User talk:C.Fred

Your question about the photo of me used on Wiki's Jeffrey Robinson page

Dear C Fred, I appreciate your continued help with the vandalism on the page about me, but I don't understand your concerns about the photo of me on that page. It was taken by photographer Daniella Zalcman specifically for public use and distribution. You are more than welcome to check with her via the contact link on her website which you'll find by Googling her name. (I don't want to list it here for obvious reasons.) There is absolutely no copyright violation in the public use of this photo. It was taken for expressly this purpose. What's more, and for what it's worth, she happens to be my daughter-in-law. Again, you have been very kind in defending the entry against sustained vandalism, but I would object very strongly to any questions about a copyright violation in the use of this photo. Many thanks and best regards/ JR SJR524 (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@SJR524: I don't think she wants to answer email from every user who looks at the picture and wonders about the license status. Either she can email the Commons directly to confirm her donation of the picture, or she can post the picture somewhere that it's clearly stated to be under a free license. By the way, free for Wikipedia purposes means free for any reuse, including commercial reuse. —C.Fred (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, and thank you for that. Trust me, if you ask via her contact/webpage, she assures me that she will answer you. The photo has been widely used on websites, with press releases and on book jackets. It is freely available on Google, because it was taken for that purpose. She has just emailed this: "You are welcome to use any photos I have taken of you in any way you choose, digitally or in print, in perpetuity. Daniella Zalcman" Again, if you check with her she will confirm this. Thank you for your help./ JRSJR524 (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@SJR524: For record-keeping purposes, she needs to email that directly to Wikimedia Commons. Could you have her email that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and note that it relates specifically to File:Jeffrey Robinson.jpg? Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

C. Fred - I fail to understand why this is suddenly an issue. The photo has been widely circulated for free public use for several years. It definitely and obviously meets Wiki's criteria. That said, she will do it. Thank you for your help, especially where the more serious issue of vandalism has occurred/ JRSJR524 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@SJR524: It would have been an issue; it just now got detected. Also, NFCC and licensing rules have gotten more stringent over time. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, It's not a problem. I simply didn't understand, and appreciate both your explanation and help. Dani will send that email sooner rather than later. Please let me know, if you don't mind, that you've seen her email and the issue is now cleared up. Again, thank you. I wish you well/ JR SJR524 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@SJR524: I won't see the email directly; access to that is limited to a select group of administrators, to protect personal information. They'll then note that they've verified the release. I have left a message for the Commons administrators that I've spoken with you and you're having her send the email, so they should be on the lookout for it.

(Wikimedia Commons has its own separate administrators and policies, but it hosts free images used on all Wikipedia sites, including English Wikipedia. I'm an admin here but not Commons, so there are tools that I have available to me here that I don't there.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand. And thanks again/ JRSJR524 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I thought you'd like to know this. I saw Dani the other night, she's exhibiting at Photoville (huge show under the Brooklyn Bridge) and mentioned your concerns about the photo. She will send the letter as soon as she's got a free moment (it's hectic there) but said she was happy to do it because photographers' work gets ripped off all the time and Wikipedia is one of the very few sites that does what it can to protect their copyright. Kudos to Wiki. Cheers/ JRSJR524 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear C. Fred, May I please ask a favor. I saw Dani yesterday and she assured me the email was sent saying the photo is her copyright and free for use. Would you please be kind enough to check with the powers that be to confirm that they've received it and that the photo now conforms. Thank you/ JRSJR524 (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@SJR524: It looks like the email was received but insufficient. From the message currently on the image: "This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published." I'd suggest contacting the person on Commons who made that decision; there's a link to their user page in the message there. —C.Fred (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, I really don't understand. The copyright is hers and she sent an email as a release, from her email address, to say the photo is free to use. How much more complicated does Wiki want to make this? The photo has been widely published, because it is free to use. For a bunch of hip people, you're starting to sound like the government. Also, I don't know what you mean when you say contact that person on Commons. I'd be grateful if you'd be kind enough to pass this along to whomever, or at least send me a direct link so I can get someone to understand that this is taking up too much of your time, taking up too much of my time, and that the photo is absolutely and unequivocally free to use. Thank you/ JRSJR524 (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@SJR524: As a point of clarity: So I could print that photo on a t-shirt, sell the t-shirt, and not have to worry about copyright issues? —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you'd be very welcome to and I'll order a dozen. SJR524 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The file in question is File:Jeffrey Robinson.jpg. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have asked about it at commons:User talk:Storkk. —C.Fred (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@SJR524: Hi. I'm the OTRS agent dealing with the ticket. Unfortunately, because OTRS contains confidential information we have stringent rules regarding what we can divulge--so my reply will probably be unsatisfactory. The only thing I can say specifically for this ticket is that we have not yet received a clear and unambiguous license. Now speaking more generally, we cannot accept statements such as "XYZ can post my photo to Wikipedia" or even "XYZ can do whatever he wants with my photo" (unless it is also made clear that the copyright itself has been transferred to XYZ) because we only accept media that anyone can do anything they want with (not just XYZ). For this reason, we need an unambiguous record of a license like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license. The appropriate wording can be found at C:COM:CONSENT or be generated at https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen . The ticket submitter was emailed to this effect on September 28th, and if and when a response is received and processed, the ticket will be updated. Storkk (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: Thank you for the reply. I know you're limited in what you can say, but that is the direction my hunch was going.

