Ellin Beltz
Joined 8 February 2011
Content deleted Content added
→Advertising subsidized space exploration photos: well actually |
Ericmachmer (talk | contribs) →Advertising subsidized space exploration photos: further clarification of professionalism |
||
Line 119:
::As for the "scope" of the concept art...it is to be used in a forthcoming wikipedia article on "Advertising subsidized space exploration" -- a rough draft of which would have already been written by this point if Ellin had simply asked in a single simple quick email for clarification of the copyright for the underlying images, before attributing their origin to FactualFiction.com (my blog, lol...kinda odd again) or the BBC etc. This does not remotely seem like the competent, professional way to have handled such a simple misunderstanding -- especially -- for an understaffed volunteer organization. What kills me is that I'll have to waste more time reading her eventual response here when she finally does respond. [Edit: actually it was not settled on {{u|Jameslwoodward|Jim}} discussion page, as I have not yet had the time to respond to him there. That Don, and Jim, and OTRS and several others are even involved in this is staggering. Why didn't you respond to my clarification of the copyright of the underlying images in the first place? Why take the time to link to their instances on BBC sites rather than ask me?? After I specifically linked to the images in SpaceX's Flickr stream, you did not respond or retract your misattribution. It would have been much, much more efficient to have simply asked their origin rather than tagging and linking -- to the BBC?? -- with the cascading waste of time by a number of admins. It would also have been professional and efficient to have responded to my clarification of the copyrights on the individual image pages, your page here, and on their deletion pages. Was this not a ridiculous waste of time??[[User:Ericmachmer|Ericmachmer]] ([[User talk:Ericmachmer|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Ericmachmer}} The fact that there has been a ridiculous waste of time here is not down to anything Ellin has done wrong, but entirely to your refusal to adhere to procedures put in place to streamline this process. Since we have no way of verifying on-wiki that you (the Commons user [[User:Ericmachmer]]) are the actual copyright holder, if the images have previously been published elsewhere, you must follow the procedures at [[OTRS]] to allow us to verify that you are the copyright holder. This is regardless of whether you as wiki user claim to own whatever blogs or intellectual property elsewhere. Finally, to address the scope concerns, you claim you have been hindered in writing a draft of an article that would render them in-scope. You are free to write that draft, of course (and could easily write it without images), but it is unlikely to pass Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, since (though I could be mistaken) it seems to be a phenomenon that does not in fact exist at the moment. See {{w|WP:NOR}} and {{w|WP:BALL}}. [[User:Storkk|Storkk]] ([[User talk:Storkk|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Storkk}}The previous publication of these images occurred on my blog, my personal blog, published in my name, the same name I use here. Ellin might have checked the author of those blogs, if she's taking the time to link back to them. The source of the underlying images on SpaceX's Flickr stream are of course also public domain, which I clarified with links after the images were tagged for deletion. To no avail. The history of space-themed advertising -- if the scope of these images had originally been called into question -- should have been raised on the discussion pages to the images prior to their deletion -- rather than here, on an admin's talk page, after their removal.
::::This is the article on [[Space_advertising|advertising subsidized space exploration]] to which they would be added, as the article itself needs to be updated to include new advertising techniques and vehicles. It is though not solely your place to determine the relevancy of such an article or these images to it. The wikipedia community will do so. I clarified copyright on the images' discussion pages as should have been acknowledged by the admin who tagged them prior to their deletion. Their scope at that time was not an issue. And again, rather than take time to link to Ars Technica and the BBC following a weird amateurish reverse image search, it would have been much, much more efficient to have simply sent me a wiki message asking for quick clarification of the base image copyrights. I provided these, still without acknowledgment, less than an hour after the images were laboriously tagged, both on their discussion pages and here on Ellin's talk page. In a very polite professional manner -- I expected such information to be taken into account before or at least discussed prior to the deletion of these images. It is extremely unprofessional that these images were deleted as the result of such an odd amateurish reverse image search, and, even more bizarre that Ellin would take the time to post links back to my own blog as instances of their prior use -- when my name is noted as the author of both those blogs and the individual images found there. Clearly it would have saved time to have simply asked the origin of the underlying images via wiki mail...or to have responded to discussion pages. These are the first composite images I've uploaded...I didn't "refuse to adhere to procedures", I just didn't see a place on the upload form to note copyright for underlying public domain components...so of course if I upload composite concepts in the future I will provide links to their underlying CC0 images, but, it still seems a basic expectation for professional competency to anticipate a response to clarifications of copyright on the image discussion pages an admin tags prior to their deletion. No discussion took place. Not by anyone. The discussion sections wiki commons provides for both the images and their nomination for deletion pages were useless. Ellin did not respond to these discussions. Originally I was polite and constructive, but If you think this has been a professional, competent, positive experience with wiki commons you are mistaken.
:::That said, I concede that one or more could be in scope for {{w|Space_advertising}}, possibly in the "Criticism" or "Popular culture" sections. [[User:Storkk|Storkk]] ([[User talk:Storkk|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
::::That is for the wikipedia community to determine, primarily through the article's page, it is certainly not solely your purview. Scope was not even raised as an issue by Ellin when she laboriously misattributed these images to the BBC, Ars Technica, etc...and, lol, my blog. Ridiculous, amateurish, waste of time. Wiki commons is worse as a result.
== Photos of historical markers deleted ==
| |||