Commons:Help desk/Archive/2015/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I cannot access my account

I have not used my account for several yeaqrs. In the interim, the media containing my password died. I have tried using the password reset with my account name, and with all my likely email addresses. No email arrives at any of those addresses. I know I could set up another account, but the name I used is a well established name known to many. How can I recover my account?

Thanks, Miles (Roadkills-r-us)

Your name is user:Roadkills-r-us? Ruslik (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. At least, that is what I expect it to be. I thought maybe it had gone away but when I tried creating Roadkills-R-Us I was told that was too close to existing user Roadkills-r-us .
If you didn't provide an e-mail address when you signed up or you don't have access to the e-mail address you provided, then you are pretty much out of luck. Based on Special:CentralAuth/Roadkills-r-us, it looks like you have two local accounts – one on English Wikipedia and one on Commons. It looks like you only provided an e-mail address for the Commons account. You do not have a unified global account, so the passwords for these may be different. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Should the email go out immediately when I press the button and the page says it was sent? If I mention the address here can you verify whether that was it? Two of the likely addresses are gmail, but I have an older account that is normally inactive because of massive spam to that site; it is the RRU site.
As far as I know, the e-mail is sent immediately. Your e-mail address is not public. The only way anyone else would know it is if they had also provided an e-mail address and you used the "Email this user" function on their user page. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I found the original email from when I set the account up. It's the one I thought I had used. But when I disable spam prevention on that site and tell the Commons account to reset, I never see anything even hit the mail logs, much less the mailbox. Is there anywhere I could send that email to as proof I am the owner, to get the account switched to use a current address?
When you unified your account on 29 April 2013, you password and e-mail address were probably set to those from your en.wikipeda account because it is your home wiki. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
LX said above that I did not have a unified account, and that my en.wikipedia account had no email associated with it. So now I am officially confused...
Sorry about that. It seems I have no idea what I'm talking about. Let me try again: you have two local accounts, which have been unified. At that time, they had the same configured e-mail address, and since they are unified, they should have the same password. According to en:Special:EmailUser/Roadkills-r-us, your English Wikipedia account is configured not to receive email from other users. I'm not sure if this means you can't receive password reset e-mails either. Special:EmailUser/Roadkills-r-us here on Commons, however, yields a nice form for logged in users with an e-mail address of their own, so you should be receiving mails from Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I'm simply hosed if there's no other way to prove who I am or verify the email address. I have that original email from Wikimedia Commons; that should be to the correct address. If I turn off the spam filters I get lots of email immediately. but nothing from Wikimedia. I can send email from both my home system directly and from gmail. Password resets and email from wikimedia don't show up. I waited several minutes; emails from elsewhere show up at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoadkillsRUs (talk • contribs) 05:40, 3 February 2015‎ (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Polar bear in a snowstorm?

Fifth avenue after snow storm 4a12278a.tif

Does this image work for others? I mostly see a big white blank. The linked JPEG is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't display because when it was saved as a TIF it was not saved with a preview. Is there some reason you need it as a TIF? Wikimandia (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Similar problem exists here for many large TIFs. I think they are intended for downloads; not for in wiki uses. Jee 03:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
TIFF is a lossless format, and JPG etc. are not. The bug is in the MediaWiki thumbnail generator, in the same way that large GIFs no longer previously did not generate thumbnails. There is value in keeping the TIFF for reference as it constitutes the full image and this one is also of very high resolution, and there should be no need to use any other format, as MediaWiki should generate a thumbnail for when the image is displayed in articles. As thumbnails of TIFF are in JPG anyway so there should be no extra demands placed on the server. CFCF (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
JFTR here, I've linked the JPEG as "thumb" on the TIFF with {{LargeTIFF}}, and in the other direction with {{Compressed version}}. This results in a clear info on the page and puts the TIFF in a tracking category. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploading a collage

I made a collage of Tulsa, but it keeps getting deleted because I'm not doing something right. There are six total pictures. Two of the pictures are mine, but the other 4 are off the internet. I researched all the websites that I got the four pictures from and they said nothing about copyright. How can I upload this with out it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkpullia (talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Saying nothing" about copyright means you have to assume they are copyrighted. You have to demonstrate that there is no copyright (eg they owned by US government and thus in public domain) or that the copyright has expired (eg photos are 100 years old). Wikimandia (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
And see Commons:Collages too. Jee 03:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Camouflage OTAN Edition.jpg

Hi, those pictures I uploaded have a Permisiom by Steffen Lekies I call him to ask about it, and He said yes. What more I need to keep this pictures up? Thanks --186.177.70.122 07:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, there are two points in play here. The first is that if you upload the work of another, which isn't explicitly released under a free licence, you should follow the procedures at COM:OTRS, and get the copyright holder to release the image under a free licence. However, I think that that image is a derivative work of a copyrighted design (in my eyes the camouflage MTV logo probably passes the threshold of originality, but being an Australian, I think I may hold the bar too low sometimes). So, my advice would be to follow the COM:OTRS procedures and ask at for a second (more learned) opinion on the possible derivative issue at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I hope this helps. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Request user KTC adds artist information to images please

Hi - please could you contact user KTC regarding image File:ZSL London - Tiger going for a swim sculpture (01).jpg I am the sculptor of this work and previously asked if KTC could credit my name and relative information - which she kindly did. There are also images 02, 03 and 04 of the same title. Please could you ask her if she could update these as well. Many thanks Christy Symington MRBS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christysym (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Hi @Christysym: , I've updated the information, copying it from File:ZSL London - Tiger going for a swim sculpture (01).jpg. Please check if that's OK:
--El Grafo (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC) (pinging User:KTC FYI.)
Hi, It was not KTC who "kindly did" [1] . You never replied to the answers that were given to you the first time. You can still read them : Commons:Help desk/Archive/2014/12#adding the name of a sculptor to the image of the sculpture added by another author. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Asclepias & El Grafo who added the requested information, and El Grafo for the ping as otherwise I would never had seen this thread as with last time, the help desk not being a place I keep an eye on. -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

paintings and prints

Hi. I own an original artwork by Erich Buttner [Buettner], made in 1909. I would like to upload a photo of it that I have taken myself, to the Wikimedia page that has a few images of Buettner's works, and the Wikipedia page about him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_B%C3%BCttner_%28painter%29). Is this allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2MLCWD (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the author. Büttner was German and died in 1936, so his works should be in the public domain in Germany. Commons also requires the work to be free in the United States. (This has historically been poorly enforced; it looks like all the files in Category:Erich Büttner are missing a public domain rationale for the US.) US copyright is more complicated and generally depends on when the work was first published. Note that exhibition of the painting does not constitute publication according to US copyright law; only the distribution or public display of copies of the work counts. If copies of the painting was published before 1923, or if it was unpublished before 2003, it should be in the public domain in the United States as well. Finally, it is good practice to explicitly state that you do not claim any copyright in the photographic reproduction of the painting. The copyright tag to use (assuming pre-1923 publication) would be something like {{Licensed-PD-Art-two|PD-old-75|PD-1923|cc-zero}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Exhibition of the painting could constitute publication at the time of the question; American Tobacco Co. vs Werckmeister 207 U.S. 284 (12-2-1907)[2] says
And that author instances as one of the occasions that does not amount to a general publication the exhibition of a work of art at a public exhibition where there are by-laws against copies, or where it is tacitly understood that no copying shall take place, and the public are admitted to view the painting on the implied understanding that no improper advantage will be taken of the privilege. ... We do not mean to say that the public exhibition of a painting or statue, where all might see and freely copy it, might not amount to publication within the statute, regardless of the artist's purpose or notice of reservation of rights which he takes no measure to protect. But such is not the present case, where the greatest care was taken to prevent copying.
That's incredibly hard to prove at this point, unfortunately.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Half of image suddenly monochrome gray

