User talk:Xover

TUSC token 1a50ffb259c4abac6e9d1e16bd3500e5

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Regarding the matter of File:Benjamin Britten 1945.jpg

Hi, Xover. You asked, "wouldn't it have been better to just provide that crucial information right off the bat (or even at any of the times that I asked you for that information)"? First off, all information were already on the page, "|Source=Bibliothèque nationale de France [http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b77203161] |Author=Publisher: Boosey & Hawkes"[1] and those that were not I have already provided in the speedy tag. You yourself stated on the Talk page that "I see no reason to doubt the original uploader's claims." So how do you expect me not to think you knew and believe Boosey & Hawkes was the publisher? You did not assert at the start that you thought Bibliothèque nationale de France was the publisher, neither did you ask for proof that Boosey & Hawkes was the publisher (which was readily there in the form of the uploader's claim and in his provided source), so how was I supposed to take a continued defense that seemed to me changing in tack here and there ("the uploader was correct" -> "France is the country of origin" -> "Bibliothèque nationale de France is the publisher")? Only at our third exchange did you make clear the Bibliothèque nationale de France as publisher angle.[2][3] I expected an experienced user to go look through the information present on the image page and the sources given, and it was frustrating to think that someone who should have done so chose not to do it.

Regardless, all in all, it might be just our faults at work here, with a dash of miscommunication. I still hold that one should check everything before participating in a deletion process. I apologise for any brusque tone I may have affected over the course of the event, but I would like ask you to put yourself in my shoes as described above and consider the effect the actions of the other party would have caused in the first place. Jappalang (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. Thank you for your explanation above. I particularly appreciate your apology, and I offer in return a blanket apology for any faults on my part.
Two clarifications: 1) in the course of investigating this I did not find the Details link at gallica.bnf.fr that you subsequently provided, and where Bibliothèque Nationale provided any other publisher information than itself. With that detail information the situation became obvious, but without it the appearance was that the Bibliothèque Nationale claimed to itself be the publisher (which I might, for the sake of argument, agree to be somewhat dubious, but which absent evidence I had no grounds to challenge). 2) I believed I had made clear my reasoning by the act of challenging your assertions that the country of origin was the UK and that the publisher was Boosey & Hawkes. In this I thought it implicit in describing them as “assertions” that I was looking for the evidence on which you based those assertions. I might also mention that I was always ready to adjust my stance in response to such evidence: as I said, your reasoning was good, but without evidence it wasn't, to me, persuasive.
In retrospect it is apparent that I did not communicate this sufficiently clearly, and since responsibility for understanding is incumbent on the author, I can only apologise for not expressing myself clearly.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to explain, and—momentary bouts of frustration aside :-)—for your grace in helping resolve this amicably and constructively. --Xover (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Bombing in Oslo 2011 Infographic, english.svg

File:Bombing in Oslo 2011 Infographic, english.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly...

Thanks again for starting the discussion at COM:VP/C. I'm sorry that the debate has gotten slightly out of hand but I very much appreciate your efforts to try to find a common understanding of the problem in general. I'll do my best to stay on topic there. - Paul^T+/_C 03:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: No worries. Based on the lack of direct guidance for the situation I suspected this was an area not quite sufficiently settled for easy answers. Let's just hope we can get the wider community sufficiently engaged for a proper discussion of principle rather than get mired in locked binary positions on just this one example of it. There is clearly disagreement that needs to be resolved.

Oh, and by the way, having recently been embroiled in… less constructive… disagreements elsewhere, I must say it is an absolute pleasure to disagree with you! Much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Treaty Series Volume I.djvu

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Treaty Series Volume I.djvu, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Castillo blanco (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Castillo blanco: Thanks for the reminder. I meant to fix this up after transfer from enWS but evidently forgot. Looking closer at it now I see it is not, in fact, extracted from UN Treaties Series v.1 as I had assumed. It seems to be an independent scan (possibly by the original uploader) of a paper copy of that volume, and only includes the cover sheet. As such it is strictly speaking out of scope for English Wikisource where it was being used in place of a cover image. I have removed it from use there (and would have deleted it as out of scope there had I noticed before transwiki).

The image is clearly a {{PD-scan}} scan (no independent copyright) of an original that is clearly {{PD-UN-doc}} public domain, but determining the links in the chain of provenance now is impossible: the original uploader is no longer active, and the UN doesn't publish this cover sheet in their own database of scans.

I have added the authorship information as that is clear, but I do not think there is anything we can do about the source. Which leaves us in a bit of an odd situation: even without the specific provenance we can be certain the image is in the public domain—and it would almost certainly be kept on those grounds in any discussion at COM:DEL—but it still technically meets the criteria for CSD F5.

