Commons:Help desk/Archive/2011/03

Updating a photo

I made a few changes on [Flag of Arabistan] to look more like the real used flag but i couldn't upload it over the current image because i am new , anyway this is the updated image [Flag of Arabistan 2] , if you could help with that .

Dummy timestamp: 00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hola?

HOLA: ME GUSTARÍA SABER SI ´PUEDO SUBIR UN ARTÍCULO BREVE SOBRE MI LUGAR DE ORIGEN LEÍ SOBRE ÉL EN UN LIBRO DE 1952 Y CAMBIÉ LAS PALABRAS PARA QUE EL TEXTO NO SEA EXACTO A LO PUBLICADO EN EL LIBRO

Dummy timestamp: 00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Trouble getting "Reuse" icons to display

I'm trying to get attribution info for photos I'd like to use, but I can't get the "Reuse" icons to display to the right of the photo. I've tried to reload the page to get the "Reuse this file" link to show up on the top menu, and I've tried on IE, Firefox, and Chrome, but to no avail. Is there maybe a flash or java update I need?

Dummy timestamp: 00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've downloaded and restored an historic image from Wikimedia Commons -- how do I upload it back to it's original site?

I downloaded an image of John Brown and cleaned up and restored the image. How do I go about getting it uploaded to Commons? I am a photo retoucher and am not familiar with any of the computer-speak terms I'm encountering on Commons -- it's all greek to me. Is there a simplified list of steps I can follow? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphem (talk • contribs) 2011-03-02T01:12:03 (UTC)

Go to the original photo page and click on "upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of the "Image history" section

Then follow the instructions Chaosdruid (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

First: welcome to Commons! :-)

Second: forget what Chaosdruid said. Your account is too new for this (this function is not available for you) and anyway we should Commons:Avoid_overwriting_existing_files - especially if the users are new and "do not know what they are doing".

Third: Please sign your messages at talk pages with --~~~~

Fourth: Just go to Commons:Upload and select the appropriate choice: "It is a derivative work of one or several files from Commons" and take time to fill in the forms and upload. As the image is probably in the public domain ("historic") you do not even care much about correct licensing (although most things are done automatically correct with this upload form anyway). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please follow Saibo's advice and use the "derivative work" option on the Upload form. This is the best option for restored works. We appreciate your contribution! Dcoetzee (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploading an image to a page

Hi-

I finally figured out how to upload an image. It is in the "My contributions" folder, but how do I actually get it on the wikibook PAGE? Thanks! Klinen (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)klinen

First, you uploaded small size versions of images that we already have, here on Commons.

• • File:250px-Youtubeheadquarters.jpg is a tiny version of File:Youtubeheadquarters.jpg - a file on Wikimedia Commons.
  • File:800px-Youtubeheadquarterssanbruno.jpg is a tiny version of File:Youtubeheadquarterssanbruno.jpg - a file on Wikimedia Commons.

This will be deleted. Second, If you want to include an image in an Wikipedia article see en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial or just take examples in other articles. The wiki text you need is [[File:xyz.jpg|thumb|description]]. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

syntaxhighlight

Hi. syntaxhighlight does not work in commons. --Adam majewski (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload this???

I made a map using the free "P&P World Map" at http://edit.freemap.jp/en/trial_version/edit/world and then took a screenshot of the part I want to upload. Can I upload this, and if so under which category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaknowledge (talk • contribs) 2011-02-27T04:04:30 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure. Per default: no (See COM:L). But this world outline map is pretty simple. If you do not get a response here ask at Commons talk:Licensing. If it is allowed: Your map should go in some subcategory of Category:Maps_of_the_world. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say "No". Despite the name, "freemap", the source page has a big (C) at the bottom and no indication that the results are PD, only that you can use it for free. You can get base maps with acceptable licensing at category:Maps and OpenStreetMap, among other places.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect comment on file causing confusion

I responded to an edit request on en.wiki at the article for Jammu and Kashmir, regarding the flag found in file File:Jammu-Kashmir-flag.svg. That file was uploaded with a false comment, stating that the flag is the flag of a certain political party in India, when in fact it is (as far as I can tell through web searches) the flag of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The problem is that, when the file is used on Wikipedia, the comment is what shows up when the picture is clicked on, thus causing confusion. As far as I can tell from looking through the help desk archives, the comments are a part of edit summaries, and thus cannot be changed. What, then, is the best way to change this incorrect statement? Does someone just need to re-upload the file with a new comment? Or is there some other, better way? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean this? "(Flag of the '''Sikkim Democratic Front''', a political party in the state of Sikkim in India {{PD-self}} {{insignia}} category:Flags of political parties in India)"

This is the log entry of the file's upload and cannot be changed. Just fill in a correct description as you would do on a Wikipedia page → use the edit button. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I forgot about this. I didn't realize that the whole page was transcluded to other wikis that use the image. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploading and attributing altered Wikimedia Commons image

Hi. I have just saved File:Southern Cross-25May2009.jpg to my desktop and rotated the image so the orientation is correct for what it's illustrating. Can someone please point me to simple instructions for a) uploading and b) attributing? Thanks. Or do it for me? :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please follow Saibo's advice in #I.27ve_downloaded_and_restored_an_historic_image_from_Wikimedia_Commons_--_how_do_I_upload_it_back_to_it.27s_original_site.3F above to upload a derivative work of an existing Commons work. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User uploading self-promotional images

ChickenMan (talk · contribs) has been uploading a number of images of chicken coops. A couple of them are watermarked with the name and logo of the company that manufactures the coops. He then went to the English WP and replaced all the images in the article with his images. What can be done about this obvious attempt at advertising? Note: Even in the case of the non-watermarked images, he is sure to put the company's name in the file description and caption. Dismas (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of these (e.g. File:The Surrey.jpg) are actually pretty nice photos. I wouldn't discourage them exactly but I will leave them a note to please not watermark images and also upload high-resolution photos if they are willing/able. I also need to confirm that they do in fact represent this company and they aren't grabbed off the web somewhere by a chicken coop enthusiast. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How can I find new pages I created?

Pages that would have N ? I can't find a tag for this in "My contributions" or the edit count. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Your uploads you can see in your gallery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Your uploads also there (with Special:ListFiles or with the "uploads" link at the top of your contributions page). Your new pages not older than one month there (with Special:NewPages). Your new pages by namespace there (with [1]). There are probably more tools if you look around. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this image acceptable for import to Wikimedia Commons?

I was looking for a photo of Stefan Meier for a bio on Wikipedia. I found a photo in an article on German Wikipedia but it has a warning about importing in to the Wikipedia Commons without individual review... Is this photo acceptable? It is taken apparently before 1932 and is in a government publication. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:MeierStefan.jpg Warfieldian (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw your question 9 minutes after you left the Commons chat. Stay longer next time. Sometimes when the chat is not crowded it just takes some time until someone sees your question.

The picture is not made by the government and generally government works in Germany are not PD (as it is in the US). The image is to dewp's knowledge public domain in Germany due to a special rule in German copyright. But to my knowledge, we do not have such a template here in Commons.

I think uploading it here and tagging with {{Not-PD-US-URAA|Germany|January 1, 1996}} and {{PD-because|see german template or similar...}} could go. But: This is not the only picture we have in dewp with this license we could upload them all here if this would be accepted on Commons, too. Maybe it is just too difficult. The part that it is not public domain in the US (Template:Not-PD-US-URAA) cannot really be the problem since we have loads of public domain (in the source country) images here on commons which are not PD in the US. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I uploaded tagged as you suggested. Warfieldian (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

New category troubles

I just made a new category for the Category:Southington Center Historic District, and have been trying to replace redundant categories for images that they now belong to. But every time I try to remove them, the commons replaces it with one of the older cats. This looks like a bug. Can somebody fix this? ----DanTD (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A fast glance doesn't show anything wrong. Perhaps you could be a little more explicit? Are you clicking on Edit and simply typing in the new category and deleting the old? Using HotCat? Or one of the other tools? What, exactly is happening?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've used used HotCat to type in new categories and delete old ones, But I found out that the problem isn't just with new categories anymore. Earlier today, I had the same problem with File:Spokane Train Station.jpg. The old categories just keep reverting back, no matter what I do. I had the same problems when I created Category:Simsbury Center Historic District. At this point, I've suspended my use of HotCat for replacing existing categories. ----DanTD (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please direct me

When I log in to Wikpedia I choose the "Log me in globally" option. However, Wikimedia Commons does not recognize me, nor does it my Wikipedia user name and password. Where do I go for help resolving this problem? Thank you. Signed: A Wikipedia user with +7,500 edits there who is stuck.67.189.236.243 19:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Put in your username in m:Special:CentralAuth. If it tells you that you do not have a global account this is the reason. Just go on Special:MergeAccount (English Wikipedia assumed) in your home wiki and create a global account. By the way: if you would tell us your user name we could better tell you why it does not work. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Saibo. I am using the four tilde signature but it is not registering my user name, Wikiuser100. Don't know why. Please see the results of following your suggestions in an entry on my user page. I'm stil stuck and could use some additional guidance. 67.189.236.243 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay you do not have a global account yet. Please first log-in in en.wikipedia. Then click on Special:MergeAccount to create a global account. Then come back here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see entry at my user page when I tried that approach. Thank you. 67.189.236.243 13:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So, in short, your problem is that you do not remember the password you registered for the account you created on Commons? And you had not registered an email address, so you cannot use the "send me a new password" button? Then, you may have to make an usurp request. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem may be as you described, but I have no recollection either of establishing a new password for W.Commons or not providing an email address (the same as for Wikipedia). All I remember is going there to upload a picture and the whole process going relatively smoothly.

