User talk:Binksternet

Please link images

---

Hello Binksternet!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Rivera-1940portrait-Pflueger.jpg is uncategorized since 24 November 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Mayhew-UCB-Alumni.jpg is uncategorized since 1 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Image:PortChicago-aerial-construction.jpg is uncategorized since 18 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Image:KingCityHS-RobertStantonTheater.jpg is uncategorized since 28 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Image:Correct headroom with zoom grid.png is uncategorized since 25 June 2009.
• Image:Correct headroom.png is uncategorized since 25 June 2009.
• Image:Too much headroom.png is uncategorized since 25 June 2009.
• Image:Not enough headroom.png is uncategorized since 25 June 2009.
• Image:Far too much headroom.png is uncategorized since 25 June 2009.
• Image:Daniel O'Connell (journalist) 100 pixel height.jpg is uncategorized since 22 July 2009.
• Image:Dan O'Connell, with signature.jpg is uncategorized since 22 July 2009.
• Image:Henry Edwards engraving 100px.jpg is uncategorized since 23 July 2009.
• Image:The Family club entrance door.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:UCHastings-BattleHastings1066.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:CWWMayhewHouse.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:100McAllister.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:IMagnin-Macy's.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:WestinStFrancis.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:155Sansome-foyer.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:RedCross-Haynes.jpg was uncategorized on 4 February 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image:George, Meloy, Haynes - 1938.jpg was uncategorized on 4 February 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image:InaCoolbrith-1926-AnselAdams.jpg was uncategorized on 22 February 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Coanda-1910 brochure.jpg was uncategorized on 22 September 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Golden Gate Park arboretum - diagonal stones at library patio.jpg was uncategorized on 23 March 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Owl Shrine.jpg was uncategorized on 11 August 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Image:JohnScottMedal.jpg was uncategorized on 13 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Image:MtShastBrewing.jpg was uncategorized on 28 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Hexagon lozenge camouflage.gif was uncategorized on 30 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Hexagon night camouflage.jpg was uncategorized on 30 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Battleship Iowa awards and battle stars.jpg was uncategorized on 2 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:PregnantWoman.jpg. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you.

For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

--  Docu  at 18:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. No upload. I reverted your change to the image. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Final warning. Please refrain from overwriting the image. The layout was that way since 2006. --  Docu  at 05:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't just upload over an image because it suits English language Wikipedia. Commons images are in use on many other website.

If you upload over an existing image, this breaks uses there. Please refrain from doing this.

For English Wikipedia, either you have to upload your new version under another name or wait for Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Pregnant_woman.jpg to be done. --  Docu  at 05:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are defending someone from 2006 who flipped the image rather than create a new flipped one with a different name. The original image should stay in its correct position while those who need a mirror image version should create a new image. I have done exactly that: File:PregnantWoman mirror image.jpg. That should satisfy everybody. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In 2006, this would have been the right thing to do.

Since then, the images may have many reusers and by re-uploading, you alter their websites without them noticing.

If you are making editorial decisions at English Wikipedia, please try to make them by editing there, not altering everybody else's content. --  Docu  at 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Uncle Bonsai first two albums.jpg

File:Uncle Bonsai first two albums.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Motopark (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever good reason may exist for deleting the image, the one listed in the warning is not correct. I took the photo myself, laying the two albums down on my living room floor. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (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. 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:IICCR G240 Ceausescu Coanda crop.jpg

Yours sincerely russavia (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:4x4 digital matrix mixer.jpg

File:4x4 digital matrix mixer.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 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!

Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 22:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 20:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:We Can Do It by Post-It notes, crowdsourced.jpg

File:We Can Do It by Post-It notes, crowdsourced.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Motopark (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Jane Kim is sworn in on the SF Board of Education.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Jane Kim is sworn in on the SF Board of Education.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Jane Kim is sworn in on the SF Board of Education.jpg]]). 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. 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!

