User talk:Kelly

Building trust takes a long time...

...but it's worth it.

Archives
March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 December 2008 January 2009

Talkback

Hello, Kelly. You have new messages at Buster7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File permissions

Hi Kelly, I see that you're proposing a lot of image files for deletion, including a few of mine. If you would look closer, you would see that these images were uploaded by me way back in 2004 under the few rules existing then and without the OTRS yet in existence. There were no boilerplate texts available at that time. I had to send an email to each of these authors. For each of these photos I got a valid permission. I can't help if the original urls don't exist anymore. I suppose that'll be the fate of most websites. They disappear after a time (code 404). But authorisation for each of these photos were given in good faith according to the rules existing at that time in those early days of wikipedia. In any set of laws, new laws (or new rules) don't apply to the past and neither should they in wikipedia. Excerpts of my emails were provided with the photos. If I look deep enough in my archive of many thousands of emails, I may even find the original emails. But I won't go through the trouble again of emailing these persons and make a laughing stock of myself. I you really want to delete these files, go ahead. I've uploaded more than 8,000 photos to the Commons (and a sizeable number to other wikipedias, before the Commons existed), most of which were mine. A few more or less won't make that much of a difference. It's more a matter of principle. Please reconsider. JoJan (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, JoJan - I'm glad you're one of the people who is still around from back then. I'm trying to transwiki the old files from en Wikipedia to Commons, but unfortunately I'm stuck with the rules as they are, I have no control over that. I'm not an admin so I can't delete anything, all I can do is tag them as to whether or not they meet the current policy. If there are any of these that you would like to save, it would be great if you could search for the e-mails and pass them along to OTRS. I'll be happy to move them to Commons for you so that they'll be available to a wider audience. Kelly ^hi! 08:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You're meaning well but the problem is that you want to transwiki these old files to the Commons, where the requirements for the license are now much more stricter than they ever used to be in en.wikipedia in those early years (several licenses of Creative Commons didn't even exist then). These images were approved by the (few) admins in 2004 and their license was never put into doubt. Most of the websites from where these images were uploaded don't exist anymore. How can I ever prove then that these images were uploaded with the right license ? That's a problem that will increase as more and more websites disappear from the internet. You can't honestly pretend that all those images (mine and many others) will have to be deleted in the end because the license can't be proved now anymore, can you ? Furthermore, deleting the images with leaf shapes will do serious harm to the article Leaf shape. The others are less important and, as an admin (since 2005), I could delete them right away. But I do not want to be a judge and deleter at the same time. I could make the File:Beachwalk.jpg (this is in my home town) again right away, except for the present weather (I didn't have a digital camera in 2004 - few people did - so I had then to rely on an existing photo with the right license). Even as you do a thankless task (and we must be glad for people like you), I urge you to be somewhat more considerate and don't try to transwiki photos that are not fit for the Commons but still fit in the en.wikipedia. Just leave them alone. And, of course, copyvios or photos with a wrong license should be deleted right away. JoJan (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point - I started a at ANI to ask for feedback. Kelly ^hi! 20:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the deal

regarding the File:HughFerris1.jpg that you contacted me about earlier. Back in 2004 while working on the Hugh Ferriss article I discovered the image in a book that I have, The Annual of American Design 1931: by the American Union of Decorative Artists and Craftsmen. This group is no longer active, as far as I could discover. However, I learned that Dover Publications had re-printed this work, so I emailed them in September 2004. . Here is their reply.

Dear Mr. Kvaran:

Our records indicate that this book is probably

public domain.  Refer to the attached statement.

You might want to do a websearch - PUBLIC DOMAIN

ARTWORK - narrow down search to : HUGH FERISS and

see what you come up with.

Terri Torretto

This was the attached statement that they had included:

Thank you for your inquiry.

Although we would not want this statement construed as a warranty or

guarantee, to the best of our knowledge this material is in the public domain.

Therefore, Dover cannot grant or withhold permission for its use.

In the interest of proper documentation we would, of course, appreciate a

credit line indicating author, title and publisher.

Terri Torretto

Dover Publications

Rights & Permissions Dept.

