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.
Hi Jarekt, After i have uploaded this file, I have noticed that the image is only for non-commercial uses. So it should be deleted immediately.
Thank you for your message.--Prix (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that all files need a license template, and some files need OTRS template to provide additional documents supporting the claim that the copyright holder released the file under some license. The presence of the OTRS template (which is useful to only very small number of users) does not change the requirement that all files have to have a license template. But it is all fixed now since I looked up the license at OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year Jarekt, i came by a file marked by your Bot as not having an information template. This is obviously right because it contains a template in userspace. The author of the file told me that it is allowed to have such templates when they are compatible to the information template. Do you know about it? Should your bot consider this? How this should be treated concerning the Structured data project? Bye, --Arnd (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
What we usually do is that each time a new home-brew version of the {{Information}} or some other infobox template is wound we rewrite it by using customized {{Information}} or some other standard template and add it to Category:Infobox templates: based on Information template or by replacing it with a standard {{Information}} template. We do the same thing with home-brew versions of standard license templates. We are trying to reduce the amount of work required to maintaining too many templates, while still allow some (limited) customization. --Jarekt (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
File:Rhein-MZ-WI-Mitte-19-Jhd.svg
Thanks for the note Jarekt, sorry, I forgot 'PD-self', 'Selbst gezeichnet' (German) means 'drawn by my own' --Clavax (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Template, {{PD-old}} would be appropriate if the author (I assume photographer) "Ch. Leibovičius, Telšiai" died in 1944. So far I have not seen any proof of that. Unless there is a specific reason why we think the image is in public domain, we do not assume that " is already free to use". --Jarekt (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, there is no copyright for photos taken 70 years ago or earlier, according to the EU law. Why does it have to do with the year of death of the author, rather than a date when the photo was taken. Am I wrong? This photo (its edited version) is already used quite extensively.--Viskonsas (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The importance of the photo and how much it is used has no bearing on its copyright status. I am no expert at the EU copyrights, but on commons I do not remember seeing any license templates for the case you described, as the copyrights always seem to be measured from the year of death of the author. But you do not have to take my word for it you can ask about it at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or go through Europeana Public Domain Calculation. If you discover a case where they say image is in public domain and we do not have a matching template than we might create a new one. --Jarekt (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Countries belonging to UNASUR / UNASUL
Could I ask you, please, if you could fill the countries in UNASUR / UNASUL (South America) with a light green colour indicating the countries belonging to this bloc? (Like in the case cases of ASEAN, EU and African Union). I've been asked to do so, but these files have not been very easy for me, namely the one concerning to Brazil. Thanks for your attention.Mondolkiri1 (Mondolkiri1) 04:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Witaj, zgoda na wykorzystanie tego pliku została wyrażona 17 października 2014, Ticket#2014101510003325, czy Twój wpis można więc usunąć? Pozdrawiam, Stanisom (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Włączyłem automatyczne sprzątanie strony. Robot przyjdzie i wrzuci do archiwum. Jeśli nie chcesz czegoś w archiwum to wyrzuć ze swojej strony dyskusji, ale to jest zazwyczaj twoje zadanie a nie osoby piszącej. --Jarekt (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
All the encoding of the language formatting can be found at Module:I18n/date, which I modified lately to update Russian version, per someone's request. I can not find it now and I undid the change. Ukrainian language does not have it's own formatting and it defaults to Russian formatting. Could you verify the current format is correct: 5 января 2014, январь 2014, 5 января, 5 січня 2014, січень 2014, 5 січня. --Jarekt (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! You wrote me about some mistakes with two files licence:
File:Ducklings - Grafham Water - reflected.jpg
File:Prize for Junior Maraphone.png
One of these files was downloaded from Wikimedia commons and and derivated by reflection. Other was downloaded from Flikr and derivated by extracting. Both files has CC-2.0 licence, derivating permitted. I put all this information at file despription and do not understand what a problem. Please, help me to do all right. Thank you in advance and excuse my bad english. -- Tomasina (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
That is great, but you still need to provide the license templates in derivative images. I copied them, but it is much better if you provide them at the upload time. --Jarekt (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness.
Thank you for noticing that the copyright tags do not cover situations like this. There is a copyright tag for documents created by the US Federal Government, but not for other public agencies.
This document is not available via a website, or I would have linked to it. It was created by an agency of the California State government as an official document (produced in response to an order of a US District Court). California's statutes clearly state that such documents are public and available to all, and are not subject to the limits of copyright. I provided a link to the relevant California Government Code sections (the Public Records Act).
I suggest that the copyright tags be updated to include a tag specifically for documents originated by public agencies in the United States other than Federal Government agencies, as most states, counties, villages, towns, cities and other public agencies are subject to the same rules as California agencies--their publications are free, open and public.
--Tloc2006 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
My notice was about the fact that you did not have a license template, not that there is something wrong with it. I replaced the link to the template with the template itself. --Jarekt (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Following your notice on my talk page... Come on, man, the photo is 150 years old -_- Wouldn't it have been faster to put the right template on it yourself rather than point my distraction ?... Regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
No it is not faster, as I mentioned in User:Jarekt/FAQ I tag the images automatically sometimes few hundred at a time. I do not actually look at the images, when were they created, etc. All I look at is when they were uploaded and if they have a license or not. For new uploads I alert the uploaders and only for the old uploads I investigate and fix them by hand. --Jarekt (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, originally Wikipedia provided a list of licence templates to chose from. Unfortunately, with the introduction of this stupid new upload wizard, this support had been dropped. If you can suggest one which fits to the description which I have given, I would be glad and use that. The publisher of the software has made this and other screenshots freely available, as I wrote in my description. I hope that I will not see the day when I wake up and find that all of Wikipedia is suddenly passed into the private property of Amazon, Google or any other gangster. Unfortunately, Wikimedia insists that I should give up all my work for others to make money from. I hate that. --L.Willms (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
L.Willms, We still have the list at COM:CT and since we have over a thousand different licenses, and none of the Commons upload tools provided more than 10 licenses. May be the upload tool you remember was on some wikipedia not Commons. Anyway if "Permission to use screenshots was] given by author to uploader via email" than you should read COM:OTRS and forward that email to the OTRS email. However they will insist that the email has to mention the license of the image. Alternatively if the software that you took screen shot of was released under some free license like {{GPL}} than you could use {{free screenshot|GPL}}.--Jarekt (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Jarekt! As for this file, I'm still being a schoolboy was taking pictures for the site specified in the source. It was about 2003-2005, what pictures did I unfortunately don't remember, but a few shots like this, I did. Maybe this picture is my own, because it's been so many years. Thank you. Chippollino (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Chippollino, At the moment the image has a author, if you are sure you are the author than you should put your name there, but then you should upload the original version from the camera instead of version from the website. --Jarekt (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
Rotated PDF files in landscape format used to show too small. They will now display correctly. You may need to purge older files. [1]
You can now use the {{!}}magic word instead of Template:!. Many wikis used the template to create a pipe (|) in tables and templates. You can delete the template. [2]
Software changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf14) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 7. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from January 13. It will be on all Wikipedias from January 14 (calendar).
A bug in VisualEditor sometimes added a ☀ (Sun) character. This is now fixed. [3]
The search and replace tool in VisualEditor is now much faster in long pages. [4]
The TemplateData editor now uses the same design as VisualEditor. [5][6][7]
The thumb option is now shown in your language in the help of the classic editor toolbar. [8]
Future changes
You can sign up to answer questions from designers. It will help them make editing easier. [9]
Jarekt, thanks for contacting me about this image. I asked the original photographer to supply a picture and he also gave me permissions to use it in the article. I had no idea how to apply copyright information, but I did add his name (Richard Szameit). He took that picture with a camera at a Samantha Fish show. I wanted to ensure it was original work and not a picture off the internet, is that OK? How do I ensure the correct copyright information given this circumstance?
You should read COM:OTRS and request for the photographer to send an email (a sample email is provided there) to the address provided with the permission. Author should also decide on the license, for example I usually use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} with my uploads. Such license has to be included on the image page. --Jarekt (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I sent a message to the photographer and letting him decide whether he would like to pursue since it belongs to him. Is there a way to slow the clock for automated deletion?
No there is not. But when it is deleted and you get the proper permissions I (or other admins) can undelete the image. --Jarekt (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, great so it gets held into a "recycle bin" of sorts. Thanks for calling my attention to this. We'll see where this leads
Jarekt, it looks like this picture got deleted. the original owner of the picture sent an email authorizing use of the picture under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". If it gets approved (likely, I think), will it then be reinstated and re-connected to my article? Any idea how long it could take?
Forward the email to OTRS and alert me and I will fix it. I do not know which article it was used at, but once the image is restored you can re add it or give me the name of the article and I will fix that too. --Jarekt (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I forwarded the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This was originally forwarded to me as the original image owner forgot to copy me. Thanks for your help!
Ich benutzte Bilder der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Bundesmarine,
die inzwischen im Bundesarchiv digitalisiert sind und von dort auch für deren Öffentlichkeitsarbeit genutzt wurden,
Nach § 5 Abs.2 UrhG sind sie damit allgemein nutzbar,
das Template ist leider mit seiner Beschränkung auf Abs. 1 nicht ganz tauglich.
Der Text im Hochladeformat zur Lizenz beschreibt allerdings zutreffend:
Amtliches Werk einer deutschen Behörde (gemeinfrei)-public domain
ich habe m.E. auch alle Bilder hinsichlich der Herkunft richtig ausgewiesen
z.B. Scheer F 216, S. 26 des genannten Artikels; Quelle: Presse- und Informationsstab BMVg 621002-39
Durch Ausbildung und deutsche Praxis weiß ich, das meine Auffassung zutreffend ist.
"I do not think" ist ein Gefühl und keine rechtliche Betrachtung,
"we cannot simply assume" ist bei sorgfältiger Sichtung des Bezuges auch fehl am Platz.
Ich hoffe, Du kannst Dich meiner rechtlichen Betrachtung doch anschliessen.--Erb34 (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Green Giant decided to delate according to Your wishes; the template might cause the missunterstanding of the German legal situation witch is described right in the german version of the upload formular. I´m still curious why You are interested to delate the pictures and i cannot unterstand two Admin´s handle a law question with feelings and ignore a legal comment done by a user who studied German law and worked with it for years.--Erb34 (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Erb34, I do not know anything about German law, but the way the template is worded (at least in English version), It does not fit the image since it seems to only cover "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". If template is wrong than please start discussion on COM:FORUM and/or Template talk:PD-GermanGov to fix it. If there are some other laws not covered by this template than discuss at the same forum creation of new template. --Jarekt (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You tagged this file because I managed to mess up the license when uploading it. It should be fixed now. Thank you for bringing my attention to it.Ramblersen (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, your recent change of all of the non-breaking spaces into regular spaces in {{Era}} seems less than ideal. While, as you mentioned in your edit summary, the edit does make the template source easier to read, it also makes the output of the template not as good. Previously the dates would correctly word-wrap as a unit, while now line breaks can end up in the middle of date specifier abbreviations. —RP88 (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
We do not use non-breaking spaces in any other date strings and I do not see many issues with incorrect word-wrap. I was not sure why Era was singled out for the special treatment, which makes the source code so much less readable. If there are issues with it, I am fine with reversing it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't care too much either way; I think {{Era}} could stay the way it is now. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the line-breaking issue. By the way, I just now noticed that Module:I18n/complex date and Module:I18n/era now both contain translations of AD/BC. Is there some way that they could share a commons set of translations? Believe it or not, they are already out of sync. —RP88 (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, I appreciate you explaining your plans. It looks like the one change I made to Module:I18n/era was apparently after you duplicated its code into Module:I18n/complex date, so the complex date version is a little out of date. I'll make sure they're the same. —RP88 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thanks. Be..anyone (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Mauer
You told me, that I didn't mention the license for this picture.Maybe it is as you told me, but I tried without any success to put other pictures in the text of my article "Maria Reinhard". As I don't want to spend more evenings trying this, I give it up to publish photos. - By the way, the picture you mentioned is a post card, published in 1900. I don't know how to get a license.
--Bebeeli (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
By the "license template" I mean things like "{{PD-old-100}}" equivalent to {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} you used with de:Datei:Mauer, rechts Hauptstr 68 .jpg, or {{PD-anon-1923}}. Full list can be found at COM:CT. I fixed File:Endresstraße in Mauer, frühere Hauptstraße.jpg. I am sorry you are having hard times uploading images for your article. You can ask for help (in German) on COM:FORUM or on German Wikipedia. From what I can tell, one of the issues is that you are uploading thumbnails of the images instead of images, so make sure the images you are sending are as big as you can get them to be, also you need to be adding license templates or they will get deleted. I added an example image to your article. Let me know if you need more help. Good Luck. --Jarekt (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your note about the above image. It is a cropped version of Beck.png. I wasn't sure about the best way to save it. Your suggestions and assistance would be very welcome! Kind regards, DASonnenfeld (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the license mistake. I had meant to type PD-old-100 (the creator, William St. John Harper, died in 1910), but wasn’t paying attention and typed PD-old-1923 instead. (I had just uploaded another file with a PD-anon-1923 license, which accounts for my confusion.) The mistake has now been corrected.
the image I uploaded is scanned from a book, which was made in the 70s. I wanted to upload it because there is no other portrait of this author on the internet. Could you help me to add the license, which is on this image: [[10]]. It's a work from the same artist and comes from a similar source. I'm new here and I didn't know how to add this, so I would appreciate some help.
You might be able to upload it locally to SL-Wikipedia which apparently allow "fair use" images which are not allowed on Commons.--Jarekt (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
These two images were taken from http://www.lowersalfordtownship.org/history/flag.html
I believe they are ok to use as low-res logos as per non-free fair use rationale.
Please let me know how to label them properly.
Hi there - Thanks for your notice on my talk page regarding the image for Ann McKee. I've now added the license specified by the author; I emailed OTRS yesterday with the relevant proof of his licensing. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Girona7 (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not know how to create the proper license template or which one to use. I did not take the photo, but the person who did, authorized me to upload via email to the widow of the subject (person in photo). I pasted in the content of that email. I also called him and received verbal permission. Please send instructions on how I should handle this.Unclefeet (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Unclefeet, You should start with reading COM:OTRS. I look at the email you quoted in the file page and it is not specific enough, for example the permission has to specify a license type. For example I release my photographs under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} but different people have different preferences. You should, ask the photographer to sent to OTRS an email and a sample emails (in many languages) can be found on COM:OTRS page. The content of your emails should also be removed from the file page. Let ma know if you have more questions. --Jarekt (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
File:Renato Signorini e il conte Vittorio Zoppi, ambasciatore a Londra, in occasione dell'inaugurazione della mostra personale tenutasi presso l'O'Hana Gallery di Londra.jpg
Hi! Thank you very much for your email. I bought the original picture mentioned above on internet (Ebay) from HISTORIC IMAGES MARKET. As I'm now the picture's ownwer, I guess I've the right to publish it on the Renato Signorini Wikipedia's page. If you need it I can send to you via mail the invoice concerning related the picture acquisition. Could you please advice me on how make the proper disclaim on the mentioned Wikipedia page? Thank you very much!-- (User talk:Juliopm)
Unfortunately, only photographers or their family are the copyright holders and can release the image under a license of their choosing. Owning one of the prints of a photograph does not make you a copyright holder. I can not think of an european law that would allow this image to stay on Commons. However you might be able to upload it under Fair use provision locally to IT Wikipedia. --Jarekt (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
LTR mark
Hi! I noticed that your bot here, here, here, etc. inserted the invisible character U+200E (LTR mark) at the end of the category name, just before the closing double brackets. You can use this tool to actually see the invisible character. You can also use the backspace to detect the extra character. These LTR marks usually come from cut-and-pasting a subcategory name from a category. I suggest you to double check the category name before mass-inserting it with a bot. Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 13:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
They create problems with some cat tools. Every month I run a bot in order to remove them from category markups, but I wish to reduce as much as possible the number of edits... -- Basilicofresco (msg) 13:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Pre-1900s Spanish images
Hi there; hoping you might be able to help with a copyright question! I'd like to add a couple of images of Dolors Aleu i Riera to Commons so that I can add them to her English, Catalan, and Spanish Wiki articles (and any others, if they exist). The images in question — the first two in the link to Dolor's name in the previous sentence — are clearly from before 1900 and should be public domain. However, I'm not 100% certain what copyright/public domain tag(s) to use for this, as I'm not sure they were ever published in the U.S. Thanks for any advice... Girona7 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not clear to me what do we know about the images. If the author is not known and you do not think the image was published (I assume in print) but it was made before 1895, than I would probably use {{PD-US-unpublished}} to say that it is PD in US. However the image should also be PD in the country of origin and for that {{Anonymous-EU}} might be sufficient. I try to avoid {{Anonymous-EU}}, since I often can not tell is the author is anonymous or just unknown to me. If the images were published than {{PD-anon-1923}} might be a better fit. Please read the text of those templates and see which one fits the circumstances of this image. --Jarekt (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can download the new version of the Wikipedia app for Android. The new version shows lead images, better galleries and content from Wikidata. It also has many other new features.[11][12]
Programs and bots still can't read information about images on many wikis. You can see the list of wikis with the most files to fix. Wikipedia in Italian, Indonesian and Japanese language have the most files to fix. On the biggest wikis you should use bots. Bots can add information templates to groups of files. You can ask other tech users to help you.
