User talk:Jkelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (September 2 2005 to November 7 2005)
• Archive 2 (November 7 2005 to January 8 2006)
• Archive 3 (January 10 2006 to March 10 2006)
• Archive 4 (March 11 2006 to May 1 2006)
• Archive 5 (May 2 2006 to June 23 2006)
• Archive 6 (June 23 2006 to August 5 2006)
• Archive 7 (August 5 2006 to October 31 2006)
• Archive 8 (October 31 2006 to January 30 2007)
• Archive 9 (January 31 2006 to March 21 2007)

---

Contents 1 Stolen images 1.1 Images at issue 1.2 Remaining images 2 Howdy 3 Michael Musto 4 Oklahoma Girl Scout Murders 5 Image:Buss Suicide Bombing West Jerusalem3.jpg 6 Thanks again 7 Roger Federer 8 Mike Scott 9 Opinion 10 No rationale dates 11 Award 12 Image Licencing 13 Thanks for the reward! 14 Responding inefficiently to your appeal 15 Daniel Gluskoter Images 16 Need admin assistance 17 Re:Images 18 EVH Photo 19 Image Licencing 20 E-mail? 21 RE: GeneralPatton / smith2006 22 RE: Newbie testing and vandalism cleanup 23 Image Licencing (all will go) 24 Bus images 25 Amfipoli 26 OTRS 27 Link removal on fr: 28 Deletion of Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg and Image:S7crash.jpg 29 Aradia 30 Irish Republican Army 31 DH00 image 32 Deleting of images 33 Ziaur Rahman images and bnpbd.com 34 Alexander 35 Advice 36 Re Advice 37 Ian Paisley 38 Image tags

[edit] Stolen images

Jkelly, you were recommended as someone who has zero tolerance for stolen images. I must ask you to look into the activities of User:Smith2006, his sock GeneralPatton and another possibe sock Brandmeister. I have tried the correct channels [1] but there are so many images and I am so inexperienced that I need some help of any expert.

Images uploaded by smith2006 that I have positively identified as copyright infringements (all are copyright under EU law) belong to two German photographers — Walther Frentz & Hugo Jaeger. They are all copyright Ullstein Bild and Getty images respectively. Ullstein Bild have made a legal threat with regard to their images appearing on wikipedia before, (including all tagged Fair Use), this prompted all Frentz images to be removed [2]. Unfortunately Ullstein and Getty do not allow hotlinking beyond a set period of minutes but if you search at their website according to photographer you will see the images.

[edit] Images at issue

Successes: :2 Images stolen by smith2006 removed

2/3 Images stolen by smith2006 removed (blondi photo also remains on wikicommons)

smith2006 or one of his socks always labels the image Heinrich Hoffmann probably in a deliberate attempt to make discovery of the real copyright holder difficult. smith2006 doesnt know that Frentz and Hugo Jaeger took the majority of color photos in this period, certainly the ones around the regime inner circle. Hoffmann worked mostly in black & white.

[edit] Remaining images

Confirmed Frentz (Copyright Ullstein Bild) Image:Hitler_Rommel_discussion_Generals.jpg, Image:Heinrich Himmler Murderer.jpg, Image:Heinz Guderian official.jpg, Image:Hermann Wilhelm Goering Offiziell.jpg, Image:JochemPeiper.jpg, Image:Josef Goebbels.jpg, Image:Karl Doenitz Color.jpg, Image:Speer portrait.jpg, Image:Erhard Milch.jpg, Image:AH Raeder Kriegsmarine.jpg, Image:Alfred Rosenberg Nazi Propagandist Antisemite.jpg, Image:Berlin Reichskanzlei Interieur.jpg, Image:Dietrich 2.jpg, Image:Hans-Joachim Marseille2.jpg, Image:HausserPaulSS.jpg, Image:Herbert Otto Gille.jpg, Image:Kdf Wagen Hitler Himmler Wolfsschanze Ostpreussen.jpg, Image:Keitel 01.jpg, Image:Kesselring-albert.jpg, Image:Leon Degrelle Staatlicher Photo.jpg, Image:Martin Bormann Staatliche Photographie.jpg, Image:Von Ribbentrop Sohn.jpg, Image:Bock color3.jpg, Image:Von Manstein 01.jpg, WIKICOMMONS: Image:Hitler Blondi.jpg

