Hi, Roundtheworld. Did you create the artwork pictured in Image:Tapa.jpg yourself? LtPowers 10:01, 8 December 2009 (EST)
thanks & sorry
Thank you for all the useful info you've given me & sorry for the inconvenient. Best wishes --Trm 06:25, 1 January 2010 (EST)
image licence checking
thanks for checking the licencing on all those uploads (and even catching a few of my errors along the way!). --Inas 07:08, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
Yes, I can't get my head around copyright matters. Thanks for pointing this out. By the way, how do I know whether an image on Flikr is suitable for uploading or not? Roundtheworld 05:34, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for doing that link to source for me (the Sasak tribesmen). I was a little unsure if I should be attributing the museum that released the entire image collection into the public domain and continues to host the collection online or wiki commons that is hosting those images subsequent to the museum uploading them to wikicommons. Frankly I find the image uploading thing a bit messy and I am a bit worried I may make some errors with a map image I am uploading at present. Perhaps you could help me out and make sure I am not screwing it up with attributions. The copyright holder and author has emailed me and said it is OK to upload to the site but I am stumbling with licence requirements. Is the assignment of (3.0) correct? Sea-Chart, Medana Bay-Tanjung, Lombok Indonesia.JPEG Hey who is this Pete guy?Felix505 07:26, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
Hello, Midnight 68 here. My apologies for approaching you on this site, but I have no other means to contact you. You asked me to provide evidence of authorship of my work. Unfortunately, my account was indefinitely disabled before I had a chance to comply.
I wish to supply evidence to prove that no copyright violations were involved. I have no intention to contest the deletions, but I'm hoping that you will review the indefinite block, and consider allowing me to rejoin the Commons community. Contrary to the general consensus, I was not trolling or vandalizing. I submitted my artwork in good faith and under Commons policy as I understood it at the time. The images posted below should verify my authorship; please examine each in turn and consider my request carefully.
Kogaru1 (CG Image).
Kogaru 1 (figure sketch) Download to view at full size.
Kogaru 1 (background)
Panchira 4 (pen and ink figures).
Panchira 4 (pen and ink figure).
Panchira 4 (background, pencil sketch).
Please note that as a general rule, I draw figures and backgrounds separately, as this makes them easier to render in photoshop layers.
Let me know if any more images are required to verify my authorship. If there is anything you can do to help me appeal the block, I would be very grateful. As stated above, I genuinely submitted my work in good faith and had no intention of stirring up trouble within the community.
Thank you for your time.
Midnight68 02:15, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Apologies for the late reply - I don't log in to /shared very much. I don't want to over-complicate the licensing situation on my Flickr photoset (more than it already is) and in any case I object to commercial copyleft licenses that allow individuals to profit from content given freely by others. I won't be re-submitting my photos and am suspending new contributions to Wikitravel for the time being. If contributions are to be used for profit, publications containing this content should be offered free of charge to the owners of that content at the very least.
I am open to arguments about this - I'm aware that there are problems with NC licensing (the reason they were mis-licensed for this purpose in the first place is because I don't fully grasp CC licensing) but this is my position at the moment. It's a shame because I think Wikitravel is a powerful antidote to the glossification of travel symbolised by the BBC's purchase of LP.
Signing comments above: --Dazzla 05:51, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
Hi LtPowers. You are right. The images have the "All Rights Reserved"" flag on Flickr. Nonetheless, I contacted all of the authors of the images, and only after their authorization I uploaded the pictures on Wikitravel Shared. How should I proceed? Is their written authorization enough?
Please delete. Uploaded in error. I promise a nice photo of Ilha Fiscal eventually. Thanks Roundtheworld 14:52, 18 September 2010 (EDT)
Hello, Midnight68 here again. I'd like to bring a small matter to your attention. A few days ago, someone uploaded one of my images from it.wikipedia to Commons. Although it was under use in the mainspace, the picture was deleted and the user was banned.
Martin H has since accused me of using sockpuppets to spam Commons and en.Wikipedia. In actual fact, I didn't; I haven't been near either site since my block a few months back. I don't know the full story, but whoever uploaded my art to Commons did so under their own initiative. I didn't even know about it until yesterday.
Anyway, I was wondering if a deletion request was lodged and if any discussion took place on the subject. I'm also wondering if it's good policy to ban people simply for uploading my art to Commons? This could lead to innocent people being blocked for posting images clearly licensed under cc-by-sa.
BTW: In the meantime, Martin has attempted to have most of my artwork removed from it.Wiki. I suspect he did this because he knows that any image used on the mainspace is automatically within scope, and he doesn't want any Italian users transferring my work to Commons. Not terribly impartial behavior for a sysop, at least in my opinion.
The image in question was File:Bath07a.jpg. If there was a deletion request lodged, could you possibly provide a link to the page? I'd be very interested in knowing more about this matter.
Thanks, Midnight68 23:29, 2 October 2010 (EDT)
RE: Deletion policies
I did some digging on Commons and found that the image was renamed File:Drawn Bath.jpg. It was deleted on 30 September 2010 by Martin H. I've run several searches, but found no deletion request. The only reason given on the deletion log was "User:Midnight68 sock upload".