Problems
All JavaScript on Commons was broken for a few minutes on Tuesday. It was because of old code in the HotCat tool. The same problem happened on some Wikipedias on Wednesday. It is now fixed. [13]
Software changes this week
There are no software changes this week and next week due to annual meetings. [14]
Thank you for your message. I had the photograph on my Page following a request from a Wikipedia person. He told me only once I put the photograph I needed to register to Wikimedia Commons. I sent an email to the photograph who gave me his oral permission and I will come back to you soon with all the right details. If you can wait a bit longer, that would help. Thanks
a license template, like "{{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}" or some other one from COM:LIC. A photographer needs to choose under which license he/she wants to release the image.
a permission of the photographer in a form of an email to OTRS. Please read COM:OTRS for more info. This is only required since the you, the uploader, are not the phototographer.
Thank you for the details you give me. I've to say all this is far too complicated for me.
What about if the photograph registered himself the image on Wikimedia Commons? Would that not be more simple since it's his own photograph ?
Yes, it is much easier if the photographer upload the image by himself, since then there is no need for email to OTRS. He will still have to pick the license. The new image should be uploaded under some new name, and the new filename should be used in the Wikipedia article. Than this image will be deleted after a week. --Jarekt (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that and ask my friend to do it by himself. I feel desperate reading all the things requested...
Many thanks for the time you spent answering me. I really do appreciate.
Dear Jarekt, Thanks for your nomination (FvanRaemdonck.jpg). I made a typo, which is now corrected (PD-old-70). Best regards, Vysotsky (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I contacted recently with author of this and other images Vladimir Mirskiy and he gave a permission to use these and other photos in Wiki-Commons under appropriate Creative Commons license. Now I am uploading his photos to Commons. When I will complete the uploading and will receive a list of URLs on Commons for all images he will able to send an e-mail with his declaration of consent to use all these images. I used template "OTRS pending". It was wrong? Abogomazova (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It is all correct except that you should have checked with the photographer about the license ahead of time, to make sure it is compatible with Commons requirements, and you should have been adding this license at the upload time. Requirement for all images to have a license template is kind of independent from the OTRS permissions. If you know what license type he will use, than just add it to the images and remove the {{No license}} tags. --Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC).
Dear Jarekt. Thank you for your message. I got the image from the creators. After your message I wanted to go through OTRS to get their permission officially, but that seems complicated. So please delete the file, I'll ask the creators to upload it again themselves with proper copyright tag and then I'll use it on the wikipedia page. I couldn't delete it as only admins seem to be able to do it. Thanks again and sorry for trouble.--Dehneshin (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jarekt, Thanks for your information, my failure, I made a typo, which is now corrected by renaming the text in the multilingual version (kyrilic ect.) i delet the too the license template - Ok? You found the fact at the file history entries, Ok? The OpenTopoMap is general Open Source (and can be used in Wikipedia) --Metilsteiner (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was hoping that maybe you would be willing to contact the uploader of the above file to explain that it's not actually a photo of Hollywood? It was taken from near Universal Studios "Hollywood", which is, confusingly to tourists, not actually in Hollywood, but on the other side of the hills in the San Fernando Valley, which is what is actually (rather flatteringly) pictured in this photo. I added an English description, but didn't want to initiate a rename request and end up being unable to communicate the explanation clearly to the uploader... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the message about [[15]] - I tagged it being before 1923, which I think is correct according to the FAQ. Can you tell me if I did it right? Thank you! :-) Wikimandia (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It is probably OK, although it would be good to be able to prove the publication claim, by providing info on where was it published before 1923. --Jarekt (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Pliki graficzne z błędami merytorycznymi na Commons
Hej Jarku, czy jako praktyk Commons ze świetną znajomością praktyk i zasad nie wypowiedziałbyś się w tej dyskusji na pl-Wiki? Problem powraca przez cały czas, na przykład sprawa tej mapy jest już zgłaszana przez „Zgłoś błąd” już po raz trzeci odkąd pamiętam. Nie bardzo wiadomo, co z tym robić. Podważa to wartość edukacyjną Wikipedii:( Z góry wielkie dzięki. Boston9 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That is great. If you know what license they are going to use you should add it, to the images before they are deleted. If they do get deleted before message is send to OTRS, let me know and I will undelete them once I confirm that what is sent to OTRS is OK. Sincerely --Jarekt (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I do not know which license they will come to use. I suggested that the image has fallen into the public, and therfor they got something to think about. Best regards--Frankemann (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt. The picture you mentioned above, and all those others from Sørfold Lokalhistorielag, have now been approved by an e-mail confirmation from the picture responsible at the institution. --Frankemann (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt Now I see that the picture File:Borring av akselkasse for båt på Rognan.tif has been deleted, and also those eight other pictures I uploaded a while ago. For all pictures, except the one named Sørgående dagtog 452 i Lønsdalen.jpg and Fergestedet Rognan i Saltdal i 1937.jpg, OTRS should now have resived a e-mail from Sørfold lokalhistorielag (Sørfold local history club) stating that they let us use the pictures. Can you please do your magic and re establish those pictures and have a look at the e-mail. Best regards --Frankemann (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Connection to Wikipedia was slow 2 days ago and than I forgot about OTRS, so now I had much more work, but now I restored:
Бучач-Львів, I do not write in Russian, however many standard messages are translated into many languages and the system picks the closest language. Try changing language on the top of your page from Ukrainian to English or Polish and large parts of your talk page will change to those languages. Russian language is an official backup to Ukrainian language, see File:MediaWiki fallback chains.svg and Module:Fallbacklist, meaning that someone assume that statistically more Ukrainians will understand a message in Russian than in English if a message in Ukrainian is not available. --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Copyright_status:_File:Gulbji_Kugrain.C4.AB.JPG
Hello,
I received the following message about the copyright status of some files I transfered to Commons. On the Latvian Wikipedia the tag {{self}} gives: "Es, šī attēla autors, labprātīgi nododu to publiskā lietošanā.
Ja tas juridiski nav iespējams (piemēram, to nevar izdarīt saskaņā ar Latvijas likumiem),
es atdodu visas tiesības uz šī darba izmantošanu jebkuriem mērķiem bez nekādiem noteikumiem, izņemot gadījumus, ko paredz likums."
Translated: "I, the creator of this image, voluntarily commit to public use.
If this is not legally possible (for example, it can not be done under Latvian law)
I give all the rights to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, except as required by law."
That seems to me a valid license, but on Commons the {{self}}-tag gives something else altogether. Is there another tag I should use? --Joostik (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:"All My Hope" quilt by Mary Catherine Lamb.jpg
Hi, Jarekt -
Thank you so much for letting me know that there are problems with this image and with the others I uploaded for the article Mary Catherine Lamb. I hadn't ever checked my Wikimedia talk page and am glad I saw it, since it contains not only your warning about this set of images but also one dated 19 July 2013 from Ju for the images I used in the article Murray Korman. I went back into my email archives to check the dates on which I went through the very exhaustive process of establishing my right to upload those images (via permission from Korman's estate) and saw that it happened within a week of Ju's warning, which I gather explains why the images were never removed.
I am confused about the situation with the MC Lamb images. I went to Upload Wizard and followed all the steps, expecting to reach a step in which I would be asked to provide documentation for a license. This never happened. I simply wrote that I had permission from the photographer (which I do) and Wizard went ahead and put the images up. Can you explain why I was never asked for documentation for a license? I will be happy to provide that as soon as the photographer, Christopher Rauschenberg, returns from a trip abroad, which will be sometime in the next couple of weeks. My memory of my exchange with Cindy Ashley-Nelson in Permissions re: the Korman images is that an email from the photographer will be sufficient - is that correct?
You should check User:Jarekt/FAQ, or full story at COM:CT and COM:OTRS. In short the upload wizard does not ask for "documentation for a license" but for a license itself, or more precisely license template. For example I upload my images under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, but each photographer should pick their own license. The "documentation for a license" should be sent to OTRS, you can read at COM:OTRS on how to do it. The requirements about what should be in the permission from the photographer are quite precise so you should make sure the permissions have all the needed elements. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. --Jarekt (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jarekt. I realize I didn't express myself very clearly above. What confused me is that Upload Wizard allowed me to upload those images without a license template, and I don't understand how/why that was possible. I'm fairly sure I was asked for a license template for the Korman photos at the time I attempted to upload them in 2013, after which I went through the OTRS process. I know that Wikipedia has been working on streamlining the article creation process and making it more user-friendly, so when I was able to upload the MC Lamb images so easily, I assumed that was an instance of that streamlining. Now, of course, I know that was not the case and that I need to go through the same OTRS process I went through previously. I appreciate your giving me the COM:OTRS link, which I would have had to dig around to find.
Just one more question: will the images automatically be deleted on January 30th, one week after they were tagged with the warning? Or do I have time to wait for the photographer to return to the U.S. so I can get his permission per the OTRS requirements? Thanks again! --Ailemadrah (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
You can now translate articles with the new ContentTranslation tool on several wikis. [16]
This week
There are no software changes this week due to annual meetings. [17]
Hi Jarekt, I write you because user:Pasbaby asked me some help with the uploading of the file. She's very stressed about it, because she's a newbie: she did spend a lot of time trying to understand how to do it. Anyway, the file is in the {{PD-Italy}} license: the pic, as she reported, was taken in 1991 in Sicily (Italy), so is in the public domain as per Italian law. Furthermore, it is a "simple picture", no artwork, wich is an important detail for the Italian law (legge 633/41). The only problem is that she wrote "PD Italy" as simple text in the license section. Is it possible to just templatize and correct the text to amend the problem? Can I do it for her?
For reference, the related article is w:it:Chico Forti. I told her to upload the pic in it.wp, but she mistakenly did otherwise. We normally trust the users and this user is totally in goodfaith and (as far as I can see) totally trustworthy. She's in touch with Chico Forti himself, who's in jail in the USA since many many years, maybe because of a miscarriage of justice, and would very strongly like to have the pic on his article for his sons. Moreover, the notability of the gentleman is unquestioned, Mr. Forti being a very good windsurfer and a television producer. The same case (here some information) produced an endorsement by many prominent people in Italy. Having this pic on Commons is important for Chico Forti and his family, but I believe that it is important for Commons as well.
As for me, I don't have any personal implications on the uploading. I was a sysop on it.wiki and I've been editing WMF projects since 2007.
Hello, can you help me ! I have certainly make errors in importing my photo of the pintor Pierre Parsus. You have noticed it and i try to modified the licence of the file "Pierre Parsus .jpeg". But, to do that i have (foolishly) created an other file call "Parsus Pierre Auguste Désiré. jpeg" ! I know now it is wrong but i dont know how to delate the first one : when i put the second file on the info box of his wikipedia notice, the two are in it ! Can you help me to rectifie that , be sure that i am very sory for my bad English, sincerly, L-M.
Re:Copyright status: File:Chiesa Basilica S Maria Assunta Alcamo 116.JPG
I remember that I added the licence information, but it was not there. I don't know why it happened. Maybe a problem with "copy and paste" or maybe some bug of the uploader tool. Now I added the licence template. Please check if it is everything ok now. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
License of Wavell p.158.jpeg
English:
Hello Jarekt:
First of all, I apologize for the mistakes that have this writing, I do not speak English, and have had to resort to Google translator.
On the above picture, it was taken from Wikipedia in English, specifically on website, where it is mentioned that is a candidate to be copied to Wikimedia Commons. On the same website the license specified. I would appreciate if you placed the license at the above picture, because I do not speak English or domain templates.
Spanish:
Hola Jarekt:
Antes que nada, pido disculpas por los errores que tendría este escrito, pues no hablo inglés, y he tenido que recurrir al traductor de Google.
Sobre la imagen antes mencionada, ha sido sacada de Wikipedia en inglés, específicamente de esta página web, en donde se menciona que es candidata a ser copiada a WIkimedia Commons. En la misma página web se especifica la licencia. Agradecería si usted colocara la licencia en la imagen antes mencionada, pues yo no hablo inglés ni domino las plantillas.
