Jump to content

User talk:Ronhjones: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 318: Line 318:


Isn't this a straight F9? The uploader took it from a website, didn't make any claim of fair use, and mistakenly announced it was a public domain artwork under the belief that "public domain" meant "picture that can be found in public in several places". --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 21:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this a straight F9? The uploader took it from a website, didn't make any claim of fair use, and mistakenly announced it was a public domain artwork under the belief that "public domain" meant "picture that can be found in public in several places". --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 21:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

== American Skyship Images ==

Hi Ron,

I was the Engineering Coordinator for American Skyship Industries, Inc., I commissioned the artwork, and the company no longer exists, nor does its parent.

To my knowledge, the work was never actually copyrighted, so the opportunity to do so no longer exists for the organization since it no longer exists; hence my poorly chosen words to describe that.

At the very least it should be a "fair use", since these were promotional materials we handed out to the media with full rights to publish granted...

What do you suggest?

Cheers,
[[User:Cronkurleigh|Cronkurleigh]] ([[User talk:Cronkurleigh|talk]]) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:28, 21 March 2014

Status: Unknown


Tuesday
3
December
20:26 UTC
Welcome to Ronhjones' Talk page

on English Wikipedia

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.


Note for other Admins - If you want to change any action I have done, then you may do so without having to wait for a reply from me. Your judgement at the time should be sufficient.
Note: To any interested parties. This is my main account, there are no edits under my current IP address 109.224.128.22; a few minor edits under my old static IP address 87.127.178.158, my work IP address (but that is shared, and not all the edits there are mine) 193.113.135.87 or 193.113.135.112 I also have User:Ronjones for logging in outside home.
All threads on this page will be archived after 14 days of non - activity.

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

File:Et in Arcadia Ego Sum, Kunsthaus Hamburg 1991. Performance artwork by PINK de Thierry.jpg

Could you explain why you removed the "no permission" template from this file and some other files? The file has been tagged as "OTRS pending" since August, and the file was therefore tagged with "no permission" since it took too long time for the uploader to provide any permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has an OTRS pending - that can take up to a month and is hardly ever done in 7 days. Once a month has expired then they will drop into Category:Items with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS for over 30 days or Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days, which I will also be sorting out soon (as I can check the OTRS status before deletion)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And once they have ended up in the 30 day category, someone tags it with {{subst:npd}} for deletion, which is what happened in this and numerous other cases. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - that's why I'm in there now, and deleting, otherwise we just play runaround.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get the soon - at the moment I'm on Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_21#OTRS_pending_since_September, which are nice and easy - check OTRS, then delete... (well most of them I suspect!)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could easily create similar PUF sections for files from October and later months, if you would like. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - then give it 7 days and remind me to attack them!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also check the long overdue sections in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 15 with files from July and August. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will do There's quite a few there! Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_21#OTRS_pending_since_September done what I can for now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27 with quite a few long overdue {{OTRS received}} files. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done that one - a fair load of deletes.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 26 may also be of interest: lots of long overdue {{OTRS received}} files. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll add that to the list - tomorrow will be starting on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 15, and I supect answering all the "where has my image gone..." messages. If only the OTRS search engine was better and quicker...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days - empty
Category:Items with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS for over 30 days - one awaiting reply.
I think I have run out of old OTRS not approved images.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming (not yet one week old):
I have added some further files to that page. Now I need to add lots of {{puf}} tags and notify lots of uploaders. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me when the week is up :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of files now listed at WP:PUF. I will wait with the rest until tomorrow as it is getting late. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to remind you: The files listed in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 23 become a week old in about 20 minutes. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slowly wading my way through them! For those without a ticket number, I have to be sure that there is no OTRS message, so that's 3-4 searches at OTRS (file name, url, username, article - url is not the same as file name as spaces change to underscores!). Away this week-end - so may finish Sun night or Monday night  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An update: PUF for 23 February still has some overdue files. PUF for 26 February has lots of them.
PUF for today has some files from January which you can check and potentially delete next week.
Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days contains files. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow - rather exhausted, spent two days on boat fender making course, rather aching hands! Looks like an early night...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done what I can at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 23 - couple of tickets have just arrived and need dealing with, hence the couple of blue links left.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 26 and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 8? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image (File:Shi DeRu and Shi DeYang.jpg)

Hello,

I saw that File:Shi DeRu and Shi DeYang.jpg was deleted for being possibly unfree (discussion). I think this is a great loss, since it leaves Template:Chinese martial arts without an image.

