User talk:Kelly/Archives/2008/April

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Moving Images

When you move images to commons from en.wikipedia, please remember to remove the "movetocommons" tag. That way, it takes the image off of cat:commons. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Kelly hi! 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks. --Bhadani (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Note

This page User talk:Giano has a redirect, any messages you leave there do not display! Giano (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you! I was using a script that left it automatically, I will move to your new talk page in the future. Kelly hi! 17:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

Your use of the word "Unencyclopedic" in describing images you wish to have deleted from the English language Wikipedia appears to mean nothing other than that you yourself can not think of an appropriate article to place it on. As we have literally millions of articles that now exist and will in the future have more, I believe it is a bit hubristic for you to believe that your judgement that an image is "Unencyclopedic" actually means anything more than that you are ignorant of its encyclopedic possibilities. Perhaps instead of labeling images as "Unencyclopedic", you should label them as "images I do not understand the value of having at wikipedia". Perhaps you already use the term "Unencyclopedic" as shorthand for that. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an example where I used that incorrectly? If so, I am sorry. I thought I was using that term for old personal snapshots and spam, or maybe in some cases where there was no description on an orphaned image to put it into context. Kelly hi! 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"Young Cher" was what initially caught my attention. Do you know who Cher is? Other pics might also be useful to illustrate encyclopedia articles. Did you know we have articles on everyday things like chair and window? Did you verify that these "unencyclopedic" images do not in fact illustrate anything that we might have an article for? Images can be cropped you know. I'm guessing that most of the pics you wish to delete should be deleted, but that is only a guess. I'm guessing you did not actually put much thought or investigation into your nominations. Encyclopedia creating should be approached as a thoughtful activity, and not as a game for upping edit counts as a way of leveling up. Please be thoughtful, is all I ask. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the Cher image was nominated because it had copyright problems, not because it was unencyclopedic. Why are you so hostile? Kelly hi! 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You marked "young cher" as unencyclopedic. There was no claim of a copyright problem. I am trying to help create an encyclopedia. I am hostile to efforts to delete free useful content from wikipedia. I am not hostile to efforts to remove the loads of crap and content that has copyright problems. Only thoughtfulness and research can distinguish what should be deleted from what should not be deleted. Why don't you add pics instead of deleting pics? Maybe then you would not be so quick to ask that others' efforts be deleted. In any case, I hate arguing so I am done here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It was marked that way in error, in that case. I do not think the uploader was the copyright holder. And I do add pics, just to Commons normally. Kelly hi! 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Arecibo_message_deoxyribose.png listed for deletion

Hi Kelly,

The image you mention has been replaced by a much nicer one made by Norro, so it is perfectly fine to delete. By the way, I am not sure of where is the best place to reply, if you can tell me it would be nice :) --jbc (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jordi - the best place would be on the WP:IFD discussion page linked from the image. Thanks! Kelly hi! 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:AIADMK Two Leaves.png

Hi Kelly,

I have noticed that you have tagged the above image. This image was created by me. Does it not come under GFDL? Please do let me know. Also that if it still needs a fair use rational? Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 06:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wikiality...do you own the copyright to the logo, or is owned by the political party? Kelly hi! 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know parties are allowed to use it for electoral purposes alone, that too if it is a regional party within India, for that particular state (or region) alone. It is not allowed to claim rights over it even in other states (unless they have a presence) and once again as far as I know they do not claim copyrights of it. There was a recent outcry from another political party from the same region of Tamil Nadu, when its long-time party symbol was to be used by a new party in the neighbouring region. To defend their claim, they have stated that the old party had apealled to the election commision on the basis of long-term usage of the logo and presence of the old party in the neighbouring regions,[1][2] but never on the copyrights. So I am assuming that these parties DO NOT hold or claim a copyright (as little as I understand copyright laws) on those symbols or logos. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain - I have restored the GFDL license tag, sorry for the trouble! Kelly hi! 13:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It was not a trouble at all. Actually made me think, WHAT IN THE HEAVENS THIS TWO LEAVES STAND FOR?...lols. Thanks anyways. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Please place a {nocommons} template on images I have uploaded, that you wish to upoad to commons. Not a {nowcommmons}. Thankyou. Giano (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Kelly hi! 12:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Driscoll - Images

Hello Kelly,

I urgently need competent help/advice.

