User talk:Rd232/Archive 7

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.

Hi Rd232, I invented something old. Hence, because the code is very small, and it could be very useful I added it immediately to the gadget-section: „Global Usage Badges“. It will do the same as you suggested somewhere in the past for GalleryTool. But it does it everywhere (in all gallery boxes). It would be kind if you could take some time to elaborate whether you find it useful and maybe choose a better name (you know I am not a native speaker). Thanks in advance. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Very useful, thanks. Wording seems clear enough (at least, I can't immediately see how to improve it). I wonder if we couldn't have a single "show global usage badges" button near the top of the page though, instead of a questionmark badge on every file? It's a bit obtrusive for when you don't need the global usage - less visible it's a gadget you can leave on all the time, but with the current style, I'd be tempted to turn it off when I'm not using it. Otherwise, very nice, many thanks! Rd232 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Chiming inI agree wth Rd232: this is very useful ; but the question mark on every file is a bit annoying − a single switch button would be better IMO. Thanks Rillke! Jean-Fred (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your feedback and thank you Jean-Fred for swiftly completing of the gadget installation (I always forget something, perhaps I should make a check list) while I was busy editing the screenshot.

I would like to know whether you find the badges annoying or you actually want a button. If you want a button, which type would you prefer and where? [I think it would be good if one could avoid scrolling to the page-top; sometimes you scroll down and then discover you'd like to know about usage] Thanks in advance. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of a button next to the Gallery Slideshow button. You have a point about avoiding scrolling, but I'm not sure how to achieve that any other way than what you've done. How about just changing the colour? A light grey would be a lot less eye-poking than red. I think I'd still like a button though - it just doesn't feel quite right for a click on a file thumbnail to update all file thumbnails on the page. Rd232 (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I won't forget this. jQuery menu seems to be ready so I will make some kind of view-options menu including the slideshow for which we can now requestFullsreen() going to test this during POTY. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We can delete them completely or redirect, but I can see no possible reason to treat templates that are merely specific cases of a wider one as the same.

