User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2007/September

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.

Your Request for Adminship

Jeff G. - Thanks for offering to take on further tasks for the benefit of Commons, but I am sorry to tell you that in my considered judgment, I do not feel that you have the consensus of the community to become an administrator at Commons at this time. Therefore I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful. You have done a lot of hard work here and your contributions are valued, please do not be discouraged. I would strongly encourage you to take the many pieces of advice and feedback you have received on board, and consider trying again at some point in the future if you wish to. If I can answer any questions or be of any assistance my talk page is always open. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice and feedback. I intend to follow it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been exposed ;) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 09:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

From Diggs: That guy [You] made his 1st edit in February this year. He made his 3000th edit a month ago. That's a lot of edits for an amature. I wonder if there is a common purpose behind his edits. Maybe an agenda? ...maybe that should have been "commons purpose" Face-grin.svg. Anyway, I'm sorry to see these diggers have blown your cover, but even though they've discovered that you're a CIA-agent they still haven't figured out I'm an Extra-Terrestial communist in service for the Vatican working to restore the Third Reich (please don't tell them...) Finn Rindahl 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Appears to come from a university network. Filing an abuse email might get this person banned from using their university's computers... Just a hint ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice! A few points regarding that digg:
  • The image is Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg. This edit is the one in which Howcheng (talk | contribs) nominated it for deletion. I did not nominate it for deletion.[1]
  • The deletion request is Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg, created by Howcheng (talk | contribs) as a part of the deletion process. I last posted to the deletion request at 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[2], a third revision to the opinion I expressed nine minutes earlier[3].[4] My opinion, as I expressed and revised it on 28-29 July 2007, stands.
  • If we had a similar image which truly fit with Commons licensing, I would be happy to allow it to stay here, but as it was at the time of my comment and is today, the image had and has insufficient licensing.
  • "any copyright has since been trumped by its inherent historical/news value to the public" is incorrect - "inherent historical/news value to the public" does not trump copyright here.
  • "If it's with concern to US-Iraqi political relations, then it should be kept" is incorrect - "with concern to US-Iraqi political relations" does not trump copyright here.
  • One posted opinion with three revisions over nine minutes, 41 days ago, cannot be accurately described as "campaign this vigorously for deletion".
  • I am not Jeff Gannon.
  • My political beliefs do not enter into my use of Commons, except that if they were not left of center, I would not be here.
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Finn Rindahl, I'm sorry, but I can't find the source of that quote. Do you have a current URL for it, or the attribution if it was on Digg - Who Is Trying To Delete The Picture Of Rumsfeld And Saddam Shaking Hands? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, I found it again by selecting "expand the full tree" and doing a browsersearch for "3000". That comment was added by Jokerthief [5], even more interesting rhe reply "I don't know but I busted him out for it on his page..f*** neocon hack." by Aslave2thegrind [6], that would be this one [7] I presume. Regards, Finn Rindahl 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, haven't been through the trashbin that is my user page history, gotta run!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All your images

Image deletion warning All your images 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

(this has been a test)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing the comments on my talkpage :) Deadstar (msg) 07:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a quick look please

Hi - I saw your comment regarding the mass deletion template, last time I looked it wasn't working (this was when all the Norwegian paintings were nominated) but I don't know now... bit strange. Something's going on though - could you have a quick look at the Category:Incomplete deletion requests - see the Image:Johndimaggio.jpg there? If you go into it, it does not mention that it is an incomplete request, all the variables are filled out etc, yet it shows up anyways? I did refresh, empty cache etc, so I hope I'm not making a fool of myself here... Thanks for your help Deadstar (msg) 08:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was seeing what you were seeing. It could have been related to the unstable database server[8] or the recent replag[9]. I substed the delete tag to see more exactly what was going on, and poof, the image was no longer on Category:Incomplete deletion requests. A dummy edit might also have done the trick. I suspect a database update got lost or stuck in some queue.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - IMO It's nothing to do with a database lag: What I found when fixing incomplete requests is that when the subpage is created before the corrected template is saved onto the image, the image does not appear on the incomplete requests. However, if I fix the template & save, and then create the subpage, the image stays on the incomplete requests. Something to be noted? Something to worry about? Not sure. Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the complicated "if" logic used in that template is not as compatible with categories and Commons' caching as we'd like to think it is. Certainly, if you create the subpage and provide a reason first, you can work around this bug by never having the image appear on Category:Incomplete deletion requests. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to get everyone to do this. All the time. Good luck, Jim!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be my never-ending mission then LOL :) Thanks for looking at it! Deadstar (msg) 09:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Svenska: (missing text)