Do you have any suggestions for how we might handle this? --Xover (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this is the most pragmatic way. If we know that there is no problem with the copyright, I think we should not worry too much about detailed source information. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Castillo blanco: Thank you, yes, that does seem like a reasonable compromise. Thanks for following up on this, and my apologies for not checking better before transferring the file. --Xover (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Gothic Gourmet (1966).djvu

No source, Was this from archive.org? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Thanks for the headsup. No, this was another work TE(æ)A,ea. scanned from a physical copy. --Xover (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Maryland Law Reporter, Volume 1 (1872).pdf

Copyright status: File:Maryland Law Reporter, Volume 1 (1872).pdf

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Maryland Law Reporter, Volume 1 (1872).pdf. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 15:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Meh. I forgot the bot tags these automatically if there's no actual license template present. Fixed now. --Xover (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Morevols

Hi.. Can you help tighten up the language used here into something more befitting a project aiming to look competent like the IA books mirroring effort. Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I've done some light copyediting on it. Not that it particularly needed it: it was fine the way it was too. The only thing I might suggest is finding a good link target to link the words "appropriate categories" and "rename requests" to, so that the reader can easily find appropriate guidance on how to actually resolve the issue. The former might need to be a custom information page for this effort, while the latter can probably just link to existing guidance on renaming (which I failed to find just now due to insufficient caffeination). --Xover (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

IA Books...

I need some help, it seems I am doing the checking of these single-handedly at times. ( See my recent efforts here on Commons)

Can you perhaps word something to get other contributors also checking (including the specialists and biogrpahical researchers over on English Wikisource?

Thanks in advance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Nuova antologia di scienze, lettere ed arti (IA nuovaantologiadi113unse).pdf

I was needing a template that was essentially like {{Review}} , but with a wording that read

" Please check the actual publication date for this volume in the scans, as the date given in the metadata may be incomplete or inacucrate."

Do you know someone to come up with this?

Also {{Morevols}} needs translation.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

File:The Works of Honoré de Balzac Volume 24.djvu

Information block? It's got lost in the upload process? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Thanks for the headsup! Yeah, I was trying to multitask and got distracted just when uploading. I actually had the infoblock sitting ready in a text editor for this work, it just never made it into the file description page. --Xover (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

IA Books , morevols and cont...

Well, the effort to get a 'million' books from IA is progressing steadily..

Much appreciated if you could review the category {{Morevols}} deposits to, with a view to getting the other volumes of works (if they exist) paired and categorised.

Or course if you do find things that Commons can't host... appropriate actions appreciated. I don't want to be the only person doing the catalog management on the IA Books upload project..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

conundrum commons images vs. source needs

I actually have and use an ereader. 3 really, one is on loan and another I hope to replace with a computer. I would have bought myself something that read epub (which might fall the way ogg did, who knows?) but the reader is a kindle and it has a total of about 3G of storage available. The Fire is nice, not for reading on, but it reads to me, highlighting the words it is reading and I can knit or crochet or whittle or whatever can divide attention.

The 3G and how quickly I filled my first Kindle with proof reading and my tendency towards image work causes me to use jpeg for source books. But, the guidelines for images here have them being saved as png. That was my first problem, not worth mentioning and, perhaps can be fixed at the software level.

Now, a new and similar problem. A commons guideline svg for an old source book. It was an experiment, really. A toe in the water. I asked at the svg request area (link to follow) for the maps of a night sky field guide to be reworked in svg.

The initial output for that request is extraordinary. A reworked map, ready for internationalization, multi-colored (for colorblind), and beautiful in a breath-taking and humbling sort of way. I said yes that! or maybe more like wow! Now that things are getting started, my initial solution seems wrong and even rude to the artist, who, not counting any software updates, will probably be doing more than 90% of the work for this book. That solution was to just sneak them in.

Asking the 2009 svg artist about a svg toggle for oldstyle/modern should not have been a problem. I worry here and now that I am confessing to a police officer that I want to break the rules somewhere -- but I am unclear of the lines for something like this. jpeg/png is much more of a personal preference, based on experience as it is. But these svg are going to be actually useful. And the book, current due to the slowness of prescession in the earths tilt. For centuries!

I think the words in book would benefit greatly from a SIC-like template where it can display the word binoculars but with a touch confess that the original word was opera-glass. 50 years down the line, maybe a third word as some other seeing devise becomes more widely available.

When I built inkscape last year, it had been my intention to work on a technical drawing book I found. That my computer did not boot, yet, offered me a commandline is a problem whose solution should start with a confession from those who accomplished it.

But the right now problem is the svg and the lines at wikisource that divide reproduction from updating all considering the clearly stated image guidelines here.