I'm talking about images like this File:Mochila.jpg. I believe this happens when transfer gets interrupted/corrupted somehow. Is there any process that should be followed or just mark (old) such images for deletion? Palosirkka (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's apparently an aborted upload, somehow accepted as finished. No older version to revert, nothing for a new upload attempt, and a user last seen over four years ago, all you can do is to put a {{speedydelete|upload failure}} or similar on it. The image is of course unused (as far as we can see it), and has no categories (not counting the red cat). No reason in sight to keep it. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use

I uploaded two photos as own work that were screen captures, and have since requested deletion of these two images. Can you explain the "Fair Use" exemption that is used on the Wikipedia page for "Jan Smithers"? I had intended to update the photos in the article, but don't want to run afoul by mislabeling the photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyReb67 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I assume by Wikipedia, you mean English Wikipedia, and consequently the article en:Jan Smithers and the image en:File:WKRP Bailey and Andy.jpg. If you have questions about English Wikipedia's fair use guidelines and policies, you're probably better off asking on that site, for example at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Here on Commons, fair use content is not allowed. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm too lazy to look into your example, but some lines above you can see my example for #Dorothee_Pullinger_picture on w:en:Dorothee_Pullinger with the "fair use" blurb on w:en:File:Pullinger-150x150.jpg. It takes an hour to get this in shape for review, i.e., an admin will check your "fair use" reasons. Only for the English wikipedia, other wikis have other rules, many like commons (here) allow no "fair use" uploads at all. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I contact a specific administrator for undeletion?

My page has been blocked and nominated for deletion. How do I contact a specific administrator and discuss this deletion request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NupurPathak (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You can make your arguments here. Jee 05:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
All users including you, me, administrators, and bots have talk pages. So if you want to contact User:example you can edit User talk:example. To find the name example check the edit history or log, e.g., for a deleted file the administrator who eventually deleted the file is shown in the log. If the deletion was the result of a (closed) deletion request this is typically linked in the log, and there you can check the reason as explained by Jee. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My Own Photo Was Deleted

Hello Commons

I uploaded a photo that I took showing defective spark plugs and it was deleted saying that I was spamming. I'm not sure even after reading tons of information how to prove its my original photo.

Any help is appreciated

Mark Hank White — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMHank (talk • contribs)

  • The source page http://www.bumpupmymileage.com/ways-to-increase-gas-mileage.html says "Copyright © 2013-2015 BumpUpMyMileage.com All Rights Reserved". If it's your work there, there's a contradiction in saying "all rights reserved" in one place and placing the photo in the public domain in the other (CC-0). If you are the photographer and your intent really is to place the work in the public domain, see COM:OTRS about what we'd need. Ideally, email would come from an address associated with that site. We tend to take a lot more precaution with images that are already on line elsewhere, because it's so easy for someone other than the photographer to simply upload it here and claim the work as their own. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-usage of reviewed and appropriately licensed file

Hello! Why is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sophie_Hunter.jpg not being used at all as headshot for Sophie Hunter's page? It's properly reviewed and appropriately licensed. It is such a waste of free media to improve a page. ByPeopleLikeYou (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. This is entirely an issue on the English-language Wikipedia. Commons hosts the photo, but has no control over where it is used.
  2. I'd suggest you ask en:User:Lady Lotus, who appears to be the person who removed the photo from the article, according to the article history and this diff. - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploading film poster

Hi, I'd like to upload a film poster that has just been released. I found it on Joblo[dot]com and I'm not sure about the author and the release rights, though obviously the image is allowed for use. What options should I select when uploading the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitriamirrol (talk • contribs) 03:52, 5 February 2015‎ (UTC)

You should not upload it here at all because you don't own the copyright. See COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Lupo 05:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect jpeg file name.

I've recently uploaded my first contribution to Wikimedia commons, a photograph of a fly. Unfortunately I misidentified that fly and as a result the jpeg file name is incorrect. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Helophilus_seelandicus.jpg I've corrected the information concerning the photograph to include the fly's correct name Helophilus antipodus but was wondering what steps I could take to amend the jpeg filename. Is it a situation where the file should be deleted and I reload the image with the correction?--Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ambrosia10, thank you for your contribution. If a file has the wrong name, you can request a rename by using {{Rename}}, together with one of the the file renaming criteria. I have moved the file to the name you have given in the information. Green Giant (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:36cf timeandtrauma.jpg

I am having trouble attaching a cd cover to the page I made for the band 36 crazyfists new cd entitled time and trauma I got the image from Amazon.com can you please help me add the image

--Karmakage (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Karmakage.
First things first: The cover you uploaded here has been deleted, because here at Wikimedia Commons we do not accept copyrighted "fair-use" uploads. Instead, please upload it to the English Wikipedia under its fair-use policy (it should be at a low resolution, around 300 by 300 pixels).
After that, edit the article and find the code | Cover =. Add the name of the cover (without "File:") to the end. For example:
| Cover = 36CF Time and Trauma.jpg
Actually... I've done all this for you. But please keep this in mind for the future. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

disappearing files

Hi,

When logged in, and I visit this category, I can see all eight files I uploaded. If I then immediately log out and return to the page, I still see them.

But when I clear my cache and return to the page, all but one have disappeared, and furthermore the parent category doesn't list the subcategory anymore.

What is going on?

Neuroxic (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

See Special:ListFiles/Neuroxic. The permission is not enough. Jee 03:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Unfortunately even with the permissions now in order the same problem still occurs. Neuroxic (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see any issues. Wait; someone else will assist you. Jee 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This problem is very strange: I removed the category tag from the single photo that was appearing on its own when I logged out.

When logged in, this photo wasn't listed in the category, as expected. But, when I returned to the category page, after logging out and clearing all data from the broswer, the photo was still there! I have no idea what's going on. Neuroxic (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an option "more > purge" at top right of every pages to clear the cache memory. Jee 11:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate maps of Shanghai

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Inaccurate_maps_of_Shanghai

I have a question. What are all these "inaccurate" maps of Shanghai doing here? In what way are they "inaccurate"? I suppose the inaccuracies are fairly serious since they "should not be cross-categorized or used in other projects". But why are there so many of them? If all of them are so seriously inaccurate then why not delete them?CurtisNaito (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Ah! Sorry you guys. Quite right I should have included a link at the top of the page. I also thought I'd mentioned it somewhere but maybe I finished moving most of the maps and had forgotten to get back around to it. In any case, compare those maps with this Google map image or, if that doesn't work, y'know, go look at Google maps and compare. Should be pretty clear.
    a) As mentioned at the link, almost all of our maps of Shanghai fail to account for two largish exclaves of Jiangsu on Chongming Island: Haiyong and Qilong. The colors should be changed to address the issue.
    In addition: b1) the borders of Chongming and other islands have altered since those maps were created, significantly enough that they need reshaping.
    b2) The island northeast of Chongming Island on most of those maps doesn't exist. (It merged to Chongming decades ago).
    b3) Almost all of our maps of Shanghai fail to include Jiuduansha which is now at least as large as Hengsha which we include.
    c) Even better if whoever was doing the edits could include a bit of bathyometry—like 1 or 2, though those aren't completely current—to show future development and make things easier for future editors.
    We could delete the white knob series of maps by Fanghong. They're pretty awful. Those others are our main maps for Shanghai: we can't delete them until we've got replacements. Easier to just upload the corrected files over the old ones. Our maps of Shanghai show up fairly low in the Google ranks if you just search for maps of Shanghai, but these district series are some of the main images people find when they're looking for info in English. We should be presenting maps that aren't 20-3040+ years out of date. - LlywelynII (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • d) Oh, there are some misc. problems as well: the maps of Shanghai's southeast corner inexplicably place an enclosed lake in the middle of the East China Sea. They forgot to finish shading in the shoreline or sth. It's inaccurate but is helpful for mocking up an improved version.LlywelynII (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Replace an outdated logo on a company info page

How can I replace an outdated logo on a company info page? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truemoss (talk • contribs)

  • Probably not a Commons issue, unless the new logo is not subject to copyright. If you click through on the image in the page you mention, you'll see at en:File:Proetheanlogo.png that this has a non-free use rationale (which is allowed on the English-language Wikipedia, but not on Commons). Near the bottom of that page is a link labeled "Upload a new version of this file": use that to upload a new version. Remember to stick with something relatively low-resolution, because for non-free use we try to use only what we must. - Jmabel ! talk 00:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: The original file - with miss-spelled name that was uploaded in 2010 is listed as "current" and "irreplaceable". There is no link labeled "Upload a new version of this file" as you described. What now? Truemoss ! talk

(Fixed the link in Jmabel's response – I hope that's OK.) Again, this is an English Wikipedia matter, not a Commons matter, but the reason you don't see that link is that you are not autoconfirmed at that project. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

images raster with svg annotions

old file as template
my new image

hello,

What font should I use for svg images?