Did you did ok in removing one of the

lines in the polling template category? cna you explain a little of why did you removed the line and why the "Yes/no/neutral" are diffrent even if both sayed


--Hsilamot 23:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The lines were different because they were translated by different people at different times. Search for "Swedish", and see also AzaToth's contribution and Fred J's contribution. I saw a consensus at Category talk:Polling templates#Credits that AzaToth was wrong (at least about the line I removed), and I was bold. Do you have more accurate information to share? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed but needing more research


Good idea, but not a very good name. :) What about Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID]]? Because if there's no ticket ID, then the OTRS permission is not really confirmed... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have made the change you suggested, to Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID. Please see Category:Pages to be deleted. Thanks again!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Um... I see it... and? :) What is it intended for? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work with the OTRS stuff tonight. Regrettably, the string functions of MediaWiki aren't turned on here, so cleanup is needed on: Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID; and Category:Items with freeform OTRS permission confirmed‎ (along with its three bastard stepchildren Category:Pages that transclude Template PermissionOTRS-ID, Category:Pages that transclude Template Bild-OTRS, and Category:Pages that transclude Template OTRS). Category:Pages to be deleted can go, I don't need it any more, I redirected Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed but needing more research instead.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't really get what the point of all those categories is. What is "freeform OTRS permission"? Anyway if you want a category deleted that you created you can tag it for speedy. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"freeform OTRS permission" is data entered in a free format, without sufficient structure for me to program around without string functions or a bot. For instance, "Permission={{Bild-OTRS|Ticket#: 2006091010000435}}" in Image:11th-street-bridge-foss-waterway.jpg. Regrettably, a logic error caused me to overfill Category:Items with freeform OTRS permission confirmed via {{PermissionOTRS-ID}}; it should start emptying any time now...   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Da Vinci Vitruve Luc Viatour.jpg

Extrait sur le sujet ici: Jurisprudence

Dans un arrêt du 21 septembre 2001 la Cour d'appel de Paris a condamné un éditeur américain qui avait reproduit des photographies de toiles de Picasso sans l'accord des détenteurs du copyright sur les photographies. On est donc en France dans la situation inverse de celle des États-Unis. Alors qu'aux États-Unis une photographie de tableau est considérée comme une « reproduction servile » non protégeable, en France le photographe est quelqu'un qui « a recherché la quintessence [de l'oeuvre du peintre] et au travers du choix délibéré des éclairages, de l’objectif, des filtres et du cadrage ou de l’angle de vue, a exprimé dans la représentation qu’il en a faite, sa propre personnalité, mettant en exergue un fragment de l’œuvre lui apparaissant particulièrement révélateur ».

