User talk:Colin/Archive 1

Welcome to the Commons, Colin/Archive 1!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, it makes this: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|Correct name}}` For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Yann 00:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dronedarone-2D.svg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Dronedarone-2D.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Colin 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Colin!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 10:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Friedrich Daniel von Recklinghausen.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Willis Building (London).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 21:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Willis and LLoyd's.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Robinia pseudoacacia 'Frisia'.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments A bit deliberately oversatured, but good for QI IMO.--Jebulon 00:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC). FWIW, polarizing filter used but no software effects applied to RAW -- Colin 06:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Barclays Cycle Hire, St. Mary Axe, Aldgate.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Interesting. --Albertus teolog 20:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Electric steam iron.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Well executed. Exact model I had too. --Saffron Blaze 10:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ironing a shirt.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI to me--Lmbuga 21:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! King's Cross Western Concourse - central position.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments great --Martin Kraft 08:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Blog Feature[edit]

Hi Colin,

My name is Elaine and I'm a communications intern with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. We're starting a new feature on the Foundation blog [1] to profile the photographers behind the beautiful photos that become Picture of the Day (POTD) on the Commons home page. You can see some of our past POTD posts here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/c/communications/picture-of-the-day/

Given that your photo is scheduled for 7 May 2012, we'd love to do a short interview with you either by phone, Skype, or email to discuss your work and your POTD. Please let me know if you think you'd be interested! You can reach me at communicationsinternwikimedia.org

Thanks,

Elaine

Sorry about that, that's what I get for copying and pasting...I meant to change the fields on that one, but I must have forgotten! We're reaching out to several of the POTD photographers, and I'd be very interested in talking to you as well, if you're up for it :) Elaine Comm Intern (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, by email works fine. I have a list of questions I can email you. Could you shoot me an email at communicationsintern

wikimedia.org? Elaine Comm Intern (WMF) (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Onion on White.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 14:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Red Onion on White.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 14:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Giant Bee Eden Project.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --kallerna 14:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sony Alpha Mount Camera.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:King's Cross Western Concourse - central position - 2012-05-02.75.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:King's Cross Western Concourse - central position - 2012-05-02.75.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

image[edit]

Done. Thanks so Much. Monfie (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Without your help it was likely to not succeed. --Monfie (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:King's Cross Station Euston Road 2012-05-27.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:King's Cross Station Euston Road 2012-05-27.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lophius piscatorius MHNT[edit]

I continue on your page to avoid overloading FP. The reality of this picture is much more complex. This specimen is usually poorly lit. That evening I went through this gallery and there was a ray of sunlight falling on it. I pulled out my equipment and I'm in fact 5 images. 3 images for the front, stacked by Focus staking and two images to the rear. Then I add the two parties. But the sunshine I was not expected, which explains the different color temperature that I have not corrected. In final I had no preconceived idea of what I was going to do and I've taken here as an exercise. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well this information makes it all the more remarkable. I think you should consider adding some of the above to the FP and/or image description. We can learn a lot from discovering how a picture was taken and the circumstances. Your image looks like a carefully taken studio shot and I guess I've judged it as such, when the reality was less flexible and more chance. Still, the defects are there, IMO, though everyone has their own opinion about their harm or even benefit. It is a good picture, just not perhaps FP and to some extent your own previous FPs raise the bar on what one expects!! :-) You should be very proud of your contributions. Colin (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Question[edit]

Hi, Do you believe is it likely to succeed if I nominate this? What about this one? Any betterment you suggest?

Thanks --Monfie (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Pancras Railway Station 2012-06-23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Coyau 15:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breisacher Munster Hochaltar[edit]

Hallo Colin,

sorry, but please have a look at the full altar. There is not Christ figure so Christ was not croped out. Maybe you make a conscientious investigation next time. And the argument why a detail picture could not get a FP is not comprehensible for me because we have many examples which refute your theory. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Commons Barnstar
		For the quality and featured pics you've uploaded. Your contributions are appreciated. INeverCry 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made you autopatrolled. INeverCry 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Photographer's Barnstar

Thanks Colin for pointing out errors in my submissions to Commons.

