User talk:DAJF

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Image deletion discussion[edit]

You've stopped responding to the discussion, I would respect a response about how you are trying to delete my image over policy guidelines versus laws of Commons and all that I wrote on that page. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. If this is about the ongoing deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Currentschooluniformstylesintokyo-jan292015.jpg, I didn't think there was much more I could add to the discussion that hasn't already been said. I nominated the file, stating that I felt it fell foul of the privacy guidelines, as the person's face was (and still is) clearly recognizable. You responded, stating that you felt there was no problem with it. I remain unconvinced, and as our interpretations of the guidelines appear to differ, my view is that it's best just to leave it to other editors or admins to determine whether or not the image should be kept or deleted. --DAJF (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey hey. But there is a lot to respond to! As I said over there (where you can respond if you wish): They are guidelines, not laws of Commons. To respect Japanese Wikipedia it is considered good manners to blur out faces of private people in public. But it is not required, as can be seen in the same category that this image exists in. Click it. There are billions of Japanese school students without blurred faces in that category and in other parts of Wikimedia Commons. It is not a requirement on Wikimedia to blur the faces of private people in Japan, it is just good manners. And I did blur the face in this case. So you essentially nominated a perfectly valid file on the base of a guideline not a law. That seems irrational and unfair. Also you told me to to let you know if I think any of your pictures need work, but didn't offer me the same courtesy and instead just want to delete mine? I would like to hear your thinking on this too? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so if, instead of nominating the image for deletion, I had just sent you a friendly message pointing out my concerns, what would you have done? --DAJF (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well we aren't on that road are we? I still think it is blurred enough, but after discussion about that with you if I understood your concerns I might have blurred it more, because the whole reason I blur at all is out of "good manners" anyway. (Which confuses me about your blurring faces but not license plates thing? You do realize both are considered good manners on Japanese Wikipedia, right?) I still think you should retract your deletion request, but hopefully some level-headed admin comes along soon and closes it soon. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
It was a genuine question, as you indicated above that you were curious as to why I had nominated the image for deletion without contacting you first. I hoped that the deletion nomination would spur you to fully blur out the face, and while time is running out, there is still time to fix it and thus nullify the deletion request. (If, as I was, you are not familiar with the procedure, you need to contact an admin personally to request deletion of the old revision, but it's a quick and easy process.) But if you feel that the image is OK as it stands, that's fair enough, and I'm happy to let an admin or someone more knowledgeable on such matters make the final decision. And as for what is considered good manners on Japanese Wikipedia, I don't upload images there, so I am not familiar enough with the rules and guidelines that apply there to be able to comment. This discussion is about an image uploaded on Wikimedia Commons and the official guidelines that apply to images uploaded to Commons. --DAJF (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey hey. Still confused. If you thought you wanted it more blurred why is trying to delete it more effective than just leave a message on my talk page? Did you assume I would say no? And if so, why? Also do you realize guideline rules are different than laws of Commons? It says, and I quote: It illustrates standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow. Why do you think that "agree with in principle" and also "generally follow" is the same as must be deleted? I am honestly confused about what is going on in your thinking. I'm honestly confused. All I can think is that you are being stubborn? I don't know. I don't mean that as an attack on you as person, of course, I just mean I'm trying to understand your actions. And if you honestly think that all Japanese photos can't show faces why try to delete photos that at least attempted to blur when many more don't even try that? I'm just confused. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In answer to your latest questions... I didn't bother contacting you about my concerns about the image because the last time I tried to offer advice about project guidelines (over on English Wikipedia), I was given the impression that you preferred to do things your own way and didn't appreciate outside interference. My interpretation is that official guidelines should normally be adhered to, and that this particular image crosses the line of acceptability - which is why I flagged it for deletion. I don't believe I have said anywhere that I think all faces should automatically be blurred out in Japanese pictures, and don't see any problem with the vast majority that we see on Commons, in which people are just incidental passers-by in the background. The difference I see here is that the girl in question is the main subject of this image, not just someone who happened to be in the background, and while I understand you made an attempt to blur out her face slightly, I don't think it was sufficient, as the person is still clearly identifiable. This is all stuff I wrote in the original deletion nomination, so we appear to be going round in circles here. --DAJF (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You've just admitted it is a vendetta against me. You said earlier that it wasn't because you didn't look at the user name but only the picture. Now you are saying you didn't contact me because you thought I wouldn't respond to you. So you are conducting a vendetta against me and I find that disappointing and discouraging. Nesnad (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually it was a just a regular deletion nomination, no different from any others I start on an almost daily basis whenever I see problematic images on Commons. I'm not interested in starting vendettas with you or anyone. --DAJF (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

画像転載のお礼[edit]

京浜にけと申します。ご無沙汰しております。私は英語が苦手なのでお忙しい中恐縮ですが日本語で失礼します。

画像Kamifukuoka Eki Ekisya 1936 1.jpgをコモンズに転載して頂きありがとうございました。 当ファイルにつきましては作者は不明(無名の著作物)であって私ではないつまり転載元のFileページの作者(Author)の欄が「京浜にけ」ではないので、英語版を初め、他言語版に資すると判断されたならばコモンズに重複アップロードして頂いて構いません。なお、作者の欄が空白だったため「不明」であることを記載しました。こちらも後に修正して頂きありがとうございました。この様な著作権が満了した作者が不明のファイルは東武東上本線英語版関連で他にも多数投稿しましたので、これらについてもご自由にコモンズに転載しても構いません。転載が確認されましたらこちらでウィキペディア側のファイルをja:WP:CSD#全般8で削除いたします。英語が苦手な私は、コモンズでのアップロードは難しい所がありますが、FOPなど改善が進んでいることを実感していることから、近い日に参画するかもしれません。