Hi there. I'm not sure I understand completely since there is a non-free emblem of The American Legion and Ladies Auxiliary emblems. Would you be able to help me add one?Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you really repair it? Category:Pages using Information template with parsing errors is still included but another category has been removed. Would also be nice to repair the links in the description. --Arnd (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Julio, both of your emails to OTRS were received but not processed yet. There is quite a backlog there, however in order for me to undelete the file I have to know under what open license did the copyright holder agreed to release the image. It is required that the copyright holder will sign a document, similar to Commons:OTRS/it#Modello_di_dichiarazione or Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries, which spells out exactly which open license they chose. I doubt Keystone Pictures USA/ZUMAPRESS.com will release the image under open license because if that happen than they will no longer be able to sell it. I have never seen it done. --Jarekt (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That might be true, but Wikipedia or Commons does not recognize "permissions to use the picture on line only on wikipedia". Commons only allow images which are available for everyone to use, so the file has to be released under open license. That is one of the most basic requirements of Commons, see com:license. I am sorry you spend money perusing this, and may be I did not explained it in proper detail before. --Jarekt (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You explained well, but I had read somewhere that in same cases it was possible to published pictures with limited use, but maybe I've misundersttod...--Juliopm (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
So, can I use the "Copyrighted" template? But how can I reload the picture? Or "Non-free fair use in|Article" template? Or "Non-free promotional" template? It's very difficult for me to find the right way... --Juliopm (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The image would have to be uploaded to local wikipedias, like EN-wiki or IT-Wiki (if they allow "fair use" images). You will not find any of that information on Commons, but en:Wikipedia:Non-free content or it:Wikipedia:File non liberi should get you started. I just noticed that you are trying to use the image at it:Renato_Signorini, so first you need to figure out if Italian wiki allows "Free use" images. Julio, is it OK if I close the OTRS tickets, or do you want to wait for a second opinion? --Jarekt (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it's better to have a second opinion. I've just uploaded the picture in it.wikipedia, let's see what's happens! Thank you very much.--Juliopm (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
ISSUE: line 14 character 91: Script URL. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");', 'Perform batch task', 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand');
ISSUE: line 34 character 4126: This character may get silently deleted by one or more browsers. - Evidence: window.vFC_Profiles = {"del [[Category:Media without a license: needs history check]]":{"editInputs":{"mdDeleteReason":"","mdEditSummary":"del [[Category:Media without a license: needs history check]]","mdReplacePermission":false,"mdDeleteHeading":"Files on [[User:Jarekt/a]] ","mdTalkNote":"No required [[Commons:Copyright tags|license templates]] were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my [[User:Jarekt/FAQ|FAQ]] or contact me on my [[User talk:Jarekt|talk page]]. Yours sincerely, ","mdRRegEx1":false,"mdRVar1":true,"mdMatchText1":"[[Category:Media without a license: needs history check]]","mdReplaceText1":"","mdRRegEx2":false,"mdRVar2":true,"mdMatchText2":"","mdReplaceText2":"","selPreserve":"secure","alsoPreserve":""},"action":"c_replace","objectMembers":{"queryParams":{"target":"User:Jarekt/a","imdir":"ascending"},"startInput":{"mode":"Page","modeCat":false,"modeUser":false,"modePage":true,"target":"Page:User:Jarekt/a","loadThumbs":true,"loadWikitext":true,"startDate":"","startFile":""}},"proceedAt":{"vals":[],"setVals":["imcontinue"]},"time":"2014-01-08T16:51:12.241Z"},"last executed (auto-saved)":{"editInputs":{"mdDeleteReason":"","mdEditSummary":"","mdReplacePermission":false,"mdDeleteHeading":"Files on [[User:Jarekt/a]] ","mdTalkNote":"No required [[Commons:Copyright tags|license templates]] were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my [[User:Jarekt/FAQ|FAQ]] or contact me on my [[User talk:Jarekt|talk page]]. Yours sincerely,","mdRRegEx1":false,"mdRVar1":true,"mdMatchText1":"","mdReplaceText1":"","selPreserve":"secure","alsoPreserve":""},"action":"nl","objectMembers":{"queryParams":{"target":"User:Jarekt/a","imdir":"ascending","imcontinue":"6104923|VittoreMartini.jpg"},"startInput":{"mode":"Page","modeCat":false,"modeUser":false,"modePage":true,"target":"Page:User:Jarekt/a","loadThumbs":true,"loadWikitext":true,"startDate":"","startFile":""}},"proceedAt":{"vals":["6104923|Metzgeria_fruticulosa_(a,_144707-474823)_2301.JPG","6104923|VittoreMartini.jpg"],"setVals":["imcontinue"]},"time":"2014-10-29T13:04:00.445Z"},"del Media without a license: needs history check":{"editInputs":{"mdDeleteReason":"","mdEditSummary":"remove [[Category:Media without a license: needs history check]]","mdReplacePermission":false,"mdDeleteHeading":"Files on [[User:Jarekt/a]] ","mdTalkNote":"No required [[Commons:Copyright tags|license templates]] were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my [[User:Jarekt/FAQ|FAQ]] or contact me on my [[User talk:Jarekt|talk page]]. Yours sincerely, ","mdRRegEx1":false,"mdRVar1":true,"mdMatchText1":"[[Category:Media without a license: needs history check]]","mdReplaceText1":"","mdRRegEx2":false,"mdRVar2":true,"mdMatchText2":"","mdReplaceText2":"","selPreserve":"secure","alsoPreserve":""},"action":"c_replace","objectMembers":{"queryParams":{"target":"User:Jarekt/a","imdir":"ascending","imcontinue":"6104923|Бринкен_Александр_Фридрихович_(1907-1908_год).jpg"},"startInput":{"mode":"Page","modeCat":false,"modeUser":false,"modePage":true,"target":"Page:User:Jarekt/a","loadThumbs":true,"loadWikitext":true,"startDate":"","startFile":""}},"proceedAt":{"vals":["6104923|QFusion_logo.png","6104923|Бринкен_Александр_Фридрихович_(1907-1908_год).jpg"],"setVals":["imcontinue"]},"time":"2015-01-30T13:05:11.960Z"},"Media missing infobox template":{"editInputs":{"mdDeleteReason":"","mdEditSummary":"del [[Category:Media missing infobox template]]","mdReplacePermission":false,"mdDeleteHeading":"Files on [[User:Jarekt/a]] ","mdTalkNote":"No required [[Commons:Copyright tags|license templates]] were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my [[User:Jarekt/FAQ|FAQ]] or contact me on my [[User talk:Jarekt|talk page]]. Yours sincerely, ","mdRRegEx1":false,"mdRVar1":true,"mdMatchText1":"[[Category:Media missing infobox template]]","mdReplaceText1":"","mdRRegEx2":false,"mdRVar2":true,"mdMatchText2":"[[Category:Pages using Information template with parsing errors]]","mdReplaceText2":"","mdRRegEx3":false,"mdRVar3":true,"mdMatchText3":"[[Category:Artworks missing infobox template]]","mdReplaceText3":"","mdRRegEx4":false,"mdRVar4":true,"mdMatchText4":"","mdReplaceText4":"","selPreserve":"secure","alsoPreserve":""},"action":"c_replace","objectMembers":{"queryParams":{"target":"User:Jarekt/a","imdir":"ascending","imcontinue":"6104923|Tender_Donau_Elbe-Klasse_(dark1).jpg"},"startInput":{"mode":"Page","modeCat":false,"modeUser":false,"modePage":true,"target":"Page:User:Jarekt/a","loadThumbs":true,"loadWikitext":true,"startDate":"","startFile":""}},"proceedAt":{"vals":["6104923|Polish_Lublin_Class_Medium_Landing_Ship_Type_767_5_(dark1).jpg","6104923|Tender_Donau_Elbe-Klasse_(dark1).jpg"],"setVals":["imcontinue"]},"time":"2015-02-02T14:07:27.223Z"}};
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
There was a security issue on Wikimedia Labs. Many Labs tools were down after the issue was fixed. [20]
Software changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from February 3. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 4 (calendar).
The "Save page" button in the VisualEditor toolbar is now blue rather than green. This is the same as on the mobile site. [21]
You can now edit pages on the draft namespace with VisualEditor on the Russian Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia. You can ask to get VisualEditor for a namespace on your wiki. When your community agrees, ask in Phabricator. [22][23]
I hope that this is enough?
Can I remove the warning from the file by myself, or would you rather do it?
Sorry for the inconvenience.
--hdamm (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Zdjęcia budowy I linii metra w Warszawie (licencja)
Witam. Wgrane przeze mnie zdjęcia ([24], [25], [26], [27] i [28]) pochodzą z serwisu ursynow.org.pl. Skontaktowałem się z jego twórcą, który wyraził zgodę na publikację jego zdjęć (pierwsze 2) na wolnej licencji na Commons oraz podesłał oryginały (na stronie są one w mniejszej rozdzielczości i z logo portalu). Dostałem od niego również kontakt do drugiego autora fotografii, który także zezwolił na powyższe (pozostałe 3 zdjęcia). Do obydwu Panów napisałem prośby, by na adres permissions-pl@wikimedia.org wysłali wiadomości, że wyrażają zgodę na wykorzystywanie na warunkach licencji CC-BY 4.0 zdjęć znajdujących się pod odpowiednimi adresami, które pochodzą z odpowiedniego miejsca wymienionego na początku serwisu. Czekam aż Panowie wyślą te e-maile, a wolontariusze OTRS przyjmą je i umieszczą w systemie. Muri (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
W porządku, zrozumiałem swój błąd. Byłem zapatrzony w OTRS, bo to dla mnie nowość i przez to zapomniałem o CC. Dziękuję i przepraszam. :) Muri (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we already discuss it here and there. All pages on commons need to be categorized, and current consensus is to use a single category tree for all pages. You should never remove a useful category from a page without replacing it with better category. In this edit you removed template related to a city with the category for all the pages related to that city. It is OK to do that once but when you are being told over and over that you are acting against current norms and that you should stop and than you keep on do doing the same think that is what we usually call vandalism, since someone else needs to go back and be cleaning after you. --Jarekt (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not true that all pages on Commons need to be categorised. There are some exceptions. It is also not true that there is a single tree structure for the categories. See the w:Help:Categories page and the Help:Categories page that I set up, especially the image to the right.
I firmly believe that what I am doing is for the good of the project and fail to see why it would be considered to be vandalism. It seems that I focus on the needs of users (not editors) of Commons and the editors that I have crossed paths with see it as a resource for editors alone. This is completely wrong in my view. Alan Liefting (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be trying to improve categories, but only purpose of categories is to group related pages and since we do not have one category tree for "content categories" and one for non content categories than we use a single category to categorize them all. What you should, aim for is to improve pages being categorized, and you should not be doing any edits to a page that lives it in worse state than you found it in. Also doing edits that you know are against current consensus is usually considered vandalism, even if you "firmly believe", you are right. I doubt we will agree on this topic, so let's just agree to disagree. I do not want you to be removing any more categories without replacing them with more specific subcategories of the category you are removing, but Commons is big and there is plenty to do here that does not involve removing categories. --Jarekt (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
What you want me to do and what is best for Commons may be different things. I am sorry but I cannot do what you want me to do. I want to do what is best for Commons. It seems that the community want to keep the status quo and in my opinion that is not what is best for Commons. Alan Liefting (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt. This work is on a facade of a building belonging at the Generalitat de Catalunya, a public venue of a local government, so it is in public domain following the local law aplicable in Spain. Also this work is located in a street facade of the school (public domain). "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes." Which are sufficient information on its copyright status what can solve this problem? --Bestiasonica (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes I guess the issue is that almost all files invoking FOP also have license of the photographer, which is missing in this file. However I can see that in this case the artwork is 2D so {{PD-Art|FoP-Spain}} should be sufficient. However even that combination is at the moment not recognized as a license (at least not by the database query used at the moment). Is the photographer someone contributing to Wikipedia, who can give permission for the photograph? That would simplify the matter a lot, since I would prefer not to be building in very rarely used exceptions into current processes. --Jarekt (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe that public domain (PD) license implied an accordance with any other Wikimedia or Creative Commons (CC) licenses. In your opinion adding a licence tag about the photograph itself would solve any doubt about licensing? I was the original photographer taking a photograph of public domain image, and I believe that PD images are all compatible with any CC license. Is therefore redundant, in my point of view, add tags on other more restrictive licenses. I believe than CC licenses are more restrictive than PD license. Is this true or I am mistaken? Following this line of argument, it could be possible add the template {{PD-Art|FoP-Spain}} in this automatic/informatic detection of license requirements by Wikimedia Commons patrollers?
By the other side in the parameter source I type "La fotografia i el retoc fotogràfic són fruit del meu treball" that means in catalan "The photograph and photo retouching are the result of my work". Is this not sufficient to attribute the authorship of the file? What else should I do in order to meet the requirements requested? Could be sufficient add this template in the licence parameter, for example, {{Cc-by-3.0 |1= }} ? --Bestiasonica (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Bestiasonica, Your image is a rare example of image of 2D artwork invoking FOP exception, I have no doubt that {{PD-Art|FoP-Spain}} is appropriate for it, however both {{PD-Art}} and {{FoP-Spain}} templates usually have to be accompanied by other licenses (usually something like {{PD-old-100}} goes with {{PD-Art}} and photographer's license go with FOP templates). So at the moment a process we have set up does not consider {{PD-Art|FoP-Spain}} to be a license and it will keep on getting tagged with {{No license}} tags or get placed in Category:Media without a license: needs history check. The easiest way to solve the problem is if use something like:
Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.
I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
That is great. I added a formatting template that should be internationalized and show properly in other languages. --Jarekt (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Achille Delaere
Hello Jarekt, I have received a portrait painting of Father Achille Delaere (while I wait for a fresh digital image to be taken). How difficult would it be to replace the current photo in Wikipedia with a painting? It was painted by someone in Belgium in 2006. And its an exact painting of the current photo in Wikipedia (minus the flash). Is there some way I can send it to you, so that you could take a look at it too? Nicola Mitchell (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
If it is the same painting than just go half way down the page to link "Upload a new version of this file". Click on it and follow the steps. --Jarekt (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I did as you suggested and a warning comes up: File extension ".png" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/jpeg).
The old file is: Father_Delaere.png
The new file from my computer comes up: C:\Users\Owner\Pictures\Achille Delaere.jpg
Is there some way to solve this? Nicola Mitchell (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
From what I've been able to figure out, it seems like better to load the file in under a different name. Please note: this is a painting of the original photo. So do I need the name of the painter and his permission before I upload the photo? And of the photographer too? Nicola Mitchell (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh I missed the part about it being a recent painting based on the old photo. On the second read I am not sure how I missed it. Yes for that you should read com:OTRS and see if you can get the painter to send the permission to OTRS, and they would not be considered the same work which can be overwritten. Sorry for the bad advice. If you upload it, and it is better than the original, than we can go to individual wikipedias and replace the file. --Jarekt (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jarekt! I'm member of a group of hobby historians and we are in contact with the daughter of a departed photographer (Foto Karner in Pinkafeld). That man made a few hundred pictures and picture postcards from our hometown. We used the file "Pinkafeld Kaserne Grundsteinlegung 1929 01.jpg" as test case to get information about the way how we can upload his pictures to Wikimedia. Now we knew, that we have to speak with his daughter, who is the holder of the license and she has to send a mail to the OTRS Team (permissions-de@wikimedia.org) with the names of the files (200 - 300 files). Is this approach okay? At last I don't know if it necessary to the send the mail before or after the upload of the pictures to the OTRS Team. Do you know that? Kind regards form Pinkafeld/Austria. Heinz --Stefan97 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Stefan97, It is OK to upload images and then deal with OTRS; however, the files still need to be uploaded with a license template, see com:lic and com:ct, and the license can only be chosen by the copyright holder. For example if she chooses to release them to Public Domain than you should use {{PD-heir}}, or is she wants her name or the photographer's name to be attributed by people who might download it from wikipedia than she can use {{Cc-by-4.0}} or similar template. By the way the email to OTRS does not have to include all the filenames. It can say something like "all photographs by ...." or "all photographs by .... which are uploaded by user:Stefan97". Make sure that the email she sends is based on the example email in COM:OTRS (in whichever language she is comfortable with). Let me know if I can help you with anything else. --Jarekt (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello jarek.
The picture You wrote us about was deleted.
It came from the page: http://thesheepest.blogspot.fr/, and the administrator of the blog had given us peermission to use any picture from his page. Now that you know the situation, could you help us make the picture valid, so we can use it, as well as the other pictures in his blog?
Thank you very much.
Malonore
You need to first read COM:OTRS which describes procedure we use when uploading images which are not created by you and which are not in Public domain. The administrator of a blog can not give you permission to use images from his blog unless he is the photographer. You need to get the permission from the copyright owner, and in most cases that is the photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, what is the status the work of your Bot concerning the mentioned category? Is there still a long way to go? I ask because i need some motivating light in the distance. Furthermore, what happens with newly uploaded pics? Is there a bot immediately informing uploaders about broken Information templates on their userpages? Cheers, --Arnd (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
My bot is adding files to Category:Pages using Information template with parsing errors as part of effort to find all the images without infoboxes which go into Category:Media missing infobox template. If an image does not successfully transclude a infobox template ({{Information}} template in most cases) but the text has "{{Information" than I add it to Category:Pages using Information template with parsing errors. Many images in that category do not have much of an {{Information}} template, except for "{{Information" string somewhere. Before I started I was estimating about 700k files without infobox templates, but others estimated about 500k. The true number will be somewhere in the middle I guess, and now we are at 543k, so I should be more than 90% done. At the moment there are not automatic processes for immediately informing uploaders about broken Information templates. I think we should pass a policy that all files should use one of the standard approved infoboxes and all new uploads should be required to use them. Without it it is kind of uploader's choice and it is hard to enforce it. Even for the licenses the process is not automatic. From time to time I run this query and use VisuaFileChange to alert users. Also every few weeks YiFeiBot scans the whole website for files without license and adds them to Category:Media without a license: needs history check, but there is nothing automatic or immediate about it --Jarekt (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Your bot is not permanently running but seems that every partial run processes younger files. Is that right? I wonder how big the file flow with invalid information templates still is nowadays. --Arnd (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I have quite low tech approach: I run this CatScan2 query and replace "last 300 hours" with date brackets like 20100301 - 20100601. I started with the oldest files and slowly making ma way towards the newest ones. I think I am ~ 2011 now. --Jarekt (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you left a message about this pic on my page. I was going to use it in an article but I haven't done it yet. I'm not sure what else it needs as far as license. It's from about 1910 and was a publicity image. I put US old on it - what else should I use? Wikimandia (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I received a message that the image "File:Dan West, Heifer International.jpg" is scheduled for deletion. This is fine. I was unsuccessful in deleting the image myself, which was uploaded by mistake. I do not have the copyrights to support it. However, the image "File:Dan West.jpg" is the image I would like to have appear on the Dan West (philanthropist) Wikipedia page. I do believe I have sufficient support for this image, which is used with permission of the Manchester University archives, who owns the photo and at where I am an employee. I am a novice Wikipedia user, successful in making text edits, but found image uploading and placement challenging. I appreciate your oversight and help.
