User talk:Kelly

Mokopuna

File permission problem with File:Coffin Plate Charles Shapley22805019.jpg[edit] Thanks for uploading File:Coffin Plate Charles Shapley22805019.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

I got this file from the Museum of London archive - they told me it was in the public domain and that there were no copyright issues.

Mokopuna

File:Thomas Luckett Medal 02.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thomas Luckett Medal 02.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC) This image is of a very historically important medal dated 1868 which documents the long history of the "Hammersmith Regatta". It was referred to on that site and it will surely ba of considerable interest to other historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.254.240 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Cabreet

Hi Kelly. It says that my picture of the Allstonians was up for discussion. It's a picture I took at one of their shows & have long had the band leader's permission to use it. Let me know what I need to do here, Thanks! --22:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Cabreet (talk)

Deeyah

Hi Kelly, I got your message regarding File:Deeyah Khan.jpg. This picture is not my creation but I got the permission. But what kind of document I should provide to you and how should I do that, to let this picture stay and possibly shared on other Wikipedia pages in other languages- Regard--Jogibaba (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi kelly, I had sent an email about the file I uploaded. I was replied that the email I sent for the permission was from UN official and not from the photographer who is the author or owner of the file. Now Deeyah's picture is tagged like this.

"An email has been received by the Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) concerning this file, and can be read as ticket 2015100810021979 by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this page/file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, the statement of permission is from the subject of the photo rather than the photographer, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or contact OTRS volunteers at their noticeboard."

I contacted Deeyah and she contacted UN official and they replied her

"Begin forwarded message:

From: Dragana Korljan <dkorljan@****.org>

Subject: Re: Use of OHCHR pic is Wikipedia

Date: October 12, 2015 at 8:36:44 AM GMT+1

To: Deeyah Khan <deeyah@****.com>

Dear Deeyah,

This is correct in general terms, but photos taken during HRC sessions by a photographer hired by UN, belong to the UN. Therefore, the UN gives the permission for the free use, which is the case with your picture. Hope this helps and clarifies the issue. All the best, D.

Dragana Korljan

Coordinator

Justice, Protection and Social Rights Unit

Mandates of: Freedom of expression, Health,

Human Rights Defenders, Transitional

Justice, Culture, Education, Independence of

Judges and Lawyers, Unilateral Coercive Measures

Special Procedures Branch

United Nations

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Tel: (+41-22) *** ****

Fax:(+41-22) *** ****

e-mail:dkorljan@****.org "

(I have hidden the telephone and email ID s here of the peoples concerned)

I don't know how to forward this email with the same conversation I was having with Wikipedia official, so I sent it as a separate email, I got a reply on 13 October with a new ticket which is like this.

"Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2015101310009232]."-

I haven't heard anything since then, can you please, help to sort this matter. Regards--Jogibaba (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Jogibaba - there's nothing else you need to do, the OTRS team will process the permission. Kelly ^hi! 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of image

Hi Kelly. You left a message on my talk page about deleting File:unknown sculpture 2.jpg. I've no objections to its deletion - when I uploaded it I didn't know Lithuania had no freedom of panorama and had no idea when it was created or by whom. It's still on here, even though it was a speedy and is orphaned. I'll tag it with db-author. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Heritage at Risk References

Hi Kelly, The list is your sandbox is a good start & formats etc I put on wiki can be copied & developed as much as content. Historic England have revamped the site & the link you gasve gives me the same error message. Can you see http://risk.historicengland.org.uk/register.aspx?id=1237012&rt=0&pn=1&st=a&ctype=all&crit=Sweetworthy? I got there by going to http://risk.historicengland.org.uk/register.aspx and putting in a keyword for the site eg Sweetworthy. The other alternative is to use the regional lists (Not working for me today). NB some which were on the at risk register a few years ago have been removed if the condition of the site has improved.— Rod ^talk 17:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of scheduled monuments in South Kesteven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ancaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I hope they have these at Commons too. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup efforts

