User talk:Gone Postal
Add topicLatest comment: 3 years ago by Alexis Jazz in topic Wikilegal about bystander selfies
Things[edit]
I saw your message: I have tried my hardest to figure out what has happened with Alexis Jazz, I was unable to do so,
There is a statement on my user page here (may be extended in time) and some more discussion at User talk:AFBorchert#FYI. That's all there is as far as I know. You can judge for yourself. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 19:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing. Gone Postal (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikilegal about bystander selfies[edit]
I thought this might interest you: Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#The Example of the Third Party Photographer.
@Yann: I guess you haven't gotten around to this thing yet? (if you have I apologize, I don't follow that stuff very closely anymore) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Hello, thank you very much for contacting me. Unfortunately my vote is still to delete, but I have explained my reasoning on the DR[1]. I miss your input. I hope you are doing well. To tell you the truth, still feel very horrible about what has happened in your case. It's actually harder to stand up to bullies when you are not around. Gone Postal (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donald_Trump_-_Deplorables_and_Proud!.jpg){kind=link}
- Considering there are several photos, all taken with their iPhone 6 and edited with iPhoto 9.6.1, including obvious photos they obviously took themselves like File:Donald Trump - Terrie with Trump sign in front of House.jpg and photos in different places at different times like File:FT. McHENRY WWII HONOR FLIGHT ARIZONA 2.7MB.jpg, the scenario of them giving their phone to a bystander seems more plausible. In theory the photographer might have made some creative decisions, but that would be much more plausible if they had used their own camera. Unless TwinofSedona responds, I guess we can't ever be 100% certain. (then again, can we ever?)
- I'm also sorry about what happened. The Ombuds commission is still mulling it over (or it's sitting in their queue, no idea), they are on track to resolve all open cases by the end of the year. I wonder what would happen if they released a statement (I don't expect them to unblock me themselves) basically saying "there is nothing off-wiki that was relevant to this block". But unless and until this happens, I can never be unblocked.
- Side note.. The checkuser team has never literally said (if I'm not mistaken) that I made any sort of threat off-wiki. The community inferred that from "As Checkusers we are not allowed to reveal a wide variety of confidential information that we come upon in our work. That is a factor in the present case", but presumably (I can only guess) James was talking about my IP address. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I hear your opinion when it comes to this file. I respect the fact that you are not ignoring the issues, but at this moment I still think that the unfortunate situation is that we should delete. I would be more than happy to be proven incorrect on this, as my goal is and will be to increase the amount of educationally useful material on Commons and not to delete files without any regard. I will make a post on the deletion discussion about the existence of other files with the same camera from the same user. Gone Postal (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a matter of where you draw the line. Anyway, on c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TwinofSedona the uploader actually responded only a few days ago: "NOTE: All of these photos were taken with my own camera. I own these photos. Terrie Frankel". So getting a statement may be only a matter of asking. Of course, with 137 DRs started in a single day (resulting in TwinofSedona's talk page no longer fully parsing), I could sympathize if they're a bit pissed off right now.
- Despite the DR being closed, some templates still linger. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fae's bot could maybe compact the page if TwinofSedona is okay with that, or someone may help to set up archiving. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I hear your opinion when it comes to this file. I respect the fact that you are not ignoring the issues, but at this moment I still think that the unfortunate situation is that we should delete. I would be more than happy to be proven incorrect on this, as my goal is and will be to increase the amount of educationally useful material on Commons and not to delete files without any regard. I will make a post on the deletion discussion about the existence of other files with the same camera from the same user. Gone Postal (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- About another photo (I was looking for something else..), File:Jennie and Terrie Frankel 1972 Publicity Photo.jpg can be found in full at http://memory.loc.gov/diglib/vhp/story/loc.natlib.afc2001001.78282/enlarge?ID=ph0014001&page=1&size=1024. I don't see any copyright notice. In theory it could be on the back I suppose, but given that the address is in the corner, I would have expected a notice, if any, to also be in the corner. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- "bundling it back together into something based upon the camera used would be impractical"
- Not that difficult really. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The person has quit Commons unfortunately. I hate their politics, but these files were useful, and the whole thing needed to be handled completely differently. Gone Postal (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- It was just a matter of making a gallery like this, using cat-a-lot to categorize it and use VFC on the categories. I'm no Trump supporter either, but that shouldn't be relevant. Where did you read TwinofSedona has left? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=443331647&oldid=443321206 There: «I can assure you, I will NEVER UPLOAD ANOTHER PHOTO to Wikimedia Commons.». It is sad, because those were good quality photos and even if they were uploaded in error, they can be undeleted at an appropriate time. Gone Postal (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I mailed Terrie. In short I asked her to consider uploading to English Wikipedia instead. Enwiki tends to be more lenient, plusI can fight off bullies there.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with your assessment of English Wikipedia. I see it as a dump for trolls that push their POV by using NPOV policy. I don't edit there, but every so often I come there and read what is happening in their policies, they are abhorant. One of the last things I came across was their policies for notability, it was something like "These are the policies for all the actors... except that for pornographic actors we will require several times that, because we do not want too many articles on them." Let's completely ignore the fact that the reason why there are more awards for porn actors is that there are more porn films than cinematic films. And that happens very often, and I doubt that it will ever change. Gone Postal (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for copyright on files enwiki tends to be more lenient. Sometimes gullible. The policy you are talking about may have been deprecated: Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the above and the basic guidelines after a March 2019 request for comment. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I stand corrected on that particular point. Gone Postal (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- You have more points? I mean, I have some time. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I stand corrected on that particular point. Gone Postal (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for copyright on files enwiki tends to be more lenient. Sometimes gullible. The policy you are talking about may have been deprecated: Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the above and the basic guidelines after a March 2019 request for comment. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with your assessment of English Wikipedia. I see it as a dump for trolls that push their POV by using NPOV policy. I don't edit there, but every so often I come there and read what is happening in their policies, they are abhorant. One of the last things I came across was their policies for notability, it was something like "These are the policies for all the actors... except that for pornographic actors we will require several times that, because we do not want too many articles on them." Let's completely ignore the fact that the reason why there are more awards for porn actors is that there are more porn films than cinematic films. And that happens very often, and I doubt that it will ever change. Gone Postal (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I mailed Terrie. In short I asked her to consider uploading to English Wikipedia instead. Enwiki tends to be more lenient, plusI can fight off bullies there.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=443331647&oldid=443321206 There: «I can assure you, I will NEVER UPLOAD ANOTHER PHOTO to Wikimedia Commons.». It is sad, because those were good quality photos and even if they were uploaded in error, they can be undeleted at an appropriate time. Gone Postal (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
