Open main menu

User talk:Fæ

Notice If you want to see Python source code that supports some of my projects, go to Github and help yourself. The code is not written with reuse in mind... -- (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice

If you are concerned that a category gets flooded with automated uploads, check that a template like {{Disambig}}, {{Photographs}}, {{Categorise}}, {{CatDiffuse}} or {{CatCat}} has been applied before complaining. In the case of my batch upload projects, any category marked this way will not be added to new photographs. -- (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Archives.png

2017
2018

Contents

Thank you!Edit

Dear Fæ,

I just wanted to say ‘Thank you!’ for your incredible restless work, which saves millions of images, many of them very valuable, for the benefit of all of us and maybe even for the benefit of future generations.

Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! -- (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations 🎉, againEdit

I just saw that you had passed the six million edit mark, I think that probably almost half free files on Wikimedia Commons were uploaded by you.     --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Hello Fæ! I recently found the large and very important collections of artworks you've uploaded by George Cruikshank and Gustave Doré. I had to buy books of their works when I was studying illustration, satirical art, and life art in college, and what you've uploaded for free use is much more extensive and larger with more detail. As an artist, being able to download and examine these works is really priceless! I put Cruikshank on the high level of William Hogarth, and Doré really has no equal, especially in the beautiful, painstaking detail of his backgrounds. His London series alone is so full of detail I'll probably spend months on them. You uploaded some works by Hablot K. Browne too, the illustrator of several Dickens novels, and a very interesting and talented artist in his own right. I also downloaded the Hogarth and Bruegel collections. I'll be poring over these for years, and it's only a 5 gig collection all told. Thanks so much for these hugely valuable artworks. Anyone who says Commons is crap has to be an absolute philistine...   Jenny 04:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! It's encouraging to read of how some of the images I upload are so useful for research, and enjoyed.   -- (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Noah Silliman 2016-11-02 (Unsplash).jpgEdit

Request for batch uploadEdit

Hi Fæ! I hope you're well. I wanted to know if you might be interested in working on a medium-sized project of batch uploading some of the photos from the JFK Library [1]. I've been uploading images from this collection and have found many rare color photos of political leaders from the early 1960s (many are politicians from the new post-colonial countries and there are few if any photos of these individuals on Wikipedia). As far as I can tell the White House Photographers (government employees whose photos are in the public domain) were Knudsen, Robert L. (Robert LeRoy)[2], Stoughton, Cecil W. (Cecil William)[3], and Rowe, Abbie[4]. In total there are around 17,000 photographs from these photographers in the digital collection. Would you be able to upload them? If there's anything I can do to help please just let me know. I would love to see these on Commons and will gladly help add categories for them and use them on Wikipedia pages once uploaded.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Large Flickr upload requestEdit

