User talk:Coagulans/Archive
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
File:Henry Dunant du rouge sur la croix by sinalcool.avi 001414760-312small.gif has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Wknight94 talk 12:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
File tagging File:ThomasJouannet1.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:ThomasJouannet1.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:ThomasJouannet1.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Captain-tucker (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Critically evaluate Flickr licenses
|
File:ThomasJouannet.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid.
Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.
|
Martin H. (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Make sure that people who upload something to flickr are the copyright holders. A person who is making screenshots and uploading them to an flickr account is not the owner of copyrights on the film and therefore not allowed to select any license on Flickr. This applies to e.g. this flickr account, thats someone uploading images to flickr who realy not understood the points of copyrights and what he is allowed to upload and license on Flickr. Commons is trying not to reuse content of such people on Flickr, this screenshots are not free. --Martin H. (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
File:John_White1.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Justass (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
File tagging File:Agnetha.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Agnetha.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Agnetha.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Yann (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Improved, really ?
Hi,
I see you have uploaded many "improved" version of pictures. I checked a few of them (File:Temesvarviktoriater.JPG, , ), and I really don't think your changes are improvement : burned whites or burried blacks, too much sharpenning. And in most cases, the original picture did not really need any improvement.
Could you revert your changes, and maybe upload your versions as separated files ? I also think there are forums dedicated to image improvement somewhere on Commons, where photos which do need retouching are posted, and you can get advises and reviews on your work.
Cheers,
--LBE (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- ok, I'll stop.
- we obviously have opposing views, so there is nothing left to say. --Coagulans (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Opposing views are necessary on a collaborative project. And no need to stop, just continue on files which are marked as needing retouching (see Category:Images for cleanup. And please get your work reviewed on the appropriate forums (Commons:Graphic Lab), you can get better at this.
- --LBE (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |