User talk:De728631

TUSC token 211033b1711e51385fa1da3b5f03b199Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Hello, I recently submitted a number of our companies registered logos to our owners Wiki page and it was deleted. We own rights 100% to those images and shouldn't have been deleted. Can you please re-add the deleted items please.

Thank you. In good health,

Zac Lucius Sales & Events Manager Barwis Methods — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlucius (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Can't believe what you did and the basis you did itEdit

Can't believe how destructive action you took, rather than attempt to be helpful instead. I'm average WP editor, with little experience loading files needing permissions. However I did the best that I knew how with this system (upload specifications), and did the correct things in getting the copyright holder to send the right information to the right place. If you were trying to be a pain, and as unhelpul as possible, I don't know how you could have possibly improved on your response at the Noticeboard, and with your action. This has left a very very bad taste in my mounth. I wonder why you are in the position you are in, to shoot from the hip with unhelpful/destructive reponse/action, rather than work to help someone who asked for help to resolve what went wrong??? I do believe that nothing went wrong on my end, but judging by your knee-jerk responses it is easy to think that much is going on wrong here at COMMONS with the way things are managed here.

You shouldn't make the assumptions you made without putting your finger on the permissions Email. I'll pay you $1000 if there is any inadequacy about that Email. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You've put me in IMPOSSIBLE POSITION -- don't you see that at all??? (By telling me "something is wrong" and at same time that you don't know what is wrong.) That is crazy-making. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If there was someone I could report you to and get you fired from your job at COMMONS, I would do it!!! You should be trying to resolve things and helping people who need it, rather than frustrating them further with non-reponses and destructive actions. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't even know that something is wrong in the first place -- you've assumed that. Yes there may be something wrong ... something wrong with OTRS overlooking a permissions Email that was sent to them. You never even attempted to confirm the Email content, you made assumption it was defective. Bad assumption. And you took action on that basis. Bad basis for action. How about reversing your destructive action and restoring what you deleted??? And are you in a position or not, to both FIND and REVIEW the permissions Email sent June 27 by the copyright holder??? How about some answers and some help, instead of the crazy-making approach that you have already executed??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are an administrator. (Excuse me for not being very impressed. Or differently, I'm impressed, but the wrong way.) How about un-doing the damage you've done, then just getting someone more qualified to help me??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You might not know it but when we delete files, they are not ultimately erased but the file history and edit history are kept on the file servers, just not visible for everyone. That is why I could see that on 6 August 2016, at 00:04, user BU Rob13 put {{this template}} on the file page which says "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. ..." Apart from that, other editors have now explained to you at the OTRS noticeboard what may have been wrong. De728631 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That's confusing. (First you said "I cannot read the email that was sent", now you're quoting someone saying "can be read here by users with an OTRS account". That seems contradictory. Do you have an "OTRS account"?) Second, the client confirmed in their permissions Email to be both owner and copyright holder. Is OTRS honestly taking the position of telling the client (a notable US attorney & law professor) that he is mistaken!? And on the basis "probably the photographer is the sole copyright holder"!? (Just what position has OTRS taken? The client asked to be informed of any deficit to the permission he submitted. Was that done? ... I was supposed to be in the loop on communications, but OTRS dropped the ball on that by overlooking my Email address in the CC of the permissions Email, so I'm asking. I'd like to be sent a copy, seeing how I've been told that OTRS dropped the ball re including me in communications.) Update: I've asked for said copy at the Noticeboard. Ok, IHTS (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not have an OTRS account, and with "can be read here by users with an OTRS account" I was quoting a generic message that was not written by me but is included in Template:OTRS received. It means that other volunteers that do have an OTRS account can read any email messages sent to OTRS. It is not contradictory because I was pointing you to this templated message that was placed on the file page 30 days before the file got deleted, and which you could have read in due time. As to the OTRS team not including you in their emails, I'm afraid I don't know why that happened. Again, I do not have any access to OTRS emails but can only tell you what happened to the image file itself. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: For your future reference, people with OTRS access usually display a tag on their userpage as BU Rob13 does. And it is not uncommon for "simple" administrators without OTRS access to provide answers at the OTRS notice board. De728631 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I got to answers now, as much as is feasible. Thank you for your participation & timely responses that helped get me there. Sincere, IHTS (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Acta constitución LIADA.jpgEdit

Thanks for your opinion on the discussion about the status of the transcript of the foundation of this organization, I was thinking like you, but I didn't know what licence I was able to use for that. I still need to learn a lot about the licenses in Commons. Thanks. --JoRgE-1987 (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons VPEdit

