User talk:Natuur12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 23:07, 27 October 2015 by Itsme (talk | contribs) (→Defecation video: Re: Natuur12)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Buenos días — Preceding unsigned comment added by FJGAR (BIS) (talk • contribs) 09:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bucznik 1930 r. widok od pd. zach..jpg

Good day for you Mr. Natuur12

Excuse me please, but why you deleted file: Bucznik_1930_r._widok_od_pd._zach..jpg of the photo from the commons (4-th September 2015)? This photo dates from 1930 year and from my private archive. Please answer to me on my email: kultura@powiat.cieszyn.pl With the greeting Łukasz Konarzewski

Dear Łukasz Konarzewski,
Photographs from private archives are often problematic. In this case we don't know when or even if the file has been published before. We need evidence of the photographs publication date in order to determine the copyright status of the file. Now we have to assume the worst case scenario meaning that we assume that the work is unpublished and the author unknown. And unpublished works with unknown authors are protected for 120 days after creation in the United States.
Kind regards,
Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Natuur,

thank you very much indeed for your answer. The photograph of this case is about 85 years old and is made by unknown author. This photograph was published two times at least in: Zamek Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w Wiśle, Kraków 2005, s. 48-50 ISBN 83-921543-0-4 - publisher - Fundacja Międzynarodowe Centrum Kultury in Kraków; and on http://www.mapakultury.pl/art,pl,mapa-kultury,129972.html – publisher - the portal of Narodowe Centrum Kultury in Warszawa (polish state's cultural institution) in 2014 year

In the polish low, the intellectual works (also the photographs) are protected for 70 years. After this time the ownership of copyright belong to current owner. I thougt so it is legal.

With the greetings and wishe - have a good day Łukasz Konarzewski

Dear Łukasz Konarzewski,
I believe you are misinterpertating the Polish copyright law. In Europe there is something called the publication right but this only counts for works that are unpublished. I don't know if the Polish law has a provision like this but being the owner of a photograph which has been published doesn't make you the copyright holder. For now there is not enough evidence that the work is anonymous which complicates matters. We do have {{PD-Poland}} but it is really hard to prove that an image like this is really published without a valid copyright notice before 1994. I am not saying that this file is de facto a copyright violation but providing enough evidence that this file is not will be a tough challenge. Natuur12 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matthisvalerie

Hi Natuur12, I saw that the photos uploaded by User:Matthisvalerie were deleted. She has been taking the pictures herself at events in London and dropping by the Wikimedia UK office for help uploading them. Would it be possible to restore the images? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell (WMUK): I undeleted them based upon your explenation. If you can vouch for them, than that is good enough for me. Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning? Arguments?

Hi. About your closure of these BSicons (search 19:34). Could you specify why & how you reached that conclusion? (sort of funny, the search will yield two closures by you in one minute - how thorough does that look?). I'd like to read your evaluation of the arguments. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC) [My home talkpage: en:User talk:DePiep ].[reply]

See here. Your contribtutions regarding that discussion where merely ad hominem just like your message at my talk page is merely an ad hominem. You didn't follow the enaming quidelines for Biscoins and in the meantime new files have been created which do follow those guidelines and therefor your uploads are redundant. Plus the quality of your uploads wasn't that good either, scaling issue's. Sorry but when the only defence against deletion is a list of cheap fallacy, deletion is the only logical outcome. Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dank u wel

Hi, Natuur12 Thank you for your speedy deletion on the copyvio file. Dank u wel. --Tokorokoko (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :). Natuur12 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upload problem (do not appear)

Hi Natuur, i upload better versions for five photos of the Wikipédia french article Grande Mosquée de Kairouan but the last version of these photos do not appear when I click them from the article. The versions which have to appear are :

  • File:Vue aérienne de la Grande Mosquée de Kairouan - aerial view of Kairouan's Great Mosque.jpg [1](version of 3 octobre 2015 à 07:39 ; 1,26 Mio)
  • [2] (version of 2 octobre 2015 à 04:37 ; 606 Kio)
  • [3] (version of 2 octobre 2015 à 04:18 ; 1005 Kio)
  • [4] (version of 2 octobre 2015 à 04:49 ; 507 kio)
  • [5] (version of 2 octobre 2015 à 04:27 ; 580 kio)