	The Canadian Ginger Ale Award
	Please accept this refreshing and wholesome toast to your recent cleanup efforts. Though we may someday have to use WP:REFUND to retrieve the bios of those Canadian actors who become major stars, I'm relieved to see we'll have a few less BLPs about non-notable people for ongoing patrol and maintenance. Djembayz (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix

I noticed you nominated a whole lot of Neelix's articles for deletion. I didn't follow the thread about him after the first day, but the issue looked to be creating mass inappropriate redirects -- and he is and will be paying for it, to be sure. But what was not at issue were the articles he created (unless I missed something). I don't think a particular bad behavior, long-term as it might be, grants free license to engage in what would in every other case be considered WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I'm not saying all of these topics are notable, but none of them, as far as I can see, are remotely connected to the redirect problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites - this is a separate problem with Neelix, who seems to have developed a fixation with Tara Teng and developed a whole universe of article around her and and her cause, which is human trafficking. See for instance, Iris Thomsen, which is a BLP created apparently just to coatrack in some Teng material. Or see for instance this material he placed in another completely unrelated BLP to praise Teng. He also seems to created a whole walled garden of articles about minor associates of Teng and minor figures involved with her philanthropic interests in Canada. Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Well that's disappointing. Glancing at the AfD log for today I did actually first think that someone had their sights on human rights/women's rights organizations before noticing Neelix was the more likely common denominator. End result is still a bummer, but going through them does make sense. (Thanks for spending time cleaning up, by the way). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

An unbelievable fixation with Teng, beyond creepy actually. I've just trimmed extensively. He even created an article on a local dance business seemingly just to link it off Teng. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

After coming to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Perrier, I have to say I'm skeptical you're doing the due diligence of WP:BEFORE. Many of these nominations are made within 1-3 minutes of each other, which isn't enough time to evaluate the sources and look for more. I've only looked at maybe a dozen of those you've nominated, of the [40-50?] total, and none I've seen look to be flagrant violations of content policies. Some may be overly promotional in tone, include undue details, etc. but those are cleanup issues. As far as notability, many appear to be borderline and certainly some should probably be deleted, but these aren't the product of a some blocked sock puppet or [previously] banned user (I don't know where things stand with that re: the redirect situation) such that they can be summarily dismissed without proper consideration and WP:BEFORE. I don't know if you're still going, but please stop for now. None of these are emergencies and participation is already spread too thin such that the people who are going to comment most are those that will do so also without proper consideration (which takes time). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Missing the point. The point is not Tara Teng, the point is: [1]. Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Frank Christoph Schnitzler

Hello Kelly, please help start this article. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.236.160 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea who that is. Kelly ^hi! 22:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't look notable

Stephen Waldschmidt. Please examine, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Two more notes

Two more notes, in addition to my thread up above:

• Neelix has hijacked the Category:Sex worker activists, which obviously is for people trying to legalize prostitution (it even says so on the category page), but Neelix turned that on its head and changed the definition: [2] and edit-warred over it [3]. He had added the category to dozens of his articles. I just now removed the cat from those articles -- see my recent edit history, they're all in a clump with more or less the same edit summary about cat removal. I'm letting you know because many of these articles are non-notable trumped-up facades like the others, and you may not catch them in your net because several of them are not in Canada. Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Category:Human trafficking in Canada is well worth looking at every single article; it's not the same as the navbox. I'll wager Neelix wrote 99% of them and that many do not meet notability (and you haven't caught them all yet). For instance, this is particularly glaring: Eastview Community Church, and this also looks non-notable: Women's Support Network of York Region. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have time for this and since you're using Twinkle it's easy for you. Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh man. Thank you Softlavender, I will take a look. Kelly ^hi! 11:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Commons

I hope you see the irony in telling him to 'man up' and accusing him of being 'delicate' while arguing against sexism. Alakzi (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix/Teng

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your work in tearing apart the walled garden that Neelix built as part of his obsession with Tara Teng, including the many AfDs you filed.  — Scott • talk 12:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Guard of the Rock.JPG