Leoboudv (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.jpg

As per this please fix the licencing, because as it stands now it is a copyright violation. russavia (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You are now active again on this project, so you would have seen this message. Is there any reason you refuse to fix the licencing on this image? russavia (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have deleted your uploaded image as it lacked correct licencing information. But what I have done is undeleted the original image, as it is in scope, and we don't delete images on this project based purely on who created them. You will find the original at File:Laketahoewhalebeach.jpg. I have also gone ahead and used CropTool to crop the nude male standing on the beach and have placed it at the same namespace as your upload. It also has the EXIF data intact now as well. I am unsure as to why you would opine to delete an image and then around and upload a cropped version of the image. It's astounding to me. russavia (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, he undeleted this photo and File:Pyramidlakenv.jpg out of process because of the perceived drama. I've started a new DR on both photos.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like one viewpoint held by Russavia vs another viewpoint held by multiple others. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Another Day another Buem

Fyi, some more uploads of Beach Buem series found this morning. The lower one was only uploaded recently:

1.) Enofromubu

File:Westonbeach.jpg

File:Sunsetpoint17miledrive.jpg

2.) Theskullsofsealionscoveringawall

File:Clam_Beach_County_Park.JPG

Sigh. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The EXIF data indicates that he went out and captured a new image to come up with the Clam Beach photo. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.jpg

File:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.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 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!

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Zapped, check log

Fast work by another admin here. The edit summary is memorable. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Albionmoonlight for sure. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent AFDs

It's too bad about Flopinot. If he would have provided more information about when these pieces were actually performed, and by whom, then many of them might be acceptable at Commons. Template:PD-US-record is very permissive, after all. That template apparently allows any recording up to 1972, as long as the stuff was composed before 1923 (per Template:PD-1923).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Depending on the duration of the example, lots of leeway. Flopinot should have said where he got those ones rather than saying it was his "own work." Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Mass DRs

The next time you nominate more than three of a single user's uploads for DR, please use VFC. It is much faster for you and saves Admin time when closing the DRs. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. That looks like a good tool. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Issue with request from Ellin Beltz for you to reexamine two sites to which I have uploaded material

Hello, Binksternet,

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, although I have been a published writer for over 50 years. Ellin Beltz has asked you to look at two entries, Joseph Fuller and Robert Perless. I wrote the Fuller article and it was approved last week after I removed promotional references. There are 18 citations to magazines and newspapers like the New York Times. We have had problems with the attribution of some of the photos, because fuller forgot that he had not taken all himself. he told me to enter them as mine, but now we have COM:OTRS forms coming in on all of them that were taken by photogrpahers.

My husband tried to have me upload a photograph that you have previously rejected when it was submitted by jmoskowitz who wrote the Robert Perless article. He has filled out a COM:OTRS form as both the photographer and the sculptor of the work photographed and sent it in today under Ticket#2016070910010555.Hopefully, that will end the problem with the image.

But there is a much bigger issue. I am very disturbed that Ms. Beltz has raised issues that the articles are "promotional." The Robert Perless article was approved three years ago. Because it still asked for a citation ON ONE POINT, yesterday, I provided a reference to the New York Times article with the information. There are numerous references in this article as well, and it satisfied your Editorial staff three years ago. It is not fair that because I posted a new photograph and provided an asked-for reference that the question of "promotional" nature be raised after the article was approved three years ago. I am afraid to update the article. Because Robert's sculpture is kinetic,we should really link to his videos on YouTube of the work in motion. But I am afraid to do so.

I appreciate that all material on Wikipedia must be substantiated by external references. But when I provided one, a Wikimedia Commons Editor called conceptual material into question, which I do not think is fair.

I believe that because I am new at submitting images, Ms. Beltz feels that everything I have touched is somehow poisoned. I do not think that it is fair for her to call content into question that has already been approved by other Editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperless (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Eperless (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the Robert Perless biography and made some changes. I pruned some prose that was too flowery or needlessly personal, and because of the WP:SYNTH guideline I removed a quote about kinetic art that had no explicit connection to Perless, but was merely being used to lend an air of authority. I also tweaked the text to fit with Wikipedia's house style, for instance to remove a handful of "Robert" first names when only the surname is needed, per WP:LASTNAME.

