User:Light show/archive-4

File source problem with File:Marshall-giving-medal-of-merit.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Marshall-giving-medal-of-merit.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 21:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Was this movie published without a copyright notice? --damiens.rf 00:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was only 30 seconds long, a single awards event news clip, so copyright unlikely. No renewals of anything related found for 1978. --Light show (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm lost. If I understand it correctly, "published without a copyright notice" is a different case of "copyright not renewed". Which one are you claiming here? --damiens.rf 14:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't recall the source of the photo, but I wouldn't have used it if it had a copyright notice anywhere relevant to the photo. I'm not sure if this was a government photo or video. However, a search for any films of that name being renewed showed no results. If you want to change the license to not renewed, that's fine with me. Or if you feel safer with non-free, being that it has supporting commentary in the article, that's fine also. --Light show (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You should have had provided source information at upload time. You understand we can't just really on your testimony "I wouldn't have used it if it had a copyright notice". I'm afraid the source will have to be found if this image is to be kept here.
 * Also, having I can't figure out a valid fair use rationale for this image. First of all, the existence of a source part of the criteria. Second, the image is currently used just to decorate a unreferenced paragraph in an article, describing the event purportedly depicted on the picture.
 * Do you plan to find a source or we can just delete it? --damiens.rf 17:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Source updated. --Light show (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Al and Erle Jolson, 1946.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Al and Erle Jolson, 1946.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. damiens.rf 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like I have most of the source material for the images you've tagged. Please create subsections for each of them below so I can respond. For some I have nearly identical images from PD sources which you or someone can upload. However, they're in older printed publications which I have, since such old publications are not on the web. Also, is it necessary to again blitz tag multiple questionable old images at one time? The last time you did that kind of mass tagging of 24 images over a few minutes there was naturally no time to reply and they all got deleted. --Light show (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I had to copy your other Patton Commons tag info here to reply, along with subsequent tagged images. --Light show (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of ban
Light Show, I have indefinitely blocked your account pending some demonstration that your uploading multiple images since October 18th is not a deliberate violation of your image uploading ban. Your ban is still listed at Editing_restrictions, and I know you are very well aware of it given that you have approached me about it multiple times on my user talk page. Was there a community discussion somewhere where consensus was obtained to lift the ban but the closer of the consensus discussion failed to record the change of your status? I didn't see any sign of this, but will unblock you if there is and I have overlooked it and will make sure that you are removed from the list of restricted editors, at least in regard to images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl, there was obviously no attempt to violate the ban for En/WP. As you're probably aware, the ban was lifted for uploading to the Commons, which is a separate site with their own guidelines. I am currently not banned for Commons images although conditions for uploads are in effect: see conditions. The key one is that I seek pre-approval from some other copyright editor, which I did three separate times for three images by posting a notice on my talk page and at the Commons village pump for Copyright.