Hello, Kelly. You have new messages at Timothy Titus's talk page.
Message added 04:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walled garden

On ANI you wrote that "the Tara Teng walled garden has been bulldozed", but that is far from the case when it comes to the walled empire or walled galaxy that Neelix has created on the overarching subjects of his own advocacy/POV (as detailed in the WO article) and all of the minimally notable side articles he created in order to make blue-links in those articles in order to make them look either wiki-notable or worthy of GA/FA. It's going to take months if not years to ferret out (and determine the notability of) all of the side articles Neelix created on all of those subjects. Are you going to be continuing your efforts, or will others need to take up the slack? (The articles in my two threads above on this talk page are emblematic but just the tip of the iceberg.) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender - I'm taking a break from it for a little while but will likely go back to revisit. I was working on lists of monuments in Lincolnshire (just did this one); I'll go back at look at some more of Neelix's stuff later though. Kelly ^hi! 11:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

All right thanks for the info, and thanks very very much for the work you did on all of this. Enjoy yourself, and happy editing! Softlavender (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender - I most likely will be posting evidence soon in the ArbCom case though. The articles you showed me are definitely evidence of advocacy. Kelly ^hi! 11:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Images I uploaded that are missing evidence of permission

Hi Kelly, there are several images I uploaded a long time ago that have been tagged because the evidence of permission is apparently missing. When I uploaded these, I requested permission from the original authors/uploaders via email. I know now that this is not sufficient enough. However, all of the images that are from Palestine Remembered have since been released into the public domain. I will change the licensing information for these images to the following GNU license: PalestineRemembered. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Al Ameer son - ah, thank you. If you fix the license I will be happy to move them to Commons. Kelly ^hi! 19:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but apparently the PalestineRemembered license only exists in the commons. Should I create Template:PalestineRemembered by simply copying the contents of Commons' PalestineRemembered license?

Al Ameer son, I have the files on my watchlist, so I will see when you add the license and immediately move them. Kelly ^hi! 19:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Fyi

The odds are high you know about this, but on the slight chance you didn't, you do now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I see you already posted at ANI, so my first guess was correct :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

copyright licensing tag

Hello Kelly, regarding your question on the licensing tag for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karnataka-Lokayukta-Report-on-Illegal-Mining.pdf it is a public domain document (http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/00736/Report_on_the_refer_736286a.pdf) came in almost every newspapers. But I have not edited Wikipedia for a long time. So, although it is public domain source, I am not planning add anything with the licensing tag as it will take too much time for me to do it since I have not done it for a while. So, if is going to be deleted because I have not acted, that is OK, I am fine with that. I have not looked at my additions and modifications for a long time. Thanks. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kijacob (talk • contribs) 04:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Finding missing meta-data

I created this about a week ago, it might prove useful in cleanup efforts : https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/6046 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG - thanks! Kelly ^hi! 16:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Message

Kelly:

I left a message on the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files page for you. Thank you for taking the time to email me. We have links to numerous artist websites on Music on the Web® and more and more artists either desire Wikipedia articles (in addition to their website) or would like their Wikipedia page improved. We currently do not charge for this work, as we usually just make a few edits and are done. It is important that we comply fully with your licensing rules, so that everything goes smooth. My concern, is if we are having trouble uploading our OWN pictures, what is going to happen if we upload a musician's picture (for them)? Keep in mind, they already took down my 378 pixel image and didn't really say anything. I thought that was not nice of the administrator. I created the jpegs in 220 pixels and 250 pixels (and 378 pixels) just to be sure we had the properly sized images for the Tim Gemmill page. We uploaded the 250 pixel image, thinking maybe the problem was the original image was too large. As for the artists; I have known David Friesen since the mid 1960s. I studied under him. His Wikipedia page is very incomplete and needs an Infobox background information section and a nice picture. Dave has lots of pictures out on the Internet. I have not said anything to him, because of all these warnings from your editors. My page still has all the verbiage indicating that there is a problem. Anybody going there, sees this. It is embarrasing to me. I look forward to any comments you may have. Once again, thanks for your help. Tim Gemmill TenorT (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