Several times I uploaded Bobby Driscoll-images of which either there are no more verifyable copyright data available or the sources from which they are taken are in the Public Domain or at least Fair Use status, already.

The Wki-system now requires data and info which I definitely can't provide, since the images are from sources which doesn't exist themselves anymore, or origins are no longer to verify. And of course I am not the original copyright holder, but the images themselves are mostly free stuff. Most of them are either promotional standad shots or other free press material.

Now I uploaded a promotional shot from findagrave.com, which strictly doesn't tolerate any copyright infringement or violation, and at once I got the message beneath the image: "This image or media does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted after Friday, 11 April 2008. Please remove this template if a copyright tag has been added."

Although I wrote an appropriate explanation into the description box. Did I simply type it wrongly while uploading? Or what have I done wrong?

Regards --Bylot (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Peaches Geldof

Hi, just out of interest, regarding this diff, what where and when was the vandalism, and the mention thereof? Was it just tabloid stuff about simple vandalism or about a massive complex strategic attack? If you could link me to a version of the press mention I would appreciate it. Also, what does that blpwatch thing you added represent? Jdcooper (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was here; curiously I'm not seeing the text now (maybe it's my browser). Template:blpwatch has the details on the template usage - basically it just puts eyes on the article to watch for vandalism or controversial information. Kelly hi! 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI

Have you read the essay on the Revert, Block, Ignore strategy? In cases where someone using a dynamic IP is determined to disrupt the encyclopedia, it's really the only effective strategy; giving them the attention they want only encourages them to continue their disruptions, while reverting their edits with minimal comment, not responding at all to them, and blocking whatever ips they use quietly is dull enough that they lose interest in disruption and eventually go away. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it. However, WP:RBI is just some essay while WP:BAN is a policy. Kelly hi! 01:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:BAN that restricts the implementation of RBI. It is an essay, not policy, but it is an essay that helpfully describes an effective strategy with dealing with a specific category of disruptive user. Of course, since discussion of implementation makes it less effective, I will leave it to you to decide whether it is the most effective strategy in this case with no further discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand. However, the reversions at WP:BLPN were being done with edit summaries that stated the user was "banned". This was not true. If you would like someone to be banned, then you should follow the banning policy. Kelly hi! 02:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban

I guess it was a bit premature, eh? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_proposal_on_Fredrick_day. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing, so I think I'll hold off from taking any further action. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. Kelly hi! 23:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Help Desk

I tried to fix your problem with Template:PermissionOTRS. Is that what you were looking for? J.delanoygabsadds 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Disabling OTRS template on Image talk:Watchtower headquarters.jpg‎

What do you know that I don't? Images aren't my thing, so I'd value an explanation. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not concern, just trying to learn something new. If you want to talk me out of declining the speedy, I'll admit I could be wrong about that too. --barneca (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Thanks for the info. --barneca (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of image

Feel free to delete that baddrawnmushrooms image, it was for a userbox that never got created. The one and only:Zanny77 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kelly/Escape

It's a bit thin, but there y' go --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Winter Palace Images

Thank you, you might like to know that almost all of the images you found have now been asigned to various sub-pages of what is becoming an increasingly mammoth project. Thank you for your help. Giano (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of images

Hello Kelly

I would like to know how to prove to you that the images that I uploaded have been approved to be posted on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blizzard 77 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock farmer