Chetwebber
By "Manchester University archives, who owns the photo" do you mean "owns a copy of a photo" or "owns copyrights to the photo". If the archives own copyrights to this photo, than you should read COM:OTRS and then see if someone can write a letter to OTRS stating that the archives own those copyrights and that they release the image under some license or release it into Public Domain. That happens occasionally for example Bundesarchiv released ~ 70k images that way. What is more common is that the archives did not secured the copyrights from the photographers and their heir and they only are in a possession of a copy of a photograph. That does not make them the copyright owner or give them legal powers to release the image. Such archives than usually release only public domain images, that was the case with 100k files donated by National Archives and Records Administration. You can check Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom for details of how to identify public domain images, but the majority of PD images are by known photographers who died more than 70 years ago. Let me know if I can help you more. --Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
In addition, I have sent a mail to Government of India. Ministry of home affairs. Office of the the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi to seek clarification on the issue.
Hi, Jakrekt! I am sorry for my flimsy upload. I have since updated the licensing for clarity. The image is a company logo and the company has given explicit permission for redistribution on any web-based outlet. Thank you for cooperating with me on this and informing me of the discrepancy that created the earlier concern. Please let me know if there is anything else of concern with the image. I'd be more than happy to work with you on this. :) Mestesugarul (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jakrekt, I´m trying to delete the image but I can´t, can you do it, please? I have an account to upload images, I take care to your observations the next time. Thanks and Best Regards.--Caleidoscopic (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jakret, can you please check the mentioned category string that is added by your bot. It seems to contain an invisible char at the end of it: [[Category:Pages using Information template with parsing errors<200e>]]". Just saw by copy'n'paste it to an editor. --Arnd (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
MediaWiki was reverted to the previous version on February 4. It was because of a performance issue. It was restored later. [31]
UploadWizard was broken on February 4 because of the revert of MediaWiki. [32]
All sites were broken for 30 minutes on February 5. It was due to a network problem. [33]
Software changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since February 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from February 10. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 11 (calendar).
You can have one user page for all wikis. Your Meta user page will show if you don't have a user page on a wiki. You can test this tool on test wikis. [34][35][36]
You can search for media files in VisualEditor more easily. Images are bigger and you see the size and license. [37][38]
It is easier to review your changes when you save the page in VisualEditor. The window is wider. [39]
You can read the latest news about VisualEditor. You can now join weekly meetings with developers. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The first meeting is on February 11 at 20:00 (UTC).
Future changes
Administrators will soon be able to delete change tags used fewer than 5,000 times. [40]
In the future you will be able to have personal lists of articles on the mobile site. [41]
Bellwether Community Credit Union logo & copyright
Hi Jarekt
Regarding the Bellwether Community Credit Union, I have permission from the credit union (the copyright owner) to use it for this article. Would asking them for written (email) permission be sufficient? I'm uncertain what license pertains to its use in this case. Thanks for your help. Nala
You should read COM:OTRS and as them to write a permission letter to OTRS which is based on the example given there. As for license, that is set of rules that the copyright owner imposes on people using this logo on wikipedia and outside of wikipedia. If there are no rules than the image is released into Public domain ({{PD-author}} license). If the copyright owners want to be attributed when someone uses their logo than they usually use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. There are two most often used exemplars of hundreds of licenses we use on Commons. Please see COM:LIC and COM:CT for more details. --Jarekt (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize that Wikicommons did not allow Free Use and thought that it would be allowed 1) because there was no copyright for works published in Shanghai at the time or 2) it was allowable at the subject of discussion. Please delete! CWH (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
hello,
I put a first picture this photo without permission because I was not aware.
I contacted the person who took the photo and is requested to complete the form giving permission to put this photo on the page of wikipedia Abdel Malik Hsissane.
MR Fabrice Foures sent you an email giving you permission, I received a copy of this email.
However, you took my picture because I did not respect the conditions, or if everything is rescepté to the letter.
Thank you for helping me please
Best Regards--Elovince30 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
OTRS ticket: OTRS:2014111410022046 is still unresolved. I do not read French so I do not know what are the issues with it. The image was deleted because it did not have a license template. If the ticket gets resolved we can always undelete the image. I contacted a French user familiar with the case to assist you, see here. --Jarekt (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
We have not received such email (looking up "Fabrice Foures" on OTRS yielded no result). The file therefore still lacks a proper authorization from the copyright holder. Elfix18:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you give me your email address so I send you the email Foures Fabrice because he put me a copy of the email
Is this might work like this and help to restore this photo?--Elovince30 (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I contacted the person speaking French I have not yet received an answer from him.
Is what I can give you the date and time at which the person sent the mail so that research be simpler?
Best Regards--Elovince30 (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I know which ticket it is, since there is only one related to Abdel Malik Hsissane. In one email the sender says that he is the copyright owner and the images are released under Public Domain and in the other the sender says he is not the copyright owner but the copyright owner agrees with him, and that he does not know what license to use and he needs help. The emails do not have a name on the bottom and the account name does not says "Fabrice Foures". I can not help with that one since I do not speak French ( a translated messages using Google Translate). Some of the French volunteers should handle this ticket, but they will probably request an email from the copyright holder or an attachment with a PDF scan of a document signed by the copyright holder. Also we can not really help with choosing the license, which is copyright holder choise, other than suggest Public Domain {{PD-author}} or CC license {{Cc-by-4.0}} - they are the most frequently used ones. Sorry this is so complicated. --Jarekt (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
but you have received an email from the email address Fabrice Fourès, another email was to be mine and so the mail is not the same
This email does not match what is this?--Elovince30 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Is what I can sent the mail because I was copying? you will have proof that it is he the owner of the photo and it gives you permission to use it.
There is also the facebook profile picture in the album of NIMES NANTES of August 4, 2012.--Elovince30 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. As I just said on my talk page, I will not validate this permission. This image, which you first confirmed as being yours a few months ago and that you now attribute to someone else, and that appears to be a screenshot taken from a television broadcast, does not inspire me with confidence. Sorry for questioning your good faith, but validating this permission seems wrong to me. Elfix09:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I asked Fabrice Foures if I could use this photo he give the agreement that's why I said it was mine because I was the person's agreement and that I did not know how else to do
after I understood the procedure to be allowed to put a picture which I have permission but is not taken by myself, you had the permission of his mailbox and it is not suitable.
Additionally, this photo is not from any of a screenshot of television, which is Fabrice Foures the plug when Ligue 2 match between the Olympic nimes 4 August 2012. This match was held at Stadium curbs. And this picture is best to represent Abdel Malik Hsissane.
Also I assure you that Fabrice Foures is the owner of this picture, it's official photographer L2 you can Verfier looking at his facebook
Explain me how to Fabrice Foures send you an authorization that suits you
Thanking you
--Elovince30 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
good evening,
please let me know, is that the information that I provided you have informed?
Have you found the mauk or gives permission?
or is what I have to ask other authorization to Mr Fabrice Foures?
best regards--Elovince30 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, what are the parsing problems with these photos (its just examples from series of photos)? Thanks, --Arnd (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
But what we can do about it? Isn't it some kind of software bug? I wonder why this info is not updated when a new version of the file is saved. Usually, this should be done due to the possible use of other templates. --Arnd (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, i just logged into tool labs and can confirm that it is a database issue because the information template is not contained in the templatelinks table of those files. So i have time to repair some of the other files. Please keep me informed about the issue. --Arnd (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a way to report the issue. May be a bug report. They all were uploaded at about the same time. I will try to remove files that have a working {{Information}} template from that directory. --Jarekt (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, could you please continue with your bot just leaving out the problematic time range? I need more work for the weekend ;-) This way we also see if there are other problematic time ranges after 2011. --Arnd (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Software changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since February 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from February 17. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 18 (calendar).
You can now change the order of categories in VisualEditor using drag-and-drop. [45]
In VisualEditor, you now need to make a change before you can "Apply Changes" to citations and templates. [46]
The way the cursor moves in VisualEditor is changing. Your browser now handles the cursor directly. Most of you will see no change. In right-to-left text, the cursor now moves in a 'visible' rather than 'logical' way. This is like other sites but you may be surprised at first. [47]
Meetings
The VisualEditor Team had their first public bug triage meeting on February 11. They will post the results on the meeting page. [48]
You can join the second weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on February 18 at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join. [49]
You can join a meeting with the developers of the Content Translation tool. It will be on February 18 at 13:00 (UTC). [50]
I read your message and I wanted to give you more details about the process that involved these two files. I, already, have sent a message to OTRS system with the proper permission gave to me by the image owners. I didn't take those photos, so I followed the procedure described on the wikipedia.
The license for the images is CC-BY-SA-3.0 and the owners agree.
About the second file: RetratCaseroUllFerit.jpg, you tell me it requires a license template, sorry, but I don't know what is it.
Could you help me, please? I thought I followed all the procedure correctly.
Witaj, zamieściłeś na Commons dwa zdjęcia Kenkarty ([51], [52]), która jest opisana jako pochodząca z 1944, tymczasem data wydania, jaka na niej widnieje, to 13 listopada 1943. Rozumiem, że jest to błąd, czy mogę/możesz go poprawić? Pozdrawiam, --Hektor Absurdus (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Rzeczywiście, zła data. Poprawiłem. W przyszłości jak są oczywiste błędy to się nie krepuj i poprawiaj. Dziękuje. Pozdrowienia --Jarekt (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jarekt. Over in the discussion on image description formatting, you seem to be assuming that this is all about one image File:Old senate debate.jpg (now deleted as duplicate, thanks for doing that!)
If that's what you're thinking, I'd like to counter that assumption. [[User::Look2See1]] is a productive member of Commons: looking back at his history, he does about 50 edits/day on image files. My guess is about 25% of them add the poor formatting we've been discussing: he's been doing it for 3 years, despite about 10 editors objecting on his Talk page. That means there are probably 10,000+ pages with his odd formatting.
I could improve any one of them (and then a couple of weeks later, Look comes back and reverts my changes). But, I don't know what to do about the thousands of poorly formatted image descriptions.
There does seem to be a rough consensus against his formatting. I haven't seen anyone other than Look say that the formatting was good. I could run an AWB script to try to fix them, but I don't know if that would be considered unfriendly and/or disruptive. I suppose I could try to gather consensus on a mass fix of those particular edits.
hike395, I lust looked through quite a few User:Look2See1 edits to files and in all cases I looked at (s)he has left the file in much better state than (s)he has found it. (S)He usually adds very good descriptions and categories. In many cases I would not use bullets as much. I do not have strong opinions about them, and if (s)he is adding them to new descriptions (s)he is writing, than I do not have a problem with it. File:Old senate debate.jpg is so far the only example I found where the changes were made to the existing description and which in my opinion decreased readability of the paragraph. If there are other examples of changes you feel he/she made that you do not agree with, then there should be a way to discuss them and reach some sort of agreement without edit-waring and I will be happy to look at them and give my opinion. I do not think you can do automatic AWB changes to "fix" his/her formatting style without creating more more issues than you are trying to solve. --Jarekt (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The above files got corrected. Please can you remove the template from them, because I do not have the permission to do so. Thanks for your work here. --Khaled (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since February 18. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from February 25. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 26 (calendar).
It is now easier to see template fields in VisualEditor. The fields are bigger. [57]
It is now easier to see when a button is disabled in VisualEditor. [58]
Sometimes when you copy-pasted a template in VisualEditor, it was replaced by HTML. This problem is now fixed. [59]
Tools in Labs will stop working for a few hours on February 24. [60]
Meetings
You can read the notes from the last meeting with the VisualEditor team.
You can join the next weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on February 26 at 00:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
At the moment you need to log in to edit Wikimedia wikis on mobile devices. You can say if anyone should be allowed to edit on the mobile sites. The discussion ends on March 15.
Images in the interface will soon work better in Opera 12. [61]
I don't have the know how to do that. I don't have a license of the picture. However I have sent the author an e-mail, stating that I used the picture on wikipedia.
Sincerely yours.
Photoshop??? retouche (nearly the original colors)
Moritz von Schwind: Der Sängerkrieg ..
Hallo Jarekt, ... I need your advice times: at the Wartburg Castle there is an historical art gallery (frescoes) featuring the history of the castle. Any visitor can take there pictures with the camera for a small fee, and place the pictures in the Internet. But these paintings are greatly aged in the last 100 years and the colors are faded. It has been commissioned in the 1920s, several conservators to clean the pictures, but these attempts were unsuccessful. Today, this condition is very sorry he is technically irreversible.
I scanned the corresponding colored lithographs of images in a study of 1920 on these paintings a few years ago. It is missing but there is any indication of the photographers and Lithorgraphen. The same material is also used in numerous in Germany printed guide to image the once pristine images. My question: is there any way this 1920 copies for Wikipedia to use?--Metilsteiner (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, I realise now fair use isn't appropriate for wiki commons, but I've appealed for fair use for other similar images, where ownership clearly belonged to the family the prisoner wasn't available for comment, and no copyright was asserted, and on this basis have uploaded image a second time to wikipedia directly [62], and linked the page to this second image, would value your comments. Cpsoper (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Josve05a, Template:Creator template: ignore this selfportrait is documented, but in short this image comes up when searching for images in self-portrait category, which are using {{Creator}} templates, that do not have an images. Such images almost always can be added to the {{Creator}} templates. This image is an anomaly since it is someone's self-portrait but it is not an image of "creator:Jonatan Svensson Gladh" and this tag tells the query to ignore it in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this image was flagged with several more from my uploads. I added CC License information. I'm quite new to Wikimedia, and I'm kind of lost as of what to do. I've checked some guides but I don't quite get the hang of it. Is the file correct now or should I do something more?
I take it all those paintings are by es:Manuel Puig Genís who died in 1957 and according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Spain those images will be in public domain 80 year after death of the author, so in 2037. So those images will have to wait until then to be able to be uploaded to Commons. By the way CC license is something you can only give to images to which you have copyrights.--Jarekt (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:"All My Hope" quilt by Mary Catherine Lamb.jpg and related images
Dear Jarekt,
I'm very confused by your statement that the images of Ms. Lamb's quilts "lack permission of the heir of Mary Catherine Lamb for their reproduction." I was unaware that there is a permission form for heirs to sign when the image of something they inherited is used on Wikimedia/Wikipedia. I know about the permission form for the creator/owner of the image, but not for the owner of the subject of the image. Where is such a form available?
In the case of these images, the photographer who created them (with the exception of the KBOO snapshot) is a professional photographer who was Ms. Lamb's teacher, mentor, and very close friend. In an email to me, he clarified that "In her lifetime, MC gave me permission verbally to photograph her quilts, which I did." Would forwarding that email to ORTS solve the problem? Or do you require a legal document?
No we do not have a form for it, but OTRS permissions need to be written by all the copyright holders. In the case of photographs of artworks the photographs are considered derivative works and two parties hold the copyrights: the photographer (holds copyrights to the photograph) and the original artist or her heir (hold the copyrights to the artworks). We do have permission from the photographer and in the last email with him the OTRS volunteer alerted him that we will also need permission from the her heirs. MC's permission for her photographer friend to photograph her works did not make her loose her copyrights. By the way, I am not a layer and OTRS volunteer corresponding with the photographer likely is not either and you are welcome to seek 3rd opinion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright but I suspect that in the end KBOO snapshot will have to be deleted and the quilts will only be able to stay if we get permissions from MC family who I assume inherited her estate. --Jarekt (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:El Feminismo Esta de Moda.PNG
Hello, I put 3 photos of Abdel Malik Hsissane on commons:
1 portrait, which I am not the author, but Fabrice Foures (the photographer of this picture sent you an email with permission to publish these photos on wikipedia)
And 2 other photos, I'm not either, but the author Johanna Journet (the author of this photo) also sent you an email with permission to publish these photos on wikipedia)
After verification and typing "Abdel Malik Hsissane" in research on commons wikipedoa I can not find any of these 3 photos.