It seems we are inducing that I used a different password/did not provide an email address. That's the way the system seems to be reacting.

I went to the indicated usurpation page but do not readily understand it. Can I "usurp" my W.Commons account using the same user name and password as at Wikipedia? Thank you for your help. 67.189.236.243 14:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the details of that procedure. I can only suggest reading the related pages. But for more specific questions on how to proceed in your case, you can contact a bureaucrat. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue why you are replying at en:User_talk:Wikiuser100#Universal_log-in and not here.. but however - I you own the account with your name here on Commons but forgot the password then you need to post an usurp request. Please follow the steps at Commons:Changing_username#Procedure. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

First, you asked and I replied that my only known user name (at Wikipedia) was Wikiuser100: I don't know what it is at W.Commons because I can't log in (and don't recall ever using a different user name or password the only time I was at W.Commons, to upload a picture); second, I took the discussion there because I thought it was more appropriate than here, but since I am not familiar with W.Commons I don't know what good form here is; third, using the four tilde signature will not display my W.Commons name here as I don't have one when not logged in and don't know what it is if different than my Wikipedia user name; and fifth, I have read the usurp page instructions but do not understand them. Can I "usurp" my evident W.Commons account with my known Wikipedia user name and password? Is this a good idea? Is that what "univeral log-in" means, using the same user name and password for multiple accounts? Thank you for your acknowledgment and response to these questions. 67.189.236.243 22:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning when you say: " (...) my only known user name (at Wikipedia) was Wikiuser100: I don't know what it is at W.Commons because I can't log in (...) ". What's that about not knowing your username at Commons? Did you or did you not try to log in normally to your existing account on Commons [2], using your username Wikiuser100 and your usual passsword? If not, that would be the first thing to do, before anything else. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my grammar. What I tried to say was my only known user name anywhere in Wikiland is "Wikiuser 100" (at Wikipedia). I do not recall creating a new one or new password at W. Commons. Thus, when I selected "Universal log-in" at Wikipedia I thought I would be logged in at W.Commons as well. Obviously, I am not, and don't recall either a different user name or password at W.Commons. And can't penetrate the instructions for usurping a user name and account there. Since I don't know what my user name or password is at W.Commons I can't merge accounts (which requires both W.Commons user name and password) and can't (as I udnerstand it) usurp either at W.Commons (because I don't know them). I only know mine at Wikipedia, and wish to use them at W.Commons seamlessly (via universal log-in). That is where I am stuck. 67.189.236.243 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On a hunch I just went back to where this whole miasma began, at the page for the photo I uploaded here back in June 2010 or so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mt._Madison_008.jpg). It has the user name (of who uploaded it) as "Wikiuser100", the same as mine at Wikipedia, but displays it in red (signaling there is no such page). When I click on that red link it takes me to Wikimedia Commons, but says no such user page exists. When I try to log in to create or access it W.Commons does not recognize any password I employ. This appears to suggest that indeed I have an account named "Wikiuser100" at W.Commons. How can I retrieve/change my password there? 67.189.236.243 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see and answer if there are questions at Commons:Changing_username/Usurp_requests#none_.28but_Wikiuser100_at_enwp.29_.E2.86.92_Wikiuser100. I made a request for you to get this here to an end ... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have summarized the situation well at the above link. What must I do now to make this change happen? Thank you. 67.189.236.243 01:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wait and watch for questions which may come up at "the above link". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Diagram from copyrighted source

There is a diagram of a process in a scientific journal that would be useful to have in Wikipedia. I presume just grabbing the diagram is copyright violation, right? So what are the options? Is re-drawing the diagram also copyvio? If the diagram is significantly different, then there won't be a reliable source for the process any more. Any advice would be appreciated. (PS I thought this would be a common question so was surprised to find nothing in faq, help or archives) Pgr94 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a question with several answers, depending on your skills.

• The data -- the facts surrounding the process itself -- is not subject to copyright, so, yes, you can redraw the drawing, provided you do not make a copy of the existing drawing. The more that you use your knowledge of the process and the less you use the existing drawing, the better.
• If it is WP:EN that you are asking about, then perhaps the best way would be to upload an exact copy there with a Fair Use tag.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Template versus license

Hello, I suddenly realised that there is some problem with my photo, Gudebilde Norsk Hindu Kultursenter. The message from Nikbot is that "It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license." I honestly don´t understand what´s wrong - to me, it looks like my picture has got a perfectly valid license. Can anyone help me understand? --Ida Tolgensbakk (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The bot sent you the message November 16, 2010, when the page did not have a license, but only an information template. Then you added a license in the page the next day, November 17, 2010. It was a problem when the bot sent you the message. Then you fixed that problem. It is not a problem now. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, I was a bit confused there... --Ida Tolgensbakk (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting an image out of Google Books

I'm trying to get and crop an image out of a public domain (first published in the US in 1904) item on Google Books. What's the best way to do this? If it matters, here's the link, I'm trying to get the image of Malcolm MacVicar on page 273, to use in the WP:EN article about him. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the image (maybe a restriction of google because I am in Germany). Sometimes there is a "download PDF" button on the top right corner on fully free books. This and extracting from PDF using GIMP or anything else would be the best. Otherwise simply a screenshot (maximize your browser window and zoom in as much as possible) will do. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Zoom in as much as you can and go to Page Info in Mozilla, and if you dig around it should give you the URL for the image, which you can then load and save. I'll upload this one as File:Malcolm_MacVicar.png.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, yes. Using Firebug ("inspect element") also works fine for this. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't take credit for it; someone else came up with it over at Distributed Proofreaders.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! cmadler (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Stamps issued by United Nations

There are already some stamps issued by United Nations in Category:Stamps of the United Nations. Is {{PD-UN}} suitable for all stamps issued by UN? Otherwise, which licensing policy is applicable? Wizardist (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Atheist Bus potential copyright?

I've just been importing some CC licensed Flickr pics into Commons and putting them in Category:Atheist Bus Campaign (which is linked from the WP article, doing it for sake of completeness). I found this pic on Flickr though: [3]

I'm not at all sure whether this would have an underlying claim by the designers of the advert. If it does, that's not a problem: I'm willing to make contact with the BHA and see if they can CC license all those images where there are copyvio problems. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Twelve words in a colored font should fall into {{PD-Text}} territory.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright-protected image on the Commons

How do I notify those with the power to remove images that there's a copyright-protect image on the Commons? This image is clearly protected by copyright, and can't possibly be free. Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Next time: Just use the "nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox on the left side of the image's page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Add the tag(s) that best describe the problem to the description page, for example in this particular case the templates {{Nld}} and {{Copyvio}}. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

license help

I recently uploaded this image, which is a screenshot of a YouTube video. I have permission from the creators of the video to use the picture. What license applies here? Lexicografía (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever license the creators of the video give you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

All a license is is the permission to use the video - figure out how the people said you could use the photo and then select the license that describes that permission. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

contacting another member

how do I send an email to one of your members? Dennis Simmons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Simmons (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See w:Wikipedia:E-mailing users. The instructions on Wikipedia are also valid for Wikimedia Commons (this site). However:

• We usually contact other Commons users by leaving messages on their user talk pages. See Commons:Talk page guidelines. We would normally only use e-mail to have a private discussion, or if the other user does not respond to a message on his or her user talk page.
• Some people who have accounts on Commons are not very active here. Hopefully such a user will have left a note on his or her user page telling where else you might contact him or her, for example on one of the Wikipedias.
• If you want to re-use a media file uploaded by another user, you should only have to adhere to the terms of the license for that file. Contacting the user is not normally necessary. The file page should give the licensing terms. See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia.

--Teratornis (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

ifeq: PAGENAME

Any idea why I get "no" when I write {{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | Frederic Chopin's grave | yes | no }} at Category:Frederic Chopin's grave ? --Zolo (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you can't compare {{PAGENAME}} with #ifeq, probably because the #ifeq is invoked on the un-expanded form. meta:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23ifeq doesn't really explain this, but it does note that "Content inside parser tags (such as ) is temporarily replaced by a unique code" so perhaps something similar is going on with them. Zolo (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Actually {{Creator}} has a way out of the problem:

{{#ifeq: {{localurl:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{localurl:{{{Homecat}}}}} || [[Category:Creator templates with non-matching home categories]] }}--Zolo (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is Bugzilla:16474. --  Docu  at 20:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting information-Question

My name is Bobby Ramirez, I am a first time author completing a Eigteenth Century Period epic novel. I am in need of twelve to fifteen still color or black n white --photos of people of that period, example eighteenth century Anglican church cleric in full garb, and others. Ofcourse these photos must be uncopyrighted. I also need other simular services-paid id neccessary.

