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 ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 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]

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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

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

File:Kern Test.svg[edit]

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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

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 ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 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 Category:IA mirror related deletion requests/deleted 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]

Checked seed catalogs..[edit]

File:Hunter's advance 1930 trade list - Geo. W. Hunter, grower. (IA CAT31333418).pdf does not contain a copyright notice. (Will more later if necessary) Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I am taking a pause , but feel free to look trough my contributions and do the usual sorts of curation that happens, Like moving stuff into year categories once the licensing is resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Also File:The south's best seeds - Steckler Seed Company (IA southsbestseedss19jste 2).pdf doesn't contain a copyright notice. I guess I'll update the categories for both (and the rest when I do them). Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to notify about individual ones, I did a massive cleanup this morning, and I can use PETscan and searches to find stuff :). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No edit summary used.[edit]

Please, use "edit summaries" to explain the reason for your edits. What is the effect of this edit? Why did you do it? Thanks for helping me better understand, -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Robert_-_Les_Voyages_de_Milord_Ceton_dans_les_sept_Planettes_-_tome_1.djvu&diff=next&oldid=745269425 -- Ooligan (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De 'junking' a category. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you explain what " De 'junking' a category " means? This is why edit summaries are needed, so that I and other editors can understand a reason for an edit. Thanks for the quick reply, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It means removing entries that shouldn't be categorised in the category. My edit means it's only the actual deletion request that gets put in the categroy, as opposed to the collated daily and monthly lists. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would you not want this deletion request to not be included within "the collated daily and monthly lists?" Where can find the daily list and monthly list? -- Ooligan (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The daily/monthly archives I refer to are those listed here:- [[3]]. I was told previously that those collated lists should not appear in categorisations of DR by specific issue. If you think otherwise please take it up at Village Pump, not on my talk page. Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for explaining the reasons for you edit and answering my questions. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply.
Please, use an edit summary for non-minor edits. For example, in this above instance and in your own words- "collated lists should not appear in categorisations (sic) of DR by specific issue." Regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your deletion request File:Matapour.png[edit]

Here i am contemplating to revert this edit. If i do, it could make you looking like a fool going against a ghost who is not there. Anymore.

That is not my intention, could you look at the proposition? Andrez1 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem in going back to an earlier license. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank You. Then waiting for 1 more person. (I, me, myself can get really winded up replying to a question; and then the question is altered in front of my eyes. Tried to avoid that.) Andrez1 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just reverted your edit on that file. Waiting for any admin to keep or delete the file to close the request. Then it should be ok. Andrez1 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion discussions[edit]

To be honest, I usually just follow your contributions (Commons: namespace, new creations only) to find your deletion discussions. My only request: be more careful with pre-1989 works, that’s the only major area where I’ve seen you make mistakes in your latest batch. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typos or flaws of logic? I was going to be slowing down a bit anyway. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You have typos everywhere, but don’t worry about that. For pre-1989 works without a copyright notice, it’s more likely that they aren’t copyrighted, so putting up a deletion notice might confuse people who don’t understand the intricacies of U.S. copyright law. Also, thanks for reprint, that looks useful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not finding much of concern anyway, and I've not seen much in the period 1964-1989 either on what I examined quickly.
    Generally my concerns are typically 'new material' on reprints.. Such as cover images, editorial commentary or new prefaces and indicie(s).
    ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A child's own book of verse, (Vol. 3) (IA childsownbookofv03skin).pdf[edit]

Hello ShakespeareFan00, since the category has been linked to Wikidata now, you might wish to remove the

Can you help identify the lifetime or active period of this author or contributor?
If you know more about this author, please consider adding additional data to the file description.
template(s). Cheers. Lotje (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello Shakespearefan, I have a question about File:De Stijl, volume 1, octobre 1917 - octobre 1918.djvu. It contains one single volume (of a total of ten volumes) of the Dutch magazine De Stijl. The editor is Theo van Doesburg, who died in 1931. The publisher is a company called X. Harms Tiepen in Delft, the Netherlands. This work is a collective work and contains articles and illustrations by numerous people (both PD authors and non-PD authors). But who is (or was) the copyrightholder? Is it the editor (the magazine being a collective work) or should we look at the contribution of each writer and/or illustrator to establish its copyright status? Thanks, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vincent Steenberg: You'd have to look at individual contributors. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some people (including the uploader) say that copyright has expired because its a "collective work". But you say that's not the case. What exactly is that based on? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding was that the copyright only expired in the collective work, when the copyright of the last surviving contributor expired. If Dutch copyrights recognise a collective copyright differently you'd have to find someone more experienced with Dutch copyright jurisdiction.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thanks a lot for your time. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File name typo fixed[edit]

ShakespeareFan00, fyi, I fixed this typo here: File:Violin Sordine (mute) - (IMSO pp08).png. --Ooligan (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asking your opinion on copyright question which could effect a lot of Commons PDFs[edit]

The discussion is here, but the main question is whether the Crown copyright in works of Canadian provinces (like Ontario, in this case) can be released from U.S. copyright as provided in PD-Canada-Crown. If this discussion determines that the answer is no, then many of the works in Category:Government of Canada publications would have to be deleted. I’m just letting you know, because you have made a larger number of deletion requests for PDFs by the same user. If that is what ends up happening, would you like to help me out in creating a list for the creation of a mass deletion request? Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, someone should be reviewing all the material Fae mirrored from archive.org. For mass requests I use Visual File Change, I'm not going to to be making mass DR's right now though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=840761244"