Gah! Here is the link to the RfCU I conducted. You can append it to any investigation you are running, but I would ery much wish to stay in the loop in this, if it is at all possible. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, thanks ever so much for the link. I was beginning to think I was the only editor who thought the anon knew how to massae the system a bit too well for a newbie. On a side note,I hear you are pretty awesome as an editor. Need a padawan? I could use some help fixing my flaws and improving my wiki skillset. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Arcayne...no problem! I spend most of my time on Commons, actually, but would be happy to help wherever I can. Kelly hi! 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi from the anonymous user. The additions that I suggested and were contested were, Movie Credits in the Infobox, supporting Flagicons on a "Response" page and civilly debating a citation that was written in different ways on different websites. I'm surprised to see them compared to the poorly written Anti-Hirsi Ali and decidedly pro-Islamic writings of Zencv.
I'll suggest that the system is being manipulated to benefit a single users obsessive vendetta against another. I'm sorry that you must waste your valuable time and resources on such a baseless accusation. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Note the forum-shopping conducted via cross-posting (1, 2). He's such a busy guy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You should really consider the irony of accusing someone of Forum Shopping - When they're responding to your multiple solicitations... I feel that my response to your lobbying is appropriate and reasonable. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Kelly, apparently, just by saying thanks for the link, I've turned you into a meat-puppet. Porterhouse or Filet Mignon? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. Kelly hi! 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_0.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_0.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 02:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please move such images to commons before seeking their deletion. -- Cat chi? 09:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I do move a lot of images to Commons, but I don't think that particular image is under free license...most Canadian government works are under non-commercial license. Kelly hi! 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Help

Hi. I just saw you nominated lots of images at PUI, and then read that you move images to Commons. First off, thanks. I know that working in the image work is a thankless task. Secondly, to try and reduce the problem images here at Wikipedia, and encourage more participation in cleaning up images and moving the free ones to Commons, I'm trying to get a project done called "Wikipedia Image Cleanup Month". Really, it's just me as I can't find others to help yet, but I think it's a great idea and even the education alone should be very helpful. You can read more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group#Wikipedia Image Cleanup Month (June). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Even if you just write one section about moving images or read through and improve what exists. If you know anyone else that would like to help, please invite them as well. MECU≈talk 13:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed the OTRS category thingy. Just had a noinclude terminate wrong. Thanks for your help. Please do anything and everything you want. Advertise to any and all friends you want too. MECU≈talk 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Help request

{{helpme}} I tried changing the template {{GFDL-Armenica}} to a subst-only template (so that the license and OTRS ticket will transfer correctly when using CommonsHelper to move the images to Commons), but the subst error message appears on the page when the template is subst'd. I need a template expert to please help! Kelly hi! 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed. I pulled the code from {{prod}}, which uses a similar warning message code. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I missed a couple brackets, it should work now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You're quite welcome! Thanks for the star! :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ffs

I said "kill" for the same reason I occasionally say "braiiiiiiiins". I do not intend violence upon any user of Wikipedia, much less one as useful as Giano. The question is, though, how did you get the logs, and why don't you read them in full so as to have context? DS (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw the log excerpt in the userspace page I referred to in my question. Kelly hi! 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
An IRC channel has multiple simultaneous conversations overlapping, as well as the occasional (semi)meaningless statement from someone who's feeling surreal (I'm not the only GIRAFFES DANCING IN MY FREEZER offender in that respect). Interpreting everything in an unprocessed IRC channel log as pertaining to the same subject can be horrendously misleading, and I resent the implication that I ever intended violence towards anyone. DS (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what a double standard. You seem to have gotten upset with Giano over joking references to wiki-"gnoming" and wiki-"stalking", while feeling he should not be irate with references to wiki-"killing". Odd. Kelly hi! 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nah, it's that a) my use of the word had nothing to do with anyone on Wikipedia, and was rather the result of some unrelated frustrations, and b) I'm trying to illustrate the double standard of a man who gets very upset whenever people say things that he perceives as insults, but then feels that he can make jocular mild insults without consequence. DS (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the other point is that Giano's block was not proposed on IRC, it was discussed after the fact on IRC. DS (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Invisible Barnstar
For all the work you do on images especially in helping to keep the 'pedia free from copyright violations. Polly (Parrot) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! Kelly hi! 06:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: {{Military Insignia}}

I'm not sure exactly, but I would think redirecting the template to a CSD "Incomplete license information" might work, though you may have to do a TFD to do that as well. Perhaps list at TFD with that as an option? Definitely isn't a valid license, so either way would work I guess. Thanks for clearing that category out. MECU≈talk 01:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for helping me to tag my image the other time, I understand what you are doing here and me myself, I have started to do the same now whenever I come across images with license tag or copyvio problem. Anyway, have a nice day... cheers! And SMILE! --Dave1185 (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Kelly hi! 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wolfram Image Tag

It was a while ago, so I don't remember the exact location of the permission (it may come with Mathematica materials). However, I assure you this is accurate - if permission were not explicitly granted as stated in the tag, Mathematica screenshots would not useable in academic works as prevalently as they are. I'll continue searching for the exact link. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gone to the list of templates for deletion, I can't seem to find Template:Wolfram-screenshot on the Templates for Deletion page. Any help here would be appreciated. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable image?