This is what I am looking for for the pulbication of my book.

Can you assist me.--108.69.7.253 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Photography was not invented until the 19th century, so there are no actual photographs of people from the 18th century. Perhaps you mean recent photographs of models in period clothing, or scans or photos of artwork from the period. See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. If you can find what you want here, you should be free to reuse it. The problem is finding it. You can use the search form. Try searching for the names of specific clothing items. For example we have Category:Men with mitres and Category:Dalmatics. Because of "recentism" you will probably find a lot more modern images than old images. See w:Clerical clothing and w:Vestments for some of the jargon, then search for all those terms here. It will be hard to restrict the search for images within a date range of a whole century. Image search on Commons does not have the sophistication of a database query language, which would let you construct the type of query you describe in your question. You will just have to look at a lot of images and evaluate them visually. Also look for painters who painted clerics from that time. Their work might be categorized by the artists rather than the subjects in the paintings. You could ask on w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism where topic experts might have more knowledge. --Teratornis (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add another note but then Commons became unavailable to me for some time. Hopefully you are still monitoring this page. Anyway, you can look at articles such as w:List of Archbishops of Canterbury to find clerics who lived during your period of interest. Browse to their Wikipedia articles and look at the illustrative images. Click on the image pages to find their file names on Commons, and browse to the image pages here so you can see what categories they are in, to find similar images. All works of art from the 18th century are long out of copyright now, so any faithful 2D reproductions of them will also be out of copyright. See Commons:Image casebook#2D art (paintings etc.). Good luck. --Teratornis (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I stuffed up on an image I uplouded. What do I do with and image I took myself?? IMGP2482. I took this at the races myself. Hugs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.22.231 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have edited your question while not logged in, which means we don't know the username of the account you used while uploading (only logged-in users can upload media files to Wikimedia Commons). You did not tell us enough of the image name to easily find the image you refer to; for example File:IMGP2482 does not exist, neither does File:IMGP2482.jpg, etc. And that is not a descriptive filename in any case. See Commons:First steps/Upload form#4. Set an appropriate file name. You can request deletion for an image you uploaded by mistake with one of the templates on the COM:D page. For example, if you uploaded the image with a bad name, put the {{Bad name}} template on the image page, and an administrator will be along to delete it shortly. Have you read Commons:First steps and Commons:Project scope? Uploading images to Commons is more complicated than uploading to many photo-sharing sites such as Flickr. There is a start-up cost to read the manuals, but once you figure it out you can upload similar files quickly. --Teratornis (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

By "start-up cost" I mean a cost in terms of your time and effort. There is no monetary cost for reading the manuals on Commons, apart from whatever you pay to access the Internet generally. --Teratornis (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File PQ-17 (convoy losses).svg

Hi everyone! Please help me to find an error in file:PQ-17 (convoy losses).svg. File itself is ok, there's the problem only here at Commons. --Das steinerne Herz (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your fourth upload attempt seems to have fixed the problem. Separate issue: you had a Russian description in a Template:En, so I put it into a Template:Ru and I added what I think is an English description in the Template:En. Please correct if necessary. --Teratornis (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting source information

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

I have just received an e-mail from you with the following content:

"Dear Filipazo, The Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Filipazo has been changed on 24 February 2011 by Nikbot, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Filipazo for the current revision. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Filipazo&diff=0&oldid=50532983 for all changes since your last visit. Editor's summary: Bot: Requesting source information."

I would like to inform you know that the issue is about a picture of my greatgrandfather wich I added to an article I published in Wikipedia. I obtained copy of the picture, which apparently is older than 130 years old, from the Spain's National Military Archive. Now you mail me that I did not inform you about the license of the said picture. Please inform how should I proceed. Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely,

F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.71.150 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The image in question seems to be File:BLAS.jpg which certainly looks old enough to be out of copyright. Your claim seems about 99% believable to me. Nikbot is just a software program which looks for images with incomplete information. In what form did you obtain the image from Spain's National Military Archive? (Hard copy, or digital?) w:TinEye does not find another copy of the image online. A link to the source of the image online would be helpful, if such a link exists. Also a link to a page describing the Archive's copyright policy would be helpful. There is no information currently on the image page which readily verifies the w:Provenance of the image. The image date is missing. For examples of what is needed, see collections of images from other government agencies such as images from NASA which display the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} template. If the image you uploaded is the only one on Commons (or only one of a few) from a particular agency, then nobody may have created a suitable license template for that image yet. The image already displays {{PD-Old}} which is likely correct if the age of the image really is old enough. A weird exception might be if the photographer was very young at the time of creation and lived a very long life. Help:Public domain says Spain uses life plus 80 years for the term of copyright, which could possibly add up to 130 years or longer. --Teratornis (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible template issue

According to Template:LOC-image/doc and Category:Images from the Library of Congress, adding the {{LOC-image}} template to a tag should include it in the above-named cat. However, I don't see this cat on File:General offices-Westinghouse Air-Brake Company-circa1905.jpg. Is there a problem with the template, or did I do something wrong? :) I don't see the category on File:Swinoujscie LOC 00723u.jpg either, despite seeing the image in the category.. sısɐuuǝɔıʌ∀ (diskuto) 03:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Both images are in "Images from the Library of Congress". Maybe the image do not appear today in the category because we have some system problems. But it should appear at the bottom of the images if you enable the display of hidden categories (used for maintainable and not for topic sorting - like this one). Special:Preferences → second tab → at the bottom "show hidden categories". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That'll do it. Thanks! sısɐuuǝɔıʌ∀ (diskuto) 03:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploading photo, it's not keeping the licensing info I give it.

Hello,

I have twice now uploaded a photo of my own, and each time I selected the 'recommended' license, and each time it's uploaded without any licensing info. The first time the photo was deleted because I didn't imagine that the upload hadn't worked as directed. The second time, just tonight, I get a warning email that my photo will be deleted. I can't figure out how to attach the license info to an existing file and I am rather frustrated that the upload process isn't working as directed. I don't want to be re-uploading the photo every time it gets automatically deleted and I know I included the license info. What to do?? Dog Walking Girl (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It happens to me sometimes that the licence-tagging disappeares by scrolling immediately after tagging. It is always possibkle to add the licence after uploading. You check immediately after uploading, and if needed, you copy the licence from another file page. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

GeoHive and license switch

Hi,

Here's the situation: a former contributor on WP:EN, en:User:Big Adamsky, has uploaded 17 pictures from the GeoHive website 5 years ago. He got the authorization from Johan (GeoHive webmaster) but didn't make an OTRS ticket at that time, and worse, used unappropriate license tags (Johan wanted proper attribution; user-PD has been used instead). The files have then been uploaded on Commons 3 months afterwards and derivative pictures have appeared. In the meantime, Johan has removed everything from his website, some maps not being accurate anymore.

Concerning the files hosted here on Commons, everything is now in GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0 thanks to an OTRS ticket (excepted for File:Luxembourg.geohive.gif – I've forgotten that one and will have to ask for a new ticket). By the way, some of his maps can still be found on mirror websites. Should I ask him to write an authorization that embodies everything? As Johan removed all his maps we won't be able to check each time if the maps on mirror websites really come from GeoHive...

And to finish, how will we deal with the derivative works licensing? Should I get in touch with everyone to ask them if they're ok with the license switch? Normally I'd have dealt with it myself, but unfortunately I'm running short on time in the moment. I won't be able to do it, sorry. Tachymètre (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Derivative works will have to be license switched or deleted. Different people deal with this differently - some just replace the license on the user's behalf, some just delete the image, some remove the license and mark it as no license, some request the user to update it and come back a few weeks later and delete it if they didn't. I'm not sure what the best response is. And yes, it's best to get a blanket authorization that covers any images that were ever hosted at GeoHive, if you can. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Licensing photo and text also taken off

I don't know what else to do. My own photo was taken off of the Wikipedia entry.

I edited the license section with

I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

and {{subst:March|day=11|year=2011}} and

I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse

Illinois8th5104 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC) but it still says I need to do something else??

Also, I edited the page with text and all of that text was also taken off the same time the photo, which is my photo, was taken off. How does one edit an entry in Wikipedia??

An entry in Wikipedia can be edited with klicking on "edit", there is an edit button... just klick on it and ... edit. The question with your upload File:Photo of La Shawn K. Ford.jpg is, if your claim that you are the photographer is realy true. Other pages like http://www.housedem.state.il.us/members/fordl/index.htm say, that it is under copyright of someone else, the Illinois House Democrats. If an image was already published you should indicate for that publication. Also you should provide the true author and source. If this is done you will be asked to provide a written permission to COM:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

p.s.: I saw in the history of the LaShawn Ford article on Wikipedia that your additions were removed because of beeing copyright violations and overly promotional. Maybe the en:Wikipedia:Five_pillars will be a good start. --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You copied material already published on a non-free website. This is also explained in the message the editor left for you on your user talk page, with suggestions about how you can fix he situation if you are the copyright owner of the material or are authorized to republish it. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploading photos

I have spent hours and hours trying to upload photos for the Granite, Colorado article I wrote. I have them on a Flicker Acct. My computer knowledge is very limited and even though people have tried to explain it to me, I just don't get it. Would there be anyone available to do it for me? Thanks Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It´s easy to upload files: Click here and follow instructions. SteMicha (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If all images of the flickr account are useful for Commons,

try http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr_mass.php

First, you'd need to create a TUSC account at http://toolserver.org/~magnus/tusc.php

--  Docu  at 22:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

just uploading a short text of mine...

