JGHowes

———————————————MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

JGHowes has passed away.

Click here to leave me a new message. If you start a new thread here, I'll reply here. Also, please sign your messages with ~~~~.

Archives 1, 2, 3 Archive 1 (2008–2013) Archive 2 (2014–2018) Archive 3 (2019–2020)

Editors refuse to provide adequate means to discuss, communicate or remedy an issue of their own creation.

Your "final warning" is unfortunate.

No one at wikimedia has provided any reasonable means of appealing or discussing the issue. An issue which is poorly defined and for which no basis in reality exists. No justification has been provided for judging a copyright violation. There IS NO copyright violation. It's ludicrous.

It is excruciatingly frustrating to use this system to share content when it is supposed to be a democratized means of doing so. In this mission, wikimedia is here failing catastrophically.

Bottom line: My family owns the content in question. Both the original document, the subsequent scan, and now, any and all digital copies we have generated for the purpose of sharing. We have released it to the public domain. End of story. The right to share this content is not only without question, but it is furthermore granted to the rest of the world to also share. Anyone claiming this content is "historical" in nature has no backing to that claim. No basis in fact. This content exists nowhere else until now that the family has elected to share it. It is a damaging accusation and one that unfairly targets us and silences our choice to share this content using your platform, which, as I said before, is ostensibly intended to democratize this EXACT SITUATION.

Please aid in resolving this issue. Documentation and tools are utterly lacking and beyond what is there is utterly opaque… and there is exists no threaded means to discuss these matters on the actual media in question (as opposed to Wikipedia where discussions on the article are possible).

This is insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daorigcalzone (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Daorigcalzone: Please read the deletion discussion which has been linked at your user talk page and at the file page. I have just commented there on the situation. Both notices at your talk page and at the file description contain messages like "We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry." or "To discuss it, please visit the |nomination page." in a multitude of languages. So that is where you should clarify your position. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(e.c.) Daorigcalzone, Because you have already commented at the deletion request, you are surely aware that that is the "means to discuss, communicate or remedy an issue".

Your claim of copyright ownership is in question and must be resolved for Commons to accept those photos. Copyright on a photo belongs to the photographer, not a person depicted in the photo. Merely possessing negatives or prints of a photo does not make you the copyright holder.

Unless the photographer is identified and has been dead for more than 70 years, the copyright still applies by law and the license would have to come from the photographer or their heirs, not you.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It was not at all clear that that page was interactive for this purpose. After I posted something, I wasn't sure it was correct or would be seen. Now that I see a reply, I see that it can proceed. However, the UX is abhorrent. And there's no threaded replies or anything like that. Just like here… I'm not even sure I'm "replying" to you correctly. I hope I am, but this is a black box and it requires obscure markup tags that make no sense to most people. And again, no threaded reply or mechanism to manage such.

My primary complaint across this entire episode is the lack of clarity or support in posting content which we own, and then, in supporting our claims or defending against claims that we might not own it, etc, etc. There is no recourse either. Just an arbitrary mob of anonymous moderators who may or may not have chips on their shoulders or agendas.

And I still have no idea how to "sign" my posts. Something else that I don't recall ever having to do on wikipedia. But I keep getting told by some bot to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daorigcalzone (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You "sign" your post by typing four "tildes", like this: ~~~~. Our software will then automatically add your username and date/time stamp once you click on "Publish changes".  JGHowes  ^talk 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

…and apparently colons create indentation. I'm responding only to add that, finding these talk pages on each moderator's profile, I am seeing a massive number of people who are clearly just as lost and frustrated about this process. Given anyone is allowed to upload and post, and given that wikimedia is the only way to add images to wikipedia articles, it seems to me that the process is frustrating users, and (presumably) giving you and others a lot more work than necessary. And the fact that I have a talk page of my own, but these discussions happen either on my page or on yours… and nowhere is there clarity about how to engage in a discussion (should I have taken this up on my own page?)… it's really really frustrating. I hope you can see this. As more and more people around the world come to wikipedia to document the world around them, this kind of thing is only going to get more tangled and overburdened.