TenorT - there's no problem on image size, you can upload as large as you like. I think I sent you the link to WP:CONSENT, that mentions the preferred place to upload photos with free licenses is to our sister site Wikimedia Commons - photos there are transparently used here. So far as biographies are concerned, the important things are that the musicians meet our notability guidelines - see WP:MUSIC - and that we have reliable third-party sources, see WP:V. In addition, it's discouraged for people to edit articles on themselves or their clients because of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. I know all this stuff is confusing as hell to a beginner. Drop me a message here if you have any questions. Kelly ^hi! 00:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Kelley:

I haven't had a chance yet to view the link you sent me to WP:CONSENT. However: I give permission for Wikipedia to display my photo, but I still want to retain the rights to it. I am not giving it away. I love that picture (in the stadium before 40,000 people at a Mariners game) and the fact that everybody seems to be quarreling over it, makes me even more concerned about licensing it properly. So, I just need to investigate this further tomorrow. As for the artists; notability and third-party sourcing goes without saying for anybody desiring a Wikipedia article. I think, the issue we have is with your COI rules. They are confusing to say the least. Only major artists have enough money to hire somebody to edit their page when needed. Most musicians do not have a person on the payroll for such tasks. So, you are making it very tough on them. Especially, when we would make a few edits for free (with a twenty year knowledge of html and open source, etc.). I just think an artist paying $10 a month for a link would not be considered a client relationship by any reasonable person. There are over 500 links to artist websites on Music on the Web®, many of them free. We rarely do work on their websites anymore. I have not talked to David Friesen in years. We found some third-party sourcing for Ron Holden, but he died in 1997. So, our edits have few and far between. We are just trying to help people out. The Internet has made things very difficult for musicians; not as many places to play, fewer record stores and radio stations, etc. In my opinion; Wikipedia needs to reevaluate what is truly a conflict in interest as a .org company. Thank you for your help and hopefully we will get this photograph issue resolved this week. I don't normally get involved in these types of matters. Tim Gemmill TenorT (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Kelly:

Sorry that I misspelled your name in the above message. I was in a hurry. I followed the insructions contained in the WP:CONSENT form (that you sent me) and, hopefully, the warnings on my File:250px Tim Gemmill.jpg page will be removed. Is this something that you do? Thanks for sending me the information I needed. Tim Gemmill TenorT (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

TenorT - Thanks, Tim - yes, the tags will be removed as soon as the volunteer team processes your e-mail! Kelly ^hi! 23:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Tim TenorT (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Kelly:

I see that Wikipedia has apparently resolved the copyright issues with my photograph (250px_Tim_Gemmill.jpg). However; it is not displaying in mobile view (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Gemmill)? Why is that? It was displaying just fine, a few days ago. I look forward to any comments you may have. Thank you. Tim Gemmill TenorT (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

TenorT - it's displaying fine for me! Kelly ^hi! 08:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kelly:

Interesting. Yes, it is displaying fine now. Thanks for getting back to me. Tim TenorT (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Children's Friend images for deletion

Hi, I saw your messages regarding deleting File:Childrensfriendjuly1903cover.JPG and File:Childrensfriendmay1858.JPG on the grounds that there are 'images within images'. These are patently public domain images because even the latest one was published in 1903. I would like to be able to put the relevant tag on those pictures but I don't know how to. I have sought advice as you suggest on WP:MCQ but this casts no light on how to do it as I cannot find out how to add tags. As you clearly know much more about this than I do, please could I ask you to do this for me? asnac (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Kelly ^hi! 11:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Louisville game.jpg

I received a notice that the file File:Louisville game.jpg is up for deletion. The photographer of this picture, Tom Taylor, emailed permission back in September 2009. Please check the database of permissions-en@wikimedia.org and you will find that the permission is already on file. Thank you. —Ute in DC (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ute in DC - you may want to resend the permission if you still have it, looks like it was never processed. Alternatively I recommend asking someone about it at WP:OTRS/N. Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Meta-data query was updated