... I have no idea which category my article belongs to, I can't find any advice for uploading texts which I intende to do when working on a specific topic. My German speaking mentor directed me to the Wiki Commons, but here I'm completely lost. So: HOW CAN I UPLOAD AND PLACE AN ARTICLE OF MINE FULLY COMPLYING TO THE WIKI-RULES? thx --Verdinore (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You can ask questions in German here.

Commons is mainly meant for images, not text. Use http://de.wikipedia.org for texts (or rather articles) in German. --  Docu  at 06:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

about license

Hello, i need to upload a photo on Commons, but it does not have a free license. I have talked to the maker of the photo and he allowed me to use it on the Wiki (note: our talk was on online website, so i can confirm this easily). Although, he still publishing his photo under a non-free license, so could his personal permission be enough? or the license must be changed for uploading it here? --عباد ديرانية (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Please read Commons:OTRS, which describes the steps needed to confirm proper permission (and note that "allowed me to use it on the Wiki" is not sufficient; the page I linked explained what would be sufficient). Powers (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much --عباد ديرانية (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

Oligopeptidases

Contribubuting your own work

Title for Wikipedia new article my own work: OLIGOPEPTIDASES We follow, strictly all the steps recommended in the Commons "Contributing you own work" and we have a Preview of the article. We do not understand why Wikipedia considered the article is still incomplete and/or unreliable. How should we proceed in order to finally send to wikipedia the finished article.

Wikipedia new article my own work: OLIGOPEPTIDASES

Title for Wikipedia new article my own work: OLIGOPEPTIDASES We follow, strictly all the steps recommended in the Commons "Contributing you own work" and we have a Preview of the article. We do dot understand why Wikipedia considered the article is still incomplete and/or unreliable. How should we proceed in order to finally send to wikipedia the finished article.

New article my own work:OLIGOPEPTIDASES

User:Acmargo/The oligopeptidases a new concept on proteolytic enzymes was created in 1979 to include the oligopeptidases, a subclass of peptidases according to the President of the International Committee for Enzyme Nomenclature. This concept was originally based on enzymological data, and afterwards confirmed by crystallographic data. This subclass of enzymes displays a very peculiar feature among the peptidases which proved to be important for fundamental aspects of neuroendocrine, circulatory, and immunological systems. Important scientific articles support the oligopeptidase concept. The article was written according to Commons steps instructions, and Commons still considered the article incomplete and/or unreliable. We need your help to include the article in Wikipedia.

This is wikimedia commons, which hosts only common items (images and so) for use in articles at the various wikipedia's. For publishing your article you have to go to en:wikipedia, its main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . For publishing an encyclopedic article on wikipedia, the rules are quite different from uploading images at commons. Start your edit at en:wikipedia en:Oligopeptidases --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And if it is your unpublished original research, it will not be welcome there, either. - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

linking a photo to a wikepedia subject

I have uploaded my photo to your site but I cannot put the picture in the article of Kelvin Mullarkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazza59 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote Button

Hello, I am looking for the Vote-Button used last year for the POTY election. I remember that it was just clicking on it and the edit was made automatically on the image vote page, but i dont find this button any more. SteMicha (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, can somebody help me?! SteMicha (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging Categories

There are three different places for images of the Mexican city Puebla, confusingly also the capital of the Mexican state Puebla). There is Category:Puebla, Puebla (which does not exist, has only one image and is linked from the wikipedia page), Category:Puebla (city) and Puebla, Puebla. Which name should these images be under? Is there a reason the last page is not a category? Thanks in advance.--Banana04131 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories seem to be at:

1. Category:Puebla (city) - for the city
2. Category:Puebla - for the state

Images of the city should go into the first one.

Puebla, Puebla is a gallery (not a category). It seems to select images from Category:Puebla (city), but you can ignore it when you attempt to categorize images. --  Docu  at 05:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Banana04131 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong MIME type error on svg

I permanently get this error with a new *.svg file which contains valid svg code (not even warnings) as checked by the w3c validator as well as Jarry1250's SVG Check. If that matters, it is 3 kByte written by hand. I found similar questions in the archives but no solution. -- Rainald62 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It can work if you edit the svg source slightly. --  Docu  at 05:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried that already. Most recent version:

     <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
     <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
     <svg width="800" height="500" version="1.1" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
      <defs>
       ...

Any suggestions? -- Rainald62 (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes MediaWiki doesn't recognise a file correctly as SVG. To make it work, you'd need to edit the source in one way or the other. I wouldn't know which part blocks your file, so you might just need to try. --  Docu  at 10:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to change MediaWiki to accept svg files that are valid as checked by the w3c validator. For the time being, I will upload my SVGs in png format. -- Rainald62 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you email me that svg? I will open a bugreport if necessary--DieBuche (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I already solved this first problem, but see below. The wrong MIME-type message was due to bug 27537 in combination with my fault to add namespace 'xlink'. The file is File:FMCW Doppler radar.svg, and shows several rendering bugs:

• Subscripts are not shown in png
• baseline-shift of text is ignored in png
• While the result produced by the Adobe plug-in is as expected, Chrome (version? tomorrow) svg-renders it with a completely useless result: wrong horizontal positioning of a symbol replicated with <use ... /> in combination with wrong masking. Firefox 3.6 shows only the 1st bug, masking is ok.

Derk-Jan Hartman believes that the png-related items "are known issues, and filed somewhere under the "depends" of ticket #8901". -- Rainald62 (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: See also the bot-generated redlink on my discussion page. -- Rainald62 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File format choice

Hi. I uploaded this file:

a couple of years ago. Now I'd like to make some minor changes (I still have the xcf file, that I imported a number of jpegs into). My question is was saving it as a png a good idea at the time, or should I make it a jpeg this time when I re-upload it. My understanding is that diagram as png = good, photo as png = bad. This is a combo of both so I don't know what's the right thing to do. Thanks! --Keithonearth (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PNG is lossless, and can therefore have larger filesizes. JPG doesn't support transparency & text tends to look blocky, so I would go for PNG, as the filesize is no problem for the servers. --DieBuche (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PNG is fine for this illustration. Also upload your xcf and link it in the png's description so people can make derivatives more easier (except if it is biiiig).

JPG is only useful for photos as it (for photos!) only slightly decreases quality while significantly reduces the file size. But make sure to save at highest quality to reduce compression artifacts to a minimum. We have enough disk space. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Help me please!

I have been trying to upload an image to my user page and I don't konw how. Thanks! --Oobi87655 (talk>/span>)

Welcome to Commons and Wikipedia! Commons:upload is the general place to upload files. You should have a look in COM:L and COM:PS before. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Images in Documentary Film

I would be interested in using some Wikipedia images in a documentary film I am working on, but I am unclear on whether this is permitted.

I do not entirely understand the licenses used on the site and how they would apply to a documentary film.

For instance, some licenses say that the original creator must be credited, but the image is posted under a pseudonym.

Also the license will say that re-users must include this license in the new product. I'm not sure I see how that could be done in a documentary film. The usual method is to insert a photo credit at the end. It's not possible to add a hyperlink to a documentary.

It is permitted. When an author has identified himself with a pseudonym, you simply credit him by that pseudonym. The credits are to be included by a method that is appropriate and normal for the medium, so for a film, an adequate place might be with the other credits at the end. Different photos may be under different licenses and you must apply the license specified for each photo (or choose one of the licenses offered for the photo, if there are more than one). Read carefully the legal text of the license for each photo that you will be using, and word the credits accordingly. If you are not familiar with the licenses offered, it might be more simple for you to use only photos that are offered under the same type of license. For example, if you use photos under a CC-by 3.0 unported licence, it is not necessary to include the whole text of that license, but you must include at least the identification of that license and the URL for the webpage where the text of that license is (the URL in a readable form, so that interested people know where they can find it). -- Asclepias (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Files without Category

I tried my first image uploadeds yesterday: Cedar Grove.jpg and Susina Plantation 2008.jpg. I failed to include a category. I received a message concerning this from wikipedia. Now when I try to re-upload with a category, it recognizes them as duplicate files. But I can't figure out how to get to the original files to add a category because wiki refused to "accept" the images without a category. What do I do? Randy User:NGC4387

Just open the Edit mode of the existing file and add the category or categories as texte. --16:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing images

Hi! I'd love to know how one edits images that are in Commons - maps in particular. I've tried figuring it out, to no avail. Can anyone help? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to download the image full format in your computer, and reupload it after editing. If it is only a correction, you can do it over the old file; if it is a real change, you must reupload it as a new file under a new name. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't update image, rename for me?