Kelly, thank you for notifying me that you'd nominated Image:Application_page1.png for deletion. However, I do not understand why you feel so strongly that the image could be potentially replaced with a free-use image that you have nominated it for deletion. What reason do you have to believe that there are free-use college applications available? I would appreciate your comments on the image talk page, here: Image_talk:Application_page1.png. Thank you, JDoorjam JDiscourse 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I commented there - thank you for the heads-up! Kelly hi! 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

GFDL reminder

The content of Wikipedia pages, except images themselves, is GFDL per the text near the save button. Same applies to the image page, while not of course necessarily to the image itself. No matter who uploaded the image originally (a troll or an arb), if I am the last editor of the page, it is me who is responsible for it per GFDL. The image may be PD, fairuse, cc-by or whatever but its description and rationale is GFDL-licensed by the editor who edited the page last.

I am sorry, that I have to give you a policy explanation as the common sense seems to be the problem here. Clearly PD images that add to the content should be fixed, when necessary, and properly tagged rather than deleted because you (or whoever) are too in a hurry to see carefully. Please slow down a little. --Irpen 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, please look at my contributions. I am very very familiar with the GFDL. I also bend over backwards to fix images, even going so far as to dig through the Library of Congress. What image are you referring to? Kelly hi! 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Images by a banned user that I fixed with a correct free tag or a correct rationale that you retagged for deletion again (some twice). Please be more careful. --Irpen 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I'll go back and take a look, but from what I recall those images also have numerous other problems, especially that they don't attribute the source or copyright holder per WP:NFCC, or they lack the information necessary to make a PD claim per WP:PD, especially in that authors and dates of publication are not included. See WP:PD#Artworks. Kelly hi! 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note, that an originally PD image does not get copyrighted if someone reproduces it (Ukrainian military rank) and some pages do go down every day (speaking of a source). No source or a dead source is just as useless as far as we are concerned and we are not about to go through all images at WMF servers every day to update the status of the WWW when pages disappear or simply change. Sometimes, the image status is totally clear even if the source is dead. As I said, it is simply difficult to be careful at the speed you are going. Pls slow down. Image patrol is the job that requires utmost care and speed should not be an impediment. --Irpen 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If creativity goes into a derivative work based on an original PD design, then a copyright claim applies. I wouldn't mind if links were dead, if the details on authorship are included in the image description so it looks like we're at least attempting to follow policy. I work at the speed that suits me, I'm not making any errors that I'm aware of. Kelly hi! 18:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I made you aware of several and I hope we will move on: you at the speed that suits Wikipedia rather than you and I move on back to issues other than reverting your erroneous deletion tags. --Irpen 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not aware of any valid errors that you've pointed out. Please see WP:PD for the requirements on making public domain claims. Also see WP:NFCC#10 on attribution of non-free images. Kelly hi! 19:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is error 1. Image both sourced and has a rationale that you did not bother to challenge when reagging for deletion. Here is another, and so on. --Irpen 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say the error is yours, neither of those images attribute the author or copyright holder. Kelly hi! 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, really? OK, then. Submit them for deletion and let's see what others say. I can't be talking while you seem to be not listening. So, seeking the feedback might be a good idea. --Irpen 19:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel the same way about you. Yes, a forum for other opinions would be best. Regards - Kelly hi! 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for having to come back. I enjoy this no more than yourself. Please see this. The tag is not fairuse but fairusein and mentions the page explicitly. You said earlier that you "bend over backwards to fix images" rather than achieve their deletion. All the info was there already, on this very page. But when the user does not exercise due care in the image work, such mishaps are happening more likely than not. You don't need to respond. I just wanted to illustrate the point why you should be more careful. Thanks. --Irpen 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my concern...the issue is that the painter and/or copyright holder is not identified. Who painted this image? Kelly hi! 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Emax, Witkacy and PD

