This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
I see that {{GeoGroupTemplate}} was created with the edit summary of being based on the English Wikipedia's template of the same name, with which I'm quite familiar. Does it work the same way (place it on a list of coords, and it will produce a map with the coords shown), or do I have to do something differently for it to work? Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It works more or less the same. In the meantime, it isn't needed anymore as you can also use a gadget (a tab in Special:Preferences) available in the "Interface modifications" section: it allows to view a series of images on a map.
Wikipedia is becoming ridiculously geeky -- it is ever distancing itself from being a user tool and seems now to be a total insider secret society -- nothing is clear or easy ... I don't want to become a programmer to find my way around and when I started an article 10 years ago it is no longer even remotely connecting to the essential meaning
Good luck !
Carl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carllindstrom (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
p.s.: This is not Wikipedia but Wikimedia Commons, please give us a chance and not carry poblems you have with Wikipedia to this project :) --Martin H. (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
See User:Teratornis/Why is Commons so complicated? There actually aren't many secrets per se on Commons or the Wikipedias, since the user community documents nearly everything. These projects only appear secretive to people who have not read the friendly manuals. Granted, it takes time to read the manuals, but few things in life are free. For the user who contributes only occasionally this can be a problem. If you have a solution please let us know. --Teratornis (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Incidentally, if you tell us the name of the image, we can suggest a specific procedure for deleting it, if deletion is necessary. Without knowing the image, we can only send you to the manual page (COM:D) which has to cover many cases and therefore is complicated for the occasional user to read. --Teratornis (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleting a File
How do I remove (delete) a file (a photo) which I uploaded earlier and no longer want to leave on Wikipedia?
Durward3
Extreme computer illiterate wants to download "Karl Friedrich Schinkel - Morning"
Hi
Hopefully someone out there much smarter than me may be able to help.
Ive never used this site before (obviously)but Ive been trying to get hold of a digital copy of Karl Friedrich Schinkel's painting 'Morning'. It's intended for printing onto bedroom curtains, so it would be being enlarged, and so Id like it in as high a resolution as possible.
Ive been round and around this site already. Its here and it appears not to be copyrighted, but even after several long hard attempted Im still non the wiser as to how to download a copy.
Please help. I will be very grateful (as will the gf)
Many thanks
Mark
markwilsonesq@hotmail.co.uk
Hm, how to save/download an image from some website? Go to the image page File:Karl Friedrich Schinkel - Morning.jpg, right click on the image and "save target as" to you your computer. Of course it is not copyrighted, the painter died 1841, so his copyright expired long time ago. The image is not that large, only 1,000 × 730 px, maybe too small to print in a good quality. --Martin H. (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! But -yes- I meant a copy in higher definition. Having a hard time finding one. But happy someone replied. Thanks again :o)
It would be nice if we had a feature to search for users who have uploaded photographs with {{Location}} near a given location. In this case you would like to find Commons users (or German Wikipedia users) who have uploaded photographs in or near the Alte Nationalgalerie which I gather houses this painting. Of course you could just browse through images in that category, look for images of artworks in high resolution, then ask the contributors on their user talk pages if they will be getting back there to take more pictures soon. You need to find a contributor in Berlin who likes art and has a very good camera. --Teratornis (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
linking directly to a Commons image (rather than an Wikipedia image)
Is it possible to link directly to a commons image, rather than a Wikipedia image? For example, in the english Direct-Shift Gearbox article, the image goes to an image on the english Wikipedia, but the identical image on the Commons has annotations, which would be better for use in the article. Thanks 78.32.143.11322:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
@ Rocket000 - thanks for your response - unfortunately, I tried your suggestion - [[File:VW DSG transmission DTMB.jpg|link=commons:File:VW DSG transmission DTMB.jpg|thumb|right|250px|[[cutaway drawing|Cutaway view]] of the [[Volkswagen Group]] DSG. The [[concentric]] multi-plate clutches have been sectioned, along with the [[mechatronics]] module. This also shows the additional power take off for distributing torque to the rear axle.]], but it makes no difference! Or have I done something wrong? 78.32.143.11308:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I made a careless assumption and failed to check it. This illustrates the self-healing power of wikis, at least when they have alert users like Martin H.. --Teratornis (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The "link=" parameter is incompatible with the "thumb" parameter, unfortunately. You have two options: omit the "thumb" parameter, but then the caption will not be displayed; or add [[commons:File:VW DSG transmission DTMB.jpg|view this file with annotations]] somewhere in the caption. Pruneautalk11:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Business.png is licensed under the cc-by-sa 3.0/GFDL but it is seems to be a part of the MS Clip Art Gallery. The changes the "author" added are really marginal. So my question is whether it has the right license. --De.Nobelium (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Re your map, you need to give more detail about the base map you used. I suggest you ask at the help desk before you transfer it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know what the problem is with the map I have used on the Moffat Hills page. It was drawn by myself in Photoshop and is based on the Ordnance Survey map of the area. Scothill (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The Ordnance Survey famously does not release its maps to the public domain (unlike counterparts in the US such as the USGS). Even a map you draw yourself as an accurate copy or tracing of a copyrighted map is a derivative work and would violate the copyright of the original. Presumably RHaworth is aware that Commons only accepts Free content, so you would not be allowed to move a derivative work from the English Wikipedia to Commons unless the copyright holder grants permission (given that it is the Ordnance Survey, there is little chance). See also Trap street. The OpenStreetMap project originated partly in response to the restrictions on free use of Ordnance Survey maps. If you redraw your map using (for example) an OpenStreetMap map as your base map, then you can license your work with the same license that OpenStreetMap uses. See Commons:Map resources, COM:EIC#Map, and WP:EIW#Map. Also note, you can move images to Commons rather than re-upload them. Re-uploading them manually the way you are doing leaves a local duplicate on the English Wikipedia. You can ask an administrator to remove your local duplicates by putting a Template:NowCommons on them (on the files that are on the English Wikipedia, such as File:Loch Skene Moffat Hills.jpg). Note: I formatted your question slightly for readability. --Teratornis (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
i had asked for assistance in REMOVING high resolution images from wiki-commons and leaving a lower res. image - i received a reply that this was not possible - now i went to check on one of the images and found that ALL of them had been restored to the highest resolution
sorry, but I feel that i will have to delete all of these copyrighted images. how may i do that? i would rather not after all the work to get them posted & it was foolish of me to post the higher res. in the first place (I misunderstood the process) but i will have to delete these images:
If you follow the instructions at COM:DR, you can ask that they be deleted. However, the general agreement is that we are under no legal obligation to delete them, and the prevailing mood is that we don't tend to accept "take-backs" like this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it describes the dilemma of supporting free content (and some self promotion) on one and the loss of copyright control on the other hand. Also that licensing an image freely ousts all resales of this image and that there is a substitutional effect on resale of other images. Trying to reduce the size means trying to reduce the usability for many publications and to regain copyright controll for some reuses. Thats exactly the consequence of the experience described in the article. --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Watermarked image
Just a request regarding a watermarked photo, File:Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza en Nicaragua 11.jpg. Per Wiki policy that photos should not contain watermarks, I cropped it rather heavily. The original uploader reverted it and did so again after I explained why I cropped the photo. The uploader then left a note on my talk requesting the photo be left as-is until someone with photoshop skills edits it instead. Help? Advice? Mbinebri (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Cropping photos
If I crop a photo, should I upload it under a new file name? The same editor who reverted my watermark cropping (see section above) has now reverted my crop to File:Freja Beha Erichsen.jpg, saying I should have uploaded it under a different name, although the "upload new version of file" option does not appear to make it possible to offer an altered file name. Mbinebri (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would say whenever you seriously change the content of an image, you need to upload it under a new name. In this case, you changed an upper body shot into a head shot, which is a pretty big change.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Responding here to this question (it was me that reverted Mbinebri actions). I didnt answered before, in more detail, as i was editing on pt-wikipedia. Sorry if i seem to stalk you (i wanst), but let me explain my actions.
I reverted your action on this file because (dont know why) the cropping seemed in my computer to be of pretty lower resolution than the original, but now i see that you only cropped the legs. There is no official policy saying that by cropping an image that crop should be uploaded under a new filename, but i reverted your edition(s) (see section above) because i think that when a image is uploaded from exterior sources, new croppings should be uploaded on new filenames and then linked to the original here in Commons.
When i want to create a new file, derivative of other, i use this tool as it is pretty good to create a path to the source file and it permits a fast and intuitive uploading, so maybe this tool can be used to upload the cropping (or the original in case you want to revert my action on this file). Lets wait to see what others users say about this. Tm (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Uploading a whole book
I would like to upload material from a 1914 mail order catalog published in Austro-Hungary containing a lot of potentially useful illustrations (drawings) and a few photos. Should I upload the entire book (all of the pages) or only the illustrations? (And: is this catalog under protection by copyright?) - Xbspiro (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please upload the whole book if feasible. Wikisource might want it, and it's a cultural artifact of some interest for giving a look at real life in 1914. Unfortunately, while it's definitely PD in the US, I don't know about in Hungary. Does it give a name for the artist or photographer? Any sort of editor or author name? (If Commons isn't interested, I think it would be cool for you to scan it and put it up at the Internet Archive, which doesn't have the copyright in the source country rule, but I know that's a lot to ask.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It contains no information about its artists or photographers. The publisher is "Bárdos és Brachfeld Műszaki és Villamossági Vállalat" (Bárdos és Brachfeld Engineering and Electricial Co.), the press is "Athenaeum, Budapest". The book itself is blilingual (German - Hungarian). - Xbspiro (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
How can we add to to Wikipedia that current and former Three point champions of this tournament? There are so many that are now a part of the NBA it reallys adds credit to this event. It certainly is a very good factual information about this historical event.
The City of Palms Classic Historical Highlights:
More than 530 players have advanced to NCAA Division I competition;
More than 60 players have advanced to play professionally in the National Basketball Association, including 2005 NBA Finals MVP Chauncey Billups, 2001 No. 1 overall draft pick Kwame Brown and five top-3 lottery selections, with 38 players on current NBA rosters;
Seventy-four players (several with more than one City of Palms Classic appearance) have played in the prestigious McDonald's All-American Game at the end of their senior seasons - including 14in each of the past five seasons.