By the way, you are aware that Template:PD-Old and Template:PD-Old-70 are exactly equivalent as currently written, right? Now there's a case for a redirect if ever there was one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand what you're saying, but I see no value in splitting the discussion from the new VP thread you've started. But I'll reiterate what I said there: generally, redirecting license templates is a bad idea, if there's any significant scope for misunderstanding. (And if you don't know how widely PD-old is misused/abused - be my guest to do enough cleanup to find out!) Rd232 (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, since you're the one protecting it, and you're the one who made the templates be speedy delete, point me to the discussion where it was decided such templates should be speedy deletes. Or is this an abuse of your admin tools? Because it's one or the other. I realise a lot of things on commons are decided by a single person, but I do find it quite offputting and not at all helpful to discussion that your first reaction to someone objecting to a change you yourself made without discussion is to revert and protect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where the discussion(s) was/were. AFAIR there were several examples, and I made more because it made sense. The protection just now was to stop the status quo being upended (by you or anyone else) without discussion, it obviously doesn't prevent or override any community discussion that might decide to do things differently (preferably for all of them at once, which the protection helps ensure, so things don't happen piecemeal). As to off-putting - I find it quite offputting that you decide to make changes to many license templates, with major implications for future abuse of those templates, without any discussion with anybody. I won't hold it against you, but it was not a good move and I'm slightly peeved that you object to the bad move being reverted pending discussion. Rd232 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, allow me to enlighten you as why: Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Loc. You will note that's an actual commons process, where my argument won out. I'll admit that I thought there was more discussion, but then, so far, I've actually shown evidence for my side winning out in discussions. Over to you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Mmhm. One admin in 2008 deleting based on your DR, and no discussion, and it's not even a "PD-..." license tag - yeah, that's fantastically persuasive. On the other hand, what it was a redirect to, {{PD-LOC}}, remains a speedy delete redirect. As one edit summary in the history of that PD-LOC template said, This is named and interpreted as a (not accepted) license tag. Redirecting it to a source tag can create the wrong impression that LOC-image is accepted as a pd license.. Rd232 (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In this edit, I cannot see anything subject to a revision deletion according to COM:REVDEL. Commons should provide a maximal possible transparency for every user, with exceptions only in emergency cases. "Revision deletion is used sparingly", COM:REVDEL says. That is/was not the case here: neither the reverted text which is a usual spam, nor the user name which is a dynamic IP with just one edit. I'm afraid, you misuse your tools once again. I'm going to undo the deletion now, any objections you can state on COM:ANU Thanks --A.Savin 21:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not ordinary spam. There are private details that should be hidden about some family: medical details, home address, and phone number. It's even close to the threshhold for Commons:Oversight ("especially when concerning a person's real life identity, full name, address, telephone number etc."), so REVDEL is completely appropriate IMO. Please re-hide this, A. Savin, and try to discuss before undoing other non-urgent admin actions. --99of9 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverted, for reasons given by 99of9. A.Savin, I was responsible for COM:REVDEL, and I don't use the tool lightly. I'm also conscious that its review by other admins is important, so thank you for doing that - but in future, please discuss before reverting. No revdel is so damaging as to require reverting without discussion. Looking at the logs for VP, I see some examples where it was overused, eg spam (nov 2012), repetition of a single-word insult (Sep 2011). It's worth reviewing each RevDel, absolutely - but please don't undo them without discussion. For one thing, this approach reduces any education effect on admins using RevDel wrongly: discussion does this better. Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with Rd232. I saw the edit before it was deleted, and if this had this been on en-wiki I would have used revdel myself. You may say that a vandal who posts personal information deserves everything they get, but how do we know they weren't posting someone else's info instead?  An optimist on the run! 23:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, ich vertraue mal, dass deine Änderungen [1], [2], [3] sinnvoll sind. Ich habe ohnehin einen Bot-Durchlauf durch alle 700 Bilder vor, um die Kategorisierung nach historischen Forstbezirken zu verbessern. Da könnte ich diese PD-Old-Änderung dann nebenbei mitmachen. Siehst du etwas dagegensprechen? Gruß --dealerofsalvation 05:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ich würde eher auf {{PD-art/1923|1688}} gehen, PD-Art gemäß Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. PD-100 (für Europa) und PD-1923 (für die USA) werden damit auch abgedeckt, und falls je irgendwann das Todesjahr des Urhebers relevant für den Lizenzbaustein werden sollte, ist das auch gleich mit abgedeckt. --Rosenzweig τ 06:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Prinzipiel bin ich auch der Meinung, Todesjahr anzugeben ist besser. Aber: erstens ist das kein PD-Art Fall, sondern {{PD-scan}}. Zweitens finde ich {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=XXX}} beziehnugsweise {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=XXX}} besser, da hier die Bedeutung des Jahres genau beschrieben wird (nur auf englisch, zugegeben, aber trotzdem - das relevante PD-old Jahr wird nur all zu oft als Jahr der Veroeffentlichung oder Herstellung angesehen). Rd232 (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ich denke schon, dass es sich jeweils um Fotos handelt und nicht um Scans oder dergleichen, daher PD-Art. So wie ich die Praxis in größeren Archiven und Bibliotheken kenne, haben die jeweils eigene Fotografen. Wie genau das Todesjahr im Quelltext angegeben ist, ist nicht so wichtig, das Ergebnis ist dasselbe. Da Leute, die mit der Anwendung solcher Bausteine Probleme haben, m. E. nicht gerade in den Quelltext anderer Dateien schauen, halte ich den lieber knapper. Aber egal, das Ergebnis ist wie gesagt dasselbe. --Rosenzweig τ 12:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Benutzer schauen teilweise in den Quelltext, um von anderen Dateien ein Beispiel zu nehmen. Ob es PD-scan ist: Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag schreibt it is simply a mechanical reproduction of an old, public domain image, or — from the available evidence — that it is so similar to such a reproduction that no copyright protection can be expected to arise. Wenn es von einem Scan nicht zu unterscheiden ist, ist es PD-scan, auch wenn man meint, es ist wahrscheinlich ein Foto. Rd232 (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Es ist die Frage, ob es tatsächlich von einem Scan nicht zu unterscheiden ist. Bei irgendwelchen Massendigitalisierungen von Textseiten mag das der Fall sein, auch wenn sie mit einer Kamera und nicht einem Scanner vorgenommen wurden. Bei sorgfältig aufgenommenen und reproduzierten Fotos größtenteils farbiger Zeichnungen wie hier aber nicht. Daher bleibe ich bei PD-Art. --Rosenzweig τ 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wie sind sie denn zu unterscheiden? Rd232 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

