Commons:Administrators/Requests/Whym

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 16;  Oppose = 0;  Neutral = 0 - 100% Result. Successful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whym

Vote

Whym (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 15:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear community, I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I have been around here on Commons since 2008, almost as long as I have been on Japanese Wikipedia and other parts of Wikimedia. My roles elsewhere include sysop at ja.wikt, interface editor at ja.wikipedia, and occasional tool writer at Toolserver. I am ja-N.

I mainly contribute to Commons by doing maintenance works including categorization and translation. A couple of months ago I discovered that we have lots of backlogs left in here and there. After spending some time participating in DR discussions and translating messages, I thought I could help reducing burdens of administrators more effectively by getting the rights.

I think I can be of help with resolving requests including deletion and file renaming, particularly those related to Japanese/Japan. Translation is another area where I could be useful. The ability to directly edit messages will allow me to do quick and small fixes more easily, without having to ask {{editprotected}}. Admittedly I am not among the most active ones here, but I hope you will see a small help such as mine still makes a difference.

If you are looking for what I have done in relevant areas, please see below.

Please feel free to ask any questions that will help you judge my self-nomination. Thank you for your time, --whym (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Kommentare

  • Question 1: Since you plan to work in deletion, you should have a very good understanding of copyright. Therefore, please tell me what problems, if any, there are with the following images. Be sure to explain why there is a problem, rather than just identifying the problem. If there is really no problem, don't be afraid to say so.
  • Please take your time, as they can be tricky. Good luck! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer 1: Thank you for asking these questions. I will answer one by one. (this is going to be long, sorry!)--whym (talk)
      • File:Aire de Montjaux 03.JPG - I would guess that if we add something like {{de minimis|the bridge is accessory to the landscape of the hillside depicted.}}, this will be OK, but I am not totally confident. The question would be whether the presence of the bridge is regarded as de minimis. According to the description and categories assigned, this appears to be a photograph of a scenery of France, taken by the uploader. My reasoning is that the picture depicts a scape of the hillside featuring its geography in general (at least the description claims so), thus the presence of the bridge can be regarded merely accessory to the main subject. That said, I am not familiar with French laws, and I would remain commenting rather than closing, if I was at its deletion request. At least, {{own}} should be replaced with {{self-photographed}}.
      • File:Afrikanischer Elefant-painting.jpg - this seems to be a copyright violation. According to en:Friedrich Wilhelm Kuhnert the illustrator was alive until February 11, 1926, in Germany. That means that the work's copyright expired in February 11, 1996. In my understanding, in compliance with the URAA, if a work is published after 1923 and its copyright did not expire by January 1, 1996 in the source country, its copyright remains in the US. Unless we obtain a free license in other ways (such as by asking his heirs), we would need to delete this.
      • File:Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952.jpg - if we add {{PD-US-1996}} this will be OK. In contrast to above, I do not believe that its copyright was restored in the US by the URAA. According to the description, it was published in 1952. Being a 'simple photograph', it receives a limited protection, namely, 25 years after publication. In the source country its copyright expired in 1977 which is before the date of the URAA, 1996-01-01. Thus it would be in the public domain in the US as well. There does not seem to be COM:IDENT concerns in this photograph, too. The people depicted are a notable athlete in his duty under the public attention (who is deceased already) and non-identifiable crowd.
      • File:JFHQMD_Logo.jpg - honestly, after quickly reading this and this, I have to admit that I do not have enough expertise to decide something with this. I would avoid making any decision about it by myself until I learn more about this specific area. I guess there are a lot of more knowledgeable people here and there on Commons. That said, let me just try sharing my current thoughts. Apparently it is an image "found on the internet", and the question seems to be whether {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}} or any other {{PD-USGov}} can cover it or not. As I understand, the relevant organization, Maryland National Guard belongs to the state government of Maryland. However, at the same time, some of their duties are for the federal government of the United States. If the logo is a work for hire for the federal government, or somehow derived from a work of the federal government without adding significantly original elements, then it would also be PD (apparently it happens for some of the states, as far as I can see in [1]). However, if it is a work for the state government, we would need to verify what terms will apply to their works. If we find no evidence to support its PD status specifically, as a precaution, we would need to delete it. For now, I do not have enough basic knowledge about US military and its processes for heraldry to decide which is the case (or whether the distinction between state/federal forces I gave above makes sense, for that matter).
      • File:Lcdc logo.JPG - this is likely to be a copyright violation. This is from the UK, and according to Commons:TOO#United_Kingdom, everything, even slightly, more than a product of standard typography seems to be copyrightable there. That would make the {{PD-textlogo}} claim given by the uploader fail. As far as I can tell from the talk page showing a history of his deleted contributions, the uploader does not seem to the copyright holder, so we cannot expect getting a (new) free license easily. That said, the UK copyright is another area I am not confident about for now, and will ask for other people's expertise rather than deciding by myself.
      • File:2010_Haiti_earthquake_damage3.jpg - this seems OK. It was verified in 2010 to be released under CC BY 2.0, which is acceptable. Although currently only CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 is given at its source, since it was first published on Flickr where contributors are allowed to change or remove licenses from their files, it is possible that the copyright holder (Logan Abassi/United Nations Development Programme) once permitted it under CC BY 2.0. If it was the case (which is likely), because CC licenses are irrevocable, we are allowed to keep reusing it under the original terms. I would say that is enough to keep the file on Commons.
    • If you have further questions, I would be happy to answer. Thanks again! --whym (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Whym&oldid=84999456"