User talk:Martin H.: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:54, 14 May 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Martin H., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Khoikhoi 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora image

Regarding this edit, I believe that that is not actually the official Pandora logo but just something that was made for the image. The official one is on http://openpandora.org/

So it is indeed public domain. If there are no objections, I'll change it back. Esn (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD response

I responded more on the MfD but, "in a nutshell", if someone can point me to policy which says that as long as an editor makes COI main space edits they can create a user page to self promote their projects and their selves than I will "stop comparing this mfd request with some other" Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem to ask for this policy also in this mfd request, but in this case it seems like you tried to argue pro or contra the deletion of some other pages, thats not related to this mfd discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be clear and state the policy. I have asked directly to show me, based on content only, how the pages are different. Keep in mind the user who brought this (these) MfD's compared/mentioned another user page in the nom itself. To be extremely silly for a moment.

Discussion 1: "This article is purple and purple is not allowed." Reply: "No purple is allowed, it says so here" "Ah I see"

Discussion 2: "This article is purple and it is not allowed just like this other article" Reply: "I don't fully agree that it is allowed but it is allowed" "No it isn't" "There is a 100% consensus that say purple is allowed at Discussion 1" "But that isn't purple, that is a shade of plum" "Um, no - it says purple right here in the guidelines, no mention of plum" "Well plum is sort of like blue and because it has some green as well it really is not allowed" "Show me where it says that purple is only allowed if it does not contain any blue or green?" New reply: "Could you not talk about purple anymore?"

Being silly aside - you did not answer my question. Nor has anyone. Point me to policy which says that as long as an editor makes COI main space edits they can create a user page to self promote their projects and their selves. And also no one has been able to point out where any policy or guideline states 1> A set time limit for new users in which to make main space edits before they are shunned and bitten 2> A new user must make main space edits before creating a user page or 3> The User page guidelines only apply to users who make main space edits.

I am 100% serious because I want to know. I do not agree with any user having a resume/facebook/myspace type of user page that is laid out like any of the userpages we have been discussing. I agree even less with users whose sole point is to only create and/or edit articles that have to do with themselves, their business or their business partners having yet another outlet for their self promotion. I am being told, in one discussion with not one "delete" voiced in it, that type of user page is fine, no matter what kind of main space edits the user makes (or doesn't make), because the content of their user page meets the guidelines. Yet, in another discussion, I am being told that an editor must make main space edits, even if they are a SPA making only COI edits, in order to use their user page to post a resume/facebook/myspace article so my discussion is not relevant because a new user that has not yet made any main space edits, COI or not, is not allowed to have a resume/facebook/myspace. Nobody has yet to back that argument up with any policy or guidelines. I don't know how else to be clear on that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puh, thats much text for a non-english speaker like me ;) Maybe my objection on the rfd was wrong, but i think that a single deletion request is never a good discussion to clearify such principles. The importent things are collected at Wikipedia:User page#Removal of inappropriate content (in this case: self-promoting, many weblinks and promotion of companies, aiming at a high google rank maybe), a comperison to other (not related) userpages was not helpfull. --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns; tagging

Hello, Martin H.. Thank you for pointing out your copyright concerns with Image:Madonnawhosthatgirl.jpg. I'm dropping you a line just to let you know that the tag that you placed on the image, {{copyvio}}, is specifically used for text that violates copyright, and the copyright problems board is also specifically for text. For images that are clear copyright violations, you can follow the procedure for speedy deletion. For images that are suspected to be copyright violations, we have a review board for possibly unfree images. For images used under suspect non-free content criteria, we have non-free content review. Other image copyright concerns are handled in various ways (see Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion for specifics.) This image has already been processed, but I wanted to let you know for future use in case you should encounter another image that raises concerns. Thanks again for pointing out the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the instructions, i allready noticed that the {{copyvio}} was wrong but i did not remember the correct procedure. I will keep this instruction in mind (and on my talkpage to remember it ;]). --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konkordat.jpg

Hi, i dont know why you removed the replacable fair use tag. The images was tagged PD-1923, which was obviously wrong because it was taken 1933, i dont know how this could survive a deletion request. So it is fair use (i changed the license to a fair use rational), but it is havily used against the fair-use policy. There is a free image of the same setting at Commons, so this image is qualified for speedydeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is not correct. According to the speedy deletion policy, "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted". As such, this image does not qualify for speedy deletion, and you will need to take it to IFD. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested the regular deletion. Nonsense rule, protecting a fair use image that is inadequately sourced and fully replacable by a free Image. This Wikipedia realy has a problem with nonfree content. --Martin H. (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Images

