Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Ubcule

(Insert new comment sections at end of the existing text)

Thanks!Edit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for your time reviewing and nominating files for deletion, your cleanup work is noticed! Your contributions over the years are priceless. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

File:College boy walk.PNGEdit

  File:College boy walk.PNG 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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Taivo (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

File:'11 Kia Sportage (Les chauds vendredis '11).JPGEdit

  File:'11 Kia Sportage (Les chauds vendredis '11).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 | Български | বাংলা | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

OSX (talkcontributions) 08:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation of a photoEdit

Hi, Knowing your experience with this matter, may I ask your opinion about the photo which is the object of a disagreement in this WP article? I thought of removing it from the article, but I don't want to cause a conflict of edition with the user. Should I go so far as to nominate it for deletion or should I just leave it? It's the only photo of the subject on Commons, but still, I can't see a use for it unless one wants to make the person look bad. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The image is technically better than many of this user's celebrity images, but the mid-change expression really *isn't* flattering, and possibly not representative of what this person looks like.
However, Commons policy is that images usually aren't deleted if they're already in use- and this image is currently in use at fr.wikipedia.
@Asclepias: I'd recommend that you raise the issue via the appropriate channels at fr.wikipedia (fr:Wikipédia:Appel à commentaires?) and ask for some unbiased feedback there. *If* the feedback is clearly negative, I would remove it from use again (citing the consensus) *then* nominate it for deletion here at Commons. In both cases, people will have their chance to express their opinion.
(As someone who isn't a major contributor to fr.wikipedia- my French is quite limited- it wouldn't really be appropriate for me to get involved in a discussion there.)
Ubcule (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

InformationEdit

{{Low resolution}} was replaced by {{Low quality}}. Just if you have to tag Bull-Dosers next mobile upload ;) --Cohentracht (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cohentracht:; Thanks for drawing that to my attention! All the best, Ubcule (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright questionEdit

Hi... Noticed that you have been involved with photo deletion discussions and thought I'd see if you could help me understand the topic:

Several months ago I uploaded many photos I took at Grounds For Sculpture to Commons and then used them on the GFS Wiki page, as well as on a few other Wiki pages about some of the specific sculptures. A month or so later they were all tagged for deletion due to copyright violation. Despite my protest they were all deleted from Commons and the individual pages. (I was only able to save my peacock photos by explaining that these were real birds.) As best I can understand it, the deleter was claiming the law (in the USA at least) is that photos of sculptures are not the property of the photographer - but all rites belong to the sculptor. I was pointed at some legalistic Wiki pages backing this up, and did some other research, but I did not understand all the details and basically gave up.

My biggest question is... why were MY photos deleted while other photos of the exact same sculptures are still on Commons? I'd love to understand this point so I could re-upload my photos for use on Wikipedia. Thanks! Rp2006 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, here is the deletion list. Rp2006 (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rp2006:; Unfortunately, this isn't something I'm willing to get involved with. The last time I tried to help out with a similar case- specifically, the legality of photographing 3D artworks in public places- I ended up being drawn out of my depth into a discussion that proved to be longwinded but completely unproductive. You'd be better discussing this with the people who contributed at the deletion debate, i.e. @Storkk: and @EugeneZelenko:.
All I can tell you is what Commons' interpretation of Freedom of Panorama in the US says, i.e. even photos of 3D works of art in public places remain copyrighted in the United States.
(BTW, I suspect- to be pedantic- that the issue *isn't* that you don't own any copyright in your own photo, but rather that creator's original copyright remains in place even in photographic reproductions. You could probably obscure the copyrighted object and do what you want with the rest of the photo, but that would be pointless).
Sorry, but I don't have anything more to say on this beyond that; hope you'll understand. Ubcule (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Rp2006 (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Sony Ericsson W580i (2).jpgEdit

 
File:Sony Ericsson W580i (2).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Herby talk thyme 07:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: - Not mine originally (I only uploaded a cropped version of it), and I don't see that this is remotely clear-cut enough to warrant a "speedy". Converted to deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sony Ericsson W580i (2).jpg, and I still don't see what the alleged copyvio is! Ubcule (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecatedEdit

Hello Ubcule, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

NoticesEdit

Hi, you just left about 25 notices on my talk page. Realistically, I can not be expected to examine more than about 3 or 4 in a day, unless all of my volunteer time gets diverted to it. Please consider how you may limit numbers, perhaps bundling some from the same source into one DR. Thanks -- (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@:; The account that you imported had a very high proportion of files of borderline or unclear usefulness to Commons. More seriously, it also contained a very high proportion of blatant Flickrwashed images. It's clear that these hadn't been filtered out.
I don't know which tool was used for this.
Yes, I appreciate that the occasional Flickrwashed image or out-of-scope fluff will slip through a bulk import- that's understandable, as is the fact that more imports means more mistakes. The problem I have is when the *proportion* of bad images appears to be going up as the numbers increase, i.e. quantity over quality.
Are we just bulk-importing things from Flickr (with its notoriously untrustworthy reputation for licensing) then hoping someone will sort out problems later?
With respect, isn't the problem that you're importing too many images with too little checking? For what it's worth, I did look into bundling, but couldn't see how to do it using the existing tools at my disposal.
The flood of notices- which, as you know, are automatically generated by the usual tools- weren't intentionally malicious, but a consequence of simply applying Commons' standards to a photostream that should (to my mind) have been better filtered before upload.
Apologies if this seems overly critical, but it seems that there is a problem- at least with this account- regarding bulk importation.
Ubcule (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the cogdogblog uploads did turn out to be problematic, however I was a bit mislead by the number of interesting high quality images. Normally that's a good indication that the whole stream will be pretty useful. A closer review of albums may have helped avoid some of these. I normally use my own upload process from Flickr, and can filter based on album, though Flickr tags are very haphazard and rarely useful. -- (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@:; Okay, you say you can filter by album, but do you (or can you) skim the contents to spot any problematic images or just bulk import an album on the basis that it's probably good? I mean, this sounds like it's still prone to letting in large numbers of copyvio and/or out-of-scope images and shifting the onus on checking to others (such as myself).
The fact that so much obvious fluff and copyvios got through on the "cogdogblog" import- even if we accept mistakes are made- suggests that the individual images weren't even given a cursory check and that the bulk import process needs to be looked at and reconsidered.
Ubcule (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@:; I just realised that the imported images from a given user have their own category, which would make DRs tidier. That said, there are over still 12,000 images in Category:Photographs by Alan Levine that category, it's still so full of fluff and derivative copyvios that it's bordering on unmaintainable. It's questionable whether the onus is on me to make things easier if they weren't checked before import. Ubcule (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes I don't disagree this was a mistake. I don't know as a proportion how many of the images are problematic, but if I had spotted copyvios in the Flickrstream I would have looked a lot more closely or skipped doing the import as not worth the hassle. I can do almost anything with regard to filtering on a Flickr import, for example by default I filter generically for the word "banner" and "poster" as even very useful Flickrstreams have misunderstandings about whether photographs of such objects can be released by them. In practice I import based on a regex filter by Album title, so in this way I have imported LGBT Pride related photographs from streams where there are lots of personal non-educational photos, but while the photographer was at Pride marches, almost all of those albums would be highly relevant to document the event.
If you see a pattern of, say, Flickrtags or keywords in the title that might help trim down the Cogdogblog imports, I'll be happy to bundle those in a junk category, or create a DR for them myself. -- (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@: I don't see any obvious way to automatically filter post-upload on that scale in a reliable manner- I'd have suggested it if I had- and with respect it's not my responsibility to figure that out.
Aside from the fact that the responsibility ultimately rests with the uploader, the fact is that it's always easier for them to know what the deal is with their uploads (license issues, content, etc.) than have someone else figure it out.
The problem is that we're now trying to post-filter images that would have been better filtered before upload, which is why my comment on the "categories for discussion" page was essentially "nuke the upload from orbit and start again".
For what it's worth, I assume you could look at which albums you chose to import, how these are marked on the uploads and how you could automatically delete the ones that- in hindsight- should never have been imported.
If it's still far more of a pain in the neck to do this *after* the images were imported.... well, again, that's the problem.
Ubcule (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ubcule".