I know one of the people in the photo, Shi Deru, since I take currently classes from him. Besides being one of the subjects of the photo, he probably knows who the photographer was.

What would be needed to get sufficient permission for this image to be usable and remain on Wikipedia?

Thank you. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader was User:InferKNOX. All I can say is that someone tried to send permission to WP:OTRS, the OTRS agent requested more info, but no answer was ever received - I cannot go into details about who sent in the e-mail, and what info was received and/or requested.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bear with me, I don't know the process of how this works very well.
I've just been CCed on an email by the creator of the image, sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and copied to User:InferKNOX, granting permission for use of the photo. How will the creator or I know when permission for Wikipedia to use the photo is granted? And, once that happens, how can the image and all links to it be restored? --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS will reply to your e-mail, either stating permission is OK (and they will add the OTRS ticket to the image) or they will ask for more information.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:JDonCapraMD.jpg.

Hello Recently you removed the file: JDonCapraMD.jpg on 22:37, 1 March 2014 . The original ticket creator was suppose to be contacted (see my talk page) so as to resend the email to the copyright holder so they could settle the copyright terms. I don't know if the copyright holder has received the email yet, but I can investigate. If they had and complied, is there a way this picture can be restored? Thank You so much. Andrewduty (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did arrive and was not approved - reply was sent. I've asked the OTRS agent handling that ticket to say what else is needed to finish it off.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Andrewduty (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oscar Pistorius arrives at court first day of his trial.jpg

Hi Ron.

First of all it's absolutely fantastic that such a conscientious editor as yourself should be paying any attention to a mere dabbler like myself. Not quite a newbie perhaps, then again you're not quite an administrator and it was only a template anyway, but still very flattering! Thank you.

Whoops, you are an admin! Sorry missed that first time round on your user page modestly buried like that amongst all your other life time achievements. Multiply flattered thus and more, but it does now mean you must respond, Ron. To repeat: why do you, in your capacity and experience as an administrator of Wikipedia, an elected representative of our encyclopaedia that we edit together, think that this non-repeatable historic image can reasonably be expected to be available as a free image? Let's start from there Ron, because I am going to retire from editing Wikipedia if my voice simply isn't heard even by its admins. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the image I uploaded in good faith can reasonably be expected to available as a free image? Nothing of the sort surely as my defense of the image makes clear

"Oscar Pistorius arriving at the start of his trial is a non-repeatable historic event. Several days later there were no free images to be found on Google or Flickr, as explicitly mentioned in the Fair Use rationale, nor were there ever likely to be given the scrummage around him as he arrived. It is thus totally specious to claim that a free image might reasonably be found. As for the question of text, the aim is to provide for the historical record an image of Pistorius' demeanour as he arrived, which no text can adequately convey and indeed enters NPOV territory (should the text, for example, record he appears to be biting his lip nervously, and so on?)"

Did you doubt my good faith in my rationale when I said I had searched and found none? And did you check for free images yourself? Indeed there aren't any. So what really makes you think one might reasonably appear now?

In the edit description of my upload to the article Trial of Oscar Pistorius I asked that any issue be brought to my Talk page. You didn't really do that with your template did you? That is to say you did not first debate with me the issue of replaceability, rather you made a unilateral judgement of your own about that and then templated me.

If you had gone to my Talk page you would have seen that I have taken the trouble to address at some length my frustration at being templated like this. You will have seen that I, a retiree (more or less) free to indulge a little hobby in a modest sort of way if never on the exalted scale you exercise it, am considering retiring from editing. Becasue I don't have the time for this Ron (I'm not editing Wikipedia full time, imagine). And indeed, if you really can't do what you want to do because one's self-appointed wisers and betters administrators like you won't let you, won't even discuss it, what can be the point? Where's the fun in that? Being patronised all the time? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at File talk:Oscar Pistorius arrives at court first day of his trial.jpg  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Anyway, as a nominator - I will not be the closing admin, I always leave that for another.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reply in detail at File_talk:Oscar_Pistorius_arrives_at_court_first_day_of_his_trial.jpg .

