This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
Bot operator top icon
This user has signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic personal data.
This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
This user uses Huggle to fight vandalism.
This user uses HotCat to work with categories.
This user edits using the gadget wikEd.
Identified as a precious editor on 12 February 2017
Email this user
This user has email notifications enabled.
This user uses the name JJMC89 on IRC.
JJMC89's page on GitHub

User talk:JJMC89

  (Redirected from User talk:JJMC89 bot III)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This user has opted out of talkbacks

This user prefers to be notified by Notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to this user. No talkback messages are needed.

File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg[edit]

Hello JJMC89,

please look here: User talk:Gisel#Replaceable fair use File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg

and the diskussion of that file.

All things are done well. --Gisel (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing there or in the NFUR justifies the use of the file. A free photo can be taken (by someone else); therefore, a non-free one may not be used. — JJMC89 05:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Hi Gisel. I'm going to disagree with you and say that all things are not done well with respect to that file or File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 4.jpg. The first problem is that File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg has no copyright license and files lacking a copyirght license are subject to speedy deletion per WP:F4. The second problem with both files has to do with WP:FREER. There's pretty much no way we can use a non-free photo of a living person per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, except under some very limited circumstances (none of which seem to be relevant here). A free equivalent doesn't need to be created by the same person (i.e. Kevin Hart) who took the photos the photos you uploaded; it could another photo of Neidich or of the basset clarinet taken by someone else uploaded under a free license that Wikipedia accepts which is capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as the two non-free ones taken by Hart. Moreover, the article on the clarinet doesn't need a non-free image of Neidich per WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8 even if it shows him holding a basset clarinet.
Wikipedia can only request that a photographer release their work under a license that it accepts; sometimes a photographer agrees to do so, but many times they don't. At the same time, Wikipedia isn't obligated in any way to use non-free photos taken by photographers who don't wish to release their work under a free license, no matter how good of a photo they are. Such photos still need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which these two clearly don't in my opinion. You can disagree with me if you like. If you do, you can give your reasons why on each file's talk page. The administrator who reviews the files will see your comments and decide what to do. You should, however, add the missing copyirght license to "File:Charles Neidich by Kevin Hatt 5a.jpg" as soon as possible because the file is almost certain to be deleted if you don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Just going to add that I know pretty much nothing about clarinets, but a Google Images search of "Charles Neidich Schwenk & Seggelke clarinet" show a couple of other photos of Geidich apparently playing the same clarinet; so, if he performs live and plays that clarinet, it's would not be considered unreasonable to expect that a free equivalent image taken by someone attending the such a performance could be created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to waste my time here on fruitless discussions. I only want to say one thing: We are not discussing legal provisions on copyright here, but about homemade restrictions of a few people who have the say in Wikimedia and Wikipedia, restrictions whose meaningfulness is definitely doubtful and those of the free authors who want to illustrate theirs articles, make life difficult.
The administrator can decide what he wants. My compromise suggestion: delete photo 4, keep photo 5a. Gisel (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are homemade in that they apply only to content (text or images) being used on Wikipedia. Many are quite restrictive perhaps and many are open to different interpretations, but in the end all editors are expected to comply with them as best as they can. If you think a particular policy or guideline is too restrictive or is meaningless, you can discuss it on its talk page. Perhaps you'll be able to establish a consensus that it is. If you think either of these files should be kept based upon how a policy or guideline should be interpreted, you can discuss it on its file talk page or at WP:FFD and try to establish a consensus that it should.
Finally, authors don't "have" articles per WP:OWN per se; if they want to truly "have" their articles, then perhaps they need to try something other than Wikipedia. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
To have or not to have
An author who writes an article on his PC and perhaps invests a lot of effort and research to do so will in the end "have" an intellectual product created by him. He is the owner of the work, he has the copyright.
By posting this article in WP, he grants Wikipedia and everyone a “Creative Commons Attribution / Share Alike” license to "his" work, just like a photographer who uploads an image to Wikimedia Commons. The author can also use the article - his article - for other purposes, e.g. at a lecture, in a book or in a magazine. He “has” the rights to the work, regardless of the fact that WP and others have a right of joint use due to the license granted. --Gisel (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, but the author doesn't have any final editorial control over the content he adds to Wikipedia after he clicks "Publish changes". For sure, he and anyone else can reuse that content pretty much any way they want as long as the terms of Wikipedia's licensing are met; however, any disagreements over article content with other editors are going to be expected to be resolved per relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, regardless of the wishes of the original creator of the content. Once a person adds something to Wikipedia, it's there for anyone to edit and try and improve upon. As long as their edits are considered WP:HERE and supported by WP:CONSENSUS, they're unlikely going to be reverted simply because the original creator of the content might not agree with them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Kevin Hatt emailed me permission to use the photo on Wikipedia in February. Would this or a similar explanation be helpful here? Gisel (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
No. That is not a free license. — JJMC89 21:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Image of living person[edit]