An der Sorgfalt und Qualität der Reproduktion beispielsweise. Die Übergänge sind aber sicher fließend und nicht exakt definiert, wenn Scans aufwendig nachbearbeitet werden, ist das Ergebnis auch kein simpler Scan mehr. Man kann sich daher durchaus auch fragen, ob Commons beide Bausteine braucht oder ob einer, quasi PD-Simple reproduction oder dergleichen, reichen würde. --Rosenzweig τ 14:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm, das sollte man villeicht mehr diskutieren, vielleicht auf COM:VPC. Rd232 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, gut - mehr Genauigkeit mit Lizenzbausteinen ist immer besser, und da diese alle von derselben Quelle sind, ist es unproblematisch das hier automatisch zu machen. Rd232 (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Ich habe verstanden, dass ihr auf PD-Art mit 1923 und Angabe des Todesjahrs plädiert, und dass {{PD-art…|1688}} und {{PD-art…|deathyear=1688}} im Ergebnis das selbe sind (ich tendiere zu letzterem, wegen selbsterklärender Quelltext-Verständlichkeit). Besteht zwischen {{PD-art/1923|…}} und {{PD-art|PD-old-auto-1923|…}} irgendein technischer Unterschied? --dealerofsalvation 07:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Letztlich sind das alles Container-Vorlagen, die ihrerseits andere Vorlagen wie {{PD-old-100-1923}} aufrufen und gebündelt präsentieren. Welche genau das sind, verrät ein Blick in den jeweiligen Vorlagenquelltext, es ist aber nicht so wichtig, denn in beiden Fällen werden letztlich die Sachverhalte PD-1923 (für die USA, gemeinfrei da vor 1923 veröffentlicht) und PD-old-100 (für den Rest der Welt, gemeinfrei da Urheber mindestens 100 Jahre tot) innerhalb der Vorlage PD-Art angezeigt und die entsprechenden Kategorien belegt; bei PD-Scan sollte es ebenso funktionieren. Falls je irgendein Land auf die irrwitzige Idee kommen sollte, die Schutzfristen noch weiter auszudehnen als 100 Jahre nach dem Tod (derzeitig geltendes Recht in Mexiko bspw.), könnte man bspw. eine Vorlage PD-old-120 schaffen, die dann aufgrund des gespeicherten Todesjahres 1688 auch automatisch angezeigt würde. --Rosenzweig τ 09:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ich habe mich nochmal mit dieser 1923-Regel befasst. Unter Commons:Copyright tags steht, die Regel greife „for works published (not simply created!) before January 1, 1923“. Ich weiß aber nicht, ob wir davon ausgehen können, dass die Bilder vor 1923 veröffentlicht wurden. Siehe en:publication. Wäre nicht sicherheitshalber nach der Tabelle unter Help:Public_domain#Published_outside_the_United_States vorzugehen, und dann nach der pessimistischsten Annahme, nach 1. Januar 1978 veröffentlicht? Dann wäre der Tabelle zufolge Voraussetzung, dass der Autor vor 1917 gestorben ist, aber ich weiß nicht, welches Tag zu verwenden wäre. --dealerofsalvation 12:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Entscheidend für den Schutz in den USA ist hier, ob das Werk am URAA-Datum (en:Uruguay Round Agreements Act) im Herkunftsland geschützt war, nur dann ist es auch in den USA geschützt. (Dass die Forstkarte irgendwann im entscheidenden Zeitraum in den USA unter Beachtung aller Formalien wie Registrierung, copyright notice usw. veröffentlicht wurde und deswegen unter originärem US-Copyright steht, halte ich für äußerst unwahrscheinlich und vernachlässigbar.) Herkunftsland ist Deutschland, das URAA-Datum für Deutschland ist der 1. Januar 1996. Einen nachträglichen Schutz unveröffentlichter Werke (de:editio princeps (Urheberrecht)) gibt es in Deutschland erst ab 1965, er dauert 25 Jahre. Nachdem die Forstkarte spätestens im 19. Jahrhundert beschrieben wurde