あと、質問ですが、以前「Nowcommons」というテンプレートを転載元(ウィキペディア側のファイル)に残すというCommons側の義務について話されましたが[1]、今後の参考にしたいと思い、そのことについてコモンズの方針文書を調べたのですが、英語が分らないため、どこに書かれているのか分りませんでしたので、簡潔で良いので書かれている場所を教えていただけないでしょうか。ウィキペディアのFileページで「Nowcommons」のテンプレートを除去したところ問題が発生したので[2]質問しました。お忙しい中申し訳ありませんがよろしくお願い申し上げます。--Kh2K 11:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

こんにちは。ご無沙汰です。先日、京浜さんが以前にウィキペディア日本語版にアップロードした上福岡駅舎の著作権が満了した写真をコモンズに転載させていただきました。いつも通り、「NowCommons」のテンプレートを転載元のファイルに残しましたが、存続や削除など、ウィキペディア日本語版での対応はお任せします。今後も、京浜さんがアップした埼玉県中心の歴史的な画像を他にもコモンズに転載することもあると思いますが、よろしくお願いします。
また、「NowCommons」のテンプレートの使い方について、コモンズ側としては「Commons:Moving to Commons」の(英語での)説明の中に「転載元のファイルに{{NowCommons}}を貼るのを忘れないで。」みたいな簡単な注意書き程度がありますが、以前にコモンズの管理者により、「元のファイルに貼っておかないとコモンズ側で削除対象となりますよ」みたいな厳しいことを昔言われたことがあって、本当に「義務付け」かどうかは、現在まではっきりしていませんが、その苦い経験以来、トラブルを避けるために必ず貼っておいています。ただ、ウィキペディア日本語版での決まりについて、あまり詳しくありませんので、元ファイルに貼った後の対応は日本語版での編集者たちに完全にお任せしています。 コモンズと各自のウィキペディアでの決まりや習慣が微妙に違う場合が多いみたいで、確かにわかりにくいですね。 今後もよろしくお願いします。 --DAJF (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
DAJF様、お忙しい中流暢で違和感のない日本語での適確な回答に感謝申し上げます。ウィキペディアおよびコモンズにおいての今後の参考になりました。有り難う御座いました。--Kh2K 16:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My ones[edit]

Hi, I am not so experienced at Wiki Commons. What do I need to do regardless those image? How could I source them? Cheers. --115ash (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Now it's clear. --115ash (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you behaving this way?[edit]

Taking my uploads list and posting deletion templates on dozens of photos, while you can obviously see that I'm not a newcomer to this site, and loaded thousands of photos over the years, all with good and verified license is not an honest behavior. If you have doubts about so many of my recent uploads, a single note on my talk page would have clarified the issue. Causing me the need to reply to more than 40 separate requests look more like a behavior of a troll than somebody who really wants to monitor activity here. In reality, all the photos that you have decorated with templates were released with the specified licence and OTRS request were sent minutes after they were uploaded. Oyoyoy (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The images I tagged were clearly marked as copyright with no indication of permission for them to be uploaded with a free license - hence they were applicable for speedy deletion as blatant copyright violations. If the copyright holder has sent permission to Commons by email, you should tag the respective image pages with {{subst:OP}}. That will provide time (usually a week or so) for permission to be verified and prevent images you have uploaded from being speedy-deleted. You might want to read through the instructions at Commons:OTRS to save yourself more hassle in future. --DAJF (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Going and posting deletion templates on dozens of photos instead of a simple note on my talk page, is simply not smart. Even if you think that a notice is missing. Oyoyoy (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Admin?[edit]

Hey man. Are you interested to become an administrator on Commons? I see that you are involved in administrative areas (tagging copyvios, filing DRs etc) and I think giving you the tools would be beneficial for the project. I can nominate you if you want to. Thanks! Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the offer and suggestion. I don't think I'm ready to be looking at becoming an admin just yet, but maybe that is something to consider a bit further down the line. But thanks anyway. --DAJF (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem. If you feel that you are ready, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Jianhui67 talkcontribs 08:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on deletion of Jackson61.jpg[edit]

Hi I was told to respond to this issue since I uploaded this image. I have the permission from the author of this photograph to use this image. Since this was the first time I uploaded an image to wikicommons, I had a hard time picking the right license; especially that this image was published in China. I thought I included the right license but my picture was still subjected to deletion. Could you let me know what license should I use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yids Cong (talk • contribs) 20:10, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. I can really only repeat what you have already been told when you asked the same question at Commons:Upload help#Correct license for uploading an image. Did you not read that answer?
Basically, if the photo is not your own, you need to provide verifiable proof of permission from the original photographer. See Commons:Permission for the procedure you need to follow. --DAJF (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Nagano 2000 Yudanaka 20060531.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Nagano 2000 Yudanaka 20060531.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Hi. I've already requested undeletion of the image here, but if, as an admin, you are able to inspect the file after it was deleted, I would ask that you have another look at it and consider restoring the image. If my memory serves me correctly, the file I uploaded was this file which I transferred from Japanese Wikipedia. While certainly very similar to the image on the blog site you claimed was the original source, and taken at the same location, it should be apparent that they are not actually the same image. For example, the position and colour of the banner immediately to the left of the train is different, and the train destination blinds are different (red lettering versus black lettering). More importantly, the photo I uploaded to Commons was taken and first published in 2006 whereas the blog image was apparently published in 2008.
I would therefore be grateful if you could recheck the deleted image and restore it once you have confirmed that it is not actually a copyright violation. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Heya, see the undel. Next time give me an hour to look at it and you won't have to waste your time typing two times! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have now added all the details of the original source and uploader etc to the image. That was a slip-up on my part for not including them in the first place. --DAJF (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)