I was trying to create an raster image with svg annotations, but for some reason the mediawiki didn't show my font. I use inkscape and the font liberation sans regular. I would be really happy, if somebody could help me.

cheers immanuel

I found the solution, I rewrited the labels again and it worked --Ims (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

:This section was archived on a request by: Some days ago w:Liberation fonts were recommended for the purposes of Help:SVG on its talk page, and in fact your problem was not this font.:-) –Be..anyone (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Repairing a bad PDF

Bonjour, j'ai réussi à télécharger mon Inventaire des Comparaisons1.PDF, mais l'aperçu n'est pas lisible sur le serveur car mon fichier à l'origine était endommagé. Il faudrait réparer ce fichier. Cela vous serait-il possible ? En vous zemerciant d'avance. Il s'agit des locutions comparatives de la lettre A à la lettre O, en français et ce sont des scans. Majella Bellanger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majella Bellanger (talk • contribs)

Deletion of Armorial Flag of Adelaide

I added a copy of the Armorial Flag of Adelaide to Wikipedia and the page and section List of Australian flags#Cities and areas. The website that I found this image on stated that it could be used freely as long as he author and the website were references, which they were. Is there any way that this version of the flag that I have uploaded can be kept and not be deleted? Or do I have to create my own and upload it? (which would be a bit hard as I have little to no artistic skills or appropriate computer software) Please help as I'm a bit unsure as what I should do. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As I read the explanation in the deletion log, the original image is also under prohibitions against commercial and derivative uses, both of which have to be allowed for an image to be considered “free“ here, so the problem wasn’t with the attribution. You might be able to upload it to Wikipedia directly under a fair use rationale: have a careful read of the relevant guidelines to be sure it qualifies. Or you could submit a request at the Graphics Lab for a free version to be created. If this is the flag in question, I think it could be assembled from free elements pretty easily. (I’d offer to do it myself, but I already have a backlog of unfulfilled promises.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Missing permission for files that I uploaded

Hi, back in 2006 I uploaded two files, File:Tanjong Pagar railway station.jpg and File:Welcome sign at Tanjong Pagar.jpg. I asked for permission from the author via email. However, due to my limited understanding of Commons policy and licensing at that time, I did not ensure that the author explicitly licensed them under GFDL. Indeed, questions were raised when I sent in the email reply from the author to OTRS, but the issue was never resolved. And the two files slipped under the radar for over 8 years now. Right now I am trying to right this wrong, so I have sent an email to the author to request him to explicitly license the files. In the meanwhile, should I tag the files for deletion, missing permission, etc.? --Joshua (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I haven't gotten any reply from the author (let alone an email to OTRS), it seems that {{No permission since}} is more appropriate in my case. I have tagged my uploads as such. --Joshua (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I processed Ticket:2006091710005276. We accept forwarded mail too in limited occasions. Anyway I CC to the author too. If we get a negative reply, we can take it down. Jee 03:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
On a second though, I see the restriction "as long i know where it will be used" is not acceptable. So asked for a better permission. Jee 06:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
DR started. Jee 04:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Files for Alan Turing and The Imitation Game articles

Those are 3 files I wish to upload to Wiki to use in articles about Turing - Morcom at Sherborne., Turing at Sherborne and Turing as a baby boy. (Morcom was his first love). So which one of those 3 files is possible to upload and use in Wiki? P. S. The first two of the mentioned files have been uplodad and used in Wiki, but they were removed becuase the user who uploaded them was a sock puppet (that was the only reason). Please help me. Thanks in advance. Миша Карелин (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

In terms of Commons, possibly none of them: I can't see from those sources how we would know who took them, and since even the oldest dates from the 1910s, the photographer could have been born as late as 1890 or so, and therefore might well have lived into the 1970s or '80s, so copyright might well persist for several more decades. If you can show that the work was truly anonymous (as against we just don't know the author) then these could be out of copyright; it would depend on their publication history, though, which can be hard to work out. See Commons:Anonymous works#United Kingdom. It looks likely to me these won't be public domain until 2039. Someone at Commons:Village pump/Copyright might have something to add to that; it's usually the strongest venue on Commons for copyright expertise. I'm clueful, but not expert.
Assuming your interest is the English-language wikipedia (rules are different for each language; each is a separate project) my recommendation would be to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free and see if the way you intend to use them meets those criteria. If it does, then you would upload using en:Template:Non-free use rationale instead of the usual {{Information}} template. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks for your respond. Be informed that those two files have been uploded in wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Turing_at_Sherborne.jpg) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Christopher_Morcom_at_Sherborne.jpg). But they have been deleted - the only cause is the personal problems with the user, who uploaded the files. So, what can we do now? Миша Карелин (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Those files were uploaded to, and deleted from, English Wikipedia, not Commons. Unless we can prove them to be freely licneced or in the public domain we cannot host them at Commons. I would suggest posting to the talk page of the ENWP admin who deleted them, and asking what licencing and sourcing information they contained; that information will position us better to making an assessment on their suitability for Commons, or whether they can be used under fair use provisions at ENWP. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

video download problem

Hi

I'm trying to download a couple of videos of which this is one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ZenkerSchraeg.gif I only get the option to save it as an image and it doesn't play. What do I need to do to save it as video?

Thanks

Vivien — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.31.157.202 (talk • contribs)

  • Hi, the file you have linked is not a video, but an animated gif file. As long as it is downloading (which I suspect it is), your problem is with opening it. Although this is outside of the purview of Commons, I can give a few hints. Firstly, try to open the file in a browser, that generally works. If, however, you want to open the file in another application you can probably find a free one at sourceforge.net (a collection of open source software). However, we will likely be unable to render any assistance with using software downloaded from sourceforge.net. May I ask how you wish to use the file? ColonialGrid (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm wanting to use it as part of a Powerpoint presentation for teaching on Tuesday. (I'm an anatomy teacher) The Wifi in the room that I work in is not necessarily that reliable, so I'm trying to put it onto my own hard drive. I can get it to play in a browser, but when I download it, I only get an image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎92.31.157.202 (talk • contribs)

  • It may not work properly in PowerPoint, but, you should still be able to open the downloaded file in a browser from your computer. The simplest way to do this is to 'drop' the file into a browser window (click and drag it from the explorer window into the browser), otherwise try opening it from Firefox's 'File' menu's 'Open File' option (sorry, I don't use IE or Chrome enough to know how to). ColonialGrid (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks

¿Pictures I took violate copyright?

I have uploaded 2 pictures I took myself and these were speedy deleted for copyright violation, here is the problem it contained images of products that are considered "free to use" in other cases, I have for example uploaded an image from Flickr that somehow do pass, I have uploaded pictures I took and then they are deleted because "everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here" and it states that I would be blocked if I would do this persistent ¿so I could be blocked from persistently trying to upload content I upload to be freely used by anyone? I intended them for Wikipedia articles but they got deleted without notice, if anyone can please explain how my own work somehow violates copyright (as having a Windows Phone application in a picture you made yourself isn't viewed as a copyright violation here either). Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you take a photo of someone else's copyrighted work, then the resulting photo is not your own work. It's a derivative of the original work and cannot be used or licensed without the consent of the copyright holder of the original. A user interface or icons on a screen may or may not be eligible for copyright protection depending on the originality of its design. The user interface elements that can be seen in File:Lumia 820.jpg are just plain text and simple geometric shapes (like an arrow), so they're most likely ineligible for copyright protection. That said, you can probably find lots other photos that are as problematic as the deleted ones, but since there is no systematic reviewing of everything that gets uploaded here, the fact that "other stuff exists" which also violates the rules is not much of an excuse. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Ted Harbert.jpg has been copied of the internet and should be deleted.