I have done as you have guided. Please check and if there is an issue, please guide me again.

Asitjain (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin. I have made the required changes. Thanks again for your kind help.

Dear Colin, I made a mistake while uploading some files, some of them has the same title and they appear as versions of the file. Can you please guide me how to separate them? They are here : Udaigiri Cave 6 Images Asitjain (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL 1.2 & FPs[edit]

Hi Colin,

Thanks *a lot* for this proposal. It is both brave and much needed. I really believe this can be of huge importance on Commons.

Oh, and as I said over there, I found your summary of the situation really good.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. Btw, although I count your comment as being "in support", I wondered why use used the "comment" template rather than the clearer "support" one. I know some people get worked about about "not voting" at WP/Commmons but clarity here can only help. -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a vote/not vote thing. To put in bluntly, I usually avoid commenting at Talk:FPC, as I believe me and my opinions are unwelcome there − that is the taste my few attempts there have left me anyway. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: edited my message accordingly, for the sake of clarity. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Colin (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, the title of the proposal was changed by RD232; so the link provided on the main page is not working (exactly). -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Well it is still fairly easy for folk to find even if the link is only half working. If you want to try to fix the links then go ahead, but let's just leave the title/anchor as it is now. Colin (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had gone through all the discussions so far including User:Colin/GFDL. My findings in the current issue:

Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses only says some points as "the license must meet the following conditions:" and "the following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file:"; it nowhere says which are the currently available licenses that follow them. So we have to specify "a list" (which includes PD, CC variants, FAL and excludes GFDL, GPL, LGPL, etc.) here or any other suitable place. If separate list of licenses are available for different type of files, it should be specified clearly.
I think the license of a "software" and license of a "screen shot of a free software" are very different things. So I didn't understand the point "Certain derivative works that require a GFDL or similar licence (like GPL) may continue to be permitted for upload, such as screenshots of software.". -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a list at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators; but it is outside Commons. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Commons:Copyright tags too. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haapsalu linnuse varemed1.jpg[edit]

Thank you for the remarks. I will try restiching tonight. Regards, --Ivar (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elymnias hypermnestra male by kadavoor.jpg[edit]

Hi Colin:

I didn't understand the entire humor in your comment because of my poor English language skills. But I assume you are talking about the low resolution of the picture in the last line. This a straight out of camera picture as my all uploads. I crop images to correct the composition only; never down-sample. This type of pictures are taken with the help of "extended zoom" facility of my poor camera which is somewhat similar to the use of a TC in SLR. It is easy to compose an image having 10MP in my camera; but the result will very bad, without much details. Instead I tight the frame with help of that feature and compose giving full strain to my eyes. You can imagine how difficult it is to keep the entire subject in frame in such a tight shot. Further, I think the resolution is not very bad for a macro "in vivo" when comparing with File:Sympetrum_striolatum_qtl5.jpg by Quartl. BTW, I like your comment about the license. :) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yes; I don't want it get featured because of the less details comparing to the female; probably due to the low lights and the dancing palm leaf on the breeze. The only importance of this image is the host plant it is perching. I know many people keep silent on the GFDL issue because they don't like to attract revenge votes on their nominations. I'm not in a greed for any more FPs. :) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Epilobium hirsutum - Seed head - Triptych.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Epilobium hirsutum - Seed head - Triptych.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Machrie Stone Circle 1 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice lighting and solid composition. --Jastrow 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Machrie Stone Circle 2 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice and good quality. --Selbymay 09:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moss Farm Road Stone Circle 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good.--ArildV 09:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Machrie Stone Circle 3 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 19:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Vatican Museums Spiral Staircase 2012.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vatican Museums Spiral Staircase 2012.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: That 1%[edit]

Replied there. :) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Machrie Stone Circle 11 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --Mattbuck 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Machrie Stone Circle 4 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --Mattbuck 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A special barnstar for you![edit]

The no-GFDL barnstar!

