User talk:Fæ/2010

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.



I saw you recently create Template:British-Museum-object, then update the pre-existing Template:Information British Museum. As the two templates seem to have the same purpose, that the last one is older, more complete and much more used as for now, don't you think it would be a good idea to mix the 2? Regards, Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 08:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was just working on harmonizing the two. In practice the two are slightly different. The information template is a heavyweight solution (similar to a full infobox) whilst the -object template is a short way of getting a formatted description with a link to the record. There is overlap and I'll consider adapting the short version to feed the larger template (perhaps by adding an option to drop some of the styling, such as the white-text header line). (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
After a bit more work the differences are clearer and I have add some detail on documentation in the templates. The information template mandates a large header line and as I have styled the smaller detail box to be able to supplement the standard Information box, this is a significant difference. In articles where a reasonable standard Information box exists, the full Museum Information box would be significant duplication, whilst the detail box would be a better choice. I think there is sufficient need for both forms to exist and though it may be possible to merge the two and provide the same functionality, this is probably icing on the cake rather than applying the KISS principle ;) (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not totally convinced since the description field of Template:British-Museum-object is redundant with the field in Template:Information. What is the point of having 2 description fields?
Anyway, I would suggest to harmonize the name of the fields: using "accession number" rather than "number" in Template:British-Museum-object, and find a more comprehensive name for the "id" field ("online id"?). Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll add objectId (as that's what the BM site uses as a parameter name) but number is deliberately named to take the "most common" number as it could be accession number / registration number / Big number / Exhibition number, all of which are used in reference to objects in the BM and none of which is more correct as a reference as it depends on context. (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Text copyvio


I think there is a major copyvio in some of your contributions, since you copy the full description of objects done by the BM (File:Achilles and Troilos vase.jpg and File:Oedipus slaying the sphinx.jpg e.g., fields "Detailed description"). These texts are published by the BM and are very likely protected by copyright. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 01:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it out, give me a day or two. If the website does not make the matter clear I can raise it for discussion and clarification at en:WP:GLAM/BM where a number of British Museum staff contribute including the website manager (I'll add a link to it here). Speaking in an academic sense, collection record descriptive fields are unlikely to be an issue as the nature of any extract would be small compared to the total publication and the database has been published on-line for wide public access. If the BM prefers to protect this text then I can re-write but I would prefer to quote the curators accurately. (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have emailed the British Museum for clarification on what is a reasonable text extract (linking to the above examples) and raised for discussion on en:Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#Quoting_descriptions_for_objects_from_the_on-line_collection_database_and_copyright. (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately no reply from the BM to date. I have started adding a caveat to any description making attribution clear. I'll consider trimming some of the longer descriptions for the earlier images. (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

August 9 2010

Hello Fae Why The Reasons To Delete File 82x60px Beacause its Source Blog?? So you request it as Speedy deletion??Justsoyouknow9 (talk)

If you have verifiable sources for copyright release please discuss them on the deletion discussion page. (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Notices relating to submissions


Hi, could you check this to make sure I have done it right. Thanks.
PREMLGE-WEMBLEY-FNL-TAYLOR6.jpg Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Layout looks fine. You need to ensure that the release statement is clear from the copyright holder, if there are apparent restrictions this can be a difficulty. (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS check

Good evening,

Could you check recent uploads by Trebol6, like File:Carte conceptuelle du logiciel libre.svg, where he added some OTRS permission information?

He sent a permission for previous SVG and have added new conceptual maps, and wondered if a new permission were necessary or if it's covered by the previous ticket.

As there is a source for the pictures, where the license is stated (it's the author link), I think you can discard any otrs information for this serie.

Thank you for your help. --Dereckson (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see that the following are covered by existing valid OTRS though I have not analysed all the images:
  1. File:Mapa_conceptual_del_programari_lliure_versió_juvenil_petita.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:Mapa_conceptual_software_libre.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Personally, I see the claim as reasonable and would assume good faith unless the images were to appear on websites that claim copyright by default, in which case an OTRS ticket would be necessary. If you doubt a particular image, I suggest you discuss with the listed uploader first as they are probably willing to file an OTRS request. There is no "generic" OTRS that I can see. (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.
Of course, not, it's clear than Debian / FSF pictures are freely licensed.
I helped on the IRC #wikipedia-fr channel the uploader to review the French translation, and it were one of his questions if he needed to send another OTRS permission. --Dereckson (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS check

File:Peter Hitchens in Iraq.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)


Could you verify if a mail have been sent June 3rd, 2010 to permissions-commons for File:Peter Hitchens in Iraq.jpg, as indicated by the uploader on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Hitchens in Iraq.jpg, and summarize the permission or lack of permission in this DR? --Dereckson (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Demon_Jimbo.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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Sharman_Joshi_partyy.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sharman_Joshi_partyy.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Denniss (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Roadster Barcelona.JPG

