Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Ronhjones

< Commons:Administrators | Requests
 Support = 24;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 0 - 100% Result. Successful. 99of9 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones

Vote

Ronhjones (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 00:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I would like to suggest Ronhjones as a administrator on Commons. Ronhjones it is member of Wikimedia community since march of 2008 and is a sysop on English Wikipedia since november of 2009. On enwiki he made over 14.000 administrative actions. He has been active on Commons since last year and has over 6.200 edits which involve copyvio tagging, DRs and work as OTRS member. He has accepted my proposal. Thanks, Érico Wouters msg 00:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate: Please indicate your acceptance here:I thank Érico for his nomination, which I am happy to accept. | Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

Answer - It is a derivative, since it's a photo of a painting. However the first port of call must be to check the OTRS ticket to ensure that the original work (i.e. the painting) has been correctly released. Examining the OTRS ticket I find it satisfactory, so I would decline the deletion nomination.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the copyright holder that authorized the OTRS of the original painting (the painter died in 1985)? Why is the photographer the only author listed? (Sorry, I'm having trouble evaluating this one as I do not have access to the OTRS queue.) --99of9 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to a permission letter at w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 June 18#Many files uploaded by User:Ahjkl67435 which might help your evaluation. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always difficult to know how much one can say with OTRS data... Spouse of the late artist. Why the artist has not been put in the image page, I don't know, the OTRS ticket was there way before I moved it to commons - obviously it is used in the artist's en-wiki page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ok, fantastic, that's a well documented generous widow! --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Ah, one of the many thousands of images I moved from en-wiki... I remember this one quite well. I did tag it on en-wiki with no permission, and the uploader responded to point to the artist web site which showed there was a release. I spent quite a while overlaying the two images and changing the rotation to prove that one can perfectly overlay one with the other. Thus the image was just a derivative, and I removed the pseudo-speedy tag and moved it to commons. Having declined deletion once, I see no reason to keep - but I would discuss with the nominator to ensure we both had a common view.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you think is a derivative of which? Why is our one listed with a CC license? --99of9 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume the uploader had made his derivative and applied a CC license for that derivative work.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Do you mean that the derivative work is the high-resolution image and that the original is the low-resolution image? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall the web image being that size - I'm convinced it linked to a bigger one (not any more - but we cannot force web owners to keep their sites static).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Well it was! It was uploaded on en-wiki by en:6Akira7 (not the copyright owner) as fair use in 2007. There was a discussion in OTRS with the owner in 2009 about a few images - he would not give a full CC-BY-SA for this one. Later in 2012 the owner changed his mind and gave full permission, and I applied the OTRS ticket, and moved it to commons.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ok, good process again. I've improved our filepage documentation of this and the first example. --99of9 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - You are probably correct. In fact, I just tagged it as a copyright violation. As Google Images now finds a match (it didn't when I moved it, as I check every one with Google Image Search and TinEye).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The G image search is not very meaningful for newspapers. The new match is likely copied from Commons, since the blog is more recent than the Commons upload. --99of9 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right about the blog - I was checking the wrong date. As for a scan - I think it is a scan, but it seems a poor scan of a photo, not a halftone image. One would need to ask the nominator if he suspected where he thought the image might come from and hopefully find an image.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted a deletion request, IMO this clearly fails COM:PRP, it is up to the uploader to supply Evidence, not the other way around. --99of9 (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - check the history! Benefits of being an en-wiki admin. The first edit summary said This is a publicity photo for "Hamlet" featuring Deborah Gates as Ophelia. I own the copywright for this photo., and was smartly tagged to deletion. It was uploaded again with This is a publicity photo for "Hamlet" featuring Deborah Gates as Ophelia. I own the copyright and allow its use on Wikipedia And after a deletion notice was added for no copyright tag - the owner added GFDL-self-no-disclaimers (which later changed to GFDL-self|migration=relicense in the migration).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I guess someone had better make me an en-wiki admin sometime :) ... or at least improve the info on the file page! --99of9 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - no way can a 100 x 100px image be made to be 450 x 450px. Also the file date of the 100 x 100px page is 26 November 2012 20:14:15 - later than commons. So I would decline with those comments.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check the domain name: sfu.ca = Simon Fraser University. The infobox at w:Michael Cheng (entrepreneur) says "Alma mater: Simon Fraser University". Also, 26 November 2012 is earlier than Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not stolen from http://www.fvtn.sfu.ca/images/uploads/MCheng_100x100.jpg as per the original statement. You cannot blow up an image by 450% and still be sharp.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. The one on Twitter is also smaller. Do you think that the uploader took the photo himself or that it was stolen from some other source? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the uploader has been trying repeatedly to just get the article up - I would guess an autobiography.