For leading the debate COM talk:FPC to its positive conclusion, I hereby award you this barnstar!

Of course this award itself is released under the GFDL 1.2 license only.

License

GNU Free Documentation License

Version 1.2, November 2002

 Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

0. PREAMBLE

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.

This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.

We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.

1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS

This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work. Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law.

A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.

The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.

A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".

Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.

The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.

A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.

The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this License.

2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

3. COPYING IN QUANTITY

If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present the full title with all words of the title equally prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated as verbatim copying in other respects.

If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.

If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.

It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document.

4. MODIFICATIONS

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher.
D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.
F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.
H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
M. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.

If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from any other section titles.

You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of a standard.

You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document already includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.

The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.

5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS

You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.

The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.

In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements."

6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS

You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.

You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document.

7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.

If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half of the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form. Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that bracket the whole aggregate.

8. TRANSLATION

Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include the original English version of this License and the original versions of those notices and disclaimers. In case of a disagreement between the translation and the original version of this License or a notice or disclaimer, the original version will prevail.

If a section in the Document is Entitled "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to Preserve its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual title.

9. TERMINATION

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE

The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.

Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. How to use this License for your documents

To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page:

 Copyright (c)  YEAR  YOUR NAME.
 Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
 under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
 with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
 Texts.  A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
 Free Documentation License".

If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this:

 with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
 Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST.

If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the situation.

If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit their use in free software.

Jean-Fred (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love it. The licence expander thingy is great. Thanks. :-) Colin (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too like it; but what a big license for such a small barnstar! -- JKadavoor Jee 16:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your cut-off in my request at COM:ANU[edit]

you are right, thank you, it make the discussion a bit more clear !--Jebulon (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Autumn Oak - Broadhall Way - Stevenage.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Autumn Oak - Broadhall Way - Stevenage.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:St James's Park Lake – East from the Blue Bridge - 2012-10-06.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St James's Park Lake – East from the Blue Bridge - 2012-10-06.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

about the Winning pic[edit]

Hey Colin, Pranav7 this side, sorry for the late reply as i wasnt notified of anything. You asked me for a RAW image of my pic which won the 2012 contest of WLM. Please get back to me with the instruction on how to send it across to you.

Thankyou

Pranav Singh pranav7@gmail.com 9999226640

Merry Christmas[edit]

Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very very happy new year. -- Joydeep _Talk 18:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FPC[edit]

Thanks a lot, I do really like it. Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Hi, I really appreciated your photos and they're great. Keep up the gooodwoork mi amigo.... and GODSPEED Always!!! Ryn910 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kingfisher eating a tadpole.jpg

Hi. Your kingfisher picture is excellent but a review at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Common Kingfisher has found some problems with it. Would you be able to comment, particularly on the "white ear coverts" that look touched-up. Do you have the original raw file?

-- Colin (d) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The picture is overexposed, the white are burnt,

−− User talk:Kookaburra 81

File:Trump International Hotel and Tower, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 05.jpg[edit]

Hi Colin, I have been observing the picture for a while and I couldn't see anything on the left side that was not vertical, or did you mean the right side? On the right I could find some room for improvement, and finally decided to update a new version. Please, let me know whether I addressed your issue or not Poco a poco (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I lined the window frame edge up with the left of the browser window then scrolled up and down. Actually, the slope on the left is enough that you can see it without moving the image, also on the latest version. It is harder to see on the right, because of the changing reflections, but I think your latest version is quite vertically correct there, whereas before there was only a very small slope. So it is just the left that slopes to any degree. -- Colin (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, finally I saw what you meant. I have been doing some tries and finally uploaded a new version where the result overall is better, but not 100% perfect. I have decreased the barrel correction by 1 degree resulting on a better result on the left and a worse result on the right but very minor. If I'd only focus on the left side the fix would have been an additional vertical correction of 1 degree but the result on the right was not acceptable anymore. Summary: it got a bit better after some tries with rotations, barrel distortion and vertical distortion but it is not perfect since I cannot apply corrections with decimals with the Adobe SW. The subject is so big that to get a perfect result I feel that I'd have to apply an additional 0,5 vertical correction and 0,5 CCW rotation. Is the last version good enough? Otherwise, could you give it a try? Poco a poco (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Commons:Photographs of identifiable people[edit]