@SJR524: As Storkk indicated, Wikimedia is very picky about what is considered a sufficient license. The common trap that people fall into is saying "You can use my picture on Wikipedia" or something similar. That's not enough. The license needs to state that anybody may use the picture for any purpose, even commercial reuse. The Creative Commons license that Storkk mentions allows for the uploader to still be credited for the image when it's reused but otherwise makes the image free to reuse.

Yes, image licensing is confusing and sometimes time-consuming. However, the trade-off is that by taking some time now, we make sure the images are used right from the get-go and don't have to clean up a problematic image that's discovered after the fact. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

To my mind, needlessly confusing and time consuming. That said, if you will let me have the proper wording, word for word, plus an email address, I will ask Dani to send it to you, word for word. That would be the easiest thing, and I appreciate your help in solving this. Thank you/ JRSJR524 (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@SJR524: the exact wording can be generated on https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen or can be found on C:COM:CONSENT. Please also ask her to use an email at her domain - we cannot verify the identity of free email accounts. Storkk (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I have written her with the link. Please let me know when you get her satisfactory permission/ JRSJR524 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Sorry to bother you with this, yet again, but I can't find anyone else to ask. I assume the matter of the photo of me has now been settled to Wiki's satisfaction. It looks like copyright permission has been granted, although the page where that entry appears (which I cannot find now) is slightly confusing to me. I'd be grateful for assurances that it is finally settled. Again, many thanks/ JR SJR524 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

PS - Just found the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jeffrey_Robinson.jpg The first section spells out Wiki's concerns. But the second entry is titled: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Accordingly, may I assume the issue is settled? Thank you/ JRSJR524 (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Marisela Marrero

To Whom It May Concern:

Why did you delete my page on Dr. Marisela Marrero?

This is being completed as part of an ongoing project at the Harvard Kennedy School. Please undo your most recent action.

Thank you, MTR2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTR2017 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@MTR2017: The page had sat unimproved for a day. A doctor who has a segment on a local talk show does not make a clear assertion of significance or importance.

If you need the history of your work, I'll be glad to restore it to either Draft: space or your user space. Let me know which you prefer. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have steadily improved the page over the last two days and was continuing to do so today. I need both the user history and a copy of the page.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTR2017 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@MTR2017: It's restored at Draft:Marisela Marrero. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTR2017 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@MTR2017: You're welcome. Also, don't be surprised if you're asked to clarify your relationship with Marrero and whether you have a conflict of interest, since you apparently were on set with her when you took the picture you uploaded today. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I was not on set with her (and have never been on set...I don't work in tv). I requested a photo from her through NECN and that is what she sent me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTR2017 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@MTR2017: So File:Dr. Marisela NECN.jpg is mistagged? You're claiming that you have the copyright to it—i.e., that you are the photographer and have the rights on how the image can be used. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Marrero has the copyright and has given me permission to use the photo. If I have mischaracterized the photo, please guide me toward the right path. Additionally, I have not actually been able to upload the photo so it does not appear on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTR2017 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@MTR2017: Two things. First, the image page would need to show that it's somebody else's work and that they have released it. Ideally, we'd want a link to a page on her website where she states the image is released under a Creative Commons license that allows for reuse, including commercial reuse. As an alternative, she could email to donate the image; WP:Donating copyrighted materials has directions.

