Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bulwersator

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bulwersator (talk | contribs) at 14:08, 8 September 2012 (→Why are you giving a false rationale when you tag images for deletion: *******"Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Misplaced Pages article has been published by a reliable source" - currently thi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:08, 8 September 2012 by Bulwersator (talk | contribs) (→Why are you giving a false rationale when you tag images for deletion: *******"Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Misplaced Pages article has been published by a reliable source" - currently thi)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User talk:Bulwersator/rightArchives

Possibly unfree File:Vandalized Stalin, Fallen Monument Park, Moscow.JPG

I personally took File:Vandalized Stalin, Fallen Monument Park, Moscow.JPG, and the images says so. I thought I released it into public domain. Can this mess with Russian copyright? I'm a bit confused.

dino (talk)

Hazlitt.jpg

Hi, you left a note on my talk page about File:Hazlitt.jpg needing permissions information. There was already an OTRS template on the file description page noting the Mises Institute's free release of the image and citing an OTRS ticket number, so I've removed your DI template. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

We should get you signed up for the permissions queue, if you like - that way you could check these images directly :) --Errant 13:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Josefina Balderas Madrid.JPG

Thank you for your interest in clarifying the copyright status of this file. I created the file from my personal collection of Family memoirs, which I own. I freely relaese it in public domain.

If you have further questions, please post it on my talk page. --Sulbud (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving some maps to Commons

Hi. I was thinking of moving these maps to Commons. But it seems that uploader uploaded both a small and a large version of all maps. I think we should replace the small files with the large ones and then move to Commons. Any ideas how to do that easy? --MGA73 (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your idea. I think I found a way to replace usage. --MGA73 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it worked pretty good. Only 3 files left on this users upload list :-) --MGA73 (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:NotarchusPunctatusSeaSlug.jpg

Hello Bulwersator. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:NotarchusPunctatusSeaSlug.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: per note on talk page and claim that there is permission. There's no rush and if it isn't confirmed soon, it can go to WP:FFD. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

careless image actions

Hi Bulwersator,

A couple of your recent actions w/r/t images were silly/wrong. (1) Moving File:Hsl-as-sphere.jpg to commons. This was an image created explicitly for wikipedia talk pages, and has no external utility. It does not belong on commons, it belongs on wikipedia as support material for discussion archives. There’s really no reason to touch it. Unfortunately, soon after you added the image to commons, another overzealous editor deleted the image from wikipedia, in the process killing any page history, etc. (2) Nominating File:Avid-hsl.png for deletion with an entirely incorrect rationale (namely that it wasn’t discussed on the article where it is used). In both of these cases, the actions seem to have been undertaken mechanically, like a bot, without any attempt to look at the context or use of these images, or think. I don’t know if it’s a general pattern, but I recommend editors who plan to make many changes should try to pay some attention, instead of indiscriminately applying crude heuristics. Cheers. jacobolus (t) 05:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"in the process killing any page history" - how it damaged page history? Bulwersator (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Take a look, no history: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:Hsl-as-sphere.jpg&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:Orange-range.png&action=history –jacobolus (t) 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons moves

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Moving_to_commons_without_tagging which you may be interested in. ~Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

F9

FYI: I moved two of your F9 requests to Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 1. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

source concerns

Can you expand on why you tagged File:207457main antenna-331-2426a-516.jpg for deletion? Your tag and the edit summary stated "no source" however there was a source listed. I've updated the image further with the definitive URL where the image is available from today. Hopefully this should resolve any additional concerns.--RadioFan (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why you erased my Zach photo

Didn't you read I took that picture myself. How Am I violating a copyright that was my own taken picture with my own camera and it was obvious. You are the one who should be blocked for not thinking before doing things, give me an clear explanation. I am going to complain about your action. I even improved the quality and made it better to fit the profile. Why are you behaving like this with me. You are the one who violated my copyright by erasing my own picture that I personally took. You are an extremist that didn't think before acting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog890 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hi I it is already gone. You did wrong believe me. But I don't care anymore it's done you just wasted my time and my work by deleting something that wasn't meant to be deleted. But do whatever you want. Good luck.--RG9 05:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog890 (talk • contribs)

Colpoint.jpg

Hello. I saw what you or a robot representing you put on my talk page about "File:Colpoint.JPG". It is a Landsat program image. It was uploaded by someone else and used in the Boston article. I took it, and edited it, and modified it, with my own tools for annotational purposes. The original file is "Boston Landsat.jpg" which was uploaded by someone else. I put a note on the page. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Images from the USGovernment

I have noticed at least 3 images today that you tagged for CSD that are works of the US Government and not subject to copyright. Please stop. I admit some of these could use some more info such as author but there is no need to CSD them. One example is File:Henry-E-Erwin.png another is File:Usgreatseal.png both are clearly a work of the US government. Kumioko (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

two Australian War Memorial files

Hi, thanks for that. Strangely when I went to add the required information, someone had already added the links. --Rskp (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unused files