That was enough for me. I decided that I had done my part and used the image. I did not credit Dover as she suggests because I did not get the image from the Dover Reprint, but from the original. Should you disagree feel free to do what you must do. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you forward the e-mail to the OTRS folks? Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that I need an email address to forward an email. What should I use? Carptrash (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I found the address in your notification to me.Email is off Carptrash (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome - I tagged the image to show permission is on the way. Kelly ^hi! 21:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up

Hi! I noticed you clean up a lot. Yay! While you are at it perhaps you could also add a date? Example [1]. --MGA73 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! Kelly ^hi! 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Erik XIV

Hi. Thanks for adding the Commons version of the Erik XIV of Sweden painting to Bishonen/European toilet paper holder. Does it have to be such a strange colour, though? Erik wasn't as red as a lobster in the version on Wikipedia. :-( Could that one be uploaded to Commons, over the red one? Bishonen | talk 02:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

I'll upload it to Commons with a different name. Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Such as File:Not-so-red Erik XIV of Sweden? Bishonen | talk 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

All done! Kelly ^hi! 02:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it is. Thanks! Bishonen | talk 08:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Durga puja images

all the images were photographed by me. i felt that the earlier version with a PD-release were enough to indicate that I had photographed them. But I have made them clearer now. mukerjee (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, it's great that you're still around to fix them. A lot of these older images have absent uploaders. Thank you! Kelly ^hi! 04:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Update on File:JohnCBogle.jpeg

Hi. Regarding your comment in Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_2#File:JohnCBogle.jpeg, you stated "Delete per Ed, until we have an article about the book itself."

Just letting you know that we have an article about the book; Common Sense on Mutual Funds: New Imperatives for the Intelligent Investor. You might want to revisit the above IFD. Thanks! --Oakshade (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The image placement has been updated. --Oakshade (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you still advocate deleting this image? --Oakshade (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's fine so long it's used only on the book article and it's low-res. There are experts who reduce the fair use images to the proper resolution, they'll take care of the image soon now that it's been tagged. Kelly ^hi! 09:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I just reduced the size. But I couldn't help noticing your "delete" vote stands. It's just that I put some time into the new book stub and we're always working to improve the articles. I'm concerned some admin will be quick to delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

re: File:Spoilage.jpg permission

i had emailed the author as i said cleraly on the image page, and the author stated himself right below that "Yes, I made this image and it's public domain. -- Joe Knapp". you can check the history. thus, i have removed the inappropriately placed tag. Kevin Baas^talk 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification - I've transwiki'd the image to Commons with the correct attribution. Kelly ^hi! 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:VillepinAndZuma.jpg picture

If you look back through the history, the link with permission for use was provided from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But that does not seem to matter does it? It is clearly no use to provide a permission link--because whenever the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs reorganizes its site, the link with the permission will disappear, n'est-ce pas? --Rednblu (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a problem the project hasn't come to grips with yet. I wonder if they might consider some automated archival at a place like WebCite to keep from losing permissions to linkrot. Kelly ^hi! 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

re: File:WeymouthHigh BirdsEye.jpg

This file can be deleted. I uploaded it a while ago and made a bad assumption on its copyright. I'll make it a point to take a better picture myself. « SCHLAGWERK^{Talk to me!} 13:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Kelly ^hi! 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Approving versions for commons

Two things:

• Please make sure you give attribution to the correct author. You'll notice I fixed the image [2]; you attributed the author in the history on this file to an earlier version with no resemblance to that image.
• If a file has multiple reversions, and the later versions are dependent on the earlier, we don't delete cc or gfdl images because they require attribution [3].

Overall you're doing well, keep it up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what I did. Usually I don't make that mistake, thanks for the heads-up. Kelly ^hi! 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Fir0002 400

The reason I copied this template from commons is so that when Fir has media copied from commons on the home page the license will be available, as mandated. It's also not a duplication, so I will decline. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Kelly ^hi! 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I apologise if you found my response condescending, that was not my intention. I was simply trying to offer advice on where such questions could be asked in future, since ANI is not the correct place. The help desk can usually help with questions like that, as can a {{helpme}} request; alternatively, you could ask in IRC. I note that you are long-time contributor, indeed your contributions outnumber mine, but the help desk isn't just for new users; if you're unsure of an aspect of wikipedia guidelines or policy and can't find the relevant pages, those three options are all likely to be helpful. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't mean to come off the wrong way. Trying to follow the guidance at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Kelly ^hi! 02:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Permissions on File:Apw-logo.png

In response to what you left on my user page regarding this image, umm... it IS cited under non-free fair use (Saint0wen (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

photo permissions

Im beginning to detest wikipedia and the way in which people yourself just delete things making those who arent completely expert in contributing feel unwanted! Those images that you put up for "speedy" deletion were either taken by myself or given to me by friends through my sport to use as i wanted even on our own website if we wanted, which is why i was able to upload them to wikipedia! I jumped through hoops to learn on what was acceptable for the copyrights when i uploaded them and when i did so the person helping me said that the copyright information was applicable and complete. Maybe you could start talking to users about the content they are trying to improve wikipedia with through contributing rather than just tagging everything for speedy deletion.