This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ahnoneemoos. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
File permission problem with File:Pr-22-aerial-view.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pr-22-aerial-view.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf.☼13:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Access to and use of the information and materials of this site and these terms are governed by and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. In the event any provision of these terms is held unenforceable, it will not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions and will be replaced by an enforceable provision that comes the closest to the intention underlying the unenforceable provision.
So, Puerto Rican law invalidates their claim since P3A is a government agency.
And if you need proof of public domain, here's the document from the Puerto Rico Statistics Institute: [1] I will translate it for you by using Google Translate. Page 5, article 1:
Information held by the state is public and should be accessible to the general public.
I'm afraid there may be a misunderstanding here. I can find no confirmation that PR governmental works are automatically in the public domain, nor have other Wikipedians apparently ever determined there was any such rule (otherwise we'd have a template for it at least at Commons; I also remember we have had quite a number of cases where the copyright status of PR works was scrutinized, and nobody ever came up with a general exemption rule.) The text you cite does not appear to contain such a rule either: "public" (in the sense of "not secret") is not the same thing as "public domain" (in the sense of "not subject to copyright"). The text doesn't appear to be dealing with copyright at all. I also find that other PR government websites, including the main http://www2.pr.gov site, also claim copyright. If there is a general copyright exemption for PR governmental works, we'd need more concrete evidence of it. Fut.Perf.☼14:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Works created to advertise or promote goods or services cannot be registered, nor those created by the officials of the Commonwealth in the performance of their duties, or compilations, anthologies or compilations of fragments of works by other authors.
Hmmm. That says government works can't be registered, but does that mean there can't be any copyright on them? In this page of the "Ley de propiedad intelectual de P.R.", Art. 359d, it says "El titular de los derechos relativos a las creaciones de funcionarios gubernamentales en el ejercicio de sus deberes, será el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico y será defendido por el Gobernador de Puerto Rico", which would seem to imply there are such copyrights, wouldn't it? (BTW, no need for sending me "talkback" templates.) Fut.Perf.☼15:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
No, that means that the author and authorship claims (not the copyright) belong to the Government of Puerto Rico rather than the official. The second part means that the Governor will defend that the Government is the author should the public servant or anybody else claim authorship on the work. It's kinda like a CC-BY, meaning: this is public domain but we are the authors, don't claim you are the authors even if you were the public servant that created this or if you were paid to create this as a non-public servant.
The whole law is available as L.P.R.A. 31 Puerto Rico Civil Code which is quite extensive. It is gonna take us a while to dig in but it's there.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be the proprietor of the rights related to the creations of government officials in the performance of their duties, and said rights shall be defended by the Governor of Puerto Rico.
Here's what you need to understand: public domain is defined in 3 ways: released as such (forfeited rights), expired, or inapplicable. In the case of Puerto Rico, as stated above, works created by the government are subject to the inapplicability of intellectual property on them, although the government retains its rights to proclaim they are the authors of said work. This is because the law states that works created by a public servant cannot be submitted for intellectual property restrictions. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I'm still not seeing anything that says that the government can't hold and exercise copyright. Where it talks about the government being "proprietor of the rights related to the creations...", it is clearly not talking only about the moral rights, but about all intellectual rights, i.e. copyright in the full sense. The text you cited about the works of government officials not being registrable is not actually a law, but just a public announcement by the registry, and from all I've seen I can only assume its intention is merely to state that the individual government worker can't register such works as their own, or that government copyrights are generally not registered, but nothing in what it says entails that government copyrights don't actually exist. Fut.Perf.☼19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I have deleted this and a couple of other recent uploads of yours, and I must ask you to please no longer use the "official exemption" argument in tagging any further uploads. I'd also ask you to check the remaining files and re-tag them as appropriate; I guess most of them ought to pass as non-free under WP:NFCC. Fut.Perf.☼19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow, you are not supposed to do that. Why would you delete them when we are still having a discussion? Don't you think that it would be better if you allow me to tag them under fair rights? Jesus Christ dude, what the hell is wrong with you? Power tripping bad. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, on LPRA 31 1401e: "As long as the author's name is stated, neither will the fragmentation of a work for didactic or informative purposes enjoy this protection}." Therefore, as these are picture used by the government "for informative purposes" they do not enjoy the protection of copyright as long as the author's name is stated, which I did when I uploaded the picture. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That's yet more irrelevant quotes. How many more are we going to see? These images are not advertisements, so the clause about "works created for the purpose of advertising entities or promoting goods" is irrelevant. The thing about "fragmentation" is also blatantly off-topic; that rule is just saying that if you arrange excerpts from other works in a collection, you can't claim a new copyright on that collection; it doesn't say that in such a situation the original copyright looses its force. As for leaving the files up for re-tagging as fair use, I did just that for those cases where that may be feasible. For the ones I deleted, WP:NFC is prima facie out of the question, because these would definitely count as replaceable. Fut.Perf.☼20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that you are acting on your own prerogative and being absolute without allowing others to chime in. You are an Administrator. Your whole priviledges are based on WP:AGF; it reins you. Per WP:NFCI we can use the images under WP:FAIRUSE, Commons won't accept them, but Wikipedia will. I suggest that you back off and stop being so absolute in your actions. It is obvious that this is more about playing WP:LAWYERING than about improving Wikipedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Aguirre-power-plant-puerto-rico-electric-power-authority.jpg
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk)17:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Access to and use of the information and materials of this site and these terms are governed by and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. In the event any provision of these terms is held unenforceable, it will not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions and will be replaced by an enforceable provision that comes the closest to the intention underlying the unenforceable provision.