 * Those three requests to that copyright-focused group received about 250 views on my talk page with only one editor, the one who unblocked me, suggesting I keep trying to find an editor. Needless to say I finally gave up on uploading to Commons. I discovered I was allowed to upload as non-free, this image without objection to En WP. Many of the same editors who supported the Commons ban apparently watch all my uploads to En WP, so I naturally assumed the ban was lifted. I think it would have been easier to simply ask me about this first without posting a complete WP ban which seems like an overreaction. --Light show (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you could assume that it is "obvious" that that there is no attempt to violate your ban, which has nothing to do with any decision on Commons. You are not permitted to upload images to the English Wikipedia, and you have done so, with 10 images (now deleted) started on 17 October. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It seemed obvious because after the original ban I was unable to make any edits or uploads to anything related to images, or unable to even respond to deletion requests. When I saw that the ban had apparently been lifted and I could now edit images, I only then began uploading some images with excess supporting copyright details. If the ban was to be restored or was never lifted, someone could have notified me. And FWIW, the images recently uploaded which you just deleted had complete if not excessive evidence of their PD status. Yet no editor made any effort to comment, dispute, or approve them, before or after they were tagged, although many are used for lead images. Where is everyone? --Light show (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Plainly put, Commons≠enwiki. Just because the restriction was lifted there does not mean you are free to do as you like here. Mdann52 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, topic bans are not self-enforcing, and much time is (notoriously) consumed in discussing their violation, particularly at WP:AE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the ANI, I am restoring your editing privileges. Please note that you are not permitted to upload images to English Wikipedia until and unless the ban is lifted. The state of your block on Commons has nothing whatsoever to do with this, as you should be very well aware given that you were blocked on Commons in November 2013 and continued uploading images on the English Wikipedia regardless for almost a full year thereafter until you were topic banned here in November 2014. You know the difference between the two projects. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Moonriddengirl. But how can I ever get the image ban lifted? I have been complying with all of the prior issues for uploads: showing lack of notice, giving publication details and dates, scanning both sides, doing copyright searches, etc. Plus the basic U.S. laws are explained more in Film_still, which you helped edit. The only suggested step left is to have someone else do it, and that effort has gone nowhere. A repair of the current mug shot-quality PD photo for Maureen O'Hara (RD) even got deleted. --Light show (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Any comments you may wish to make in that discussion while your block is in effect should be posted here with an accompanying help-me type template, or you may ping me and, when available, I will repost them for you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I have last year proposed on User:Moonriddengirl's talk page and last month on Commons that I would add a special talk page with links to potential images in order to get them reviewed and pre-approved. I was therefore unblocked. MRG and a Commons admin both also suggested I try to find other editors to pre-approve them, since a wide broadcast of my request wasn't getting any feedback. As far as I can see, the only other place to request an editor's review and feedback was at Files for upload, in which case they would review and upload an image. I use the term "broadcast," since MRG has nearly 700 watchers on her talk page and the Commons Copyright group has 750! My photo proposal pages got 250 reviews. Yet not a single editor could or would review any bio-related images. Therefore now banning me from even requesting another editor's help seems contradictory in the extreme. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comment at the ANI, "Light show deliberately committed major NFCC violations by adding multiple nonfree images...", I think that while the use of the images on Jack Nicholson could have been disputed, but weren't, they were in no way a "major" violation. That's plain silly. For example, I added a supporting image to Nicholson's page, directly relevant to the commentary. Not only was the image used to support the entire subject discussing the particular film, but the image supported the descriptive details. The other non-free images were likewise included alongside commentary discussing the particular films. And while I wasn't going to argue the point after your deleting the images, their use is only slightly less relevant to their use on the film article's pages, none of which discuss either the image or poster itself. And FWIW, most of the other free images are recent event candids which really add little or nothing to the commentary. The article could clearly benefit from some descriptive relevant images besides snapshots of him at a recent party or holding a wine glass somewhere. --Light show (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding another comment, "Light show made repeated posts at Wikipedia:Files for upload, trying to escape their topic ban without disclosing its existence," that makes little sense. My very first upload request, for Rod Steiger, explained that because I was unable to respond to a deletion request, I had already asked that the proposed image be uploaded by someone else. Seems a bit melodramatic, to me at least, to say I was "trying to escape" a ban. --Light show (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, please feel free to repost any of this at the ANI if you want. --Light show (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding User:Ivanvector's comment that my response to MRG about the copyright lawyer's reply "was somewhere in the vicinity of flagrant refusal." If anyone cares to read it, my reply was essentially the opposite of a refusal. Not only did I agree with most of what they said, I actually expanded on their reply by saying that they didn't go far enough. I wrote, "The result is that the attorneys have included "production stills," including movie posters as usually PD, when the opposite is the case."
 * In other words, while they allowed "production stills" as PD, I pointed out that they in fact needed permission. I was adding restrictions to PD claims, not removing or "refusing" them. And FWIW, I have made multiple requests to have the WMF find a U.S. copyright attorney go over this issue, since part of the disputes relate to  Europe's lack of laws about pre-1989 copyrights. --Light show (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)