The 2008 tournament eas labeled: "the best field in the history of high school basketball" by national recruiting guru Clark Francis of HoopScoop Magazine.
Hundreds of coaches and scouts at every level use this venue for recruiting. Here are some of the top NCAA Division I coaches that have attended past tournaments:
Roy Williams - University of North Carolina
Lute Olsen - University of Arizona
Mike Krzyzewski - Duke University
Billy Donovan - University of Florida
Rick Pitino - University of Louisville
Leonard Hamilton - Florida State University
Many other top NBA celebrities have attended past tournaments including:
Larry Bird – NBA Hall of Fame Member
Doc Rivers – Head Coach of the Boston Celtics
Donnie Walsh – New Your Knicks President
Danny Manning – Former NBA Player and Assistant Coach at the University of Kansas
Current 2009 City of Palms Three point champion is John Michael Hodge formally of Fort Myers High Fort Myers Florida, currently a freshman at Lasell College Boston
Simple instructions for getting existing Commons images into a new Category
I wish to place images already in Commons in a new category I've formed, to be reached in Wikipedia by Template:Commons cat already in place, but cannot find in your instructions for Wikimedia how to put the images into the category. Would appreciate help, as I've been wasting time reading instructions and trying.Alethe (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Vague question. You can download the image, edit it and upload the edited version over the existing file. See COM:FAQ#How can I upload a new version of a file?. If you refer to the insertion of files in Wikipedia articles you can simply select one of the other freely licensed files - if exist - from Commons and use it in the article. --Martin H. (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Using Photos From Wikimedia
When using a photo from wikimedia that is in the public domain, do I need to source the photo such as(courtesy: wikimedia)?
The license information for the photos refer to lincense agreements, which then refer back to licensing information. There is not specific information given anywhere about. The licensor points to a certificate which tells you to attribute according to the licensor. So you can never find an answer.
First, I don't see how that's the same as GFDL. Primarily, there's no copyleft requirement, and no attribution requirement. Second, the image on the Hungarian Wikipedia has no source, and therefore no way to verify the copyright information listed there. (Consider, for instance, these TinEye results.) Powers (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Eine Suchfunktion ist eine Suchfunktion ist eine Suchfunktion, dachte ich.
Vor einiger Zeit auch schon. Da habe ich zur Illustration von Argumenten entsprechende Fotos gesucht, und die lassen sich hier inzwischen gezielter finden als anderswo. Also habe ich den entsprechenden Begriff eingegeben, unter Namensräumen Galerie, Commons, File und Category angeklickt (zuviel des Guten? falls ja: besser als zu wenig), und so um die 1800 als Anzahl gefundener Ergebnisse angezeigt bekommen. Um nicht endlos herumklicken zu müssen, hab ich zunächst unten auf 500 geklickt und dann schließlich aus Neugier innerhalb der in der Adresszeile gefundene Passage "&limit=500" die Zahl 500 durch 1000 ersetzt. Noch einmal Eingabetaste, und brav logisch ist da gestanden: Ergebnisse 1–1000 von 1.8xx (nach dem Weiterklick entsprechend 1001-18xx von 1.8xx).
So weit, so wunderbar.
Heute versuche ich wieder so eine Suche => Ergebnisse 1–50 von 18.603 für (...), Adresszeile ohne &limit=xxx - also, da ich nicht weiß, wo das System die entsprechende Angabe lesen können muss, zunächst unten Klick auf den 500-Link. Jetzt sollte da stehen Ergebnisse 1–500 von 18.603 (...), doch da steht wieder Ergebnisse 1–50 (...)! Auch der Link nächste 500 (immerhin steht hier jetzt 500 statt 50) ist schwarz, also gar kein Link: ich bekomme einfach nur 50 angezeigt, obwohl es über 18.000 Treffer gibt!
Dasselbe probiert mit der Suche nach unterschiedlichen Begriffen, mit unterschiedlicher Namensraum-Auswahl, nach wiederholter Cookie-Löschung, nach Login und Änderung des Eintrags in meinen User-Einstellungen (nicht 50 Ergebnisse pro Seite, sondern 1000), ... es nutzt nix:
ich erhalte notorisch höchstens 50 Ergebnisse angezeigt, und
ich erhalte bei keiner Anzeigevariante über 50 Ergebnisse pro Seite (also auch nicht ohne Syntax-Eingriff lediglich durch braven Klick auf nächste 100 oder nächste 500) die Chance, mehr als nur die jeweils nächsten 50 zu sehen.
Yes, thats clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. But please remove the 800px- prefix from the filename while uploading, the image was originally uploaded to w:en:Akercocke-logo.png on english Wikipedia without that prefix, some romanian user saved it wrong (always use "save target", not "save image"). --Martin H. (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, removing of that prefix is one of my objectives when managing images on ro.wp. I'm currently taking a tour in Romanian Wiki's images for some cleanup. They're a lot of pictures that need to be transferred here.
I have a free image I want to upload but I can't figure out how to send it to the page I want it to land.
I want it to go here:
New Albion (section Sir Francis Drake's landing: 1579) North America explored by Sir Francis Drake and claimed by him for England in 1579. ... Gitzen’s “Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay 1579” ...
15 KB (2,401 words) - 16:15, 3 November 2009
by the way,how to avoid being replaced by FlickreviewR?
I don't want that robot confiscate my picture.
Upload the original size from Flickr and not only 500px thumbnails. There is a loupe above every image on Flickr. Also you dont "own" something here, this is a collaborative project. --Martin H. (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Help! I tried to move image but cannot delete the previous, incorrect one.
I tried to move an image "Mural of Tsongkhapa at Ralung Gompa, 1993.jpg" to "Mural of Atisha at Ralung Gompa, 1993.jpg", as another editor correctly pointed out that I had wrongly identified the main image in the photo as Tsongkhapa when it should have been Atisha. I opened the new file "Mural of Atisha at Ralung Gompa, 1993.jpg" but was uable to delete the earlier file. I apologise for making such a mess - but would someone please delete the wrongly-entitled "Mural of Tsongkhapa at Ralung Gompa, 1993.jpg"? Many thanks, John E. Hill (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Every user has a Userpage, User:Laplandish, and a user talk page, User talk:Laplandish. Laplandish not created a userpage for him, thats why you not found it, but you can contact him on his talkpage, the talkpage is intended for contacting users and talking with them. Laplandish was last active one year ago, so unlikely he will read your question. Also he not left an email, so you can not contact him per email. If you want to contact him because you need to reuse on of his image: No need to ask, you can reuse every image as long as you follow the license requirements of the individual images. The license of the image is written on the image description pages. --Martin H. (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Use of map on Moffat Hills page
I have used a map on the [Moffat Hills] page and I was advised to check this out before loading it onto Commons - there being some concern about the "base map" I used.
I am not sure what the problem is with my map. I created 4 master maps for the 4 main sections of my website [walkscotland.plus.com] when I first started the website around 10 years ago - by hand drawing layer upon layer in Photoshop over a scan from the relevant Ordnance Survey map much as you would use a light table. There is nothing of the Ordnance Survey map left in my maps except in so far as it has informed my drawing and every single pixel of it I have put there. My master maps cover the whole area for each of the four principal sub-sections within my site and from these I simply take the small section I need for each individual web gallery and work it up as required. So the base map on Moffat Hills is a small reworked section from my [West Borders master map] and is entirely my own work.
In the meantime there is a warning that the map will be removed from the page if the license is not sorted out before 8th November. Could you please help to sort this out. Scothill (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the replies to your question above and all the pages linked therefrom? Read the Trap street article which explains how private map companies add fictitious "trap streets" specifically to identify instances of illegal tracings of their maps. The Ordnance Survey probably does not use this technique, but the principle applies: a tracing of a copyrighted map becomes a derivative work of it. Ultimately, it's up to the copyright holder of the original map to complain if your tracings amount to derivative works. On your own site, this is probably not a huge issue, because you are not guaranteeing to the world that your maps are freely redistributable, and the Ordnance Survey probably lacks the manpower to hunt down every possible copyright infringement of its works. However, on Commons we explicitly say everything here is known to be free content, and we encourage people to copy the content here, so we face a higher burden of proof - it is not enough that the copyright holders have not yet complained. We must insure that they are not going to complain. You can contact the Ordnance Survey and ask them whether your maps violate their copyright; if they say your maps are OK, then follow the procedure in COM:OTRS. Note: as I pointed out in my previous reply, copyright expires on Ordnance Survey maps 50 years after publication. If you had started with an old enough base map, it would be in the public domain now. Also note that the problem is not with Commons, but with the policies of the Ordnance Survey, which expects to generate money by selling its maps and charging for downstream applications of the original map data. --Teratornis (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for all the hassle I have given you - I have only just found out where to find replies to questions on this page (total greenhorn), and so I was completely unaware of your first answer. I have simply removed the map and put a picture in it's place Scothill (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologize, the Help desk here works differently than most other kinds of online discussion software. That adds an extra hurdle for the new user who is already confused about some problem and then has to figure out a whole new method of online discussion to ask about the problem. --Teratornis (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
finding original author contact information
I am an art director looking for the original author of a very specific image on your site.
File:1NQL.png is actually here on Wikimedia Commons, as you can tell by reading the image page on the English Wikipedia more carefully. The original uploader is User:Boghog. You can leave a message for this user on User talk:Boghog, but there is no way to tell how often he or she checks that page, if ever. This user appears to have set the account to allow you to send the user an email message:
If neither of those methods work, I don't know what else will. See WP:EIW#Talk for more information about communicating with other users on Wikipedia (or Commons). Note that the Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Commons allow the users to decide how easy or difficult it is for other people to contact them. If you can't reach Boghog, you might be able to contact other users who have uploaded similar images to Category:Growth factors. Maybe another image there will suit your needs, or lead to someone who knows how to reproduce the desired image at a larger resolution. Good luck. --Teratornis (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If the image was an SVG image, you could scale it to any size with no loss or aliasing ("jaggies"). The software that generated the image should (I hope) be able to output it as an SVG. See COM:EIC#Inkscape for more about that. In the worst case, if you get desperate and cannot get a reply from the uploader, you could consider tracing the image in Inkscape, and then you could scale it without limit. --Teratornis (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to delete my user profile and all uploads associated with it, please do so if possible,
User ID 861165 Michael 1952
The reason being I would like to create a new profile and start again now I have a better unstanding how your excellent site works.
