User talk:Werieth

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hello user Werieth,

A Rensselaer engraving was removed. It's copyright expired long ago. Please restore it.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• File:Downtown Troy, looking east up the hill, 1904.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The file in question may have been created in 1904, but there is a lack of information regarding its publication history. Thus we cannot establish that copyright has expired. Take File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg as a similar example from 1887 which is still under copyright. Werieth (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. What specific details do I need to dig up in order to have it restored? I am looking at that Pound photo and its details. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• If I personally email Rensselaer Polytechic Institute and receive approval in written form, is that enough for restoration? Thanks. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• We need to establish the author and date of first publication. Werieth (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC

• Hi Werieth. I looked at that Ezra Pound photo. She lived until 1972. That is why it is still under copyright. The Rensselaer image uploaded is a 19th century engraving. A similar case is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sorbonne_17thc.jpg. Thanks and take care. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt matter when she died, it matters when the photo was first published. Depending on when and how a photo was published determines the copyright status of the image. Werieth (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly does matter when the person dies, as attested by the two copyright templates of 50 and 70 years after death on Wikipedia.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please re-review those templates. Those reference the death of the copyright holder, not that of the subject. Werieth (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

* Photo looking east at Rensselaer Polytechnic is of 1904. The engraver is no longer alive. The subject, Rensselaer, does not hold the copyright. Thanks and take care.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing your points and using circular logic. As I have stated depending on when a work was published. (even though it may have been created in 1904) it may not have been published until 1930, or some other unknown date. We need to know when the work was published. Werieth (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The templates {{PD-old-50}} and {{PD-old-70}} do not refer to the copyright law of the United States but to the copyright laws of other countries. This is why we also have the templates {{Non-free Old-50}} and {{Non-free Old-70}} which tell that a file is in the public domain in some countries but not in the United States. In the United States, the usual term is 95 years from publication, although the term life+70 years is used for some very old unpublished material. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Werieth and Stefan. I will write straight away that understanding the details of Wiki idiosyncrasy is often harder than studying for an exam in quantum mechanics. I emailed the library-archives staff at Rensselaer. Response is thus. I will triple check the date on this image Monday morning for you. This was an photograph though, not an engraving. It was published in a few different Rensselaer sources right around 1904. One source in particular was the RPI Bulletin. The image was then created as a postcard which is what we have on our site, and what you are using. It's unlikely a name (photographer) can be attributed to this image. I'll get right back to you Monday. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Chevalier de Saint-Georges

Hello Werieth, I just sent you an e-mailDsteveb (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States

Regarding your [removal of images] at Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States; it was a bit premature. Do you even bother to figure out what is going on? Your application of WP:NFLISTS as discussion was under way at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#minor_organizations for redirects. As you can see no one objects to the redirect, but the discussion has gone on tangents. So, if the redirect nor are in place immediately, you are just going to pounce. WP:NFLISTS mostly applies to closer related topics so items 1-3 don't apply as the Scout like organization "article" is more like bunch of "subarticles". Item 4 is what I assume your are basing your judgment which if you would have let redirect be put in place over the unsourced articles, the images would not be in another article (not that WP image policy understands how images are handled on a webserver, but that is another story). Now you have frozen the change over to redirects as the article has been locked to another editor throwing tantrums. Spshu (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 sets the bar fairly high for usage of non-free media. There is an allowance for a company/organization logo on the article about the company, but that doesnt apply to a list of companies/organizations. Im sorry if you disagree with WP:NFCC but its policy. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

One image cannot meet "8. Contextual significance." or "3. Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." in a multi-organizational article as one logo cannot represent all these organizations. So, your statement isn't true that it "doesnt apply to a list of companies/organizations." Spshu (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are not reading what I am saying. I have no clue what point you are trying to make, but a non-free image must meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC. As I stated there is generally an acceptance that displaying a logo of a company/organization is acceptable on the article about that group. However when the group no longer has their own article the de facto allowance for usage of their logo becomes invalid. If a company isnt notable enough for their own article they are not notable enough to justify the inclusion of their logo. Werieth (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am reading what you are saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I am point out that multiple images in an article does meet WP:NFCC#8 (the item you claimed above is the one reason for the rejection) particularly in this case. Because, the organizations are not closely enough related it is such that each image would have its own "contextual significance". Item 3 specify and directly denies your statement: "As I stated there is generally an acceptance that displaying a logo of a company/organization is acceptable on the article about that group. However when the group no longer has their own article the de facto allowance for usage of their logo becomes invalid." as it does allow multiple image to be used. Spshu (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need to include the images at all? They are not required to understand that there are a number of scout like groups. If any one group is notable enough to justify a logo, they are notable enough for their own article and if they are not notable enough for a stand alone article, they are not notable enough to include the logo. Just because we discuss the group doesnt mean we need to display their logo. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Because, perhaps the "subarticles" are on the cusp of being notable, but just missing that one other publication of general interest source that publishing an article on that. The images are already in the "system" and the WP editor(s) don't have to go through the process of re adding the image when they find that notable article source is already out there but have not been found. Also, one editor gave provisional support with the proviso of image retention in the merger. Also, you would have notice that several of the groups that have images are in article that are not notable as is. Why are you not remove the images from those article? But not one of the 10 NFCC items is notability or has to do with notability. Logos would help readers to identify the different groups of scouts or scout like groups ie. meet requirement 8. "contextual significance".