Confirmed Jaeger -birthday parade 1939 (Copyright Getty) Image:Condor Legion Parade.jpg, Image:Kondorlegion Parade Hitler.jpg, Image:Robert Ley2.jpg, Image:Wehrmacht 20th April 1939 Birthday Parade.jpg, Image:Raeder color1.jpeg

Unconfirmed copyright (so far): Image:Wehrmacht_Anschluss.jpg, Image:Kurlandfront.jpg, Image:Peiper Jochen or Joachim.jpg, Image:HausserPaulSS.jpg

Please bear something in mind; the profiles are of top nazi officials, all of whom were either dead or alive and captured at end of WW2. Either way they were photographed by the Allies- free images. smith2006 has not bothered to source these, nor has he noticed that in the majority of cases the articles already contain free images which describe the object. How can he then claim Fair Use? smith2006 has just gone to a fansite like ww2incolor.com and downloaded the ones he likes best!!

One last thing, I am not trying to short circuit the system by appealing to you, I just do not have the time to list each and every infringement and fend off defenders of smith2006's behavior. I hope you look into this and checkuser suspect accounts to discover what else has been uploaded. This user should be permabanned for deliberately abusing his upload privileges but from looking at his talk page he has yet to figure out the rules. I have crossposted this to user Angr. Thank You. 85.214.95.75 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating, here is another Ullstein image appearing in Himmler deliberately mislabeled as PD Image:HimmlerOberfhr.jpg. Just got to ullsteinbild.de and search himmler to see the image, navigation to the pages is on the right hand side. 85.25.135.167 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Image:Rommel portrait.jpg. Dee Mac Con Uladh 11:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy

I've had a busy few days: Shequida, Frank McCourt, Colum McCann, Michael Musto, Megan McArdle, Frank Furedi, Christopher Hayes and Kevin Cahill. I hope you're doing well. --David Shankbone 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be going to Malachy McCourt's home on Tuesday to photograph him. Ah, Wikipedia - lotsa fun! --David Shankbone 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

McCourt is postponed until Friday, but I got a decent one of John Lithgow, or several. I'm letter User:Arcayne choose the ones he likes best for the page. --David Shankbone 23:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Musto

[edit] Oklahoma Girl Scout Murders

Hello JKelly. I notice that you deleted the page for the "Oklahoma Girl Scout Murders" on Jan. 26th 2007. I am doing hard research on this case, and now have to reassemble what had been collated there for my own record books. Can you specify why such an informative article was removed, and what it would take to restore it? Thank you for all your effort! Monsterofmud 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Buss Suicide Bombing West Jerusalem3.jpg

Hi Jkelly,

I didn't understand from the deletion log exactly why this image needed to be deleted. I'd greatly appreciate if you could clarify your rationale. Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wasn't sure if you had meant it was a FU vio or not. Tewfik^Talk 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

Hey, thanks again. I will make notes of the formatting upgrades you have accomplished, and have further utilizations.

AndrewEditor 07:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Federer

I noticed you changed the file name for the image on Roger Federer... His name is Roger Federer, not Robert Federer like in the file name. So, you might want to change that. Cheers, oncamera^(t) 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Scott

I think you're referred to in the Guardian [3] Looks good!--Shtove 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

He's promoting new songs, so an obvious tack would have been to slag off WP - that liberal/fascist/atheist/god-bothering bag of falsehoods. But he spoke the truth about a good experience with a reasoning editor, and was quick to pick up on the verifiability criterion. Good job all around.--Shtove 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks quite impressive. Certainly, phrases like "clear and unaccusatory note" and "my courteous correspondent" don't surprise me at all: they match my experience! :) ElinorD (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite amusing, Jkelly. Glad Mr. Scott's experience was the same as mine generally: You're courteous and polite, constructive and helpful. I'm also glad he was able to understand the problems inherent in editing his own article; so many do not. It's great when someone "gets it". And I think that is in no small part due to your communication with him. Mr. Scott has never struck me as unintelligent or insensitive (well, as much as I can tell through the artist's work.) --Pig^man_dialogue 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