The photo File:Ted Harbert.jpg has been copied of the internet and should be deleted.--Wikswik (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That file was reviewed in June 2007 by an administrator and found to have a free licence; indeed, the stated source image is still available under CC-BY-2.0. Where exactly do you think our image (or that one) was copied from? Are you sure it was there as of January 2007, when ours was uploaded, or could it have been copied from here?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:Ted Harbert.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Corrected missing essential source information

Hello, an image I uploaded was flagged for having missing source information. I fixed this and just want to check that everything looks good and that the image won't be deleted. Thanks! Link: Daniel Riddle performing live August 22 2009.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthesia930 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Yes, you can remove the no source tag and reset the flickrreview template. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe I properly removed the no source tag but I'm not sure how to do anything about the "flickrreview template", sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthesia930 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 February 2015‎ (UTC)
It is the reinsertion of the template "flickrreview" as it was in the first version of the page. That is to request that the flickrreview bot checks the corrected source. I did it. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Asclepias -- Synesthesia930 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Józef Montwiłł.jpg

I uploaded edited version of the file twice. There is old version of the file in Russian Wiki still now (ru:Монтвилл, Юзеф), but the corrected version have been appeared in English Wiki immediately (en:Józef Montwiłł) and in Lithuanian Wiki (lt:Juozapas Montvila) one day later. What does it mean? How could I correct this mistake in Russian Wiki? Thank you in advance. Hunu (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the servers are slow to catch up. Have you tried purging the ruWP page? (There are gadgets for that, or you can start to edit, change “action=edit” in the URL to “action=purge“ and press Return.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Woning van de Genestet te Rozendaal 1862 Alexander Ver Huell.pdf

Ik heb een kopie-tekening uit 1862 van Alexander Ver Huell geuploaded. Blijkbaar geeft dit problemen. Wat doe ik fout? Ik heb tekeningen (kopieen) uit de 19de eeuw ingescand en vervolgens 1 daarvan geupload. Haagschebluf (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Proof of license for upload of a file not made by myself

Regarding the photo at the head of this press release from the University of Rochester, I got the permission to upload the file using a CC-BY-SA license by the original author (and naming him as the author, of course). This was by e-mail correspondence. Do I have to submit this correspondence to any special Wikimedia address as the proof of license, and how to proceed then? -- Karl432 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Dubious claim of "own work"

The file File:Salim Ali Salam with King Faisal I of Iraq in Richmond Park in London in 1925, along with Salim's son Saeb and daughters Anbara and Rasha..jpg is purportedly "own work", though taken in 1925. May I ask for advice please on how to follow up this implausible claim? Tim riley (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The uploader probably scanned the old photo - this is quite a common error. Ruslik (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You could contact the uploader to ask them to clarify the actual source. The picture is old enough that there is a fair chance it is public domain, though it also could imaginably be a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 05:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tim! Well spotted! The first step is to look at the uploader's other contributions. You'll find a link in the "File history" section as well as in the file description's history. You can also look at the user's log (linked from the contributions page) to see if they have any deleted uploads (none at this time in this case).
It looks like this is a systematic issue with their uploads. Therefore, it makes more sense to deal with them collectively rather than one by one. As noted, you could ask the uploader for clarification, but unless you remember to follow up on it, chances are that your questions just go ignored and we end up hosting files with (in my opinion) obviously incorrect source and authorship claims indefinitely. It might seem drastic, but the only effective way to ensure that doesn't happen is to nominate the files for deletion.
Instructions for how to nominate multiple files for deletion at once are at Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. Doing it manually is quite a bit of work. I recommend installing VisualFileChange.js.
I came across a similar case recently, which resulted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rn3akk. Unfortunately, most of the files ended up being deleted rather than corrected (and I have concerns about the lack of evidence supporting the PD rationale for the file that was kept, but I won't renominate it). That's not unusual. For works like this, it's often pretty difficult to establish whether or not they really are in the public domain. Works that have been unpublished until recently can remain protected for a surprisingly long time even if they were created a long time ago. In this case, the language barrier may have played a role too. But there's always the chance that the uploader provides the necessary details to restore the files. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you to the editors who have contributed guidance, above. I'll digest the advice and then press on. Tim riley (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Shanghai International Debutante Ball 1.jpg

The photo File:Shanghai International Debutante Ball 1.jpg has been copied from a magazine and should be deleted.--Jjmillsmills (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Jjmillsmills, could you give more details? When was this image published and in which magazine? Is it online or a print magazine? Green Giant (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
EXIF information looks roughly correct. Is it possible that the user who uploaded it also put it in a magazine, which is perfectly OK? Have you contacted the uploader? - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for OTRS on own work

I have been asked to send proof of permissiion for my own work at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Damien-Lewis-Berlinale-Opening-Queen-of-the-Desert-20150206.jpg. However, I do not really understand why. Do you need an email for each and every photo that I intend to upload? I was being asked for a license on uploading the picture where I already stated the type of license. Please clarify for me. Thanks Tuluqaruk (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You should only need to do this once. If you verify who you are through OTRS, that can be considered on record for all images you upload under your current account and declare as yours, it would not even be necessary to add OTRS tickets to your images as you could mention on your user page that you are using a verified account. You could also skip OTRS and point to a verifiable website elsewhere, should you have an established alternative site for your photos (such as a well established Flickrstream). --Fæ (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's very common for people to upload other people's work along with a license that they have absolutely no right to issue, so sometimes, extra checks are called for in order to protect uploaders who don't know any better, the integrity of the project, and reusers. Copyright violations are more common for subjects that are of interest to a lot of people but that few get a chance to cover. Close-up photos of celebrities are a prime example of that. Photos that are of low resolution, are missing metadata, and have been previously published elsewhere are additional red flags. In this case, your initial upload probably just met a few too many of these criteria, and that's probably why 1989 asked you to send additional verification via e-mail. I'm not sure that would have happened if you'd uploaded the full resolution version with intact metadata first. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
See above: when users with very few uploads upload portraits of celebrities people around here easily get suspicious, because experience has shown that they are often not aware of copyright rules and just upload things they found on the web. Because of that, we are sometimes a bit too quick with the trigger, assuming copyright violations where there aren't any. We're all human, and since the pile of new images to review is huge, sometimes mistakes happen. To answer your question: No, you don't have to send a permission for each and every photo you upload, and in my opinion this isn't necessary for this specific one either (at least when we're talking about the second version). Follow up: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damian-Lewis-Berlinale-Opening-Queen-of-the-Desert-20150206.jpg. Everything's gonna be fine. --El Grafo (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, understood and noted. Thanks for clarification. 46.114.153.104 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Why have I been logged out again? :-) Tuluqaruk (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Un-Delete photo

Hello everyone, a photo that I uploaded from flickr (File:Mercedes w06.jpg), was deleted because it did not have a proper licence. I now have contacted the owner and he changed the licence (see here: [3]). How can the image be reinstated? Thank you in advance! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You can submit a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. Ruslik (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Accessing the history of images migrated from wikipedia