und die Reprofotos aus den 1930er-Jahren stammen, können wir ziemlich sicher davon ausgehen, dass die Forstkarte 1996 in Deutschland nicht mehr geschützt war. Als passende Bausteine gäbe es {{PD-art/1996|1688}} oder {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1688}}; ob die wirklich nötig sind, ist m. E. aber zumindest fraglich. Man kann die Sache noch weiter treiben und sich fragen, ob gemäß dem nach wie vor gültigen bilateralen s:de:Übereinkommen zwischen dem Reich und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika über den gegenseitigen Schutz der Urheberrechte ein Schutz in den USA besteht (nach US-Fristen, denn die USA machen keinen de:Schutzfristenvergleich). Aber dazu müsste m. E. jemand in Deutschland editio princeps geltend gemacht haben. Ohne Anzeichen, dass dem tatsächlich so ist, würde ich einem möglichen Schutz in den USA aufgrund dieses Übereinkommens daher nicht weiter nachgehen. --Rosenzweig τ 15:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mehr zum letzten Punkt: en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights und en:Wikipedia:Public domain#When does copyright expire? So wie ich das verstehe, hätte evtl. (wenn wir gem. de:Kiesersche Forstkarte mal von 1934/1939 als Datum der Veröffentlichung ausgehen) ein US-Copyright per presidential proclamation auch für ein deutsches Werk entstehen können. Nach den damaligen Vorschriften hätte dieses Copyright aber nach 28 Jahren formgerecht verlängert werden müssen. Falls das geschehen ist (halte ich für sehr unwahrscheinlich, wer hätte das tun sollen, die Württembergische Landesbildstelle, die Landesarchivdirektion?), gilt es für insgesamt 95 Jahre ab Veröffentlichung. Falls keine Verlängerung erfolgte, ist das Copyright nach 28 Jahren abgelaufen. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ich sehe auch keine Anhaltspunkte, ernsthaft zu befürchten, dass die Bilder unter US-Copyright stehen. Aber mir geht es darum, das korrekte Tag zu verwenden. Ob eine „publication“, definiert als „the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending“ 1934 bzw 1939 stattfand, halte ich für fragwürdig. Weiterhin: „A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.“ Die „publication“ fand m. E. mit Sicherheit spätestens mit den Online-Darstellungen statt, für einzelne Bilder auch schon vorher in verschiedensten Büchern. Also, wäre {{PD-art/1996|1688}} das richtige Tag? --dealerofsalvation 04:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wenn die Landesbildstelle Bilder macht (hat sie in diesem Fall 1939 getan), dann ja nicht fürs stille Kämmerlein, sondern zur Verbreitung, sei es per Verkauf oder Verleih. Von daher würde ich schon von einer publication in den 1930ern ausgehen. Eine publication erst 1985 bspw. (da erschien ein gedrucktes Faksimile) hätte dagegen u. U. eine US-Schutzfrist bis Ende 2047 zur Folge (bilaterales Abkommen und US-Copyright aufgrund der o. g. presidential proclamation, siehe Links weiter oben). PD-1996 wäre ok für mich, die von dir bevorzugte Variante mit deathyear wäre {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1688}}, aber warten wir mal ab, was der Eigentümer dieser Diskussionsseite meint :-) --Rosenzweig τ 09:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Wikibreak2 notification is inappropriate, as you're not on break and haven't been on break for some time. --Elvey (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hence the (maybe). It was an intention, and the intention hasn't entirely gone away, and removing the notice would be admitting defeat. How about leaving well alone? Rd232 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

