User talk:Kelly - Wikipedia
2 people in discussion
.jpg)
 Archives |
|---|
The image was uploaded by the artist himself. Your tag is incorrect. Choor monster (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- We need to have some evidence that the uploader is actually the artist - typically that is done via the uploader contacting OTRS. Kelly hi! 06:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The wording of the tag is inapplicable: "It is attributed to someone other than the uploader," when in fact the artwork is attributed to the uploader. I'll repeat what I posted on the file's page: "He also uploaded an alleged selfie on his Michael Hafftka page, you can compare with the several images on [1], especially the Sept 2009 photo way at the bottom. This user also made expert edits on the artist's page and one or two other Hafftka-related pages." I will add that the "selfie" is certainly a professional quality image, done with a mezuzah clearly visible in the background. And when I eventually noticed his editing I gave a warning in regards to COI matters, and this user stopped editing these pages. Choor monster (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The problem is that we cannot distribute copyrighted work under a public domain license unless we know for a fact that it was the artist who put that work in the public domain. Kelly hi! 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Like I said, the wording of the tag is prima facie inaccurate. Moreover, your timing of the tag, during the 8/9 days of the Jewish holidays Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, Simchat Torah is highly inconvenient. Choor monster (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- If the artist gives permission after the file has been deleted, it can easily be undeleted. Kelly hi! 13:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Like I said, the wording of the tag is prima facie inaccurate. Moreover, your timing of the tag, during the 8/9 days of the Jewish holidays Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, Simchat Torah is highly inconvenient. Choor monster (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The problem is that we cannot distribute copyrighted work under a public domain license unless we know for a fact that it was the artist who put that work in the public domain. Kelly hi! 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The wording of the tag is inapplicable: "It is attributed to someone other than the uploader," when in fact the artwork is attributed to the uploader. I'll repeat what I posted on the file's page: "He also uploaded an alleged selfie on his Michael Hafftka page, you can compare with the several images on [1], especially the Sept 2009 photo way at the bottom. This user also made expert edits on the artist's page and one or two other Hafftka-related pages." I will add that the "selfie" is certainly a professional quality image, done with a mezuzah clearly visible in the background. And when I eventually noticed his editing I gave a warning in regards to COI matters, and this user stopped editing these pages. Choor monster (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Just to start, I would say The Week and Salon, both of which are left-wing reliable sources that discussed the topic in depth.
Hi. You may want to reconsider your use of the term "left-wing". For example, I try to only use the term "conservative" in reference to people and sources who self-identify as conservative. The term "left-wing" has a more specific meaning than the one you are using. The Weekly Standard is a neoconservative publication, while Salon does not identify as left or right wing, and in all likelihood, doesn't even concern themselves with that kind of political framework. For a good example of what a "left-wing" news source might actually look like, see Democracy Now! and CounterPunch, both of which self-identify on the left-wing spectrum. It's best if editors don't add "left" or "right" to publications that generally don't use that term to refer to themselves. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- "Left wing" is my opinion, certainly - which is fine for a talk page discussion, though not as an unsourced assertion in an article. I base my opinion based on their advocacy for issues which are generally considered left wing, such as manmade global warming. Kelly hi! 09:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Kelly, my point is that you are using the term quite differently than the way it is used in common discourse and this makes simple discussion very difficult. For example, The Weekly Standard is a neoconservative source, not a left-wing source. Can you find any shared ideas or topics in The Weekly Standard and, let's say, Democracy Now! or CounterPunch? Of course not. That's because it is not a left-wing source. As for Salon, yes, it was founded by David Talbot and it has been described as progressive or liberal, but it's quite a stretch to describe it as "left-wing" when it doesn't actually discuss or focus on left-wing politics, at least the kind of left-wing politics we see in the rest of the world. I think your use of "left-wing" reflects an insular American POV that is at odds with the rest of the world. That is to say, what you might consider left or liberal, would be perceived as centrist in, let's say for example, Australia, Canada, or even the UK. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hello Kelly,
I just sent a copy to permissions-en@wikimedia.org just like I did in 2010. I am puzzled why there is a problem now after so many years. Regardless, if there is any other problem, please let me know. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
From: John R Carpenter 2 Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:59 AM To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org Subject: Regarding File:LewisGlenCarpenter.jpg
Hello,
Here again is the email and permission I sent in 2010 which includes the permission to put the image in the public domain.
