Talk:George Baldanzi

Paraphrasing
, thank you for the work on this article. I checked the sourcing again, and I disagree with one change here. Plants is the English variant preferred by the region, and in my view should be used here. I also think that this qualifies as WP:LIMITED: there are limited ways to describe his choice of work locations and the reason for it, while respecting the regional variation of English. The sentence in questions is a short sentence that presents fact close to the sources, and changing plant to factory wouldn't fix the close paraphrase if it were a problem because of the structure. I'm open to other ways of phrasing it if you can think of a better one, but I think this is a legitimate use under policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll change it back here and in the hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated, and special thanks for verifying the information using sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Images
There are 2 images of Baldanzi presently at Commons, File:George Baldanzi 3.jpg and File:George Baldanzi 4.jpg, which would be suitable for the infobox. However, they have been uploaded with an incorrect license; surely User:JoeyJet did not take these pictures. is there anything you can do about fixing the licensing on these images? (Note: File:George Baldanzi 1.jpg and File:George Baldanzi 2.jpg are also mis-licensed.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing that up Joey's claim was that these were family photos, and as I explained to him on my talk page, if he or his family owned the copyright to them, they could upload them under a compatible license. He will need to be contacted about it to fix them to be properly attributed and the copyright proven now that they have been challenged. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to your talk page; I see you had a long discussion about it. Should you contact him or should I? (I don't know much about licensing, aside from posting my own work.) Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. Text copyright is my thing, but image licensing is more complex. The safest course of action for now is to remove the image from the article and mark them as mislabelled on Commons, and have him contact Commons OTRS. Thank you for catching this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. The only option is to nominate them for deletion at Commons due to mislicensing. I'll do that now. Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I've notified him of this and am emailing him the OTRS instructions now. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Perhaps the "wrong licensing" label that you added to the image was a better idea. I wasn't aware of that one. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've seen that used in the past when there is a reasonable claim of right to upload, but the licensing was messed up. My main interaction with Commons comes with new articles that have clear copyvios. Regardless, he has OTRS instructions now on his talk and his email. I think what you did was fine, and if he cannot contact OTRS and show the right to upload them, deletion is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , as an update: Commons OTRS confirmed permission on at least one of the files, so I've added it to the infobox. I suspect they also confirmed permission on the others, but that the permission crossed paths with deletion. I've asked the OTRS agent who handled the request of the infobox image for an explanation, so hopefully we will also have the image of him giving a speech by the time this hits the main page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Commons OTRS has confirmed public domain status of all the files. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)