling an Anonymous-edits checklist and checking a day-part.

If you have any questions please leave a message on the CVU talkpage or ask for help on IRC in #wikimedia-commons.


English | മലയാളം | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

Didym (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:A Conversation with HBO's Sheila Nevins (26972652594).jpg[edit]

Hi, Thanks for looking at this, but tagging it with "no permission" doesn't really help. If the Flick account is not the author, it should be added to the list of bad Flickr accounts. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion requests[edit]

May I ask you to stop requesting images of Iran for deletion? I understand your concerns but I just thought to mention that they use numerous panoramic images in our media outlets, some of which are published in a free-use regime (e.g. images published by Tasnim News Agency). In my high school, we had a festival which included a section dedicated to photography, where we nominated our panoramic images of the city to compete. Why should all that be legal here but publishing images of some public places and prominent monuments like the Azadi Tower be illegal on Commons? Besides, why can't we regard that a fair use?
Rye-96 (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rye-96: If there weren't legal issues, I certainly wouldn't nominate the images. I take no joy in removing good content, but we have both legal and moral obligations to observe the copyright laws relevant to all works hosted on Wikimedia Commons. In this case, Iran doesn't allow freedom of panorama, so we can only host an image of the Azadi Tower if the architect releases the tower itself under a suitable free license. As for your school, I'm guessing the officials at the school are not aware of the copyright issues - few are. Commons does not accept any images under fair use, but local wikis might. ~ Rob13Talk 00:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Thank you for the reply. I considered moving them to the local English wiki.
Rye-96 (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


Removing my own photos[edit]

Hi, Why you've removed these photos from commons, Without any clear explanation?

These were my own work. Please explain and let me know if these photos can be re-stored or needs to upload them again? نیکات (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@نیکات: Because Iran has no freedom of panorama, images of buildings are often problematic even when the picture itself is offered under a free license. To depict images where the architect has lived in the past 50 years, we need permission from the architect himself or herself to host such images, which is unlikely. ~ Rob13Talk 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Recently you nominated some other images for deletion. Can you please explain, so all images used in these articles should be removed? Azadi Tower and برج آزادیor what? نیکات (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@نیکات: Correct. All images of the Azadi Tower are copyright violations without permission from the architect, as Iran has no freedom of panorama. Local policies may allow pictures to be uploaded locally under fair use, but that depends on the local wiki. A single picture to identify the Azadi Tower, for instance, would meet the non-free content criteria on the English Wikipedia. ~ Rob13Talk 16:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No-FOP[edit]

Hi! I met you in a deletion discussion a while ago, and I would like to let you know of several illegal images uploaded on Commons, in the Category:Bosco Verticale. As you may know we have no FOP in Italy, and the buildings were completed a few years ago, so their images should not be in Free licence. I would propose deletion myself, but I am not much into normal deletion request, I can only place speedy deletion tags. So if you would like to try, thank you. --Sailko (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:BSicon SBRÜCKE2.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:BSicon SBRÜCKE2.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
15:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated[edit]

Hello BU Rob13, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Could I ask you to License Review File:The Book Thief Interview.jpg?[edit]

It's from the same video that File:Sophie Nelisse on Selig Film News.jpg came from, which you reviewed on the 18th, so should hopefully be easy for you (I am grateful for that review, mind!). I hate to nag, and know you've got other things to do, but, see, this file has Markus Zusak, and Brian Percival in it, neither of whom have their own photos on Wikipedia, and CropTool won't let me crop to just their images for their articles since the image isn't LicenseReviewed, and every few days I keep remembering them, and checking the file to see if it's been stamped, and thinking I'll eventually forget about them... Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done ~ Rob13Talk 19:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
WikiThanks.png Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Radswiki-attribution[edit]

Hi, I have undone your edit. Please read the conversation in the ticket more carefully. It contains the permission from the external photographer. Jcb (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: No, you have permission from someone who hosted content that was not his own. The actual copyright holder was in IRC yesterday. There is zero proof in that ticket that the client (who did not even email OTRS himself!) is the photographer. I've removed the template again. Please do not restore it again without discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 04:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It's the other way round. You are not supposed to remove it without discussion. I have reverted you again, don't do this again! And apparently you still didn't read the whole conversation. Please be aware that in 2013 it was standard to accept forwarded permissions if they seemed plausible. Currently we may be more strictly demanding that permissions come from the copyright holder directly, but there is no need to redo all old tickets according to the current practice. Jcb (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Also please be aware that {OTRS received} should not be used if you did not actually send a follow up message in the ticket. This template is meant to grant the copyright holder 30 days to respond to us, but if we don't send them anything, how are they expected to respond? Jcb (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Isn't the template used to verify that the specific file was sent to OTRS (per the note on {{OTRS pending}}), or you would rather have the OTRS pending template stay or have it mistakenly tagged as no permission, etc? -- 1989 22:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
All these three templates would be faulty in this case. The {PermissionOTRS} is the only correct template for now. Jcb (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Except that the permission is clearly invalid. We're lying to our readers. ~ Rob13Talk 14:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ticket#2017092610002179, Ticket#2017101410004384[edit]

Hi, BU Rob13. I'm a Hong Kong viewer on here. I find two above-mentioned photos which I want to upload it to the relevant pages but not processed yet. Can you take a closer look? Thanks! 203.185.43.221 15:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ticket#2016062310009185[edit]

Hello Bruce, I have new information about this rejected image in 2016.~(JacquesPrado.jpg) The person represented died in 1928. The author is unknown, but this photograph was published on March 30, 1928 in a French newspaper "Le Petit Parisien". http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6071641/f1.item.r=jacques.prado.zoom

Can you confirm that this 96-year-old publication authorizes the use of this document under the Public Domain license for France (and the European Union?)

In this case, how to reactivate this document. Which license to use? PD-France PD-old PD-EU Thanks for your help.

Patrick Costemane

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Costemane (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

Hi, BU Rob13. I have to using a web host provider, so I can't edit Wikipedia articles. Can you remove this block please? --Kingofcruiserweight (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Dr. Richard Pierzchajlo, Head Shot, 2017.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Dr. Richard Pierzchajlo, Head Shot, 2017.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

hi , a sockpopet (multi account report)[edit]

a persian-armenian multi user that have unuse act with two account that one account blocked but one not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Modern_Sciences

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Modern_Sciences


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/World_Cup_2010


Blocked indefinitely. (autoblock disabled) Reason: اسم مستخدم غير مقبول

Blocked indefinitely. (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) Reason: allowing talk page access per off-wiki contact from third party, feel free to revoke if nonsense resumes

need to check user. thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodelga (talk • contribs) 11:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)