I have now moved your draft into the guideline place. This will retain all editors contributions. In kind regards, heb [T C E] 13:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Muses and Poets.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! River god (Arno).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good Quality --Rjcastillo 19:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Battle of Greeks and Amazons.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments A bit noisy but good quality. --Selbymay 08:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Namib-Naukluft[edit]

Hi Colin, I was just reading your comment on the Namib-Naukluft image. Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure how to use the retouch template so I just uploaded the original uncropped (but resized) version of the file (converted from RAW to JPEG) - hoping it would help. About the image: It was a cloudy day, after a crazy storm that morning, with a spot of light through the clouds on a younger yellowish-brown dune (the bright spot in the middle) but the Namib dunes are that red color of the Kalahari sands (I'm sure you can find examples on the the internet). Let me know if you need any more information about the image and I'll be glad to provide it. And I don't like to play too much with photoshop so I just hit the "auto" settings and put them up if they look alright and alright for me is close to what I saw. Cheers! :)

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Vatican Museums Spiral Staircase Looking Up 2012.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vatican Museums Spiral Staircase Looking Up 2012.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour display[edit]

"I would like to see more interesting pictures of birds/etc where their is either behaviour on display and/or there is strong artistic composition, even if these are at the expense of species identification qualities." I too like such works; but unfortunately not much available here, in Commons. I think the main reason is that they are priceless (compared to pictures of same subjects in a static pose; which are easy to take and generally available); so people are not willing to giveaway the rights. That JJ's bird was such a moment (somewhat) but my oppose was only on the ground of small size. I expect a better resolution because people like Kevan use the same equipment. (I lost my interest to participate in general talk pages; they are very hard to me.) J Kadavoor J e e 07:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The kite you link to is 873x1239 in the maximum available size (cropped close to the bird). JJ's bird was 1542x366 close-cropped. Hard to judge as they are quite different poses. They eye of the kite is 20x16 and the eye in JJ's bird is 20x20 -- though it is difficult to select consistently. The kite was apparently (according to EXIF) 58.5m away and JJ's 45.7m. However the kite was taken with an 800mm lens at f6.3 but JJ's only 500mm at f4. Both were ISO 800. Hard to compare but I don't think there's a clear winner in terms of resolution. Neither are close/sharp enough to show fine feather detail. Were you suggesting the kite is higher resolution?

I think JJ does downsample his images somewhat but probably so as to obtain a sharp image and avoid pixel-peeping comments about softness, rather than to keep the full size images for commercial purposes. His pictures often do seem to have been taken in difficult conditions or after a long wait or stalk, whereas some folk expect to get a gold star for taking a snapshot of a stone on some sand :-). My feeling is that people can donate to Commons/Wikipedia whatever size images they wish to, but that FA shouldn't reward "resized for web" "preview-quality" images. I don't have a problem with people downsizing to some degree as long as there's no significant loss of image detail. Colin (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't used the word down-sampled (I think). I said low resolution, that may be due to tight crop also. I'm not a pixel peeper on the subject details. I consider only the total resolution of the entire frame. I don't like pictures cropped tight to make as a static one (feel). I will not support that kite that picture if cropped in a 1000x2000 format. J Kadavoor J e e 09:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback[edit]

Hi Colin- Thanks for the FP feedback. I'm new to this (Commons) and it's been hardest figuring out what constitutes an FP image. Some are obvious, but many are not. Anyway, thanks --Godot13 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Colosseum interior 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good Quality --Rjcastillo 14:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colosseum interior 2012 sweep panorama.jpg[edit]