Maybe you remember my asking about a Australian Flickr users images a few months ago. The discussion is entry 381 on your 2018 archive page User talk:Fæ/2018. At my request the user has now changed their licencing to a free licence and is quite happy for us to use them. It must now be approaching 50,000 images as he told me that on a recent weekend he took and uploaded about 1,000. I suppose when you get around to it, and I know you have time constraints, you will have to make and add a suitable attribution category, such as Category:Files from sheba also Flickr steam or similar, but also a "to be categorised" category, so I and hopefully some other editors can work their way through them because his categorisation does not seem too detailed. Some of his images may not be usable and would probably need to be deleted upon manual review. Please ping me when you get time to proceed. Thanks in advance. Ww2censor (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: This has been set up to drop the files in Category:Photographs by Sheba Also. There is a test run filtering on albums matching "Bridges", for which there is only one with 121 files in it. Take a look and depending on your feedback I can either upload everything else with some conditions (min name length = 15, good license, Flickr ID does not exist on Commons, bad text not in general blacklist) or upload specific sets of albums that you think would be more likely to be okay than others.
There is some limited auto-categorization. This only happens when Flickr tags exactly match a Commons Category name, and the category does not have any of the normal "diffusion" templates. If anyone complains about flooding, they should always add a diffusion template to the "parent" category. For example File:New Years Eve-BW (111839472).jpg had been auto-added to Category:Brisbane.
Many titles appear to have "+" and "=" in the titles. These are being used without replacement in the Commons filenames, however I do have an easy way to mass rename these later, so long as they stay in the bucket category. In particular I normally filter out "=" or replace it with "-" as this causes wiki problems if the filename is needed inside templates. -- (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I now actually see 211 images being both Bridges and Brisbane ComicCon. I was going to ask the photographer if he is happy with the overall category name you have given or would prefer something different. I don't see that you added a blanket "To be categorised" category because, as I understand it, placing them only within the photographer's own category alone means sifting through each one in that category, which will be huge, to find uncategorised files at a later stage. Personally I'd prefer to have such a additional category from the start and images can be removed from there once they have been categorised better. Unless you have a method of finding the uncategorised files easily without such a category; I don't know how you would do that. Getting rid of the "=" and "+" after the facts seems a good idea but not urgent. I'll look at his albums and see if there are some I think should be excluded or excluded at this time. Thanks for the quick response on this upload. Ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
For now I have recategorised by batch task the 211 files into Category:Bridges in Brisbane and created a new category Category:Oz Comic-Con Brisbane 2017. Ww2censor (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: Keep in mind you can build a neat query using the normal Commons search that can list files in the bucket category matching any particular Flickr album or tag name, as these are in the descriptions.
I am starting the run on all files now, ping me if something looks wrong and I'll halt the run as soon as I notice the ping.
The {{chc}} template is being added, in line with your question about to be categorised. To list the relevant files you can use https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=5887574. -- (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Patrick Rogel: As this was my request, I'll review the Flickr users images to see if there any obvious upload excludables but with 45,000 images it may be easier to delete those that slip through. Maybe some individual albums can be excluded if they contain too many likely copyright images. Ww2censor (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Fæ and Patrick Rogel: I've had a decent look at the albums and indeed there are occasional derivative works which can no doubt be deleted as they are uncovered. This album "Sultanate of Oman Display Brisbane Mall" has many possible personality rights images and I see some other personal images of the Flickr user himself plus some family photos interspersed within albums. These to can probably be weeded out as they are found. My estimate is maybe 1^ or 2% might need to be deleted, and even that is a pure guess. I defer to your greater experience and knowledge. Ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: The flickr uploader has run through the whole stream once. The total unique photographs by Flickr id gave a total to upload of 37,024 images. It could be that the total we currently have of 22,000 is correct as only files with valid licenses, are jpeg files and have a "Safe" status, AND have deducesable valid file names (i.e. not short or duff names like "DSC 10998-3" or "Duck") will have upload attempts. It may also be the case that images which are not in any albums may be skipped. If you can spot a photograph that you expected to be uploaded from Flickr and there is no obvious reason why it was skipped, please give me a link and I'll think about what has caused a skip. In the meantime there is a re-run that may add a few missed files due to internet glitches. Note that I'll be having another long weekend away from my desktop from Thursday. -- (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A further 1,687 photographs have been added which were in no albums (Flickrsets). I normally avoid no-album photographs on the presumption that they are less interesting, however from what I have seen there is plenty of educational value in these remaining photographs. I'll draw the line here, if there is some reason that more useful files should be added, feel free to ping me with some examples. Thanks -- (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

about my Deletion requests/rightsEdit

thank you for your uploads here and your work you do. I have no problems about Benjamin or any other guys on those photos, but this is no family-photo-book here and what is private should stay private. if someone publish as private classified photos on flicker, and don't mind the personal rights of children, then we should be more careful and not post this here again! Same like photos from people in bus, on Airport or where ever. Im very sure nobody asked them for a permission of publishing that photos here under this free licenses... regards LutzBruno (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@LutzBruno: Please stop raising these individually. Flooding my talk page with similar DRs in a few hours is not appropriate as they become impossible to respond to. Using VFC you can raise one DR and there can be one discussion. Thanks -- (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
sorry about that, if I knew how to use VFC, I would. It also would help if you stop uploading such files under ridicules description in wrong categories ... you should know better! thank you --LutzBruno (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Fæ, can you please go through these images, and delete the ones of "Benjamin", "Lachlan" and other family photos: from a quick check, LutzBruno hasn't nominated them all for deletion. These obviously have no use whatsoever. It would also be very helpful if you could properly categorise these images - many have been automatically placed in irrelevant or top-level categories, or are not categorised at all. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 090402-N-1688B-076 Cameroon Armed Forces Navy Lt. Cmdr. Hamadou Lame answers a question during a press conference in Douala, Cameroon as Capt. Cindy Thebaud, commander of Africa Partnership Station Nashville looks on.jpgEdit