As i said the problem is that these versions do not appear from the wikipedia article. I wish your help. Cordially, Passionné d'architecture (User talk:Passionné d'architecture) 08:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Natuur, same thing concerning this file : Vue aérienne nocturne de la Grande Mosquée de Kairouan.jpg [6](version of 3 octobre 2015 at 23:25 ; 5,07 Mio) Cordially, Passionné d'architecture (User talk:Passionné d'architecture) 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Natuur, also this file : Vue intérieure d'un porche de la Grande Mosquée de Kairouan.jpg [7] (last version 7,6 Mio). Cordially, Passionné d'architecture (User talk:Passionné d'architecture) 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Passionné d'architecture,
The files are visible at my PC perfectly but I do have issue's with some other files (mostly .gif). If you want I can open a bug report. Natuur12 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't last a month

We're back to the problems (although without obvious verbal insults)... Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-smj.png. Barely lasted one month. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied at his talk page. Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philippe II, Duke of Orléans.PNG

Hello, just thought I'd ask why you declined the move of the image in the title? Just curious. :) Simplegoose (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name is not completely meaningless and we simply don't allow moves when the new name is only better. Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But surely the name I suggested was more informative? Simplegoose (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was but that is not a reason to rename a file. That said, I can't say that you are completely wrong since criteria 2 is pretty broad. Natuur12 (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brooke Elliott.jpg?

Why did you delete this file? It was properly licensed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo_iIC3hXJI as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brooke Elliott.jpg determined. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it was nominated for speedy deletion with as rational Marking as possible copyvio because even if the source video is marked on YouTube as creative commons it's clearly a collection of copyrighted pictures. Which is true and therefor we cannot hoste the entire video but I should have taken a closer look because this shot is legit. Natuur12 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Archbishop Curley Notre Dame High School, Entrance.jpg

Hi, And what about File:Main Entrance to ACND Prep.jpg? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann,
I think the same applies for that file. Could be okay but without more evidence it is impossible to tell. I didn't delete that one because the file page didn't contain a nomination template and the uploader wasn't informed that this file was listed in this DR. Natuur12 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help with this photo verification on Chris Roupas

Hello Natuur12. If you have time, can you look at Chris Roupas whose Wikipedia page article recently had three photos removed form it. I would like some help in resubmitting them so they can appear again in the article. I took all three photos and I thought I verified that when I uploaded them. Can you please take a look and see what I would need to do to resubmit them properly? I took the "PSU Scan" in 1975, I took the "Weightroom" in 1979, and I took the "USA-Ahepa" in 1982. Beyond that, can you also take a look at the remaining photos on Chris Roupas so they are not removed as I think I verified them the same way I verified the ones that were removed. I took all the photos. I know your time is valuable but any directions or help would be most appreciated. Thank you. Bob Miller, retired Penn State Sports Historian.PSUSTATS (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PSUSTATS: The files where deleted because they where old photographs from a sportstar but based on the statement you provided it makes it perfectly plausible that you are indeed the photographer. I will restored them for you. Natuur12 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Natuur12 for helping me in restoring the photographs to the article. Very much appreciated.PSUSTATS (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires & Ghosts & Ghoolies

Rising from grave... see [8]. After seeing the changes they made to various speedies since they were unblocked, I'd suggest perhaps the cooling period was not long enough. Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will keep an eye on it. I doubt that there will be enough support for something like a block at the current stage. Natuur12 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely so, but eyes wide open. There's complaints in [9] today. According to the subject, other people cannot edit their talk pages! Their "command and control" mentality is quite odd; perhaps the user is a child. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin,
Perhaps this is not the reaction you hoped for but it would be highly unfair against you to keep my mouth shut. I read the complaint which has been closed in the meantime. Most important is that you keep your cool. I understand how frustrating the situation is but please assure that you don’t become what you despite. Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Natuur12, je bent net gevraagd om als lid van de 100 actiefste Commons medewerkers feedback te geven op tech support. Wil je dat svp invullen en een linkje geven bij de opmerkingen naar https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108513. Thnx, Taketa (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taketa, komt in orde. Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo,

Ik heb twee waarschuwingen gehad voor het overtreden van auteursrechten. Bij de eerste keer had ik een screenshot van Windows 10 (afkomstig van de Microsoft site) in een wiki geplaatst, om het uptodate te houden. Ik wist niet dat dit in strijd was met de regels. Ik heb daarna zelf een screenshot gemaakt om het op te lossen. Ook dit bleek tegen de regels te zijn. Ik wist hier niets van en heb nu ook de regels goed doorgelezen maar nu staat mijn account op waarschuwingsstatus. Kan deze status ervan af worden gehaald omdat ik mij er niet van bewust was dat ik auteursrechten schond?