Hi, This image was very likely photographed by Doniv79 on Wikipedia and migrated to Commons. However, here it is being attributed to a user named Sandrog. The history ends with Sandrog's upload on Commons but very likely first existed on the English Wikipedia. Is there any way I can find out who the correct author is without having to resort to contacting either of them? Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What I can see from the publicly visible information is that en:User:Doniv79 uploaded a file by the same name with a strikingly similar file description to English Wikipedia in 2006. Have a look at the user's log on English Wikipedia as well as the file's log. Looking at the contributions of both user's, I'd say your hypothesis is most likely correct. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Cpt.a.haddock: The file is used on en:User:Doniv79, and it has been there since well before it was uploaded to commons, using the same file name (which is good, since we need the original file name at Wikipedia). You would need someone with administrator rights at en.wikipedia (a local admin or possibly a steward) to have a look at the deleted versions of en:File:Sakyamuni_Buddha.jpg. en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard looks like the right place for this. --El Grafo (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment in the file's log provided by LX above specifies CSD I8 as a reason, which back then meant "Images available as bit-for-bit identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons". So I guess with all that information combined we can forget about what I wrote about admins and stewards and safely assume that Doniv79 is in fact the original uploader. --El Grafo (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@El Grafo: , Thanks. I've fixed the credits accordingly. Thanks to you too, LX :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Cpt.a.haddock, thanks belong to you for digging this out in the first place. --El Grafo (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I second that. And for fixing up the file description. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Screenshots of Scratch

Hi, recently my account was blocked after uploading some screenshots of Scratch. I uploaded these screenshots because in the of use I found the following sentence: "Commercial use of Scratch, user-generated content, and support materials is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license." I'm I correct that the Creative Commons part allows uploading these screenshots? I also saw a lot of Scratch screenshots on Wikimedia Commons. See the following link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Scratch_(programming_language). Is there a way to get the screenshots re-uploaded again? How should I do this? Timboliu (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The place to take it up would be Commons:Deletion review, but I'm not sure I follow your rationale. This is essentially saying that the language itself and things created with it can be used commercially, but presumably the actual content our output of anyone's particular programming would be copyrighted by that coder, no? - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jmabel, thanks for your reaction. I think that screenshots of the Scratch platform are allowed. But when somebody creates something in Scratch that content is copyrighted, and I should ask for permission. Do you agree? Timboliu (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and similarly if you simply show their code. - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My undeletion request was denied (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#Scratch_screenshots). I sent a mail to help@scratch.mit.edu if it's possible to change the use of terms so the Wikimedia Community can use screenshots of ScratchTimboliu (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What does DR notice mean

I'm sorry if this is mentioned somewhere in help or project pages, but I didn't find it. OgreBOT collects uploads by new users (I'm the one from many others) and many of them have a grey note User has a DR notice. What does it mean? I could not find it anywhere at Commons…

Also the bot knows who has been warned about copyright violations. I'm asking if this note is permanent or will be omitted after some time? — Polda18 (talk page • contributions) 18:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, "DR" is used as abbreviation for "Deletion request". Commons:DR. So, I guess the bot notes the presence of DR tags. For details about the bot and how long it keeps those notes, you could ask its owner, Magog the Ogre. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Polda18: The bot will list your uploads until you have 150 of them, and then it stops keeping track. You are now at 168, FWIW. Anyway, this only serves to help Commons users to locate new problematic files, which are disproportionately uploaded by new users. No automatic deletions or blacklisting or anything. If you don't upload any problematic files, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Most users don't, even though their images end up in its galleries. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Okay, thank you for the feedback. Since I was twiced warned about copyright violations, with the four last photos my name has the red note about the warns. I would not want anyone think that I break any copyright laws, only two files were flagged as violation which one was saved against deletion (not sure how long for). Since this I won't upload any fair use material, when it's forbidden here. Altough, the last four photos (the ones with cross) will be used later in czech article about small village in Czech Republic, Hostovice, part of Ústí nad Labem, general city of Ústí district. Just to clarify it's not only to brag about the ability of taking photos here, but to have prepared material for expanding the article… — Polda18 (talk page • contributions) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo permission

I would upload a photo by a photographer, from whom I have a permisson for free license: Copyleft Free Art License 1.3. I have send the permission to permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org -no answer yet. Does anyone know, if the e-mail still work? AmSteam (talk) 14 February 2015

The email system is still working but has been extremely backlogged since Christmas. Ask the photographer to send an email too using the sample at COM:ET, and when they confirm it has been sent, upload the photo and add the {{OTRS pending}} template in the description page, preferably in the Permissions line. That will give you a thirty day window for the email to be confirmed. Green Giant (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Upload file link missing

Am not seeing this in my list of links. If I wanted to upload a new version of a present file, that link is listed on the page and working, but nothing to upload a new file. Help, please. We hope (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Our Help center link is also gone, along with quite a few others. There's Help link but it now goes to MediaWiki. We hope (talk)
Seems to be a cache issue (varnish). I purged the sidebar, all link should be back now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
All's working again-Thanks! :) We hope (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Old Japanese postcard of Goryokaku

I'm in the middle of translating w:ja:五稜郭 to expand w:en:Goryōkaku, and I have a question about one of the files in it. The file, w:ja:File:五稜郭本陣.jpg, is uploaded locally to Japanese Wikipedia, rather than being on Commons. I want to move it to Commons so that I can use it in the translated article, but I'm unsure of the copyright status. It was uploaded in 2005 by w:ja:User:上田隼人, and the licence was given as, "Public domain: postcard sold before the war (possessed by the uploader)." The war in this case refers to the Battle of Hakodate, and in the 五稜郭 article it says the photo was taken in 1868. However, the photographer is apparently unknown. Is this photo eligible for Commons, even though we don't know who took it? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes; Japanese photographs published before 1957 are out of copyright in Japan, and those published before 1946 are also out of copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply! I'll go and upload it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Duh, and now I find that it is already on Commons, under the name File:GoryokakuMainHall.jpg. Thank you for your help anyway, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

supprimer un fichier sexual

salut je suis tarikan un utilisateur de wikipedia

mon problem est :

j'ai besoin de supprimer un fichier vidéo qui contient de contenu sexuel et ce n'ai pas mon propre travail

merci de me répondes prochainement svp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarikan (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 February 2015‎ (UTC)

✓ Terminé. Se il vous plaît être plus prudent à l'avenir. Green Giant (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Concordia Academy logo.gif

I'm not sure what the copyright on this image is. I've seen other schools' logos uploaded without any problem taken directly from the school's website, so I don't know what the proper copyright is.

--FROZYO! (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Converted to ordinary deletion request, please add one or two appropriate categories. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

odd question

Is it possible to make a page related to an editathon my school is having on 4, 5, and 6 March? Commons does not have the equivalent of an education extension and a group of participants will be working on uploading donated images for part or all of that time (depends on how many images we get from those who have committed to doing so). I need a place for students to register their usernames and what they have done (Ill be dividing the photos into small batches) so we can monitor progress and make sure no one tries to do something already done. Appreciate any help!Thelmadatter (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If you plan to submit this page for deletion after the event, and you state this on the page, then it should IMO be perfectly okay to use a project page COM:your topic or a help page Help:your topic. After all you are entitled to start a new "commons project" with its own page(s). JFTR, of course not daily, not with "out of scope" external link spam, no crackpot theories disguised as original research, the works. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Kinchega National Park

By accident I made a page Kinchega National Park instead of Category:Kinchega National Park. How to remove Kinchega National Park? Hobbema (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to delete it. You can user it as a gallery. Ruslik (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It has now been deleted as empty.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Mamiko Noto at Taiwan

Please help deleting File:Mamiko Noto at Taiwan01.JPG to File:Mamiko Noto at Taiwan12.JPG in Category:Mamiko Noto, all those come from Taiwan news. RalfX (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done All images from this account in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 巴哈姆特電玩資訊站. Yann (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Special:Contributions/陳建弘, the User is extremely possibly zh:WP:KAGE (en) = User:巴哈姆特電玩資訊站. RalfX (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

All photos in Category:Marina Inoue by Sega_Chen (talk · contribs) are from here.RalfX (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Marina Inoue.jpg comes from here. And en/es/ko/pl/zhwiki added by zh:WP:KAGE. --RalfX (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The two images I uploaded were about Selena Quintanilla's homicide

I wrote both articles and the copyright no longer applies. Kindly restore the two images. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.63.4 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 February 2015‎ (UTC)

As in en:Selena, who was murdered in 1995? It's extremely unlikely that the copyright for any work related to someone who lived that recently would have expired. In any case, this is the wrong place to request undeletion. The correct place is Commons:Undeletion requests. Be sure to follow the instructions there, including:
  • Identifying the files in question
  • Providing a reason as to why the copyright has supposedly expired
  • Logging in and signing your request
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

HotCat question

When I use HotCat to add categories to images I'm just uploading, I can select multiple categories one after another, and only upload the image when I'm done selecting.