I've noticed that you have added OTRS confirmation to this picture. The user that uploaded this picture also uploaded numerous similar pictures (including 2 deleted), all w/o permission. Do this permission extends to all these pictures? Thanks in advance. Trycatch (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ugh a bit of a mess to list them out... I count ~16 emails with a different file attached to each... hang on while I ponder a way to capture an easy listing. (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, list is below:
  1. ✓ Done File:Tesla Zurich store.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710005465: File:Roadster 2.5 windmills.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. ✓ Done File:Roadster 2.5 charging.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710005732: File:Tesla Zurich store.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  5. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710005803: File:Tesla Copenhagen store.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  6. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710006017: File:Roadster Barcelona.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (! was ".jpg" in the email)
  7. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710006133: File:Model S driving.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  8. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710006213: File:Model S touchscreen.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  9. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710006446: File:Roadster interior.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  10. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710006508: File:Roadster San Diego.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  11. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710006615: File:Roadster 2.5 rear.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  12. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710006633: File:Tesla Munich store.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  13. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710006866: File:Roadster Goodwood.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (! was ".jpg" in the email)
  14. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090710011298: File:Elon Musk.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  15. ✓ Done Ticket#2010090810004222: File:Tesla Panasonic.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Are there particular files above needing a ticket or undeletion? (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think all these files need their tickets, and I've undeleted both deleted files. But, as far as I understand, files File:Tesla and Toyota.jpg, File:Tesla and Daimler.jpg, File:Roadster London tunnel.jpg & File:Roadster Dutch Drag.jpg are not covered by this permission? Trycatch (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Not under this parent ticket (Ticket#: 2010090710005769); however as I have started I am happy to investigate for the missing files on OTRS to confirm one way or the other and will revisit the rest on the above list (probably by tomorrow afternoon, certainly within the next 24 hours) in order to add tickets as appropriate. I'll make sure there are sufficient breadcrumbs left in OTRS to ensure there is no later confusion. Thanks, (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. File:Tesla and Toyota.jpg
  2. File:Tesla and Daimler.jpg
  3. File:Roadster London tunnel.jpg
  4. File:Roadster Dutch Drag.jpg

For these last 4 photographs, I have written to the same copyright holder for clarification, pointing to and asking for confirmation if they wish to extend the scope of the release to all files listed. I have been unable to find any associated OTRS request by searching for Tesla or Roadster and so it seems reasonable to assume there is none. Although we can assume good faith considering the contribution history for Mqofscots, I suggest they are raised for deletion if there is no reply from the copyright holder within 7 days. I shall leave a note on the uploader's page.

  • Caveat, as another OTRS agent has been involved and asked for clarification as to the license, I am going to offer the agent a veto on the image involved. This is because the release statement varied, some saying "I authorize full use, copy and distribution of this photo" and others things like "Permission granted for use, copy and distribution of this photo". I have read the former as a full PD authorization (or equivalent) and taken that to be the intent for all the varying emails from the same user sent around the same time. If there is a veto we may have to remove the relevant ticket and raise the image for deletion. (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your work. Yeah, the permission seems not wide & precise enough... Trycatch (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Hello Fæ.

Why did User: Spartaz delete my user talk page on Wikipedia? My account was blocked indefinitely by User:Fram and I left a polite message thanking him or her and adding an image of Nikos Kazantzakis' grave with short quotations from John Banville's The Sea and Jon Stallworthy's The Future Guest and I was surprised to find the entire page deleted by Spartaz the following day.

What was the reason for that?

I should appreciate an explanation. You will appreciate that I can't use Wikipedia itself to contact you.

I understand User:Hans Adler thinks I am mentally ill, a view I take it shared by your community since I saw no repudiation by any of them rather than a warning to Hans Adler not to be uncivil in expressing that judgement and risk a block. I've asked him to explain on behalf of your community why treating me like this helps. Thank you.

Rinpoche (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OTRS image really non-free