John R. Carpenter Carpenter Cousins Project http://carpentercousins.com
From: Ann Carpenter <mailto:anncarp@satx.rr.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2010 3:14 PM To: John R. Carpenter 2 <mailto:johnrcarpenter@cox.net> Subject: Re: Carpenter Cousins member Lewis Glen Carpenter - Wikipedia 3
John,
Lewis would be proud of the article you did on Wikipedia.
The attached picture is what he used on his resume, I have the original. You mentioned that it would be best to submit the picture to the public domain, I don't know how to do that. Can you do that for me?
Lewis' brother Preston is not doing very well. Broken Arrow is where they live and they are talking about moving him into the Clarehouse Hospice facility. Poor Jeanne, she is so sad.
I know Preston also has an article on Wikipedia. Can you help on that?
Thank you for everything you have done, Ann
- OK, thanks for the heads-up. Hopefully the OTRS folks will review the e-mail again and put the correct permission template on the image. Kelly hi! 06:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I just reviewed the email. It seems {{OTRS received}} was used instead of {{ConfirmationOTRS}}. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The Pantractor image comes from the Minnesota Historical Society's image database. It was first published in an unknown venue during World War I, well prior to 1923. The image is in the public domain. Ray Lowry 00:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Ray.Lowry
- Hi Ray - we need some way to verify when and where the image was published, and the original author of the photo, per the image use policy. Kelly hi! 06:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
HI KELLY - FORGIVE ME IF I AM DOING THIS WRONG, BUT I WASN'T QUITE SURE HOW TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUES YOU RAISED ON MY (LEEREBECCA) TALK PAGE. THESE PROBLEMS, WHEN FIRST FLAGGED BY RON JONES, WERE RECTIFIED ON 9/12 VIA TICKET 2014091210014518, ISSUED BY UTKARSH ATMARAM.THANK YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeRebecca (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Hi Rebecca - it looks as if the permission was received but the OTRS volunteer placed a message on the page that the permission was not sufficient, possibly because an explicit license for the photo was not granted. Look over Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions on how to obtain a specific license for use of a photo. Kelly hi! 06:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hey Kelly! I am incredibly new to Wikipedia -- does it look like I fixed the problems with licensing for the William Baer picture? I work for him and he emailed me the picture to use. Does this work for a non-free use rationale? Thanks! Egkrieble1 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)EmilyReply
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Protection will expire on The Federalist (website) shortly. This is formal reminder of BLP discretionary sanctions that apply to that article in regards to your edit here. Please do not edit war controversial BLP content into the article as edit warring is disruptive. Consider this also a formal warning to avoid edit warring which can result in a block. Gain consensus on the talk page for your proposed edits. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I'm still waiting on orders from Heartland on what material they want in the article. Kelly hi! 07:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sadly, I've had to decline quite a few. for reasons below
- Age - back in 2006 or so, there were not the copyright template choices that are currently available - no CC-BY-SA-3.0 templates and so on. Also many have links - can't check as they are dead now. For such images I suggest WP:FFD - some may need deletion, I suspect some are OK, and some can be converted to fair-use.
- Had {{OTRS pending}} on the page - that takes ages, 7 days is not enough, so cannot tag images with that template on it. I clear out those images on a regular basis once I've checked OTRS for an active conversation. We have several categories to track these pages - see Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission
You have not enabled your CSD log feature in Twinkle - so check Special:Contributions/Ronhjones if you want to find the ones kept - I've usually used Decline - old established image - not suitable for speedy - use WP:FFD as an edit summary. Where the image was old but obviously would not survive an FFD, then I've deleted it. Where I've also noted the image was unused, then its gone as well - since an orphaned image on en-wiki is fairly useless. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply