User talk:ShakespeareFan00

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives: 

User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive1
User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive 3
User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive 4
User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive5

Deletions of IA books[edit]

Hi, You nominated for deletion a lot of books from IA. It would be useful if you could check if there is a notice, change the license accordingly, and even close the DR when needed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason they are at DR, is because I felt I lacked the competence to make that call. In some instances, the lack of a notice is not relevant as they are not necessarily a US work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: The task of reviewing the IA uploads is going to be a long term process, support from experienced license reviews would be greatly appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emberiza tahapisi, roep, Waterberg Natuurpraal, a.mp3[edit]

Is it possible to delete the version of this file uploaded at 21:32, and only leave the most recent, the one uploaded at 21:34? I'm afraid that some vandal may revert the latter to the first which is unprocessed. JMK (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IA deletion request[edit]

Could you create a mass-deletion request for the text-only files from this deletion request? They are the following:

Thanks! TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion requests of works by Kay Nielsen[edit]

Hi, What's important is the date and place of first publication, not the nationality of the author. Published in New York, USA, before 1926, so OK for Commons. Also these are in the public domain in countries using the rule of shorter term. Your deletion requests create a lot of works for admins. Could you please help checking and fixing the license? e.g. File:Hansel and Gretel and other stories - color plate at frontispiece.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Sorry to bother you, but there are more: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:East of the sun and west of the moon - old tales from the North (1922), Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:East of the Sun and West of the Moon (1914, Nielsen). Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category, "Books uploaded by Fæ/reviewed"[edit]

Hello, @ShakespeareFan00: -

You created a category with the name, "Books uploaded by Fæ/reviewed" [1]. However, this file here [2] (and there may be others), you have placed in that category as having been reviewed by you. However, this IA book file, uploaded by Fæ, still has a tag "License review needed" as well as still being in the category named "License review needed."

In the future, could you place files in your "Books uploaded by Fæ/reviewed" category, only after the file has been completely "reviewed," including the "License review needed" tag removed? This would make this "reviewed" category and the files within it- more accurately match the category's name. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added section name.--Ooligan (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ooligan: Examined. - Can you also in return start to look at the images returned in https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=20473549 with a view to better categorization  ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did alot of clean up- thanks. --Ooligan (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: Could you please answer my question above from a week ago? Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: What was the specific question again? I'll take another look at the category concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: I've re-examined the category, and found only a few items that needed the tags you mentioned removing (now done). However, as you've expressed concerns that items in the relevant category should be 'fully' reviewed, I've decided to over the next few days re-examine the items that were nominally 'reviewed' based on additional information, or insight gained since the initial review. Of the items re-xamined so far, I was also able to tighten up some licensing tags at the same time :) .
You also expressed a concern in a recent DR, about 'finding' a reason, I don't try to find a reason to refer a file to DR unnecessarily. In respect of the specific DR, the file did contain an apparent 'Distribution' restriction. I felt that this was sufficient to have the relevant discussion, as to it's applicability, on record. Your reasoning, seems to be that it doesn't matter/apply (as you expressed in the DR). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rossetti and his Circle[edit]

  • faebot

    faebot

  • faebot

    faebot

  • My upload

    My upload

  • I named it while I was still considering not mentioning this....

    I named it while I was still considering not mentioning this....

  • placeholder

    placeholder

I think these have to go. My guess is 2026 -- and the category says "No uploads until 2027" so I was right except for the completion of the year part.

And in the "pre-crime" department, I would like to upload a refurbished version of that image (a nice one where the scan I already have here is crap and should get a crappy scan exemption -- similar to fair use only to be used here to spank publishers whose works we wait for....) so that it can be restored with the rest of them. Do you think that would "float" here? An intentional upload, knowing it is to be deleted?