In effect your argument leads to "Why have any images any where on Wikipedia?" Take them all down, why do I need the WP and "a Wikimedia project" logos on every page. Isn't copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation? Are we not in violation then every time we start a new article? Spshu (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg

Thanks for your removal of this non-free logo from the template. I didn't know that is was non-free here, and I still would consider it as PD because it only consists of simple geometric shapes (commons:Template:PD-textlogo). Do you have any objections against uploading it to Commons? |FDMS 19:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would consider that beyond basic shapes, and above the TOO. Werieth (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain why? I just noticed that on the German description page it says that it doesn't meet TOO (Erreicht nicht die nötige Schöpfungshöhe, um Urheberrechtsschutz zu genießen [...])... |FDMS 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The german wiki is very very liberal with claiming things are below the TOO. The graphics that are used are not just simple shapes, (Circles, lines, squares, triangles) and is actually a fairly original work. Lets take File:Bronze.Olimpicorder.png as a counter example. It is just a group of 5 circles. There is some thought about the placement but overall its a fairly simple logo. Now look at File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg it has unique edges, the corners are trimmed to interlock the two sides, and other minor artistic elements. If you want another opinion you can take it to WP:NFCR but I would classify it beyond the TOO. Werieth (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We could also take File:Best Western logo.svg as an example ... Anyway, as you recommended, I'll nominate it for NFCR, so please don't archive this section. |FDMS 19:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the DR? The user requesting deletion is now talking about the copyright status of the vectorisation, no longer about the image itself. That means that if the DR results in deletion, I could simply use our local File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg instead (as long as it is doesn't get tagged as "vectorisation copyvio"). |FDMS 22:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Which it will. Werieth (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So you want me to remove the non-free-content-rationale from File:Wiener Lokalbahn.svg? |FDMS 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets just wait for the NFCR and the FFD at commons to finish first. Werieth (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, nobody considered the file as meeting TOO at NFCR so far. |FDMS 22:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

NFCR's run for at least 7 days. Giving it ~2 hours and calling that consensus is a bad idea. Werieth (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't call it a consensus. |FDMS 22:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

American Tractor Corp.

Werieth, Please stop taking down the images I've added to this article. The company has been out of business since 1957, Case Corp dropped the name in 1959. They are from a publicly distributed sales brochure and are posted to illustrate the product line of short lived but influential manufacturer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njchronicaler (talk • contribs) 12:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Britain images

What is the rationale for removing images based on a "belief", "feeling" that only three images should prevail. You have also removed relevant information in your haste to excise images. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Bzuk I removed the files for several reasons. A WP:NFCR discussion, WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8. That's boiling it down to the primary points of the issues. You re-added non-existent images, and images in direct opposition to a WP:NFCR discussion. Thats the same thing as saying I disagree with an AfD so I will re-create the article after it gets deleted. My actions where based off policy, not personal opinion. Werieth (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that admins and editors are making arbitrary decisions such as simply declaring that an image is orphaned which was the case in this article, is very disconcerting. When the discussion simply revolved around your comment in January that seven images was excessive and did not involve any of the editors who created or contributed regularly to the article, calls into question a very deceptive practice. See other film articles of significant films such as Gone With the Wind, as example where non-free images are used. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I was actually the one who requested that we add the {{non-free review}} to articles in order to make discussions more transparent and provide plenty of notification. If users go to the length of an RfC to have those notifications not be made I cannot just ignore the outcome of the RfC. You are citing Gone With the Wind it has a total of 1 non-free file. So that wouldnt be an example. Werieth (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And if you are trying to cite Gone with the Wind (film), that article has zero non-free files. Werieth (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but is there a hint of crusading going on here? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Just because you are unaware of the complete picture, and I am attempting to fill you in. You complained about no notification in regards to the NFCR. That was not my decision, in fact I prefer to get input from all sides. To that extent I had the template changed, and had both added to WP:TW in order to ensure that proper notification and discussion could take place. (Both issues you accused me of not doing). However other users disagreed with the usage of notification templates. Ignoring the outcome of a RfC because I disagree with the results would not end well. If you want to have {{non-free review}} added to articles while a NFCR is being conducted feel free to do so. You suggested the article talk page, but that is far from a good place to review NFCC issues as it is decentralized and by far a majority of those involved will be those who work with the article and added the files in the first place. Not really a neutral place for such a discussion. NFCR was created exactly for that purpose. To provide a centralized neutral place to discuss and review the usage of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Chevalier de Saint-Georges

Hello Werieth, I have reloaded the Dumouriez Arrests Commissioners illustration. It is from a book by Arthur Chuquet, La triason de Dumouriez, Paris, E. Plon, 1852, and should be on Wiki commons. If memory serves, on March 4th or thereabouts I understood you to say that, and that it should be PD-1923. Just like some of the others, I erroneously placed it in the unlicensed category. It is still in there, and I just found a message in my talk box that as it is "not posted in any Wiki article it would be deleted March 14." Therefore, I am posting it again, so that it can be accepted as off-licensed. The other three files, rejected before I uploaded again, having gotten notice that they were re-licensed and may be used. I also added two more files from Wiki commons. Please advise me if I should be mistaken in any of the above, Sincerely, Dsteveb (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

SBS One

Ok, I can't get though to you, you seem to be blindly ignoring any communication I try to make with you regarding the gallery on SBS One. The gallery specifically shows the progression of logos of the SBS brand which the article is describing, and the gallery presents in the most concise and understandable format. For this reason, it should be exempt from WP:NFG and stay there. Please stop reverting the changes without a proper discussion weighted in by all major parties. Adammw 00:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)