User talk:Admrboltz/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Admrboltz. 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.

Hi Admrboltz! I've just nominated you for administrator position. You can see the nomination here. If you agree with this nomination, please, accept it, so the voting can start. Good luck! -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I see in your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harm that you suggest {{CommunityUseOnly}} for images on user pages. Actually images with that tag would be deleted because as the previous version said:

This image is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use. It is not licensed under the GFDL. If this image was uploaded after 19 May 2005, it will soon be deleted without further warning.[1] Older images with this template will be considered for deletion.

Jimbo Wales ruled a few months ago that wikipedia cannot use images that are released for use "with permission" or "for noncommercial purposes" and all of them should be deleted. I comment this so you can rephrase your image notification messages. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to see someone else addicted to collecting the damn things... -- Francs2000 02:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have a secret stash here (at the bottom of the page). My personal favourite is this one. -- Francs2000 02:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My sole contribution to the effort was creating the {{user bodhrán}}templates -- Francs2000 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I've fixed it. You might be interested to know that on the Commons they've recently made the PD tag deprecated.--Pharos 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up. I'm not sure which copyright to add to it, so any help would be appreciated. I took the image myself, and I'm happy to have it used throughout Wikipedia and other non-commercial sites, but I'd quite like commercial sites to not be able to use it. Steven J 13:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Steven J 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, though Image:BattleofNewOrleans2.jpg was maybe scanned by NARA or the physical copy is in their collection, they didn't produce the image in any legally meaningful way, and the reason it's PD is just because it's old. I think this tag might have to be deleted; we should be attriubting images to their original sources, not the place where they're collected.--Pharos 07:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now put up the upload info for Image:WordWhiz.jpg. You may now take off the removal template thing. WordWhiz 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S: Please reply if you see this, Admrboltz.

I added a rationale to the Image tag for the image I uploaded Image:Wowsignal.gif thinkpad 08:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, did you happen to see this? --King of All the Franks 04:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I ought to do that more often. I took the time to warn some of the recent genitalia sockpuppets on Jimmy Wales. --King of All the Franks 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a newer version of this that I took myself and gave it an appropriate license. Cheers, Peter1968 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to know your way around with copyrights and "stuff". What do you think about Jennifer Hawkins and the picture on there that is listed as "copyrighted but the owner allows anyone to use it for any purpose". The picture source is listed (a commercial website) but there is no word about where the owner allows anyone to use it for any purpose. I am not sure how to go about this, I am just a regular dude :). BigBen212 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Why? It's sourced, and it's a national anthem, which is general considered public domain-y, or somesuch. Justin (koavf) 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

===>I'm with you, but The .mid file is linked here. Do I need to link to the image? Justin (koavf) 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hence my vote. Good luck to you. Chick Bowen 05:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 04:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --King of All the Franks 08:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, good luck and take care. --Mihai -^talk 16:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do to help. - Johntex\^talk 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's my senior portrait taken in 2003, though I have a lot more somewhere at home. Does this count as me being the copyright holder, since I had the picture taken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WTGDMan1986 (talk • contribs)

Please explain your recent edit on my talk page concerning Image:InfrogmationSketch.JPG. I can see nothing requiring either relicencing nor deletion of the image. I look forward to hearing from you on my talk page or the talk page of the image in question. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, congrats on joining the admin club!! The difference between the images is the extension, .jpg and .JPG. The latter is on commons and hence cannot be protected from vandalism, (as I am not an admin yet ;-) on commons), it is temporarily uploaded - dunno why, but the default extension seems to be .jpg rather than .JPG and hence it got uploaded as such. btw, the file was huge and took a lot of time to manually download it first from commons and then upload it to en. See you around, --Gurubrahma 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes this photo may be deleted by Wikipedia. It was originally used briefly in the Babe Ruth article, but it may be deleted. Thanks. --LibraryLion 20:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, that was a BCA press release photo. Why did you do that? Stop it! N328KF 03:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I wonder why the plan has disappeared, but the photo Image:Fountains Abbey.jpg still exists, why deleting the latter?--Klaus with K 14:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough that the plan was without source. Leaves the question why the photo was taken off the page. But coming back to the plan - where can one discuss the intrinsic weakness that having a page on my watchlist does not alert me to looming and actual changes to images.--Klaus with K 11:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 48/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Re your deletion of File:Uvfnurses.jpg the image dates from 1912-1914 and so was out of copyright, as were all of the images downloaded by the user who downloaded it. As the user is no longer on WP he couldn't reply to you. If you had contacted Irish users they could have told you that the images were all out of copyright because they all date from a campaign of 1912-1914 which ended with the start of the First World War and helped to find their origins. But now, as they are all deleted and the user who installed them is no longer on WP the pedia has lost an invaluable set of copyright-free historical images and as we can't see what they were we cannot begin to trace them to get them back. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I know you followed process, but why didn't you approach the Irish noticeboard just to check the information? Irish users could have given the information or traced it. The current process is, if you'll pardon the expression, a crock of shit. Major mistakes are being made all over the place because people either aren't notifying the downloaders at all or if they do, aren't doing any homework, just blanket deleting things without cop-on. Much of my time on WP these days seems to be spent cleaning up deletion screw-ups. Next time, please contact a country noticeboard regarding old images before deleting things that are patently obviously older than copyright. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Admrboltz:

I am not sure on what grounds you are thinking of removing the "Yaks with loads" image. As far as I know, this book has been considered out of copyright for many years. T. E. Gordon, the author, died in 1902 - thus making his death more than 100 years ago. Also, this book has been reprinted several times at least by publishing companies that specialise in reprinting out-of-copyright titles - two that I have seen have no copyright information in them other than a copy of the original title page of the original 1876 edition, which states simply: "All Rights Reserved."

I have a copy here now reprinted by the Ch'eng Wen Publishing Company in Taipei, in 1971. I have also consulted a reprinted copy in Pakistan (printed in Pakistan) and I owned an Indian reprint when I lived there from 1979-81 but, unfortunately, I can't remember the publisher or any other details).

I see on Amazon.com that there has been at least one more reprint - by South Asia Books in 1994.

I think it is fair under these circumstances to consider the book "in the public domain" and to allow the image to remain on the Wikipedia. If you disagee, would you please contact me and leave a note on my "discussion page" and tell me why? If you have any queries I am happy to attempt to answer them.

Cheers,

John Hill John Hill 03:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I had not used the photo after I uploaded it. I had meant to add it to the page on yaks but must have forgotten.Anyway, I have now done so. Hope this is satisfactory.

Cheers,

John Hill John Hill 07:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not criticising you, BTW, but our policy. As it stands it has no checks and balances to help avoid unnecessary deletions. So good stuff that could have information chased up is dumped as well as the bad. I came across an article lately which lost all of its images even though the only problem was that the downloader of them, a newbie, had hadn't categorised correctly simply because as a newbie he didn't know how to do it. Those doing the deletions often don't know the factual background to images and their likely source (eg, that all close-up images of popes in St. Peters are certain to have been taken by a papal photographer, because they are the only people allowed to take photographs. The Vatican then release the images to the media as free use images. Or, as is the case here, we can be certain of the timeframe within which those images were taken so we know that copyright would have expired). Recently another image was deleted because it was said we did not know when it was taken, where it was taken and who took it. In fact anyone knowledgeable about history would instantly have known it was taken in the afternoon of 31st December 1916 by the official court photographer for release to the press, but by not asking anyone (in that case not even alerting the downloader) before deletion the deleter had no information to go on. So others had to chase back the images and redownload them.

Because WP is now so big, people simply aren't able to keep an eye on deletion pages all the time. As a result it is vital that deleters alert people before deleting. Maybe we should have specific pages whereby people can post a problematic image, as in the Irish users' page for Irish images, or a historian's page for history images. The current system however is a mess, and is seriously annoying users (I was alerted to this image by a furious user) while losing images we can keep once we do a bit of work in finding their sources, as well as images we clearly cannot keep. All to many deleters don't do anything to establish sources, even contact the original downloader or remove the broken link from articles. The only way the rest of us find out about a deletion is when we find a broken link in an article and mutter "for fuck sake" and something stronger when we find that the original downloader wasn't even alerted that there was a problem with the image, or when we instinctively know from personal knowledge details of what that image was, where it probably came from and its copyright status.

Thanks for agreeing to mention images on country user pages. It may well help the process and avoid unnecessary deletions in the future. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you are the deleting admin of the above image. It has been re-uploaded by the original uploader, with no additional information provided. There is a conversation at Image talk:Dylan jams with campbell.jpg about what to do in this situation, and I thought that you might have some input. Thanks. Jkelly 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just speedy delete those no source images instead of listing them on WP:IFD? It's faster. See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia -Nv8200p talk 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is Jimbo's original intent -"According to the new speedy deletion criterion (I just changed it), these can be deleted on sight when they have been on the site for at least 7 days." Somebody has perverted it into what's on the Speedy deletion page. What you are doing is perfectly fine though -Regards Nv8200p talk 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I get my share of being "yelled" at too. I just explain, "calmly", why there images were deleted and help them to understand how to fix it (or fix it myself if I erred). There are some people that are never satisfied and I just let them be. Keep plugging away, what you are doing is great! -Thanks, Nv8200p talk 18:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message.

"[...] If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion."

If you had done some checking yourself, you would easily have seen from the image history [2] that some stupid vandal (User:Meettheparents) has removed all the details I gave for that image.

I have reverted the page to its original status. I think you might have been able to do that, too. Best wishes, <KF> 21:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vikingshipkils.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. ... Thank you. Admrboltz (T | C) 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Uwe is around Wikipedia at the moment, but in case he doesn't respond any time soon, Uwe made a number of additional comments about having taken this photograph at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Viking Ship. -- Solipsist 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)