User talk:Elcobbola/Archive7

All contents in Library of Congress were published?
Hi, Elcobbola. One contention about the contents in the LoC is that it is not certain if it was published (on the date given?).

I just came across this:

"In 1870, the United States Congress passed a new copyright law which decreed that "all records and other things relating to copyrights and required by law to be preserved, shall be under the control of the Librarian of Congress." The legislation called for claimants to deposit with the Librarian two complementary copies of any copyrighted book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composition, engraving, cut, print, or photograph within ten days of publication."

Does that mean what I think it says, i.e. every item in the LoC collection was published within 10 days of the date stated? Does it apply only to those records that state a copyright was registered with the LoC? Jappalang (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Prior to 1870, copyrights were handled by district courts. In 1870, those duties were consolidated to the Library of Congress.  The LoC acted/acts as both an archive and as the copyright office (the Copyright Office became its own department within the LoC in 1897).  The passage you quote is, of course, only referring to the "new" copyright duties.  You have to be careful because there is a difference between works in the LoC collection (the archive function) and works registered with the LoC (the copyright office function).  Submitting a copyright claim does not, in and of itself, place the work in the LoC collection.  Conversely, works in the collection have not necessarily been registered for copyright protection.


 * Consider this, for example: at that time, unpublished works had an indefinite copyright term duration. One could have drawn a picture and donated it to the collection a year later (we're assuming the artist and/or work is notable enough for the LoC).  Because the work was never published, no registration was needed to secure the copyright.  One looking at that work's description today would likely see the creation date, but they couldn't rightly add 10 days to determine a publication date, because the work wasn't published (although publication, at the time, wasn't a defined term, so that's another ball of wax).  The point, however, is that, no, items in the LoC collection were not necessarily published within 10 days of the date indicated.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. What a shame...  Jappalang (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Images revisited: Rosewood massacre
Hey again. I hope I can trouble you with a pre-FAC review of images for this article. I've expanded this article more, got some more information about the images within.


 * File:Rosewood Florida rc12408.jpg was first published January 20, 1923. I'm using the template still, because I got the images from the Florida Archives site. I recall there were problems with it. Do you recommend I switch it to non-free historical importance?
 * File:Rosewood Florida rc12409.jpg was also published January 20, 1923, and the same template is used for this one.
 * File:Rosewood-1.jpg and File:Rosewood-2.jpg were uploaded by another user. I have similar images but from an angle so the words are not all legible and there is more background behind the signs. As plaques, I'm concerned about them being derivative, but they were created by the state government of Florida.
 * Any other problematic images or unclear summaries in the article, please let me know. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue with File:Rosewood Florida rc12408.jpg and File:Rosewood Florida rc12409.jpg is that the source does not indicate that they are the works of the Government of the State of Florida, which is something it would need to do to use the PD-FLGov template. As the site's copyright information states "Some of the images may be protected by copyright", we can't really assume government authorship.  The site doesn't appear to have author fields in its descriptions.  Have you tried contacting Florida Memory to see whether they have that information but just don't display it in the web format?  Otherwise, yes, I think it would be best to claim fair use, if appropriate, as to avoid possible misrepresentation to our readership.
 * File:Rosewood-1.jpg and File:Rosewood-2.jpg are indeed derivative but, if they're government works, they can use PD-FLGov.
 * File:Cary Hardee.jpg is a problem because the source says published "between 1921 and 1925". What is the basis for claiming 1921 on the image's description page?  What if it was published in 1923, 1924 or 1925?  PD-US would not be supported in those cases.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will change the January 20, 1923 images to non-free historical images.
 * If you search on the Florida Memory Collection for "Cary Hardee", two pages of images are sorted by date. The date associated with the image I chose was 1921. I don't know why the documentation says 1921-1925. That was his term in office. Maybe it's a blanket span for all images taken of him during his term.
 * Will change the plaque images to PD-FLGov. Thank you very much. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS
Would req u to look into an email I sent for OTRS for almost 70 images (I was directed to you by User:Redtigerxyz). Thanks, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, AroundTheGlobe. I'm happy to take a look, but I need some additional information to find it.  For example, the subject, the time it was sent, the email address from which it was sent, or even some (key)words from the letter.  I don't need all of these, of course, I just something to enter into the search function.  You can email me if you don't want to disclose this publicly on a talk page (i.e. if you give me the address from which it was sent, please email instead of posting it here).  Эlcobbola  talk 21:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sent on 8th May at about 10.38 in the morning. Hope this helps, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 18:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like other folks got to it before me (sorry, I rarely edit weekends). The ticket is 2009050810028476, for reference.  If any images weren't tagged, let me know.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot anyways .. will get bak to you in case of any trouble. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Image for deletion froofraw
I would appreciate your input in an image for deletion File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg. If there is anything that can make the fair use rationale stronger, it should be done. I suggested copying and adjusting the fair use rationale based on the top portrait of Natalee Holloway. However, I understand some fair use rationales have been deleted. There may be more to this situation than meets the eye at first 5 glances. --Moni3 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want my thoughts here or at the deletion page? Be forewarned, the latter would be rather empty.  I have no respect for "discussions" that have de-evolved into straw polls.  There's nothing to be gained by lobbing bolded opinions; I don't really see people genuinely engaging one another there.  Эlcobbola  talk 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wherever you would like to give them is fine. I'm asking you because I respect your opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, to an extent, with the comments you and Stifle have made. Use in E.O. Green School shooting seems to have a (minimal) degree of acceptability; use in other articles appears entirely superfluous.  I say minimal because King's physical appearance is believed to be germane to the attack.  That said, however, it is King's appearance when dressed as a woman that some found contentious and may have been a precipitating factor.  To play devil's advocate: if this were going for FAC, I don't think it would be entirely unreasonable for one to state that such an image (women's clothing), and only such an image, would be a significant contribution (i.e. if such an image does not exist, the conclusion might be that no non-free image is necessary).