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that the article may very well be an autobiography. Do you think that he took a photo of himself? If not, why do you think that he would be the copyright holder? It looks like a studio shot. The camera model (Nikon D4 - the 100x100 px version has EXIF) isn't particularly cheap and is probably mainly used by people who have a big interest in photography, although I suppose that he could own one for some reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's a studio he should be asking for a refund - top of head is chopped off, and he is not sitting in a "normal" position - you don't put more space behind the subject than in front - that just looks like a camera on a tripod, and using the self timer.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all three copies of the photo have been cropped. The smallest one is missing some stuff at the bottom, and the larger ones are missing some stuff at the top. Anyway, the article on Wikipedia is likely an autobiography, so let's drop this. It may mean problems with w:WP:COI, but it probably means that there is no violation of COM:L. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Interesting. I think I might ask for a second opinion. Taken in the Philippines, There is no FoP - basically Philippine copyright law is based on US law. Therefore the question is - is the arch a building or a sculpture?. The figures on top are obviously sculptures but are probably de minimis  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean if it is a building? And what does it mean if it is a sculpture? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Photos of buildings are fine. Photos of sculptures would need a copyright release from the sculptor.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, photos of buildings are not fine. The Philippine copyright law is based on the US one, but with some differences, one of them being that there is no freedom of panorama for buildings. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sm megamall.jpg and File:Smmarilaojf.JPG are buildings, but the images are still here.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It was thought that the buildings were below the threshold of originality. There are other buildings in Category:Philippine FOP cases/deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't see them so I cannot make an informed judgement. But if the arch is considered to be a "building" then there is not much originality in that either.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good answer. There are probably lots of almost identical constructions everywhere, and there should have been pillars like this since ancient times. Also, the sculptures at the top are probably de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - It's in Australia. Full FoP, just like the UK (well we did own it...). Thus a photo in a public place, no reason to delete.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the text in the information template? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was no match at transfer time, and although there is now - it's a later file date (23 December 2012 08:09:34)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there's a statement saying "Previously published: football team website"...? --Stefan4 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't there at the transfer time. I assumed the owner was going to use it there in the future.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that it is a problem if a person claims that the photo previously was published elsewhere, so I have asked the uploader about this at his Wikipedia talk page. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Because it's here - http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/image/PecoraFerdinand.htm
But the image caption says that it comes from elsewhere...? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would thought that an official Senate photo was a reasonable thing to use - and if there could be any copyright (with an undeclared photographer), then as it was taken in the US in 1933, it should have expired by now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image is sourced to the National Archives. There are images in the National Archives which come from numerous different sources (not only the US government). It says on Commons that the photo was taken "circa 1933" (when he worked for the senate), but it doesn't say where this information comes from (it is not at senate.gov). A photo from 1933 might be in the public domain for some reason, yes, but that is not always true. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - The copyright holder has stated on his web site I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, that should cover the image file.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the statuette? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but would that also not apply to images like File:Bruce Kennedy.jpg?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that images like this are tricky. For example, in the article en:Bruce Kennedy (television producer), the purpose of File:Bruce Kennedy.jpg is to show what Bruce Kennedy looks like, and the presence of the statuette is irrelevant, so the statuette is in my opinion de minimis. On the other hand, the same image is also used in de:Emmy, where the entire purpose of the image is to show the statuette, and the statuette can't be de minimis in that article. An image like this may be free for some purposes but not for other purposes, and it may be debatable whether they are free enough for Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be willing to change the colors of your signature to be less loud? Reading pages with several signatures of you is a bit less convenient (at least for me)… --Leyo 11:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leyo - you've seen this sig more than a few times with all the chemistry images we've been through. If there is a consensus that it needs toning down then I will consider it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal, but perhaps  Ronhjones  (Talk) would be a bit better. INeverCry 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go for a compromise between the two - Leyo can put his sunglasses away.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This compromise is fine. Thank you. --Leyo 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, much appreciated. -- Rillke(q?) 13:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Can I just add that a lot of the file moves from en-wiki were done a year ago as part of en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/Jan 2012 - some of those I may not make the same decision now - as since then I have been very busy tagging bad image uploads on en-wiki (and thus gaining useful knowledge on images - of which there is a lot to learn) - these don't show up in my en-wiki admin figures there as I don't play judge and jury by deleting on sight, I tag them, and let another admin agree (or some do get changed by the user to an allowable non-free). My CSD log on en-wiki en:User:Ronhjones/CSD log is nearly 100% images, and around 1400 in the last year.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Ronhjones&oldid=87588944"