User talk:Paparazzo Presents

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Paparazzo Presents!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}} For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Copyright violations

---

Hello Paparazzo Presents. You have uploaded one or more files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful. This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

--D-Kuru (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please give the permission to OTRS if you really do own these images, or have some permission. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Good Faith"

I hear a lot of talk at Wikipedia and Wikimedia about "assuming good faith." Obviously, that policy is directed toward Wikipedia article authors and Wikimedia image contributors, not Wikipedia/Wikimedia editors. Today, every single one of the photographs which I contributed to Wikimedia Commons was deleted by Wikimedia editor, D-Kuru, along with TOTALLY FALSE allegations of copyright infringement. Needless to say, accusations of this nature, stated in a public forum, harm my reputation, both personally and professionally. Let me state for the record, I have NEVER in my life posted another photographer's work ANYWHERE on the internet and claimed it as my own. When I stated this at D-Kuru's Discussion page, he deleted my response, and called this deletion a "minor edit." Deleting this defense of my own integrity is, by no one's standards (including Wikimedia's standards), a "minor edit". Now, according to Wikimedia editor, Kanonkas, this matter may have been the result of my not mentioning the fact that certain versions of SOME of these photos have been previously published at websites I own, all of which bear the "Paparazzo Presents" or "Paparazzo Photography" name. I have now sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, explaining this fact. I also find it insulting that Kanonkas chose to use the phrase, "if you really do own these images" when giving me advice. The implication that I am being less than honest in this matter is once again an example of an editor failing to "assume good faith." Considering the heavy handed, imperious behavior of many Wikimedia and Wikipedia editors, it's a wonder that anyone consents to be a part of this project.Paparazzo Presents (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You're ticket is now being checked, thank you for understanding the issue. Also I did not try to "insult" you in any way. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 01:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi
We've briefly talked at en-wiki and I noticed that you were pointing here, so I read your statement above. First, best I can tell D-Kuru has not just deleted your reponse on his page, he has moved it to the bottom and answered in this edit. And second, please note that those deletions were made to protect the rights of the original author, i.e. your rights. There are so many copyright violations happening with images, so typically all that were published on the internet before and that don't give explicit permission by the author will be deleted. And while Kanonkas statement wasn't perfectly worded please note that when the uploader claims to hold copyright of an image with a professional look which is also available on the internet, then in the absolute majority of the cases he is lying.
Again, this is done only to protect your rights, as the author of the work, so I hope you can overlook a certain brusqueness that probably comes with the territory. :)
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Amalthea, I sincerely like you and I believe that I owe you for the very existence of my Thomas Fiss article. Since you seem sensitive toward the feelings of contributors, I'm sure you'll understand my reasons for being upset. "Brusqueness" is just a positive spin on "rudeness", and there's far too much of it at Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I know that the editors probably deal with huge amounts of vandalism and copyright violations, but they must remain mindful of the significant time and effort donated by article writers and photographers. It's difficult to see one's work disappear in a seemingly capricious manner, with only a tersely worded comment to explain the deletion. On a related note, I'm having faith that you will, in time, remove the tag on my Thomas Fiss article. Thomas's bandmate, Bobby Edner, is not having his notability questioned. Aly & AJ Michalka each have their own pages, although each performer's accomplishments center on their participation in the singing duo. Each of the Jonas Brothers is singularly honored by a Wikipedia biography, and their circumstances are similar to the Michalkas. I can also direct you to Wikipedia biographies of individuals who truly seem to lack notability, yet their pages are not tagged for possible deletion or merger.Paparazzo Presents (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation:

I (as Amalthea already mentioned) didn't remove your comment I just moved it to the bottom of my discussion page (which is the common standart in every project by Wikimedia; If you click on "new section" on the discussion page, your contribution will be added at the end of the discussion page).

Even I deleted your images for being a copyright violation and also even everybody can see it, you don't need to add that you're the original author. People who know Commons will be able too see the reason of deletion, but will also able too see the reason of undeletion: "OTRS Ticket". People who don't know Commons are also not able to see reason of deletion. Moreover: People who don't know the system of Commons usually don't know anything about the different licences. I can assure you with a probability of 80% that you will find (if you find) your images in the internet without any notification or other requirements of your chosen licences. I'm sure if someone finds your page and sees some images he likes he will (with a probability of 98%) give a fuck on your copyright. However, thats the way it is! My images will may get used too by giving a fuck on the little requirements of cc-by-sa-3.0. You can only realy protect your images if you don't publish them (which is maybe not the way you prefer).

Even we should assume good faith you will get lost if you assume good faith everytime (You can check Special:NewImages. You'll find on average one copyvio on every page. And - of course - everybody claims to be the original author). As Amalthea said: The deletion was also to protect you as author even that sounds a bit strange. Example: If you don't upload your images some other may do it and licence them under {{PD-self}}. You have to understand that there is no (for an ordinary user) visable difference between someone who uploads copyvios and the author who uplods the same images. Both can claim to be the real author. Both can insult the admin who deleted the images to have done something wrong. Both can use a username which is named after the webpage where the images seemingly were copied from. etc. etc. etc.

To continue the stream: Even your OTRS ticket could be fake. You could be someone who just has stolen the images, published them on a webside and uploaded them to Commons. But I assume that you are honest and that you are the real author. To continue the stream in the other direction: All my self-made images could be stolen from somewhere. I could only claim to be the real author. If you keep on continuing this idea you have to delete every image on Commons (exapt those taken by the US government with a valid source), because everybody could claim to be the real author. However, there is no visble evidence for me that you aren't the real author. You are the one in ~500 user who is honest and who uploaded his own looks-like-copyvio-file (in contrast to user who upload masses of screenshots, logos, etc. and claiming to be the real author)

Now you may understand Kanonkas's comment "if you really do own these images" (Even I think it was not really that what he wanted to say. I think he meant if you really own the copyright) Even we should assume good faith etc. we are not really able to do so, because we would get stuck in a lot of deletion requests etc. A logo is copyrighted and there is thereby no need for an extra (maybe long) deletion request. It's also like that that it's usually useless to contact the author, because of an uploaded copyviofile (You don't get any answer). Only if you delete the file you either get a "why did you delete my image" note on your userpage or it happens nothing (or the file gots uploded several times again. I know some files which got deleted several times for having no licence for more than a month).

My answer would have been a bit longer if I wouldn't have been in a hurry. In fact my last contribution yesterday was to ask for undeletion. I asked fo undelition instead of undeliting your files immidiatelly, because I wasn't sure if you're the real author (Because of the OTRS ticket there shouldn't be any doubt left for anybody else). Because I wasn't able fix the problems with your images I introduced that somebody looks after your images.

I hope that you understand the deletion of your images better. Tell me if there are any questions left.

--D-Kuru (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to show you why you have sometimes to be very careful with assuming good faith: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TCUAV PROFILE.jpg

Is Aviationman the real author or does he just claim to be the author. The desicion could be a tightrope walk.

--D-Kuru (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Confirmed - Per OTRS ticket 2008111510015841 I have a strong degree of confidence that this user is owner of the websites specified. If there any questions please let me know. --J.smith (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Paparazzo Presents!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Joe Jonas Paparazzo Presents CloseUp.jpg is uncategorized since 9 August 2009.

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Paparazzo Presents⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Paparazzo Presents,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)