Could you look at the images in Darwin Island? They claim to be public domain, but have a website on the image and a copyright notice on the image page. Gimmetrow 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The uploaded images are not identical to the fivaz versions, they are cropped and the website added in a different location. That seems like unusual behaviour for simply grabbing an image off the web. The same uploader added a link to another fivaz page to Wolf Island. Gimmetrow 18:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the owner of the website www.fivaz.com. but I also have added two pictures in the Darwin Island. All these pictures have been taken by my own during a diving trip in June 2005. Do I have to get any kind if licensing (by example GNU) to upoad a picture on wikipedia ? let me know. Pascal

[edit] No rationale dates

You tagged Image:ByngGretzky.jpg with {{subst:nrd}} or {{no rationale}}, which is specifically for images uploaded after 4 May 2006. However, that image was uploaded on 13 June 2005. I've removed the {{no rationale}} tag for that reason, however I expect that your {{no source}} tag on the same image will hold up since the uploader hasn't edited in 3 months. ~ BigrTex 20:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

		The Civility Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Jkelly because his habitual courtesy has improved Wikipedia's public image.[4] ElinorD (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't dare to put this on your user page in case I might mess up the format, and in fact I only put it on your talk page after copying the entire code from a barnstar someone else had given you, making my own changes, and pressing preview about ten times! Feel free to modify the format. ElinorD (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Licencing

We need a copy of the email releasing this material under a free license sent to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, or it will all need to be deleted. I note that this has been an issue with your uploads in the past as well, and encourage you again to not upload any more media that you did not create yourself. Jkelly 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I sent it all off, and got this reply:

Images and other media are allowed if they are under the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL),  a similar license (such as certain Creative
Commons licenses) or the copyright holder has released all rights. You can see
the allowable licenses at
[5]

If you provide us with a clear statement from the copyright holder that they
are releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then
the content may be used on Wikimedia projects.  Please note that the license
or release of all rights must be specified and the release must come from an
email address we can recognize as affiliated with the source of the pictures.

Thank you for your understanding! Please see
Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information.

Yours sincerely,
Michelle Kinney

There shouldn't be any more problems with these pictures. --sonicKAI 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The email that you pasted on my user talk page is from us, saying that we need a clear release. Did you then follow up? Jkelly 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm completely confused. John King (of www.transporthistory.co.uk) talks about releasing his pictures in a Creative Commons license way, as does Ian Armstrong (of www.busesatwork.co.uk). As far as I know, that would allow the pictures to stay under something like Cc-by-sa-2.5. I'm not even sure anymore. --sonicKAI 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the reward!

Hey JKelly - thanks for rewarding my barnstar phishing!  :-) I went back up to Billy Name's today. He was being interviewed for an article about his Warhol years and photographed for a new book by photographer Keith Green on the people who have shaped pop culture. Green is best known for some of his work with the Ramones and his haunting of the Chelsea Hotel. Anyway, I got a really good new one of Billy, at right. You're the best with dah barnstahs!

Kelly - I need to have the Billy name photograph I put up yesterday deleted ASAP. I hadn't thought about it, but the photographer whose session this was called me in a bit of a state. It turns out I essentially replicated his photograph at such a high quality that it has made his shot worthless. So, it needs to be deleted for copyright violation: I hadn't even thought about that. Can you please do this as soon as possible: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Billy_Name_%28Flag%29_1_by_David_Shankbone.jpg. --David Shankbone 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for such speedy attention; I feel awful - you'd think a law student wouldn't be such an idiot. Maybe I *will* fail out - oi. --David Shankbone 20:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responding inefficiently to your appeal

Hi, I'd like to help with the appeal you made at WP:AN regarding these images. I looked to see how far you were, and then opened up this image. I then went to this website to see if there was anything about their images being in the public domain. There wasn't, as far as I could see. I looked at your contributions to see how you were tagging them, and saw that you did different things for different images. After looking at your contributions for a while (sorry, that sounds a bit stalker-ish!), I decided to put {{PUI-disputed}} on it. (I would also have listed it at the relevant page, and notified the uploader.) I opened the edit box, and found that you had just tagged it with {{no copyright holder|month=March|day=25}} and {{no license|month=March|day=25|year=2007}}.