M.V.G, Max Gerritsen Maxgerritsen (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Maxgerritsen,
Wat mij betreft mag u de waarschuwing weghalen. De boodschap is aangekomen dus hij dient verder geen enkel nut meer. Indien u vragen heeft kunt u altijd een bericht achterlaten op mijn overlegpagina. Natuur12 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long did you block me from that IRC channel for

Just wondering how long you blocked me from that IRC channel for.Reguyla (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was less than 24 hours so it is already lifted. Natuur12 (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Reguyla (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, it still says I am banned from that channel. Not a big deal since its not really useful for much anyway, but I wanted to let you know. Reguyla (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't know who placed that ban but I saw EIR removing the ban I placed. If there is a ban active it is not mine. Natuur12 (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for checking. Reguyla (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:MacroSeaDumpsterPools2009.JPG

Hi Natuur12, does the ticket/permission contain any information about who the photographer is? --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with the new OTRS-policy in place I am not sure if I am allowed to make such a statement but David Belt is the founder. Natuur12 (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's credible that "Antonia Belt" was the photographer. That was the only intend of my question. --Túrelio (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

After water, tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world. It can be enjoyed hot or cold, with milk or sugar.

Thanks a lot for cleaning up the mess which has been created by my bot. I applicate it. Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :). Natuur12 (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicago Police Logo.jpg

Hi, This might be in the public domain, either because it is old enough, or {{PD-US-no notice}}. Would you agree to restore it, and create a regular DR instead? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. that's fine. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chicago Police Logo.jpg. Natuur12 (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this FFD

You closed it with "Photograph seems to be licensed by the copyright holder". You must not have read my request right. I wasn't talking about the photo, which I knew was freely licensed. I was talking about the logo, which seems to be copyrighted (it's on en-wp as FU). I was asking whether the logo was de minimis. (If there's anything else copyrighted in the picture, presumably it's de minimis - or maybe not). Renomination candidate? Hop on Bananas (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person who licened the photograph also seems to be the copyright holder of the logo. Natuur12 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean they've also released the logo. It's on en-wp as fair use. Hop on Bananas (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is is uploaded at en-wiki under fair use doesn't matter. You license the file as a whole unless noted otherwise. This includes the watermark. Natuur12 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hop on Bananas: if you're referring to the logo on the screen in the photo, that's a clear case of de minimis. If you're referring to the watermark, that's just text in a standard font and so can't be copyrighted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the logo is CC, it should be on WP as CC instead of fair use (and maybe transferred to Commons). Hop on Bananas (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck: I'm referring to the big-ass Anime Midwest logo above the watermark. Is it de minimis or not? (Even if it's CC-licensed, it would still be DM). It's certainly above the TOO, may be covered by the photo's license, and is on WP as fair use. Also, keep in mind that the photo would basically be the same without it. (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't even noticed it, which I think means we can consider it DM. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page rev deletion query

  • 21:44, 25 October 2015 Natuur12 (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision on page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism: edit summary hidden (PD-Art image with non-free frame) (diff | change visibility)

I was just wondering, what's this all about? I see a useless diff that was rightly reverted, but I don't see why you would delete the edit summary, especially not on the grounds of it being a filename of an image? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hit the wrong button when chosing the reason of why I hid the edit summary. The edit itself was already hidden by @Rodhullandemu: under the rational "Non-public identifying or personal information". The only information that would be eligible to be hidden under this rational was also visible in the edit summary. That is why I hid it and I should have used the same rational as Rodhullandemu but because of a misklick I used the wrong reason. Natuur12 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Diego Grez blocked 3 days + Diego Grez and Amitie 10g Interaction banned for 3 months

Hi!

FYI as involved admin, see my notice in AN.

This decision was taken in order to restore civility.

I have not seen reason to relock Amitie 10g, if you see it necessary not hesitate to do so.

