User talk:Bulwersator

User talk:Bulwersator/rightArchives

Possibly unfree File:Vandalized Stalin, Fallen Monument Park, Moscow.JPG

I personally took File:Vandalized Stalin, Fallen Monument Park, Moscow.JPG, and the images says so. I thought I released it into public domain. Can this mess with Russian copyright? I'm a bit confused.

dino (talk)

careless image actions

Hi Bulwersator,

A couple of your recent actions w/r/t images were silly/wrong. (1) Moving File:Hsl-as-sphere.jpg to commons. This was an image created explicitly for wikipedia talk pages, and has no external utility. It does not belong on commons, it belongs on wikipedia as support material for discussion archives. There’s really no reason to touch it. Unfortunately, soon after you added the image to commons, another overzealous editor deleted the image from wikipedia, in the process killing any page history, etc. (2) Nominating File:Avid-hsl.png for deletion with an entirely incorrect rationale (namely that it wasn’t discussed on the article where it is used). In both of these cases, the actions seem to have been undertaken mechanically, like a bot, without any attempt to look at the context or use of these images, or think. I don’t know if it’s a general pattern, but I recommend editors who plan to make many changes should try to pay some attention, instead of indiscriminately applying crude heuristics. Cheers. jacobolus (t) 05:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"in the process killing any page history" - how it damaged page history? Bulwersator (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look, no history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hsl-as-sphere.jpg&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Orange-range.png&action=history –jacobolus (t) 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons moves

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Moving_to_commons_without_tagging which you may be interested in. ~Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

F9

FYI: I moved two of your F9 requests to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 1. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

source concerns

Can you expand on why you tagged File:207457main antenna-331-2426a-516.jpg for deletion? Your tag and the edit summary stated "no source" however there was a source listed. I've updated the image further with the definitive URL where the image is available from today. Hopefully this should resolve any additional concerns.--RadioFan (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• "NASA/JPL archives" does not allow verification of copyright status and description. BTW, is this edit intended to stop transfer of file to Commons? Bulwersator (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why you erased my Zach photo

Didn't you read I took that picture myself. How Am I violating a copyright that was my own taken picture with my own camera and it was obvious. You are the one who should be blocked for not thinking before doing things, give me an clear explanation. I am going to complain about your action. I even improved the quality and made it better to fit the profile. Why are you behaving like this with me. You are the one who violated my copyright by erasing my own picture that I personally took. You are an extremist that didn't think before acting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog890 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• You may contest deletion on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Only admins may view or undelete delete pictures, so I am unable to do anything Bulwersator (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• "You are the one who violated my copyright by erasing my own picture that I personally took" - untrue, even if you are copyright holder than deletion was not violating your copyright and image was deleted by admin Nyttend not me - I nominated it for deletion. Bulwersator (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hi I it is already gone. You did wrong believe me. But I don't care anymore it's done you just wasted my time and my work by deleting something that wasn't meant to be deleted. But do whatever you want. Good luck.--RG9 05:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog890 (talk • contribs)

Colpoint.jpg

Hello. I saw what you or a robot representing you put on my talk page about "File:Colpoint.JPG". It is a Landsat program image. It was uploaded by someone else and used in the Boston article. I took it, and edited it, and modified it, with my own tools for annotational purposes. The original file is "Boston Landsat.jpg" which was uploaded by someone else. I put a note on the page. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Images from the USGovernment

I have noticed at least 3 images today that you tagged for CSD that are works of the US Government and not subject to copyright. Please stop. I admit some of these could use some more info such as author but there is no need to CSD them. One example is File:Henry-E-Erwin.png another is File:Usgreatseal.png both are clearly a work of the US government. Kumioko (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, next time I will try to get source from uploader Bulwersator (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • • I need an explanation as to why you think that Institute of Heraldry images are in violation of fair use. RTO Trainer (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

two Australian War Memorial files

Hi, thanks for that. Strangely when I went to add the required information, someone had already added the links. --Rskp (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unused files

Hi. I checked to see if there were some users that had many files in Category:Wikipedia orphaned files. My plan was that perhaps it was better to nominate a lot of files in one DR instead of spamming the uploader with many DR's. Andrew Parodi has 144 orphan images. Do you know if there is a tool to create such DR's? (Other users with more than 100 unused uploads: User:Carptrash, User:718 Bot, User:Plumoyr, User:Bwmoll3, User:Attilios, User:Beao, User:Kranar drogin, User:Miami92 - I could make galleries for those if you think it is a good idea.) --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I have no idea. With 100+ files you maybe you can ask for a bot. And I am unsure whatever mass nomination like this is a good idea - most of orphaned files should be rather moved to Commons than deleted Bulwersator (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay :-) I agree that many orphan images should be moved to Commons and I moved ~50 NASA images a few days ago and ~500 maps yesterday (or was it 2 days ago?) from the orphan category. But if it is unused userpage images of family etc. then we should not move them. So my idea was if we can move hundreds of good files in one task or delete hundreds of bad files in one task then we would reduce the backlog fast. --MGA73 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I must say that most of the files by User:Andrew Parodi look like useful files, so I would say that they should be moved to Commons instead of being deleted. The idea of working on one user at a time sounds good since there will probably be similar categories for the images and a similar probability of finding copyright violations. However, I'm not sure if there is an advantage of choosing a specific user only because the user has lots of orphaned files. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Haenickesigfried.jpg