However, when I use HotCat to add categories to images that already exist, Commons insists on actually editing the page after every single category change. This creates needless edits. Is there a way to select multiple categories for an existing image and only actually edit the page when I'm done? I know I can always edit the page source text directly, but that would mean I wouldn't have access to HotCat's way of automatically finding existing categories for me. JIP (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Try the two pluses after the word "Categories" i.e. (++), although the second plus is superscript. Click it, change the various categories, then click the save button that will have replaced the two pluses. That will open the editing window together with a pre-filled edit summary. Click the Save_page button and you should be done. Green Giant (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) A couple of workarounds:
  • When editing a category with the (±) link, or adding one with (+), if you don’t press the OK button right away, leaving the entry field ‘open‘, you can change another cat. Once you’ve started more than one change, HotCat won’t auto-submit the edit.
  • Alternatively, begin editing with the multiple-change link (++) near the beginning of the line, which will keep everything you do ‘pending’.
In either case, the actual edit won’t be initiated until you press the Save button. You’ll be sent to the edit page (allowing previewing, further edits, &c.) unless only one change has actually been entered.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Eurosport-Player-Logo 2011.png

Hello! I found this picture on the Internetpage: http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Eurosport_Player and I'm not sure how the picture has to get licensed that it doesn't get deleted. Please help me. Greets --Nicrace123 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} will do for this one. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

General Mihailovic with US Officers.jpg

The picture was taken in 1944 by unknown military photograph. It was initially published before 1966 in Yugoslavia, so copyright expired. A digital version of this picture that I posted was downloaded from the internet, from http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Au2M_MISPZs/UtybQBa8ihI/AAAAAAAAMAo/nCv7W0yK2u8/s1600/Halyard+officers+with+Draza.jpg

I used {{PD-Yugoslavia}}

In addition, the same picture has already been posted on Serbian Wikipedia: https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Датотека:General_Mihailovic_i_americki_oficiri_1944.jpg For that purpose, it was released under GFDL by the author who published that picture in his book.

However, one user complains that the File source is not properly indicated. Could you please help me to identify missing information. The author is unknown, as this picture was taken in 1944 (during the WW2), probably by a military photographer.--N Jordan (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The two links above do not link to the context of the sources. The source link given for the sr.wp version seems to lead to a blank page. Please link to the contextual source of the file you upoaded, i.e. the url of the page where the image is displayed in context, not only to the jpg file. The template:Bsr explains this requirement better. Also, the template "PD-Yugoslavia" requires that the photo be published before 1966, so please specify where the photo was published before 1966. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. The URLs on the web change from time to time, the new source link for the sr.wp version is http://www.pogledi.rs/en/halyard-and-ranger-american-missions-in-balkans-in-1944/ I uploaded to commons the one that is published on http://mihailovich1.rssing.com/chan-11466093/all_p16.html I updated that URL. There is the same picture on sh.wp - https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Americka_misija_kod_mihailovica_1944.jpg The source for that one is also broken, http://www.pogledi.rs/galerija/airbridge/7.php (It's on same web site as sr.wp version). That version also use the template "PD-Yugoslavia". The picture was initially used on flyers and distributed before the end of WW2 in the war zone, but I don't believe any of original flyers survived. However, few actual pictures survived and they are the source of all those images you can find over the internet: https://www.google.com/searchbyimage?image_url=http:%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fd0%2FGeneral_Mihailovic_with_US_Officers.jpg --N Jordan (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
If your external sources are moving targets you can put a {{License review}} on the image file page. The reviewer would then confirm that the source was okay, and you are not alone with your claim that the source existed as documented. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:A.dahiya.jpg

Kindly let me know whether I can use pic from google images in wiki ? Thanks In advance --Nupur2000 (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No. That file is not from Google, although you may have found it there. Search engines don’t care about copyright or reuse; you have to look at the terms under which each image has been published. In this case, according to its Terms of use the source website “grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to access and use this Site for your personal, non-commercial and recreational or informational purposes.” This is a long way from a free licence, so images from that site cannot be hosted here without express permission from the owners.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
[via edit conflict] Certainly not this one (which ought to be speedy-deleted). "from google images" just means you found it in a search, which says literally nothing about its copyright status, let along whether it would be in Commons' scope; in short, finding a file in Google Images has literally no relevance to whether it is suitable for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Please read your talk page messages before trying to upload anything else. As you've already been told: "unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here" (original emphasis). —LX (talk, contribs) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentina Carnelutti

Hello, I uploaded two files on Valentina Carnelutti wikipedia page (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Carnelutti) and the were deleted because I declared I had the rights on them. I want to know how I can upload again those photos and prove that I have the right to publish them.

Please help me, I'm quite new and really don't know how to.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommaso.desantis (talk • contribs) 11:36, 17 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I'm afraid permission to publish is not sufficient. What is needed is permission from the legitimate copyright holder to publish the content under a free license (a copyright license that allows anyone to use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose, including commercial purposes). Note that the copyright holder of a photograph is typically the author of the photograph – in other words: the photographer – and not the person appearing in the photograph. Please see Commons:OTRS for instructions on how to obtain and send in an appropriate permission statement. You should not attempt to recreate previously deleted content yourself, as doing so may result in your account being blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Parsing errors

The following are in Category:Pages using Information template with parsing errors, and I can see that they don't parse, but I can't quickly see what is wrong with them.

- Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The first one was missing a pipe between the {{information}} template name and its first parameter, description. The rest were missing the pipe, the parameter name and the equal sign. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Duh. Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 07:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 07:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the definition of "implicit pornographic images"?

Category:Child pornography has a blurb which refers to this term. I am wondering where exactly goes the demarcation between alllowed and disallowed images which depict items of such contraband? __meco (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've BOLDly killed the WEASEL before it can bite us here. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable clarification. __meco (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I recently uploaded some deck diagrams[4][5][6] from my website and in each description said that the image originated from my new website: www.RaleighBuildaDeck.com (but with a link). My understanding is that this is accepted practice to link to the source and there is no problem with image authors linking to their website in the description, even if it's a "commercial" entity, but I wanted to double-check. Also, is there any COI concerns to my adding one of the diagrams to the "Construction" section of the Deck (building) Wikipedia page?

I'm about to start on a deck in a few weeks and I'd like to upload some actual photography (with annotations) eventually as well in a similar fashion. So I just wanted to be doubly sure before anyone yells at me for spamming deck images with links to my website as the source. CorporateM (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to be spamming us with your images, so they should be inside our scope. They'll be outside our scope, however, if you spam, so you are thinking right. DLindsley Need something? 02:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If the images have been previously published on another website, you should indeed provide a link. Unless the site contains a statement matching the license used when uploading to Commons, you may also need to send in a permission statement via e-mail. As for the question regarding Wikipedia, you should probably ask at whichever language edition of Wikipedia you have in mind. Rules are different on different projects. Commons:Guidance for paid editors has more information. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've read both pages now; very helpful. Thank you! I didn't realize Commons had a specific scope other than being a repository of free images and may have gotten in trouble there without your guidance. I will make sure to only upload images with educational value. I'd like to upload some later with the same annotations showing the anatomy of a deck, but with real photographs, instead of a drawn diagram, but I may upload fewer images than I would have otherwise. Thanks again! CorporateM (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 16:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Better version available