That shouldn't be necessary. Every experienced user has some new user mistakes at the beginning of their contributions. Just correct whatever errors you may have made and keep going. Nobody is going to look at your early history and say "Aha! You made a mistake!" because we all made mistakes too. Heck, even experienced users make mistakes as you can tell by reading my goofs on the Help desk which other helpers have corrected. That's how we learn. The more embarrassing a mistake, the more it stings, the more you will not forget it. There is actually a brain mechanism involved in this - it is vital for enabling humans to do social learning and form cultures. --Teratornis (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
translate
Is there any taiwanese here ?
I can't translate Commons:OTRS at all
Does anyone can translate it?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlymyself65536 (talk • contribs)
Your user page shows {{User zh}}, so you can look for other users in Category:User zh who are also in Category:User en. Perhaps one of them will translate COM:OTRS into COM:OTRS/zh. To find users who speak both zh and en, use the CatScan tool. The best translations result from people who translate a document to their native language. Therefore we want to find users in Category:User zh-N who have English skills. Here is an example which lists quite a few. For example, User:Fanghong is a Commons administrator who may be able to translate the page. If that user cannot help, you can ask others until someone helps. --Teratornis (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Another method is to see who has been editing the Chinese translations of help and project pages we have so far. Look at Category:Commons-zh for some translated pages, and check their history tabs to see who has edited them. For example, here is one user who seems to be translating pages recently:
I am wondering about images such as this: File:MatthewWaller.jpg. Where should the images that you want on your user page on Commons or other Wikimedia projects be hosted? The aforementioned image seems to meet the criteria for regular deletion such as
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use
If the image is only intended for use on a userpage and not usefull for any other educational purpose it will fall outside our project scope if it is not used on a userpage. See COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. If the user wants to use it on his userpage but not using it at the moment it is still eligible for deletion, Commons is not storaging images potentially usefull for one user on his userpage. So yes, nominate it for deletion. If the image was uploaded solely for self-promotion in Wikipedia and the user not shows any contributions besides promoting himself in deleted articles namespace or his userpage I would not object if you nominate the image for speedydeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's say that an image *is* used on a user page, but is clearly a "vanity" image along the lines of the aforementioned image? Does the scope of Commons allow hosting of these things, just for decoration on user pages? --Kostmo (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
hi
everyone tells me thta wikipedia is easy to use, and anyone can make a page...i am pretty computer literate...and usually have no problems navigating and doing stuff...but uh...how on earth do you make a page...:S
i have looked up the information...and it talks about images, and files and stuff... i have never been able to make a page, just edit pages..
How do i make a page.. i want to make a page, not just edit in the sandbox...??? :S
Thank you
What page do you want to make? Making pages is easy; making them stick is harder. Wikipedia deletes lots of pages for violating its complex rules for content. See Wikipedia: The Missing Manual for a free book you can read that explains everything you need to know for happy editing. --Teratornis (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I have several problems with this. First place, you blithely say that in the US, his images are protected. As a blanket statement, that's false; any pictures first published in the US prior to 1989 would need to be have had a copyright notice, and any pictures first published in the US prior to 1963 would also need to have been renewed, either separately, or as part of the publication. Any pictures first published in Canada would be PD if they weren't copyright and renewed in the US and were in the public domain in Canada on January 1, 1996--thus all Canada-published photos taken pre-1946 are PD in the US. Any photos published anywhere prior to 1923 are in the public domain. (See VerePonsonby.jpg on en.WP for one example of the latter.)
Secondly, File:Jonas Salk1.jpg isn't even labeled as being done by Karsh. The basics of publication history might convince us of its publication by Yousuf Karsh not as a work of the US government. Thirdly, I'm skeptical about the claims of anyone to represent an estate who signs using only their first name. Besides the fact that's just not what that type of person does, it's a lot easier to verify that "Julie Smith", for example, does or does not represent the estate and contact said "Julie Smith" to see if she really posts legal complaints on open fora.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least there's this other photo of Salk by Karsh, from 1956. Seems entirely plausible to me that File:Jonas Salk1.jpg was done during the same photo session, by the same photographer. (After a little more searching:) In fact, the image appears to have been ripped from here at the Encyclopædia Britannica, where it is attributed to "Yousuf Karsh/Woodfin Camp & Associates". So, we have a photo from 1956 taken by a Canadian photographer. Can somebody figure out where and when it was first published? Lupo17:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Also note the user name of "Julie" (which I've now added as {{Unsigned}}), and then google for "Julie Grahame"... in particular see here. Even if it's not a formal DMCA takedown notice, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. Lupo17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Also note, the statement:
"but I'm willing to leave his images in as long as they're not attributed to anyone else and do not appear to be in the public domain"
makes it sound as if Julie may consider licensing the image under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Julie, if you are still reading this, are you familiar with Creative Commons licenses? They are a mechanism we use to allow people to license their copyrighted works for free reuse under roughly the conditions you seem to want. See COM:L. --Teratornis (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
To the first replier, thanks for your charming attitude.
To the second, thanks for looking me up. I'm not about to defend who I am or what I do and I wasn't threatening anything, I thought I could have a conversation about the situation with our images in wikipedia and my tone certainly reflected that. I'm truly sorry I bothered to try and engage. Yes I'm familiar with Creative Commons but I'm not sure that's a route the estate would like to take at this time - although having re-read your note perhaps I should look further into in what ways we could use it. Thank you. Julie Grahame.
Mrs Grahame, you sure don't have to defend who's behind the username "jgrahame". Please understand, however, that the first responder didn't mean bad. Fact is, we do get strange and often unfounded requests of this kind, and Wikimedians are an argumentative bunch who like to question anything :-) Please don't take it personally.
You understood quite rightly that we don't want copyrighted "all rights reserved" works here. I'm inclined to believe that most, if not all, of Yousuf Karsh's works are copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after their initial publication. (As far as I know, it's also correct, though, that his works published before 1949 are PD in Canada.) If there was a way that the Karsh estate could license reproductions of Yousuf Karsh's works in web resolution (say, about 800×1000 pixels: that's enough for web usage, but by far not good enough for any serious printing) under a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, but not one of the -NC or -ND variants that we again cannot re-use), that'd be absolutely great. Doing so might have beneficial effects for both the Karsh estate (making this great Canadian photographer better known to audiences who otherwise are unlikely to have heard of him, and proper attribution with backlinks to karsh.org on the image description pages is bound to increase traffic to that site) and—of course :-)—for Wikimedia projects (who might get really good photographs of many famous people to illustrate articles; not only in the English Wikipedia but also in the other language editions). But of course freely licensing such works, even if only in low-res digital reproductions, may not be that easy. If such CC-BY (or CC-BY-SA) licensing is not an option, the easiest way to get the images removed (short of a formal DMCA complaint) would be to send an e-mail from an official address (either @juliegrahame.com or @karsh.org) to permissions-commonswikimedia.org, explaining the situation and backing it up with data, such as listing which image was published where (which book or newspapers) first. E-mails to that address remain confidential; they're visible only to selected trustworthy volunteers who should have experience with such cases.
If CC licensing is an option, feel free to e-mail me, and I'll try to put you in touch with more experienced people of the Wikimedia Foundation. Or simply ask at permissions-commonswikimedia.org about how to proceed best with such licensing; the people there also could put you in touch with foundation people. Lupo00:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should change this to a fair use, non-free image, as the estate would still not want it in the public domain even with approval for its current use. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The info provided here by Lupo has been really helpful. The estate is heavily invested in Mr Karsh's legacy and we know that wikipedia is important to address. The Estate would like the image of Jonas Salk to remain in Wikipedia, credited to Yousuf Karsh. I think I have information about its publication in a book, if I provide that info can I in this one case have the credit corrected and go with the one of the licenses Lupo suggests? I do need to spend some time reading more about the different CC options but the distillation I was given here was very helpful. And redeeming. Cheers. Julie Grahame. http://karsh.org
how can I adjust the size of an image?
I uploaded a photo that is quite big. I thought it would look small once a pasted it on the wikipedia page, but that didn't happen.
I see quite often pictures that are small on the page, but their normal size is shown once one clicks on them. How is it done?
Hello. When you add an image to an article using the following code, it displays the image in thumbnail size, or about 180 pixels: [[File:Foo.jpg|right|thumb|Random caption here]]. You can adjust the size of the image within a page by inserting a forced pixel size, like |300px|. Once you click on the image itself, you'll be brought to the image preview and the full resolution version. Hope this helps. –Juliancolton | Talk14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Is US PD media Public Domain in a foreign country?
Hi,
Is public domain media (moving and still images)created by the U.S.Government and otherwise, PD outside of the United States/in a foreign country? This would be utilized in a documentary film.
Media released by the US Government is PD everywhere. The same applies for works released in the PD by the creators themselves. For anything else, it depends on many factors. For example works published outside the USA before 1923 are PD in the USA but may be still protected in the country of origin if the artist died less than 70 years ago. Sv1xv (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
How do I determine if an upload attempt has been successful?
Hi, I just made my first attempt to upload a file to Wikimedia. I completed the form and clicked upload, but it didn't seem like anything happened. How can I determine if the file uploaded? The file name is MacIntyre_of_Glenoe_Arms_of_Clan_Chief. I did a search for it using the search box on the left of the screen but nothing came up. Does it take some period of time before an upload is available? I am not a new member of Wikimeida Commons but this is my first upload. Thanks for your help, as always.--Tomaterols (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like your image did not upload correctly. I see no image uploads on your list of contributions. [1] Without more information, I can't be sure what went wrong. Powers (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I was pretty sure it hadn't worked but now I will know to check the contributions info when I try to upload it again. I will give it another shot.--Tomaterols (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Need help uploading/tagging file to prevent deletion
Hello,
Last week I uploaded a JPEG of a concert poster that I had received permission from the artist to use. Although I thought I had properly categorized and tagged the file, it was flagged by a bot and deleted.