As previously stated, this particular file was not uploaded by me, and the original was still in use on it.Wikipedia's mainspace when Martin deleted it. I'm assuming from Martin's message that the it.wiki source was given in the description, as he knew where the image originated.
I'd like to know if this deletion was within Commons' Deletion Policy. I was under the impression that a deletion request must be posted before a mainspace image can be removed. I'm also wondering whether Martin's (unfounded) allegation that I uploaded the image under a sockpuppet is acceptable under Commons' Assumption of Good Faith policy. As previously mentioned, I had nothing to do with any of this, and it appears that an innocent party was banned without any real investigation into the matter.
Anyway, thanks for your time.
Midnight68 06:56, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
hi erm im pritty sure you did not want to put "dick" on the pub page Philiprobinson 16:26, 22 October 2010 (EDT)
Right you are! Don't know why I forgot that... Thanks for the reminder. – D. Guillaime 17:44, 9 January 2011 (EST)
Hello, Midnight68 here again. I'd like to bring another questionable deletion to your notice. One of my mainspace images, Gomen_Nasai_Screen.jpg was removed from Commons by Alison on 24 February 2011. It had been in use on Wikipedia's Eroge article. According to Commons Delinker, the reason given was Copyright Violation.
I'd like to state for the record that this image was originally posted at the Spanking Art Wiki on 25 December 2007 with a GFDL licence clearly attached. I have since released it into the public domain and have no objection to it being used without author attribution.
Having consulted the Deletion Log, I can find no evidence of any investigation into the picture's copyright status. Nor can I locate any mention of a deletion request or related discussion.
Lt Powers, I would like to officially request undeletion for this image on the following basis:
1. It was in use on the Wikipedia Mainspace, making it automatically within scope on Commons.
2. The accusation of Copyright Violation is highly questionable, as it had been released under GFDL over three years ago.
3. To the best of my knowledge, no serious attempt was made to ascertain the image's copyright status.
4. As the original copyright holder, I have no objection to it being employed by anyone, for any purpose, with or without author attribution (the same goes for all of my work, BTW).
I should also mention that most of my work is posted at various online venues, and all of it is covered by either GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0, or Public Domain. People will continue to upload my illustrations to Wikipedia and Commons, as they are both good quality and freely available. While I'd like to assume that all parties have acted in good faith, it appears to me that this particular image - and several others - were removed without following the normal protocols. At the very least, such actions should be questioned and scrutinized, if for no other reasons than to avoid similar problems in future.
Anyway, if you decide to go ahead with the undeletion request, please post a link on my talkpage, as I'd like to keep tabs on whatever discussion ensues.
BTW: In the event that I'm accused of sockpuppetry once again, a simple checkuser will verify that I didn't upload the image to either Commons or Wikipedia.
Thanks for your time. Midnight68 21:29, 10 March 2011 (EST)
Hello, Midnight here again. I've been following this discussion with considerable interest. I wasn't planning to bother you again, but as you've joined the debate, I thought I might supply some information that you might be unaware of.
A. Martin H claims he has evidence that I used sock puppets to sneak "File:Genderschool2a" onto Commons and Wikipedia. I don't know if he's lying or confused, but his claim is completely untrue. I haven't uploaded any of my previously deleted images to either site since my ban, and I KNOW that an independent checkuser will confirm this.
B. Martin H recently deleted another mainspace image, "File:Gender school 1.jpg" on 7 June 2011. The reason given was: "Uploaded by sockpuppet of banned user Midnight68, abused for spamming cros-wiki". Again, contrary to his claims, I DID NOT upload this image to Commons, someone else did so without my knowledge. The original version is posted here, please note it is covered by a
C. As you're probably aware, Martin has indefinitely banned a (growing) number of users claiming they are "suspected sockpuppets of Midnight68". As always, this was done without either evidence or discussion. In light of recent developments, I am honestly concerned that innocent users are being blocked for no apparent reason. This must go against Commons policy - surely administrators cannot hand out gratuitous bans over unsupported suspicions.
D. It is becoming very obvious (to me, at least) that Martin's behavior is motivated by personal animosity. In the past, he has subjected me to continual personal attacks and insults, accused me of spamming and vandalism in spite of most (if not all) of my contributions being within the project's scope. He has even inferred that I'm a sexual pervert. This kind of behavior is all the more inexcusable due to my being banned and therefore unable to defend myself from his attacks.
E. RE: Probationary Unblock: While I realize this is highly unlikely given the controversy surrounding my work (and myself), I would be perfectly agreeable to probationary membership under any terms you consider necessary. I also give my word that I would not upload anything to Commons without written permission from either yourself or Trycatch. Any further advice you could give on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Midnight68 06:27, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
Tech:Listing editor interacts poorly with HTML comments
Hi LtPowers, you raised the ticket Tech:Listing editor interacts poorly with HTML comments quite a while ago, and then, worthy of imitation, followed it up with comments on later versions of IE. However, that was a while ago now. Do you think we can close the ticket? Riggwelter 16:43, 20 June 2012 (EDT)