Correction-Measuring-What-Latent-Fingerprint-Examiners-Consider-Sufficient-Information-for-pone.0118172.s001.ogv fixes an issue in Measuring-What-Latent-Fingerprint-Examiners-Consider-Sufficient-Information-for-Individualization-pone.0110179.s022.ogv. What's the easiest way to merge these two files into one unified Measuring-What-Latent-Fingerprint-Examiners-Consider-Sufficient-Information-for-pone.0118172.s001.ogv? @Daniel Mietchen: for info and thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "merge". A history merge or a video merge? The history one is easy - move one file to the new name and then try to move the second one to the same new name. It won't be moved immediately but the dialogue box will offer the option of deleting the existing file and then moving. Once that is done, it is a simple matter of deleting it and then restoring everything. Easily done if that is what you are looking for. A video merge is not something I am too good at. Green Giant (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should go for a video merge. The main reason for keeping File:Measuring-What-Latent-Fingerprint-Examiners-Consider-Sufficient-Information-for-Individualization-pone.0110179.s022.ogv would be to preserve the integrity of the original work in the context of a full-text import into Wikisource (we're working on that, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access/Signalling OA-ness), but I don't think that's a strong reason. So I could imagine either leaving things as they are, or redirecting File:Measuring-What-Latent-Fingerprint-Examiners-Consider-Sufficient-Information-for-Individualization-pone.0110179.s022.ogv to File:Correction-Measuring-What-Latent-Fingerprint-Examiners-Consider-Sufficient-Information-for-pone.0118172.s001.ogv. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright/license help with File:Steinway factory Schanzenstrasse Hamburg Germany.jpg

I have uploaded a picture (File:Steinway factory Schanzenstrasse Hamburg Germany.jpg) that is from 1915. The author is unknown. I have used the license tag {{PD-old-auto}}. I would like if someone will check if the license/copyright is correct and legal. Thank you. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion underway at VPC. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploading a picture of a theorist

If a picture is on images in a google search can it be uploaded to a wiki page? Nickesha Senior (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No; Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. So you need to ensure before uploading that they are explicitly freely licensed, or in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. Jee 05:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Self-taken Venue Pictures

Can I upload pictures I've taken of a concert venue which I took before a concert at The Forum Inglewood. -- Smilerslove (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Probably, as long as they are not (for example) violations of someone's privacy rights or simply photos of other people's copyrighted work. Certainly nothing in the fact that its a concert venue or that you took the photos before a concert is a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 07:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

File transfer difficulties

Hi there! For some reason, I'm having trouble transferring a file (ja:ファイル:ちえりあ.JPG) to commons, trying both the commons helper and manual upload options. Both methods seem to have an infinite runtime with no progress, something I've not experienced before when uploading to Wiki or commons. Is this just an odd problem happening locally on my laptop, or is there something strange about the file? --Prosperosity (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

help with catscan

Can I find with catscan which files are in one or two specified categories only? Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

== my pictures ==http://techiquette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Redeemer_blog_01.jpg

Hi I don't understand why I can t put my personal pictures from my work Im an artist sculptor from Paris, do you have someones in Paris who can explain me how it worksis too complicated for me in english ! My email is :larochesculpteur@gmail.com Thanks a lot Best regards Patrick Laroche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.18.206.248 (talk • contribs)

what to do with file that has two different dates

  • File:Homesteader NE 1866.png is dated 1866 in the file name, but the description says:
  • Description: "The Covered Wagon of the Great Western Migration. 1886 in Loup Valley, Nebr." A family poses with the wagon in which they live and travel daily during their pursuit of a homestead.
  • Date: 1886
  • Source: NARA - ARC Identifier 518267

Does it seem more likely that the uploader used the wrong date in naming the file, or that the uploader made a mistake in the description? If the former, is it possible to rename the file? Is this the place to ask questions like this, or is there another? Thanks, EChastain (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the archive its from 1866, I updated the description to match the source. Abigor talk 17:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Abigor: I undid your change to the original caption, because it’s a quote from the source materials, but I added the archive title and marked the anomalous date [sic]. OK?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Upload two or more files - gives them the same name

At least twice when I've tried to upload two or more files at the same time, it gives them the same name, which causes problems. Is this a known bug? Bubba73 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's something I've seen reported here on Commons before. There are so many bugs for the Upload Wizard in Phabricator that I can't find a specific bug number, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Equally as bad but easily solved is something I have come across whilst whittling down Category:Media requiring a split up, in that quite a few times a user has uploaded several files at the same time and they have ended up as versions of the same file. See for example File:Ek1211.JPG and File:Церква_у_с._Щорсівка.jpg, before they get split. Green Giant (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It would certainly help if it worked properly when uploading a group of related photos - same user license info, same categories, similar description, etc. Bubba73 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded files recently and did not have this issue. The Upload Wizard let me give my own names for them. This might be Unrelated, but it might help at the same time. DLindsley Need something? 02:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Cannot look at a file that is marked by File:Name.jpg

I don't understand how this file works. I want to look at b:de:File:Altar.JPG and was redirected to b:de:File:Name.jpg. OK, the name "Altar.JPG" isn't a strong name – see File:ALTAR.jpg or File:Altar..jpg (2 dots!) or File:Altar.png. But I'm not able to look at the original file in Wikibooks and to check whether the file is useful.

In Commons, I found out that the original file was moved to File:Altar Loreto Church Manila.jpg, and its recreation was protected showing File:Name.jpg. The behaviour in Commons maybe OK, but the behaviour in other projects is confusing IMHO. Perhaps, you can show a more informative page. -- Juergen (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You say "I want to look at b:de:File:Altar.JPG". Is there a page on b:de that links to that file name? Apparently, there was no local file with that name on b:de. It may refer to one of the seven files that were uploaded to Commons under that file name between 2008 and 2014. The current names of those seven files can be seen in the log for File:Altar.JPG. You could look in the history of the b:de page and see when the link was inserted. And then look if one of the seven files was hosted under that name on Commons on that date. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's my problem: "You could look in the history of the b:de page" No, I can't. There is no page b:de:File:Altar.JPG. I was automatically redirected to b:de:File:Name.jpg WITHOUT a link back to the Altar file. Therefore, I'm not able to look at the history on b:de. The browser shows the needed address, not the shown page. As I said, the Commons history explained the situation, but the de-WB situation is confusing. -- Juergen (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's take this from the beginning. The first basic question is: why did you want to look at a non-existent file? A reason would be because you followed a link from some other page. That's why my question was: Is there (or was there) a page (article, user page, etc.) on de.wikibooks that includes (or included) a link to File:Altar.JPG? I assumed that was the case. So, the suggestion about "the history of the b:de page" meant the history of that article or other page. That was to help find what the target of the link could have been at the moment of its insertion. But if you didn't follow a link, then we're back to the first question: why did you want to look at a non-existent file? If it was out of curiosity to know if a file currently existed under that file name, well, as we have seen, there is no such file, although there have been several files that were moved to other file names, which can be seen in the logs. If it's because you wanted to upload a file locally to de.wikibooks under that particular file name, that may be possible, although maybe not a good idea, for the same reason that file name is not recommended on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding. I'm testing some features of my local bot and looked for local stored files. For that first I wrote in the default search box (at the right top) "Datei:Alt" and chose the first file that was shown as existing file by auto-completing. All the following steps confused me until I found the reasons at Commons. Why is this file shown as existing? Why am I redirected inside WB without any hint whether the wanted file exists or doesn't? Is there any hidden redirect? My problem is not to find a suitable file but to understand the confusing situation: a file that doesn't exist is shown as existing. -- Juergen (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

how to start a group

We would like to establish a group where we share your own photos as well as photos of other users. Is such a thing possible? Thank Helcapas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helcapas (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 February 2015‎ (UTC)

  • I'm not exactly sure of your question, but if you are asking if you can start a group like on flickr, no. Please read COM:SCOPE to see what Commons' purpose is. If I misunderstood your question, can you please elaborate? ColonialGrid (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How to delete a photo

I uploaded an image by accident that wasn't suppose to be uploaded to commons. How do I find it to delete it? Is that possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingempireentertainment (talk • contribs)

Copyrights

I really would like to use this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Philadelphia,_Pennsylvania_-_Hosiery._Minnesac_Mills._%28Man_working_at_machine_with_draped_stockings.%29_-_NARA_-_518692.jpg on my website. I read the copyrights and I still don't understand. At the bottom of the screen, it says that it's a 'public domain in the United States'; so does that mean I can use it?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webqueenhtc (talk • contribs)

  • Yes. Work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties can be used absolutely freely, with no copyright restrictions. It is generally considered polite to indicate what you know about where it came from, but it is not legally required. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

copyright

Are the pictures on Wikipedia copyright protected? That is, if I download a piece of famous artwork (in this case painting the Goldfinch), can I have it printed at a commercial print shop (in this case Walmart)?