With the change you just made, its OK. --Elvey (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Compromise ignored. You blocked editing of the policy by non-admins, right after reverting an edit which you didn't like but, which had support from multiple other users. On the English Wikipedia, your action is a bright line policy violation. You demanded discussion happen only your way and then shut it down. You made blatantly false reversion accusations against me (and with great reluctance withdrew one of them, but not the 2RR violation one, apparently because of your innumeracy. (2 > 2) = FALSE, not TRUE.) Like I said (context above),

If the only answer you can provide is a non-answer, that's damn good evidence that the word doesn't belong in policy.

I'm done discussing this with you.  I'm taking a break from editing.--Elvey (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. But if you believe it to be true, COM:AN/U is that way. Rd232 (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rereading the post, "complete nonsense" is being kind. Yeesh. Rd232 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the post #Copyright violation by admin INeverCry as an abuse. If there's another post like that, his talk privs should be revoked again. INeverCry 22:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, whilst not ideal, that sort of post is a very long way from the sort of thing that justifies removal of talkpage access. Rd232 (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I was under the impression that indef blocked users were supposed to use their talk page to appeal their block and discuss how an unblock would be accomplished, etc, not to make baseless accusations against other users. Also, it's been pointed out by another user that this was the kind of behavior that got PK blocked in the first place, so continuing the behavior on his talk isn't acceptable. INeverCry 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkpage access should not easily be removed. Rd232 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You added UK here, but I can see no discussion on this. So could you please explain what you used to come up with the metrics there, and what the exceptions are. Cheers, russavia (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's my interpretation of the text. I found it hard to translate the text into the table, but that's what I came up with. Rd232 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Which text? russavia (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#United_Kingdom. Rd232 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This and this basically conflict with the table. Have you seen these? russavia (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen those (used one as a source). The contradiction is only partial, and as some of these things are changing (towards stronger privacy protection) sources may be out of date. I'm not saying that what I've written is necessarily 100% correct, but challenging it will need better sources (preferably recent real cases, or at least recent legal commentary). Rd232 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the contradiction is total. You have inserted "Yes, with exceptions" in the UK table, when if you read everything written, the reverse is actually true...that being "No, with exceptions". What you have done is taken one of those exceptions, and made that the rule, rather than the exception. russavia (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The choice between "yes with exceptions" ("whoa, be careful") and "no with exceptions" ("it's probably fine") depends partly on the nature and extent of the exceptions. The recent view that This does not just mean that they are entitled to privacy when they are in private places such as their home. It also extends to behaviour they would not want others to know about... combined with the existing "expectation of privacy" extending to public places where photography is not expected says to me that the balance is tipped towards "whoa, be careful", and away from "it's probably fine". Rd232 (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The table is overly simplistic. I agree with Russavia, I think the guidance has the emphasis the wrong way around from what I understand the default position in the UK. One need only talk to a policeman who is worried about you taking photographs in a public place with security concerns, to understand how well protected the right to take photographs in a public place in the UK really is, and how rarely anyone has any power to stop you taking photos or publishing them as you see fit. Individual portrait photographs may need more attention, but we should be led by the outcomes and precise wording of real legal cases and case law in order to set this guidance, rather than hypotheses and interpretation. --Fæ (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the "photographers rights" stuff is about this sort of security/police/access permission stuff which we don't care about, as it's not relevant for copyright or COM:PEOPLE. I agree the table is not very useful; one might even wonder if it's dangerously useless. Rd232 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Exception would be basically where there is an expectation of photographs being taken and of the photographs not showing behaviour the subject wants to keep private. Rd232 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the image in question, I think the guidance needs serious review and in my opinion is misleading as it stands. The situations in the UK where you need consent to take photographs in a public space should be very clearly limited, not the norm, and this should be spelt out or we run the danger that any photo of potentially identifiable people in public may be endlessly challenged. We probably need to look again at the case law to understand the 'expectation of privacy' phrase, it would be easy to over interpret the current guidelines. I note that sources such as this, which are used to support the text do not actually refer to any real legal cases and their outcomes, and so are highly dubious. Considering we are judging the balance between free speech and personal rights, I think the text needs tightening and the guidance should be extremely well supported with example cases to compare against. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could and should be much improved with reference to real cases and real legal commentary (as opposed to photographers' rights sites whose concerns are obviously not entirely ours). Rd232 (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I think this will be hard to get right, and I'm unsure of the best community process to use. It's the sort of thing where we could do with cribbing from a very up to date source that summarizes the most used legal cases. It might be worth putting out a call for those studying in this area to make suggestions of how to break it down to a handful of the most useful modern UK cases and then the community can interpret these through a Commons casebook of images. If we can do it well for the UK, there would be obvious benefits for other legislations underpinned by the same legal framework (such as Hong Kong and India) where we would probably adopt very similar policies even if local case histories are lacking. --Fæ (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole area needs improvement in terms of documentation. Partly it's just getting more attention on it; partly figuring out how to present the information better; partly finding better, more up-to-date sources and references to actual cases. Not forgetting to add at least some of the many countries currently not covered! Some input from actual lawyers with experience in the area would be ideal of course. Couldn't hurt to throw it into the BLP RFC mix. NB I notice that COM:PEOPLE assumes consent requirements only vary by country - but especially in federal countries they can vary by state, and there may be local restrictions as well, the status of which should be clarified. Rd232 (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed UK from Commons:Country specific consent requirements/table and Commons:Country specific consent requirements for discussion on how they should be included. Once there is consensus, we can revisit whether Commons:Deletion requests/File:Couple outside my window (4904452799).jpg was an erroneous close, or not. russavia (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion can take place at Commons_talk:Country_specific_consent_requirements#UK_requirements on this, so that something which works for Commons, inline with legalities, etc can be agreed upon and implemented. russavia (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not accused you of lying or intentionally misleading the community; so please refrain from saying that I have. I have noted that you have placed emphasis in the wrong places, and have as a result included in our guidelines something that the very sources you used have contradict what you have written. Commons is bigger than you, or I, or any one photo, and it is imperative that we get it right the first time. As it is written at the moment, we would need to delete EVERY photo taken in the UK in a public place, because we don't have consent (as the guideline in written), when that is absolutely not the case. So I welcome you discussing this civilly, and don't take it personal. russavia (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As it is written at the moment, we would need to delete... - that's just not true. Let's not split the discussion - longer reply at Commons_talk:Country_specific_consent_requirements#UK_requirements. And I guess there's not much point in arguing about the "essentially accusing of deliberately misleading", though I note that my reaction was at least partly coloured by your deletion of the section in its entirety without even copying it to the talkpage. Rd232 (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain I recall each of them, but most likely it's correlated to the checkuser mailing list of cross wiki spammers and the like. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being a solid, clear-spoken colleague .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You're very kind. :) And I should add that given my respect for you this means a lot - thanks. Rd232 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rd232,