I would appreciate any guidance in how to properly upload/categorize/annotate/tag the a file so that it is not flagged and deleted.
I don't see any permission on the blog comments.[2] The easiest solution would be to get the uploader to change the license on flickr to Creative Commons Attribution and then reupload the file with a link back to the page. Alternatively, you can follow this process called OTRS. mahanga (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The artist uses an odd system for comments on his site. The comment thread where I asked for and was granted permission to use the artwork is separate from the blog post.[3] I will send an email asking the artist if he would consider changing the copyright license on his Flickr page. If the artist doesn’t want to change the copyright license on his Flickr page, but does want to grant permission for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, is OTRS of any use? Or do I just give up? —Calixton (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, COM:OTRS works for photos which are under the artist's copyright. OTRS is our way to document the fact that the copyright holder agrees to license the work freely, when no other Web or print source documents that fact. Only the copyright holder determines whether a work is free content or not. --Teratornis (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Need help
I have a friend who wants to upload a photograph, but his Internet skills are not very advanced, and he finds the uploading process too complicated. I'm an experienced Commons uploader myself, and I would upload it for him, but the last time I tried to upload someone else's pic, it was deleted, because, I was told, my mere say-so that I had the photographer's permission wasn't sufficient. Is there a way I can upload my friend's pic, without it getting deleted? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
One way is for your friend to make an account on Flickr and upload the photo there under a {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} license. Then you can upload the photo from Flickr to Commons by several different methods, such as the {{Flinfo}} method. Flickr is one of the most popular photo sharing sites and one of the few that allows users to choose Creative Commons licenses that are suitable for Commons. See the links under COM:EIC#Flickr. Evidently Flickr must be usable by users with very little computer skills, otherwise it could not have grown so large.
Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons (to make it simple, tell your friend to pick this one)
Another method is to follow the procedure in COM:OTRS to document the photographer's permission.
If you only care about this one photo, the OTRS procedure might be simpler, since that only requires the photographer to send an e-mail. If you want to upload more photos from this photographer in the future, the Flickr solution will be simpler, because after the photographer knows how to upload to Flickr and choose the right license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA), you will never have to trouble him again. Note that many photographers who upload to Commons also upload to Flickr, because Flickr has fewer restrictions and is apparently simpler and faster. Flickr functions as a raw upload accumulator from which the uploader or another Commons user can selectively upload photos to Commons. See for example this prolific user:
What name list do you refer to? This is Wikimedia Commons, which has a Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star medal for photographs of recipients. Over on the English Wikipedia, there is a Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal which lists articles about recipients. If you want to write an article about your father, that is difficult if you have no editing experience on Wikipedia. It is much better if you accumulate at least 500 edits on existing articles before attempting to start a new one. Wikipedia deletes thousands of new articles by new users for failing to comply with Wikipedia's complex rules for content. The main sticking point is a failure to demonstrate the notability of the article's subject. See also WP:BIO, WP:YFA, WP:COI, WP:LAYOUT, and WP:TMM. --Teratornis (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Why can't I upload freely available pictures?
I want to add pictures that are readily available on simple google searches, is this not allowed? I think it's unfair that ELO removed my four hours of contributions to the St. George's School, Newport page without bothering to inquire where I found my images. ELO should also learn that 'all' is a partitive and should be followed by 'of' as in 'all of your contributions'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackkid06 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not someone else's job to make sure your pictures are properly licensed. As a general rule, pictures that are readily available on simple Google searches aren't licensed under a license that would let us add it to Wikimedia Commons. Posting something on the web doesn't invalidate the copyright. And I may point out that Ackkid06 is a native English speaker, so he should know that Google is a proper noun and hence should be capitalized, unlike ELO who is a native Danish speaker.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The various Wikimedia Foundation project sites such as Wikimedia Commons can be pitfalls for the new user who assumes he or understands how the sites work before reading reading the friendly manuals. This sometimes occurs with people who have great expertise in other fields, who incorrectly assume their expertise automatically extends to Commons (an analogous error had fatal results for some of the early Arctic explorers, for example, who disparaged the native Inuit as backward savages, instead of emulating their time-tested Arctic survival skills). In particular, Commons is a repository of free content, and few people would guess exactly what constitutes "free content" without actually reading about it. Note that Google Image Search can find freely licensed images, but you must explicitly specify this:
By default, Google searches for images without regard to copyright status, and the vast majority of images on the Web are under copyright and thus are not allowed on Commons. If you want to upload an image which is under copyright, or has unknown copyright status, follow the procedure in COM:OTRS.
Another way to find freely licensed images is to search with the {{Flickr free}} template:
Search Flickr for images with the keywords: St. George's School, Newport under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa
which you could upload to Commons with the {{Flinfo}} method. Incidentally, since St. George's School seems to have such a long list of notable alumni who went on to positions of authority, there is a chance that some of them had a hand in making copyright laws so incredibly complex. Copyright is probably the main factor that makes Commons difficult to use. --Teratornis (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Adding additional categories to a recently uploaded file.
Hi, Earlier today I uploaded an image file entitled: MacIntyre_of_Glenoe_Arms_of_Clan_Chief.jpg. I thought I had included several categories where the image could be found, but only one appears. When I look in "edit" the other categories are in the summary. I separated the category names with a |. Was this correct? How can I add the others (eagles in heraldry | crosses in heraldry | Coats of arms of Scotland | Coats of arms of families of Scotland)? Thanks to all.--Tomaterols (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You can link to the file so we can see it like this:
Thanks for the info. I still have a lot to learn. I couldn't figure out how to find the "functional" articles in Wikimedia so just knowing to type "COM:" as a prefix is a big help. I'll check out the info. Best--Tomaterols (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
At least for others display seems to be ok. Even after another purge I still see the version including caption in thumbnail and preview. -- Хрюша??02:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I have just uploaded a new version of an existing diagram at File:Euxton, Farington & Preston RJD 62.jpg, which I had manipulated on my computer to enhance the brightness and contrast, to make the whites whiter and the blacks blacker. However, after the upload, the uploaded version's brightness and contrast looks little different from the original version (in fact, if anything, it looks slightly worse). It's as if the uploading software deliberately downgrades the quality of the pictures! What is going on? As far as I can tell, I've purged the cache, so that's not the explanation. -- Dr Greg talk 02:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
That worked eventually for me too. I knew about purging the cache, but didn't realise it might take several attempts before it would work! Thanks. -- Dr Greg talk 13:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Licensing question
Would the loops found at [4] be considered public domain, seeing as the project is in part funded by NOAA, or are they considered copyrighted? Ks0stm(T•C•G)02:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The site you linked to has this on the main page, which makes it looks as if Vortex2 wants us to believe it owns the copyright to work funded by American taxpayers (who knows, it might):
Can I use the photos on your website for my own purposes?
If the photos are copyrighted (those photos are labeled as such), you will need to get written permission from the copyright holder. Otherwise, you can use the photo without express permission, provided that you give credit to the source of the picture, usually the National Weather Service.
Ist es zulässig, daß ohne mein Einverständnis Lizensen geändert werden von deren Sinn und Zweck mir nichts bekannt ist? Beispiel Ich gehe davon aus, daß noch weitere meiner eingestellten Bilder davon betroffen sind. Ein Grund mehr für mich nie mehr wieder hier mitzuarbeiten.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, --Ronaldino (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Die von dir bestimmte Lizenz GFDL wurde um die Lizenz {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} erweitert, dieses ist geschehen im Zuge der m:Licensing update/de welches alle unter GFDL lizenzierten Inhalte aller Wikimedia Projekte zusäzlich mit cc-by-sa-3.0 lizenziert hat. Entsprechend sagt der neue Lizenzbaustein auch: This licensing tag was added to this file as part of the GFDL licensing update. --Martin H. (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
How to change the name of a file?
I uploaded a file (Elizer Hirschauge (portrait).jpg), but there is a misspelling (should be Eliezer Hirschauge), how can I change it? Thank you. --Marcel Duchamp (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I am a novice and want to make a derivative file from Surface water cycle.svg with titles in Esperanto. I succeeded in getting a translation on my own computer, but I don't manage to upload this file. It just isn't clear at all for me. Thanks for explaining ! --Forstbirdo (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's what I tried. That terrible "Derivative FX" doesn't explain anything. What should I do with "Description", "Changes", "Editor"...and so on...? --Forstbirdo (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
"Description" is just what you'd put if you were uploading a new file. If you're just changing the language displayed, you can probably just keep the text that's already there (which is the description field of the original file by default). "Changes" describe what you've changed. "Editor" is the user performing the edits (that's you). Powers (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
You may activate the Gadget User Messages in your preferences, it gives you a lot of tools for user talkpages in the toolbox on the left side - but be carefull, it writes the selected message directly to the user talk without asking you again, pay attention that you not click them by accident the first time. --Martin H. (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Reviving an old version of another image
The File:VTA LRT 2.JPG has an earlier version that I think should be uploaded under a new name. However the owner of this file apparently speaks and reads only in Japanese, and I have no way of asking his permission to convert and upload the old version. Naturally I'd give him credit, but is there any legal way I can go about doing this? ----DanTD (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Snty-tact appears to be the uploader of the earlier version and his/her user page lists {{User en-2}}. That said, the original upload appears to have been freely licensed which means you are free to upload it again under a new name, with no need to contact the original contributor, although you could leave a note on User talk:Snty-tact explaining what you did. --Teratornis (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did it. If I did it wrong, please let me know. I'm glad you appreciate me giving credit to the original photographer. I've uploaded a lot of photos into the commons that are not mine, yet when I click on the gallery from my homepage, I tend to find them there mixed in with mine. ----DanTD (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Change attribution of image
A few years ago [5] I uploaded Shichi_fukujin.jpg [6] to Wikipedia. (It's something I bought myself and is hanging on my wall). It appears as though another user took this image, added it to Wikicommons, and then put in a "pd-self" tag so that it appears as though they released the copyright. How do I correct this so it's attributed to me? Doctor Boogaloo (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I assume the pd-tag is your choice - if not you have to correct the whole license with the license you initially selected. --Martin H. (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Uploading an image of a painting given to me by a deceased artist
I wish to upload a portrait painted by the artist in 1944 and given to me by the artist in 1985. The artist is now deceased.
