Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:De728631

TUSC token 211033b1711e51385fa1da3b5f03b199Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

HiEdit

Hi User:De728631
I am a professional local photographer. I have many pictures but 90 % are published before; should i send an Email to host or keep looking for not-published pictures taken by mine?--S.Haboush (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@S.Haboush: Hello there. The images I deleted were published by MTV under a non-free license. Please send an email to confirm your authorship and your permission for a free licence. You can find some instructions and the address at COM:OTRS. Photographs taken by you that have not yet been published anywhere else may be uploaded at any time without further requirements. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I was not sure about copyright of that pictures you deleted. Now, i prefer to upload non-published files. by the way, thank you for noticing me. --S.Haboush (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Please help reviewed the pictureEdit

Troubling votes to keep GPL'd works from youEdit

Rant ahead.

I've found your recent votes to keep works licensed under the GNU General Public License (version 2 or any later version) very troubling and/or concerning. I'm upset, and really want to throw this rant in here to get it off my mind. I believe it's good for me to explain why I'm upset.

In the first undeletion request, you've supported undeletion for the original reason that the source was missing. I admit, I may have not tagged it originally with {{No permission since}} but the links provided by the OP should've been studied better: If you’re unclear what your source is, ask yourself What would I use if I wanted to modify it?, the answer is likely to be accepted as source. With no opposition and no source code provided or questioned, it subsequently led to restoration of the file and for a brief amount of time likely violated the GPLv2(+?) license. These issues I fixed today. I've now also asserted the author in good faith to consider moral rights, now aware of the source.

(There's conflicting statements about GPLv2-only and GPLv2+ licenses for that file. I was also not notified on the IP-talk page about the undeletion request, so that made me more upset.)

The second undeletion request is self-explanatory. I've ranted enough there already. Consider reading my rant there too. I argue moving the player character, setting up a scene and getting the right camera angle for a good screenshot can have some creativity in it. But that's not really the main point about the undeletion request, considering the copyright of the underlying work. Incompatible licensing of creative derivative works is secondary to that.

I hope you can understand the GPLv2+ is not a "CC BY-SA" -like license of "fire and forget" type of tagging. There are circumstances which may allow changing the license tag within legal limits and where it may make sense (mostly screenshots below the threshold of originality), but this is not one of them. The complete corresponding source code must also be distributed under GPLv2 or conveyed under GPLv3. If something is missing from the offered corresponding source distribution to reproduce the uploaded work from source, then it's not a way how the copyright holders agreed for redistribution to happen. Whenever I find that, it upsets me too to nominate them for deletion. (But I believe it's the right thing to do.)

Seeing how User:Ankry was perhaps misled by User:Trockennasenaffe in the undeletion request for Xonotic to be under GPLv2-only, subsequently you claimed so too. That made me briefly believe so too – until I checked the sources again (and spent ~1 GB of bandwidth). This misbelief almost made me create a comment about GPLv2's instant termination, with rights reinstated only with written permission of the copyright holders. In misbelief, I questioned myself if you were aware of GPLv2-only license termination being so "unforgiving". I removed that comment before posting it, but wasted my time writing it. I was upset again, but somehow glad at the same time all was not immediately lost after realizing it was GPLv2+ (source)/GPLv3+ (screenshots) because the termination is time-constrained (60 days) and on copyright holder's notice with automatic reinstation. (Somehow I still found a lot of time to write this rant.)

End of rant. End of frustration.

I personally hope you'll study the GPL-licenses and their conditions a bit further and seek to make an improvement for more educated votes. And if I'm wrong, counter-arguments are welcome. And sorry for the rant. (If you have time and interest, perhaps you can help and take a look at my other nominated deletion requests for GPL violations? Would be appreciated.) 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC); edited 21:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Rant duly noted. First of all, it is neither pbligatory nor customary to inform any editor of an undeletion request when they had tagged a file for deletion. Undeletion requests are a matter of the deleting administrator, the original uploader and the community of editors in the first place. I can understand how you felt ignored in this case but IPs are subject to changing users and we don't have a reliable way of telling if yours is static. So even if the user who filed the undeletion request(s) wanted to leave you a message he couldn't even have been sure to reach the original editor (i.e. you).
  • As to the GPL licensing, I think you are misinterpreting the need for source code distribution. GPLv2 reads: "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form ... provided ..." (emphasis mine). This clause of the licence deals with distributing the original program or derivative software. Screenshots are neither executables nor object code, so they don't have to be accompanied by the source code. De728631 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • From GPLv2 section 1: “Object code” means any non-source form of a work. Sorry, that's how it is... 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Apparently we're working with different documents. Your phrase is not in here nor there, so please provide a link to your version of the license. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
        • (Edit conflict) Sorry, yes. I was about to edit my comment. It's GPLv3 section 1 I'm talking about. If that answer is not satisfiable regarding GPLv2's choice of words, then I'm not sure how to counter that argument. I'll try.