(Taking advantage of the holidays to take care of my too-long neglected talk page ;-þ).

I was not very happy with my take on {{Multi-license}} as it did not tackle at all what I meant by it − in both name and display. Thanks for renaming it (and making room for the new Multi license template, of the usefulness of which I am unsure, but never mind that :) and for making it as it is.

My problem was that I did not convey that the actual file is still published under one (or multiple, but let’s put that aside) license, and listing other licenses/copyright status was just confusing. Your solution − clearly labelling that it is the underlying works, and collapsing for good measure, is a good solution I think.

So I found the template convincing, yes. I wonder if it could be used for FoP things (with underlying={{FoP-Germany}} or something) and for the mess that comes with Pd-Art like {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}} (I plead guilty for that one).

Jean-Fred (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I think FoP can be used for underlying copyright status - that should be clear enough. {{Licensed-PD-Art}} / -two could actually be converted to use the {{Copyright information}} approach. On the other hand, I still don't really like separating the copyright info from the author details - once you have multiple authors, it's much harder to be clear when it's separated. That would point to changing {{Information}}, so that eg we have multiple author fields and multiple permission/license fields... But I'm reluctant to think about this too much because I think with mw:Lua there's so much potential for improvement, we're probably better off waiting than making major changes now. Rd232 (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still quite confused by your intentions. I've tried to clarify my questions. Could you possibly answer my questions at Commons:Requests for comment/images of identifiable people#What is this trying to say? Or, if my questions are off-base and I'm just not getting the point, can you try to make this clearer to me? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 08:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for creating Commons:Child protection, a very important and suitable page for Commons. I also appreciate your overall contributions to this gallery of images. TBrandley 03:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It remains a proposal, but it's a start. Rd232 (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Túrelio :) Likewise. Rd232 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have either a proposal or a suggestion on how to get a change put thru? Dankarl (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I ask this because the issue of default dating was raised several times with the developers (see feedback pages)(not by me) but never changed nor have I found an explanation why not. Dankarl (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only time I remember a rapid response to an UploadWizard issue (< 24 hours!) was when the link to it was removed from Commons:Upload. But that was over a significant bug; I'm not sure this flaw would merit that. Basically the thing needs to be redesigned for editability by admins... which isn't going to happen. :( Short answer: file a bug and try and get a Wiz developer attention. Is there a bug for the default dating thing? I forget where it was discussed too. Rd232 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This file (File:Icono-eeg.png) apparently is not licensed, copyrighted and belongs to a local program. Help with this. Thanks. Braulio Calmet (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The user has a number of problem uploads (Special:Contributions/QuirozAngel). Thanks for pointing it out. I'll nominate them for deletion. Rd232 (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Warum sprichst Du überhaupt mit diesem Benutzer. Mir geht er fürchterlich auf die Nerven MIT ALL SEINER FETTSCHRIFT und dann noch der gelbe Hintergrund und seinen bad-faith-assumptions - oder sind es eher Missverständnisse… -- Rillke^(q?) 21:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Na ja, ich denke immer, wenn man lange genug redet, kann man Meinungsverschiedenheiten doch irgendwie ausarbeiten. Elvey scheint ein Gegenbeispiel... Rd232 (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I've seen one of the participant in a recent discussion at user problem's noticeboard used unbecoming and derogatory language for me. Regardless of the merits or demerits of the points, do you agree with such language?