So, Puerto Rican law invalidates their claim since P3A is a government agency.
Works created to advertise or promote goods or services cannot be registered, nor those created by the officials of the Commonwealth in the performance of their duties, or compilations, anthologies or compilations of fragments of works by other authors.
Public domain is defined in 3 ways: released as such (forfeited rights), expired, or inapplicable. In the case of Puerto Rico, as stated above, works created by the government are subject to the inapplicability of intellectual property on them, although the government retains its rights to proclaim they are the authors of said work. This is because the law states that works created by a public servant cannot be submitted for intellectual property restrictions.
If you want we can change to a free discussion at FfD to ensure that it's suitable to stay - remember, being a free image, it will get moved to commons, and they will be picky. Ronhjones (Talk)18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, did you read their terms and conditions which specify that, "Access to and use of the information and materials of this site and these terms are governed by and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico[..]"?
Regarding why you can find the picture somewhere else: because the picture is in public domain and anyone can copy and redistribute it as they see fit! My guess is that the webmasters of the P3A decided to reduce it in quality so that the page loads faster?
However the question is even more complicated by the fact that the Wikipedia servers are located in the US and have to follow US copyright law, which has switched and changed so often as regards to foreign copyrights, that's it's rather a mess. Wikipedia:PD#U.S._government_works says The United States Copyright Office, in section 206.02(b), 206.02(c), and 206.02(d) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, has stated its position that works of ... of the government of Puerto Rico are not "works of the U.S. government - and thus are subject to copyright." Searching the archives at Media Copyright Questions shows items like Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/November#Local_Senators_and_Politicians where it is stated that official pictures cannot be used. I would suggest you raise the issue at WP:MCQ, there are more people there with far more knowledge of foreign copyrights and how it interacts with the US laws. Ronhjones (Talk)01:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup! I'm aware of that. Public domain is how they operate in Puerto Rico but IANAL so it's difficult for someone like me to be able to find the Puerto Rican laws that state so. Regarding politicians, we have {{PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits}}. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Ways to improve Legislative commission (Puerto Rico)
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article on the Legislative Commissions in Puerto Rico needs outside references to verify its claims.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Bannertalk22:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Feliz Navidad
<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Prospero Año Nuevo" (Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year) Tony the Marine
When I woke up this morning, I was surprised to see the article deleted. The idiots had a consensus which resulted in delete because she was involved in a single act. What I did is, I saved the article in my "Workshop 3". When she is posthumously given am award or when a street is named after her, I will proceed to post the article once again. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
That's not vandalism, please read WP:NOTVANDALISM. Here, excerpt for your convenience:
Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism.
Suddenly you care about rules? You sure didn't when you vandalized a closed AFD, then restored the contents of an article, contrary to brand-new consensus. How about this: you don't abuse your editor privileges, I don't abuse admin privileges. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Really? This was not an AFD that you vandalized? Wow. Perhaps I've misread the prefix "Articles for deletion". I would encourage you to recognize that it is your actions that were disruptive editing and repeating them will lead to a block accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Ahnoneemoos, you're a good editor, and it'd be a shame to see you blocked over something so trivial. You should know that the appropriate thing to do would've been to talk to Beeblebrox, bring it up at AN (there was already a thread on it), or start a Deletion review. You can't really use IAR when there would be a much simpler, inside-the-lines solution. So why don't you apologize to BWilkins (or not, if you really can't bring yourself to, but I think it'd be a nice gesture) and go take this to a more appropriate venue, before you do something you'll regret? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler)22:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I can fully understand the WP:AN on the day of the shooting since information was convoluted and we really didn't know if Adam was the perpetrator. The second one, however, does not have any strong arguments: stubs are more than fine, evenmoreso if they can be referenced. WP:TOOSOON is an essay based on the very same arguments exposed on that discussion but WP:PERPETRATOR stands above it. In Adam's case, per WP:PERPETRATOR, we need to prove that:
The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
Was the execution of the crime "unusual"? I don't know about you but a school shooting by itself is unusual evenmoreso when it involves preschoolers. So we tackle that criteria easily.
And as per the shooting article talk page, there is a hell of a lot of misinformation flying about Adam, so it is best to wait to create until the news settles down and we know we can write a balanced article. Also, just because one can write a standalone article does not mean we are required to; this is a fallacy many get into in rushing to create articles. Sometimes it is better to cover such topics as part of the larger one. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the new Victoria Soto AFD. I was just wondering, besides the comments, why haven't you expressed either a Keep or Redirect as the others have? Tony the Marine (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony! Was that message directed towards somebody else? My vote was Keep as stated at the very beginning of my arguments. It is right below User:TBrandley's vote. Please let me know if this clear things up. Feliz Año Nuevo amigo! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
