Innotata	Contact	Contributions	Subpages	Sourceberg	Wikidata	Commons

Hello! This is Innotata's talk page, where you can leave messages for Innotata.

Archives of past discussions:

• /Archive1 – Oct–Dec 2009
• /Archive2 – Jan–Feb 2010
• /Archive3 – Mar–Apr 2010
• /Archive4 – May–Jul 2010
• /Archive5 – Aug–Oct 2010
• /Archive6 – Nov 2010–Jan 2011

I have an ethical objection to the behaviour of several admins on commons, who support a certain racist troll, and do not want to ever contribute to the site again because of that. As Utopia, Limited is primarily of interest to English speakers, there's little need for it to be there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Why should the file not be moved to Commons because of some admins there? Would you like the file to be kept here as well, or do you think the file should absolutely not be moved to Commons? (added after seeing additions) Actually, the Italian Wikipedia has the old version of the file; I'd say that regardless of issues like those you have (or lesser dislikes that editors like myself have) Commons is pretty useful in its role. —innotata 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't feel I can support a project that has institutionalized racism and harassment, to the point of blocking people for complaining about it. Maybe when the Augean stables are cleaned, but Ihave a wole gallery of things ( http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/gallery/ [There's a few things on there that are revised from my previous work for Wikipedia, but it's mostly entirely new]) that I am unwilling to upload precisely because of Commons being, well, a cesspool of immorality, so this is a long-standing unwillingness. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for an exampl: I'd love for http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d32aw9u to be used on Wikipedias; it's far better than anything that's available here. But I cannot encourage such use, as that would allow the racist trolls at Commons to be supported, and complete blacklisting of that site is now the only ethical option in my mind. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Pieter Kuiper, and his cheerleader MGA73. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I want to support teachers and educators. But I can't support that if it means, at the same time, giving tacit support to some of the worst behaviour I've seen on the internet (which is saying something); a core of rotten in Commons that has festered and grown worse over the five years I moniytored itm, until the onlyy principled decision left to me was to leave. If you have a better solution, I'm open.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite what to do, and I think I'll just leave this as it is (maybe upload on it.wiki), at least until your issues are in some way resolved. I was quite unaware of the major dispute you had with Kuiper; if you are asking for a better solution for what to do on Commons, I'm not a good person to ask, but I'll say that I think I personally would keep on contributing and disengage even if admins were doing what they're doing on Commons—though I'm not easily offended, even by behaviour like Kuiper's, which seems only rather rude to me. I don't see why the file can't be moved to Commons by myself, with perhaps the local copy kept, but after seeing you remove my query on your talk page and a similar query, I think I'll leave this alone right now. —innotata 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That situation's festered for years;; It's more than just one incident. I tried that stratey, but now feel that further work on Commons would be tantmount to supporting a poisonous culture. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got a message from you about an unclear copyright status of File:Tokyo.jpg. I had a look at it and saw that copyright status was clearly stated: PD with source. I invite you to have a look again and come back again if there are any more questions. Thank you. Ben ^T/_C 12:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the file from, beyond the base link? There is no source information that can determine copyright. Who is the author? This needs to be given if the author released the copyright. —innotata 17:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found and added the correct information now, and moved the file to Commons. The link to the information page (which I couldn't find earlier), and that the file is a work of the CIA should have been included earlier. —innotata 16:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Innotata, @File:Islamic Center of Greater Toledo OH.jpg: At the source there is explicity stated "Photo by Mike Sharp" and not "2old". However it is not clear who the Mike Sharp is. Can you find out who he is? If he is the uploader it is fine.. but that is not clear. Answer at Commons please. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Well, okay - if all his pics are with this name we can assume this is he. Maybe you can add such a note at the "source" field in the description.

If you think he is trustworthy it is okay for me.

By the way: why do you not want messages at Commons? You are quite often in Commons, aren't you? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason not to trust him: he has a lot of uploads said to be own work, and by Mike Sharp, and is a pretty trusted user on Wikitravel, apparently. I prefer having all my messages at one place, and on any projects other than here, I might not check all the time (although I'm coming to on Commons, especially since I want to watch a lot of pages). —innotata 16:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - fine then. Have a good day! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. state reptiles, up for FLC. TCO (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Innotata, you were right about the copyright status of those coins. I have answered in the Deletion request. --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that File:Tupolev HQ on the Yauza, Moscow.jpg, which was already deleted on commons for violating so-called "copyright" and then reuploaded to en-wiki with {{do not copy to commons}}, was ... right, copied to commons. Because at some time in January [1] you removed the {{do not copy to commons}} warning with a misleading edit summary ("not what {{do not move to commons}} covers (PD in US, but not source) and nothing else to indicate can't be moved" - have you actually seen the photo in question?) - starting another round of deletions. I restored the warning at en-wiki. NVO (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing explained how it was not public domain in its source country, and public domain in the U. S. If freedom of panorama is the issue and the building is in copyright in its source country, it is in copyright as a foreign work in the U. S.; so presumably if it can't be on Commons, it can't be on enwiki. At least right now, works that are PD in the U.S. but not their source country is all the tag refers to. —innotata 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of real-world laws here or there. It's a made-up house rule of commons: no buildings from this country. Don't ask me why. Some immortals there give a benefit of doubt to older buildings, others propose burning everything starting with prehistoric megaliths (cf. this proposal). They call it "freedom of panorama". It's a game - a thousand images are allowed but one of a thousand is picked for deletion (which was precisely the case with this file). Last time I checked here Lupo gave me an advice: "upload under the free license of the photographer's choice ..." (scroll to the very last paragraph) so it was acceptable then, at least for some. I really don't care much about this file, but I'd hate to hear another person from en-wiki asking me to upload it to en-wiki, again. NVO (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]