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/6046 - Right. It's now a BIG dataset, any assiatcne you can render in bringing it under control appreciated :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's huge! Kelly ^hi! 23:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And that still not all the potential ones, I kept out all the non-free /non-commons stuff. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And sadly I AM finding 10 year old problem images (sob) :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Guillotine model 1792.jpg

Hi. Since the image File:Guillotine model 1792.jpg is (as best I can tell) no longer being used anywhere on Wikipedia, I have no objections to its being deleted, especially if there are any unresolved questions about the file's licensing status. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File talk:Brown Memorial Presbyterian Church.jpg

Hi Kelly, I don't know if you saw my Talk Page reply, but I do dispute your Speedy Deletion nom per above. Kindly take it to FFD if you still disagree. Thanks,  JGHowes  ^talk 00:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

License of Various Images - Florida State University

Hi,

Thanks for checking the licensing of the various photos I have added over the years. I am OK with the files being deleted if they are redundant or not used. Virtually all the licenses you are reviewing are covered under the Florida Public Records Sunshine law and are likely covered under the tag

. I will add the tag to the files and hopefully meet the evolving standards. Sirberus (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Note the warning in the {{PD-FLGov}} template: the template doesn't apply to files created by state universities. Click on the third "show" link to see this warning. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I asked you how to properly add a fair use rationale.

Instead, you just reverted the edit with no explanation. Why? --Agamemnus (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Agamemnus: - apologies, but the maintenance template shouldn't be removed. If you read the template on the fiele page, there are links to instructions on adding rationales. Kelly ^hi! 08:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it. :/ --Agamemnus (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Plz give me more details, thanks... --Agamemnus (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Spirit of Dubai - Copyright Issue

Hello - I'm a bit lost with this request as the file already shows: Additional licence verification. See http://wyrdlight.com/clients.htm for Wiki user page link And this has been sufficient for other images. It is indeed a photo I took and for which I hold copyright. Is there something else I should regularly add. Thanks.

How to resolve permission problem with File:Saul G Bron.jpg

Kelly, I received your notification about a license issue with my File:Saul_G_Bron.jpg. I sent the following information to the suggested e-mail address permissions-en@wikimedia.org:

I have received a notification in regard to "File permission problem with File:Saul G Bron.jpg". The source I provided says "Melnikova-Raich personal archive". I confirm that my name is Sonia Melnikova-Raich. Saul G. Bron was my grand-uncle. I am the owner and the copyright owner of the original Saul G. Bron's photo I posted. This photo has not been previously published online. I hope this resolves the problem and the note "missing evidence of permission" can be now removed from the file page. Please advise if there is anything else I need to do or if there is a different wording I need to use. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any further questions.

The file itself was created by me in 2013, by scanning a photo that I own which was taken prior to 1930 by an unknown photographer. The photo is of a deceased family member (1887-1938) and comes from my own family archive. On this basis, I believe that I can grant use to Wikipedia as I did in the licensing when I uploaded it.

Please advise if this is sufficient or if there is anything else I need to do.

Thank you for assistance in resolving this matter.

Ethersearch (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

CAMoulton image

Thanks for the heads-up. I've tried taking care of this. That's probably the only effort I'll make, so if that won't work, I guess it'll just be deleted. Thanks again. -- James26 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:File permission problem with File:Bust of Francisco Mariano Quiñones.jpg

Kelly, thank you for bringing this image to my attention. I uploaded this image in 2005 from a Puerto Rican Municipal website when I was beginning to make contributions to Wikipedia. At the time the rules in Wiki were different and I must admit that I was not too polished in the copyright rules. Therefore, I deleted the image. Thank you once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: Your Comments: Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: Your Comments: The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: Your Comments: Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: Your Comments: Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference#Eliminate "image_size" parameter?