Dear Kelly, first, please note that those users are inactive and it has been requested at the top of their talk pages to report problematic images of theirs to a specific forum. Second, please note that some of those images have better sourced copies on Commons, this can be easily checked by going to the article about the person and seeing what image is used (on average, if the image you tag is orphaned, it means there is a better copy on Commons). Finally, please note that almost all of those images are pd due to age and thus should not be deleted (unless they are duplicates) but tagged as missing information (the lack of which should not lead to deletion since they are obviously in PD).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Piotrus. I do my best to fix the images wherever possible, but it's really necessary to have the creator, date, and country of publication to do that. When it comes to paintings, especially, the date of death of the subject and the artist are not a good indicator of publication date. Also, in some countries the photographer retains copyright even on photos of 2D objects. See WP:PD#Artworks. Kelly hi! 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not the case of Poland, see copyright in Poland. And images of 16th-19th century Polish nobles are without exception PD.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends on when they were painted, which, without an author, you simply don't know. People are still making paintings of Jesus Christ, George Washington, and Elvis Presley even though they're long dead. Also, none of those image descriptions stated the images were from Poland. Kelly hi! 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:BCMap-doton-Hartley Bay.PNG

Wow, well spotted. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Kelly hi! 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Battle of Horseshoe Bend.jpg

Hi, It isn't actually a painting, it is a diorama. It took the photo myself. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As others have said

Good work with the images, but please slow down. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there a problem? Kelly hi! 12:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I took one look at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 April 22 and quailed and walked away. You seem to be going through them alphabetically. Why not filter by type? eg. Disputed claims, no sources, and so on. Put the ones that might be easy to fix in one place, and the others in other places. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I've been working on Category:PD tag needs updating. I've been able to fix a lot, and many are deleteable under speedy criteria. However, others have issues that require listing at WP:PUI. Kelly hi! 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I realise where you found them - in a vast and broad category. My point was that you could group the ones you list at PUI according to the problems they have. That would make things more efficient. If you don't have time to do that, would you mind if others did that for you? Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're saying. I have absolutely no problem with people doing good-faith refactoring of my reports. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind, as a lot of different uploaders are involved. I have to say I'm a little put off - are you annoyed with me for identifying these images? Since it's obviously a problem, I will stop cleaning up the problem images.Kelly hi! 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not annoyed at all. Just worried that things will get deleted unnecessarily. Does PUI lead to deletion eventually or not? There should be a way to have a "reviewed=1" tag somewhere. For example, see the image placeholder system. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK...I see. I guess the problem would be with whoever does the hypothetical improper deletions, then - my goal is to fix the images whenever possible. However, it's not really possibly when someone uploads some random photo or artwork with nothing on the image description but the {{PD}} tag. If I had the power to change WP:PUI, I would make it so that images are sent to the normal IFD process after being listed for two weeks at PUI with no resolution. I wouldn't mind reporting in some other format like you suggest, but I use Howcheng's image-tagging script which doesn't really any allow any user options, it even clicks the 'save' button for you. Is there some other option or better script? (No, I will not manually type all the tags, reports, and notifications) :) - Kelly hi! 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, please consider those who don't have scripts and slow down or arrange the reports in a way that is easier to understand and more efficient to process? I don't mind going back and undeleting pictures if I manage to find sources or evidence of copyright status, but it is a bit annoying. Do you have a list of resources you use to track down PD pictures and fill in the needed paperwork? I'm trying to improve co-ordination between various image areas on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress online search is the most useful for old US images. I also search Flickr and OpenPhoto if it looks like it could have come from there. Failing that I'll look at top few pages of Google image hits. And there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who seem to think that just because something "looks old" it must be in the public domain, or that providing a link to some random webpage where an image happens to be displayed qualifies as a good source for a PD claim. Is there a problem with my reports that make them difficult to understand? Or is this a problem with not enough admins working in this area? Kelly hi! 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I use LOC too. What I'm hoping is to gather together the more obscure ones from other places. There are some lists around already, and lists of those lists, but more organisation would be good. Your reports are fine, it is just the volume. But please don't let me discourage you. Just be aware that if the images are good, they will eventually, in the long run, be uploaded again, maybe even years later. If the paperwork is better then, that will be good, but overwhelming people with work now is less good. I suggseted to User:MECU that like-minded editors should work together to analyse the backlogs and clear them more efficiently than the current process. I see from the talk page you've already found Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group. Would you consider joining that? Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll think about it but I'm kind of put off the whole image cleanup thing now. If you look up my talk page I'm getting chided by admins and experienced users for tagging images that violate policy, and they're just apparently not interested in reading or following those policies, especially for image sourcing. Getting poked at for working too hard was kind of the last straw, so I think I'll do some template work and/or head off to the Commons. The people over there aren't nearly as confrontational, and I like to just quietly work on copyright issues and free image contributions/categorization without people showing up to berate me for following what I thought was an ironclad policy. Kelly hi! 23:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Commenting out Commons images