You want eventually comment on this?--Sanandros (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It's an obvious keep, and others have said that. After my first one million uploads, I decided to avoid getting involved in lots of these DRs unless there are deeper issues or larger patterns to worry about; my time is better invested on thinking about upload projects themselves or better systematic housekeeping, including deletions like non-obvious duplicates. I think my military uploads number over 250,000, of which about 7% probably could be legitimately deleted. -- (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Drops in the dark (Unsplash).jpgEdit

File:Follow your path (Unsplash).jpgEdit

File:Lynda Hollinger-Janzen And Ralph Edou (10058165143).jpgEdit

File:Lynda Entering Church (10058769766).jpgEdit

Error in your upload script?Edit

Fæ, I noticed in File:An Eskimo drummer LCCN2001705704.jpg that the script you used to upload the file had {{other date|<|1900}} in the date field, but the source document states "Photographic prints--1900-1930" and that it was created/published in 1931. I don't know if this affects other files, but this needs to be investigated as it is a rather significant error. (This may also result in a copyright check, by the way.) Mindmatrix 17:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Is it god in me? (Jesús) (4108156988).jpgEdit

File:Lachlan first day school 2013-02 (8425791326).jpgEdit

File:Lachlan and his friends ready for College Formal-1 (29853440850).jpgEdit

Notification about possible deletionEdit

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with benjamin incategory:"Photographs by Sheba Also"

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, Ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Just happened by your page and saw all the individual nomination by User:LutzBruno so did a batch tag of the rest of the Benjamin images I found except for the ComicCon ones which might be ok but I can tag them to if you agree. I know there is a way to contain these in a collapsed box but don't know how to do that right now and it's way past my bedtime! Ww2censor (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
AFK, per notice at the top of this page.
Just as there's no policy based reason to automatically delete photos with children, there's no clear reason given so far to pick out photos of Ben for special treatment.
Many can be kept as illustrative, so the pattern here is disturbing. -- (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Um, I thought it best to nominate all the obviously personal family photos as the Flickr user did a blanket change of license for all their images without withholding any. You obviously don't think removing them all is such a good thing. I'll stop now and see how things play out. Thanks for your comments. Ww2censor (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with family incategory:"Photographs by Sheba Also"

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, Ww2censor (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Viaduc de Millau Bridge (Unsplash).jpgEdit

Date on File:Hotel Seattle, James St. and Yesler Way (4669580283).jpgEdit

The 2010 date on File:Hotel Seattle, James St. and Yesler Way (4669580283).jpg is obviously wrong, but if we don't know the real date, how do we know it's PD? - Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Several ways, in particular the printing style of lithography was out of fashion by the 1920s. Anyway I have dated based on the life of the hotel itself, though the postcard is likely to pre-date the building in 1890, as it appears to be an artist's conceptual drawing with two more floors than were actually built. -- (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The hotel isn't the main issue. The totem pole was unveiled October 18, 1899, and the pergola was built in 1909, so it's at least that late. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Then 1909 to 1914 seems accurate. -- (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Your sabotage of PD-old-assumedEdit

Hi, please see here. Warning you before going to a noticeboard is pretty pointless, because you are perfectly aware of what you are doing. Jcb (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