I don't know if I'd make things worse by trying to help. If you tell me very nicely to run away, I won't be offended! But if I can help in any way, it would be best if you assigned me ten or fifteen images, going by date of the user's contributions, so that I don't end up in edit conflict with you. Let me know if there's anything I can do. ElinorD (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm being so slow. I think I have the hang of it now! Just one more question. You used two different verbs in your message to me — use and subst. I got confused and "substed" some {{imagevio}} ones. Then I was just rereading your message to check that I was doing everything properly, and I noticed that you hadn't said "subst" for that one. I then checked your contributions again, and saw that you had used that template without substing it. For the moment, I'll continue by using {{imagevio}} and {{PUI-disputed}}, and substing {{nsd}}, but I just wondered did you really mean to differentiate? I can go back and unsubst them later if you think I should. (I hadn't done many; you're much faster!) ElinorD (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed we had just met — though I couldn't say it was in the middle. You did most of the work, and the time I saved you was probably less than the time you spent explaining it to me. I'll be quicker next time! Anyway, I think I now have some understanding of those templates. He seems to have taken one of the photos himself. Let me know if I can help again. I will be faster when I have more experience. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Gluskoter Images

JK,

Considering you took the time to contact me and confirm my images were legitimately supplied, I take the liberty of assuming it was you that added them to commons. If correct, I have a couple issues I need to direct to you with the hope of a mutually satisfying resolution. The "Other Versions" wording in the image description page is uncomfortable for me. I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd kindly modify the wording to the following:

Original Photo ~All Rights Reserved~ © Daniel Gluskoter~www.dgpics.com

Also, not sure whether it was you or someone else that altered the location, but the Eddie Van Halen concert image I provided, like all of my images, was meant to be featured in the infobox on top of the page. It's much more representative of the subject than a fuzzy candid taken at an Emmy Awards show 14 years ago.

I'm only providing these superior quality photos for feature use, and if possible I'd appreciate your efforts in permanently restoring it to the infobox location unless a better image exists, in which case I'd gladly remove it from the feature in it's entirety.

Thanks for your efforts ! Dannyg3332 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your lightning quick response is both impressive and appreciated. THANK YOU ! I hope you won't mind my contacting you periodically in the future if questions or conflicts arise.......ATB ! Dannyg3332 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I, ( or You ) revert the Van Halen pics ? I don't want to waste any uneccessary time or get into a edit war with anyone. Dannyg3332 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

JK,

Plaudits for your "Cow" comment. BRILLIANT and I couldn't agree more. But I need to disagree with you on my lack of ability to remove my authorization for any image's usage.

Prior to agreeing to the initial wording releasing my images in their uploaded size, I was assured by my intellectual properties copyright attorney that I can indeed remove authorization for future usage at anytime. No desire to bring an attorney into this, but if someone so blindly unobjective is going to continuously replace my image with an inferior one while quoting non-existent policy along the way, I will take those steps to insure an image can not be used in anyway.

Please understand that while I've only had the pleasure of enjoying your expertise for a brief period, I have clearly stated in previous discussion with other editors that I only desire to improve the image quality on these pages. As a professional photographer and professional photo editor I have encountered many pages I intended to upload to already presenting quality images, and out of respect (and showing the ability to be objective) I haven't altered those pages in anyway......Dannyg3332 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need admin assistance

I initiated a discussion regarding the placement of images on the Eddie Van Halen article. But rather than constructive discussion and concensus the only replies were uncivil and concluded with a personal attack on my talk page. I tried to quote policies where best suited but to no avail. The user appears to have no patience for IP editors even though Wikipedia is built on the contributions of honest/valid anons. Can the user rm a commons image....while it still resides on commons? Or does this shade WP:OWN?. I normally call on Wiki alf(or other admins familiar with range 156.34) but since you have actually been able to have civil communcation with the editor in question I thought I would ask you first. 156.34.216.36 23:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Images

It's more of a sorting thing for me in the user's contribution history, as he has multiple edits to many of the images. Burden of proof on the uploader, all that good stuff I know so I'm more than willing to go back and delete those when I have finished the others. Kill 'em dead behind me if you wish, or I will get to them in a bit. Teke 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm focusing on the images that are obviously mistagged, which is most. Pilotguy has blocked the user, and there are few images that are legitimate. I tell you what, I'll leave the unsourced but possibly free images (I'll go back and restore the tags). The rest I'm going to delete for the legal reasons which you spoke of. Teke 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing by just tagging the images since you notified the user and then asked for uninvolved assistance. I'll get to the remaining images in a bit. Happy to help, happy editing to you. Teke 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVH Photo