I also wish to upload a picture of the artist, together with an unknown person, taken in a public place (a village High St) in the late 1950s/early 1960s, also given to me by the artist in 1985.
Neither of them are legal to upload. In the first case, you'll need the permission of the artist's estate; in the second case, it's more complex, because you don't know who the photographer was.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, however there is no organisation/body responsible for the artist's estate and I do know that the unknown photographer was simply a 'passer-by' asked to take an informal 'snap' – it is not an official portrait. Surely this changes things?? Tomintoul (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Afraid not. Copyright law is not intuitive. Whether or not you can identify or contact the copyright holder of a work, whether or not they expressed an interest in retaining that copyright, they still own the copyright; this is called the orphaned works problem. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
TUSC password retrieval
Can't recall my TUSC (Flickr2Commons) password. Now the system is up again, I can't use it, as can't find any password retrieval links or a forgot my password button, usually available wherever a password is required on the net! Any ideas? Also can't find requisite forum to place such a query, as Magnus tools forum requires a login again, so placing it here. Thanks! --Ekabhishek (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, now that I have resubscribed, the new password is not being verified - showing failed! Any ideas?? PS: I have signed in with my 'en' user account and not 'commons' account in Language box, which was the second option. Did that create a problem?! As I only chose one of two given optionThanks! --Ekabhishek (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The tool is not part of the MediaWiki software, thus it lacks the extra layers of protection for password difficulties. Millions of people use Wikipedia; maybe only a few hundred use the TUSC system (I'm just guessing). With few users, Magnus may not feel a need to add all the safety features - that decision is up to him. I don't think Magnus reads the Help desk lately, so feature requests here will probably not help. He seems to be busy on lots of sites. In the meantime, you might try the non-TUSC {{Flinfo}} method to upload photos from Flickr. That's what I use anyway, since I had problems getting the bot to work the last time I tried it. --Teratornis (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That's where I have been, in the Flint tool land all this while! Though thought should give TUSC another try, now that it has started working again.Anyway work goes on nevertheless...meanwhile we wait for ....:) --Ekabhishek (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
(collapsing indentation hell) You'll have to sign up for TUSC with the language/project you're using tools on. My own tools using TUSC all work on Commons, so you'll need that. If you have problems, try this first, it will give you a more detailed error message. As a last resort, I'll delete your TUSC entry to you can resubscribe. This method has worked so far :-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I signed up in en itself the first time, later when I tried recreating the account using commons instead of en it showed, "Attention : you are already verified!.." Should I go ahead still?? Now on using the link you have given above, the error message reads "User is blocked. 0". I wonder, if creating an account using en, creates such a problem why have it as an option in the first, just have "commons".... Now what next? --Ekabhishek (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Strange. Maybe a miscommunication with the MediaWiki API. I have deleted both your TUSC accounts, please sign in for commons again. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Reading the message above, the User is excited, he rushes to create a new account, he carefully types in those words, commons, and a few tricky manouvers, during which he also ponders over his a "new password".. and lo behold! He rejoices as those promising words appear on his screen,"Congratulations, you are now a verified TUSC user! Weep tears of joy, or something.". Cut to few moments later, he tries to upload a Flickr file, but the message is loud and clear! - "TUSC verification failed." The User is left high and dry...in an another corner of the commons, another bot is rubbing hands in glee. What would happen next, the suspense is terrifying and the prospects thrilling! --Ekabhishek (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that means "it still doesn't work". Instead of poetry, the tusc_check output would have been helpful - is it still the "blocked" message, or something else? Were you ever blocked on Commons? Are you using funny UTF8 characters in your password? In my database, your account is marked as validated, as are ca. 3000 others which appear to work fine, so I'll have to figure out what is different about yours. --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes it still shows "blocked 0". No, I am NOT using "funny UTF8 characters" in my password, I can send it to you if you wish, and have never been blocked from commons..Do let me know if you need any other info in figuring out. Thanks!--Ekabhishek (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The only way I could reproduce the error is by intentionally mistyping your username. I fixed the error message generator, so it will now distinguish between a blocked user and a nonexisting one. Please try again, making sure your username is correctly typed (upper/lowercase, no trailing tabs characters etc), and tell me if it still says blocked. In my experiment, the only things not verifying is your password, for the reason that I don't have it, so I expect it to work for you as well. Cheers, Magnus Manske (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't upload images very often... help with this question gratefully received.
I have an image of a statue to upload. So it's a photo taken by me, of a piece of artwork on public display (in the street) that I didn't sculpt myself!
Upload it where? Please describe the content of the .doc file and what you want to do with it. This is Wikimedia Commons, primarily a repository of images and other media files. In general we don't edit articles here. If you want to write an article, you might want one of the Wikipedias. If you want to upload some sort of document verbatim, Wikisource might be suitable. --Teratornis (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Commons is not a place to store private documents or text at all; it's a repository of images, video and audio for educational purposes and/or Wikimedia projects. A doc file is not likely to be accepted here in any form. It's not particularly productive for us to help you upload this file if it's just going to get deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My reply is not a useful answer to the question because it is not an answer to the question. Rather, my reply consisted of a request for more information about what you want to do. There is no useful answer to the question as you posed it, because the question provides insufficient information to determine whether Commons allows what you want to do. The format of a file is far less relevant than the content of the file - the content determines whether Commons allows it (see Commons:Project scope). However, if you tell us about your goal, not just the step you have in mind to reach the goal, we might tell you another step that will work. Please read How to Ask Questions the Smart Way. --Teratornis (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
A question that had no heading
Thank you to WikiAdmin.
In the gallery do you have a third one photo with my identity picture?
Regards
SULPIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2009 90.33.135.45 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 November (UTC)
I don't understand the above question, and it seems nobody else here understands it. Please give a link to whatever you could mean by "the gallery" and explain the phrase "a third one photo with my identity picture". If English is not your native language, you could also try asking in whatever language you like, and maybe someone who understands that language will know what you mean. If you have an account on Commons, you should log in before asking a question, so we can look at your contributions. Sometimes we can see what a questioner means even if the questioner does not know the technical terms to describe it. But if you have no account or you do not log into your account, we do not have those clues. --Teratornis (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I asked Wikispaces help about it, and they told me this: "The feed is being served with the wrong content type. The server is describing the document as "text/plain" instead of an RSS feed, so our parser doesn't know how to understand it."
I'm not a techie so I don't know what this means exactly, but they tell me I can't do anything on my end to make this work.
This seems like a hard question. Perhaps the people who might be able to help are not reading the Help desk just now. You might try asking on the Commons:Village pump or Commons talk:Feeds. Often the talk pages of the manual pages that describe some technical feature will have some discussion about it. But the Commons:Feeds page is not very detailed and its talk page is not very busy. Since you have a specific error message, you could try Googling for its exact text. Sometimes this can find discussions of the same error elsewhere on the Web. I do that routinely for computer problems, sometimes with good results. --Teratornis (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hachiman-zukuri.png
Hi. I created a file (Hachiman-zukuri.png), uploaded it but immediately realized I had made an important mistake in the caption, so I uploaded a new version. Unfortunately, all previews still show the mistake. Is there any way to fix the problem, or do I have to update a new version of the file? It's not a cache problem. That's the first thing I thought of. I looked at the file with both my computers, and the reversed captions are there. (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Please replace the original image with my edited, updated version. (You may want to take out most of the junk from the comment on my image, I can't because apparently me reformatting the image that I just uploaded would be "potentially unconstructive". As though I'm vandalising the page I just created.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechwarrior Puppies (talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
If your charting software supports SVG output, that is better than PNG because SVG will allow your charts to scale to other sizes without jaggies and aliasing artifacts. For more about SVG on Commons see the links under COM:EIC#Inkscape.
See Commons:Templates#Created with... templates. If we have a template for the software you used to create the chart, you could add that template to the image description. That would look nice and inform other users about how to make similar charts.
For more information see the links under COM:EIC#Cat. Categories can be tricky at first so it pays to read the friendly manuals. I recommend keeping a list of any new categories you create, on your user page (see mine here). --Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Also {{Delete}} on the image description. Place the renomination deletion request on the same subpage at the very end of the page below the closed deletion discussion (below the {{delf}}!) and relist the deletion request at the today log. --Martin H. (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
مساء الخير عليكم وأشكركم على هذا المجهود الرائع وأود أن أعرف منكم كيفية الدخول والتسجيل علما بأننى حاولت الدخول أكثر من مرة وتعطينى رسالة خطأ فى الدخول... وكمان أريد الحصول على أدوات الجنس المختلفة ولكن للأسف لم أمتلك ماستر كارد وهل من الممكن الحصول على هذه الأدوات مجانا للمعرفة والدعاية لكم أرجو منك الإفادة فى هذا الشأن من فضلكم أنا فى إنتظار ردكم وشكرا لكم فى جميع الأحوال مع خالص تحياتى لكم....جووووووووووود باااااااااااااااى أنا فى الإنتظار
From Google Translation I suspect you are wrong here. This is Wikimedia Commons, the shared repository for freely licensed media files of all Wikimedia Projects. To create an account please see the Commons:First steps. You said something of MasterCard (ماستر كارد) - you not need to pay to use Wikimedia, if you want to donate to Wikimedia Commons please visit foundation:Global_Support/en. --Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Chirstianity is not Catholicism and Catholicism is not Christianity
Your page: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade" is erroneous in that you state Christians executed The Crusades. "Christians" were completely nonexistent during the time of the Crusades in that they were either killed or disbursed in the first century by the Romans. Their hidden "Dead Sea Scrolls" were found in the Qumran Caves in the 1940's based on your own site: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran_Caves." Educated Christians and Catholics agree that Christianity and Catholicism are mutually exclusive. Christianity did not make a comeback until Martin Luther Posted the Ninety-Five Theses in the 1500's. You can find the information on Martin Luther and the Ninety-Five Theses based on your site: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther" and will find the Protestants and Catholics disagree completely on doctrine. Though the Catholics (lightly) use the Bible they base their beliefs on the Apocrypha. If you ask an educated Catholic if he is a Christian he will tell you no, he is a Catholic. If you ask an educated Christian if he is a Catholic he will say no, he is a Christian. Wikipedia should change any erroneous claims about Christianity that are actually Catholic in order to make their site more credible.