• the original and the svg
• Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop where I "put my toe in"
• s:en:A Field Book of the Stars the book

I need guidance more than reassurance and I think that image guidelines for wikisource should be available here, since I recently located all manner of books that could be svged. Sorry this was so long--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: The file (image) format used is mostly irrelevant: you pick a format based on whatever is needed in a given case. The issue with the SVG you link is not the file format, but rather that it changes the illustration: you're creating a new original edition rather than representing the original faithfully. On Wikisource that is in conflict with policy, but for Commons and Wikipedia it will be mostly ok (depending on what it's used for etc. of course).

That being said, so long as the new SVG version is faithful in spirit to the original there is a non-zero chance that the community at enWS could be persuaded that it is acceptable as an exception to the policy. I would recommend opening a discussion on the Scriptorium asking for the community's opinion, being prepared that they may insist on the original illustration. --Xover (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

NC scans but PD works...

Commons doesn't recognise 'sweat of the brow' clauses.

However the wording in PD-scan wasn't to me clear enough so can you look over the following before I use it more widely? {{NC-Scan}}

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

See also - s:User_talk:Chime_Hours#Query_re_NLS_Licensing_Model. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The summary seems to be that the NLS license is CC-BY, but because it was originally NC, that's what the IA metadata shows. As I said there, the ideal situation would be for someone to update the meta-data at IA, but the NLS does not it seems have an active contact at IA for that to happen.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The scanned PDF concerned are in most respects identical between the IA(NC) version and the NLS Digital Gallery(BY) versions anyway. It's a "paperwork" problem, not a problem with the files themselves. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, the files are identical - because when I found this when trying to upload the version directly from the NLS, it said it was an exact duplicate and wouldn't upload. The situation with the IA licensing being one thing and the NLS gallery another is farcical. I'm slowly updating the source information on the files in the DR (now withdrawn), but wanted a wider consensus before updating the licensing metadata en-masse. :(. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: {{PD-scan}} is perfectly clear IMO, and is the standard way we indicate this issue. If you find the text of the template confusing then please propose an improvement at that template's talk page. I see no need for an extra {{NC-Scan}} template, and if we were to have one the focus of it would have to be on the incorrect metadata and not the (non-existent) copyright issue. We have similar issues with photographs with embedded EXIF metadata containing some form of "Copyright [photographer]" so any template (which I still don't think is necessary) should be designed with all these cases in mind.

The metadata at the IA is actually correct in that that was the license for the scans at the time they were uploaded. That the NLS has subsequently changed their minds and applied a different licence to their copies of the scans does not affect the licence the IA has. But it also does not matter for our purposes. They can license it under any licence they want, but so long as the original work is PD that's all we care about.

That being said, it's dumb for other reasons that the scans have a needlessly restrictive licence at IA. Under the circumstances that's an issue to take up with IA, but unfortunately I've failed to find any good channel for that kind of issue.

@Markjgraham hmb: The National Library of Scotland contracted with IA to scan books in their collection, at a time (several years ago) when they used a CC NC license for the scans, and the scanner uploaded them to IA under that license. The NLS has subsequently changed to a more permissive CC BY 4.0 license on their own website, but have no control over the scans at IA. Can you suggest a channel or process through which we can follow up on this? Can we talk to someone at IA, or would it need to come from the NLS? And who do we talk to through what channel? --Xover (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

IA uploads review...

Thanks..

Do you plan on reviewing directly in the upload categories once you've cleared the backlog of DR's? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00 Nope, sorry. I just happened to notice the backlog at DR and figured I'd help out with the ones relevant to Wikisource. I am not at all convinced this mass upload from IA is a good idea, or even particularly useful. Xover (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

More Nonsense...

Hello! Thanks for starting Category:More Nonsense, Pictures, Rhymes, Botany, etc. (1872). It looks like it might be redundant with Category:A Book of Nonsense III (1872) by Edward Lear, though. Do the two categories cover the same book? - Eureka Lott 16:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@EurekaLott: It's the same work, but a different edition. Category:A Book of Nonsense III (1872) by Edward Lear is a bit indeterminate, but it looks to be a 1874 edition. Category:More Nonsense, Pictures, Rhymes, Botany, etc. (1872) is a per-work category for media extracted from File:More Nonsense, Pictures, Rhymes, Botany, etc. (1872).djvu, which is the 1872 edition; and specifically the UMich copy (which is in a library binding, rather than the original binding, missing the original cover and with some pages transposed). "A Book of Nonsense III" is a bit of a retcon: the actual title was "More Nonsense, Pictures, Rhymes, Botany, etc.". The I/II/III naming is, I believe, from a later collected edition (which I might also upload if I can find a clean scan).