Could you take a look at OTRS Ticket 2010030210041811? The relevant image, File:Andrew Wenthe 2009.jpg is not a free image - it was taken from, which means it is an official Iowa General Assembly portrait - as such, the Iowa Democratic Party can not give copyright permission for it, despite the claim to be its author on the image page. You will note that the Republican politicians have the same background, etc. for their images. (See, for example, [1].) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. The ticket is an unambiguous claim of copyright by the Democratic Party. However the email received was from an official correspondent at which is the same domain as the source you have identified. I could write back to confirm that this official has authority to release their own portrait on behalf of the Iowa General Assembly, however as the website exists to serve its members it would seem a marginal issue. Do you feel strongly enough about this one for me to take action? Thanks, (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be good to follow up. Ideally, I'd like to be able to put photos on all of the state legislators' pages - so if there is some way we can get the whole batch released, it would be great. On the other hand, the English Wikipedia, at least, tends to take copyright pretty seriously when dealing with images of living people (see wikipedia:WP:NFC#UULP), so we should at least clarify the status of this image. I wonder if it would be useful to contact someone at this official legislative contact page instead/as well - I would be somewhat surprised if the ordinary legislator (assuming that's who had the e-mail address) even knows the copyright information, considering that he may have just shown up on picture day (and not have been involved in arranging the picture-taking) and since he can use it for his own purposes via fair use rules (which the English Wikipedia doesn't recognize) regardless of its technical status. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I'll write a follow-up email over the weekend. As copyright is not urgently contested, I will offer an arbitrary 7 days (though in practice we may hold out for a couple of weeks) to confirm copyright status before we remove the OTRS ticket and at that time the image can follow the normal deletion process. As you suggest, I'll also send an (official) email from us to the website recommended contact address.
By the way, where you have contacted others with regard to similar images, could you point them to this discussion in order to ensure multiple requests from OTRS do not go to the or any other general contact email? Thanks, (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I only asked one other (Jredmond) and have pointed that request to this page/section. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The first email has been sent to the original requester asking for clarification and the portrait image has reverted back to {{OTRS pending}}.
Email sent to asking for clarification on the copyright holder and asking if it would be possible for a generic release statement for all portrait photographs from their website. (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Any reply? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Good news! They did not email back using the same subject, so I did not automatically pick up the email, however I have the following official statement (particular name redacted per OTRS conventions) that was actually received 5 days ago:

Either the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives or an individual
member of the Iowa House of Representatives can authorize the use of the
representative's high-resolution photo. Our photographer retains no
copyright claim to photos authorized in this way.

The low-resolution version of these same photos which appears on the
Iowa General Assembly website may be accessed and used by the general
public without authorization of any kind.

I hope this answers the question. If not, feel free to contact me for
more information.

<Name redacted>
Chief Clerk
Iowa House of Representatives

Consequently (a) any low-resolution photo of representatives from can be considered public domain (i.e. the <400px wide size as displayed on profile pages) (b) any member of the house can authorize their own high resolution photo for public use if they wish. I have merged the email into ticket 2010030210041811 and so this same reference can be used as a release of any suitable image under these criteria under a public domain license (for tracking purposes I suggest sticking to a CC-BY-SA-3.0 attributed to the Iowa General Assembly unless there is a particular reason to switch to another). I shall fix Wenthe's image, please let me know if you have a selection of others that can now include this ticket. Thanks, (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That. Is. Awesome. I'll go ahead and upload the photos from the IGA website, then. I'll let you know periodically which ones I've done. Thanks! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am curious, though, why you suggest a CC-BY-SA-3.0 on there, since that isn't what the Clerk said. Can't we simply include the Clerk's statement as the copyright license? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
We would still need to choose an appropriate licence. CC3 has the benefit of attribution, though something like {{CC0}} could be used if you feel there are advantages. (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about this further, a CC0 would imply that the photos have no rights which is not necessarily the case here. As IHoR has clarified that the photographer has no rights, a CC3 at least has the option of making that clear by including reasonable attribution. Other licenses would do a similar job but the CC licenses are most commonly used and understood on Commons so that still be my (weakly held) recommendation after re-review. Thanks, -- (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
On further thought, I don't think CC-BY_SA-3.0 is a good idea after all - since Creative Commons was not mentioned in the e-mail, using any version of a CC license would seem to be inappropriate. Since I noticed quite a few Custom license tags with OTRS permission, I went ahead and created one for Iowa legislative photos as well ({{Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission}}, based on {{}}). I've uploaded File:Steven Warnstadt.jpg with this license - would you check that I did the OTRS reference correctly? Thanks, Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks okay to me. We tend to use CC templates as a default standard rather than for particular legal reasons. I suggest you keep all such images on your watch-list for a month just in case someone starts challenging them, though with a clear OTRS reference I would doubt there is an issue. -- (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi Fæ, why did you create this template? What is the point? Unused uncategorized templates tend to get nuked here. Multichill (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is currently transcluded on :en a couple of thousand times because it makes a handy easy alternative to using tables. I certainly find it useful and have even used it on this page. Thanks, -- (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


...for fixing my bust :-)

I don't notice things on Commons as often as I should. Ta.  Chzz  ►  15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

More thanks :)

For quite a lot of helpful work here - always appreciated, thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Review/date format

Hoi Fæ, when you review flickr images could you please keep the date in ISO format – YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm – cf. [2] and [3]? This way date and time (if available) are automagically displayed in the language specific format a user has set in his preferences, compare e.g. de, ja and en.

Hmm, and why do you remove default parts – |Permission= and |other_versions= – from the Information template each time you review an image? These lines are often needed somewhen later. Greetings --:bdk: 11:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I am improving an iMacro script that helps me with the infobox. The date was being picked up from the default displayed format on the Flickr page so I can tweak it to amend to standard form (the photo time is embedded in the page but not displayed, I might add that as a bit extra too). There should be no issue with adding the blank bits of the template, though I would have thought the convention would be that unused parameters are optional so I rather had on my programmer's hat of trimming dead code. -- (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine, looks good now. Thanks :-) --:bdk: 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)