This is Wikimedia Commons, the shared file repository of 700 Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia projects in 250 languages. See our FAQ to learn more about Commons. If you want to adress an problem about an Wikipedia article you should go to Wikipedia and ask at the articles talkpage or the helpdesk there. --Martin H. (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You could express your concerns on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity but I suspect your rather idiosyncratic claim that Roman Catholicism is not a form of Christianity will meet with some resistance. (There are of course profound doctrinal differences among the many branches and schisms of Christianity, as is the case for other large religions. Schism appears to be an inherent property of any religion which survives very long and grows to a large size.) While there is always room to improve, Wikipedia seems credible enough already to have become one of the world's top five Web properties in English. You might also consider editing on Conservapedia. --Teratornis (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Create a new page
How do I create a new page? Half the time I can sign in and the rest of the time it says I am blocked because of vandalism. I just created my account today, I have a completed page in my sandbox, but it won't let me link it. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc26 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons, a file archive for Wikipedia projects in 250 languages. You created an article on your userpage, User:Mc26. Commons is not the place for articles, only freely licensed media files and galleries of media files are collected here. You are not blocked here, but your article is placed on the totally wrong project. --Martin H. (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Leute, hab mich gestern hier angemeldet und heute ein Bild hochgeladen http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guggenheim_Museum_Bilbao_fog_installation.jpg (weiß noch nicht, wie ich es anders verlinken kann). In der Hochlademaske war ja automatisch als Autor mein Nutzername "Nikopol" als Link eingetragen. Wenn ich jetzt unter dem Bild auf den Link "Nikopol" klicke, werde ich allerdings auf die Userpage von einem "Nikopoley" weitergeleitet. Woran liegt das? Wo ist meine eigenen Page, und wie kann ich die bearbeiten? Bei "Einstellungen" ich ja geht da ja nicht... Danke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikopol (talk • contribs) 01:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Problem behoben. Unter dem Namen Nikopol existierte schon vorher einmal ein Account der sich auf Nikopoley umbenannt hat. Ich habe die Weiterleitung der Benutzerseite gelöscht so dass deine Benutzerseite nun leer ist, ebenfalls die Weiterleitung deiner Benutzer-Diskussion habe ich mit dem üblichen Welcome ersetzt. Wilkommen :) --Martin H. (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
To edit your user page, click your username: User:Nikopol and type what you want. For more information about user pages see COM:EIC#UserPage. You can look at the user pages of other users to get ideas about how to organize your user page.
For example, you could put a {{User de}} template on your user page. See Commons:Babel so you can list the languages you speak.
Good night! I need your help, i want to know if it is possible to upload an image wich is from 1891 and whose author died in 1931, is that possible? I leave you best regards ---- Plav mušketirŽivijo04:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
For most countries (except Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Côte d'Ivoire, and some other more difficult circumstances) it is possible, upoad it with the "its from somewhere else" option in Commons:Upload, fill out the required source and author information and select the license "Public domain: Author died more than 70 years ago". That will result in {{PD-old}}, the applicable license here. Check Commons:Licensing for terms of copyright expiration. --Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Could an administrator examine the category, and adapt these if necessary? I'm not familiar with the refinement of the English language. I've some problems to find the suitable words.
There are different categories with Novula-Icon.
It is about to study reading notes for guitar. (Midi-File will come soon)
I don't understand why you are asking for an administrator. If you are asking how to categorize the above two images, any Commons user can do that, not only administrators. Categories on Commons can be tricky at first. I suggest:
Type terms relating to the images in the search box to the left. Look for categories in the search results, and look at similar images in the search results to see what categories they are in.
Search the various language Wikipedias for these terms also. Read all the Wikipedia articles you find. See how the articles are categorized on Wikipedia. Look at the images in each article. If the image files are on Commons, see what categories they are in.
Look at the histories of these categories and images to see the users who have edited the categories or uploaded images. Look at their user pages to see if they share your interest. Ideally you would like to find another Commons user who speaks your native language and who shares your interest in this topic.
Keep notes on your user page as you gain information.
Sometimes part of the category structure on Commons can benefit from some reorganization. If you are new to Commons or working against a language barrier due to the English bias on Commons, then it could be difficult for you to determine what changes to categories are needed. The more difficult a problem is, the more important it is to take careful notes as you learn more clues.
No "you have a new message" banner when someone leaves a message at my talk?
In this edit, someone left me a notice that a set of categories was at CFD. There aren't any problems with the notice: it was obviously done in good faith, a helpful notice, and the link to the CFD works fine. However, I didn't realise that I'd been left a note until I checked my watchlist, at least twenty minutes after I logged onto Commons today. Why didn't I get one of the orange you-have-a-new-message banners? I've always before gotten such a message when someone left me a note. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea, but you could look at the Wikimedia Technical Blog to see if this is part of some larger "known issue". Do you have this setting in Special:Preferences under the user profile tab:
Interestingly, I just logged in, and the banner appeared the second time I opened the window, even though the message was left over half an hour ago. It's not a big deal; I check my watchlist every time I log in. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the user claimed the process to be "clear as mud" and I don't have the necessary experience to walk the user through it. Powers (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Then I guess the image will get deleted. The instructions in COM:OTRS have apparently been clear enough to lots of people. If the user cannot tell us what he or she finds confusing about the instructions, then there is probably nothing we can do. Most people probably don't have the ability to use a do it yourself system like Commons, unfortunately. --Teratornis (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
TIFF files don't have a preview. JPEG is probably the best format, since it's a photograph, but given that the original file is uncompressed, the PNG is only a third the size (7 MB), so I don't see the need to scale it down.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
How to add a picture
Hello-
I want to add a picture for Al Riley. How do I do this? He has provided a picture to be posted; he is an elected official and I want to use his profile picture. Please advise.
It sure would be helpful if there were a filter function (e.g., *.png) on the display of thumbnails in the Commons "Recent Files".
That way, one would not have to scroll through hundreds of Pie Charts, for example, that held not the least bit interest to many of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.19.69.250 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Every time I use a computer, I see many ways I would like it to work differently. Probably the only way to get the system you want is to code it yourself. --Teratornis (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Preview image is not reflecting the latest version. Why?
Hi. I've found that in some cases the preview images are not being renewed after uploading the modified images. For example, in , the vehicle on the right side should be cut short if it is the exact scaledown of the latest (4th) version, but the medium sized preview image of the file page and the thumbnail on the Wikipedia page still remain as those of the 3rd version. 20 days have passed since the latest upload. a) Any solutions? b) Is there any ways to request the deletion of the unnecessary versions , namely the 2nd and 3rd ones? These are only wasting the resources of Wikimedia.
Thank you in advance.--トトト (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It is updated for me, please clear your browser cache. The cache of IE is extremly persistent, also a ctrl+F5 not helps some times. I not know of a standardized process for version deletion, you may ask an administrator, nominate the image for deletion with the request for version deletion etc. - but its not an issue. I delete the versions for you. --Martin H. (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the 2 versions. But the problem still persists: I've cleared the whole FireFox3.5 cache but the preview image/thumbnail on the 2 sites are still unchanged. The front wheel of the Mitsubishi? RV should be unseen (Small 110px one that I've quoted above was OK from the start). I've tried it with IE but it's still there.
My guess is, when you upload an image, and re-upload the modified image in which the longitudinal pixel is unchanged, the server of Wikimedia commons will never update the already-created preview image. Am I not right? (Sorry for taking your time.)--トトト (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I see it's been fixed now. Thank you. (However, I have a similar trouble in ; I've re-uploaded contrast-adjusted version, but it seems that the preview was not yet updated...) --トトト (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I read your last problem post and can confirm it, also for me the image page was different from the thumbnail you posted here, it showed the second or third version with the street lamp on the right even I already deleted this versions. Strange, I have no idea, but god to see that the time fixed it ;) --Martin H. (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I am the editor of a small-circulation (approx. 180 copies) newsletter for German translators in the UK and wish to use the image "Duesseldorf christmas fair 04.jpg" by Rainer Driesen dated 23.12.2001 as an image in the latest Christmas issue. The image is in Wikimedia Commons and permission has been granted under GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2. Can I use the image and what text must I include with it?
See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. If you want to reuse this image you have to comply with the license requirements of either the GFDL or the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.
To fulfill the GFDL you have to release your copy under the GFDL again, credit all the authors or content creators and include a complete copy of the GFDL license text.
I have no idea where to report this, so I'm starting here: I'm getting an "estimated lag for commons.wikimedia.org: 19 hours, 9 minutes" message (as of this comment). The http://status.toolserver.org shows s6 having a major issue, but also that the status.toolserver page hasn't been updated since Nov. 14. Am I missing something? Is something really down? Is this some sort of maintenance issue? Is there a huge number of files being upload by administration? I've never seen lag like this. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This is probably a very simple question, but I have a pdf of a newspaper article I want to use as a reference.
It is just a pdf sitting on my desktop - how do I add it to the reference list. Can I upload it to commons or cut and paste the pdf somewhere?
Many thanks for any help
The first and more important question is what is the copyright status of the newspaper article, is it public domain due to copyright expiration (see Commons:Licensing) or do you have the copyright holders written permission to a free license? The second question is if the content is within the project scope. Newspaper articles are published and, likely, reviewed, so you can use them as a reference on Wikipedia without uploading the article here. If the article is not notable or historic it will fall out of the Commons project scope according to COM:PS#Excluded_educational_content. However, you can still cite the article in an Wikipedia article following the instructions in en:Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Martin H. (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks Martin - yes I do have the express written permission for publishing the article on wikipedia. I guess my question is more of a 'which buttons do I press' type of question? should I upload the pdf file to commons or is there a simpler more elegant way? Once again many thanks for your help
The only way to upload files to Commons is uploading them ;) Maybe you have the correct permission, however the workding 'permission for publishing the article on Wikipedia' sounds to me like you not have. You need the copyright holders written permission that everyone, not only wikipedia, can reuse the article for every purpose including commercial use, modifications or build upon under the terms of a free license. A free license allows for this kind of free reuse, see Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. If you have this permission and if the article is within our scope (notable article or historic content) you can simply upload it with Special:Upload providing the source (where was it published) and author (who wrote the article) information. Likely you will be asked to forward a written permission to COM:OTRS after you uploaded the article. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
categorization
Hello!