I invite you to related discussion. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Twitter

Hi again. Do you know if images from Twitter are considered acceptable uploads here? I've looked around, but haven't found the answer. -- James26 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @James26: - so far as I know, images on Twitter are not under a free license. Kelly ^hi! 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Ohio State Fair Picture

I took the picture of the Ohio State Fair that you deleted as a copyright violation. It wasn't a violation - I took the picture. Why are you messing around on pages you don't know anything about? I don't have time to monitor Wikipedia all the time but I don't get people who just go around removing stuff. george (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Georgeccampbell: See here. Kelly did not delete the file. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Columbia University Rape Controversy

Hi,

I'm sending a notice because you previously participated in a move discussion on the page for Mattress Performance (Carry that weight). A new article was created Columbia University rape controversy as a spinout entry, and there is an ongoing discussion here regarding whether the article should be kept, moved, merged, or deleted. Letting you know in case you want to put your two cents in. Thanks. Nblund (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

File Discussion

I haven't been on here for a while so I'll just drop this off here. The file "STH10firesiren.jpg" was one of my old photos - it was taken years ago with a pre-HD digital camera. I took it from several feet away as the siren was located in a difficult-to-reach location. Nowadays there are other, clearer photos of the same basic subject (an STH-10 siren). It doesn't really warrant much debate: please delete the file since it isn't in use nor serves any immediate purpose on here. You're free to use any other photos or files I uploaded years ago but you're also welcome to delete them ASAP if they're no longer suitable.

While my spare time is limited, I realize many of the siren articles could do with organizing - my suggestion would be to just focus on a singular article highlighting the basic subject, leaving trivia for the specialty sites.

--JustInn014 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Beer_lambert1.png

Regarding the deletion of Beer_lambert1.png due to missing copyright information: I had completely forgotten about that image, but judging from the change log, I obviously made a minor edit (14:21, 17 October 2008‎: "Minor illustration change, removed subscript '1' from I_1 (I_1 -> I)") to the original illustration on Wikipedia some 8 years ago. The illustration was most likely created by CarlosRC. Please ask him about the copyright to the image (I had not verified it). I, for one, would find it rather sad if you removed his really nice-to-look-at illustration of the Beer Lambert law. --Dreamtheater (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:BritishPlateGlass.jpg

Afternoon Kelly, unfortunately I am away from my computer at the moment, but would like to identify that I was part of the St Helens Connect team that scanned the images / provided the photographs to wikipedia several years ago. Unfortunately I no longer retain any contact with the old team, and have no means of retrieving an email. As suchI am not sure if I should change the copyright attribution to free (these images are free of copyright, they are from the public archives at St Helens Library) or the attribution to myself (to be honest I cannot remember who of each of us made the original scan). I don't want to have to go back through the process of re-uploading images after the fact. Anyway unfortunately Iwont beable to get to my computer for at least another week to review my archives, so if you are able to assist by placing the delay flag on the image I will deal with this on my return. Thanks. Koncorde Koncorde (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Koncorde: - do you have any information on the original authorship or publication of the photo? Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Afternoon Kelly, this is a scan of an original plate that was included as part of a selection of slides dating back to the late 19th century. It was featured in a book covering the plate glass industry (don't recall it's name offhand). However we had to use the original to print it to paper before re-scanning to a computer. I would have to return to the archives to identify specifics as it wasn't me personally of the team that scanned it. Koncorde (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Blanshard.gif

Hi Kelly, you may be right about File:Blanshard.gif (of Richard Blanshard), but I think a deletion discussion is better than speedy deletion. The file has been around for ten years, so a discussion won't hurt much. The speedy tag was getting old, showing other admins were probably also ambivalent. As stated, a non-commercial only restriction would stop us keeping the article, but the article is also tagged as PD. That's contradictory. The photo is clearly very old, so PD is plausible. It is apparently from here: http://search.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/richard-blanshard-first-governor-of-vancouver-island (though they mis(?)tagged it as "Francis George Claudet"). Is this PD? Can the BC Archives assert copyright on content that is PD? User:fishhead64 said "There's other BC Archives photos on Wikipedia", which in itself is not an argument against deletion but does indicate the need for a wider discussion of the status of these images. Fences&Windows 09:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There is another file on Commons: File:RichardBlanshard.jpg. It looks like a painting based on that photo. It may come from the same or similar source, so Commons may also need to discuss the status of these images. Fences&Windows 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File Cleanup