 * The case with Natalee Holloway is, of course, quite different. Her article has significant discussion of the coverage and the related impact of  "missing white woman syndrome".  Seeing Holloway allows the reader to perceive why she and the case were so stereotyped/"criticized".  For King, what does his physical appearance in non-contentious clothing tell the reader?  That's not necessarily to say it doesn't have anything to tell, but the current rationale sure isn't explaining it.


 * Obviously, failure to attribute a copyright holder (NFCC#10A) and lack of an acceptable rationale (NFCC#10C) are issues that still need to be resolved. The rationale of "It is important to illustrate the victim of the shooting" is utter rubbish.  Why is it important?  What significant understanding is conveyed?  Other rationales say "Photo of anti-gay murder victim from this year". I'm not familiar with this shooting, but the article says "the motive for the shooting remains unknown".  Is claiming this to be anti-gay, then, WP:OR (remembering that verifiability, not truth, is the threshold)?  Finally, and this is a good point brought up at the discussion, I have to wonder whether anyone has bothered to contact the family at the website noted therein, any of the press agencies or even the Copyright Office to inquire about a free alternative (NFCC#1).   Эlcobbola  talk 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Froofraw" is a fun word to mean a fuss that one is trying to distance themselves from. The Larry King case was widely reported at the time to be an anti-gay shooting because King had made passes at the boy who shot him. How it is developing may turn out to be something completely different. King's murderer was a very messed up kid, just as King was. The court case is still ongoing. I'm not sure what is going on with the image and its fair use rationales. I'm hesitant to alter it, but I agree that the rationale that is there right now just is not good. I anticipate if I strengthen the rationale for the E.O. Green School shooting article, others will copy the rationale and try to apply it to other lists and articles about LGBT violence, but I don't think the image should be included in those other pages because it is non-free. --Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see this has had edit warring and a trip to ANI, so you're understandably wise to avoid it. Bottom line is that it is a weak, but salvageable (in one instance, anyway) image.  Why wouldn't people use the Matthew Shepard image for the other articles?  Isn't that a more well-known case of such violence?  Эlcobbola  talk 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interjecting here, I surmise the reason "why this image instead of Matthew Shepard" is found in the image caption itself. Things had long gotten "stale" since Shepard's death. King's death prompted widespread support of hate crimes legislation and re-ignited that push. He became the new, fresher "face" for the movement of hate crimes legislation. I'm sure it's also got something to do with the sensationalizing it because of his such young age compared to Shepard. Just my thoughts. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bhudiya2 pics for approval
Hello Sir,

I have not yet got a response from wikipedia in regards to my request for approval on my pics. I posted this request on 16/05/09 please can you look into it. Thanks,

Bhudiya2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhudiya2 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bhudiya2, you shall have to forgive me, but I am not familiar with you or your request. To what images are you referring?  To whom or to what address did you send a request?  I assume this concerns OTRS permissions? I can certainly look into it, but I need to understand the situation first.  Эlcobbola  talk 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New OTRS problem
Hi,