Cheers, Alan (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Honestly I think that the block is a bit unfair since Amitie 10g didn't exactly gave a genuine timeline of the facts. The file I converted to a regular DR was deleted and not speedy kept as Amitie 10g claims. What is kept, that is a brand new upload. This one closed by you was only kept after the copyright problem was resolved. Honestly, what Amitie 10g did was far more disruptive. The way he communicates is offensive to the persons who read his comments treating the readers as idiots with all the bold text he uses to emphasis his points when there is no need to. The length and the lack of relevant content also make it impossible to react to them properly. This was already noted in previous discussions where it becomes awfully clear that Amitie 10g his more or less intimidating discussion style irritates people. Even after you placed the block of Amitie 10g keeps asking for special treatment because the DR's need to speedy speedy closed. There is absolutely no reason to speedy close those DR's. Yes, Diego should have stopped creating those DR's while there was a general discussion about them but from a legal perspective he is correct and a warning that creating more DR's until there is established a consensus would have resolved this as well. For the interaction ban, I do believe that there needs to be some sort of informal consensus or at least several warnings before such an extreme measurement is taken.
To point out a couple of DR's. This one was rightfully reopened because it is not elegible for a non admin closure only to be kept after the non-free element is removed. This one was also fixed before being kept. It seems that the files do seem to be copyright violations if they are not fixed. Actually, even after they are fixed the are copyright violations since the license has been terminated according to section 7.
I do believe that a longer block for Amitie 10g seems to be appropriate because of his problematic MO in discussions which irritates several people and is not helpful if you want to be establish a consensus. Secondly he framed an editor in a discussion about his behaviour when he could have reasonably suspected that one of the results of that discussion was a block. This is really unfair. Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Success

Dear Natuur12, our application is crowned with success. Once again thanks you for your for your approach, logistics and all your nice words. Friendly, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :). Natuur12 (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacqueline Comerre-Paton - Mistletoe.jpg

Why did you delete this file? It is PD in the US and the corrent template was added. --Jane023 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was no evidence that this file is in the public domain in it's source country. Natuur12 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply! Why not just because it was published in the US before 1923? This should trump source country (also source country is not clear). --Jane023 (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't since the source country is the country where the "work" as been published for the first time. It doesn't matter if it is published elswhere unless it happened within 30 days of the original publication. The caption suggest that this could very well be France or at least the photograph which this painting is based on is from France making the painting a derivative work. Even if we manage to find evidence that the first publication was in the US we still need to find out if the photograph used to create this painting is PD. Natuur12 (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defecation video

Hello Natuur12, some time ago you deleted Commons:File:Defecation.ogv after it was nominated by EvergreenFir. The reason given by the nominator was "Out of scope - Video is not used by any project, has no educational value, and is part of an effort by IP editors to add a video of defecation on the en.Wikipedia defecation page, despite clear consensus against it.". The comment you gave with the deletion was "Out of scope.". Can you explain what you mean by that and whether or not you agree with the reasons given by the nominator?
I want to add that the file was in use on other projects, it wss used for already more than six months on the dutch Wikipedia (preceded by another defecation video placed in march 2014) and both videos have not been an issue of much debate there. Moreover, regarding the "no educational value", the video is informative. Most people have never seen the movement of the anus around the bolus. It is impossible to your own defecation without a mirror, and defecation is such a private issue that you never see anybody elses defecation from so nearby. So the video does provide new information. Those who want to see it, can click it. Those who find it disgusting are able to avoid it by not clicking it. Regards, Itsme (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsme: Out of scope is just short for there is no educational value or the file violates one of Wikimedia Commons it’s policies. I could have motivated this more clearly.
While the educational value is questionable since the quality of the video isn’t that good the person in it was clearly recognisable and we have no way to establish if this person agreed with the publication of this video or if this video is just some sick joke between drunk “friends”. In most jurisdictions this would be a breach of personality rights if there is no consent to publish such a video. Evidence is required that this video meets com:IDENT. Therefor the file has to be deleted. The uploader seems to have used a single purpose account which hasn’t been used ever since.
Secondly there is the copyright aspect. Video’s like this are uploaded every now and then and often we find out that the uploader isn’t the copyright holder. Often someone else than the actual camera men, photographer etc. uploaded it and this comes close to having significant doubt (com:PCP) about the copyright status. While the evidence is too thin to prove that his file is indeed a copyright violation it is in combination with the com:IDENT-argument and the fact that the file is used for vandalism in a way that brings the subject in discretion is strong enough of a reason to delete such a file. Actually, the fact that we have no evidence that the subject gave his consent for this vid is reason enough to delete such a file.
Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clear. Valid arguments. Thanks for clarifying the deletion. Itsme (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Natuur12&oldid=177121509"