Meanwhile, I don't receive notifications for updates to a discussion on your talk page, and presumably you don't receive notifications if I replied to you on my talk page. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Daorigcalzone (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, well, with more than 65 million images and complex photography laws to deal with from country to country around the world, besides each nation's copyright laws (in this case, Chile's and the U.S.), e.g., freedom of panorama concerning buildings, personality rights of identifiable people, etc., we as volunteers try to do our best. As a general practice, if you post on some user's talk page, they will reply there (see the blue box at the top of this page). As soon as a post is put on my talk page, I get an email notification at my personal email address linked to my account. If you go to "Preferences" at the top of your page, there are many optional features one can select. Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikimedia!  JGHowes  ^talk 19:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I second this. Daorigcalzone, you may have had a rough start, but we're happy to have you here. I'm also pleased to see that you've started exploring the Wikimedia software and have even solved the pending copyright questions for your photograph. An uninvolved administrator will now assess the deletion discussion (usually this will take some time) and should then keep the image as requested. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the warm welcome. Particularly after I had been so ornery toward all of you. The frustration got to me. Being a very technical computer guy, I lost my cool encountering a problem I couldn't understand, but also, feeling very sympathetic to my dad, whom I was assisting with posting these. My apologies. And also, thank you for replying so promptly and helping me and my dad out. Daorigcalzone (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear JGHowes

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello JGHowes,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

File:RS13871 Ray Watts-26-scr.jpg

Hello. I've looking through old deletion requests and noticed that Commons:Deletion requests/File:RS13871 Ray Watts-26-scr.jpg was closed as deleted by you. However, this file is still on Commons. It hadn't been been reuploaded since the May 2020 deletion request. I was wondering why this file was still on Commons despite the deletion request closure. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. For some reason, the deletion didn't go through, but it's now corrected.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi JGHowes / AM - Image Undeletion Request

Hi JGHowes,

First-and-foremost, we hope that you and family are all keeping safe-and-well.

Am writing to request undeletion / reinstatement of the Ava Max® photograph that I recently uploaded to Wikimedia Commons - File:Ava_Max_posing_for_Charlotte_Rutherford.jpg - at the direction of her management company and way of updating her profile (i.e. with a less random and more up-to-date profile photo).

This is to confirm that A. as an employee of Web Sheriff® (the duly appointed, intellectual property agents of Ava Max®) I am authorized by Ava Max® to upload and offer the above reference photo to Wikimedia Commons and, equally, B. Ava Max® is the copyright assignee of Charlotte Rutherford (the photographer and assignor concerned) and, as such, is now the copyright owner of this photo.

By way of illustration and as you'll note from the links below, this photo has been similarly cleared for publication on a variety of outlets and our client / principal is again happy to license this image pursuant to the Creative Commons (Share-A-Like) 4.0 License :-

www.popjustice.com/articles/ava-max-interview-i-cant-believe-ive-come-this-far/

www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/9468280/ava-max-interview-kings-queens-hot-100

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54188525

We trust that this adequately clarifies matters and, should you require any additional information or evidence, please don't hesitate to contact us.

With Thanks & Regards,

John E. Henehan

for and on behalf of Web Sheriff® — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebSheriff2020 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me regarding this deleted photo. In order for the photo to be undeleted, we require verification in writing that you are the duly appointed agent of the copyright assignee from Charlotte Rutherford, the photographer and copyright assignor. See COM:OTRS for the procedure to follow to submit by email.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Release gen discussion

Hi, JG - are you still flying these days? I thought about getting a pilot's license back in 2008, but thought it best not to because I'm still trying to figure out how to parallel park. My son-in-law got his, but then he decided to buy a helicopter. I require Bonine or Dramamine the night before, and another on the day of the excursion. Back on point - are you following the discussion at the generator TP? Maybe you can help me understand because I'm not getting the gist of the oppose feedback. I probably send at least 3 or 4 emails back and forth to the respective contributors to find out what image they're talking about, what article it's going in, what's the url if uploaded, if they're in the picture they aren't the copyright holder, etc. My proposal reduces that to ZERO. Why would anyone oppose? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, JGHowes - just to let you know...I made some modifications to the release generator proposal since some editors were focused on not wanted to do uploads. The alternative is just below the original. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Before I open a request for undeletion