Can you help me please
Best Regards
I do not see any emails from Fabrice F. in the system. There is a long discussion about Abdel Malik Hsissane photographs with someone, but that someone does not identifies himself as Fabrice F. Johanna J. sent permission for "Accueil" which is not an image, and did not replied (so far) when asked to identify the photograph. In the mean time photographs were deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to exclude your late submissions for this challenge. Midnight UTC is the deadline. -- Colin (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I forgot that February is the short month and just started a process of uploading whole bunch of images. Oh well. --Jarekt (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Cześć! Wszystkie te pliki zostały załadowane za zgodą ich twórcy a zgoda została przesłana 28 lutego do OTRS celem zarejestrowania (zgodnie z procedurą po załadowaniu plików). Zgodnie otrzymaną przez ze mnie dawniej informacją wstawienie szablonu {{OTRS pending}} zabezpiecza pliki na czas niezbędny do zarejestrowania wniosku w OTRS przez około 2 tygodnie od załadowania pliku. Proszę zauważ, że pliki załadowałem 28 lutego rano a ty wstawiłeś im szablon brak licencji 1 marca w nocy.
Do chwili obecnej nie otrzymałem z OTRS, żadnej informacji ani pozytywnej ani negatywnej o zarejestrowaniu zgody autora zdjęć. Jeżeli zgoda autora ma jakiej braki formalne to bardzo proszę o informację autor zdjęć na pewno je uzupełni na początku tygodnia (koresponduję z nim na mail służbowy). Ponieważ tak czy inaczej sprawa jest w toku to proszę przywróć szablony {{OTRS pending}}, tak aby status plików odpowiadał stanowi faktycznemu.
Wszystkie zdjęcia przesyłane na Commons muszą mieć szablony licencji. Pozwolenie przesłane do OTRS jest tylko dokumentacją ze licencja jest prawidłowa. Pliki bez licencji sa automatycznie kasowane po 7 dniach, zazwyczaj bez sprawdzenia czy coś było przesłane do OTRS. Tak przy okazji, zdjęcia rzeźb czy figurek maja dwóch autorów: rzeźbiarka (Beata Zwolańska-Hołod [63]) i fotograf (Paweł Pluta ?[2]). Czy masz pozwolenia od obu autorów? --Jarekt (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Na Wikipedii człowiek cały czas się uczy i cały czas musi uważać [8-)) ]. Wstawiłem zgodnie z oświadczeniem w mailu {{Cc-by-3.0}}. Zgodnie z oświadczeniem (jak rozumiem) właścicielem praw autorskich jest Wrocław Open, a Paweł Pluta jako upoważniony przedstawiciel udziela zgody. --Pnapora (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"Wrocław Open" jedynie jest właścicielem praw autorskich jeśli autorzy przekazali swoje prawa autorskie i się ich zrzekli, co jest dość rzadkie jako ze (o ile mi wiadomo) wymaga prawników. Jeśli właściciel praw autorskich nie jest autorem to właściciel praw autorskich powinien wytłumaczyć jak nabył te prawa. --Jarekt (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Zgodnie ze wzorem pisma na pl.wiki [64] (oraz polskim prawem zresztą też), właściciel rzeczy lub prawa jedynie oświadcza, że jest właścicielem praw autorskich nie ma obowiązku przedstawiania dokumentów oraz udowadniania drogi w jaki sposób wszedł w ich posiadanie. Czy nie uważasz, że obciążanie kogokolwiek obowiązkiem przeprowadzenia formalnego śledztwa wraz ze zbieraniem twardych dowodów dotyczącego kliku zdjęć ofiarowanych przez oficjalnego przedstawiciela instytucji nie jest pewną przesadą? Przecież jak ładuję swoje zdjęcia to też po prostu oświadczam, że są moje. Nawiasem mówiąc pani Zwolańska-Hołod też za moim pośrednictwem ofiarowała zdjęcia krasnali na commons. --Pnapora (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Pnapora, może masz racje, ja też "cały czas się uczę" i nie wiem jak wolontariusze z polskiego OTRS podejdą do tego. Moja rola to sprawdzanie czy wszystkie pliki maja licencje. Pozdrowienia. --Jarekt (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, l'autorisation qui manquait de Serge DOGUET, Bibliothécaire de la Société entomologique de France a été envoyée à l'adresse de OTRS.
Merci de faire le nécessaire. Bien cordialement.--Erwan de Kerhister (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think now I understand the question, now. Category:Artworks missing infobox template was added because file contained {{PD-Art}} but did not have (working) infobox of any kind. Apparently {{Artwork}} was there but was corrupted. You fixed the template and I removed manually Category:Artworks missing infobox template (as I often do). I think everything is in order now. By the way you should never replace Artwork by Information templates, unless the template is not applicable to the file content. Does that answer your question, or am I still missing it? --Jarekt (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. The file is owned by the company and is their logo. Should I put copyright tags, as far as I know there is not any, but when I uploaded the file it requested me the tags... How should I remove them before someone deletes the image?
Thanks
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
A Lua function to use Wikidata has changed. You need to update the pages that use it. [65]
You can use the Content Translation tool on Wikipedia in Uzbek and Minangkabau. You need to enable it in your Beta options.
You can now hide banners if you don't have an account. [66][67]
Software changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since February 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from March 3. It will be on all Wikipedias from March 4 (calendar).
You can use the Content Translation tool on Wikipedia in Punjabi and Kyrgyz. You can ask for the tool in other languages.
Editing the fake blank line in VisualEditor is now simpler. This change also fixed a few bugs. [68][69][70][71]
The TemplateData editor now warns you if a related page already has TemplateData. [72]
The TemplateData table now tells you if a template doesn't take any parameters. [73]
Meetings
You can read the notes from the last meeting with the VisualEditor team.
You can join the next weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on March 4 at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join technical meetings in France and Mexico this year. You will be able to ask for help if you can't pay yourself. [74]
Future changes
You will be able to get a direct link for a section of a page. [75]
Dear Jarekt,
Thank you for your message. I uploaded the images File:Jan van Dijk - Algemeen Handelsblad.jpg. and File:Jan van Dijk - Algemeen Handelsblad-.jpg. to try how it works. The first one can be deleted, the second is a better version, and now I know that it is not easy to delete an image once it is there.
The situation is like this, on behalf of the daughter in law of Jan van Dijk, the copyright holder, I make this page on wikipedia. I am in close contact with her. But how do I now have to do it?
Some of the images are from magazines, which I scanned, and others are in archives. Can I just use them without notifying the archive, since they are not the copyrightholders?
Thanks in advance, Froukje
You need to read COM:OTRS and ask the copyright holder to send the permission to OTRS. She also have to choose a license for Jan van Dijk photographs. If she decided to release them to Public Domain I would suggest {{PD-heir}}, but other popular alternatives are {{Cc-by-4.0}} which would allow her to request that Jan van Dijk is properly attributed. See COM:LIC and COM:CT for more details. Copyrights to photographs usually stay with photographer and his heir, unless the photographer contractually transferred them to someone else. You should be able to use images from magazines or archives without the need for additional permissions as long as we have the copyright holder permission. Adding of license to already uploaded images is more urgent since any image without a license is deleted within a week. Let me know if you have more questions. --Jarekt (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jarekt, I will meet with er tomorrow and explain to her about the OTRS and the license, and discuss which images we will put on/release in the public domain. I probably take the risk now that the uploaded image will be deleted, it is only one, so if I have the permission I will do it again. Maybe I have new questions tomorrow after I have talked to her. Thanks for now, greetings from Amsterdam
If the image is deleted, I can always undelete it. But once you agree on a license (or Public domain) than you can place a proper template and send the permission latter. Permissions and OTRS often take time but licenses should be agreed on before the upload. Thanks for working on sharing those images. --Jarekt (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, we're still thinking about the licence, but I think the cc-by-4.0 is the wisest. If those are then released, that doe not mean that all his work is then free to use, is it? Because that would be another decision. We are thinking about maybe four or five to illustrate the page and then later we could add more. There is a portrait of Jan van Dijk in the family that we would like to use, but no one knows who made the photo and when. Can we use it though? Thanks again...
You release permission for specific works. You can name specific file name, or say "files by someone and uploaded by user:Froukje Holtrop " to prevent other people from uploading other images of his. You can also say that all works by someone are released under some license and encourage others to find and upload them. That decision is up to the copyright holder. The "portrait of Jan van Dijk in the family" would be probably OK to upload using {{Anonymous-EU}} if it was taken more than 70 years ago. It would be better is image was published or available to public somehow for more than 70 years. --Jarekt (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! This morning I was with Sonja van Dijk, we chose the images, she filled in the OTRS form, I send it to 'permissions' an uploaded the images. Later i will put them in the Wikipedia text. Hope all is well now? Please tell me, if something is missing. Thanks, Froukje
The file (a scan) of a document older than at least 80 years was kindly sent to me by the town archive of Oberkirch, which is in possession of the document, and I thought I had stated just that.--Julius Eugen (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
There was a typo in the license so it did not show. I fixed it. By the way see the message below. Also I was looking at File:Ganther.jpg and File:August_Suter.jpg they claim that unknown photographer died more than 70 years ago. You should use {{Anonymous-EU}} or {{PD-anon-1923}} if the images were published more than 70 years ago, otherwise I do not think we can keep them. Could you provide the sources from where you scanned those images?--Jarekt (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt. I see the OTRS ticket, but who is the author of the photo? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spitteler-Denkmal.jpg, which is of an upload by the same editor, lays out my concern. Is the uploader the heir to the sculptor August Suter, or the photographer? If he's the heir to the photographer, what's the photographer's name, and why is the author marked as unknown? Does the OTRS cover the file I nominated for deletion? Thanks for your time. INeverCry22:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The OTRS is only for the works by August Suter, the sculptor. The photograph was among the Suter family photographs, but the photographer is unknown. The date is known as the lady in the photo died in 1941. On the OTRS we were discussing that the image could stay if the photograph was taken and published more than 70 years ago so the uploader could use {{Anonymous-EU}}, or if there was some proof that it was a self-portrait. The uploader claimed that the image met the requirements of {{Anonymous-EU}}, and we were discussing the date, but in retrospect there was never a proof that the photograph was made available to the public, so that part might be shaky. The same applies to other photographs on en:August_Suter page which were not made by the uploader: File:Suter_Cendrars.jpg and File:Spitteler-Denkmal.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt. All the photographs you mention are part of the Suter family archive. The Cendrars bust was photographed around 1911 (!). As Suter himself mentioned in a letter in the Basel University Archive the bust was destroyed later. The photograph was used in Frank Budgen's autobiography of 1970, published by Oxford University Press. I have no vested interest in seeing these pictures published on Wikipedia. If they have to be deleted, so be it. The loss is not mine.--Julius Eugen (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I find it always sad to be deleting a scan of a rare valuable photograph, because we do not know enough about it to evaluate if it is copyrighted or not, but the images are not just for wikipedia and if someone finds our image and re uses it outside wikipedia (prints it out and sells copies on ebay), while relying on our claim that image is in Public Domain than I would like to make sure image is in Public domain. --Jarekt (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can now create books on almost all wikis. It doesn't work yet on wikis using the language converter. [76][77]
VisualEditor had problems with categories in Safari. It sometimes moved or removed the categories. The issue is now fixed. [78][79][80]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since March 4. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from March 10. It will be on all Wikipedias from March 11 (calendar).
In VisualEditor the "Edit beta" button is now called "Edit" on the English Wikipedia. [81][82]
The feedback tool in VisualEditor now looks like the other tools. It also asks for information about your browser to help fix bugs. [83][84]
You now see the VisualEditor toolbar even if the rest of the page is still loading. [85][86]
You now see more information when you edit a link, a reference or other items in VisualEditor. You also see a clearer edit button in those tools. [87][88]
If you use the ContentTranslation tool you now see red links in the list of articles in other languages. The link is red if the article doesn't exist in the language of your options or of your browser. You can translate the article by clicking on the red link.
Meetings
You can read the notes from the last meeting with the VisualEditor team.
You can join the next weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on March 11 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join a technical meeting in France in May. You can ask for help if you can't pay yourself. [89]
I've been notified that that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license. Same goes for the rest of the files I uploaded. As far as I know the representative of the company holding the copyrights sent the letter with the permission to OTRS to use the files on Wiki. The files were sent to use under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Was there something they haven't mentioned or didn't do? Thank you for your help.
Every file we hold is required to specify the copyright template, and every image on the internet is assumed subject to copyright law, unless license is provided and it is compatible with Commons license templates. File:Uzke.jpg has 2 layers: aerial photograph and vector data from OSM. You can use "{{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}{{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}" for Open Street Map part but still need to find license for the aerial image. --Jarekt (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Okładka "Kamieni na szaniec" z lipca 1943
Hej Jarku, mam małe pytanie:
Chciałbym zeskanować i wrzucić na Commons okładkę pierwszego wydania "Kamieni na szaniec" Kamińskiego z lipca 1943 do naszego artykułu (wymaga wiele pracy, ale od czegoś trzeba zacząć) na pl-Wiki o tej książce:
(...) Tytuł nawiązuje do wiersza Juliusza Słowackiego Testament mój. Książka pod pseudonimem Juliusza Góreckiego oraz tytułem „Kamienie na szaniec. Opowiadanie o Wojtku i Czarnym” ukazała się po raz pierwszy w lipcu 1943, prawdopodobnie w nakładzie 2000 egz. Wydawcą była KOPR (Komisja Propagandy Biura Informacji i Propagandy Komendy Okręgu Warszawa Armii Krajowej), a książkę wydrukowały Tajne Wojskowe Zakłady Wydawnicze (TWZW). Na okładce zaprojektowanej przez Stanisława Kunstettera umieszczono Znak Polski Walczącej
Stanisław Kunstetter zmarł w 1985, był członkiem Biura Informacji i Propagandy AK, i pewnie okładkę stworzył "służbowo".
Czy widzisz jakieś szanse na wgranie tego skanu, a jeżeli tak, to pod jaką licencją? Czy jednak trzeba czekać 1985 od śmierci Kunstettera tj. 70 lat? Z góry serdeczne dzięki za pomoc:) Boston9 (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This file is licenced by LGPL and derived and modified by me from the original (File:Epiphany-bookmarks.png).
Hello Jarekt,
Thanks for the message regarding the images uploaded by me.
I have been collecting WW2 documents & passports for over 20 years and always trying to share them with others on line.
It is important to preserve and maintain the memory of the past so we learn from what has happened. That is the reason for why I upload images from my collection, which is a private collection that I keep at home.
The wizard has sayed the LGPL is supported (the original has this license too).
So i have copied the license description from the wizard to the picture.
Now you are saying the licence is missing.
What should i do?
Now i have replaced the name LGPL with { { LGPL } }. Is this what was missing?
--Huluvu424242
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The servers that resize images are using new software. You should report new problems that you notice with images. [92]
It is now easier to add special characters in VisualEditor. You can edit the list of characters for your wiki. [94][95]
Problems
Wikis were broken for a few minutes on Thursday due to a code error.
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since March 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from March 17. It will be on all Wikipedias from March 18 (calendar).
A puzzle piece icon () now shows hidden templates in VisualEditor. You can edit the template by clicking the icon. For example, you can now edit anchor templates. [96][97]
You can now add examples, and details about old parameters, in TemplateData. [98][99]
Meetings
You can read the notes from the last meeting with the VisualEditor team.
You can join the next weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on March 18 at 23:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
The list of bad user names on your wiki will no longer work. The global list will replace it. You can ask to add rules for bad user names on Meta. [100][101]
You can comment on how you want to see Wikidata edits in your watchlist on other wikis. [102]
Hi Jarekt,
Thanks for the notice on File:Zitadelle_Tartus_Befestigung.JPG. I transferred it from the German WP at [[104]], where it's licensed under CC-by-sa 3.0/de. Not sure how to proceed here, since I'm not the original uploader and I'm new to transferring pictures from WP to Commons. Thanks!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
got your note about a pic without permissions. It's just a shot I took of myself. Wanted to tag it with {{PD-self}}, but I don't see where to put that tag. How do I add that?