This is going to screw-up my gallery. I was thinking about a place-holder and a note on the deleted image for easier replacement and gallery niceness. Do you have thoughts about that?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just gave the structured data a "copyrighted" for the copyright status on one of those files.
<thoughts>It would have been nice if it had just pulled the copyright information in (based on date, author and/or illustrator and place) when I used their Property:P6243 (is a digital representation of). I use publication date. To me, "Inception date" is meaningless for publications. Also, if every file has an "inception date" on it, how helpful is that to items whose date really does have a meaning and needs to be added to calculations about if it can be here or not. The P6243 stuff is annoying to me also. No real reason other than it is simply declaring that "Red is Red". It should be helpful for calculating copyright.
The software will be more fallible than you. It won't know when it is in over its head, or whatever you called it when you decided it was not your call. (I was stealth reading the copyright stuff here)</thoughts>
Okay, soon I will add that file to that gallery....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mis-labeled the copyright status on the image, based on using the license from the pdf, which I am usually apt to do. (use the scan license, not purposefully mis-label...)--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:IA_allanhancockpaci11943allan[edit]

Category discussion warning

Category:IA_allanhancockpaci11943allan has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Estopedist1 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The elements of experimental embryology (1963)[edit]

You mention that this is a reprint of a U.K. work—do you have a scan of the original as proof? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I don't.

I was going by the note on Page 10 of the scans at IA which said "First Published in 1934, Printed by Permission of the Cambridge University Press.", and that the two principal authors had connections with British Universities. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1984 copyright[edit]

I need to mass delete of 1984, which is copyrighted in the United States until 2045, including some translations?

--Scram6699 (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kern Test (PNG reference image).png[edit]

Dialog-warning.svg
File:Kern Test (PNG reference image).png is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

Test image. Not in use.

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.

If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ português ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Türkçe ∙ +/−

Smooth O (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kern Test.svg[edit]

Dialog-warning.svg
File:Kern Test.svg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

Test image. Not in use.

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.

If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ português ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Türkçe ∙ +/−

Smooth O (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for mass deletion requests[edit]

In looking for some works of Arthur Rackham, I came across a few journals &c. which are copyrighted and need to be served mass-deletion requests; as I know that is your specialty, I point you in the direction of the following:

The Category:Memoirs of the Torrey Botanical Club seem to be old enough, but I haven’t checked thoroughly: also of Category:The Entomologist's record and journal of variation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use VFC, so using that you could quite reasonably start the DR's yourself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Books_in_the_Library_of_Congress/unchecked/1925[edit]

Category discussion warning

Category:Books_in_the_Library_of_Congress/unchecked/1925 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Lizardcreator (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiquote[edit]

Do you ever plan to return to Wikiquote? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)}}Reply[reply]

Eventually.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you give feedback here? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, it is very much appreciated, but it appears that you have answered on the wrong question. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass nominations for speedy deletion[edit]

In the future, could you avoid mass copyvio nominations, as with Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library/reserved? It causes Category:Copyright violations to get cluttered up with a massive backlog. Instead, a mass DR is preferable for several reasons: 1) it ensures that different files don't get treated differently simply because of which admin happened to come across them; 2) if anyone wants to raise objections, they can do it in one place; 3) it cleanly documents which files were deleted as a batch for posterity. The only downside is increased processing time for these particular files, but given that they've been available for free on IA for a long time, I don't think any copyright holders' interests are going to be significantly impaired by us continuing to host the files for however long it takes to get through the DR; meanwhile, more pressing copyvios that get pushed behind as a result could actually end up causing harm every day they stay up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ACTUAL solution would be for an admin to actually delete ALL the files in the relevant category based on the outcomes in a number of previous DR's (and the previous batches of copyvio tags). I understand your concerns, but the DR process wasn't getting files like these resolved on a 'reasonable' timescale.
If you can provide assurances that files taken to DR are going to be resolved in under a month (rather than sitting around for anything up to 8 months) then I will definitely go back to using that process, which I generally prefer for the reasons you state, concerning process tracking.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to this, if there was an admin-bot that performed a clearance of the copyvio category on a frequent basis, then backlogs wouldn't build to excessive levels in the first place. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UDR[edit]

Hi, You don't need to create UDR for files which just entered the public domain. If it is not already done, just add to the category Category:Undelete in 2023. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: Thanks. I have however, filed a UDR for one work where it wasn't a straightforward file restoration, but a revert to an unredacted version. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may be other works in which have now expired, which were not specfically in the category you mention. If there is time, it may be worth reviewing some of them, (or adding appropriate undeletion dates.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=721804983"