Hi De728631. Thanks you for your help at the VP. What do you think about File:Philippine Revolutionary Army Rifles.jpg, File:QuezonVehicle.jpg and File:MTUST.jpg uploaded by the same editor? The first two appear to be museum exhibits and are 3d, so I'm not sure if the objects of the photos still can be considered protected under copyright. The third one appears to be a fair use being claimed as "own work", and it does not look old enough to qualify for PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. The first two are so-called utilitarian objects, i.e. things for everyday-use, and they are not generally copyrighted. As to File:MTUST.jpg, this is apparently another copyright infringement so I have opened a deletion discussion for this one, too. De728631 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. De728631 (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, You realize that this comment might be used as a statement loosening the user's unblock conditions? I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just checking that's what you're doing. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Thank you for pointing this out. I wasn't aware that Light Show had been placed under any unblock unconditions, but this makes it clear. I was not going to lift these conditions anyway but was merely replying to what looked like a general copyright inquiry. @Revent: as the unblocking admin who enacted these conditions, would you say that Light Show's upload conditions regarding out-of-copyright US media should be levied or would you rather keep them intact? I have asked Light show to keep requesting approval but I think we can also lift these conditions.
If anyone is still in doubt about Light show's uploading habits we could perhaps change his uploading conditions. We could drop the talk page request prior to uploading but have him add weblinks to the file description or to the licence section that point to the relevant copyright catalogues. De728631 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I recall this case. The "tight leash" has been applied for nearly a year. Perhaps the more standard process of adding {{LicenseReview}} to uploads would be a good intermediary step if precautions are still thought sensible? There should be caution in terms of process. Blocks tend to be strictly limited and have a defined appeal procedure, while unusual conditions like this one frequently turn out to be hard for the subject to appeal or otherwise get lifted as they fall outside our community agreed policies. -- (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
{{LicenseReview}} sounds like a good idea to me if some level of control is still desired. De728631 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I see two issues with relaxing this... one being that Light Show is still completely banned from uploading any images to enwiki, because of his extremely long history of copyright problems there. Not that we are required to listen to them, but it will be a source of drama that we should be prepared for.
The other, and more significant, problem is that I really don't think that Light Show has learned much (if anything) about exercising any kind of 'due diligence' regarding what he asks to upload... as an example, on the 21st of last month, he asked on the VPC about uploading this image, which actually has a visible copyright notice in the bottom right corner. He also, about the same time, wanted to upload this AP image, which (if you are not familiar with it) is an extremely famous photo, and it's incredibly hard to conceive of the AP not protecting it given that they are known to be well aware of copyright and that's it's a 'valuable' image, in monetary terms.... I suspect it probably would have resulted in a DMCA notice, to be honest. I unfortunately think he's just throwing 'whatever' at the community, and seeing what gets past, without much in the way of filtering. Reventtalk 09:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples. I find it hard to understand their motivation or persistent failure to grasp policy. -- (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you indeed, Revent. Given these examples and the local upload ban, I agree that relaxing Light Show's conditions would only produce problems, so we better keep his restrictions as they are. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
As to Revent's comment at VPC, I agree with him. VPC is more frequented and thus better suited for upload inquiries than one's user talk page. I would suggest that future upload requests by Light Show shall now be made there instead of using his user talk page. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Asking there was actually a 'change' to the rule made by Light show himself, that I had absolutely no problem with (he's been doing so consistently)... it's probably what I should have said in the first place. FYI, my 'examples' were just of the recent issues... soon after his unblock, he also tried to argue about things like the 'validity' of a visible copyright notice, as a reason that a work should be allowable (as I recall, it was another case where the notice had been written on the negative, and the year was not written, but it was clearly a notice). Light show seems to consider himself an expert on copyright.... in the sense of being a 'sea lawyer', my impression is that instead of objectively looking for the actual status, he's looking for an 'out' that lets him upload the work IF someone objects, and otherwise wants to rely on 'generic' arguments about such works in general. It's unfortunate, as he does seem to want to contribute useful material, and in a way my unblocking him was an unintended burden on the community, but... c'est la vie.
I'd ask that, due to the history, @Moonriddengirl: be consulted before any slacking of his sanction happens in the future, even though she's not really active here. Reventtalk 19:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted imageEdit

I noticed that even though you deleted File:Karikatur-Hattar.gif its talk page File talk:Karikatur-Hattar.gif is still available. Did you have a specific reason for that? Ww2censor (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't know why this talk page slipped through the overall deletion process. Anyhow I have now deleted it. Thank you for notifying me. De728631 (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. No problem. I occasionally see them when I have nominated a file and have it watchlisted. Ww2censor (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WPA imagesEdit

Hi, the Highsmith photographs of WPA works could use {{PD-USGov-WPA}}. The recent categorizations are at search, though there are probably a hundred more outside of the review category. -- (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

As a separate collection, I have written to the current chief exec for the Deep Ellum Foundation to confirm whether these are public domain or something else (search). If the response is negative, I'll use that information to raise a deletion request. -- (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was also thinking about {{PD-USGov-WPA}}. I did a search last night and tried to sort as many images into Category:WPA mural photographs by Carol M. Highsmith as I could find jduging from the filenames, but there are certainly lots of other WPA photographs by her. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a puddingEdit

Sütlü irmik tatlısı (semolina with milk dessert)