Yesterday I uploaded an image but forgot to categorize it. Now I cannot find how to edit the category. And the bot is crying...
Could you please help me? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipsa (talk • contribs) 11:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Almost every time I upload an image with categories specified on the US Government source upload form, those same categories are not showing up on the File once the upload is complete and the Bot is listing almost everyone of these as if I left the categories off. Not happening! So, may I suggest you or someone make sure those categories I input on the form get into the file for the image. I've uploaded a lot of images from NASA and that's a lot to go back into for listing categories I've already listed once. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons does not allow media with a non-commercial restriction. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. However, if the image is from a book published in 1909 then it should be in the public domain. See Help:Public domain, and for a famous example see Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Judging from the "About" page on that site it looks like the site owner is a hobbyist who may not be familiar with details of copyright law that impact what he is doing. I.e., I don't think he can claim a non-commercial restriction over an image that is out of copyright. The fact that he scanned the image probably does not meet the threshold of originality. However, rather than confront him in a hostile way, I suggest telling him that having his scans uploaded to Wikimedia Commons will drive traffic back to his site, because his scans will appear in Wikipedia articles where they will be widely viewed, and our image pages will link to his image pages as our sources. We can certainly credit the person who scanned the image from an old book, and if he asks for donations on his site that is not an issue for us. --Teratornis (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - I have emailed the person who scanned them in asking if he has any particular text he wants used as a credit on here. I've uploaded a couple which he lists as public domain ie File:Somersetshire map 1786.jpg & File:Farley-Castle 1830.jpg - it would be great if you could check the licence & text I've added to ensure I'm giving the right credits to the right people etc.Rodw (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
See here; he is aware that the original images are PD, so it's clear that he thinks he has copyright over the online images because he scanned them. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The book, The Growth of the English House, by Alfred J Gotch, was published in London in 1909. The copyright law in effect in London at that time for photographs was life + 50 years, but has since been extended to life + 70 years; the laws in European countries are not the same as in the USA, and books published before 1923 are not automatically out of copyright; in addition, the term "public domain" has difficulties, because of laws about moral rights. In the case of this particular book, photographs are out of copyright but accompanying text and diagrams are still covered (they get a different copyright term in the UK). For works that are out of copyright, the wording on my website (www.fromoldbooks.org) says a that usage credit is requested, not that it is required, and there's no restriction for commercial or other use. The content management system I am using makes it hard to distinguish the copyright of individual items in a book, so they generally all get marked with the most restrictive term that might apply, but I am not attempting to claim any copyright for scanning images: US and UK law is fairly clear on that point, and in the US there is legal precedent, but in Canada (where I live) it's not so clear, and there is not a "public domain" in Canadian law, e.g. moral rights to attribution cannot entirely be waived here. For works published jointly in multiple countries which have ratified various international copyright treaties, the shortest period of copyright in any of those counties applies to all of them for that work, but that only applies for works published within 30 days in multiple countries. So for Internet publishing of a work, where people can view and potentially reuse the work in any country, there is a potential "conflict of laws" situation, but, in general, the copyright law of the country in which the work was created and first published, where these are the same, will prevail. Hence, I have followed the provisions of the UK Copyright Act, taking into account also the influence of Canadian law where the scans were made and where the site is hosted. I hope that's clearer; I'll work on making the copyright notes on my Web pages clearer over the next month or so. Thanks, Rod, for contacting me - and sorry for a long answer! The short answer (as I said in my email) is that yes, where images are out of copyright feel free to use them in wikipedia, and I'd be pleased if there was a link back. Barefootliam (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies to Barefootliam for my incorrect assumptions about him. No need to apologize for a long answer - when unraveling copyright questions, more information is usually better. See the links under COM:EIC#Copyright for information about how Wikimedia Commons appears to interpret copyright law. Thank you for sharing your work, and for actually coming here to discuss with us.
No offence taken, Teratornis; it's helpful to be able to have such a discussion. To Prosfilaes, I can only say, there's no single set of laws for the Internet as a whole, beyond of course standards and regulations set by IANA, IETF, W3C (where I work) and so on. Doing what is right is not an "idiosyncratic idea." The "law of the host and server" does not "prevail" in some legal sense. But we are off-topic, and perhaps must agree to disagree. At any rate it's fine to use images from my Web site, taking into account the copyright notes I have made and your own research, and that I cannot accept liability for errors or omissions. Barefootliam (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Doing what is right is not idiosyncratic as a concept, but specific concepts of what is right can be and frequently are; as one who believes that copyright law generally goes far beyond what moral responsibility would demand we respect, for both good and bad reasons, I don't see doing what Commons does as a matter of moral necessity. If there is a legal sense where the owner of the server is bound by more than their law, and the downloader more than his, I would like to know about it; such a fact might require the English Wikipedia, Wikisource, and Project Gutenberg to change their behaviors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The US copyright law says that "a work that is published in the United States or a treaty party shall be considered to be first published in the United States" so it's a feature of US law that the US does not (in general) respect longer (or different) copyright terms in other Berne Convention countries. However, the Convention also grants minimum periods of protection in all countries, which is life + 50 years; for a work made in a Berne Convention country outside the US (and not published within 30 days in the US) there is thus copyright protection in the US of not less than 50 years after the death of the author. The "Gone with the Wind" take-down notice is not a counter-example: the notice was sent to Project Gutenberg and not to Project Gutenberg Australia, and hence was not honoured. It's not entirely clear to me that the US has entirely ratified the Berne Convention, because the US copyright act places additional limits by saying that a work shall be considered to have been first published in the US if it was published in any Berne Convention country, and also because moral rights of authors are somewhat limited, and (as far as I can tell; not everyone is certain) can be waived. Note also that copyright violation if more than 10 copies are made (e.g. downloaded) in the US is now a criminal offence. It's all a bit vague because it takes decisions in courts to make things clear, not opinions by lawyers. But I think it's fairly hard to justify your statement, For Internet publishing of the work, the copyright law of the server and host prevails, even in the US, and certainly not here in Canada. There's no single legal entity with jurisdiction over such things, for one thing. Barefootliam (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue Berne Convention, but US copyright law is explicit about being the treaties not being self-executing. Works published prior to 1978 get 95 years from publication, not life + 50. The notice that was sent to Project Gutenberg Australia was ignored; Gone with the Wind is still online, because it's legal in Australia, even though it's an American work in copyright in the US. For actions done on a particular soil, with rare exceptions, the only jurisdiction is that of that particular soil. If you do something in the US, the US law is the prevailing law. You haven't offered counter-examples; give me a case where PG or the Internet Archive or Wikisource was forced to take something down that was not copyright in the US. Or quote the law. Just saying that "it's fairly hard to justify your statement" is not evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
A remade self-portrait of a person deceased more than 100 yrs ago
Hello- I have a wee question concerning a pic I would like to upload. I have found a self-portrait of Rudolf Kurz published in a book on GoogleBooks. I took a screen of that page (seeing no other way to extract the pic) and edited a bit with Photoshop. Since the portrait was done more than a 100 yrs ago and by a person who died more than 100 yrs ago (1871) (as well as 'cos I meddled with it), is it ok to upload such a file? Thank you for your help. Cheers Hoodinski (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is ok. The copyright belongs to the creator, and has expired; the scan of an already public domain image by Google or whoever does not generate a new copyright. The copyright tag for such images is {{PD-Art}}. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
An image on wikipedia:Great Hippocampus Question, The name of the file "Nigger-Gorilla.png" seems inappropriate. Would it be possible to rename this to Brains-negro-gorilla.png? The file name is the same as from the site in which it was taken. [[7]] Does this even contribute to the article? Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks, I just got stuck with the question whether I can upload a redrawn SVG-version of the historical logo of the former shipping company en:Norddeutscher Lloyd to Commons or not. The company existed from 1858 to 1970 and the logo in question was created before 1882 and is no longer in use. Is it public domain due to the author died more the 70 years ago? Or do other terms apply because the company was in function until 1970? --Gepardenforellenfischer (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No, for copyright you must establish that the logo designer died before 1939 (well, 1940) or that it is an anonymous or corporate design published before 1939/1940. In addition, if it is an armorial design (i.e. a coat of arms, armorial badge or related device) you may recreate it from the text description or blazon without violating any copyrights. Sv1xv (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I seem to have crapped up a file I uploaded. I uploaded a low resolution jpeg, then tried to replace it with a tif file, but didn't notice that the original file name includes the jpg file extension. I tried to undo my edit, which didn't help. Someone tell me what to do! --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't check the names, and I thought you did it. Yes, thanks Justass for just converting it for me. I asked for the one I uploaded as a tif with the same name to be deleted. That should take care of it. I appreciate the help. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:File types. Commons does not allow .ppt files. If you created the file yourself, you could convert the individual slides to SVG files. See Commons:File types#SVG. Also, you should categorize the images you have already uploaded. I would help but your image descriptions are terse and vague. For example, does the word "Firefly" in your image descriptions refer to the Slingsby T-67 Firefly? Since your images only show a partial cockpit view, I cannot see enough of the aircraft to identify it. --Teratornis (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded Public Documents, but they were deleted because I wrote the wrong licencing. HELP!
It was all deleted, since I filled out the licensing wrong.
1. the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors 1961 Commendation for Louis Lesser, which I got from PUBLIC files in the County of Los Angeles.
2. the "Louis Lesser 1963 Annual Report", page by page (18 pages), which is not copyrighted, but is from the PUBLIC files for the SEC application to get listed on the American Stock Exchange.