Im apologise on troubling you again. The issue is that I sent 2 emails for OTRS permission on 31-May-09. One, sent at 10.39am, with the Subject "OTRS Request‏" sent to "permissions-en [at] wikimedia.org" for en.wiki image permissions. This had a list of 14 images for OTRS permission with permission forwarded in the same email. I received an email on 04-June-09 thanking me for the email, however, the images are still not tagged with "OTRS received". The other one, sent to "permissions-commons [at] wikimedia.org" for images on commons with the same subject as the email above at 10.18am on the same day with permission forwarded in the same email. The first 4 images from the email have been tagged as "OTRS Received" on 03-June-09, however I forwarded permission for 20 images in the email, so 16 remain without the tag! Kindly luk into the above. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalking) Due to the OTRS search functions, it would be very helpful if you could provide text strings or the names of images contained in the email so it can be quickly found. The 06/04 email was simply confirmation, and as OTRS is a volunteer effort backlogs are inevitable. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ok. I just used the OTRS number I noted above to get the origin email address and then searched using that.  The OTRS number for the list is 2009053110010628.  I'm not sure why the agent left it unlocked, or why they didn't merge the tickets, for that matter.  In any case, I'll get tagging (d.h., solange der Fuchs nicht zu schnell ist).  Эlcobbola  talk 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Radha Krishna.jpg - tagged
 * File:Vigna Vinayak.jpg‎ - tagged
 * File:Swaminarayan with Paramhansas.jpg‎ - tagged
 * File:Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj sabhamandap.jpg‎ - tagged
 * File:Shikhar.jpg‎ - tagged
 * File:Ramayan.jpg‎ -tagged
 * File:Marble pillar.jpg‎ -tagged site
 * File:Marble carvings.jpg‎-tagged site
 * File:Marble carving.jpg‎-tagged site
 * File:Marble Vishnu.JPG‎-tagged site
 * File:Marble Radha Krishna.jpg‎-tagged site
 * File:Marble Pillars.JPG‎-tagged site
 * File:Kastabhanjan.jpg‎-tagged site
 * File:Bhuj temple marble work.jpg‎-tagged site
 * File:Bhuj mandir marble work.jpg‎-tagged site
 * File:Old Bhuj Temple.jpg-tagged site
 * File:Swaminarayan.jpg
 * File:Sahajanand.jpg-tagged site
 * File:Badrikashram.jpg-tagged site
 * File:SwaminarayanCharnavind.jpg

Thanks a lot. The english wiki list of images is:

Swaminarayan Temple Florida.jpg-tagged site

Swaminarayan temple Chicago.jpg-tagged site

Radha Krishna.jpg -tagged site

Swaminarayan temple colonia.jpg-tagged site

Bhuj Swaminarayan Mandir main gate.jpg-tagged site

Bhuj Temple under construction.jpg-tagged site

Swaminarayan Bhuj Mandir.jpg-tagged site

Ayodhya Swaminarayan Mandir.jpg-tagged site

Swaminarayan Temple in Cardiff.jpg-tagged site (cld nt find this one, so ch the img and tagged it!)

Jamnagar Swaminarayan Temple.jpg

SwaminarayanBarnstar.jpg-tagged site

RadhKrishnaDev Los Angeles.jpg-tagged site

Willesdentemple.jpg-tagged site

File:HH Acharya Maharaj Shri.jpg-tagged site

Note: As Radha Krishna.jpg is already on commons with permission Iv tagged it for CSD-8. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI: those have a separate (closed) ticket: 2009053110010922. Give me a bit to sort this out.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At your leisure my friend, I juz dint wanna get the permission lost in the system, that y I notified u. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 15:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a stickler, but I need to make a request. The email allows use of images from www.swaminarayan.info.  That's fine.  But I need to be able to verify that these images did indeed come from that site.  Could you please append the image description pages to include links to the pages on which these images are located?  As they are, some don't really comply with the verifiable sourcing requirement of WP:IUP.  If you're curious, for future reference, Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches offers some guidance on verifiable sourcing.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If u c closely, it says images from the Original Swaminarayan Sampraday. I have sourced these images from several Swaminarayan Sampraday websites. Getting permission from each and every one would be cumbersome and unrequired as the above mentioned websites the main one, others belong to individual temples. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 15:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you've misunderstood. I'm not asking that you contact anyone; I'm asking that you indicate the site from which the images came.  We can cross the permissions bridge when we come to it.  Let's use File:SwaminarayanCharnavind.jpg as an example.  Where did you get it?  What is the URL?  Here is an example of what a proper source for a weblink looks like.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its . I dint upload that img, it was another user - I juz saw it on a Sampraday site n tht Id do the OTRS so theres no future issue. Most of the above images are from . Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 16:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started to help out adding the OTRS tags and such. What Elco means is for the source, a link to the original image hosted on the site--I've added them to images such as File:Shikhar.jpg‎, for example. If you can do that for the rest of the untagged images it will make verification go a lot quicker (Ich bin ein langsamer Fuchs.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I get wht ur saying - its quite cumbersome but will do it soon. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 20:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Iv tagged the ones that I could find. Im luking for the others - its a bit complicated with the amount of sites. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking care of that. I'll be out of town this weekend, so I'll endeavor to get to this Monday (assuming someone else has not taken care of it by then).  If Herr Fuchs is still stalking, he's of course welcome to assist.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * lol, no worries. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are still some imgs without OTRS verification. Could you pl. do the needful? Thanks, Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Another trademark/etc. question
, I was wondering if you could weigh in with your two cents. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)