Thank you for your time.

Laura J. Morris LJMRPH1@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.116.92 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I'm afraid "painting the Goldfinch" isn't specific enough for me to know what image you are talking about; could you provide a URL?
If you really mean Wikipedia, then some are and some aren't, and you should ask on the Wikipedia for the relevant language, not here on Commons.
If you mean this site, Wikimedia Commons, then everything here should be either public domain (not copyrighted) or free-licensed (completely reusable, but possibly with some attribution requirements, etc., that will be spelled out on the particular file page).
Again, if you can indicate the specific URL, then someone can give you a specific answer for that image. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Unable to start file names with Scania

For some odd reason the upload tool will never let me start a file name with "Scania". That's when I define the filename to be on commons, not what the actual name was on the file that I uploaded from my computer. I've earlier uploaded files starting with different brand names, such as Volvo, but when I try with Scania, it only says that I need to define a proper file name, so I've had to put other names first to get those files uploaded. I have no reason to believe that it's the Scania name that has been blocked, so maybe it is a filter that is intended to block filenames from starting with "scan", based on scanned images? In that case it seems to be a bit too brute, and I guess it would block filenames starting with Scandinavia too, or any other name that has "scan" as the first part. Would it be possible to make an exception for these names? Bergenga (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a line in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that prevents uploading of any names that consist of the string "Scan" followed by zero or more letters and then the file extension. If I'm reading the rule correctly, you should not run into this if you have any non-letter characters (such as spaces, numbers or other symbols) in the name. If you do, please give an exact example of the full file name that you tried to use. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Then this clearly doesn't work as intended, because I have always had other types of characters like digits, dashes or spaces in all file names I have tried to upload. Examples of filenames that have been blocked are "Scania IK 310 IB OmniLine.jpg" and "ScaniaK112CLClassic-VestTelemarkBilruter.jpg". They should both have passed through according to what you say, but they didn't. Bergenga (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Does the problem occur only when you try to upload through Upload Wizard or does it occur also with the basic upload form? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I've only used the Upload Wizard, never tried the basic upload form before. I could always try to use the basic upload form and see if the same happens, but I don't have any Scania related photos ready for upload right now. But I may try it later tonight. (If I had been aware of the basic upload form I would have tried it before asking here.) Bergenga (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I tried now with the basic upload form, and it all went smoothly this time. I guess I could use that form whenever I want to use a filename where this is a problem, but it seems to me that for other less experienced users who may have difficulties using anything but the wizard, this should be fixed somehow. Anyway it is nice to see that there is a workaround for me, so for me personally this case could be closed, but it may be that this should be fixed, since this clearly isn't working exactly as intended, and I'm not likely to be the only one running into this issue. Bergenga (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to make a Wiki Commons section for educational / editorial licensed photos.

The policy here to only accept photos that can be used commercially goes against the educational foundation of the Wiki. I wasted a lot of time uploading 250 of my best photos to Wiki Commons only to have them all deleted. I had some of the best photos of their respective categories on Wiki Commons. Many of the photos I donated were unique and / or of historical significance.

I've been a photographer for 46 years, my work in in 92 museums and public collections around the world. I was willing to donate my photographs for educational use only as I am a documentary photographer and I do not obtain releases for commercial use. It is a disservice to the educational community to only accept commercial photos on Wiki Commons. Unless the Wiki Commons maintains model, product and location releases, your fooling yourself to say that your photos can be used for commercial advertising without releases on file. I hope things change in the future to make Wiki Commons open to more users and broaden it scope for educational / editorial users.

Best Regards,

Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

@Danielteolijr: I am sorry that you had the bad experience of having all of your contributions deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Danielteolijr. I especially regret that the upload process at Wikimedia Commons was insufficient in explaining to you how your photos would be used and what it means to upload them.
The decisions about best practices for licensing content for sharing on the Internet were mostly settled with the establishment of en:Creative Commons in about 2001. Since then several million people have commented on this licensing process and tens of millions more have decided to use the licenses. They are part of the international legal landscape, and at this point, enough people trust their validity and the 10+ years of extensive use that they have had to establish Wikimedia Commons and other similar projects. If the licenses are not sufficient for you to feel comfortable releasing content for personal use then it is best that your content is deleted.
Here on Wikimedia Commons, we need to have content available for commercial use so that they are available in education. Practically all textbooks are commercially published, many conferences are commercially managed, outside of the Western World many schools are operated on commercial models, and just in general, the Internet blurs lines between commercial and non-commercial publishing in so many ways that the community here for many years has decided that accepting media donations that could be used for any purpose, even commercially, is the best option here.
Model releases and personality rights are a completely separate issue from commercial use of photography, and our licensing here says nothing about that. Just because a photo is used commercially does not mean that the model has released personality rights, and that would require a release which Wikimedia Commons does not host or provide.
I am sorry you have had a bad experience here. I appreciate your donation even though it did not work out. If you have further questions about donating media to Commons then please ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, on the personality rights front, if that is at issue in a non-obvious way, I recommend the use of the template {{Personality rights}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Media File Nominated for Deletion

Hi, I recently uploaded an image for a wiki draft. I received the image file directly from the author (It is for a film page) with their permission. The image file is the poster art for the film. After doing so successfully, I received this email message: "The media file has been nominated for deletion." I checked out why (need to get written permission from the author via the wiki permission template). I have filled in the permission template as required. One thing. It states that the permission template must be emailed from an email address that is recognized by wikipedia. My question is: Can I email it from my account as the author is not registered with wikipedia? Thanking you in advance. Nairbotanim (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The author does not have to be registered, but the permission should come from an @whitebowlproductions.com e-mail address. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem copyright - image blocked

Hi,

First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Julien Roosens. I work for the Belgian FA (football association, aka RBFA/URBSFA/KBVB) as brand manager. I have recently discovered that the pages concerning our organization still showed our old logo. I have tried to modify the publication by uploading the new logo.

But apparently, INeverCry (administrator/contributor) has deleted it due to "Copyright violation" File:RBFA.png

We are the owners of these Copyrights and I would like to lift the ban on this logo. Could you please tell me how to do it? It is very important to us to spread our new public image all over the web.

Thanks in advance for your support (and sorry for my poor English).

Kind regards,

Julien Roosens Corporate Communication RBFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Roosens (talk • contribs)

@Julien Roosens: Hi,
All complex logos need a permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Help on personal biography

What are the steps to download my personal biography/Enoobdog7$ (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Assuming that by "download" you mean "upload," and assuming you mean this site, we don't host biographies, although if you are an active user you are welcome to write briefly about yourself on your user page (User:Enoobdog7$). And if you are talking about Wikipedia, unless you are notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article, similar comments apply. - Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

delete my file, i have the copyright

i am the owner of the picture, why delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melthorme (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2015‎ (UTC)

How did you come by the copyright for that picture? Are you the cover designer? --rimshottalk 22:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:El Desconocido V.jpg - Jmabel ! talk 04:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Including uploaded pictures

May I ask for advice how to include a specific photo on a Wikimedia Commons page that I have uploaded into Wikimedia Commons itself. Thank you very much for your kind advice.

Thomas Tapio thomas.tapio@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasTapio (talk • contribs)

Copyright help regarding File:Wapens van Gelre tot het einde van het ancien régime.pdf

Zou iemand deze mislukte upload willen verwijderen? Haagschebluf (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Somebody deleted the file as desired. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2015/02&oldid=248107871"