I just uploaded the image: File:Processor_families_in_TOP500_supercomputers2010.svg which is just an updated version of File:Processor families in TOP500 supercomputers.svg generated using the script included on that page. My account is too new to upload a new version of images, I'd assume it should be uploaded as a new version of the file, if I'm correct there if someone could cause it to become the new version of the original, thanks. Otherwise just review how I uploaded it and let me know if I did anything incorrectly --MeshColour (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to upload new file versions after 23:06, 20 March 2011 (if I am right). I am not quite sure if this should be overwritten since it is a different diagram (+1 year). Maybe - let's see what others here think of it. On this topic you can read Commons:Avoid_overwriting_existing_files. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem uploading file from internet archive

Hi there, I am new to wikimedia commons. I am trying to upload a file from the internet archive in .djvu format. It is a scanned copy of a minute book from Glasgow Southern Medical Society from 1911-1923 (not copyright, CCO 1.0 universal license). The idea is to then have it on Wikisource for transcription. Anyway, I am clearly doing something wrong. From here (http://www.archive.org/details/GlasgowSouthernMedicalSociety-MinuteBook7-1910To1923) I right clicked on the 'djvu' hyperlinked and saved the link. I then put the saved link down as the source in the commons upload page. I then got an error saying that the MIME type didn't match. Any tips? Johnhglen (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Inet Archive did a thing.. they linked to a .djvu URL but the webserver delivers a html page which contains a java applet to display the djvu. Press Ctrl+U (in Firefox) to display the page's source code. There you will find the real link to the djvu file. Or - simpler: click on "All Files: HTTP" and then download the big djvu file at the end of the list.

What you essentially did was: you've saved the HTML page as GsmsMinuteBook71910-1923.djvu and uploaded it. So Commons correctly complained as it was no djvu file you had uploaded since it is a HTML file. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - will try again. Johnhglen (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I did something wrong

I think I did something wrong and I asked of you to delete my account; I wanted to delete my uploaded file and follow the upload process again in order to learn how to upload with a license tag. I have also another profile as Halkios and I wanted to use that name to specify that I was the author/creator of the photo

Halkios — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Diary of an Angel (talk • contribs) 2011-03-18T02:38:39 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Commons Halkios! I have corrected your error (indeed you requested the deletion of your user page)

Did you shot the photo File:The Diary of an Angel.jpg and paint/draw the book cover? And this is the file you want to have deleted? Please do not use watermarks (see Commons:Watermark) next time. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick-close deletion discussion?

Hi, is it possible to request a closure for a deletion request I inadvertently made? The File:Salsa_Basic_Step,_NY_Style_On2,_Follower's_Timing.ogv was orphaned, but the uploader and I—the only two people involved—have it all figured out. Because we're the only ones involved, I figured it'd be easy to simply close the discussion as a "keep" and get the tag removed immediately. I wasn't sure if it was proper etiquette to just remove the deletion tag itself. Otherwise, we can just let it run its course, but I do feel bad that the tag is hovering there in the file. Thanks! – Keraunoscopia (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If no one had commented yet you can delink the deletion request page (check "what links here" and be sure to use the comment/summary line), remove the template from the files page, and nominate it for {{Speedy}} deletion stating that you (the nominator) made an error and all is clear / solved now. This is like I do it sometimes - no guarantee for rules conformance. ;) Or just write a statement at the end of the deletion request stating that you made an error. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Audio file not playing

Hi, I'm new to Wikimedia Commons (just signed up today). I uploaded an adio file (.ogg) earlier, but when I try to play the file nothing happens: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Trois-anges-sont-venus-ce-soir.ogg&oldid=52185609

The file size is around 2.5MB, but once uploaded to the Commons the details for the file read 0.s, as if there's nothing to play.

Am I doing something wrong?

Robertsgp (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

At least Firefox seems to not support ogg-FLAC in it's built in native player. Apparently also not our System here since it reported 0 seconds. I encoded it with Vorbis codec (in highest quality setting) and uploaded it. Should work now.

Please add information about the singer, the song and it's age in the file's description. Also where / how you recorded it (= what is your source). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Saibo - I added all that info when I uploaded the file the first time. Do I need to add it again to your version and if so, how can I edit this?

The info you've added on uploading the first time is still present (File:Trois-anges-sont-venus-ce-soir.ogg). But this info means that you have composed, made the text, sang the song and recorded it then. That is not true, is it? ;-) Is the song on a compact disc, mp3 you've bought? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I added some info for him about the composer. For the interpretation, I guess the uploader Robertsgp is the interpret and recorded himself, but he should clarify that. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of two fotofiles

Under stress my uploads are not correct. Later I uploaded files fitting the purpose better. Would be nice, if someone would remove an oversized file and a file with wrong commentary. Just old versions to delete:

File:Studio Weil Sculptures.JPG - Date of the old version: 21:54, 26. Feb. 2011 - Remark: 1,08 MB - too much to be opened fast, and nowhere else in use, the original upload commentary "Information |Description" is a bit confused.

File:Miss Warrior (Black Base).jpg - Date of the old version: 20:08, 15. Mär. 2011 - Remark: Completely misleading and confusing original upload commentary "Information |Description". The professional photographer announced to send the licence to permissions-commons, but asked me to upload the file (“… no time for such …”).--Fluss (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The second is going to be automatically deleted for having no license. The first is fine as it is; we should have the largest version we can have, and the software is quite good at scaling it to whatever size is in use. I don't know what you mean about opened fast, but the full size version loads nigh instantaneously for me. Only those on dialup would have a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For the file "Studio Weil Sculptures.JPG" in highest resolution I got reported by users in Spain, that opening the file lasts minutes. If nevertheless the highest resolution of 20:09, 16. Mär. 2011 shall be active, why not delete then version of 22:54, 26. Feb. 2011? The slightly wrong discription would disappear then.

For the file "Warrior (Black Base).jpg" the photographer informed me on 15th of march by e-mail, that he had sent the usual form to permissions-commons, with correct name of the file, his choice of a licence and underwritten with "stuartpearce.com". In the description of his file that I uploaded for him, I mentioned him as source, and because on upload I was asked for the “Urheber“ of the artwork shown, I thought, the artist Barbara Weil is meant, who made the sculpture that Start Pearce then fotographed. So I wonder, why the licence does not come together with the image: I probably should have better mentioned Stuart Pearce as "Urheber"? Or he should have underwritten with "Stuart Pearce" instead of "stuartpearce.com"? I have no doubt, he wants to give the image. I cannot expect of a professional fotographer additionally to spend his expensive time to do the upload himself.

Furthermore the description "Information |Description" on upload got completely confused. It describes a different artwork. For the records of an artist such error can become very disturbing. So it would be best, if image and licence can come together, and the first version with the wrong description can disappear. How can this be achieved? --Fluss (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Does it help, if I change the "Urheber" at the description of the file "Warrior (Black Base).jpg" from Barbara Weil (the artist) to Stuart Pearce (the fotographer)?

Fluss, kannst du bitte nochmal auf Deutsch schreiben, was dein Anliegen ist (das ist einfacher)? Was ich herauslese ist, anscheined die Beschreibung falsch ist: klicke einfach auf der Dateiseite auf "Bearbeiten" (ganz oben) und ändere, was falsch ist. Die Genehmigung/Lizenz, die per E-Mail geschickt wurde, kann schonmal bis zu drei Wochen dauern bis sie bei der Datei vermerkt wird (dann wird gleichzeitig der Warnhinweis entfernt werden). Bitte schreibe vorsorglich einfach eine Notiz in die Beschreibung, dass eine E-Mail vom Künstler unterwegs ist. Bei der ersten Datei schreibst du was von Dateigrößen: nun - generell sollte die bestmögliche Qualität hochgeladen werden. Für das verkleinerte Vorschaubild auf der Dateiseite spielt das keine Rolle - es ist immer gleich groß und wird auch bei langsamen Leitungen recht schnell übertragen. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 20:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Es geht mir nicht um die Beschreibung, die sich auf der Dateiseite ändern läßt. Es geht um die Beschreibung, die beim Upload eingetragen wird. Sie steht in der Tabelle der Thumbnails der Dateiversionen neben dem ersten Upload. Die scheint mir nicht veränderbar zu sein. Oder doch?

1. Zu "Studio Weil Sculptures.JPG": Wenn unbedingt die höchste Auflösung aktiv sein soll, lassen wir das Problemchen damit mal beiseite. Aber da gibt es die nun überflüssige Version des Fotos vom 22:54, 26. Feb. 2011, bei der die Upload-Beschreibung nicht so ganz stimmt. Wenn ich die Beschreibung nicht ändern kann, kann denn das File dieser Version gelöscht werden? Es ist ja nur ein Doppel zur aktiven Version in gleich hoher Auflösung.