          GPLv3 clarifies a lot of things in GPLv2. The text of GPLv2 is quite old when Internet distribution was not a norm. In example, GPLv2 talks about a medium customarily used for software interchange, while in GPLv3 this has been clarified to a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange. (e.g. CDs or DVDs).

          The intent is similar in GPLv2: The preamble talks about restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights and For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. A screenshot may be a small part of the program, but even those small pieces (excluding those below the threshold of originality) may fall under the GPL (section 4, possibly). And that brings to preferred form: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. I'm not sure if this is a clear case under the GPLv2.

          And of course, I don't believe PNG screenshots are an original representation or a preferred form of making edits, versus something like "demo" clips you play on the engine. You could replace models or influence the demo (with scripts) to make edits, but can't preferably do that to a media work in a PNG format... 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

        • I think in this case, the GPLv2 may be also be a red herring if the "LGPLv3" question is true. And if so, then there should be no ambiguity what the object code is. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The discussion at undeletion request has stalled, at the moment. Do you have more comments to add to it, or would it be appropriate for an administrator to close the undeletion request in two days if no further comments are made? Thanks for the comments and debate again. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't have anything to add, so let's wait for an administrator to close the thread. De728631 (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference projectEdit

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I like the idea of a Commons conference but I'm afraid I'll be busy organising my new job next year. So I think I won't have time to attend the event. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

User's attackings on my OWN picturesEdit

another new user started attacking and nominate deletion of my OWN TAKEN BY MY HAND PICTURES AND UPLOADED HERE, the new one is same with last nomination i mean the File:Layal Abboud - Plaza Palace Ceremony - Beirut - July 2015 - Lebanon 15 (Cropped).jpg. i am really tired of this . --Chyah (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

there is also an interesting undo : https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leyal_Abud&diff=19088016&oldid=19084124. and then, the user started nominate it for deletion, for a file that just was nominated. --Chyah (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear De728631, please review this, Regards and thanks, Sakhalinio (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sakhalinio: i saw it, this search don't show that the picture is not mine, we just talked about this file before. they reviewed it. this file is taken by mine, and i am the copyright holder and first who published it into net, if every user comes a while and nominate your pictures for deletion, i think, there would be no file in Commons for next year!--Chyah (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear @Chyah:, your message page full of deletion request, that means this is not my wrong. My advice to you, firstly upload files to commons original size, and than no problem. Regards, Sakhalinio (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sakhalinio: for this pic i uploaded the originall, just search more. i am not a new user dear brother. --Chyah (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I replied at the deletion discussion where I also left you some advice regarding original images vs cropped versions. De728631 (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Layal Abboud - Plaza Palace Ceremony - Beirut - July 2015 - Lebanon 15 (Cropped).jpgEdit

Hi, I am in no obligation to fix an image description page when I decide to decline speedy deletion. Also I think I do my share in fixing things on this wiki. Jcb (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Point taken, but I think we can agree to disagree on this matter. De728631 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A QuestionEdit

Hi User:De728631!

Can we upload from a blogspot that last time used © was in 2012? mean there is no legal copyright holder and they are not updated from 2012 and so, its in public domain.--Chyah (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not in the public domain. Copyright is granted automatically to any author and will last for several decades depending on the country of origin. Please do not upload anything from this blog. De728631 (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thanks for answer. surely i don't upload such files, i just asked. I hope i can find freely files for my interests. --Chyah (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

AgainEdit

Hello!

can you explain to me what is it link. why i should have daily issues with my files? why ?!--Chyah (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose this was because you used your former user name in the "author" field, i.e. Sonia Sevilla instead of Chyah. It seems that people were too lazy to click the link and check the connection. I have now removed the "missing permission" tag, but for future uploads you might want to add your current user name "Chyah" so as to avoid confusion. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "De728631".