I accidentally left a box checked when I used Twinkle - I thought I'd managed to stop it before it kept going. I'll undo all those edits, sorry. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
I hereby award to you The Working Man's Barnstar for all your hard work at PUI - how are you finding so many images with issues? Is there a script helping out? asenine t/c\r 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I was working through a problematic category - Category:PD tag needs updating. I was using a script to tag images and make reports...User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. Kelly hi! 01:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Opt out

Kelly, your message to me asks if I want to opt out. But my talk page already has a nobots tag at the top. Anthony (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Anthony (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

You left a message on my talk page about Template:Furt subject belongs to. You are right that the template is not in use and may be deleted. It was something I developed in the course of implementing a plan for use rationales that never got completed or implemented. Thanks for watching out for these things. Wikidemo (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Example of unecessary image deletion

Sorry to raise this again, but I noticed that Image:Ac.ptolemy.jpg got deleted. It was a photo of a coin of Ptolemy I Soter., from the fourth century BC. You said the image had no source information. Did you consider asking the uploader for confirmation of the source? See User talk:Adam Carr. If not, then you have been doing a dis-service for old images (in this case uploaded in December 2003). In this case, we have various other images, but it is important to distinguish between modern images where lack of sources can indicate copyright violation, and old images like this where the uploader may have taken the photograph themselves, and the underlying object is (obviously!) public domain. Could I ask if there are other examples of images like this that you tagged and which got deleted? I'm asking because I would like to help fix these images and improve the encyclopedia - please don't get discouraged or take this personally. Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - I use Howcheng's image tagging script, so there should have been an automatic notification. Not sure how to explain it. Anyway, I wouldn't have tagged the image as unsourced if there had been a source. Of course the coin is not copyrighted, but photographers hold copyright on photos of three-dimensional objects. If you know who took the photo, please feel free to undelete and add that information. Anyway, as I've mentioned to you above, I've taken your hint and am no longer doing image cleanup. Kelly hi! 02:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this. I will ask elsewhere what should be done here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Raised it here. Possibly the wrong place, but wanted a fairly public place. If you know of a better image discussion page, please suggest this. Will also notify Irpen, Hesperian and MECU, as three people I can think of off the top of my head who know about this. Can you think of anyone else? Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but I prefer not to be involved with this issue anymore. Kelly hi! 03:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Please see my talk page where myself and a few other admins are trying to help. KnightLago (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you lend a hand to a wikipedia newbie please?

Hi Kelly -

I'd like to ask your assistance as one of our resident image "experts". I've recently had some contact with newbie editors who are trying to improve the Portland, Indiana article; in particular, they have been trying to upload very good quality images but are running afoul of our complex requirements. I'm wondering if you might be so kind as to help out the editor who's uploaded the most recent image, User:Axyf. The image she uploaded is here. One of the bots has already left a warning about tags, and I've left a message on her user talk letting her know I'm seeking some more knowledgeable help. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Risker (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I left some advice there. It is a nice photo. Kelly hi! 04:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Kelly. It's great to be able to demonstrate the collaborative nature of our site, and also the ability for people to "specialise" a bit, to our newer members. Fingers crossed, once she has a success or two, she might add a whole pile of images of this quality! Risker (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Imbox and catbox

Hi Kelly. I took the liberty of tinkering a little with {{imbox}} and added some hardcoded colour examples. I also started out a {{catbox}}.

