User talk:JWilz12345
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
04:02 [update] |
---|
Commons clock - made from this set [update] |
Userboxes | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Hello JWilz12345[edit]
Do you have facebook account? Thank you. 103.144.157.92 06:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but I don't accept message or friend requests from anonymous users, especially those not using user accounts and resorting to contributions while not being logged in, for privacy reasons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Sylvia Sanchez is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:
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).
|
Doclys👨⚕️👩⚕️ 🩺 • 💉 06:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Aga Muhlach is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:
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).
|
Doclys👨⚕️👩⚕️ 🩺 • 💉 06:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
User who doesn't understand Freedom of Panorama insulting me[edit]
I've been waging jihad on statue copyright violations and some people are trying to destroy Commons with copyright violations. Микола Василечко has been insulting me and calling me a vandal just because I said that Ukraine does not have freedom of panorama and just because a photo part is free doesn't mean that the whole thing is free because photos of statues are derivative works. They even removed the link to the deletion discussion on the page calling me a vandal there too. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%8C_-_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BC%27%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%96_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%96_-_010.jpg). Please teach him a less on about copyright.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KazyKazyKazakhstan I think Микола Василечко is right in this case. The linked VRTS correspondence is a licensing permission granted by the sculptor. Since the sculptir is alive, it may have been easy for the uploader or his/her fellow Ukrainian Wikimedian users to convince the sculptor about the release of the image under commercial license and process his email to Wikimedia Foundation. The other images of the same statue are likely not part of permission granted by him (the sculptor). Unless other interested users are willing to contact him again (but we are not sure if he would allow another image of his statue to be released under commercial license, or not, that is, he only permits one image with such license). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- But I made a very reasonably good faith mistake and instead of just easily saying that the release ticket was on the statue which would have been very easy to say, he kept insulting me and acting in bad faith. He also removed a link to the deletion discussion from the filepage before the deletion discussion was over, which I know is not allowed.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KazyKazyKazakhstan regarding his behavior, I can't judge since he may not be a fluent English speaker. I can see nost of his Ukrainian FOP nominations (like this) using English with some broken grammar.
- But nevertheless I advice both of you to be more calm in approach of DRs and avoid obviously attack-words. Both of you do good DRs anyway, in cleaning up tons of violations to sculptors' / muralists' copyrights in Central Asian and Eastern European countries where commercial FOP is not granted. Therefore, I don't want to see both of you getting sanctioned by admins of Commons. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the one calling anyone a vandal. He called me a vandal, an attack word.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KazyKazyKazakhstan that's why I am calling for both of you to exercise restraint in DRs. @Микола Василечко: , I suggest avoid calling nominators acting in good faith mistake vandals, just simply comment "keep" and cite the reason like a VRTS ticket linking to an email of an artist. You can only call a nominator "vandal" if the nomination is clearly nonsense, like a user only stating "asdfghjkl" or "bad file" or "champs elysees" as the nomination reason. And again KazyKazyKazakhstan, I hope you learned from this good faith mistake. Regards to both of you, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- But I made a very reasonably good faith mistake and instead of just easily saying that the release ticket was on the statue which would have been very easy to say, he kept insulting me and acting in bad faith. He also removed a link to the deletion discussion from the filepage before the deletion discussion was over, which I know is not allowed.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
JWilz12345 Hi. The permission (see Template:Roman Vilhushynskyi) was obtained legally, for all statues of the author Roman Vilhushynskyi, the permission was approved by the administrator Krassotkin. User KazyKazyKazakhstan did not ask for permission. And despite the permission template, nominated for delete.This is obvious vandalism. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. You said that the file had permission. You never specifically specified that the permission was from the sculptor for the statue itself. If you had said that I would have withdrawn it but you reverted the deleton tagging like an actual vandal would and kept insulting me. You can't be vague and call me a vandal for misunderstanding your words. I was never saying that the photo part wasn't free. I wanted to know about the status of the statue which you just insulted and insulted me instead of just saying the magic words "The release is for the statue itself" so you don't get to call me a vandal here. A mistaken deletion nomination based on vague information is not vandalism and you should apologize. Frankly I think removing a deletion nomination even a mistaken one is grounds for a ban but I will be nice and not ask for one.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Микола Василечко File:Тернопіль - Пам'ятник Степанові Бандері - 010.jpg does not appear to bear {{Roman Vilhushynskyi}} template. Note that the template contains a VRTS tag so I'm not allowed to tag the file with such template (a VRTS administrator should tag it, provided that permission covers the said file too). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 PermissionOTRS template {{PermissionOTRS|id=2016090710013187|user=Krassotkin}} add user Krassotkin. He is an agent OTRS. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KazyKazyKazakhstan: kindly add "noinclude" tags at categories you added to DRs at Category:Tajikistani FOP cases/pending. Without those "noinclude" tags, Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/09 becomes categorized as a result. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Philippine FOP[edit]
Hi JWilz12345. Since you seem quite experienced in dealing with COM:FOP Philippines matters perhaps you could assess the following files to see if they're OK for Commons.