This image was provided to my website by another contributing photographer. I was wrong to authorize it being added to Commons as I am not the true copyright holder. He has not authorized it's use by Wikipedia in anyway and it needs to be removed promptly from any and all usage other we shall both initiate litigation promptly.Dannyg3332 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Licencing

I am looking at http://www.transporthistory.co.uk/ and there is nothing about Creative Commons on that page, nor do the words Creative Commons appear at http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/ -- where did you get the idea that they were licensed under such a license? Jkelly 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The e-mails I received from them say that their pictures could be used as long as they were attributed to them, which is the basis of the Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5. --sonicKAI 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you just made up a license for the images? CC-BY-SA allows commercial use, unlimited modification of the work, and insists that any derivative works be released under the same license. Do you have an email that specifies such things, or were they granting permission to Wikipedia only to republish with credit? I'm looking at the email you sent to us, and the words "Creative Commons" don't appear anywhere in the email, nor does any mention of commercial use, modification, or derivative licensing. We also have no contact information for the people giving the release, another problem. Jkelly 21:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that they were just granting permission to Wikipedia to republish with credit, but here is their e-mail addresses. John King (of www.transporthistory.co.uk) is JKing77189@aol.com, and Ian Armstrong (of www.busesatwork.co.uk) is ian.armstrong43@ntlworld.com.--sonicKAI 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail?

Oops.

Err, yes, I got your e-mail, but I forgot about it over the weekend. Short answer to the e-mail request: in principle, I have no objections, with some distinct caveats I'll outline in several hours when I have access to my e-mail account. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: GeneralPatton / smith2006

Hi, I just listed four more images for this person. The entire series of Frentz images he uploaded are still on wikipedia. One person has claimed his NARA tag is correct! =) Another person has edited the images to say they were uploaded past a date so theyre fairuse.

A ban really should be placed on this person. Since nothing is done an unfair burden of constantly checking and listing copyright violations falls on others. How is it productive to let this person continual deceive about the copyright status of images? Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 27 How exactly do I go about having this person removed from the project? Dee Mac Con Uladh 11:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Newbie testing and vandalism cleanup

Thanks for noticing ;) Spellcast 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Licencing (all will go)

If it is the case that they are offering Wikipedia only a license to republish with credit, the images would still need to be deleted, because we do not accept that, but I would feel less of a sense of urgency about it. Can you please, please send the email that you have stating such a release to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org so that I can try to figure out what has gone wrong here? Jkelly 22:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the original e-mail allowing the pictures to be used with permission. I didn't know Wikipedia didn't accept these pictures, so I'm going to list them all for deletion. --sonicKAI 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bus images

I see you're in discussion with the uploader about these. I was starting to clear out CAT:CSD when I saw the discussion. Should admins continue to delete them or should we hold off? If the latter, we made to stick a note at CAT:CSD... WjBscribe 03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. We do have a lot of free images of London buses. And plenty of London-based editors to photograph them if needed.... WjBscribe 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amfipoli

Hi, I added a paragraph in the article Amfipoli. Could you look at it and maybe edit please? It's the last paragraph. Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amfipoli Thanks! Neptunekh 07:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

Hi, Jkelly. I just sent you an email about an OTRS message. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Got the email; might take me a little while, but I will follow up. Thanks. Jkelly 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the permission was for Wikipedia only. I have replied with a request for a clear statement of release under a free license. Sorry for the bad news. Jkelly 23:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain the photographer that releasing under gfdl would make it available to anyone, just as Wikipedia text is available to anyone. My fault he didn't understood. I'm sure you can do a better work in contacting him. Let me know about the outcome. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link removal on fr:

Hi,
i've seen you remove links & references to deathcamps.org on fr: and i don't get the point. The articles, at least for the one i've read, seems perfectly within the scope of the article and there is no mention of any commercial brand. Even if a brand were mentionned the information provided stands. I didn't revert because you're a trusted user so you probably have an explanation. Thanks, (:Julien:) 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg and Image:S7crash.jpg

