User talk:Kelly

Archives
March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008

Images

Hi Kelly, if you upload to Commons any of images I originally uploaded, could you please ask on the image page that a local copy be kept — particularly if they're animal rights-related images, which tend to disappear on Commons, even when they clearly have a free licence. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why they would disappear, but you can tag them yourself using {{KeepLocal}} (for images not yet on Commons) or {{NoCommons}} (for images already on Commons). Kelly ^hi! 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why you're doing this and similar? That image has been released by the person who took it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I'll leave a consolidated notice on your talkpage shortly. I didn't want to spam you with templates. Kelly ^hi! 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're doing here. For example, what makes you think that the Barry Horne images were not taken by the ALF? Two of them are of him and his son during an ALF raid on a dolphinarium. Who do you feel takes images during ALF raids if not the ALF? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Were those images specified in the OTRS ticket? Kelly ^hi! 03:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Which OTRS ticket do you mean? The images you've listed have several tickets. But you didn't answer my question -- what makes you believe that an image taken during an ALF raid was not taken by the ALF? Could you answer on the unfree image page you created, please, as you're creating a bit of a forest fire here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to keep the discussion on the PUI page, as opposed to forking. Thanks. Kelly ^hi! 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, could you please post all your notes to me on the image or deletion pages? There's no need to cross post to my talk page; all it does is create a forest fire. I'm still waiting for a reply about the Barry Horne images, by the way, and who you believe might have taken them if not the ALF. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please add that the local copy should be kept if you tag any images I've uploaded that are being used in AR images. You seem to be trying to create a lot of unnecessary work for me here, and for yourself. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you're saying "again" in reagrds to notes to you, this is the first time you've asked me that. Anyway, the message I left was a warning about removal of deletion tags, not about any particular image. And I did reply at WP:PUI about those Barry Horne images (I struck out two as likely taken by the ALF). But that doesn't resolve your other problems with WP:C compliance. Also, if you would like for local copies of Commons images to be kept, please add the {{KeepLocal}} or {{NoCommons}} templates yourself - I told you this already. Kelly ^hi! 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not post any more "warnings," or indeed anything else, on my talk page, please. If you want to discuss an image, do it on the image page or the Ifd page. No more forest fires. No more trying to force me to respond to you. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User conduct warnings go on user pages, not image pages. But, aside from necessary warnings, I won't post on your talk page. I assume this means you won't help straighten out the the copyright violations in your uploads? Alrighty then, I'll start tagging them. Kelly ^hi! 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly: Rather than tagging images with {{badfairuse}}, you should consider tagging them with {{fairusereview}}, as it seems that your assessment of these images is not 100% correct for lack of background on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, I haven't tagged any images with {{badfairuse}}. Could you point out the errors you're referring to? Kelly ^hi! 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Please check my contribution page: [1]. Indeed I have edited mostly one article (or to be more accurate - the article talk page). I have made my best to obey all wikipedia rules and regulations but if any of my edit is in violation of any policy - please notify me where I broke the rules. If my edits are all according to policy the issue of being an SPA does not really matter. (Please see WP:SPA) thank you. --Julia1987 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Email

MBisanz ^talk has noticed you do not have your email currently setup and is requesting you enable your emailuser function. Thanks.

Hi, Matthew - I'd prefer not to, thanks. Kelly ^hi! 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I understand. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts on I8?

Hi Kelly,

You seem to have image policy as your Wiki specialty, so I'm curious as to your thoughts on an issue that has me a bit puzzled. Specifically, I've been occasionally tackling the I8 "now on Commons" backlog, and I find myself wondering as to the benefit of deleting the local copies. "Deleted" pages are still available and accessible on the servers, so I don't think we're saving any space. Do you know what the reasoning is? I tried looking through some old archived discussions, but I couldn't find the answer.--Kubigula (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kubigula...good question, I hadn't really thought about it before. I guess my response would be for the same reason that we don't keep multiple copies of articles. Images and their descriptions evolve and improve over time just like articles. The images are cleaned up, cropped, renamed, replaced with better versions, etc. The descriptions are improved, sources are updated, licenses refined. The images are occasionally challenged and have to be deleted. Centralizing all of this in one place prevents having to repeat this actions in more than one place.

Some people don't like their images moved to the Commons. Apparently this is why the {{KeepLocal}} and {{NoCommons}} templates were created. Based on what I've seen, it's sometimes an "ownership" issue (people think they are losing control of the images - admins seem worst in this regard), sometimes a convenience issue (they no longer show up on the person's watchlist), and there is also an impression among some that images are "randomly" deleted on Commons. When I have investigated cases of this, the image on Commons was invariably deleted because of copyright problems, but en users don't necessarily see this process or understand the reasons. Admins on Commons are chosen mainly based on their knowledge of copyright, where many admins on en Wikipedia are almost astonishly ignorant of copyright law.

That being said, I think that the way the wind is blowing, all freely-licensed images will eventually end up on Commons, with only non-free media remaining here at en Wikipedia.