Can I please request for your guidance on the following matter. I had uploaded an image of a living person from Cyprus: File:George A Danos, President of the Cyprus Space Exploration Organisation (CSEO).jpg

This person has the right to exercise their personality rights as per the law of the country (Cyprus): Personality rights

So according to: Template:Non-free promotional I had uploaded the image of this personality and the copyright owner has granted right to wikipedia to display the image for free, but not for derivative uses as per above law.

This image was deleted claiming that it was not compliant to: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria Policy point 1.

As per the law stated above, a fully free image cannot be provided. But a fair use, free image has been license to wikipedia.

Can you please clarify, on the basis of the above how one should proceed?

As I read from the regulations of wikipedia and the laws of the relevant country, a fully free image cannot be provided, hence the image that was uploaded under fair use, falls within the spirit and letter of the regulations of wikipedia.

Can that image that was deleted be restored? If not how do I go about uploading same image without having it deleted again?

Thank you.

Stellar77 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Personality rights have no impact on copyright. Someone can take a photo and freely license it, so a non-free one may not be used. I will not restore the image. — JJMC89 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@JJMC89 I am afraid at least in this instance personality rights have every impact on copyright of an image portraying a living person. The law cited above says exactly that. In the Republic of Cyprus, one is NOT allowed to take and use a person's photograph without the person's permission. The law cited above is very clear and there is no margin of misunderstanding that law. Your above claim "Someone can take a photo and freely license it" is incorrect, it falls outside the law, and the suggested action is considered illegal and a violation of the rights of the person. Please see here Personality rights under Cyprus and please refer to citation (you may need to utilize a translation engine) which is quite explicit. As the subject of the photo is a Cypriot citizen, and a public figure, I maintain that the suggested violation of the rights of this person is a no go option. Stellar77 (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
No they don't, and neither of those things say that they do. Personality rights#Cyprus says In Cyprus, people depicted in photographs can oppose their use in advertisements and their publication in magazines, even if it was taken in a public place. An encyclopedia is neither of those things. Personality rights are a non-copyright restriction. c:Template:Personality rights is the relevant template for a freely licensed work that has such restrictions in addition to the license. — JJMC89 04:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed an encyclopedia is not a magazine or an ad (and by the way the law is not just covering only those two mediums - it's much wider), but if one publishes a photo on wikipedia and has signed rights away including derivatives allowed, then one indicates permission to use the photo even in the areas where the law is applicable - simply because one indicated via a fully free licence that they allow that.
Now, in trying to find a solution forward, I assume that the template you have indicated, for which I thank you, is the way to restrict such unwanted uses. So, does that mean that if I request permission from copyright owner to alter the licence to a free one and simply indicate the restriction via the template, that we are ok? In which case, do I re-upload photo with a new licence or do you restore and I provide free licence with relevant proof? --Stellar77 (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

73.203.226.215[edit]

Can user:73.203.226.215 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done (earlier) — JJMC89 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why[edit]

Recently I tried to create a redirect from Teamkiller to Glossary_of_video_game_terms#teamkill but, due to the restrictions in en.wiki with IPs I couldn't, so I just explained that in Talk:Teamkiller expecting somebody would do it in my place (it shouldn't take longer than 5 seconds if the internet connection is good enough) but now I find this:

05:15, 22 October 2020 JJMC89 talk contribs deleted page Talk:Teamkiller (G8: Talk page of a deleted or non-existent page) Tag: Twinkle

I was just trying to create a link equivalent to the currently existing Teamkilling so that wikt:es:teamkiller (I was user:37.11.121.244 then) could be properly linked to en.wikipedia but, seemingly, to no avail. I honestly find it quite strange and unhelpful both for the project in general and for legit IP contributors in particular and I can't but wonder why it was done because the reason "G8: Talk page of a deleted or non-existent page" just makes me think that the message I left there was either not read at all, plainly ignored for some obscure reason or just misunderstood. Thanks for your time and attention. Regards. --188.76.242.63 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is not the place to request a redirect be created. You can make such a request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. — JJMC89 04:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)