WP:NFCI 8b does not insist that the image should depict the event, but rather "significantly aid in illustrating historical events ...". It's been around since at least 27 August 2011 when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise conceded that community consensus was that "object of commentary" is not sine qua non and laid down three principles for a more general application: " they must meet all aspects of WP:NFCC, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance". I paid fastiduous attention to all three criteria. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he's not dead - so it's must be replaceable. If found guilty and then locked away where it's impossible to get a photo, then maybe we can go with a fair-use. Anyway, it's been deleted as F7:(Agency image) - agency images do require more critical commentary to remain.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, Ron. It's unique, unrepeatable. He can only arrive at the trial on its first day just once. Even the Greeks knew that and the internet hadn't even be invented in Plato's time for heaven's sake. I think there was real encyclopaedic purpose in providing that image and your objection that it was replaceable simply wasn't valid. As you note it was eventually deleted on an entirely different basis clarified usefully here by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I dare say you're at one with Sophocles when he wrote "The end justifies any evil", but the only evil done here in reality is by know all (give or take a few NFCCs oh lordy lord) old guard admins lording it over newbies, and the evil done is to the project we edit together. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it never actually showed anything besides a side heat shot - everything else was way out of focus - so it does not show the event. It would also (in my opinion) set a very bad precedent - we would then get images like "XX at the first day of of YY", etc., just because it's the first day does not make it a reason to be used as non-free. I suspect his trial date was well advertised, so anyone who wanted to obtain a free image could have done so.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr Images

I changed all the original files on Flickr putting the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Is it possible to stop deleting of all these files please, now that the license is correct? Thank you. Tc1591 (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will sort them out tonight  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permission received

Hi, File:Photograph of Tony Sargeant.jpg has received permission via OTRS (Ticket:2014021210000161). Are you able to restore the file please? Thanks --Mdann52talk to me! 13:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a look tonight  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see the ticket has yet to processed to full approval - there's just the one incoming message.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I have not responded yet is as the file has not been restored - I tend to prefer to ensure everything else is ok before saying it is fine. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been correctly deleted. Any admin will restore once OTRS has been approved (quite a few OTRS agents are admins).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleted image

01:02, 23 February 2014 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted page File:9781906496708 front cover t1346CET260113 large.jpg (File deleted: F11: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days (TW)) Hi Ron, I am the rights holder of the image mentioned above, if you could reinstate the image then I will add the rights CC DE3.0 attribution. I put together the image for a WikiPedia Book to look at how WikiPedia is representing different types of scholarly publishing. Thanks MrChristian - Beyond the stars (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book cover with a publisher's name on the front. You will have to use the procedure at WP:DCM  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to resize image

You have tagged an image I uploaded several days before: Spiderman Flippy Disk. With this being now reduced to half size by me, the label text is now only about 360x120 pixels, which is less than a screenshot usually is. If thats ok, can you please finish the procedure until end? --Koren (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the auto bot would have reduced it for you, you did not have to do it yourself. Anything over 400px will usually get a reduce tag.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons CFD

Could you move Commons:Category:Car's insurance either to "Car insurance" or "Automobile insurance"? I nominated it for moving more than two years ago, but there's been absolutely no helpful discussion at the CFD: one person said "you can move it", another made a comment that doesn't address the issue at all, and a third suggested giving it a name that would narrow the scope greatly. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been long enough - do you have a preference? - "Car insurance" looks logical  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Car insurance" is definitely more natural for me, but ENGVAR issues mean that I hesitate to prefer en-us usage for a worldwide topic, especially as there aren't any parent or child categories that would suggest an international name. Is "car insurance" more common in places like Essex? This is one of those few situations in which a supervote by the closing admin will be welcomed, rather than being derided. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in UK - it's most certainly "Car insurance" here. I think we'll go with that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yuk! - I'd forgotten what a PITA moving a commons category is... C'ést la vie, lucky there weren't many files. :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

"Astronomical unit"

Dear RonHJones

"Astronomical unit" article as it stands right now reads as follows:

1 astronomical unit = 149597870700 metres (exactly) ≈ 92.955807 million miles ≈ 4.8481368 millionths of a parsec ≈ 15.812507 millionths of a light-year

Whereas it should read thus:

1 astronomical unit = 149597870700 metres (exactly) ≈ 92.955807 million miles ≈ 15.812507 millionths of a light-year ≈ 4.8481368 millionths of a parsec

Parsec = 3.26 light-years and the distances are listed according to the order of their magnitude, therefore, even though this point may seem minor, I would like to see this change upheld.