Hello - Thanks for the message. The above file is actually free - please see the additional information with this file... "The photographs of Heinrich Hoffmann are considered to be in the public domain in the U.S. due to their status as seized Nazi property, although in normal circumstances their copyrights would not yet have expired. For more information, please see: David Culbert (1997). "The Heinrich Hoffmann Photo Archive: Price vs United States (United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 20 November, 1995)". Thank you for your good work and attention to this matter. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}: you have to include a link to the United States National Archives which confirms that this particular photo is seized Nazi property. Not all photos by Heinrich Hoffmann were seized Nazi property and photos which were not seized Nazi property are fully copyrighted in the United States. Without a link to the United States National Archives, we have to assume that this photo is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Stefan2 - please see here. I do not want to repeat what is already sated there, but if you have additional questions, do not hesitate to contact me. best regards!! Mariaflores1955 (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe Maria's comment also applies to the concern you had expressed about the file File:Herbert Ihlefeld.jpg. Which by the way I did not upload. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles of Incorporation for SRF

Hello, the articles of incorporation is a governement document from the state of california which is a publically accessible document. I said the author was State of California. What else do I need to say to make it more clear?Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you giving a false rationale when you tag images for deletion

If you look carefully, or even bother to open the page, you will see that the image "John Gardner" is not only in the public domain, but has its "source" clearly given in the description. Your rationale is false, and I would like it if you either explained yourself, or would please remove your clearly false claim..JOJ ^Hutton 18:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to assume that since you have actively edited since my last inquiry, you have at least had a chance to see my question and would still like for you to explain yourself. Why are you falsely tagging articles? Last chance to respond before I take this to a notice board. JOJ ^Hutton 21:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Currently file is without source that allows verification of licence and description. Bulwersator (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It lists its source. Stop saying it doesn't have a source. Look very very carefully.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It is nominated for deletion as file "without source that allows verification of licence and description" not as "without source" Bulwersator (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The source is listed as California Department of Corrections photographic records. Thus it is in the public domain, because mug shots taken by California law enforcement are released into the public domain. I also notice that you have tagged other images with the same rationale, that have their source listed as well. I may have no other choice but to list this dispute at ANI, since its obviously bigger than a single image being erroneously listed for deletion. --JOJ ^Hutton 13:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Still, there is no link to web page listing this picture as work of California Department of Corrections photographic records, there is no ID of image in collection of this institution or anything else that allows verification. Bulwersator (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • It doesn't need a link. See WP:PAYWALL. Just because you cannot sit at your computer and verify the source, does not mean that the source is invalid. I cannot believe you even said that, but it explains so much.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
            • "Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source" - currently this image is IMHO without proper source, only with specified author. Your opinion is different - I suggest to wait for result of deletion request, as this discussion is rather not very productive Bulwersator (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Well then, since you are obviously erroneously tagging several articles as well as this one, and you are obviously not going to stop doing so, I have no other choice but to have this sorted out a ANI.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Shevashalosh

I note you have been leaving messages on the talk page of User:Shevashalosh. Save your breath. User Shevashalosh was banned in 2008, and has been inactive since (at least with that username). Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop blanket nominations for deletion

Bulwersator, please stop nominating every single image on Wikipedia for deletion. If you would bother to look at the images and their licensing/sourcing information, you would see that your blanket nomintaions for deletion are unwarranted and a waste of resources. Sf46 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can you provide examples of botched nominations? Bulwersator (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• To start with: File:963 AWACS.JPG, File:BoNM Rhodesia3.JPG, File:Ogden Portrait.JPG, File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG. I'm sure that more will be coming. Sf46 (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked you previously [1] to be more careful about your deletion nominations. I suggest you simply stop this activity and focus on other things. If you continue to make bad nominations it is possible that an RFC will be started and you might ultimately be placed under a formal restriction. That would be disappointing and a poor use of volunteer resources. Instead of going down that path, why don't you contribute in other ways that are not generating controversy? Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking this to ANI within the hour, so please watch for it.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I caught a couple of your nominations the other day as well, where the source had moved is all, but that doesn't change the fact that the source did exist when it was uploaded, as verified by the Wayback machine. Shotgun nominating images this way is disruptive, and I've said as much at the ANI. If this is part of a larger pattern, and continues, then you would be forcing our hands here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Report to ANI over your mass tagging of images

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User is mass tagging images for deletion under false and misleading rationales.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:UNC_Chapel_Hill_Cornerstone.jpg

In regards to, File:UNC Chapel Hill Cornerstone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files I believe {{Non-free historic image}} is appropriate and have posted as such here. Meanwhile, I see here that you seem to go around tagging everything for deletion. I intend to add to that discussion. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Following the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User is mass tagging images for deletion under false and misleading rationales, you are hereby indefinitely topic banned from all deletion processes (except when a page you have created or significantly edited is nominated by someone else). Any clarification or modification of the topic ban (e.g. to attempt mentorship in the topic area) should be discussed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as well, preferably with a link to the discussion leading to this topic ban. The topic ban will also be noted at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Fram (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)