Hi. I checked to see if there were some users that had many files in Category:Misplaced Pages orphaned files. My plan was that perhaps it was better to nominate a lot of files in one DR instead of spamming the uploader with many DR's. Andrew Parodi has 144 orphan images. Do you know if there is a tool to create such DR's? (Other users with more than 100 unused uploads: User:Carptrash, User:718 Bot, User:Plumoyr, User:Bwmoll3, User:Attilios, User:Beao, User:Kranar drogin, User:Miami92 - I could make galleries for those if you think it is a good idea.) --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I have no idea. With 100+ files you maybe you can ask for a bot. And I am unsure whatever mass nomination like this is a good idea - most of orphaned files should be rather moved to Commons than deleted Bulwersator (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay :-) I agree that many orphan images should be moved to Commons and I moved ~50 NASA images a few days ago and ~500 maps yesterday (or was it 2 days ago?) from the orphan category. But if it is unused userpage images of family etc. then we should not move them. So my idea was if we can move hundreds of good files in one task or delete hundreds of bad files in one task then we would reduce the backlog fast. --MGA73 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I must say that most of the files by User:Andrew Parodi look like useful files, so I would say that they should be moved to Commons instead of being deleted. The idea of working on one user at a time sounds good since there will probably be similar categories for the images and a similar probability of finding copyright violations. However, I'm not sure if there is an advantage of choosing a specific user only because the user has lots of orphaned files. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


File:Haenickesigfried.jpg

Hello - Thanks for the message. The above file is actually free - please see the additional information with this file... "The photographs of Heinrich Hoffmann are considered to be in the public domain in the U.S. due to their status as seized Nazi property, although in normal circumstances their copyrights would not yet have expired. For more information, please see: David Culbert (1997). "The Heinrich Hoffmann Photo Archive: Price vs United States (United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 20 November, 1995)". Thank you for your good work and attention to this matter. Mariaflores1955 (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}: you have to include a link to the United States National Archives which confirms that this particular photo is seized Nazi property. Not all photos by Heinrich Hoffmann were seized Nazi property and photos which were not seized Nazi property are fully copyrighted in the United States. Without a link to the United States National Archives, we have to assume that this photo is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Stefan2 - please see here. I do not want to repeat what is already sated there, but if you have additional questions, do not hesitate to contact me. best regards!! Mariaflores1955 (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe Maria's comment also applies to the concern you had expressed about the file File:Herbert Ihlefeld.jpg. Which by the way I did not upload. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles of Incorporation for SRF

Hello, the articles of incorporation is a governement document from the state of california which is a publically accessible document. I said the author was State of California. What else do I need to say to make it more clear?Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you giving a false rationale when you tag images for deletion

If you look carefully, or even bother to open the page, you will see that the image "John Gardner" is not only in the public domain, but has its "source" clearly given in the description. Your rationale is false, and I would like it if you either explained yourself, or would please remove your clearly false claim..JOJ 18:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm going to assume that since you have actively edited since my last inquiry, you have at least had a chance to see my question and would still like for you to explain yourself. Why are you falsely tagging articles? Last chance to respond before I take this to a notice board. JOJ 21:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Currently file is without source that allows verification of licence and description. Bulwersator (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It lists its source. Stop saying it doesn't have a source. Look very very carefully.--JOJ 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It is nominated for deletion as file "without source that allows verification of licence and description" not as "without source" Bulwersator (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • The source is listed as California Department of Corrections photographic records. Thus it is in the public domain, because mug shots taken by California law enforcement are released into the public domain. I also notice that you have tagged other images with the same rationale, that have their source listed as well. I may have no other choice but to list this dispute at ANI, since its obviously bigger than a single image being erroneously listed for deletion. --JOJ 13:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Still, there is no link to web page listing this picture as work of California Department of Corrections photographic records, there is no ID of image in collection of this institution or anything else that allows verification. Bulwersator (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
            • It doesn't need a link. See WP:PAYWALL. Just because you cannot sit at your computer and verify the source, does not mean that the source is invalid. I cannot believe you even said that, but it explains so much.--JOJ 13:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
              • "Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Misplaced Pages article has been published by a reliable source" - currently this image is IMHO without proper source, only with specified author. Your opinion is different - I suggest to wait for result of deletion request, as this discussion is rather not very productive Bulwersator (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Shevashalosh

I note you have been leaving messages on the talk page of User:Shevashalosh. Save your breath. User Shevashalosh was banned in 2008, and has been inactive since (at least with that username). Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop blanket nominations for deletion

Bulwersator, please stop nominating every single image on Misplaced Pages for deletion. If you would bother to look at the images and their licensing/sourcing information, you would see that your blanket nomintaions for deletion are unwarranted and a waste of resources. Sf46 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)