Also, threatening a user with a possible block either by an admin himself or through proxy likeminded admin just because a person's ego is hurt - is that okay on Commons? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

...Oh Jim conferred "The Admin's Barnstar" on you. Congrats. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

Your behaviour here (assuming that I won't take your concerns seriously because someone gave me a barnstar!? really??) is far ruder than the comment you're complaining about, and making accusations without evidence is indeed something people can be blocked for. You should learn not to make assumptions of bad faith, or you will indeed find yourself in trouble sooner or later. Rd232 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Thanks to talking area made! MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Another redraft

I would very much appreciate your comments on this redraft. I'm aware you started on your own redraft. I wanted to try a different approach but I took some text from yours, as well as some even earlier redrafts. It seems to be difficult to get from draft to guideline, though. I've tried to address some of the issues you've highlighted at the RfC and deletion discussions. We suffer from too few eyes on that guideline page. Please could you spare some time to look at the draft and comment on the guideline talk page. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied on the policy talkpage. Thanks for your work on this. Rd232 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Hallo Rd232, ich weiß nicht, ob Du es mitbekommen hast: GuidedTour (mw:Guided tours) ist jetzt verfügbar und mit Sicherheit interessant für Commons und für Dich als Autor von Commons:For Wikipedians und vielen anderen hilfreichen Seiten. Ich finde solche iteraktiven Touren immer einladender als eine riesen Seite voller Text. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Danke, das klingt gut. Rd232 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

“

We're planning to deploy Lua to a long list of wikis on Monday, February 18, 23:00-01:00 UTC (stretching into Tuesday UTC), including English Wikipedia. […] -Rob Lanphier

”

Unfortunately Commons is not mentioned at m:Lua#Deployment. Perhaps it needs a "request". -- Rillke^(q?) 13:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, they'll get to it eventually. Given the way other projects rely on Commons, it probably does make sense to deploy it here later. Anyway, it's good to see the wheels are turning :) Rd232 (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, I think this may interest you and benefit from your input. --Nemo 10:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I left a comment/questions. I'm not sure I can add to the submission right now - it's very general and I lack time. I could I suppose highlight the problem of internationalising category names as perhaps one of the more fundamental challenges we have no grip on at all right now. Rd232 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed your user name in the history of Rotatebot. It seems to be on the fritz...or I'm being impatient, but the rotations I requested have not happened and I was wondering if there was a fix available or if you are the correct user to contact? CheersDmccabe (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no control over the bot, or knowledge about how it works. The bot is operated by User:Luxo; he's inactive at the moment but you could try emailing him. Otherwise, try posting at COM:VP to get more attention on the issue. Rd232 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I already mailed him some days ago but no reaction yet. I have no idea who's able to look at the bot if Luxo is not available. --Denniss (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please translate Template:Upload Help notice into de and de-forma. --Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Rd232 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to import a gadget in Wikidata Commons. It is a clock that shows the local time of user's computer. The gadget is this es:MediaWiki:Gadget-LocalLiveClock.js Can you import this gadget? --Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 00:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about Wikidata. Try asking at technical Village Pump on English Wikipedia, if there's nowhere for it on Wikidata. Rd232 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have confused, I wanted to tell Commons, no Wikidata. --Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see. It's actually nearly the same as MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js, so I'm not sure we need it as a separate gadget. If you think there is demand for it, you could propose making it a Commons gadget at COM:VPR. But you can actually use this gadget on Commons directly - copy the contents of es:MediaWiki:Gadget-LocalLiveClock.js into User:Vivaelcelta/common.js (you might need to close the browser and reopen if it doesn't work straight-away). Rd232 (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I already know that exists MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js, but this gadget is better that it, because it works with the personal time of every user (UTC+1, UTC+6, UTC-5, ...) --Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the difference between the gadgets. The thing is, most people already have a clock on their computer showing the local time (and without having to scroll a webpage); the UTC clock is useful because that's how the edit records are timed. Anyway, if you think people will want it as a Commons gadget (i.e. more easily installable than the method I explained above), then suggest it at COM:VPR. Rd232 (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added some comments to Jimbo's page on the discussion about flickr scraping and no proof of consent. See the earlier draft proposal from 4 years ago. I know we fell out over the drafting, but we are both of similar mind wrt the substance. Perhaps we could work together on this issue of proof of consent and of just randomly lifting stuff off of Flickr that has a CC licence. Colin (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I don't remember seeing Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people/Proposal before; part of it looks useful on clarifying consent issues a bit better. Another issue is a fundamental one about informed consent: users putting something on Flickr in a way that's technically public and technically freely licensed often don't fully understand the consequences, meaning that informed consent hasn't been given (still less informed consent by the subject, if the uploader is not the subject). I think that's one area that could be fruitful to explore: essentially, ensuring that uploaders' and subjects' understanding of what they're committing to matches what they're actually committing to. With uploads to Commons, there's some effort to explain this; with uploads elsewhere, not so much.