Thanks,
Joe
Joe, you can add "{{PD-self}}" anywhere on the page, but most either place it in the "permission" field of the {{Information}} template or below {{Information}} template. It would be also great if you could log in before leaving message or leave the name of the file or your username, so I could figure out which image we are talking about. --Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
All files are supposed to have a license at the time of the upload or are tagged with {{No license}} template, OTRS is only for keeping supporting documents. A requirement for license does not depend on stage of OTRS processing. --Jarekt (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We do not have many policies on Commons but the requirement that all files are required to have a license template, we take quite seriously. {{OTRS pending}} template does not change anything, the usual argument is that the uploader have to know the license prior to the upload or else he/she would not be able to verify that it is a free license. But we can just agree to disagree on that point. --Jarekt (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt - Please contact me directly regarding the image/photograph of en:Charles Aubrey Eaton. I have added a few licensing tags to the photograph, but I am not sure it is in the proper "Wiki" format. I am not sure if my great-grandfather had this photograph commissioned to begin with or if it was taken by Arthur Wentworth Hamilton Eaton for his book, The Nova Scotia Eatons, published in 1929. In either case, my great-grandfather owned the photograph and the rights to use it as he so wished, according to my father. The photograph was then given to Charles Aubrey Eaton's son, Charles Aubrey Eaton, Jr., who gave the photograph to his son, Charles Aubrey Eaton III, who gave same photograph to his son (me), Nathaniel Albert Eaton, with permission to use it for historical or genealogical purposes. So, I now own the photograph on the Wikipedia entry for Charles Aubrey Eaton. I have given credit to Arthur Wentworth Hamilton Eaton and have mentioned the book, The Nova Scotia Eatons, in which the photograph appears, so it may be sourced. But the fact is, the photograph has been owned by the family since the 1920s. If you have questions, then please send me a private email, as you did before. I am new to some of the rules regarding licensing, so any help with providing the correct licensing tag would be much appreciated. I appreciate any and all help in resolving this matter. — Nathaniel Albert Eaton
Nathaniel, Family photographs are tricky and just because you own a print of a photograph does not mean that you own the copyrights to it, since those belong to the photographer. But under some conditions the image might be in Public Domain. I just noticed that you did add some license templates to the file, but many of them seem to be contradictory. I checked Commons:Hirtle_chart and based on what you wrote, I think {{PD-US-no notice}} seem to be your best option. Another possibility is that the image was taken when Charles Aubrey Eaton was in the office and them {{PD-USGov}} might also apply. I also removed "with permission to use it for general historical or genealogical purposes" and {{Attribution}}, since if image is in Public Domain (as you argue) than nobody has legal grounds to give any kind of permissions or have any restrictions on use of the image. I think it is OK now. --Jarekt (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Jarekt!I will add the {{PD-USGov}} tag because I am certain that Charles Aubrey Eaton was in office at the time the picture was taken. Best wishes, Nathaniel Albert Eaton
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since March 18. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from March 24. It will be on all Wikipedias from March 25 (calendar).
The text of a reference is now more visible when you click on it. It has a blue background. Many wikis already have the blue color. Those wikis can now remove it from their CSS page. [105]
VisualEditor is now much faster. For many users it is now at least as fast as the wikitext editor. [106][107][108]
When you add a list of references in VisualEditor, you now see it right away. You can still change its group by editing it. [109]
Meetings
You can read the notes from the last meeting with the VisualEditor team.
You can join the next weekly meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on March 25 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Talk pages using "LiquidThreads" on mediawiki.org will soon use the new system. [110]
This image (File:Nicolas de Houssemaine.jpg) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired (illumination of the early 16th century). This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
Jarektː I was lookin for a licence template and I found it, and then add it in both imagesː
Carta Celeste Móvil. Hemisferio Boreal.JPG and
Carta Celeste Móvil. Hemisferio Austral.JPG
Could I remove the {No license} or will you do it?
Thanks you.
Yours sincerely.
Guritxu
Fernando T. de Gorocica 14:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
My copyright failure of my two images has been fixed and I found the copyright that it was uploaded with CC-BY-SA scroll to the bottom right hand side of the page.
Hi, I would like to upload the logo, beacause I would like to use it in Wikipedia Italian. Is it possible to upload a company logo? If not, how can I proceed? Thanks a lot, Valentina
Hi Jarekt, two files have been deleted, You see- although I am already give all the necessary information at the same day of request: (No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (Diskussion) 18:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) ✓OK done --Metilsteiner (Diskussion) 19:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)) I thought that this problem was taken care of it. I made a smart template block to make synchron edings to all files of the serie of images. What could be wrong expired?, can you restore the two files in the short term? Is this new master template (Template:{{PD Illustration of Pitture di vasi fittili}}) ok? Yours sincerely, --Metilsteiner (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Metilsteiner, I restored both files, I am not sure why my query picked them up as "no license" since they seem to have a correct license at the time. Sorry about it. Also I have no idea why User:Fastily deleted them after you added even more licenses. Possibly whatever messed up my query must have interfered with his process. By the way I do not like much templates like {{PD Illustration of Pitture di vasi fittili}} or {{PD Illustration of Monumenti etruschi}}. According to fr:Inghirami Francesco Inghirami died in 1846 so the license you should use is {{PD-old-100-1923}}. You can add {{PD-Art}} or {{PD-scan}} but it does not seem to be necessary. I prefer to see the license directly in the file so that the file history shows the history of license changes. --Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed Thank you very much, I changed my special template again and I will be running always in combination with an appropriate license for each block pages file to insert. I'm not so sure in handling, learing by doing - Yours sincerely, --Metilsteiner (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You correctly remarked that i had forgotten a licence template, sorry. I now have followed the convention of the Amsterdam Museum (painting in their collection) and contacted them.
Wikigreetings, Hansmuller (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Use your valued administrator's time to process deletion requests instead of filing deletion warnings to the requestors. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Ikar.us if you have uploaded file within last few days and the file does not have a license, than I will tag it with {{No license}} template, so the files can be corrected, as you did here and let me worry how to spend my "valued administrator's time". --Jarekt (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, my photo File:JSS pic.jpg was deleted because I did not tag the copyright properly. I was a little confused and overwhelmed but I would like to use "cc by 2.5". Please let me know and provide other directions on how I can get the pic reposted. Thanks. Ownyouridea (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Ann @ownyouridea.
Actually I do not know why the photo was deleted since at the time of deletion it had 2 valid licenses. I restored the image, but I will tag it with {{No parmission}}. The problem is that the author/photographer listed is not User:Ownyouridea but "John Solomon Sandridge" in such a case we ask uploder to read COM:OTRS and request the photographer to send the permissions following an example permission which you can find there to OTRS email account. Let me know if you have any questions. --Jarekt (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, thanks for your quick reply. The artist does not have a problem giving permission but I do need some clarity to ensure I am communicating the correct information. As an artist, are there other options if he chooses that he doesn't want them as free use. I know it can't be uploaded to Wikimedia but is it common for artists to allow their work to be showcased in that manner. I did read that Wikipedia does allow for some non-free content upload and trying to distinguish between all of the information that is being provided. Your guidance and help is greatly appreciated. Ownyouridea (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)ownyouridea
Jarekt, regarding the above message, I'm more referring to the images of artwork that I uploaded today at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Ownyouridea&ilshowall=1. Ownyouridea (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)ownyouridea
Commons and wikipedia only accepts images released under one of the free licenses, but unless the files are released to Public Domain, the artists still hold copyright to the works and/or photographs, and might request to be always attributed in the manner specified. Non-Free content is not allowed on Commons, but you are correct that it is allowed on some wikipedias, including English Wikipedia. You can read about it at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content, however such files are strictly regulated and you have to argue for each one to prove that it is needed for the article and that free conten version is not possible. --Jarekt (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Jarekt,
what needs to be done so I was off the hook? I publish here their own work only! File:1989 MosBeaty.jpg is no exception! I am the author of this poster and advertisement designer of this competition. This information is available in the article. You do not read Russian? This is not grounds for vandalism.
I beg you to believe that all the above is true.
Best regards,
Andrew Pavlovsky--Pavlovsky 02:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Pavlovskiy The image was missing a license template but it is fixed now, Since this work was likely published before I would send a leter to com:OTRS, just to be safe, but it is not requied--Jarekt (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you) Unfortunately, I did not understand everything (I had kind of license when downloading ... I think...( --Pavlovsky 03:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:"All My Hope" quilt by Mary Catherine Lamb.jpg
Hello again, Jarekt –
I notice that all the images in the Wikipedia article Mary Catherine Lamb have now been removed, except for her portrait photo. I did not receive any notification of this, so I don't know why the email sent on 12 March 2015 by Mary Catherine's sole trustee and heir was not considered sufficient documentation for the use of the images of her artwork. Could you please explain the situation clearly to me? And if possible let me know what the next step should be to get those images accepted?
Sorry, I miswrote the link to the Wikipedia article in question. It's [[111]] And the images I'm referring to, which are now no longer accessible, are the same ones referenced in our discussion in January [[112]]
Thanks again. --Ailemadrah (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The permission which was send was not processed yet, and the images were deleted because they were lacking a license template. I will fix it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that issue. Most of the Blason files were uploded by a few people that used exactly the same layout of the files. I designed the replacement rules based on those and than I noticed that some files were using different layout. The "Source" field was the only one affected and in great majority of files it was just "own work". I fixed bunch of those but I guess I missed some. I will see if I can find and fix more of them. --Jarekt (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi Jaerkt,
I recently saw that you had questions about the copyright of an image that I uploaded. This image draws from information available from {{Statistics Denmark}}, which I believed was part of its copyright description when I uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons, but now as a new user I am not sure hwo to check on or edit the copyright information for the image. Could you please help me so that this image is not deleted?
Thank you,
Rloftis5672 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can now hide site banners even if you don't have an account. [113]
You can now add citations more easily with VisualEditor on the French and Italian Wikipedia. The tool adds the information when you add some types of links. In the future you will be able to add this tool to your wiki. [114][115][116]
All sites should now be faster if you have a recent browser. [117]
You could see a serious bug when editing some templates with VisualEditor. It was fixed quickly. [118]
VisualEditor could break when you edited an image. The issue was fixed quickly. [119]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since March 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from March 31. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 1 (calendar).
VisualEditor is now the main editing tool on 53 more Wikipedias. [120]
You can now edit the mobile site of all wikis without an account. [121]
You can test a new tool on the beta mobile site on the English Wikipedia. With the new tool, you can create lists of articles. [122]
You can now see that VisualEditor is opening even if you're not looking at the top of the page. [123]
VisualEditor doesn't leave empty titles with just nowiki tags any more. [124][125][126][127]
You can read the notes from the last meeting with the VisualEditor team.
You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 1 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hello, I will try to stay calm one time mor. Could you please explain me HOW YOUR OTRS IS ORGANISED? One week ago, a OTRS volunteer said me a photo for who I wait the photograph send authorization to OTRS had to be mark as {{OTRS pending}} and today you mark these photos as possible copyright violations. I've to recognise I don't unterstand. So could you please organise your organisation to something logic ? Thank you in advance. Good evening --Lev. Anthony (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lev. Anthony: Je ne comprend pas non plus, t'a pourtant tout fait dans les règles... J'espère que t'a envoyé ton message à permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org qui est la team francophone, car la team anglophone croule sous les messages. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, it's ok. Sorry to be agressive in my message and sorry for wrong licence text, i was sure it was {{CC BY SA 3.0}} but i've make a mistake. I'll correct that for next times. @Thibaut120094: , les messages ont été envoyés sur la version anglaise, étant donné que les photographes sont anglais. J'ai hésité à devenir bénévole aux OTRS françaises et anglaises étant donné que c'est celles que je fais contacter le plus souvent, mais le nombre de messages de violations de copyright (bien que s'avérant faux étant donné qu'il s'agit de demandes OTRS qui sont confirmées par la suite) ont fait que j'ai laissé tombé l'idée, me doutant que la candidature serait rejetée. Mais je continue malgré tout d'importer les images avec les mails aux OTRS (j'ai été tellement énervé par cet avertissement reçu parce que les autorisations ne sont traitées qu'après plusieurs semaines mais que les photos sont supprimés sous 24 heures si le mail n'est pas envoyé) et je laisse les équipes OTRS se débrouillés avec toutes les demandes et je dois reconnaître que le message de Jarekt a fait que j'ai failli envoyé un message aux équipes de Wikimédia Commons et de l'OTRS afin de leurs donner mon avis et je me suis retenu. Malgré tout, si il s'avère que malgré tout les avertissements inutiles que j'ai reçu, je peux quand même devenir membre OTRS, je n'hésiterais pas à aider. Good evening/Bonne soirée. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
City of Stalingrad 1933
Cover page
Hello again, Jarekt –
I have a special case again and would like to consider as your instructions.
So far, there are no pictures of the war-damaged industrial city of Stalingrad from the early days in the 1930s, so I'd like to raise this about 30 images.
The attached file shows my proposed solution with respect to the description and copyright.
By cite-web-template (acording to the NYPL-Descriptionpage) I integrate the respective Screenshoots, because the self-images are not found separately (or did I miss the source for frames) - meanwile this point is solved.(--Metilsteiner (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC))
There are about 50 other valuable albums with pictures from Eastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus, which I would then work on this model.
I see you are simplifying the design of the COAInformation template. It's looking good. Is it possible to make it clearer that the "references" belong to the blazon? It's kinda unclear now. Perhaps a ref tag following the blazon, and a footnote in the Source field? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, is there any way to determine files with multiple {{Information}} templates? This is not so seldom, e. g. some users have added the template twice and translated each parameter separatly such as in YAMAHA (headquarters 1).jpg. I think this is also a problem for later analysis. --Arnd (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Arnd, It is a big problem and I do not know of a way of to do it. One can always write a bot that will load random pages analyze wikicode and flag it if more than one {{Information}} template is found, but it is not a good solution. I do not think there is a way to do it with the database query. --Jarekt (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, just found out that CirrusSearch which is used by this mediawiki is supporting RegExps. So for example we could query this. However it seems not to return all files. --Arnd (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Arnd, you are right. I tried few other queries like this one but I never get more than 18 hits. A lot of results of this search have this problem but not all. If we design a regexp than we should skip templates inside <nowiki> brackets, {{Information field}} and possibly several other things. --Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Leyo: You are more experienced with such CirrusSearch queries. Do you know why we only get a few results when using Regexps? --Arnd (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, do you know any way to create a gallery from such a search result. Would be nice for feeding VisualFileChange.js. --Arnd (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Arnd, I use en:AutoWikiBrouwser a lot and it has quite powerful list making capabilities, which nicely dovetail with CatScan capabilities. One of the options is full text search which I think is using default search. --Jarekt (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, i just created a script to make my life easier for generating galleries for cleanup tasks. Maybe you want to use it as well. The only thing you need is to add the following to your commons.js
var galleryPage = "User:Jarekt/gallery";
mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("User:Aschroet/gallery.js")', 'Create gallery');
It adds a tool on the left sidebar which can be used in connection with search in Commons. When after performing a search you are clicking "Create gallery" it takes a while (some seconds) until you are asked if the configured page (galleryPage) should be updated. If confirming you can then directly use the result for VisualFileChange.js. Cheers, --Arnd (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt,
I noted that you have deleted my file. Please note that it is a valid registered trademark filed before the Italian Trademark Office. How can I re-upload the file in correct way?
This was the first time that I tried to upload a file, sorry!!!! :) --Nuvola 01 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Nuvola 01, I was not the one deleting I only tagged the file with {{No license}} tag since it did not have any license templates. I would suggest reading COM:LIC and looking through COM:CT. In the nutshell, all the files you did not create are assumed to be copyrighted and not admissible on Commons and license template tells everybody why do you believe this file is in Public Domain or released under open source license. For example your files might fall under {{PD-TextLogo}} but I am not sure, however it is up to uploader to to figure out the correct license, However you do not have to do it all by yourself you can ask at Commons:Village pump or your language version of it. You can also ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Sorry I can not be of more help in this case. --Jarekt (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I received a notice from you that a picture (TienGebodenBordTrouwkerkjeLeur.JPG), that I uploaded, had no copyright tag. To the best of my believe did I mark this and two other pictures for the same topic(Trouwkerkje) as "self-made". At the momnet I am not able to change the tag, would you please be so very kind and change it for me? Thank you.