Regards - Kelly ^hi! 02:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - the best rationale I could think of was along those lines, and there are certainly benefits to centralization. The only down side that I can see is that the uploader may not be active on Commons to address questions or issues that may come up. However, as the project continues to evolve and with global accounts, the interaction with Commons should be increasingly seemless. Thanks for your response.--Kubigula (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ARBPIA notification

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with your notification and I thank you for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Images taken under illegal circumstances

I don't think ALF is entitled to copyright protection, thus all of their content is defacto PD. First, they are a criminal organization which has been convicted of multiple felonies involving domestic terrorism. Second, they are labeled by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization. In the case of the former, I believe it is federal law to deny organizations convicted of felonies the right to own content related to their crimes. The reason, obviously, is to discourage profiting from movie rights, book rights, footage of the crime, etc. As to the latter, I believe terrorist organizations are not afforded any privileges such as copyright or trademark protections based on the fact that the US does not see them as being lawful entities. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I suspect you're right, but do you know if it's ever been the subject of case law? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd need to cite something more specific. To the best of my knowledge, copyright law itself has no such exceptions (for "criminals" or "terrorists"); there are laws (I think one is called the "Son of Sam Law" after the killer of the late '70s) denying criminals profits from writing about their crimes (not sure if they're just state laws or if any are federal), but I think that simply results in royalties being redirected to a victims' fund rather than the author, but doesn't eliminate copyright protection. And if the criminal/terrorist organization isn't a legally recognized entity, then any copyright to photographs taken by a member would belong to the individual member him/herself; he/she might be barred by the aforementioned laws from profiting from the images, but they wouldn't become public domain. A court might order ownership of the copyrights transferred to a victim or the government to cover unpaid civil judgments or fines, though. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan is correct - copyright lies with the photographer, regardless of the circumstances of the photo being taken. Kelly ^hi! 04:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we have a specific license for material of criminal organizations at {{Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions}} and its a non-free image tag, not a free iamge tag, all NFCC rules apply. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The only possible parallel situation I can think of would be photos of graffiti - over in the Commons Casebook, those images are treated as free (as opposed to photos of legal murals) because the authors are anonymous and the art was created as a criminal act, the person is unlikely to make a copyright claim. The legitimacy of this position is a matter of some debate on the talk page there, though. I have seen at least one image here (can't remember the name, but it's a photo of a monkey with a word tattooed on its forehead) which was apparently taken under illegal circumstances, but the photographer did in fact come forward to claim authorship (and was incarcerated as a result). Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Peep this

This pic. I believe the copyrights are wrong. --Endless Dan 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right - recommend listing at WP:PUI. Kelly ^hi! 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Flight 11 Rationale

I've updated the rationale for the Mohamed Atta picture as part of the FA push for Flight 11. If you feel it does not suffice, I will remove the image. Thanks for your time. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC pics question

Hi Kelly, thanks for taking a look at our pictures and giving us advice. I was wondering if you thought we could use this pic for our article to illustrate the Cristero war instead. NancyHeise (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Kelly—Great that you can help out; copyright skills are in short supply among reviewers. TONY (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Kelly ^hi!

Legit?

Hey Kelly, can you check this user's photo contributions? The photos are claimed as his or her own, but there is a suspicious border around the pics and it just doesn't add up. Is there any way to see if these pics were lifted from another source on the web? --Endless Dan 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assata Shakur

Thank you for checking on the image copyrights; this is an area where I have little personal knowledge, and have generally tried to base my actions upon what is accepted in other featured articles of similar subjects. I have removed two of the images, uploaded one in the different format you requested, and augmented the rationales of the mugshots. Please reply at the fac page if these actions are not satisfactory. Savidan 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind using {hide} to cap your comments if your concerns have been resolved? You can just copy and paste it from another capped comment on the page and replace it with your signature. Savidan 03:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kelly ^hi! 04:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for you comments. Savidan 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra

Hello, Kelly! Please re-visit the above link soon... KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Maureen Dowd Photo Offer

The offer is still open. I have uploaded the photo into Wiki Commons under "Maureen_Dowd.jpg" I swear that woman is naturally oily! :) It still looks alot better than the current picture, IMHO. Hope it helps. --Art8641 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC) The image is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maureen_dowd.jpg

Re: The image

Sorry my bad ... I thought the speedy tag on it meant you wanted it deleted. I obviously didn't check the history to find out when it was added. Graham87 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the image again. You're welcome. Graham87 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Kelly, I see the issues on the article you mentioned are resolved, but in general, yes - we should be even more precise on non-free images at FAC than we are elsewhere. Unfortunately, this does not always appear to be the case. I have found two more FAs tonight with serious problems and listed the issues on the talkpages (here and here). Black Kite 20:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Image:Margham desert.jpg

No, you didn't miss something. I did. :P I think it's time I went fishing again.... :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here...Thanks for spotting these! It's gone for good, as is my failure to spot improper licenses...!! So now I know that the particular license on flickr (I did check; just not thoroughly enough) is educational-use only. Getting there! :D Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Messages

I get it. Stop using Twinkle to notify me. I'll go through the images in question and add the copyright holder.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't use Twinkle for image notification, normally. Kelly ^hi! 02:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)