User talk:Jeff G.

 

Babel user information
en-N This user has a native understanding of English. en-US-N This user has a native understanding of American English. es-1 Este usuario tiene un conocimiento básico del español.
Users by language

Welcome to my user talk page!

Current Monthly Archive    (redlinked the first week    or more of each month): 2025/January Past Monthly Archives

Newly registered and IP editors may leave messages at the bottom of this page.

Review of a 2023 CU case

Hi Jeff,

I wanted to let you know that I have asked a second opinion of the result of a CU request you did in May 2023. I think there has been some misinterpretation of the results of the case: meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Eissink@commons.wikimedia.

Best, Ciell (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ciell: Hi, and thanks for reaching out. I regularly read Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. While doing so, I noticed Special:Diff/738562587 dated 11:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC), since archived to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 92#Possibly multiple accounts of a person?, I looked at each reported account's Global account information (expanded to talk pages and block logs). In :af:special:diff/2558803 dated 14:07, 12 Februarie 2023 (UTC), I found a potential link to misspelled Wikix. I reminded Vanroo to stop making malformed deletion requests in Special:Diff/728227489/728493378 dated 12:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC) (and continuing through 16:09 UTC). The abusiveness of Eissink was clearly demonstrated in this block log entry 21:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC), this block log entry 18:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC), and finally in this Foundation Global Ban log entry 21:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC). This block log on nlwiki is quite extensive. On the other hand, in this edit 14 nov 2018 17:53 (CET), Eissink made a block-evasion edit on behalf of Wwikix and referring to the conversation in this discussion concluded 21:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC), which tends to indicate they are not the same person. I relied on the judgement of Multichill.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ciell pinged me about this one. In Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_92#Possibly_multiple_accounts_of_a_person?: I think so and my guess is that this is all User:Eissink based on the edit pattern. Given that the user has a global ban, a check user should probably be done. Multichill (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Was a checkuser performed to see if this hypothesis was correct?

It's unclear at this topic User:Teles was able to link User:Eissink with User:Wwikix or that it was just able to link User:Eissink with a bunch of sockpuppets.

To me it seems very unlikely that User:Eissink and User:Wwikix are the same person. Multichill (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jeff and @Multichill,

There was never a checkuser performed for the hypothesis Wwikix = Eissink, and also not for the 10 socks against either one of these two accounts. The 10 matched with each other, but there seems to have been several misunderstandings, which led to a user on Commons interpreting the outcome as Eissink = Wwikix. Per my reasoning here on Meta and the discussion that followed, I have granted the request Eissink posted on their talk page and disconnected him from the category. Thanks for the belated responses here! Ciell (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ciell: Thank you for that action. However, as a Steward, AmandaNP was in a position to group socks with Wwikis, sufficient to lock Wwikix as a part of "Wwikix group" per this log 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC). I don't think Teles and Superpes15 lock just on my say-so. Per this request, we also have an underlying CU here in Dutch for Meyflow and two others as being connected to Wwikix, so I discount your dismissal of the connection of the socks (at least of Meyflow) to Wwikix.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

To make sure we are understanding each other, because I think what you are saying does not counter the case I made on Meta: does this change agree with your line of thinking?

What Eissink was contesting, and I believe him, is that he was the sockpuppeteer behind Wwikix and his sockpuppets. Eissink and Wwikix are two different people, I dealt with them as admin on Dutch Wikipedia, way back in the day way before they got blocked. Eissink was just pulled into this by mistake. I did not change anything except for the identification by category and templates here on Commons, correcting the sockpuppets as belonging to Wwikix instead of to Eissink. Ciell (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, and I blocked two of the mentioned socks locally while I was changing the cats, because they seemed to have been missed by Trijnstel in 2023 when blocking. Ciell (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ciell: Yes, that agrees with my line of thinking, thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Great! Ciell (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello

Copyright Compliance of the 1953 Newspaper Clip

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to appeal the deletion of the file I uploaded, which is a scanned excerpt from The Straits Times, originally published in 1953. I believe this file complies with copyright law in Singapore and meets the requirements for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons. Below is my explanation:

1. Copyright Duration in Singapore According to the Singapore Copyright Act, the copyright for published works lasts for: 70 years after the death of the author for individual works, or 70 years from the first publication for anonymous or corporate works, such as newspapers.

The article in question was published in 1953, and as of the year 2025, it has been 72 years since its first publication. This exceeds the 70-year copyright term for such works, making it part of the public domain under Singapore copyright law.

2. Eligibility for Wikimedia Commons Wikimedia Commons accepts materials that are in the public domain or freely licensed. Since the copyright protection period for this newspaper clip has expired, it is no longer subject to copyright restrictions and qualifies as public domain content.

3. Purpose of the Upload The uploaded file was intended to contribute to educational and historical resources, highlighting a significant event in 1953. It serves as a valuable historical document and is not being used for commercial purposes.

4. Precedents and Clarification Similar materials from historical newspapers have been uploaded and retained on Wikimedia Commons. I kindly request a review of this file under the same standards. Request for Review I hope this explanation clarifies the copyright status of the file. If further documentation or references are required, I am more than willing to provide them. Please let me know if there are additional steps I can take to resolve this matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Baginda 480 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Baginda 480: You claimed File:Mahathir Mohamad appeared in The Straits Times in 1953.jpg was your own work 18 January 2024. 'Also, to be very clear, you must never state that you are releasing an image under Creative Commons unless it is an image that you yourself created. Otherwise, your Creative Commons release is what is technically called a "lie".' The content and typesetting of the news story in this image was by The Straits Times, not by you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I modified it Baginda 480 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my initial claim of "Own Work" for this file was incorrect, and I apologize for this mistake. I have now updated the file description as per your feedback. The following changes have been made:

1. I removed the "Own Work" claim entirely.

2. I attributed the original publication to The Straits Times.

3. I provided a direct link to the source of the article on the National Library Board of Singapore's website.

4. I included a licensing rationale based on Singapore's **Copyright Act (Cap. 63)**, specifying that this work is now in the public domain because it was first published before 10 April 1987, in accordance with the law.

Please let me know if further adjustments are needed. I value your guidance on ensuring compliance with Commons' copyright policies. Baginda 480 (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Baginda 480: So what was dated "18 January 2024"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll change it now Baginda 480 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

COM:Venezuela

@Jeff G.:Buenas por favor agrega este DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Alcaldía Municipio Blvno Angostura (2021-2025).jpg) al COM:Venezuela#Copyright tags para ejemplo de trabajos (logos,escudos de armas,etc.) creados por sectores públicos (Alcaldías,gobernaciones,etc.). AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please add this DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Alcaldía Municipio Blvno Angostura (2021-2025).jpg) to the COM:Venezuela#Copyright tags for examples of works (logos, coats of arms, etc.) created by public sectors (Mayors, governorates, etc.).

translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Hola. Por favor, solicite eso en Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Venezuela.

Hi. Please request that on Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Venezuela.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Lo spavento (2677627550).jpg

File:Lo spavento (2677627550).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!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)