2. "Warrior (Black Base).jpg": Lässt sich feststellen, ob vom Fotografen Stuart Pearce (evtl. unterschrieben mit stuartpearce.com) eine Einverständniserklärung dafür eingegangen ist? Wird sie mit so einer Unterschrift trotzdem als gültig unterschrieben angesehen und dem Bild zugeordnet, auch wenn als Urheberin des auf dem Foto abgebildeten Kunstwerks Barbara Weil (und nicht Stuart Pearce) eingetragen ist?

3. Angenommen, Lizenz und Bild kommen noch zusammen: Die in der Versionstabelle der Bilder für die erste Bildversion eingetragene erste Upload-Beschreibung ist die Beschreibung einers anderen Kunstwerkes der Künstlerin. Wenn sich solche Fehlinformation verbreitet, kann das noch jahrelang immer wieder zu Mißverständnissen führen. Daher würde ich gerne diese Beschreibung ändern können, oder eine Löschung dieser Version des Bildes haben. In beiden Fällen bleiben ja absolut gleich gute Bildversionen stehen.

Was meinst Du?--Fluss (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Achso - das, was bei dem Hochladen eingetragen wird und dann neben den Thumbnails in den Dateiversionen erscheint, ist nicht änderbar.

File:Studio Weil Sculptures.JPG: Überflüssige Versionen werden für gewöhnlich nicht gelöscht. Wenn es natürlich eine schlimm falsche Beschreibung ist, dann kann man das machen, wenn es dich so sehr stört. Ich bin hier leider noch kein Admin, damit du es nicht erneut irgendwem erklären musst, frage ich morgen Abend jemanden im Chat, den ich gut kenne.

File:Miss Warrior (Black Base).jpg: Wir brauchen sowohl eine Freigabe durch den Fotografen, als auch durch die Künstlerin - außer du scheinest den dreidimensionalen Fuß ab - dann ist es nur noch zweidimensional, wenn ich recht sehe und keine Lizenz für das Foto mehr nötig. Damit Freigaben dem Bild zugeordnet werden können, muss in der Freigabe natürlich der Dateiname/Internetadresse angegeben sein. Wenn bei der Freigabe etwas unklar ist, wird es zu einer Rückfrage per E-Mail kommen. Wenn alles klar ist, dann wird die Freigabe auf der Dateiseite eingetragen werden und die Warnung entfernt werden.

Das kann ich dir nicht genau sagen, ob sowas laut Richtlinien gelöscht werden darf - sollte aber unproblematisch sein. Die Sache ist halt die, wenn solche eher unwichten Löschungen zu oft vorkommen, dann sind unsere Admins dauernd mit soetwas beschäftigt und nicht mit den wichtigeren Aufgaben (Urheberrechtsverletzungen löschen). Vielleicht schaut noch ein Admin hier vorbei, ansonsten kümmer ich mich morgen Abend darum. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Die Künstlerin ist Jahrgang 1933, sie hat mir mitgeteilt, dass ihr für den Formularkram per E-mail die Computerkenntnisse fehlen. Also zweifelhaft, ob es unter den Umständen überhaupt noch zu einer Lizensierung von File:Miss Warrior (Black Base).jpg: kommen kann.

Wenn der 3dimensionale Fuß wegkommt ist garkeine Linzenz mehr nötig? Auch keine Lizenz des Fotografen? Kann ich mir nicht vorstellen. Du meinst, es ist dann keine zusätzliche Lizenz bei der Künstlerin einzuholen?

Weil ich jetzt nicht weiß, ob aus der Lizensierung überhaupt was wird, und Löschung ein Aufwand ist, habe ich jetzt verstanden, dass wir besser warten, ob eine Lizensierung des Bildes überhaupt stattfindet. Also erstmal Herzlichen Dank, und Du brauchst jetzt garnichts zu tun. Vielleicht kannst Du mir später nochmal auf die Sprünge helfen. Manchmal braucht es nur etwas Kommunikation, vorher hatte ich das Gefühl mit der digitalen Wand zu sprechen. Vielleicht kannst Du noch meine neu gestellten Fragen beantworten? Gruß,--Fluss (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ich schrieb: "keine Lizenz für das Foto mehr nötig". Damit meinte ich: keine Freigabe durch den Fotografen für sein Werk (das Fotografieren) nötig, weil sozusagen nur eine simple Reprofotografie ohne Gestaltungsspielraum. Aber: Ich hätte mir die Skulptur mal näher ansehen sollen - der obere Teil (das eigentliche Kunstwerk ist auch nicht völlig zweidimensional auf dem Foto dargestellt (die runden Ecken sind deutlich zu sehen). Somit ist es doch etwas zweifelhaft es nur als Reprofotografie eines zweidimensionalen Gegenstandes anzusehen, aber nicht unmöglich (ich würde sagen: Grauzone). Besser wäre eine Freigabe durch den Fotografen (für seine Fotografiearbeit) schon. Ich kann dir sonst nicht mit großer Sicherheit sagen, dass es okay ist.

Durch die Künstlerin brauchen wir aber in jedem Falle eine Freigabe. Wenn E-Mail nicht geht, dann geht auch per Fax oder Post an dich (und du scannst ein) oder eine Wikimedia-Landesvertretung (im Notfall). In jedem Falle sollte ihr natürlich der Inhalt der Inhalt der Einverständniserklärung klar sein, die sie unterschreibt. Die Freigabe bezieht sich nämlich auf jedermann (nicht nur auf die Wikipedia) - ich weiß nicht, ob das ihr/dir vorher so klar war. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ja, ist ihr klar, bloss Bürokratie und Computer sind nicht ihr Ding. Ich werd' sie fragen. Der Fotograf hat ja seine Erklärung schon abgesendet, nur ob es mit stuartpearce.com als Unterschrift durchgeht, ist die Frage. Es könnte alles daran scheitern, dass einer der beiden an sich bereitwilligen „Bildgeber” einfach zu genervt ist und nicht mehr mitspielt. Mal sehen.--Fluss (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

family photo collection

I have a large photocollection of three generations of my father's family who lived for the greatest part in the Netherlands Indies . Several of them are interesting for a view of how people lived in colonial times before the World War II. The older photo's are made by travelling then Chinese phothographers, with unknown names and who are long dead. The other photo's are made by family members, who are dead and I inherited the photo's. I would like to upload the interesting photo's but I do not know how to define the source and author. Pai002 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• You can use {{PD-heirs}}, but I would advise you to upload them to Flickr on a free license, and then to transfer images that can be used in wikipedia articles to Commons. Here such unpublished material runs a high risk of getting deleted, Flickr is a more stable repository. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the advantage of uploading first to flickr - except for archive purposes maybe. But if you just want to donate those pictures it is less work if you upload them directly here. However, you only have the rights on photos on which you are the full heir of the photographer. You do not have the rights on those photos shot by some Chinese photographers and you should not upload them. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:ldfkeralam

Hi, I created a template for the images taken from ldfkerala.org website (1). But there is a problem, outside links to source is replacing by {{{1}}} whenever I click localization links (ie, English | മലയാളം | +/−) in file namespace. eg: File:TV Rajesh.jpg. Please advise (or fix ;-)). Advance thanks--Praveen:talk 10:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Scanned pictures from work published in 1913

Hi! I scanned two photos and some drawings from a book published in 1913. Author died in 1955. are these images eligible to {{PD-1923}}?OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If the book was first published in the United States and the photos and drawings were first published in that book, then yes. If the book was first published outside of the U.S. or the photos or drawings were published outside of the U.S. before having been published in that book, then no. Lupo 12:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, they are. (However, if they were first published outside of the US, they would also need another template.) -- Asclepias (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

First edition was published in UK, so I have to wait for 15 years and use {{PD-Old}}?

Yes, if the author you mentioned was the photographer/creator of the drawings. Lupo 16:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Anfänger Fehler? Bitte um Überprüfung

Hallo. Ich habe mittlerweile schon ein paar Bilder in Wikimedia hinzugefügt. Bin mir aber nicht sicher ob die von mir angegeben Angaben genügen, oder ob vielleicht ein Formfehler besteht. Ich bitte darum dass ein erfahrener User mit ggf. ein paar Tips gibt. --Blackerking (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wenn ich es richtig sehe, lädst du Fotos hoch die du selber erstellt hast. Da kann man eigentlich nicht viel falsch machen und ich kann auch keine Fehler finden. Die Kategorisierung ist auch ganz ok. Bleibt nur einige kosmetische Veränderungen zum verlinken ähnlicher Bilder, Bildern einer Serie oder Bildausschnitten - also Bilder die es wert sind als Andere Versionen (other versions) eingetragen zu werden. Du hast dich bei File:Platanusfrucht3.jpg bemüht mit:

|other_versions =http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Platanusfrucht1.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Platanusfrucht2.jpg

Schöner ist die Verwendung der <gallery>-Funktion:

<gallery>

File:Platanusfrucht1.jpg|Beschreibung

File:Platanusfrucht2.jpg|Beschreibung

</gallery>

Alternativ geht natürlich auch eine einfache Verlinkung wie du sie versucht hast, dann aber mit wikilinks. Beim Verlinken von Bildern muss man aufpassen, dass man nicht

[[File:Platanusfrucht1.jpg]]

verlinkt da dieser Link das vollständige Bild anzeigt, sondern dass man

[[:File:Platanusfrucht1.jpg]] (Beachte: Doppelpunkt vor "File")

benutzt, das ergibt dann einen Bildlink File:Platanusfrucht1.jpg. Ich persönlich bin großer Freund der Verlinkung von Serien mit der <gallery>-Funktion und verwende sie bei vielen Uploads, vergleiche File:Nshongi Gorilla Group-2, by Justin Norton.jpg für eine Serie oder File:Gnassingbe Eyadema DF-SC-84-10025.jpg für eine Verlinkung von Bildausschnitten. --Martin H. (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

1st download-Wrong!!!