Second, if you've been trying to create a page about Marrero on her behalf or at her direction, then you have a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been creating at my own behest and not under direction from Dr. Marrero. I only asked her for a professional photo. As for the photo, it comes from Dr. Marrero's cellphone; to my knowledge it doesn't exist anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTR2017 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@MTR2017: Her cell phone or somebody else's? There's another name on the file upload page. That's who'll need to contact Wikipedia directly. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

official logo

Sir Fred I just have posted our official logo of my article Beta Sigma Omega Phi in my last edition. It was a legitimate logo of our organization and I am an alumnus member of that organization and one of the Board of Directors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Caintic (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted

Hi I think that my page was deleted incorrectly and that josh moir is of significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlylad (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Friendlylad: The article didn't make an assertion to that end. Being written about in local papers isn't enough, whether the subject is 12 or 42. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, he was also on an interview by cnn and bbc news. He is more famous than you think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlylad (talk • contribs) 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Friendlylad: In a sense, that might be the problem: there was nothing in the article to indicate that he had been interviewed by a national news service. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

No I do not work for Mr. Melvin E. Brown,

No i do not work for Mr. Melvin E. Brown, nor am I in his circle. I do own a studio in Manhattan. Driver6577 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Melvin E. Brown, Trackformaz, and members of G-Unit came by studio after Global Spin Awards. Address to Studio is 1728 Eastchester Rd, Bronx, NY 10461 I took the photo as well as othersDriver6577 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

My Deleted Article is listed when searching for it in Google

The bio article I created and you deleted, which is understandable and fine, is showing up when people search for me, in at least Google. It shows "(my name)- Widipedia, the free encyclopedia". Then if they click on it just shows "02:09, 2 October 2016 C.Fred (talk | contribs) deleted page (my name)". Can you make that go away? I'm trying to get ride of garbage links associated to me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsybelnik (talk • contribs)

@Dsybelnik: No, I can't. That's a Google issue, and you'll need to address it with them. We have little if any control over how they index and present articles, including deleted ones. —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

But as a courtesy, this link might help: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6332384 —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi

Regarding the page Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi you advised to debate the user BySomalilander about the subject which I did. First he denied that the Gadabursi had a clan called the Habar Makadur to spread propaganda. I showed him the evidence that they do. Then he started to argue around the name.

Here you can obviously see that the clan Gadabursi is divided in 2 branches, the Habar Affan and Habar Makadur, the latter making roughly 90% of the clan.

There are two main fractions, the Habr Afan and Habr Makadur, formerly united under a common hereditary chief (ogaz)[1]

Here the English translation of the Futuh Al Habasha: Conquest of Abyssinia one can see than Western scholars have agreed that the clan mentioned is written as Habr Maqdi or Makadi

[2] [3]

On page 27 as a footnote Richard Pankhurst clarifies that it's the Habr Makadur.

[4]

So the individual based on WP:MAINSTREAM can't keep on undoing the edit. WP:MAINSTREAM on wiki means high quality within a particular field of science or scholarship. The expert in the case of the -Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Qādir ʻArabfaqīh Tsehai Publishers & Distributors, 2003 - are Stenhouse and Richard Pankhurst, a British academic with expertise in the study of Ethiopia.

Also the genealogy of the Habr Makadur of the Gadabuursi is mentioned in the book and the location of the Habr Makadi mentioned in the book corresponds with that of the Habr Makadur of the Gadabuursi.

If he's so desperate to add his clan. Why not add it next to the other. - comment added by AbwaanRooble (talk • 23:29, 3 October 2016

@AbwaanRooble: I think that's a good discussion for the article's talk page, where some subject experts will see it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes but so far he is just wasting my time. The book even mentions Habr Maqdi as a footnote Habr Makadur. Well we can't keep undoing our edits. What is the solution? - comment added by AbwaanRooble (talk • 1:14, 4 October 2016

@AbwaanRooble: If nobody else chimes in at article talk, request a third opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into it when I have time. Have a good day! - comment added by AbwaanRooble (talk • 1:27, 4 October 2016