Hello, how are you? Recently you deleted the File:João_Paulo_Nogueira_Ribeiro.jpg. The file was flagged for an "obvious copyright violation", which doesn't make sense to me. The owner of the photo is the subject of the photo himself, and he himself sent me the file and requested I uploaded it to his own Wiki page. I don't understand why this could be an "obvious" copyright violation. What should I do to make this right? I wanna make sure I know what went wrong, before I open a request for undeletion. Any help is appreciated, since I don't have much experience editing and managing wiki pages and files. Thanks in advance! Marcel Borba Sanchez Lopes (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, in the first place you claimed copyright ownership of it as your own work, when in fact it was found on the internet at https://www.linkedin.com/in/joaopaulonogueiraribeiro/detail/photo/ Secondly, the copyright holder is the photographer who took the photo, not a person who appears in it. Thirdly, for legal reasons we don't accept verbal permissions such as you describe. In order for the photo to be undeleted, the photographer/copyright holder needs to send us permission in writing with a free license. See COM:OTRS for step-by-step instructions on how this is done. Hope this helps.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Julia Allison.png

Hi,

You had previously deleted File:Julia Allison.png as a copyright violation and recreation of a previously deleted file. I just nominated File:Julia Allison .png by the same uploader for deletion (note the blank space in the name makes it a little different). But given the recreations, this might be the same image again. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Whpq: Thanks for alerting me. The uploader has been warned and the file deleted (again). —  JGHowes  ^talk 17:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Need your eyes

Would you mind taking a look at this ticket:2021041810006575? I'm a bit too skeptical about this one and maybe I shouldn't be. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme: Although we do have discretion to accept forwarded permissions from trusted users, I agree with you that in this case, we must insist on the permission statement coming directly from the photographer. Indeed, they appear to have engaged in some misrepresentation at the outset. Anytime someone claims that a picture is a selfie taken with their own camera, I'd require the high-res. digital original with exif metadata to verify.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ticket:2021050710009297

Hi, JG - you already deleted the File:Volosko-Lautus-photo-by-Marin-Kirincic.jpg, and I don't know the particulars (probably under a different ticket), but thought you'd like to see the ticket. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken care of it.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Report

Hello, please take a look at this report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Files named with meaningless/disruptive names (motivated renaming was reverted without any valid reason) as these are serious everyday violations of the Commons rules and protection of meaningless names (in this case, Kalumny which translates as Columns). User Kazimier Lachnovič with filemover rights constantly performs violations of the Commons rules, creates instability issues and protects meaningless names, thus creates confusion. His Commons admin rights previously were lifted, but it is clear that it is not enough. -- Pofka (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Images I emailed

Hi, JG - did you get the Santa Anita images I emailed to you the other day? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but still awaiting Santa Anita's permission at OTRS.  JGHowes  ^talk 15:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I was just wondering if I should shoot for PD or just get them to submit a CC-BY-SA 4.0 Intl to avoid potential issues, as I explained earlier? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, I'd urge them to go with CC-BY-SA 4.0 Intl for the reasons mentioned in your email. That way, attribution can be required.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Peter Falkai.jpg

Hello JGHowes,

As you deleted the named file:

Under this link (https://ajeleth.journalistenakademie.de/dossierbeitrag.php?b=3382) you can read the allowed use of the foto on Wikipedia or Wikimedia.

The website with the foto says: „Diese Pressefotos sind für redaktionelle Zwecke unter folgender Quellenangabe honorarfrei verwendbar: Foto Journalistenakademie“. This means: You can use these press fotos for editorial purposes under the source ‚Foto Journalistenakademie‘ free of charge.