I'm serving you your own slice. Guten Appetit! (It may be smaller than that of Jim, but notice all the raisins you've got! :-) Also notice the texture and consistency of this "Sütlü irmik tatlısı": It is not a "Semolina pudding" with an English, German or Turkish name. I know what a "pudding" is. Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! De728631 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Salad ingredientsEdit

Hallo again. I see that you like food items, like me. I recently created a category on "salad ingredients". I am sure you may find many items to fit in there. Thank you and have a good week-end. --E4024 (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hrm, this might become a very indiferrent category because you can make a salad out of so many variable ingredients. But let's see how this develops. De728631 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

License review tagEdit

It looks like Rillke's review script doesn't recognize {{license-review}}. When I review your uploads, Rillke's script ignores it and adds {{LicenseReview}} [1], [2], [3]... The script tells me a review template hasn't been found, and prompts me to add one and then to pass the review. I've had this same problem when the full review template with the parameters is placed on a file page. Rillke's script won't detect that either. lNeverCry 23:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: That might occur because {{license-review}} is just a redirect to the proper template page {{LicenseReview}}. Perhaps we should ask Rillke to adapt his script. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he's editing any more. Or at least he's on vacation for a while the last I looked. lNeverCry 18:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I see. Well, at least I'm now using {{LicenseReview}}.Would somebody else have access to the script code? De728631 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately he hasn't edited since May, so almost 5 months ago. Any admin can edit User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js. I'm 48, and haven't ever written a line of code in my life, so I'm afraid I'm useless in this area...   lNeverCry 19:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Meh, I've done a fair bit of coding but Java just isn't my cup of tea. I'm wondering if there are any active Commons admins among these guys. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe someone like Steinsplitter, but I hate to overburden him. I can always make the extra click, and remove the unrecognized version of the review template as I've done in the past. It doesn't happen often. This is only the second time I've seen this issue; the other was with a Tasnim uploader who isn't active anymore. He used the template with all the blank parameters. I don't remember if he used a dash. lNeverCry 20:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

File:View from Mercedes-Benz Arena.jpgEdit

I am the owner of this photo. Google decide to shut down Panoramio, so I choose to donate this very photo to wikimedia. 我即是这张照片原作者。Google公司决定关闭Panoramio网站,所以我决定将其捐赠给wikimedia。

之乎 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Search255: The problem is that even though you may have uploaded it at Panoramio with a Creative Commons licence, Google has now shut down the old server and archived this photo without any licence information at all, so I cannot verify your claim. Our policy is that images from external sources need to have a verifiable free licence. I suggest that you send an email to OTRS as explained here to verify your authorship and the free licence. Once you have sent the mail, please let me know on my talk page, and I will restore the image. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Hurricane Matthew color.png.Edit

I got this file, with a user's permission from Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki. I have the chat logs, as well. Scroll down a bit to when DarrenDude talks about a higher-quality image he created. Thank you and have a great day. :) Jdcomix (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jdcomix: Darren Dude is obviously not the copyright holder unless he operates his own satellite. This appears to be an image from NOAA or some other agency and it is most likely in the public domain. So we need to know the original source. De728631 (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: I'm trying to find that source right now on chat. I'll let you know when I find it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jdcomix (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Got a source. The JTWC website is currently down due to Typhoon Sarika and Haima, most likely, but this is what Darren gave me. Jdcomix (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Great, thank you. That makes sense given the other Visir images in the Commons category. I'm going to add this link as the original source but will flag the file for licence review pending the return of the JTWC website. De728631 (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jdcomix: I see you uploaded the high-resolution image at File:Matthew color (1).png. Where does the Creative Commons 2.5 licence come from, though? Is this what Darren Dude asked you to add? The image looks like it is the original satellite snapshot, maybe cropped a little, but as a work by the US government that was not changed in a creative way, it should be in the public domain. De728631 (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: Sorry, this was my first time uploading an image like this. You can change the creative commons thing to the US government one, I don't really know how this works. Sorry for the inconvenience, and have a great day. :) Jdcomix (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, have a great day too. De728631 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: you can add a public domain licence from NOAA by putting a text string {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} on a Commons file page. I did this now for the Matthew image but when you come across another US government work, feel free to use the templated tags in Category:PD-USGov license tags. De728631 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For referenceEdit

I think is fair use, for the purpose of the discussion. Reventtalk

If the photo is kept then as we know that the text is public domain, if the webpage stuff is cropped out, the rest can be uploaded to Commons to give context. -- (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Rama Rama Re Poster.pngEdit

This is a poster of a film. How to upload this image.. Kindly help. --RohithKumarPatali (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@RohithKumarPatali: This poster is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded at Commons without permission from the original designer or the film company. You can, however, upload film posters locally at certain Wikipedias that support "fair use" images with a specific rationale. I found the article Rama Rama Re... that you created at the English Wikipedia and this Wikipedia accepts fair use content.
But the version you uploaded here seems to be the "preview" poster since it includes the announcement "Releasing on 21st October". This is undesirable for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles should reflect on established facts on not on something yet to come. I found this poster though which looks like a valid alternative, so I will upload it at the English Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: Thank you for your help.

RohithKumarPatali (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "De728631".