I had a look at your photo a few minutes ago and I promoted it. I think there's only a very slight problem left, just above the place where the second note was, on the left of two big black stones... But is it pertinent to upload another copy of such a picture for such a slight problem ? You can do it if you want, of course, but this is QI and not FP imo. -- I've reviewed your picture because I saw your previous panos and I liked them very much (I usually like what I'm not able to do, especially when it's good work !). Keep on doing well ! -- Sorry for my English. -- Best regards. JLPC (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Colosseum interior 2012 sweep panorama.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Comment A few stiching errors, easy to fix, in the foreground (see notes please). --JLPC 17:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Comment I've fixed them - have another look. thanks -- Colin 20:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good now. --JLPC 22:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

	Hello, Colin. You have new messages at Kyores's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

And another. Not sure if you're still interested, just leaving a note here. Kyores (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when…[edit]

…I seriously despair of some people in our community, when I see horrors like User:JÄNNICK Jérémy/Licence JÄHNICK 1.0. (FYI, I opened a thread on Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Custom_license)

Anyway, I really look forward to the day when user:Colin/AppropriatelyLicensed is approved − if I can be of any help with this, please ask.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that person doesn't seem to understand "free content" at all. I was hoping to publish the proposal already but I contacted a couple of people to help review and suggest and they were on holiday. So after the Easter holidays I'll get on with it. This is yet another example of folk knowing that GFDL is not a free licence for images, so re-users are forced to pay them for their images. Colin (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While re-reading species:Help:Image Guidelines, I noticed the point "If you are the original author of your images, you must be willing to release them under Wikimedia Commons-accepted licenses. You can release your images under several Creative Commons licenses. If you are not the original author, you need to ensure that you are not infringing copyright while publishing the images. Images in the public domain, or images released under the GNU Free Documentation License or GNU General Public License are allowed in Wikimedia Commons, as well as some Creative Commons licenses." I wonder how helpful if we include the if you are the original author clause in the new proposal. I think we can thus avoid some opposition from people who argue for the free contents transferred from other places which are initially available only in GFDL. J Kadavoor J e e 04:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think the "original author" aspect is included there because only such a person (the copyright holder) can actually choose a licence. If you aren't the original author, the licence is determined by someone else and so the advice on choosing a licence isn't relevant. I think we should keep the licence rules plain and not depend on who is doing the uploading. A change such as you propose might allow an institution to upload their images under GFDL or someone to upload their spouse's images under GFDL. I'm not aware of GFDL being used for images outside of Wikimedia projects. Are you? If we did find a repository of such images, that were valuable to the project, then we could perhaps amend the grandfathering clause to allow the import of files published elsewhere before the deadline that already had GFDL and couldn't be changed. I see no reason why any new images should be published under GFDL anywhere, other than to restrict reuse, because we've had perfectly decent images licences (CC, etc) for quite a while now. I think it is time we move this gestating proposal into action.... Colin (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; chances that people may misuse it. In my knowledge, this is the only gallery where I see GFDL works outside Wikimedia; and it seems an old collection. J Kadavoor J e e 13:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriately licensed[edit]

Gone live: Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. -- Colin (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

\o/ Jean-Fred (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely thank you for your work that honors our entire community. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying. I didn't really participate in the debate because most points have already been made, not only in this discussion, but also in previous ones. For example de.wp banned all gfdl 1.2-only uploads 5 years ago (de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/GFDL 1.2-only für Dateien), but since using gfdl 1.2-only files from commons was still allowed it was more a statement from the community than a real change in things. --Isderion (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth repeating[edit]

The no-GFDL barnstar!

For bringing forward such a well-written and fully-thought-out (and long-overdue) proposal as Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed

Of course this award itself is released under the GFDL 1.2 license only.

License

GNU Free Documentation License

Version 1.2, November 2002

 Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.