I wanted to have alink to my website with the original photo but it is not there-how can I change it to include my link?

Someone will need a lot more context than that (what website? what photo are you trying to link to?) to have any chance of helping you. - Jmabel ! talk 06:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

file names

Can I change the names of image files, and if so, how? Sardaka (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

See COM:FAQ#MOVE. --  Docu  at 11:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Voortrekkers

How do I categorise the 58 files that belong in this category without having to open and edit each one? Androstachys (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Enable Cat-a-lot and then try Special:Search/File: Voortrekkers. BTW, please add a description to Category:Voortrekkers or interwikis to Wikipedia articles. --  Docu  at 11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Licensing

How do I change licensing after I've uploaded an image? If I just go to the file page and edit the licensing information manually, is that valid, since I am the uploader and the original author? If I can do that, how exactly do I do it? I mean, which lines in the wiki markup need to be changed?

Thanks for any help in advance.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As you just more or less finished uploading them, you could do that. If you decide to change the license later, you would need to choose a less restrictive one as licenses are irrevocable. --  Docu  at 12:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "Own work(All rights released) Public Domain" and "CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Declaration, all rights waived (Public Domain)" as shown in the upload licensing options? Coz basically I intended to upload in the former and did it by mistake in the latter.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference - we recommend using the latter (CC0), since it is a more specific and comprehensive release of all rights. If you're sure you wished to use the former instead, let me know and I will update your tags. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Firmenlogo zu Firmeneintrag

Hallo! Ich würde gerne zu einem Firmeneintrag auf Wikipedia ein Logo hinzufügen, aber das darf ich bei Wikimedia Commons nicht hochladen, oder? Wie soll ich vorgehen? Vielen Dank schon mal für die Hilfe! –Rischart (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Du kannst Logos auch direkt auf Wikipedia hochladen: hier klicken

Vielen Dank! –Rischart (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

uploaded file (picture) needs touch-up

Hello, I add just uploaded another picture to the article: Paul Martin (illustrator). The file is named "Collier'sSlide.jpg." It shows a boy going down a water slide with a dog. The problem is that the picture is too light and it's hard to even make out the dog. I'd like the picture to be darkened slightly or the contrast to be increased to about 40. I don't think I can do this, but, rather someone at Commons has to do the touch-up to bring "out" the picture a little more. In order words: just bringing it out a spec would be good, as I reckon the picture itself is not very distinctive. I'd do this myself, except I don't see any line saying "Upload a new version of this file," like I see on Wikipedia. It seems that once a picture is transferred to Commons, one can't upload a new version of the picture they uploaded. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Collier'sSlide.jpg. Is that out of copyright? License is clearly wrong (Australia or European Union copyrights don't matter on a U.S. work, but perhaps copyright was not renewed, I have no idea). Not a very good scan of the page, either. "Upload a new version of this file" is right there on the page, search for it there. - Jmabel ! talk 07:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, yes I realize the picture's not very good and that another one should replace it sometime. I uploaded a 4x6" color snapshot of the cover, not the actual cover itself. That could have been the problem. Still, my upload had dimensions of 263 x 370. The editor at Wikimedia who made the colors better, increased the image dimensions to 526 x 740. That might be part of the reason, for the lack of clarity. (The dimensions size was doubled, hence, the clarity went way down.) You said the licensing tag is wrong. This is a cover of Collier's from 1927. It's very similar to the cover of Collier's from 1932 in the Wikipedia article: Collier's Weekly. It list two tags. I think those then would be the correct ones. They are in double parenthesis: Non-free magazine cover and non-free 2D art. Collier's went out of business in 1957, and were not taken over. Thanks again. JimPercy (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This image, though not necessarily the other one, is PD-US-no renewal. The non-free tags can't be used at Commons; images under those tags have to be uploaded to Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant to the copyright matter if copyright wasn't renewed, but as far as "and were not taken over", it was published by Crowell Collier, which later merged into Crowell Collier Macmillan, and later (I believe) was parceled out in a few directions. So I'm sure one of those successors still owns at least any relevant trademarks. Again, that's neither here nor there on the copyright issue, but there was no need for someone to "take" over a shut publication of a continuing company. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. I should have left those five words out of my post. JimPercy (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help - I can't get emails to you

I have been repeatedly trying to send an email to you at: permissions-commonswikimedia.org to send you a letter giving me permission to use a photograph of Joseph Lennox Pawan in the article of the same name. I keep getting an error message from the server and it won't go. (I have tried short test messages to the same email address, and they won't go either. Is there another email address I can send this letter to - or do you have any other suggestions? Many thanks, Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What error message do you get? --  Docu  at 23:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You could try some other language's address: permissions-commons-dewikimedia.org - nevertheless your mail will be assigned to the correct people. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for an administrator

Please rename the file File:DSC00195.JPG to Municipal_Gallery_of_Larissa.jpg Γλαύκος (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --ZooFari 18:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

QIHelper issue

Hello! I tested this gadget earlier this day to make a nomination. Well, I should have avoided to trip in a special case where no date subtitle was there and make the nomination manually. Now, I've got the screen that one image is already selected, yeah, that's true, but it's nominated too... Is there any way to withdraw a nomination within the QInominator? Purging my browser cache and disabling and re-enabling the gadget did not help. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

QINominator keeps its state in a cookie (to preserve information when going from page to page). Find and delete the qinominator cookie. I already planned and prepared code that will be implemented in QINominator to delete accidentally selected nomination. --Dschwen (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, the cookie hint solved my issue. :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

permission for using image when no author is listed

I want to download a particular image form commos that has no author. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lightning3.jpg I want to use it as a cover on an indy music CD. What do I have to do to get permission? What do I have to do to download this image?

Thanks

It is claimed that the photo comes from the U.S.Navy, there regretably is no evidence - no link, no archival or reference numbe, etc - for this. Possibly the source information is correct and this file was created by the U.S. Navy, then a courtesy caption like "U.S.Navy photo" can be a good choice. Possibly it is not from this source. For reuse see Commons:Reuse. This file, possibly created by the U.S. Navy, is public domain as a work of an U.S. federal government employee, see Commons:Licensing and en:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the de.wikipedia source: there (in the deleted versions) was not more information. Just the claim that is from this (unspecific) website address and the license template. For some time/versions it even was "Public Domain Bild von af.mil [4]" instead of the current source.

I would not trust this if I were you. Maybe we should nominate it for deletion. But I have asked the original uploader for help. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Saibo, if it just have a location it would be possible to find the source, but without I fear it is very difficult. --Martin H. (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

...but not impossible. Found it. --Martin H. (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, great! I reset the file to the original crop and uploaded the full version under a new name. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, ich wollte auch erst auf den alten Bildausschnitt zurücksetzen, fand aber dann, dass das Bild durch den fehlenden Hell-Dunkel-Kontrast eher verliert. Ist aber gut so. --Martin H. (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ja, das neue Bild ist besser, aber du weißt doch: Reusers und so :-) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New User needs image renamed

Hi. I recently uploaded http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-decriminalization-laws3.svg with the intent of replacing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-decriminalization-laws2.svg . However, as a new user, I wasn't allowed to overwrite the name, and I was sent here to make the request. Can someone please do so? J1.grammar natz (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have really no clue why this hint of uploading under a new name is there. Very inconvenient. Just waiting for days whould be a bit easier. ;).

Done. Please add a source for this information at File talk:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-decriminalization-laws2.svg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting a file . . .

Hello, my name is Bernardo, I`m writing here because i need some help to delete a file that i upoad about 2 years ago and i don`t want it anymore in commons. Im going to upload other content but i would like to delete that file . . . If some one can help me, I`ll aprecciate it very much . . . Thanks . . ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brg9820 (talk • contribs) 2011-03-28T23:54:56 (UTC)

Hi Brg9820, licenses are generally not revocable. If you have a special reason why this file needs to go please state so in a deletion request. Use "Nominate for deletion" in the "Toolbox" on the left edge of the scree on the image's page. Or, if it is a clear reason, use {{speedy|insert your reason here}}. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Image portrait.

Hallo, I need to replace free empty image in page about czech olympic winner from London, 1948 Vera Ruzickova and put there image Verarose1.jpg (she gave me to try it), I put it on Commons. It is possible to put it into the text, but I don´t know, how to put to the frame for image. Please help or do it.

Thank you very much.

