User talk:Jarekt

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tech News: 2024-15[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:No globals/doc 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 module, 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.

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!

Enhancing999 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Module:No globals. The argument "heavily used" does not apply anymore. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-16[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

Please see this notice and my talk page to see that I am suddenly the subject of threat of mass deletion of my photographs of scarecrows, on the spurious grounds that they are sculptures. They are effigies, and do not count as copyrightable artworks. (I have called them artworks on my images files, because it is my camera work which makes them so - otherwise they are just temporary effigies, made any old how, for fun).

This trend is extremely worrying, because there is no Commons policy to clarify this situation. If all scarecrow photographs can now suddenly be deleted due to one person's point of view that they are sculptures, then why are they picking only on my photography, and not on the photography of many thousands of effigies, e.g. Guy Fawkes Night effigies, which have been uploaded here since Commons started?

My photographs were taken in good faith that I was breaking no laws. I had the full knowledge and approval of the festival director, when photographing the Minskip scarecrows for Commons, and would be able to provide written evidence of that, by him, if required. I have not done that yet, as I had not thought that it was necessary.

But I would like to know why they are just picking on my photographs? If this is not a general policy, and all the other thousands of photographs of scarecrows and other effigies are to remain untouched by this person's opinion - then this looks like persecution of only my work, which would be rather strange, to say the least.

It is mostly my photography which is the art in this case. Most of the effigies are not artwork at all. Going to these festivals takes a huge amount of time, money and effort for me, since I have no car, and public transport in the UK is inadequate. It takes me a couple of weeks to edit my photographs to make them into artworks. And now my rights to photograph in a legal manner in the street in the UK are being violated, in my opinion. So please would you kindly have a look at the situation? I understand that it is permitted for me to ask an administrator to have a look. I have also asked administrator Mike Peel, but according to his contributions he is not around at present, so I am asking you as well. Thanks. Storye book (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-17[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julien Bryan - Life - 47205.jpg 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!

Yann (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get you to spell "deprecated" correctly? You put "depreciated" (meaning to have lost value; is that a joke of sorts?). There are no "i"s in "deprecated". Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzume, sorry I had no clue what are you talking about until I read "Why is there confusion between depreciated and deprecated?" on stack exchange. I stand corrected. --Jarekt (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarekt: I was not aware there was widespread confusion there. Upon reading that thread, I suppose you could change it to "obsolete", since you "broke" it by turning it into an error. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please unprotect Module:No globals. The argument "heavily used" does not apply anymore. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi Jarek, I have a great request (as always!:)) Could you please delete this low quality pic?. Ms Krystyna Kowalik-Bańczyk provided us with a high quality photo This cropped pic presents her in a most unfavorable way. The original uploader, Niegodzisie, consented to such a move. Thannks! Boston9 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Taylor 49 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]