User talk:B(Redirected from User talk:UserB)
|This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.
This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at.
|This is the user talk page of B, where you can send messages and comments to B.|
OTRS permissions queuesEdit
Hello UserB. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Confirmation that I am meta:User:BEdit
About my uploadsEdit
Thanks for the deletion requests you made on my uploads.. Actually, I want to have them deleted because I uploaded them into the wiki commons instead of using Non-free content page.. I really need to learn more..
All the images I uploaded are non-free content. I have the URL sources and I'll use them on wikiepedia articles that pertains to each.
So, when you have them deleted, how do I upload them as "Non-free content"... which link should I use?
Thanks a lot and God bless.
- @Hilumeoka2000: Are these images for the English Wikipedia? If so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload is the form to use. IMPORTANT NOTE: photos of living people are never permitted under fair use. If the article is about a living person, then the only way it can have a photo is if the subject of the article sends one in or if a Wikipedian takes a photo of them. --B (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
About my uploadsEdit
Thanks a lot for the reply. Yes, the images are for English Wikipedia.. I'll use the form you provided to upload..
However, one of the images if for living person. You should the person should send the image to wikipedia.. How would he do this? Can he upload directly from his wikipedia account?
Once again, thanks a lot..
- @Hilumeoka2000: Please use four tildes - ~~~~ - to sign your messages. This makes it easier to see who it is from. Please see en:WP:CONSENT (or COM:CONSENT) for information about donating photos under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia. Wikipedia and Commons only accept donations of images with a permission that permits the image to be reused or modified by anyone. So if you are in contact with the copyright holder of the image, please ask that person to submit this statement of permission for the image. Please make sure that either (a) they attach the image to the email or (b) if the image has been uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons give the URL where it was uploaded so that we can find it. Wikipedia's preference is to have images under a en:free content license and if you are in communication with the copyright holder, that is the best practice. Under very limited circumstances, photos can be used under a claim of fair use. This is not what we would prefer and is never acceptable for living people. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria say that a fair use photo can never be used if have an expectation that we could ever receive a en:free content one and image donations without an acceptable license are never permitted. In other words, if the copyright holder wants to grant permission to only Wikipedia to use the image, we will only use it if we could have used it under a claim of fair use even without permission. --B (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi B, when you complain about somebody on a public noticeboard or even report to WMF (such as here), it is an elementary question of fairness to notify that person about your complaint/action. --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Túrelio: Don't be ridiculous. That's not a noticeboard. It's a user talk page where I was letting a user know that their block had been reverted so that they could re-apply it, and that the banned user in question had switched IPs. I'm not sure where there is "fairness" involved. Were the underlying facts - that an IP had been globally blocked and someone locally had overridden it - in dispute? Perhaps if Commons admins would get on board with en:WP:RBI, instead of continuing to treat this banned user with reverence, he would move on with his life. --B (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- If I lowered myself to your choosen level of communication, I would have to say: Don't be cowardish. You denounced another user (Denniss) to "the authorities" (aka WMF). As a result of your denunciation, this user has now been threatened by WMF. The latter fact has also been noticed and not well taken by the :de community, surely again improving their relation towards WMF. So, if you didn't scruple to report Denniss, why didn't you have the guts to notify him? Even your beloved :en policy requires that. --Túrelio (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!Edit
|The Basement Kitty Barnstar|
|For clarity of thought in the sock drawer. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)|
Scenic design photos by Dejan MiladinovicEdit
An image you transferred from enwp is included in a deletion discussion, if you have a moment: Commons:Deletion requests/Scenic design photos by Dejan Miladinovic – czar 22:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Afrikaans | беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | বাংলা | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Ελληνικά | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | हिन्दी | magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | Nederlands | polski | português | svenska | українська | +/−
the following content you uploaded is not free and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:
The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files which can be used for any purpose, including:
- use in any work, regardless of content
- creation of derivative works
- commercial use
- free distribution
See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.
File:Georgia Hairy Dawg.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.
Copyright of Nazi imagesEdit
Hi B, you seemed knowledgeable about copyright during a deletion discussion about Nazi German images, so I wondered whether you could help with something.
It's about this poster, currently fair use in the Holocaust, published in the 1930s to promote a Nazi publication, Neues Volk. Designed to promote the magazine and the Nazi eugenics policy, it shows a disabled man and says: "60000 RM: this is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community during his lifetime."
I've looked at the Hirtle chart to try to work out whether this is PD, but I can't figure it out. It comes under "Works Published Abroad Before 1978". Do you know how to narrow it down? SarahSV (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: It's hard to prove that this is public domain worldwide ... my gut says probably PD-USonly (not free enough for Commons but PD in the US).  is a 1936 list of periodicals "received in the Library of the United States Department of Agriculture". It lists Neues Volk. So assuming that the USDA didn't fly to Germany to buy it, that counts as "publication" in the US, since they offered it for sale to someone in the US. They most certainly did not renew their US copyright for obvious reasons, so I think we can safely say it is PD in the US. That eschews the whole "trading with the enemy" thing mentioned on the image description page. It's PD because it was published in the US and they did not comply with our formalities. It's probably copyrighted in Germany so it can't be used on Commons. --B (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)