Steinsplitter, I wonder what changed to cause this issue since the module was not touched in last 9 months. What call gave the error? Can you add it to the test cases? I do not remember much about this edit, but I think the new expanded capabilities of the module were added because they were needed somewhere, so there might be some broken templates out there now. --Jarekt (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
How to fix it? Author of photo changed license on flickr to make it compatible with Commons. Also it's about:
Latvian Army Volvo C306 6x6.jpg
Latvian Army Unimog.jpg
--VjacheslavWolski (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I got permission from the copyright holder to use this image. I also e-mailed Wikimedia commons regarding this. I added a Copyright tag that I thought was appropriate. Can you please check it then remove the deletion tag?
Saluton, fakt jest taki: Pani Zofia Klopocka zrobiła to zdięcie, i wysłała na prezencie do esperantistów Włoch (tu się skończył prawa autorskie, to jest tylko zdięcie dla przyjaciół). Nie ma żadnego prawa autorskiego. Teras Pan Antonio De Salvo (obecny właściciel zdięcia) zeskanował to zdięcie a dał mi, aby dodać do Wikipedii. On jest stary a chce że coś z jego rzeci nie będą stracone. Jaki template jest dobry w tym przypadku? --Francescost (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Dziękuje za wyjaśnienie, prawa autorskie należą do Pani Zofii Klopockiej, jedynie ona lub jej spadkobiercy mogą podjąć decyzje o warunkach na jakich to zdjęcie może być rozprowadzane: może domena Publiczna ({{PD-Author}}), może Creative Commons ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}) a może coś innego. Zazwyczaj prosimy osoby przesyłające fotografie by przeczytały COM:OTRS i poprosiły fotografów o przesłania pozwolenia bazującego na tym przykładzie. Nie wiem czy to jest możliwe w tym przypadku. --Jarekt (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can join a new email list for important news about Wikimedia Labs. [129]
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 1. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 7. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 8 (calendar).
You can now add the same special characters with VisualEditor as with the wikitext editor. [139]
Many bugs around copy-paste in VisualEditor are now fixed. [140][141]
You can now use basic tools of VisualEditor in the new talk tool. You can add links, bold and italics. You can also mention people. [142]
Meetings
You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 8 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
You can again comment on how you want to see Wikidata edits in your watchlist on other wikis. [143]
Hi, I need your help to create a template for the official archives in Brazil. I have created the logo File:Conarq 100PX.svg, Now I need to create the template, that points to the link [Conarq], which is the organ of the Brazilian government that regulates the archives. something similar to Template:Rio Grande do Sul Heritage Site, just that for the entire Brazil. Apologies for the google translator.--Paulo RS Menezes (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, I had a look at those tags, but I'm in doubt what to use (I'm new to Wiki-).
Both images are photographic images that I took, from originals at the local historic archive.
The photographer of the original photographs is unknown, but those originals are taken before 1960.
nr 01 is used in print in 1959, nr 02 are private pictures showing the factory.
The images and album are now in possession of the local archive, but I have no written okay about using those images. The people at the archive just told me it is okay to use the images on the net.
Henk
Usually the search for proper license starts from the original photographer and when he died, but if photographer is unknown than we have {{Anonymous-EU}} for images published more than 70 years ago. In Denmark there is also {{PD-Denmark50}} but you need to know when the photographs were taken. If there is no tag that matches than we have to assume that images are copyrighted. --Jarekt (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Старшина 2 of the Soviet Army.svg
Hello! I don't know which license template to add, cause this file was downloaded from Wikipedia, opened in Inkscape and repainted from red to blue.Yanpas (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Original file.
Hello. I had added {{FoP-Portugal}} as a licence template, but perhaps that it not enough? I'm not sure; that particular template does not feature on the list in the Copyright tags page, but other similar FoP templates do. Am I to understand that that is not a valid licence template? Yours, RickMorais (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
FOP templates are usually not considered license templates, because in most cases they are accompanied by the photographer's license template. They are a little like {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-scan}} that tells only part of the story. However in case of 2D artworks photographed outside where FOP is valid I have seen {{PD-Art|FoP-...}} before that was valid. I can not tell if this is the second such case since most FOP artworks have to be outside. --Jarekt (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Question concerning missing licence tag for company's logo
I do not work much with logos, but they all have some kind of license. Some of those licenses might be wrong and the images should be deleted, but many fall under {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}} licenses, for example File:Logo_DPA_neu.svg or File:Logo Google 2013 Official.svg. Your file is too complicated to use either one of those licenses and I do not think we will be able to keep it. may be there is a text-only version? --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I want to restore the File:Singapore Prison Service.jpg because I received a permission from the author and that's why I uploaded. I want to place the proper license tag this time. Sorry for checking it after a long time. Thanks Jocelyndurrey (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Jocelyndurrey, Please read Com:OTRS, If your permission has all the required elements then please forward it to the OTRS email. Then either me or someone else will undeleate the image. --Jarekt (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Images: Dany Bahar, Elio Leoni Sceti, Nigel Cayzer, Interswitch logo
Hi Jarekt, regarding your post here, as per OTRS recommendations ("For images, we prefer that you upload them to Wikimedia Commons with the OTRS pending template, and provide the URLs of the uploaded images in your e-mail."), I've uploaded these images and requested the copyright holders to email Wikimedia. Please could you bear with me while this happens? I can absolutely assure you that I'm in contact with all the copyright holders for this content and that it's just a question of them proving their status as such to Wikimedia. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
HOgilvy my note was not about OTRS, but about license template. All images on Commons are required to have one at the upload time, as we assume that it is known to the uploader who has to make sure that the license is compatible with Commons requirements. If you can just add the license template, remove {{No license}} tag and we can wait for OTRS to process the ticket. --Jarekt (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
MIssing license
Hello,
new to Wiki, and computers for that matter! I read everything about licenses for my picture, and am totally lost as how to change it. The picture is mine, I have no problem changing it to public domain. Can you do it for me?
Andrew Can you tell me why was it an error? It seems fine with me. As for the "Authors of the article" link it should work better now, but all it does is tries to get people to go to Template:Spoken_article/i18n and add Russian translations to all the terms missing them. That should fix all the red links. --Jarekt (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:RosarioRaro.jpg. I was working through active "no license" to delete page and found a file which didn't look right. Thank you for your explanation, but I do not see why you were upset when I refused to delete the image- because there was at that time no reason to delete it- and instead asked for clarification? As for leaving messages on bot talk pages, I didn't want someone to mistakenly delete the image while I was chasing someone else in circles, so converted to a DN - which is no fault, no fail but a way to get extra time for an image. Again, sorry I do not see why it upset you but as it did, my apologies. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz sorry if I sounded annoyed. But you misunderstood the reason, I was not upset because you refused to delete the image, but because you considered deleting this image. {{No license}} tag is added semi-autamatically to images that do not have a license, but also need to be semi-autamatically removed from all the images where users added license. It is easy to find all such images with CatScan3 query listed in Category:Media without a license, and I always assumed admins cleaning "No license" files always use it (or something similar) in their process. If you are interested I can outline a process I usually use. --Jarekt (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
When I came upon the image it was in the folder to be deleted as 'no license'. I thought I was saving it by converting it to DN because I didn't see antyhing wrong with it. Maybe there was an error. I was not using CatScan3, I was going thru the "no license" page for deletions. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, I am glad you looked at the file more closely before deleting it, but what I am trying to say is that you should not be deleting files in Category:Media without a license without excluding all the files which were already fixed. 'No license' folder contains files that at some point did not have a license. Whoever added the license should have removed 'no license' tag, but they often do not and that is expected. That is why it is important to identify all such files first and CatScan query is just one of the ways to do that. --Jarekt (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 8. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 14. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 15 (calendar).
Developers will start to rename 1.5 million accounts on Wednesday. After that all accounts will be unique and will work on all wikis. [150][151]
All users can now test link previews ("Hovercards") on several Wikipedias. [152]
Meetings
You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 15 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
I can't claim extensive knowledge of vexillology, but I think the most important parameters would be the aspect ratio (called "format" in the template, which is a bit unclear), the FIAV symbol (using Template:FIAV) and the colours (based on Template:Tbc?). Perhaps also the "other characteristics", if all the associated templates are kept, but that might also fit in the description. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
hi jarekt, you posted on my discussion page that no cc-license is attached on this photo. i took it from flickr - as you see - and there it has cc 2.0. i don't understand the problem and i would be lucky to know more about it.--Alice d25 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
also as you see, the author of the photo writes :"Wikipedia's rules on photo use are maddening, and unfortunately, Flickr doesn't let you upgrade the licences from the page. If they give you too much static, I may have to just give you your own copies of the pictures to use and post." so what to do?--Alice d25 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Alice d25, what tool did you used for the upload? The issue was that this file is using one of the new PD licenses on flickr and Commons software does not handle it well yet. It is all fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded this file and exchanged it on the wiki entry for Stadt Bremerhaven, because officials from the city noted, that the previously displayed graphic was not correct. So they (the officials from the city itself) sent me the correct coat of arms, I created a wiki account for us as the webmasters of the city of Bremerhaven and uploaded the new and correct coat of arms and linked it in the wiki entry of Bremerhaven.
So, you could say, that, yes, we hold the licence of the grafic as we are an official part of the municipality of Bremerhaven to which the coat of arms belongs.
Please let me know, what we have to change.
Kind regards,
Alex
Alex, I fixed the license. I noticed your image is almost identical to File:Wappen Bremerhaven.png which we had for many years. That file was eventually replaced by SVG version which are usually much proffered to the PNG or JPG files. As for correctness of the File:Wappen Bremerhaven.svg the usual understanding is that the only thing "official" is written description: „In Silber, über gewelltem blauen Schildfuß mit silbernem Fisch, ein Hanseschiff mit blauem Dach auf dem Achterkastell. Auf den Segeln die Wappen der ehemaligen Unterweserstädte Bremerhaven (silberner Bremer Schlüssel in Rot, darüber rotes Tatzenkreuz in Silber), Geestemünde (goldener Anker in Blau) und Lehe (zwei gekreuzte silberne Sensenblätter in Rot).“ and any rendering which fits this description is equally valid. So do not be suprised if your edit is reversed. --Jarekt (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I was informed that the File:Perchegouet2014.png "does not have sufficient information on its copyright status."
I was instructed by the public administration which employs me to update its Wikipedia page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communaut%C3%A9_de_communes_du_Perche-Gou%C3%ABt. So I uploaded the new official logo of this administration which is the property of the said administration instead of the old one. So no I'm not personally the author of this logo but there isn't any copyright problem and I got authorization to put it on Wikipedia from my employer.
I don't know how to change that in the copyright status.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
User:CDC du Perche-Gouet, The issue is that every image on Commons which is not in public domain is assumed to legally belong to some copyright holder, which is often the artist who created it and only that person can release the image and dictate the rules under which other people can reuse this image. Those rules are usually spelled out in our license templates. The old file fr:Fichier:Perchegouet.png was not uploded to Commons but only to French Wikipedia and it used template fr:Modèle:Marque déposée which is not compatible with Commons. One problem with that approach is that the image can only be used on French wikipedia, while upload to commons allows you usage on all few hundred wikipedias. So one option you have is to upload the image to French Wikipedia and use exactly same license template. Other possibility is to convince your "administration" to released the image to Public Domain or under one of CC licenses, so it can be (potentially) used by any newspaper, guide book or t-shirt vendor without many restrictions, then you would have to read COM:OTRS and ask them to send an email with permissions similar to the example there to OTRS. Let me know if I can help more. --Jarekt (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I've checked on Wikipedia France. It seems logos are among the few types of images which are eligible to upload to Wikipedia France instead of Commons. I need to be registered for at least 4 days to do so, so I'll see in a few days If I succeed in uploading it. Thank you for your answer.
@Jarekt: I received an author's message. He said : "oui cette photo est libre de droit Pierre Soissons Photographe 06 08 62 46 89". I asked him to send the "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" directly to "permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org". --Laurent CAMPEDEL (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There was sometimes a problem when saving a page in VisualEditor. It is now fixed on all wikis. [153]
VisualEditor sometimes showed empty warnings for wikis using Flagged Revisions. This is now fixed on all wikis. [154]
You can get the new version of the Wikipedia app for iOS. With it you can share facts with your friends. [155]
If you write JavaScript, you should stop using importScript and importStylesheet. [156]
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 15. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 21. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 22 (calendar).
Developers are renaming 1.5 million accounts. After that all accounts will be unique and will work on all wikis. [158][159][160]
If your wiki has the auto-fill tool for citations, you can now use it when you edit a reference. [161]
You can now give examples for template options in TemplateData. [162]
Meetings
You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 22 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
You will soon be able to add and remove tags on edits. [163][164]
Am I missing a tag on the file, or is it misplaced? It's been awhile since I last uploaded a file and I tried reading about it.
I've added an OTRS waiting for review tag when I first uploaded the image yesterday.
Advice please? ~ AdvertAdam talk03:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
User:adamrce your OTRS templates are fine, but you are missing the license template, like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} etc. The author should have notify you about the license he/she will be using, so you would know if it is compatible with Commons requirements or not. --Jarekt (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Missing Copyright Information on Samsun Province without Districts.png
The file you've mentioned
Seems like I've missed one point last night while uploading the last 20+ images. Thanks a lot for noticing me, please don't delete the file and wait one more day so I can have a better reach to internet to fix this issue. Have a nice day. --Berkaysnklf (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jarekt,
I got your comment about the image Bleien.jpg that I want to insert into the Commons. The picture was made by a colleague who has his office next door to me, thus he has the copyright. I have his permission to publish it. So I have inserted the acknowlegement "Courtesy of Christian Monstein". What to do next?
- have him uploading the picture?
- make my own picture?
I am obviously new to this. Thanks for your help.
Astrophysikus
user:Astrophysikus (great username by the way). There are 2 issues with your file:
file has no license as all are required to have. For example I usually use {{CC-by-sa-4.0}}, but many other are available at com:Lic.
file was not uploaded by the photographer, and license can be only granted by the copyright owner, who is usually the photographer, so having him upload the image would fix that or you taking your own photograph will too. Third option that sounds complicated but really is not is for you to add a license that the photographer agreed to and than you read COM:OTRS and ask the photographer to send and email, similar to the example one there to OTRS. Let me know if I can help more. --Jarekt (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt,
I assume that everything is ok now with licence and copyright of the Bleien.jpg image. If not please let me know. Thanks, Astrophysikus
>> Thank you for the quick reply! Im trying to contact them for a better resolution of this picture, but in the meantime, can you tell me if its okay to use this picture from here for a commercial project?!
Thanks so much,
All the best,
David
David, My answer about "commercial project" should have been "yes" as it is for any image on Commons. However that image was uploaded under the assumption that it is a 2D painting and I just had a closer look at the image and noticed that it is not just a painting but a room with furniture. The photographs or scans of 2D artworks do not give the photographer additional copyrights, however is there are 3D elements than one should also seek permission from the photographer. That means that we can not keep the image on Commons and it will likely be deleted. Any you will have to ask this question at www.wga.hu. But I do not think they will be able to help you since I doubt they keep track of who took the image. I would advise you not to use this copy. --Jarekt (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I had a second look at the image and I cropped of all 3D elements. This version of the image should be OK for commercial projects or any other use. --Jarekt (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Screaming cowbird images
Hi Jarekt,
I am very confused about the whole licensing thing. I have permission to use the images on the Wiki page from Dr Juan Carlos Reboreda and his colleagues. I just cant work out what I need to do, which form I need to fill out or which form I need to send to the image authors?
fi
Licenses are confusing and you pick more complicated scenarios. In general all files on Commons are required to have a license template, See com:ct for list of most available licenses. I usually use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, like in this file of mine. One can also donate images to en:Public Domain by using {{PD-self}} or {{PD-Author}}. Only the copyright owner (usually author or heir) can choose the license. In most cases Author is the one uploading the files, but if not than the author has to send a written permission to OTRS. The permission should be based on the template in COM:OTRS.