English translation of the above, courtesy AltaVista Babel Fish: Extract on the subject here: Jurisprudence

In a stop of September 21, 2001 the Court of Appeal of Paris condemned an American editor who had reproduced photographs of fabrics of Picasso without the agreement of the holders of the copyright on the photographies. One is thus in France in the opposite situation of that of the States-Unis. Whereas in the United States a photograph of table is regarded as a "servile reproduction" not protégeable, in France the photographer is somebody who "sought quintessence [ work of the painter ] and through choice deliberated on lightings, objective, filters and framing or angle of sight, expressed in the representation that it made some, his own personality, putting forward a fragment of the particularly revealing?uvre appearing". to him

Thank you. fr:Utilisateur:Fabos/Licence_des_photos_de_tableaux_dans_le_DP#Jurisprudence (Licence of the photographs of tables in the DP) appears to be a summary by French Wikipedia user Fabos of the licensing of photos of 2D artwork, with #Jurisprudence pointing to an account of a judgement against an American editor who had reproduced photographs of canvases (UK:canvasses) of Picasso without the agreement of the holders of the copyright on the photographies. Please see the new sectionCommons:When to use the PD-Art tag#France. Thanks again!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not want that my work of photography falls into the public domain. But my photographic work is in a free licence compatible with Wikipédia. --Luc Viatour 07:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


What are you talking about? ----ßøuñçêY2K 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Where?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Do not fracture discussions

Is this really some sort of official policy here on Commons? On most other projects there seem to be two different ways of doing this, which also is the reason most of us who prefer to keep conversations threaded leave notes on our own talk pages to that effect. Giving other users an "official" looking template telling them to change their established way of wiki-talk communicating might not be a very good idea... Regards, Finn Rindahl 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not, and I have been splitting discussions since I've been here. I suggest moving this template to the userspace. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for trying to make discussions easier to follow.  :(   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused

This image deletion notice on the discussion page for a bot, confused me. Was it your intent to post that there? If not, could you change it? If it is could you please, on that page, clarify what point you were making? It made me think.. who should be notified of a deletion for an image brought over by the bot. But we presumably already solved that for other bots. Thanks for clearing this up in the appropriate place. ++Lar: t/c 10:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lacking an answer after a few hours, I removed it: via this edit... feel free to revert me if you disagree but please explain the relevance, thank you. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was busy. There was discussion of that image (or a similar one containing component images of the same playing cards, I couldn't find it yesterday) either here or on English Wikipedia, and it was decided that the component images were not free enough for Commons (many having Iraqi copyrights but having been appropriated by the US DoD and fraudulently redistributed as if they were PD), but that they were free enough for English Wikipedia under Fair Use. Now, along come Dmcdevit, who unilaterally decides to move it to Commons (despite the Fair Use tagging), BetacommandBot, who allows such a move, and Betacommand, who manually removes the Fair Use tagging and calls the image "free". This brings into question the suitability of BetacommandBot for the task at hand, and the judgement of Betacommand. The page where I posted is exactly where those questions should be asked and answered. Everyone watching that page should be interested in the answers to those questions. Perhaps the way I posted it was not ideal, but {{idw}} does certainly convey the message I wanted to convey (you are all invited to come look at and comment on a particular deletion request page that has particular relevance for everyone interested in this page). I hope this explanation has been satisfactory - please let me know if you need anything further. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I think you should do. Put the deletion discussion itself where it belongs (I think you already did that). Raise the issue, with a link, not a template, on the bot discussion page. It's a legitimate issue and needs solving. Then, notify the en folk (dmcdevit, betacommand) that they need to come see and help work out what the right thing to do. But templatising user pages or bot discussion pages is not the right approach, in my view... where else have you templatised? Maybe you should undo that? I am NOT trying to sweep this under the rug, it needs discussion and resolution, but templates are not the way to do it. If you don't have time to do something, make a short note, and get back to it later... ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I think I have done everything you asked:
  • Put the deletion discussion itself where it belongs[10][11][12] and templated the user talk pages of the users directly involved[13][14]
  • Raised the issue, with a link, not a template, on the bot discussion page.[15]
  • Notified the en folk (dmcdevit, betacommand) that they need to come see and help work out what the right thing to do.[16][17]
  • Undone my templatizing of user talk pages for users not directly involved, in favor of custom text.[18][19]
Best Regards,   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I agree that we need to find the right approach on this matter. ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)