Last modified on 18 July 2014, at 08:48

User talk:DanielTom

Return to "DanielTom" page.
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, DanielTom!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Bertrand Russell with a pipe.jpgEdit

Hi DanielTom, how do you come to the conclusion that the copyright of this photograph is expired? The source link ends up on a 404-page, no photographer is identified, and no date of its first publication is given. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The other uploads are similarly problematic. You cannot simply find a photo somewhere on the Internet and upload it to Commons. For every case a proof is necessary that the picture is in the public domain (or under a free license). If this proof is impossible, the photo must not be uploaded. Commons is in this regard far more restrictive than most other sites. And the date field of the {{information}} template should give the date of the photograph's creation and/or publication, not the date when it was uploaded. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi AFB. I essentially followed the justification in File:Bertrand Arthur William Russell.jpg (my thinking was: if that picture was fine, then the pictures I would want to upload of Bertrand Russell, where he is considerably younger, would be fine as well). But I do not actually know its copyright status, other than the fact that it was taken 50+ years ago. If that is not sufficient for its copyright to have expired (and apparently it isn't), then I see this can be problematic. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
At Commons, we honor US copyright as well as the copyright law of the country of origin (first publication, not necessarily where a photograph was taken). See, for example, this photo of Russell at Beacon School, which was obviously taken in England, probably in the 1920s. Let us assume that this photograph was published in the United Kingdom first. Then pma 70 holds per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom if this was published during the lifetime of a known photographer, i.e. it is copyrighted until 70 years have passed after the death of the photographer. This means that the photographer, if known, must have been died 1942 or earlier to have it in the public domain now. The problem is with this photograph (and most other uploads) that we do not know nearly anything. The photographers aren't named, the countries of origin are unknown, and the years of their first publication. If all this remains unknown, we cannot keep the images. If you want to save them, you need to research all this (which is difficult).
Here is an approach how photos can be found with the relevant information. Do not just browse the Internet but also organize books about Russell using local libraries and, where necessary, inter-library loans. Or go to a well-equipped university library. Many (but unfortunately not all) books provide source information for their photos. This can help. Perhaps some of these photos matches those you have already uploaded or you can scan images from such a book, if all relevant information is given.
Some of the photos were apparently taken in the United States. If you know where and when it was published first, you can check the chart at COM:CRT#United States. If, for example, it was published first before 1923 or before 1978 without copyright notice in the United States, it is in the public domain. See, for example, File:Honourable Bertrand Russell.jpg is in the public domain as it was published in 1916 in Chicago.
Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'll be at Porto University's Faculty of Letters library this weekend, so I will take a look there (and at Google Books as well). I doubt that I will be able to find the needed information (maybe it's possible to find out the year in which these pictures were taken, but information about the photographers is much rarer), but I'll let you know then. Alas, it seems that most of these older pictures will probably have to be deleted. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
AFB, sorry for the delay. Many pictures of Russell were taken by Lady Ottoline, and are copyrighted. (Some don't even show up at Google Books.) McMaster University holds the copyright of most pictures I could find of Russell (others are hold by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation). Maybe I could write to them asking for permission, but it would take time. I found out some details about the pictures, but mainly only about the date in which they were taken. Almost no info about the photographers. (For example, the Beacon picture was taken in 1927, so even its copyright has probably still not expired by now.) Maybe it would be wise to delete these pictures of which the copyright is uncertain (but maybe keep the ones where Russell is still young?). Again, your call, and my apologies for the inconvenience, DanielTom (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have now nominated two of these images for deletion. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bertrand Arthur William Russell.jpg. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. As I said there, I do not object to their deletion. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Pedro Cosme.jpgEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Pedro Cosme.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Pedro Cosme.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