I believe your closing of the IfDs for Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg and Image:S7crash.jpg as a speedy delete as G12 copyvio were unwarranted. I don't think you should permit your own personal judgment to trump a comprehensive IfD discussion focused on Fair Use issues; the cases are clearly judgment calls requiring a consensus of informed editors rather than unilateral action by an administrator. Please make your arguments in the IfD rather than by using your delete button. My reading of WP:FU, with which I am very familiar, leads to a different conclusion, but I did not substitute my personal judgment by closing the IfD as speedy keep (even though I am both an admin and an IP attorney); I'm willing to let a consensus of editors make the call. I have restored the Il-76 image; the other does not seem to actually have been deleted, unless I'm looking at a cached version. Unfortunately I have an engagement and will be away from Wikipedia until late evening, but I hope you will undelete the S7 crash image if it was deleted, and reopen the IfDs, adding your own arguments. Thanks, --MCB 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page, but I am concerned that you did not appear to have investigated the situation. First, I did not upload either image. I did restore them after they were deleted by you out of process. Your message closing the IfD, and your message on my talk page both made generic statements about Fair Use. However, as I'm sure you know, Fair Use is not a trivial analysis, and must be performed individually for each work. Blanket statements about particular sources are not particularly useful or dispositive.

There was an ongoing IfD debate regarding the images. In that debate, a number of editors, myself included, made highly specific arguments about the Fair Use issues. However, you chose to ignore the IfD, did not participate in the Fair Use analysis, and substituted your personal judgment for that of a consensus of editors. While I believe you are an excellent and experienced editor and admin, that was not the appropriate action. Unless you are acting directly on behalf of Wikimedia Foundation (i.e., a WP:OFFICE action) or your personal expertise regarding Fair Use issues exceeds the sum total of all the other participants (which, having significant credentialed experience in the field, I am skeptical of), the right thing to do is to make your case in the IfD and build consesnsus, not act unilaterally.

I don't propose getting into a wheel war over this, but it leads me to wonder what the proper forum for these issues is; normally it would be WP:DRV, but if you did not respect the IfD process, would you participate in a DRV? What your actions seem to say is that if any one of Wikipedia's 1000+ admins thinks an image use does not meet Fair Use, it will be deleted, and I don't think that reflects policy. I urge you to undelete the images, participate in the IfD, and abide by the result. Thanks, --MCB 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I guess Jimbo Has Spoken, which as a practical matter puts an end to the specific issue of these photos, but it leads me to wonder about how Wikipedia determines Fair use issues.

First, who makes Fair use determinations? In the absence of an OFFICE action, or direct response to an OTRS ticket, it seems that neither a consensus of editors (i.e., the xfD process) nor individual expertise (this is a field in which I have considerable professional experience, including both teaching copyright law and acting as a consulting expert in IP cases) is sufficient, but instead unilateral action based on an personal interpretation of policy is encouraged. At this point it seems pointless to discuss any Fair Use issues or rationales on IfD. As you know, a large number of images are speedily deleted as CSD:G12 or are nominated for deletion based on lack of, or insufficient, Fair Use rationale. I agree with the vast majority of those, and routinely delete images and materials based on that. But there are exceptions, and assertions of exceptions should be fully and fairly discussed.

Second, I worry that a total ban on Fair Use of news service photos (except as "iconic", or for criticism or discussion of the image) means that as a practical matter, Wikipedia will never be able to feature images of certain spontaneous or unrepeatable events, at least until we are rich enough to endow a Wikipedia News Bureau that is able to send photographers to (e.g.,) plane crash sites and produce free images for us. Our mission is to create free content, but foreclosing an entire avenue of entirely lawful Fair Use where free content would be impossible to find results in a poorer encyclopedia. Well, I suppose there are better places to debate this, so I'll sign off. Best, --MCB 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aradia

About adding a link to the sacred-texts.com online edition of Aradia, Gospel of the Witches. I was the first person to create an etext of this book in its entirety and place it on the Internet (about 2000). There are many copies of this file circulating at various websites, but mine was the editio princeps. This is why I was adding a link to this file. My website (sacred-texts.com) is devoted to creating public domain electronic texts. You are welcome to email me at postmaster (at) sacred-texts.com if you have any comments about this issue. My concern about the reversion is that my attempt to add a valid external link was confused with vandalism, which was kind of frustrating.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brujo (talk • contribs).