I was busy with school, and just saw the copyright notices. Since when is it against the law to upload my work to fan clubs? The Montreal picture of Elena Paparizou, and the picture of Sakis Rouvas in Thessaloniki was taken by me, and were deleted on an assumption that they were copyrighted, with out any proof what so ever. The Peggy Zina picture was also originally uploaded by me to her official fan club. The link you provided as a "copyright violation" is from a fan profile, displaying her "favorite singer". Sort of like a facebook or Mypsace profile. It in no way says she took the picture. The Mad Music awards picture of Elena Paparizou was the only picture not taken by myself. Someone uploaded it to her fan club, and I had asked their permission to use it. (as stated in the summary, "Taken by Horgu"). Besides the Mad Music Award picture, I find it incredibly irresponsible to delete three free images taken by myself, especially since there is no proof they are copyrighted. I expect them to be undeleted. If they can not be undeleted, I will re-upload those three images. Planecrazy22 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should check the starbuzz website. Where does it say that they took the pictures? Like I said, I uploaded them on their respective fan clubs also, which are free for anyone to see/use. From there, anyone can use it, like they most likely did. There is still no hard core proof that they are copyrighted. I am inclined to upload the picture taken out "in doubt" again, as there was no proof of copyright violation in the first place against it. What do you need for proof? The memory card with the picture?.......Planecrazy22 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My image

It was not stolen from gettyimages it was from a fansite which I asked for permission thank you! Wneedham02 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Hi Martin H.. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete File:Melblive08.jpg, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion F9 because of the following concern: Nomination missing info. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards feydey (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

feydey (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IFUD

I undeleted File:Uganda House.JPG. I find few admins monitor that category, so it is probably easier to just ping an active admin in the future. MBisanz ^talk 09:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lahore zoo - june 3 2004-(69)-Chimpanzee.JPG

Restored as per your request (log). — Athaenara ✉ 03:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOC image

Per this comment where you tell me to "Please pay attention to this in future", I suggest you do the same. I'm well aware of LOC image policy. The photo was taken in 1909. All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. The link you provided says, "Wire service, professional photographer, studio, publicity, or other photographs and original artwork from commercial sources dating 1923 and after may be restricted by copyright and patrons are advised to check for copyright prior to publication or other forms of distribution." It doesn't matter if the copyright once belonged to Clinedinst Photo. The photo was taken after 1923. You need to restore the file. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 01:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The important word here is: Published. Without a source, that the image was published prior 1923 the image is unfree. The given reason for public domain was commons:Template:PD-USGov. --Martin H. (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the image before I knew about the various templates. The LOC page says "CREATED/PUBLISHED: [ca. 1909]" I'm not sure how that's unclear. The Library of Congress is a reliable source. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 01:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats assumptions, i can not share it. The file was uploaded with totaly wrong license, a proof that maybe commons:Template:PD-US, which would be the proper license template, is fulfilled was not given. The LOC image - I pointed

you to - is marked as restricted, I will not restore it. --Martin H. (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain to you, again, the license situation. When I uploaded the image, I did not know about the various templates. I probably copied and pasted the one used on that file. Also, at the time I thought all LOC images were considered US federal government work. So there is no "proof" of anything except your unwillingness to let go of the red fish. In regards to assumptions, it doesn't matter what you think. The LOC description says exactly what I've told you. Your argument is the Library of Congress can't be considered a reliable source. That's an interesting, yet totally incorrect personal opinion. This is just another example of a Commons sysop not admitting their errors and one more reason why people should avoid that site. What a joke. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All nonsense. Uploading the image as a federal gov. work shows me, that you did not had any knowledge of the copyright situation. The image might be a stock photograph never published befor 1923, the date "created/published" can not be turned in a way you like. Someone else can also underline the word created and your argument turns to the opposite. Provide a source where the image was published prior 1923, then the image can be recreated or of course reuploaded with a better filename, in prefered .jpg, with correct license, with a correct author instead of author=Library of Congress which is the same nonsense again. Without my research you would have never find your mistake. You said, that you now know about the copyright status of LOC images - so why didnt you correct it? Commons is not a forgotten dump. --Martin H. (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a source where the image was published prior 1923, then the image can be recreated...
The source is the LOC link; I've told you this already. Hmmm, how can I make this complex situation easier for you to understand? (thinks for a moment) I know!

you (Martin H.) + clicking here (LOC site) = your answer (source)

TITLE: [Perry Belmont residence, designed by Eugene Samson ,1618 New Hampshire Ave, Washington, D.C.]

CALL NUMBER: NYWTS - SUBJ/GEOG--Belmont, Perry & Mrs. <item> [P&P]

REPRODUCTION NUMBER: LC-USZ62-117143 (b&w film copy neg.)

