File talk:Licensing tutorial en.svg
Page deletion[edit]
Why was this page deleted? 9carney (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor text legibility[edit]
Due to Wikimedia's poor text rendering in SVG files, the text in this image should be converted to paths. Some parts of the text have strange spacing and kerning, making it almost illegible. I suggest that a new "text-paths" layer be created, the text duplicated to that layer, then convert text on that layer to paths, ungroup, and regroup in appropriate blocks. The original text layer should be turned off (made invisible). If this is done, text will appear in users' browsers in the way it appeared in Inkscape or whatever SVG editing program was used to create the image. By keeping the original text in the file, if changes are needed in the future, it would be simple matter of turning the text layer on, making the edits, then creating a paths-only version of the modified text as described herein. —Quicksilver@ 05:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Addition of Creative Commons license level acceptable for upload[edit]
The tutorial should mention the level of the Creative Commons license that a picture should conform with in order to be uploaded.
Adding picture of myself Cynthia Psaros Shelby former Carroll Shelby spouse[edit]
Want to upload picture of myself if I can do it? Cynthia Shelby (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Cynthia Shelby: , depends on the context. If you want to add it to a Wikipedia article of yourself you can, if it's only one picture of yourself to use on your user page that's permitted as well (please see Commons:Scope), however you have to be the author of the image or otherwise have the author express their permission (please see Commons:Licensing and Commons:OTRS). So "essentially yes" but if you're "not notable" enough to be on a Wikipedia then you would have to use it on either a user page here or on another Wikimedia project. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That guideline page seems to grant extensive leeway on fan interpretations of a character or other property from a nonfree work as long as the work itself is not materially used; however, this file asserts a flat rejection of any such renditions. Should a softer phrasing be substituted, or even a small citation 'COM:FAN'? Arlo James Barnes 20:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
kept[edit]
 | This file was nominated for deletion but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