January (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The person in the picture (a professor at my university) knows not only that I uploaded his picture to Commons, but also that it is used in his Wikipedia article, and he is perfectly fine with it (and expressed thanks). Do I really need to bother him with the rather bureaucratic paper signing just over this trivial pic? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately we need more than permission to use the image just on Wikipedia, it needs to be released under a free licence (please see COM:Licensing for more information). We usually ask for written permission from the copyright holder because this allows virtually anyone else to use it, including for commercial purposes. January (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Bertrand Russell.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bertrand Russell.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)‎ | 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Gunnex (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded several Russell pictures, about a year ago, but although they were taken long ago (about 100 years) I'm also not entirely sure the copyright expired for the ones were Russell looks this old, and as I've said above I don't object to their deletion. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Cirt thread closedEdit

So that you cannot claim that you did not see it, I am bringing to your attention this closing message from your thread regarding Cirt. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blockedEdit

Blocked Indefinitely
This user has been blocked indefinitely. See block log. You can find my original statement here.

català | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

Natuur12 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Natuur12, thanks, but I couldn't let Sven's close go unaddressed.
If you look at my contributions here, less than 0.01% are to drama boards, because as I said I don't particularly enjoy to be blocked just for pointing out admin abuse.
It's unfortunate that I was blocked, now, because I need access to Commons to upload djvus (and pictures) for my work at Wikisource (and WQ).
I did tell Sven (in his TP) that that post was my last on the matter, so your block appears to be superfluous and needless.
What do you think, would you consider unblocking? (Sorry to put you through this.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response but the servers are having some troubles today. I am willing to reduce this block since the block has never meant to be last forever. However, there are some conditions that I want you to agree with before I reduce your block. I won’t undo this block at ones since you went over the edge by making that last comment towards Sven and Cirt. These are the conditions:
  • You will drop the stick when it comes to your dispute with Cirt.
  • You will stop calling Cirt’s actions which happened 1 year ago at Commons abuse. He is no longer active and there is no need to push this to the limit.
  • You will withdraw your statement that Cirt made attack pages since there is no evidence of that. I am not saying that they don’t feel like attack pages to you but this happened a long time ago so it is time to forget.
  • You will refrain from importing conflicts from other wiki’s.
  • You will apologies to Sven; I am not asking you to apologize to Cirt because I don’t think that you are willing to make one.
Could you agree with these conditions? If yes I will reduce your block to a shorter term. And don’t worries that won’t be a block for months or weeks but I want it to be clear that the behavior you showed is not acceptable at Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Natuur12: I've already reported what I needed to report regarding Cirt on Commons. That's done, and I won't be repeating my complaint (even though it was completely ignored, and just got me blocked); if I did repeat it (and I won't) I'd be blocked again here pretty quickly. So that covers your 1st and 2nd conditions.

I can not, unfortunately, and will not, withdraw any statement by me that was truthful and that I meant to say, because that would imply that I've changed my mind, when I haven't, or that what I said wasn't true, when it was. If you don't like my report, for whatever reason, you can delete it yourself. I'm not going to delete it because I think it was necessary (called for) and proper.

Why would I apologize to Sven? Apologize for what? I don't know. He was the one bringing up conflicts from other wikis in his "close" (that had nothing to do with my complaint), and when I clarified the situation, I was blocked.

Sven used the close to bring up other issues, block logs, and to accuse me of harassment (rather laughably). Then he said it was the last warning, thus making it impossible for me to respond to his nonsense, without being blocked. Of course I had to respond to his charges, and of course when I did so an admin (you) quickly showed up to block me, even though it was my natural right to defend myself against such accusations (or at least explain, and give context for the other blocks he brought up).

I'm not going to be insincere with you, and pretend to believe that my report was somehow wrong, when I obviously don't believe it was. Although your block may have been well intentioned, it isn't preventing any damage, because I had already dropped the issue before you blocked me. What your block does now is prevent me from uploading to Commons files that I might need on other projects.

But then, I'm already used to these needless and superfluous blocks. And I must be punished, right? So, suit yourself. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sven doesn't mind about your comment so I guess we have ourselfs a deal than but if you bring this up ever again on Commons I will reblock. Natuur12 (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)