Thank you very much

Sincerely yours

Murodurus — Preceding unsigned comment added by MURODURUS (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change it - I only edited it because someone got their maths totally wrong and had 15.812507 millionths of a parsec  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnesh_Kumar

The wiki page in Subject above was deleted by your due to G12. I myself created and maintain that page http://home.eng.iastate.edu/~rkumar/index_right.html. So am I not able to copy its contents in a wiki page? Ratneshsudha (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronjonees, if i have entered in a wrong way , apologies for that and if you can, please suggest me the procedure--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)File:Sri Rajah Vatsavi Venkata Surya Narayana Jagapathi Raj Bahadur.jpg,--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Tuni Page--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)awaiting for your reply[reply]

Hi ronjones,you have deleted--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)(File:Sri Rajah Vatsavi Venkata Surya Narayana Jagapathi Raj Bahadur.jpg,), this pic from Tuni Page--Rajachinababu (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC) , saying some photosoped copy ..but i being last heir of the king , no further copyright is required, if u want any proof for that i will provide you ,[reply]

  1. You are unable to use text from an existing web page unless the procedures at WP:DCM are followed. There is no way within the Wikipedia pages to prove your identity.
  2. There was a discussion about File:Sri Rajah Vatsavi Venkata Surya Narayana Jagapathi Raj Bahadur.jpg at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_February_22#File:Sri_Rajah_Vatsavi_Venkata_Surya_Narayana_Jagapathi_Raj_Bahadur.jpg - it's obviously an image that is a composite - so we need to know the source and date of each part of the image and the date of the final construction. If you can supply all that information, then we can consider restoration. You may alternatively use the same WP:DCM process for the image, if you are sure that you hold the copyright.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that helps.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Packaging artwork...

Went back over some tags because you PUF-ed something..:

Care to review this contributors uploads?:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Samotny_W%C4%99drowiec

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like more PUFs then!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise

Hi, sorry for the vandalism on the Bob Dylan page. It was my friend using my account to play a joke on me! 208 years old is impossible! Do I have permission to make a small edit on the Snoop Dogg page? --Woodywyatt (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So long as it's a good edit. Don't let anyone use your account - someone will end up blocking it!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Photographs

You deleted File:Halloween Costumes.jpg and File:Halloween Costumes.jpg and File:Vigil of All Hallows, St. George's Episcopal Church (2010).jpg even though I sent OTRS the licensing information for these photographs. It seems like you also deleted other files I uploaded and you later realized that you made a mistake, such as this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AHalloween+Scripture+Candy.jpg Could you please bring back the photographs you deleted? Maodhóg (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no outstanding messages with your e-mail address now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logo image

Hi, Ron. Thanks for the note. I went back in after finding the correct template, which for some reason isn't one of the pulldown-menu options. Please let me know if that works. The image is part of a series at Wikipedia Common, Category:Spicy Mystery Stories. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You find them all at Wikipedia:ICT/ALL too many for any pull down menu!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:A.d.Tramontana V10.jpg

The OTRS tag does not contain any ticket number but a link to a different file information page. Please check. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - all "Tramontana" were a nightmare! Same bug as the Halloween images above, so never got actioned.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Could you take a look at this file [1] and see if its compliant? The photo appears on this website: [2] Also, the description for the photo is a copy vio picked up from this newspaper [3] PS Long time, no see, hope you are healthy and happy! Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same photo without a doubt - even the bits of debris are there. Earlier date than commons upload (15 January 2013 16:23:44). Tagged as copyvio (commons does not usually mind that the remote web site is a smaller image, it's the date that counts  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three images uploaded by same person, all a bit suspect, all tagged - probably works for the school, but that is not the way to do it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Zealand Passport.jpg

Why was this deleted? This image should be in the public domain. by  cody 23:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it? It's a new design - most former UK dependencies still apply Crown Copyright. In NZ The term is 100 years  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ducati

Sorry but I don't understand the revert. Did you see the Qatar entry list? All Ducatis are listed as factory option entries. –Gpmat (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - edit undone. After seeing the edit, I went through all the recent news articles at motogp.com (and the videos _ I have a pass) plus the official FIM site, and they all have failed me! I've added that ref to the article - it does help give some official slant to the change. It would be nice if the FIM were to update the official open/factory list...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:VoronezhEncounter.jpeg

Isn't this a straight F9? The uploader took it from a website, didn't make any claim of fair use, and mistakenly announced it was a public domain artwork under the belief that "public domain" meant "picture that can be found in public in several places". --McGeddon (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Skyship Images

Hi Ron,

I was the Engineering Coordinator for American Skyship Industries, Inc., I commissioned the artwork, and the company no longer exists, nor does its parent.

To my knowledge, the work was never actually copyrighted, so the opportunity to do so no longer exists for the organization since it no longer exists; hence my poorly chosen words to describe that.

At the very least it should be a "fair use", since these were promotional materials we handed out to the media with full rights to publish granted...

What do you suggest?

Cheers, Cronkurleigh (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones&oldid=600652324"