{{Personal collection}}Edit

Is it not a valid source template? --Ruthven (msg) 16:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not a source. I have already left a message on your talk page. -- (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so how do you write that the file comes from a collection of prints/scans or whatever that is private? It's an old file > 120 years. Private scan? Own scan from uploader? --Ruthven (msg) 16:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You have the OTRS ticket and you claim the evidence that it claims, that need not be in any template. OTRS is not there to hide the copyright evidence, copyright statements have to be verified in public. In my experience, collectors may claim all sorts of things that lack evidence. If the drawing was made during the subject's life and the artist was anonymous or demonstrably unknown (i.e. there is no signature on the back), then that may be sufficient for a license and a better one than PD-old-assumed too. -- (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I see what you're saying: you prefer a license as specific as possible. Thus, I suppose that {{PD-anon-70-EU}} will do (no signature, published more than 120 years ago). --Ruthven (msg) 16:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, however COM:L also states "All description pages on Commons must indicate clearly under which license the materials were published, and must contain the information required by the license (author, etc.) and should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws." So, the goal should be to meet those requirements as far as we can and avoid obscuring or missing out that information when it is available. -- (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but the pd-old template that was present before was informative enough imho. In any case, it's better now that we've found a commons ground. But have you ever considered that a more collaborative approach might bring better results? Instead of a lone war against the {{PD-old-assumed}} template, you could have contacted the uploader asking for more information and suggesting possible licenses. Cheers Ruthven (msg) 17:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Marking images as no source, when they have no source, is not a "war". Thanks -- (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's not what suggests Jcb's message above: it's not the only file you've been tagging. Then you try a bizarre sort of "act of spite" (NdT: not very sure of the English expression, sorry) by asking further review? Hummm... again, I feel that a different approach could be more productive. But it's just a personal opinion… --Ruthven (msg) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I would rather deal with facts. No, there is nothing here that is spiteful, apart from attacking me with such a hostile allegation. Thanks -- (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
No hostility, I assure you. I see no reasons to be hostile. It's just a relatively trivial consideration. Cheers Ruthven (msg) 18:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
My apologies if discussion here had not been exhausted before asking for a review. If you have more information to add to the image per COM:L, that would be appreciated, especially if they address the concerns raised. Thanks -- (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
File:BIANCHINI EDUARDO serigrafia.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

After a little research, I've found that the image has been republished since 1896. I've added that source (which is in the PD as well), because it's more easily verifiable. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 08:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

File:El doctor Francisco Navarro López (Osuna, 1889 - Sevilla, 1969) en torno a 1930.jpgEdit

I have seen that you have requested the deletion of this file In Spain origin copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author, and the date of the author's death is unknown. In Spain, an orphan work is public domain (Real Decreto 224/2016, de 27 de mayo, por el que se desarrolla el régimen jurídico de las obras huérfanas - Royal Decree 224/2016, of May 27, by which the legal regime of orphan works is developed). Also, in this case, another template can be used -a simple picture in Spain is only 25 years.: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Spain-photo Do you think it's better to use this template?

Best regards--Juan Hispalense (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
PD-Spain-photo would be a much better option. Please add that suggestion to the DR and change the template used on the file. Thanks -- (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have already changed the template on the file and the DR.--Juan Hispalense (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
please, could you withdraw the request? thank you--Juan Hispalense (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I have commented. It will close as a keep in the normal 7 days, this is easier than circumventing the process manually. Thanks -- (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thanks you very much¡¡--Juan Hispalense (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

PD-anon-70-EUEdit

Hello,

Here you changed PD-old-assumed to PD-anon-70-EU:

This would be right, if this would be in a other country than Germany, but please read the warning note on the template:

Note: In Germany and possibly other countries, certain anonymous works published before July 1, 1995 are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author. See Aktuelle Rechtslage in Deutschland, last paragraph. Please use this template only if the author never claimed authorship or his/her authorship never became public in any other way.

The works come from Kiel (Germany), they was published 1986 and in the right-system of Germany, you see it could be an non-anonymous work. So I propose to replace the PD-anon-70-EU with PD-old-assumed.

PS: Do you control all images tagged with PD-old-assumed uploaded by me?