[edit] Irish Republican Army

Why are you removing the image of De Valera from this article there is nothing on the image page to indicate any problem with it.--padraig3uk 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I added that other image of him, I just can't understand why anyone would have tagged the other one for deletion if there was no issue with copyright.--padraig3uk 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DH00 image

Thanks. 70.220.63.18 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting of images

Except for the Hoftadter image, all the others were produced by photographers or painters who are long deceased - certainly more than 70 years. Why do you need to know the names of the authors? Paul venter 18:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what Bridgeman v Corel was about. Paul venter 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Certainly all of the photos up for deletion (except the Hofstadter one) are true photographic copies of the originals, which are in the public domain because of their age. Paul venter 18:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ziaur Rahman images and bnpbd.com

Hi, www.bnpbd.com is actually the official website of Bangladesh Nationalist Party ... the political party established by Ziaur Rahman. --Ragib 21:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the site's copyright notice mentioned that the material of the site is copyrighted by them. I don't see any reasonable doubt that the Zia's political party won't have copyright over the official photos of Zia. If you still have questions, then all the portraits of the US presidents can similarly be questioned as many of them are lacking the photographer name. Thank you. --Ragib 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander

Sorry about that, I was intending to revert the PREVIOUS edit, as it appeared on my watchlist. I guess you beat me to it by a few moments and I accidentally reverted your correct reversion. CaveatLector^Talk 03:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Hi Jkelly, In view of the problems I've experienced with attaching the incorrect description and licensing information when uploading images, I thought it best to ask for your help. I've received 2 images through email with the note below. How do I go about it. Please leave a note on my talk page (ignore the warning meant to scare off trolls). Thanks. Paul venter 18:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Paul

Thank you for your request to reproduce images from the permanent collection in the Johannesburg Art Gallery in on the Wikipedia site. Attached here are two jpegs of Boldini's Sir Lionel Phillips and Mancini's Portrait of Lady Phillips. Catalogue details follow below.

Giovanni BOLDINI (1845 - 1931) Portrait of (Sir) Lionel Phillips (Bt.) 1903 oil on canvas 200 x 130 cm Collection Johannesburg Art Gallery

Antonio MANCINI (1852 - 1930) Portrait of (Lady) Phillips 1909 oil on canvas 89 x 75 cm Collection: Johannesburg Art Gallery

[Sir Phillips was not yet knighted when these portraits were painted, and their titles should appear in brackets]

Please note that: 1. The reproductions of the artwork should be acknowledged as follows: Collection: Johannesburg Art Gallery 2. The right to reproduce is granted only for the request as outlined above, i.e. a single use of the image on the Wikipedia site. If you wish to reproduce the work for any purpose other than that agreed upon you would need to again seek permission from the Johannesburg Art Gallery.

While these artworks now fall under the public domain, we would appreciate a note of some kind that reproduction permission should be requested from the Gallery for any other use.

There is a wealth of information available on the Phillips' in Jillian Carman's new book Uplifting the Colonial Philistine: Florence Phillips and the making of the Johannesburg Art Gallery, 2006, Wits University Press. I hope that this is of much use to you.

Yours faithfully,

Jeannine Howse Registrar

[edit] Re Advice

Hello I am a relatively new user on Wikipedia, and got some information from you in relation to an illustration I [uploaded.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Advice_Please] I did not really understand the message. The image was taken from the 1947 edition of the Wolf Tone Annual, edited and produced by Brian O’Higgins. I was under the impression that the copyright expired after 50 years. I may be wrong, and I will endeavour to obtain the information from the local library. Could you let me know what your thoughts are on this, and if at all possible give me some advice on this? It would be appreciatively received. Regards --Domer48 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Paisley

I agree that we should aim for a free picture of Ian Paisley. However he is the leader of his party so the fair use case for using that logo is strong (we have no free picture of the man but we can use his party's logo to illustrate his strong connections to the party). When a free image of Paisley becomes available it can be put into the article. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An explanation might be order here Kelly. I added the logos as defaults where no photo was available. Now suddenly months later I find administrators and other ripping them out without proper explanation. Weggie 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is with using the party logos in the infoboxs, they are the symbols of political parties not commerical concerns, surely that is fairuse of them.--padraig3uk 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to this at Talk:Ian Paisley. Jkelly 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tags

Hi. Please check that whether I've used correct tags in these pictures or not?

• Image:Higherself.jpg
• Image:Rdance.jpg
• Image:Tavern1.jpg
• Image:Rumi concert nazeri.gif

Thanks--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)