User talk:RP88

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to my talk page.
  • Please sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
  • I will generally respond here, on my own talk page, to comments posted here unless you request otherwise.
Start a new talk topic.

1, 2

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For your swift help and assistance at File:2 Weeks In Italy - A Cinematic Travel Film.webm -

Reading my request back it didn't make as much sense as I thought it did but by some miracle you understood it and moved the file etc so again just wanted to say thank you very much for your help today it was very much appreciated :)
Take care and stay safe RP88, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 22:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind note of encouragement. —RP88 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :), Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic images from Ukraine[edit]

Hi, I’m planning to upload ca. 500 images of Ukraine at the 2020 Summer Olympics under CC 4.0 of gov.ua (see copyright indication at bottom website). Before I make a same mistake as with the Argentine images, please let me know if you see any issues. I searched for images at Getty but can’t find them somewhere else. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsOlympic: From what I can tell, all most of the photos have a watermark in the lower right-hand corner, and it appears to me the watermark indicates that these photos originate from noc-ukr.org (Ukraine National Olympic Committee), not sport.gov.ua. That watermark probably qualifies as an exclusion from the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license per the "якщо не зазначено інше" ("unless otherwise noted") caveat that sport.gov.ua includes in their CC license blurb. Unfortunately it does not appear to me that noc-ukr.org has a CC license like sport.gov.ua, instead, at the bottom it has "© 2021. Всі права захищено. Використання матеріалів цього сайту можливе тільки з посиланням на джерело." I don't read Ukrainian, but from Google Translate I don't think that meets the criteria at COM:L (but you might ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright for a wider set of opinions). If it were me, I probably would try contacting sport.gov.ua and see if they have permission from the Ukraine National Olympic Committee to relicense the noc-ukr.org watermarked photos under the CC-BY-4.0 license (see COM:VRT for the process for memorializing permission obtained via e-mail in a way that Commons will accept). Or alternatively (or even simultaneously!), contact noc-ukr.org and see if they are willing to explicitly release their photos under a CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. —RP88 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportsOlympic: I noticed that a few minutes after I replied you began to upload photos from sport.gov.ua with the noc-ukr.org watermark. Did you somehow determine that noc-ukr.org photos are CC licensed? —RP88 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HiRP88, sorry I just see now your message. Yes at the bottom of each page, for instance at here is written: "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license". In Ukrainian language is written: "Весь контент доступний за ліцензією Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, якщо не зазначено інше" that translates as: "All content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, unless otherwise noted". Hurrayy!! SportsOlympic (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the photos with the noc-ukr.org watermark (e.g. File:Ukraine_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_-_(24_July)_(1).jpg) are "otherwise noted". —RP88 (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A, wait, now I understand what you mean, you mean that noc-ukr.org (Ukraine National Olympic Committee) is not the same as sport.gov.ua . That's a good point. Yes, I will send them an email. I will stop uploading and let you know. Regards, SportsOlympic (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, http://noc-ukr.org says "all rights reserved" so I'm guessing the images published by the Olympic Committee can't be uploaded here, but I guess we'll wait for you to hear back. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Old-assumed[edit]

Hi RP88,

I have seen the changes you had done in the template. Nice work. Since I have planned to prepare a new {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} (you can see my first sketches hardcoded in my sandbox, a few remarks.

  1. maybe the wording at least some works of this author were created over 140 years ago (or the author was born over 160 years ago) would be more appropriate? {{PD-old-assumed/text}}
  2. since both templates {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} would use the same code, it would be better to make them more flexible:

I hope you accept my proposals. If not feel free to revert my changes made in {{PD-old-assumed/core}}

Regards Draco flavus (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Draco flavus: For various reasons (categorization, template loops, bot processing) it is preferred to carefully control the overlap in the templates between US license templates (such as {{tl|PD-US-expired), source country templates (such as {{PD-old-auto}}), and "both" templates (such as {{PD-old-auto-expired}}). In principle I don't have an objection to {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} and I am more than willing to assist you in building what you want. You currently can get the effect, if not necessarily your desired appearance, of {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} with "{{PD-two|PD-old-assumed|PD-old-auto-expired}}" or "{{PD-old-assumed}}{{PD-US-expired}}". Take a look at some examples at User:RP88/PD-old-assumed examples. I think you desire a version of {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} that is comparable to the minimalism of {{PD-old-auto-expired}} (see example 5) that removes all warnings, but we could create a template that does #3 or #4 immediately. I would be happy to build a version of {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} that looked like something like #5 updated for PD-old-assumed, but it wouldn't match the community approved template. The approval of the {{PD-old-assumed}} was somewhat tortious — I'm a little concerned about removing the "countries with longer copyright terms and no rule of the shorter term" warning that was part of the community approved language. I'm going to revert your change for now, but take a look at User:RP88/PD-old-assumed examples and let me know what you think. —RP88 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your answer. The desired version is (now) the last one on my Sandbox page. The proposal for the voting was actually "A formulation could be: "If the copyright situation of a file is based on the date of death of the author, but we do not know when the author has died, we assume the file to be PD if at least the lenght of copyright protection + 60 years have passed since the latest possible date of creation of the work. (e.g. 130 years if copyright is based on de PMA+70 rule). If we know of an older work of the same author, we base the situation on the date of creation of that older work. If we do know the year of birth of the author, we use the year in which he/she reached the age of 20 in the calculation instead of the year of creation of the work." Doesn't it back the proposed text. Regards Draco flavus (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Draco flavus: That was one of the proposals, but was not accepted, the result in the closure was only "I am closing this as a consensus of 120 years.". The closed version of the discussion can be read at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template. As part of the closure the discussion was directed to Commons talk:Cut-off date for PD-old files for working out details, which resulted in the creation of the current {{PD-old-assumed}}. My recent changes left the copyright logic and text intact, but conformed the template to be more inline with similar templates like {{PD-old-auto}}. Let me see what I can do about making a {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} that looks like what you want, derived from {{PD-old-assumed}} with shared resources in much the same was as {{PD-old-auto-expired}} is derived from {{PD-old-auto}} with shared resources. —RP88 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} to be very similar to the last example on your sandbox page. Your existing work was very close to the final template. {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} now share translations at Template:PD-old-assumed-text, Template:PD-US-expired-text, and Template:PD-old-warning-text, but don't commingle their layout templates. —RP88 (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RI88,

many thanks for your help. I am not so familiar with the teplates on Commons. The main time I spend on Polish Wikisource. I have preapared a short cheat sheet for our users (s:pl:User:Draco flavus/brudnopis77). Even if it is in Polish you can certainly understand the first table there.
In our project we accept the works that are both in Poland and in the USA in the PD (sometimes also in the country of origin if it is a translation).
So in the scope of our interest are mostly these -expired templates.
Regarding the copyright laws we are actually more conservative than the general rules on Commons.
We accept the old-assumed works after 140 years (assumed published when 20 or older, lived not longer than 90 years). So the PD-old-assumed-expired licence does not cover 100% all cases but I suppose is good enough for us. Once more, many thanks and regards Draco flavus (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

missed?[edit]

Hi RP88, did you eventually miss to delete File:León de Greiff.jpg after closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:León de Greiff.jpg? --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye! I did indeed forget to delete the actual file after closing that DR. Thanks for the heads up. —RP88 (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RP88&oldid=619427107"