Note that Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, not a traditional one. The articles on Wikipedia are subject to continuous review by volunteer editors. There is no plan or intention to freeze articles in place once a particular version has been "approved" by a few editors. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for making clear how Wikipedia works. I agree that the stylistic changes you made are much better as communication. I did not write it, remember; that was jmoskowitz' style.

It is a little disheartening to think that everyone is open to making changes because the feel like it.

The fact is, I uploaded photos that were given to me as wholly owned by Fuller. That turned out not to be true, and I have put in place the OTRS forms that should be filled out in a couple of days. What I don't understand is why Robert's Orion's Belt Perless.jpg, which is a sculpture and photo that he took of it is constantly being rejected. Perhaps you or Ms. Beltz could explain. He has filled out and sent in the OTRS form.

Eperless (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

ping Eperless: I am disturbed by the lack of belief in good faith being manifest in various communications on my talk page [1], the help desk [2] and Binkster's talk page.

I'm an administrator and bureaucrat on Commons, I have those roles by consensus of the community and work with a spirit of good faith COM:AGF to keep copyrighted images off Commons.

There's nothing about lack of fairness here despite the word "unfair" being tossed around. I nominate and work with deletions all the time and I don't think I've ever seen a Deletion decision made "unfairly", there are rules and guidelines we have to follow. If someone thinks a decision was made incorrectly, they can, as Mrs. Perless has done, go to COM:UNDEL and request help. Another administrator takes a look at it and takes any appropriate action. The system has checks and balances in it to prevent additional issues.

How this all began was that Mrs. Perless uploaded at least one image which was formerly uploaded by someone else, each claiming "own work", which was a little unusual, and I looked at the histories of the articles involved to see if there were indications of sockpuppetry. What I saw instead was a little bit of WP:COI, and edits by both Jmoskovitz and Eperless on the page. As part of the process, I found that Mrs. Perless had uploaded images by at least four photographers. The appropriate system measures were initiated to obtain permissions. Those measures are standard and ordinary, we work with hundreds to thousands of incorrectly licensed images every day. I don't know why but a few people get personally upset about it. Finding images with problems of copyright happen all day every day here. It's not a judgement, just a process.

As part of our customer service, I asked Binkster to get involved to help the articles not to hurt the articles, the subjects or any user. I asked other administrators with OTRS abilities to take a look for the tickets which had previously been filed because I do not have OTRS rights. The images covered by OTRS have been taken care of and Mrs. Perless was notified by ~riley of the changes.

As Binkster said, on Wikipedia there is no approval by other editors, nor are the articles locked down in some form never to be changed; they evolve. The Perless page was not "bad", but it did not follow the guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) and general page issues. I have not looked back at the page because I know Binkster is a wonderful Wikipedia editor and would do the best job of getting the page in line with the guidelines which is why I asked for his help.

I would appreciate that any negative opinions towards the process get applied to positive thoughts about the protection of the artists', architects' and photographers' rights instead of hurt feelings for having been caught uploading someone else's work as their own. The solution is very simple and the processes of filing COM:OTRS are underway. So no worries. Some of our best contributors and even admins got started with having one or more of their images deleted for copyright reasons - some vastly more arcane than "not your own work." Everyone has a camera now, how about taking some new pictures? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply

I do not think that Conflict of Interest applies because all that I did was upload a photograph of a sculpture that Robert Perless created and photographed and I supplied citations that moskowitx did not know about. I did not change the copy in any way.

I did not upload photographs by four photographers on Fuller's page. I uploaded a Robert Perless photograph on the Robert Perless page and said that it was his work.

I was told that all the work sent me by fuller was his own and that I should just enter it as mine. Mot of it turns out to be Kyle Norton's, and he has submitted OTRS forms for the images we used.

The photographer who took the photograph of Townsend Harris Hall for Fuller has posted it on flickr, unknown to Fuller. He is contacting her. Question: is flickr an open platform, and can we simply trace it back to flickr without permissions?

Robert and I are both inundated and his sculptures are thousands of miles away. There is no reason for him to take new photographs of anything. He owns this work.But now that I think I understand the COM:OTRS system. be assured that I will ALWAYS use the form if the camera was not physically in my hands.

Thank you for your help.

Eperless (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)