I'd encourage you to go forward with this topic in general (possibly developing or using or promoting Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/checklist - I think at the end of the day the issues need to be broken down quite simply for uploaders), but my time is limited. If you ask me, I may be able to help with or comment on specific things. Rd232 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a question from a fellow admin: Is this or this for free in commons? I do know that suffering from such a level of verbal abuse (decorated with funny xenophobic remarks) is part of our duties as admins, but I'd like to know how the etiquette and the personal attacks policies work in commons. It seems that they're not even an aggravating factor, but something that helps you to get indulgence. I'm really surprised --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 17:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not at all unusual for blocked users to vent in this way on their user talk page. By no means everything is acceptable, but that sort of hyperbole is best ignored. Rd232 (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you add language code for this template {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}?
I translated into serbian (code sr) but i need some one with admin privleges to edit /lang Milicevic01 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Done. You can also use {{Edit request}} on a template talkpage - but asking an admin directly is usually quicker :) Rd232 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks Milicevic01 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Rd232 - was die schnelle Ladefähigkeit von Benutzer betrifft, schau dir mal die Seite von Heralder an. Wenn es Dir möglich ist, diesen netten und höchst produktiven Künstler davon zu überzeugen, doch lieber eine Galerie für die Präsentation seines Oeuvres zu nutzen, wäre ich dir dankbar. Es dauert bei meiner etwas antiquierten Verbindung Minuten bis die Seite vollständig geladen ist. --maxxl2 - talk 16:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Danke - ein gutes Beispiel. Ist aber doch wohl besser abzuwarten, dass die Richtlinie offiziell wird. Rd232 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rd232, as I don't have to engage in further interaction with Tomascastelazo, I prefer to directly talk to you.

I've noticed this upload. Considering previous uploads that were deleted on the grounds of being derivative works (see here and here), with subsequent uploads that were considered POINTy (see here and File:The world according to wiki censors.jpg), the fact that said deletions focused on derivative works coming from balloons in the same festival, and that the same principles apply to Mickey Mouse (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mardi Gras Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse.jpg or any of the related deletion requests in Category:Disney characters deletion requests), I don't think this image can be kept, regardless of its merit or the willingness of Tomascastelazo to upload again an image similar to others already deleted. As said, I don't want to interact further with him, so I prefer you or other admin to consider this case. Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 09:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a fair approach if you notice a problem. It's already been nominated for deletion. Rd232 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Re your recent edit summary - don't say that, your English is excellent! Rd232 (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be wiser for me to keep my beak out of such discussions as on VP/C. I quite like people disagreeing with me, what I don't like is long discussions where no-one is entirely sure what they're talking about, myself included. This annoys me particularly when it comes to legal discussions because none of us have the necessary knowledge, and someone sounding more convincing than anyone else doesn't change the law as it should be applied (none of us, anyway: you could argue this is actually a lawyer's job :)

I like that the community can decide site policy in most areas. I do think the WMF should take more responsibility when it comes to abiding by the law, as they are the ones liable (although it's not beyond certain organizations to pursue individual users). I think this is one area where (informed) word of God would be useful, decrease disruption and save time. I don't have any emotional investment either way in such discussions; if I sound annoyed it's because I think they shouldn't even be happening. But I can't resist sticking my oar in sometimes :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 02:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

More guidance from WMF would be lovely. But they are the ones liable - no, they're absolutely not. As long as they respect DMCA requests, they're not liable for any copyright issues. Rd232 (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's almost as if I haven't read the disclaimers properly even once since I've been here :) Thanks –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I Would like to here your opinion here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Levant_Map.png

and

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:IspifoneyFlag.jpg GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The first is probably OK to delete, as a recent unused upload. File:IspifoneyFlag.jpg is two months old and in use, so less likely to be deleted. Rd232 (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

One upside of the self-blocking is seeing MediaWiki:Blockedtext. This message can probably be improved, if anyone feels like it (eg the "you cannot use the email feature" line is oddly contextless, and generally it could use more structure). en:MediaWiki:Blockedtext isn't perfect but has some presentational ideas. Rd232 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

After waiting in vain for someone more skillful, I tried to improve the wording. I missed your second sentence, though, so I'll try again tomorrow. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, much better already. Rd232 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)