Jaroslav Dufek, a friend and admirer of this 84 year old sport legend. e-mail: jara.du@seznam.cz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.132.23 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all: File:Verarose1.jpg has some problems. Its not own work, the author is wrong. The real source and author and its not clear if the real author (photographer) published his work under a free license or not. The copyright on the image is not expired. Without having a license granted frm the real photographer you may not upload the image, see the decision tree on uploading at Commons:First steps/License selection: Picture is not old enough, you not created it yourself, author is apparently not known, author is not dead for >70 years, the owner of copyrights did not agree to a free license - conclusion: Do not upload. --Martin H. (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

what is wrong with my Fanny-gordon.jpg file and where do I edit it?

Hello, I am very new to wikimedia. I saw this notice {{PD-Poland}} on another picture and my picture falls under the same category. So I used it, but the picture is not appearing and now I don't known how to edit the picture file. I tried to re-upload it, thinking I could enter more info that way, but got a strict warning not to do it that way. Jane Peppler (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The image appears (File:Fanny-gordon.jpg). If you want only to "enter more info" (description, copyright status tag, etc.), do not reupload the file, but just edit the description page, like you did with other pages a few days ago. It is only if you want to replace the image with a modified image that you need to reupload it. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hochladen erlaubt?

Auf dieser Internetseite der Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Stiftung ist dieses Foto von Dietrich Bonhoeffer und Jean Lasserre veröffentlicht. Meine Rückfrage bei der Stiftung ergab, dass das Foto schon "ewig" dort steht und der Urheber nicht mehr ausfindig gemacht werden kann. Das Foto ist 77 Jahre alt. Der Fotograf müsste unter 7 Jahre alt gewesen sein, wenn er heute unter 70 sein sollte. Darf ich das Foto verwenden? Die Stiftung hat keine Bedenken. Dank und Gruß, Anselm Rapp (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Die Anforderung ist nicht, dass der Fotograf über 70 Jahre alt ist, sondern das er seit mehr als 70 Jahren tot ist, siehe Gesetz bzw. Artikel de:Regelschutzfrist. Natürlich ist ein Fotograf eines >70 Jahre alten Bildes >70 Jahre alt, du hast dich da etwas in der Rechnung verstrickt.

Wenn der Fotograf unbekannt sein sollte - die Anfrage bei der Stiftung ist sicher ein guter Indiz dafür - dann ist die Anforderung nicht, dass das Bild 70 Jahre alt ist sondern das es vor >70 Jahren veröffentlicht wurde.

Eines von beiden ist also erforderlich:

• Der Nachweis, dass der Urheber seit 70 Jahren tot ist ({{PD-old}}) oder
• der Nachweis, dass das Bild vor >70 Jahren ohne Angabe eines Urhebers veröffentlicht wurde und dass aus dieser und aus möglichen späteren Veröffentlichungen ein Rückschluss auf die Urheberschaft nicht möglich ist ({{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}).

--Martin H. (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Vielen Dank. Meine Rechnung ist natürlich Unsinn. Den ersten Nachweis werde ich nicht erbringen können. Den zweiten ebenfalls kaum. Gibt es einen Tipp, wie man das in Erfahrung bringen könnte? Bei der Stiftung habe ich es ja schon vergeblich versucht. (Die haben es gut, die haben das Bild auf eigene Verantwortung eingestellt und bisher keinerlei Probleme dadurch bekommen.) -- Anselm Rapp (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In dem Baustein steht (wie Martin auch schon übersetzte): "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication."

Eigentlich ist der Nachweis praktisch fast nicht zu führen (weswegen und wegen anderer Probleme damit sich beispielsweise die deutsche Wikipedia ausdrücklich nicht auf diese "anonym"-Regelung beruft). Dennoch werden hier auf Commons solche Bilder mit mir oft unzureichenden Nachweisen akzeptiert. Du solltest eben beispielsweise alte Veröffentlichungen finden, wo das Bild auch ohne Name enthalten war, aber vermutet werden kann, dass wenn er damals bekannt gewesen wäre, dass er dann erwähnt worden wäre. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

searchbox template - how to search in categories?

How do I use the searchbox template (Template:Search_box) to search in categories? i.E. root= File:StateLibQld seach for file with prefix "StateLibQld", but how do I search in Categories? i.E: incategory:Images_from_the_State_Library_of_Queensland ?

I like to use it on Category:Images_from_the_State_Library_of_Queensland because searching for prefix is not the best solution.

--Slick (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To search for images in a specific category, the below generally work, e.g. Category:Images_from_the_State_Library_of_Queensland:

or

This doesn't work well for the above category, as it's mostly transcluded through a template rather than included directly in the file description pages. One needs to search for a text on the file description pages instead, e.g. "StateLibQld":

Hope this helps. --  Docu  at 18:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That works fine, but it is not what I mean. I looking for a solution that is without a default text, so the user only need to insert the searchtext. The category must be hidden.

Like in the current searchbox in Category:Images_from_the_State_Library_of_Queensland. There the prefix is hidden (instead of the category)

--Slick (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The documentation is at mw:Extension:InputBox. If it's currently not possible, maybe Eloquence (who designed it) would add it. --  Docu  at 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Watermarks

I've searched the archives here but not finding a definitive answer...are watermarks allowed? This file, File:Carolina Chickadee1 by Dan Pancamo.jpg has the photographer's watermark in the lower left. Also, is the title of the file conforming to policies? Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The metadata (exif) shows that the copyright holder is "Dan Pancamo Photography". Is this under copyright?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It says it's under a CC-SA, so it should be under copyright. Having the name of the photographer in the filename is fine. Watermarks should generally be deleted, but we don't not load good photographs because they have watermarks, especially when they can be removed, like in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Watermarks are allowed, but we strongly discourage image creators from adding them in the first place. They will generally be removed eventually if the file is in use. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Watermarks. Btw: could you please un"style" your signature? It shouldn't act as a lighthouse. If you have a urgent need to emphasize your sig you can do so in your user css. Thanks and cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

cc-by-nc

Is there a licensing tag for the Attribution-NonCommercial copyright and can a user give permission to that for use in Wikipedia? Truthsort (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, neither Commons nor Wikipedia accept non-commercial licenses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Any media that is uploaded under CC-BY-NC or from a source indicating it is CC-BY-NC will be promptly deleted. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Link at Wikipedia directing to wrong image that shares same name

I uploaded today "File:Maruf.jpg"[5], and posted the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maruf_District. However, the image there is showing someone's portrait, despite my using the right file-name. Do I need to move the image I uploaded to "Maruf-kandahar.jpg"? How do I move it? Or is there some other step I need to take? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The file on Commons File:Maruf.jpg is a "shadow" of the en.wp file en:File:Maruf.jpg, you have to rename the file on Commons to use it in en.wp. A rename is also a good idea because "Maruf" is a meaningles name, it does not describe the photo in any way. An appropriate filename maybe is {{rename|Afghan National Police training in Maruf district, January 13 2011.jpg}}. --Martin H. (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

File:GuentherZ 2011-02-22 0839 Wien23 Promenadeweg Tafel Kinderwagenrampe.jpg + File:GuentherZ 2011-02-22 0837 Wien23 Promenadeweg Statue Johannes Nepomuk.jpg + File:GuentherZ 2011-02-22 0840 Wien23 Promenadeweg Statue Johannes Nepomuk.jpg

Drei Bilder, eine Frage: Was will man von mir? --GuentherZ (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Meinst Du das Geocoding? Das ist harmlos, es werden einfach die Geodaten (Länge, Breite) aus dem Bild gelesen und als Location-Vorlage auf die Beschreibungsseite eingebaut, damit man alle Fotos in der Umgebung auf der Karte darstellen kann. So wie hier: [6]. Frage damit beantwortet? --Morn (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Rd232 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Climates of Europe

I am not ancient on Commons. Apparently, Saguamundi has changed my map on 23-11-2011 (23:00), without explanation.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Climates_of_Europe.png&diff=51864820&oldid=49763442

I did not know that any user could change my own work. So, two possibilities :

• if it is allowed, is it possible for me to protect the media, because I don't want that any user in the world to make changes just for his personnal agenda or fantasy ?
• if it is not allowed, can this user be blocked ?

Thanks.--XL3 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is a media repository for free media. "Free" in this case means "anyone can do anything they like to the media". That's what you agreed to when you licensed your image with this license. Arguments of fact or aesthetics must be addressed user-to-user, preferably on the talk page of the image in question (File talk:Climates of Europe.png). Powers (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That said, though, a change like this, unless there is clear consensus, should almost always be uploaded under a different filename, so that both versions are readily available. - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be true if this were an update of an image to a specific point in time. But it appears that the original image was based on a particular set of data, and that there is some argument over how that data should be represented in the map. I don't think creating a new file every time such a disagreement pops up is a good idea. Powers (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I see Saguamundi altered the image to show central Anatolia as "cold semi-arid", whereas you consider it "cool-summer mediterranean". I know nothing about climate, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koppen_World_Map_BSk.png seems to support his view, so it's not totally unreasonable. For you to revert his edit and label it as "vandalism" is at least as rude as his own action. Maproom (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Rd232 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)