Habitator terrae 🌍 16:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I read that carefully. However I do not understand why it does not apply, I may be skipping over some part of this. As I understand it, the work is anonymous and the author has not been discovered through reasonable research, even though it has been published in a commercial source work. In these circumstances I would count that as evidence that could be produced in court as to copyright status, i.e. the authorship never became public. What other evidence would a German court require to be produced (not hypothetically please, but based on actual implemented law). Thanks -- (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Habitator terrae: I had an interesting reply from Carl at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Unknown_German_authors. If we can presume that these can be described as Lichtbilder, as they are functional or not specifically artistic photographs, then any of these than are pre-1926 are public domain, without having to make any assumptions.
Whether there is an even better template to apply than PD-anon-70-EU is something to ponder, but PD-old-assumed would then be the worst of several options. Thanks -- (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin (1915) (14781681524).jpgEdit

General Juan Francisco Morales Llerena of EcuadorEdit

Dear Fae,

Sorry for not replying sooner to your question about the Gen. Juan F. Morales Llerena.jpg that is in the Wikipedia article of General Juan Francisco Morales Llerena, but I have been under the weather with a case of the flu.

I looked up the copyright law of Ecuador in Wikipedia Commons and found the Ecuadorian copyright law is as follows:

Ecuador Copyright expires 70 years after death of copyright owner. Copyright of anonymous or pseudonymous works expires 70 years after first publication. For more information see the "Intellectual Property Law (Codification No. 2006-13)" (English translation)

Since the photo of General Juan Francisco Morales Llerena is a copy of the painting of when the General Juan F. Morales was promoted to the highest military rank in the Republic of Ecuador in 1896, which is to the rank of General of the Republic, the original painting is 122 years old. Let us assume that the painter was 40 years old when he painted the picture and he lives 25 years more years to live until he is 65 years of age, then the painter would have lived until the year of 1921.

According to Ecuadorian copyright law, 1921 (year of death) + 70 (years after death) = 1991, therefore, the photo copy of the original painting of General Juan Francisco Morales Llerena.jpg would have fallen out of copyright protection in 1991.

Also, I believe that there was a question about the copyright of the newspaper article El Telegrafo dated 12 de Abril de 1901 about the death of General Juan Francisco Morales.

Using the same reasoning as above, if the author of the newspaper article was 40 years of age when the article was written and he lived to be 65 years of age, he would have died in 1926. If one were to add 70 years to 1926, the article would have lost its copyright in 1996. And, in addition, the El Telegrafo newspaper attached to the posted El Telegrafo article on the Internet that anyone could use the article as long as the user gave the appropriate reference to the newspaer El Telegrafo, which I did whenever I cited information in the Wikipedia article that was attributable to the newspaper El Telegrafo's article about the death of General Juan Francisco Morales Llerena.

Hopefully, I have addressed the copyright issues of Gen. Juan F. Morales Llerena.jpg and the El Telegrafo article about General Juan Francisco Morales Llerena's death.

Regards,

Bodvar Antonio Gregersen--Bodvar Antonio Gregersen (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:A Whole Mural Story at 331 (16009321985).jpgEdit

File:Vietnam memorial soldiers by Frederick Hart, Washington, D.C LCCN2010630680.tifEdit

WarningEdit

Stop this kind of edits. It's disruptive and has no community support. Jcb (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: Don't issue warnings to users you're already in dispute with; and consider yourself warned for removing live deletion notices. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Jcb, you are misusing sysop tools.
Making File:Dekemahuis te Franeker voor gedeeltelijke afbraak.png sysop edits only due to "Excessive vandalism" is blatantly a lie, when the protection was so that you are personally forcing your opinions on everyone else. You were not granted the tools by the community to "win" arguments. The change I made was as discussed in the Deletion Request.
{{PD-anon-70-EU}} is justified based on the evidence available, replacing this with the weaker and much harder to justify {{PD-old-assumed}}, without even bothering to engage in the community discussion on-going in the DR, is a disservice to this project.
Stop being childish please. Thanks -- (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I gave more information about this file, so that it could be dated more precisely. In line with that, I also suggested a more precise license. It seems odd that someone who took up my suggestion should be warned for "disruptive edits". Vysotsky (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
In Jcb's defense, the removal of the deletion notice appears to be a genuine accidental mistake. Jcb used rollback, undoing all Fæ's edits, including the deletion nomination. This may have been sloppy, but not abusive. The subsequent protection doesn't seem appropriate though. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
"Jcb used rollback" In a content dispute? That's utterly unacceptable; doubly so from an admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Fæ".