I used the new images that we just have decided on for {{ambox}}. (Well, they are not final yet but seems those are the ones it will be.)

The margins for {{imbox}} are tricky. I test in several different browsers and they all treat the margins differently. Firefox is the one that makes them the tightest. I have set the margin on purpose so there is a small space between the boxes when they stack, even in Firefox. Since if we have no margin they overlap and that doesn't work well with coloured borders. And if we set the margins so they stack tight next to each other then it looks like one very thick border when two with the same colour are next to each other. I think {{imbox}} perhaps can have slightly darker background, currently it is normal very light grey ambox background.

The margins for the {{catbox}} was simpler.

Of course, this is just suggestions. Although it is somewhat in line with what is already used for image space (both here and at Commons) and category space.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw the changes...looking fantastic so far! Once I started trying to figure out how to set it up I was despairing, my programming skills are just not up to the task. Kelly hi! 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries. You have me on-board, I have been programming since 1982. And I created {{ambox}}. But I hope your colour skills are better than mine, since then we will be a great team. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello K:

You have kindly informed me that several images I've posted (some times ago, I think) are not labeled properly. I used to go back and try and fix these things, but that is no longer my policy. I just let them go. We are all doing what we feel/think is best for wikipedia, I just do not have the interst to go back and deal with the hundreds of images that I posted before current templates (or whatever) were in place. I have denuded several articles of my own pictures because someone wanted to fight about it and I did not. I love wikipedia [3] but am pretty out of step with the times and would rather just get out of the way and leave it to others. Thanks for alerting me about these images. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

my Audrey Munson movie pictures wer given a free reign by the person who owned the copyright to them. I am pretty sure that I included that information in my upload, eeeeek Carptrash (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The sculpture pictures came from these two books.

Neuhaus, Eugen, The San Diego Garden Fair: Personal Impressions of the Architecture, Sculpture, Horticulture, Color Scheme, & Other Aesthetic Aspects of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, Paul Elder and Company, Publishers, San Francisco 1915

Neuhaus, Eugen, The Art of the Exposition, Paul Elder and Company, Publishers, San Francisco 1915

life is supposed to be interesting. eeeekster aka Carptrash (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the picture you sent is out Ms. Munson. The book American Venus has a lot of pictures of her, a few looking quite like she dies in that one. eeek Carptrash (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kelly: I'd like to thank you for the effort that you are putting into fixing some of the copyright snafus around some of my entries. As far as which book a particular image came from, sure. I took the easy way out by sending you both titles, and I actually understand why getting it right matters. Both books are in my library about 7.5 feet away, but I have to stand to get them so that will be done later. I will also search my email for the messages regarding the copyrights to the film pictures. However, that was several

  • (1) years,
  • (2) home moves,
  • (3) email addresses,
  • (4) computer crashes

ago, so I make no promises other than I will seriously seek to unearth the exchange. Life can be a puzzle, but I d believe that there are no missing pieces. This might be the exception that proves the rule. Einar akaCarptrash (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So the Great E-mail Search of '08 has been called off. Right? I was informed by someone willing to fight about it, that any image of a sculpture that was created after 1923 (the sculpture, not the image) was not copyright free. I tried, briefly, to argue that my images were my to use here, but was told "NO" This led to the removal (many by me) of about two years worth of image posting. Anyway, this might be a direction to look in if you are trying to fine tune your understanding of American copyright laws. Or not, which is what I decided for myself. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer on the images, but I'll pass. There is plenty to do on wikipedia that's moving forward and I'm not inclined to go back much. Hopefully we have Ms. Munson taken care of, and that's a good thing. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Catbox

Hi, you recently changed the lucy pinder page. what is a catbox, why have you changed it, and since you seem good with images, can you help me please with uploading a different photo for the article? the current one is not encyclopaedic enough and I would like to upload a new one. many thanks δ²(Talk) 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

One of your userpages is up for speedy deletion, and I don't think you mean that

Hi Kelly, would you mind editing User:Kelly/Image maintenance templates so that it doesn't appear in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, please? It would be a shame if it were zapped accidentally... Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, that means there's one or more sloppy templates displayed there via {{tlrow}}. I'll try to figure out which one it is. Kelly hi! 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)