RIGHTS INFORMATION: Publication may be restricted. For information see "New York World-Telegram & ...," (www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/076_nyw.html)

MEDIUM: 1 photographic print.

---LOOK, MARTIN. LOOK.---> CREATED/PUBLISHED: [ca. 1909] <---LOOK, MARTIN. LOOK.---

NOTES:

Photograph by Clinedinst Photo.

New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection (Library of Congress).

SUBJECTS:

Belmont, Perry,--1850-1947--Homes & haunts--Washington (D.C.)

FORMAT:

Photographic prints 1900-1920.

DIGITAL ID: (b&w film copy neg.) cph 3c17143 http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c17143

CONTROL #: 96520846

How is that difficult to understand?. You keep saying I need to provide a source. I've done that, twice. My source is the de facto national library of the United States. The burden of proof lies upon you.

You said, that you now know about the copyright status of LOC images - so why didnt you correct it? (read this one more time)
Because it was uploaded almost one year ago. I uploaded almost 1000 files to Commons. Why would that particular file stick out in my mind? FYI - During February and March of this year, I began organizing a large portion of Commons:Category:Washington, D.C. including various files I had uploaded last year. If I came across one of my photos that was improperly categorized/bad description/etc., I fixed it. So don't get preachy. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat your argument, more emphatic this time. I like your persistence, but im not interested in having

the same argument disproved again
having the NYWT ting discussed again, we already had this on Commons.

Please stop filling my talkpage on this project, im not working on en.wikipedia and im not interested in having an orange bar everytime i came here to replace an image as part of my Commons work. Thank you. --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about image deletions

Why are you uploading photos gleaned from the Historic American Buildings Survey, then deleting the previous versions as "dupe files"? I am talking about images for, for example, Wyck House, Belmont Mansion (Philadelphia), Cliveden (Benjamin Chew House) (BTW, this last one is messed up, there is no image there now). What was wrong with the old versions?--BillFlis (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced them with a higher resolution version from the LOC, of course in .jpg, which is the prefered file format for photographic works. The cropping of the black scanner frame from the LOC is done in the same way - so the thumbnail should look the same. The mentioned Cliveden House was an c&p error with File:File:. --Martin H. (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons block

Why am I blocked on Commons? I know nothing about "Green Snake Devil" and my IP adress is different. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 03:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never told anyone my password. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 03:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

???? You are not blocked anywhere, see your SUL... User commons:User:Green Snake Devil abuses multiple accounts, thats proofen: commons:User:Yanmenguan, commons:User:Blueapple on 26 April and commons:User:Andhal yesterday. In which way are you related to this?? I Dont understand. --Martin H. (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, maybe it was a problem with shared IP and login? Im sorry for that. --Martin H. (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, it is just a day. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image description page deletion

When there is an image page on Wikipedia but the image itself is hosted on Commons, please tag the page with {{db-f2}} rather than {{db-f8}}. F8 is for images actually hosted here that have a duplicate available on Commons. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Russ, thanks for the info and sorry for my wrong selection - neither f2 (corrupt or empty images) nor f8 realy cover an empty imagepage I think. --Martin H. (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guided by MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, which is clearer about F2. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats clear, should be mentioned in the table of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Marking_an_article_for_speedy_deletion, I searched some time to find a narrow good reason. --Martin H. (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BYF079's Common logos

Your logos uploaded to Commons are for speedy deletion. See Commons:Village pump#Unfree images. Fair Use is not was never accepted on Commons, you dont have the holder of copyrights, the painters, the FIFAs permission, you uploaded the images under a wrong claim of authorship in many cases, your licensing with commons:Template:Attribution is different to your claimed "fair use". --Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed one reason, appears to be your website. --Martin H. (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thak you for the mess you've done... since you've not payed attention all the logos are gone now!!!

@@ Line 146: / Line 146: @@
 :: I'm guided by [[MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown]], which is clearer about F2.  --[[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 ::: Yes, thats clear, should be mentioned in the table of [[Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Marking_an_article_for_speedy_deletion]], I searched some time to find a narrow good reason. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.#top|talk]]) 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
+== BYF079's Common logos ==
+:::Your logos uploaded to Commons are for speedy deletion. See Commons:Village pump#Unfree images. Fair Use is not was never accepted on Commons, you dont have the holder of copyrights, the painters, the FIFAs permission, you uploaded the images under a wrong claim of authorship in many cases, your licensing with commons:Template:Attribution is different to your claimed "fair use". --Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
+::I removed one reason, appears to be your website. --Martin H. (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
+Thak you for the mess you've done... since you've not payed attention all the logos are gone now!!!