All of the pages were deleted because I did something wrong.
A. Can anyone show me how I should have filled out the licencing for these public documents, and restore them? It is difficult for me to upload, being on a very slow internet situation, and I am working at a public computer, which is an antique.
B. I am uploading photographs I took, and am unsure of how to do the licencing. Can anyone help me fix it if I do it wrong, instead of just deleting them? HkFnsNGA (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
B. Why were the photographs I took, of individuals, in public, last summer, deleted, and how shuold I have done things differently so they would not be? HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
2. What is the licencing for a Chapter 7 Company, Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc., where by the definition of Chapter 7, all rights tpo ANYTHING are given up?
For your question #2: If there is some very special reason why some media is PD and it is not covered by the existing tags, use {{PD-because}}, stating the exact reason. Usage: {{PD-because|this image is free under part X of Act Y as a document of ...}}. Sv1xv (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It's best to ask individual questions under individual headings, because each case you present above is different, requiring different actions, involving different manuals, and giving anyone who wants to help you different needs for information. (For example, question B. is vague, because deleted files don't show up easily to other users who are not administrators. Before anyone can answer your question, first we have to identify the files you are talking about. Give us the file names, and link to whatever deletion discussion that may still be around for these files. If you took a picture yourself, and the subject of the picture is not under any copyright restrictions (see COM:CB for a list of such restrictions), then you can license your work freely for example with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}.) Trying to answer different questions under one heading lead to a bit of a mess. What manuals have you read so far? Virtually everything a new Commons user needs to know about Commons is on Commons - that is how Commons users have helped new Commons users. Your talk page has a {{Welcome}} template with links to several manuals. Read them. In particular, read Commons:Project scope, Commons:First steps, COM:L, COM:CB and COM:OTRS. According to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, at Commons we assume everything is under copyright and is not freely licensed unless we can explicitly verify that it is freely licensed. The burden of proof is on the uploader. The burden of reading and following the instructions is also on the uploader. Unfortunately due to the complications of copyright law and the large number of cases this cannot be made instantly point-and-click simple for the casual user. It takes some work to learn how to upload various kinds of works to Commons. Your best bet would be to start with the easiest case: an image you created yourself. Once you know how to manage that, then you can move onto the more difficult cases of files created by someone else (for which you should follow the procedure in COM:OTRS if no explicit declaration of their free content status exists online). Note that administrators tend to delete files with incorrect licensing instead of individually tutoring new users who don't read the manuals because there aren't enough administrators and they don't get paid. --Teratornis (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Also note, an unlinked phrase like "Chapter 7 company" is ambiguous. You are writing to fellow Commons users all over the world. Thus you should link such terms to pages that define them, for example do you mean: Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code? In general, when you don't know the copyright status of works by someone else, you have to obtain permission from the creator(s) and document it by following the procedure in COM:OTRS. In some cases, Commons users have already identified types of works that are known to be in the public domain, and we have standard templates for marking them as such (see for example Commons:Image copyright tags visual). These templates cite the applicable laws. I have not heard of a "Chapter 7 company" case yet, and if it has not come up on Commons before, then we might be breaking new ground here. If documents pertaining to such cases are in fact in the public domain, there must be some law somewhere declaring them so, and we will need to cite it. Can you tell us that law? --Teratornis (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try just uploading a cell phone camera image first, as you say. It looks like I have a lot of reading to do. Can you suggest an order of things to read, and links to them? I will try to spend a little time each day, reading these, until I get through most of it. Thanks again. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Commons:First steps sounds like a good place to start. Usually you can tell by reading the first part of a page whether you are ready for that page yet. If the first part doesn't make any sense, come back to it later. To do all the things you want to do, you will have to read all the pages I linked. The order in which you read doesn't matter much. It looks like you had the misfortune to start off trying to do several difficult things all at once. You might want to edit your user page with notes about the things you want to do, with links to the manual pages you are reading. See for example my notes in User:Teratornis/Notes#Move some images to Commons. Much of this stuff is too complicated to just "wing it." Writing notes about what you are doing allows you to attack a problem systematically, and then six months or a year later you can read your notes and remember what you did. --Teratornis (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Iran pictures
Hi guys, I´ve got some great pictures of a trip to iran last summer which I would like to upload. I took all of the pictures myself, but some are inside old mosques. As far as I understand the licence policy of iran, I am nevertheless allowed to upload the pictures. Do you think I got that right? Thanks! Nikopol (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Celtic Star-Dublin 31-5-08.jpg has been tagged as a copyright violation. As I explained in the rationale when I uploaded it, the website it came from clearly states on its homepage that all images are Creative Commons licensed. Thus, the image of Celtic Star should be useable here. May we have a quick resolution to this as I was hoping to upload more images from that website. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Tracks in GPX (or other?) file formats may be useful as
description/definition of a lemma
content of a lemma (sports events, hiking tracks, ...)
source for information.
Is there a general policy about these kinds of files? I noticed, that they are not allowed in the commons and in wikisource. Do we upload them on commercial websites and reference these? I'd rather create these files and put them in the commons. --Awilms (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The nearest thing I see to a discussion about this might be in Commons talk:Geocoding and its archive pages. You could read those discussions and see if anyone there thinks along the same lines. What exactly do you want to do with GPX files on Commons? The more specific you can be about your goal, the more likely that someone can help you. In particular, I don't understand your use of the word lemma. The definition from logic doesn't make sense, and asking Google for more definitions doesn't find one that fits with your usage. --Teratornis (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. With your help I found out about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates/Linear[9], and that page pretty much shows the limitations of geocoding in wikipedia, and also the currently discussed ideas to solve my problem. I do actually want to represent routes, tracks, rivers, etc. with the help of an already established standard (i.e. gpx files), which allow to highlight a linear feature on a map. See pic. Up to now, it is only possible to indicate individual coordinates (example [10]). It would be convenient to store these gpx files in the commons, to be able to access them from wikipedia.
NB, the use of lemma (linguistics) in the context of an encyclopedia seems to be different in English and German, although it's definition seems to match in either language. So my native German caused a slight problem, sorry for that! --Awilms (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Some more links are in COM:EIC#Geo and WP:EIW#Geo. I forgot to mention those. Maybe something there will be useful. However, your findings fit with my general impression that geocoding on the Wikimedia Foundation wikis generally assumes a single location per article or image. Obviously that is too restrictive when the subject is a route, a road, a railroad, a utility easement, a watercourse, a political boundary, etc., but I guess nobody has figured out a universally pleasing way to relax that restriction. Perhaps the main difficulty is that MediaWiki is not (yet) natively a geographic information system. If you want to experiment with mw:Category:Map extensions, you can download MediaWiki and set up your own mw:Manual:Wiki on a stick. Also see WikiIndex:Category:Maps. --Teratornis (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Geotag?
For the first time I uploaded an image with coordinates embedded in the image (done via my computer). There seems to be information in the metadata, but no "Camera Location" template was automatically attached to the image file. Will a bot come by and add one or do I need to do something myself? For now the image just says "North latitude" and "west latitude" in the metadata, which doesn't seem very helpful. Thanks, Fletcher6 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
DschwenBot is going thru all newly uploaded images and extracts location if available, so no need for any additional input. But in case you want to be sure bot notices your image, you can add {{GPS EXIF}} template --Justass (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia's tagging process was delayed by some sort of technical glitch for a few days until today. Usually EXIF tags get converted every morning of Atlantic and American time. Anyway this year I uploaded about a thousand pix with geotags in EXIF, and tagged several hundred that were uploaded in the past, so indeed the process actually works. See Commons:Geocoding for more information or ask on its talk page or my talk page. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Question regarding content
I've been reading the article fanservice and i've noticed that it could use a lot of images to support all the situations that are considered fanservice (such as panty shot, accidental kisses, onsen trips, etc). I feel that those images could really fulfill the "educational purpose" requiered for uploading content to commons. Thing is, some of those images (like the panty shot) could be rated "T for Teens". So my question is: Are images not rated "E for Everyone" allowed?. Thanks in advance -- Faito15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no "ratings", you can upload images and other media as long as it have any imaginable educational purpose. But you are allowed to upload and license under "free" license only your creations or you have to have written permissions from authors. But in your case if I understand correctly "fanservice" images are created based on anime and manga animations or comics or other copyrighted content. Thus any derivatives, even drawn from a scratch are copyrighted by original creators and cant be uploaded to Commons (unless you have written permission from the original author, not a person who drawn anime character in more "sexy" way). --Justass (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt answer, I have read all documentation regarding the licence aspect. I intend to use Wikipe-Tan in a sexy way, ilustrating the sitations addresed in the article. I believe i can do derivated work from Wikipe-Tan, since "she" has been released under "CC licence". Am i correct? -- Faito17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan is released under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5, so yes you can make any derivatives, just acknowledge original author (User:Kasuga} and release your work under the same license --Justass (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Some Wikipedia editors object to having "too many" images in an article. If you run into that problem on the English Wikipedia, you could make a gallery page for your images on Commons, and inter-link it to the Wikipedia article, with:
wikimedia.org, explaining the situation and backing it up with data, such as listing which image was published where (which book or newspapers) first. E-mails to that address remain confidential; they're visible only to selected trustworthy volunteers who should have experience with such cases.
Works for me –Juliancolton | Talk 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Ich gehe davon aus, daß noch weitere meiner eingestellten Bilder davon betroffen sind. Ein Grund mehr für mich nie mehr wieder hier mitzuarbeiten.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, --Ronaldino (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Дар Ветер (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Živijo 04:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Živijo 12:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There are different categories with Novula-Icon.
, the vehicle on the right side should be cut short if it is the exact scaledown of the latest (4th) version, but the medium sized preview image of the file page and the thumbnail on the Wikipedia page still remain as those of the 3rd version. 20 days have passed since the latest upload. a) Any solutions? b) Is there any ways to request the deletion of the unnecessary versions , namely the 2nd and 3rd ones? These are only wasting the resources of Wikimedia.
; I've re-uploaded contrast-adjusted version, but it seems that the preview was not yet updated...) --トトト (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shichi_fukujin.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}