You might want to review some of my earlier efforts in adding {{information}} (from around 2006-2008), according to Stefan2 and others, there may be a number where I was being too generous in assuming 'good-faith' and "presumed-self" work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In the process of reviewing myself, anything that might need to be reviewed starts Jan 1st 2009( Special:Diff/261295265) seemingly. Will be doing my own reviewing but would appreciate a second opinion in many instances. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This may be of use

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/6052 - Short image pages. It's what I am using to find unsourced images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 19:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

In addition - https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10020 was tracking a shriniking number of files I added information to in good faith, quite a few them probably should be on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

various of my images

Hi, Thanks for your messages about many of the images I uploaded to commons 10-12 years ago. Yes File:Midfordbrookaqueduct.jpg and File:Midfordaqueduct.jpg are of the same structure - but there were 2 different railway lines (2 different companies). The Chew Stoke ones + Bridget Wishart + Somerset Coalfield were all verbal permissions (which was OK back in 2003-2004 but I can't chase the specific individuals for permissions now so if you want to remove them that is fine & I will sort it out after the event.— Rod ^talk 20:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This may be of use

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10225

Amongst other things I've been finding a lot of "unclaimed" self works, where the meta-data given would indicate a self image even though it's not technically marked as {{own}} or {{self}} etc. Perhaps you'd be willing to slow down a bit on FFD referrals and start issuing {{subst:uw-fileclaim|File:filename.ext}}'s to uploaders instead where appropriate.

I'd been addding {{Media by uploader}} on more obviously "unclaimed" self images wrt to the query noted, not that it's having much result coupled with the notifcation/warning I've noted previously. If stuff isn't claimed a slightly stronger variant, i.e {{uw-fileclaimimm}} (which needs to be written) might need to be used. Obviously at some point unclaimed files will need to have a "decision" taken if the uploader doesn't respond ( give them 28 days or so.).

There's also {{Presumed self}} for the situation where a third party's added the info on the basis that they thought it was own work by the uploader, but where that assumptions seemingly come from nowhere. This is also not yet in twinkle.

Both {{media by uploader}} and {{Presumed self}} have the option to add a <noiwki>|claimed=yes</nowiki> parameter, so that when the uploader does acknowledge their upload as self, the warning can be downgraded. (Of course this also means that if they "claim" something that turns out to be copyvio, the admin handling the deletion has much more clout as the uploader adding this parameter has effectively lied.)

None of these are yet in Twinkle.

This doesn't of course apply to obvious copyright violations, or images that should be at FFD for other reasons :)

The three relevant categories which the above templates populate are:-

• Category:Self-images that have been claimed - These are the images that have been "claimed" and should generally be ok to upgrade the licensing on, and transfer to Commons.
• Category:Unclaimed images thought to be uploader - This contains media where the metadata would suggest a 'self-made' work, but the uploader hasn't as such indicated that.
• Category:File where self-authorship has been assumed - This contains media

In many many cases, the files which you've said have unclear sourcing authrship, are likely to be self (by matching the file description information against things like user names/EXIF data and upload patterns.). This is partly why the above templates along with the "claimed" logic in the template was implemented.

Sometime ago I also crated a notifcation about "Used with permission" claims which should be issued as {{subst:un-confirmpermission1|File:filename.ext}}, from reading the wording the usage should be obvious. Blatent no-permission violations would of course still come under F11 ( Like something that is obviously from a commercial photo agency for example).

Much appreciated if you could also note the above to your fellow image patrollers, and admins for disscussion.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)