- File:Regina Rosarii - panoramio.jpg
- File:Ugong Norte, Quezon City Metro Manila 19.jpg
- File:Hundred Islands Christ the Redeemer Statue.jpg
- File:Kamay ni Jesus.jpg
- File:PH-Manila-Rizal Monument.jpg
- File:BonifacioMonumentjf9933 13.JPG
- File:08419jfSumacab Este Cemetery Park Cabanatuan Cityfvf 24.JPG
- File:Statue of the Risen Christ in Tarlac.jpg
- File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 02.JPG
Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Marchjuly: . For the image files you cited:
- First file, as well as all of Category:Regina Rosarii Institute of Contemplation in Asia: Not OK. Publicly displayed in 2010 and authored by Jose Barcena Jr.;
- File:Ugong Norte, Quezon City Metro Manila 19.jpg - Not OK. Authored by w:en:Eduardo Castrillo: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:People Power Monument. The category must be reviewed too if there are substantial presence of the sculpture in each of the images.
- Third file ("File:Hundred Islands Christ the Redeemer Statue.jpg"), nominate it for deletion as an image from Facebook (facebook metadata). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sandy Talag.jpg.
- File:Kamay ni Jesus.jpg, Not OK: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kamay ni Hesus Church Lucban, Quezon.JPG.
- File:PH-Manila-Rizal Monument.jpg, OK. The sculptor involved died in 1919, and possibly if it was registered, its registration was valid for 10 years only consistent with the Spanish law from 1879. See the attached PD-PH template itself.
- File:BonifacioMonumentjf9933 13.JPG, OK. See a reply of Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights at this Facebook post of our Intellectual Property Office, which is the basis of the attached PD-PH template.
- File:08419jfSumacab Este Cemetery Park Cabanatuan Cityfvf 24.JPG, Not OK. The memorial park opened in 2004, and the sculpture is apparently authored by w:en:Napoleon Abueva, see this information text at the entrance.
- File:Statue of the Risen Christ in Tarlac.jpg, likely Not OK. The Monasterio de Tarlac complex was completed in 2000, and it can be assumed that the statue, inspired from copyrighted Christ the Redeemer Statue of Brazil, was unveiled during the same time/period.
- File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 01.JPG, OK. The uploader is the sculptor himself: see also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-09#File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 01.JPG.
- Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking at these. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind starting a DR for the questionable ones since you seem to have been able to sort their provenance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly perhaps you are aware about the attempt here to introduce FOP (documemted at meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama. A large part of that metawiki page is contributed by me; therefore, I thought of putting more deletion requests on hold for a while in hopes that FOP will be introduced here soon. But the problem is the pertinent bills in our lower House (House of Representatives) – HB799, HB2672, HB3838 – have been pending since last year, and recent support by various stakeholders here are towards a bill (HB7600) that is purely focused on countering online piracy and giving the Intellectual Property Office the power to order the take down of erring websites or block access to websites found to violate intellectual property rights of Philippine works. There is no FOP clause in this more widely-supported bill. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies for not responding sooner. If you feel a DR for these files should wait due to the impending passing of new FOP laws for the Philippines, then that's fine with me; however, I don't think Commons should wait too long for the Philippine government to act. Files that are deleted for this reason can, afterall, always be restored at a latter date if needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly I may leave the decision of nominating these and other image files of the Philippines to other users. If I feel that there is little chance of FoP being introduced here, then there is no chance of waiting for these and other images to be deleted from public view here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly also, it is sure that some users may accuse me of not being faithful to the FOP initiative, of which I am a part of. Perhaps Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stained-glass windows, paintings and statues of Saint Andrew Kim Taegon in the Philippines would be my last PH-FOP-related deletion request, unless something unfavorable happens (like FOP being not passed as part of amendments or FOP passed is no longer suitable for Wikimedia, like non-commercial or traditional media only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies for not responding sooner. If you feel a DR for these files should wait due to the impending passing of new FOP laws for the Philippines, then that's fine with me; however, I don't think Commons should wait too long for the Philippine government to act. Files that are deleted for this reason can, afterall, always be restored at a latter date if needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly perhaps you are aware about the attempt here to introduce FOP (documemted at meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama. A large part of that metawiki page is contributed by me; therefore, I thought of putting more deletion requests on hold for a while in hopes that FOP will be introduced here soon. But the problem is the pertinent bills in our lower House (House of Representatives) – HB799, HB2672, HB3838 – have been pending since last year, and recent support by various stakeholders here are towards a bill (HB7600) that is purely focused on countering online piracy and giving the Intellectual Property Office the power to order the take down of erring websites or block access to websites found to violate intellectual property rights of Philippine works. There is no FOP clause in this more widely-supported bill. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking at these. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind starting a DR for the questionable ones since you seem to have been able to sort their provenance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)