Incidentally, if you're interested in this work, you might also be interested in the in-progress transcription of it at s:More Nonsense Pictures, Rhymes, Botany, etc.. Xover (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. The Wikidata item for the book (d:Q19053371) is attached to the Book of Nonsense III category. Should that link point to the new category, instead? - Eureka Lott 17:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@EurekaLott: Wikidata will need a bit more cleanup. For books there needs to be two levels: the work (abstract concept) and the edition. The current item is a work-level item, so we'll need to create one or more edition items to which the transcription on Wikisource and the edition-specific category here can be attached. The Category:A Book of Nonsense III (1872) by Edward Lear category I'm not sure about: it might possibly be a work-level category (in which case Category:More Nonsense, Pictures, Rhymes, Botany, etc. (1872) should be a subcat), or it might be specific to an 1874 edition and should be connected to its own edition-level Wikidata item. (man I wish we had better tools for managing book-related data on Wikidata and cross-project for the Wikisource<->Wikidata<->Commons triad) Xover (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi, I gave you the "autopatroller" right. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks for the vote of confidence! :) Xover (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

COA of Honduras

Hi Xover, thanks for your explanation. I deleted the file, and another as well. Can you please comment on this DR, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Coa-Honduras? I propose to delete the template on basis of your explanation and on the fact that this is not mentioned on the Honduras/COA policy pages. I translated the text of art. 83 of the referenced Honduras law, and did not find a sign of COA's being PD in Honduras. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

PD COA GUATEMALA

@Xover @Ellywa Hello, you are forgetting the REGULATION OF THE LAW OF COPYRIGHTS AND RELATED RIGHTS that says in its article 13. Exclusions. The following are not protected by copyright, among others: g) Reproductions or imitations, without authorization, of coats of arms, flags or emblems of any country, state, municipality or equivalent political administrative division, nor the names, rules, symbols, acronyms or emblems of international organizations governmental, non-governmental or any other recognized organization officially, as well as their verbal designation. So it is best to edit the PD-Coa-Guatemala template to add what this law says. Im talking this regard to Chichicastenango coat of arms (that i didnt had time to reply) it will be great if you can recover it COAmaker17 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Louvre Pyramid

Hi, The Louvre Pyramid pictures you cite on Commons:Product and technical support for Commons 2022-23/WikiLegal for Commons are perfectly valid under French copyright law. There was a widely publicized court case, called the Terreaux case (which concerns inclusion of a work of art in a public place). The French supreme court (Cour de Cassation) said that it is perfectly OK to publish pictures of that place even if there is no FoP in France, as the work of art by Daniel Buren is unavoidable when taking a picture of that place. See [4] for the legal text in French. There is a mention in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France#De minimis. The Louvre Pyramid pictures fit exactly the same situation, i.e. general pictures of the place, including the pyramid, are OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks! I have updated the issue for Legal to reflect this. Xover (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Xover, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

In addition, thanks for your many comments on deletion requests, very helpfull! Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ellywa: Thanks for the vote of confidence! Terrible timing since it came on the very day I got too busy IRL to be much active here, and I'm not entirely sure the confidence is deserved since I'm not historically that active on Commons beyond uploading files (I've just been trying to help cut down on the DR backlog lately, since I noticed it was growing kinda unmanageable again), but very much appreciated all the same. :-) Xover (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No obligation to do additional work at all, or to be more active. It may become handy with your own uploads, or if you see some error or so. I hope you are okay with your busy life, more important than the backlogs on Commons. Ellywa (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Dictionary of National Biography, Third Supplement.djvu

File:Dictionary of National Biography, Third Supplement.djvu has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu

File:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Fiddler’s House deletion

If I made a mistake, I own up to it, but it says on the title page of the file that the rights were reserved in Ireland and in America, and lists a publication date as 1907. What resource did you use to determine the work was not simultaneously published in the U.S.? Packer1028 (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Packer1028: If you think the speedy nom was in error then I appreciate that you converted it to a full discussion. I'll respond there when I have time; I just wanted to pop in to assure you that there was no implied accusation or criticism in the speedy tagging. Copyright is hard, international copyright combined with the licensing policies of multiple WMF projects is even more so. I have made many mistakes myself and will very likely make more in the future. That's why we have community processes for these things: no one person is ever going to be able to think of and assesses correctly every factor for stuff like this. Xover (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries. My bigger concern is the amount of times copyright violations have popped up on my talk page. I really love the community and am just worried about being kicked off. Packer1028 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Packer1028: Nobody gets kicked out for good-faith mistakes. At worst one may get a stern talking to if one makes too many avoidable mistakes, but I hardly think being shy of a hypothetical "perfect" assessment of an obscure point of copyright qualifies. I wouldn't worry about it, is what I'm saying. :) Xover (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Principia Discordia (1970).djvu

Yours sincerely, Veverve (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)