So what I do now is asking if you could please restore the file with the corresponding copyright designation.

regards -- Fotoupload1234512345 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I did read that prior to deletion. The problem is that "für redaktionelle Zwecke" is insufficient for Commons. We require a license such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International that specifically allows for commercial and derivative uses.

Both U.S. and German law are applicable in this case (because Commons is hosted in the United States). Under the choice-of-law principle lex loci protectionis, U.S. courts might hold that commercial use, such as by a magazine outside of the EU, is copyright infringement without this license.  JGHowes  ^talk 12:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

thank you for your response --Fotoupload1234512345 (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Christos Nikou portrait.4.png‎

Hi JGHowes. You deleted File:Christos Nikou portrait.4.png‎ yesterday (June 30), but it's be reuploaded (this time by another user). I'm not seeing anything new that address the issues that were pointed out at User talk:Alpha Violet#File:Christos Nikou portrait.4.png, though there's a claim this time around that the photo comes from a press kit. That might be the case, but I think that would require VRT verification at the very least since a "press kit" doesn't necessarily equal a "cc-by-sa-4.0". Perhaps a {{Npd}} tag is warranted this time around, but I figured I'd ask you first since you did already delete the image once. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The same user has done the same with File:Lila AVILES Portrait.jpg (which you also deleted) and might end up doing the same with the other two files uploaded by User:Alpha Violet that were deleted as well. The claim that this is from a 2020 press kit is more questionable here because the photo can be found used on line as early as 2018 and the file's description says its from 2015. I think this is probably just a misunderstanding of COM:L, but perhaps you could take a look at this one too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me! I've speedy deleted the lot as recreated copyvios and left a note on the uploader's Talk page.  JGHowes  ^talk 12:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. File:Christos Nikou portrait.4 (1).png is another one they uploaded as well. The time stamp indicates it was probably uploaded prior to your posting of a warning on their user talk page; so, they probably still were thinking the files from the press kit were OK to upload. The slightly different name also might mean they just wanted to upload a different version of the photo. One question about the “press kit” claim though. Only one of the three reuploaded photos seemed to possibly match up datewise with the press kit claim; the other two (the ones mentioned by name above) can be found online prior to 2020. They might all have been used in the same press kit, but they don’t seem to have all been taken for that press kit. en:User:Alpha Violet was working on drafts for articles about each of these three individuals (plus one more person) on English Wikipedia; so, maybe there’s a connection between the press kit and that. Alpha Violet was also SOFTBLOCKED on English Wikipedia and might’ve just decided to create a new account instead dealing with a username change. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly, for letting me know. Here's a cup of coffee for you, in appreciation of your diligence! I've now temporarily blocked them due to repeatedly uploading a previously deleted file. Even if they didn't see my message on their Talk page, they were aware that File:Christos Nikou portrait.4.png‎ had been deleted when they reuploaded it with a slightly different filename.  JGHowes  talk 20:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Undelete

Please take a look at Ticket:2021070710007893 - maybe revert the deleted image? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done  JGHowes  ^talk 13:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello @JGHowes: .

I've made a deletion request for some photos that were uploaded against my will (description on link below). Would you be able to please delete the photos at earliest convenience, if possible? I do consider these photos to be copyright infringement, since I personally did not agree to the free license agreement and consider them a privacy breach. Since the the photos were added to each article with this account, I may remove them from the article, myself, if needed, as some of these uploads have been added to international pages as well. Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures uploaded from jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy's account (stolen pictures)

Thank you in advanced. --Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Please replace File:Flag of Cayman Islands (WFB 2004).gif

• {{Edit request}}

This page is protected while posting this message. Please replace File:Flag of Cayman Islands (WFB 2004).gif with File:Flag of Cayman Islands (2004 World Factbook).gif because File renamed: Criterion 4 (harmonizing names of file set) Thank you. Message added by global replace -- — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 04:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

[No] Since a redirect was left I will tag this (automatic) request as declined. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh ^{Name me} 08:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Old Folks at Home.mp3

File:Old Folks at Home.mp3 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

George Ho (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)