So lets look at your 5 uploads
File:Ab final.jpg : license is missing and since photo is by "C. A. Ursino" he or she should decide on the license and should send the permission to OTRS. Permissions from "Dr Reboreda" does not count since he is not the author.
File:Ab&Mr chicks (MCDM).jpg: You said that The image is in "Public domain" so I added the license, but the author "Maria C. De Marsico" needs to send permission to OTRS confirming that her work is in Public domain
Thank you... but I'm still a bit confused... just learning about the world of the 'ether' and it's a rather steep learning curve. I think I understand that I need to get the three authors of the images to send 'permission' to Wiki. So, if I send them a link to the permission template with the file details of the images then this may work? Whatever is the most straightforward method will work for me and for the authors too as all of us are not versed in Wiki World. Thank you
Yes they should just copy the text of the permission from com:OTRS (text is available in many languages, and they can do it in any of them, but if it is english it is often faster). They will need a file name (like "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nest_containing_parasitic_Screaming_Cowbird_and_Bay-winged_Cowbird_eggs.jpg" is the simplest) and they will still need to choose the license, like {{Cc-by-se-4.0}} or {{PD-Author}}, etc. The permission can be done by email or can be printed, signed, scanned and attached to an email (in case someone is not confortable with emails). It is likely that the images will get deleted before the permissions arrive or are processed, but is that happens once any are send out write me and I will look for them and undelete them. By the way I read your cow bird article and the it is quite fascinating. Thanks for taking on this task and sorry about the confusing copyrights. Usually people start with, simple cases of sending their own images and those are much simpler. --Jarekt (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
All accounts are now unique and work on all wikis. [165][166]
You can read a report from experts who tested the security of MediaWiki. [167]
There was a problem between VisualEditor and an antivirus software. It is now fixed. [168]
You can help test VisualEditor to see if it works in your language. [169]
Problems
Some Labs tools had problems due to a software bug. [170]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 22. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 28. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 29 (calendar).
It is now clearer that you can delete several rows and columns when you edit tables in VisualEditor. [171]
You now see more information when you search for a template in VisualEditor. [172]
You can now cancel when you add citations on desktop, or edit links on mobile, in VisualEditor. [173]
You can now see the list of other formats for videos only after they're ready. [174]
Meetings
You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 29 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
I am desparately trying to re-upload the foto File:Monocorde scheid.jpg, which is my own work! I am sure I stated that before! Now, I get all kinds of automatic responses which prevent me from re-uploading. I also got a message from you, however. Please, in the name of millions of ambitioned users, do not make this process so frustrating and complicated, and let a human eye check, if there is a problem...
User:Zwiadowca21, Problem był w tym ze nie miałeś szablonu licencji. Dziękuje za poprawienie. Wciąż masz trochę problem bo twierdzisz ze autor umarł przed 1944 rokiem i ze autor jest nieznany i ze fotografia mogla być zrobiona w 1939 roku. Jeśli fotografia byłaby z 1839 roku to zgadzam się ze można założyć ze fotograf umarł przed 1945 ale nie wiem dlaczego tak zakładasz przypadku pocztówek Dziwnowa. Jeśli to naprawdę pocztówki i możesz dać jakieś dodatkowe informacje to bym użył {{PD-Polish}}. Także {{Anonymous-EU}} lepiej by pasowało niż {{PD-old}}. Pozdrowienia --Jarekt (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
This page needs to be deleted in the near future. I've placed the deletion tag and created the nomination page days ago nevertheless nobody took the time to read and delete it. And I think you can help. --Berkaysnklf (talk), 16:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
There was a rare problem with VisualEditor. The text of another wiki could be added to your edit. The issue is now fixed. [176][177]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 29. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 5. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 6 (calendar).
It is now easier to add a link in VisualEditor. You can see an image and a description about the page. [178]
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 6 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join an event in France on May 22−25. You need to sign up before May 8. [180]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can now make charts and maps on your wiki with the new "graph" tool. If you have an old browser, you will see images instead. It uses a tool called Vega; you can learn how to use it and write help pages for your wiki. You can use the Vega edit tool to make charts and copy the code to your wiki. Charts and maps use complex code and you should put them into templates. In the future, you will be able to create charts with VisualEditor. [182][183][184]
You can apply for technical jobs to develop tools for the community. [185]
The logos of all wikis are now in a new place. It will make pages load faster. You can still ask to change the logo. You can also use local CSS for brief changes. [186][187]
Problems
There was a problem that caused slow editing. [188]
Pages were sometimes removed from your watchlist in VisualEditor. This problem is now fixed. [189]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 6. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 12. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 13 (calendar).
You can now use data from Wikidata on more pages. The page doesn't need to be linked to the Wikidata item. It works on a few wikis and more wikis will be added soon. [190][191]
You should get fewer errors when you add files to Commons. [192]
When you use an external link to link to a wiki page, VisualEditor now converts it to a wiki link. [193]
When you add a link in VisualEditor, you see pages that match what you type. It is now easier to see where they match. [194]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 13 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Image file question, please, Jarekt: File:Drawing in 1938 patent by Aloys Van Gries.JPG The patent in Germany was filed in 1935. The government- published specification drawing roughly illustrated the method disclosed in the mechanical patent, about 80 years ago; the file I made is a clip of a file published to disclose the patent. The small file thumbnail is from the patent http://www.energykitesystems.net/AloysVanGries/GB489139.pdf It seems that the image shared is in public domain and free for anyone to show in any venue for any reason. What do you think? And I am studying Wikipedia licenses and am still uncertain about what to put on the file so that the image file sticks. In good faith, I chose one of the licenses and posted such; I am not sure if I posted the license correctly or not. Thanks for any help, Jarekt. Joefaust (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
US patents from that era are in PD, but Germany or GB did not had such laws. I do not think we can prove file is in Public domain unless there is some evidence that Aloys Van Gries died before 1945 and than we can use {{PD-old-70}}. --Jarekt (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Emblem of the 70th Anniversary Victory Day celebrations in Russia 01.jpg
???
Это произведение не охраняется авторским правом согласно части четвёртой Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации № 230-ФЗ от 18 декабря 2006 года.
Статья 1259. Объекты авторских прав
Пункт 5
Авторские права не распространяются на идеи, концепции, принципы, методы, процессы, системы, способы, решения технических, организационных или иных задач, открытия, факты, языки программирования.
Пункт 6
Не являются объектами авторских прав: официальные документы государственных органов и органов местного самоуправления муниципальных образований, в том числе законы, другие нормативные акты, судебные решения, иные материалы законодательного, административного и судебного характера, официальные документы международных организаций, а также их официальные переводы;
государственные символы и знаки (флаги, гербы, ордена, денежные знаки и тому подобное), а также символы и знаки муниципальных образований;
произведения народного творчества (фольклор), не имеющие конкретных авторов;
сообщения о событиях и фактах, имеющие исключительно информационный характер (сообщения о новостях дня, программы телепередач, расписания движения транспортных средств и тому подобное).
Полный текст закона: по-русски.
Coat of Arms of the Russian Federation.svg
Комментарий: согласно межгосударственным и международным соглашениям Российская Федерация является правопреемником Российской Советской Федеративной Социалистической Республики и Союза Советских Социалистических Республик; поэтому данный шаблон-лицензия может быть применён и для официальных символов и документов Российской СФСР и СССР (союзного уровня[1]).
Внимание: этот шаблон-лицензия не может быть применён к проектам официальных символов и документов, которые могут охраняться авторским правом.
1.Перейти ↑ Союзный уровень означает, что использование официальных символов и документов 14 других советских республик подчиняется законам их правопреемников. См. соответствующие шаблоны-лицензии.
Haubi, This image is still copyrighted. If you are the heir of de:Erich Haberfelner and inherited copyrights to his works you can pick {{PD-heir}} or any other license. Otherwise only heirs can release the images and they would have to send their permission to OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Mapy a licencja PD-Polish
Witaj! Chciałbym się do Ciebie zwrócić z prośbą o poradę jako do jednego z "ojców" licencji PD-Polish. Mianowicie od dłuższego czasu wrzucam na commons zdjęcia zeskanowane z książek spełniających wymogi tej licencji. Zastanawiam się, czy można to samo zrobić z mapami/szkicami sytuacyjnymi, które mają wskazanego konkretnego autora lub są nieznanego autorstwa. Będę bardzo wdzięczny za podpowiedź. Pozdrawiam!Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Dreamcatcher25, PD-Polish jest tylko dla fotografii i nie powinna być używana dla map. Wiele lat temu przesłałem dużą kolekcje plakatów z Powstania warszawskiego, spędziłem tydzień na opisy tłumaczenia, kategorie, autorów, itp. A potem wszystkie zostały skasowane bo PD-Polish jest tylko dla fotografii. Teraz pamiętam. Jedynie co możesz zrobić z mapami to stworzyć swoja własną wersje (może SVG) na podstawie oryginału i podaj źródło. --Jarekt (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 13. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 19. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 20 (calendar).
References are now always in the right order. Also, the reference list now only shows references used on the page. [195]
You can no longer create an account with a colon ':' in it. If you already have one, it still works. [196]
The toolbar in VisualEditor now looks different. It is easier to see the icons. [197]
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 21 at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Looks like I didn't get to this message fast enough. The photograph of the Ferry Schedule was mine and the in principle the Ferry schedule is public information, therefore there should have been no problem with the image.
Since Vieques Ferry schedules are not well documented, and one of the main ways of getting to and from the Island, I felt I was doing a service. Perhaps the Culebra Ferry can be merged with the Vieques Ferry article since they are from the same service. Thanks.
Mrcactu5, You were doing a service but all images on commons need to have a license template and it is uploader's job to provide it. I agree that schedule itself was probably in Public Domain, I would use {{PD-text}}, but you also need to provide the photographers license which you can pick. If you tell me the license you would like to use, I will undeleate the image. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, i am currently cleaning up language indication in the file descriptions. Due permission problems i cannot edit the mentioned file. So, could you please add the {{en|1=..}} resp. {{tr|1=..}} to indicate the language properly? Thanks in advance, --Arnd (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
VisualEditor was broken for 30 minutes on Tuesday. The problem was due to a tool it uses. [202]
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 20. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 26. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 27 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 28 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
"No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"
Labdien!
Esmu kompānijas „Grand Credit” pārstāvis un man ir pilnas tiesības publicēt Vikipēdijā materiālus par kompāniju. Tāpat varu pēc saviem ieskatiem izmantot ar autortiesībām aizsargātos kompānijas attēlus.
Iespējams, neesmu pareizi norādījis kategoriju šim attēlam. Tāpēc lūdzu paskaidrot, kā to ir iespējams izlabot?
Jau iepriekš pateicos!
Hello! I am a company "Grand Credit" representative and I have full rights to publish material on Wikipedia company. I can also be used at the discretion of the company's copyrighted pictures. Perhaps I have not correctly specified the category of this image. So please explain how it is possible to fix? Thank you in advance!
Your company has to specify under what copyrights this image is distributed. Please read Com:Lic and pick a license template from COM:CT. Trademark laws usually have more to do with company logos than copyright laws, but we do have the same requirement for all images hosted here. Also your company should send an email with permissions to OTRS. Let me know if I can help more. --Jarekt (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Help me please to pick a license template from COM:CT
I would advise using {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and also add {{Trademarked}} to the file. With Cc-by-sa-4.0 license image could be used by anybody without asking your permission or paying for using copyrighted image (that is true for all licenses allowed on Commons), but the users would have to always attribute the file to your company. {{Trademarked}} is to remind people that any use of the image would have to comply with trademark laws. --Jarekt (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Gave the link, but not the correct coding. Edited pages, but first created Wiki page. Appreciate your time and assistance. [Eprapah]. Q8682 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Questionto deleted picture
Hello,
some weeks ago it was deleted Anna_Vita.jpg (I noticed these only today, sorry). I' am a novice in Wikipedia and it is not clear for me what I can do to deliver the missing essential information such as license, permission or source for this picture. Which kind of arrangement or form I have to deliver to clarify the problem with the picture??
Protesus, I see the image was made by "Falk von Traubenberg" and is missing a license template. Licenses are discussed in Com:lic and license templates in COM:CT. "Falk von Traubenberg" should pick a license, which will describe under what conditions file is being distributed, and he should send an email with permissions to OTRS. If you are "Falk von Traubenberg" than let me know as the process is a bit easier. --Jarekt (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Many wikis were slow for a few hours on Wednesday due to a code error. Sometimes the pages did not load at all and showed an error. [206]
Some tools in Labs were broken on Wednesday and Thursday. [207]
Edit tags added by the software were broken on all wikis from May 23 to May 28. [208][209]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 27. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from June 2. It will be on all Wikipedias from June 3 (calendar).
You won't be able to use e-mail lists for a few hours on Tuesday. [210]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 3 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hello, You left me a message about copyright status in 2 pictures I uploaded recently; they where permitted to be uploaded by the owner, what information does wiki need?
You should read COM:OTRS for the detail description, but in short we need the copyright holder of those images to send an email to OTRS with details about what are rules of the image distribution. Commons only accepts images released under some conditions but not the others and each set of conditions is represented by a different license. Read COM:LIC and COM:CT for details. --Jarekt (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded Photos and Copyright
Hello Jarekt What more information can I provide other than it is owned by the Canadian government (the Department of National Defence) and has similar copyright to those owned by the U.S. Government. I did not once have an issue with uploading any of the photos I uploaded. Please let me know how I can provide more information if need be. CFHSPAO
The ODbL does not require any particular license for maps produced from ODbL data. Prior to 1 August 2020, map tiles produced by the OpenStreetMap Foundation were licensed under the CC-BY-SA-2.0 license. Maps produced by other people may be subject to other licences.Open Database LicenseODbLhttp://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/true
This map was created from OpenStreetMap project data, collected by the community. This map may be incomplete, and may contain errors. Don't rely solely on it for navigation.
This is my first edit / upload to Wikipedia.I am not a bot blease remove youn tracking devices and whatever other atatchments or auto bot soft ware I am respectfull human being I deserve my intelectual freedome all the time from your system tracks qtill now will be evaluated and I will be forced to challenge all of the losses from the lunks and misfunction of DC AUDITION FOR THE WRITINGS, I own the ancient tabloids I was given this responsibility by the way, OF GODS THANKS "<megabit irc mibbit> ï C S
Dear Jarekt, first, thanks for taking the time to help a newcomer to Wikimedia commons. I started the article on Aldrin's ShareSpace foundation, although I am not affiliated with it in any way. The photo which I just added to the article was taken from the Foundation's web site, and -- as my guiding light through the maze of copyright law -- my assumption was that they would not mind it being used in this way. In restrospect, however, and as triggered by your communication, I realize that my thinking may have been wrong in several ways. First, the propriety of what I have done is, at some theoretical level, independent of whether or not the Foundation would ever object to the photo's use in this way. Second, inasmuch as the article is not entirely positive regarding ShareSpace, they may in fact not wish to cooperate in any way with the Wikipedia coverage. Third, it has been my assumption that any photo used in a Wikipedia article must first be entered into the Wikipedia commons -- which means that it could be used in any number of other ways, and which in turn means that it should in fact be available to be so used. Fourth, my just previous assumption number three may be incorrect; i.e., inasmuch as the Wikipedia reader is just one or two clicks away from the photo as it appears on the ShareSpace Foundation site, perhaps I could have linked the photo directly from there without placing it in the Commons?
At any rate, I will put up no fuss whatsoever about removing the photo from the article and the Commons if so advised -- or even, perhaps, if not so advised.
I imagine that in your case only option 2 and 4 is relevant. You can ask them to release the photograph or you can use "Fair Use" rationale. If you do nothing image will be deleted.--Jarekt (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, Jarket, I've removed the image from the Wikipedia article, so its deletion from the Commons will not leave an unsightly hole. (As to that deletion itself, I am making another assumption as a newcomer -- that the deletion process is best left to an expert.) In the meantime, I'm taking a new approach, and perhaps one which I should have taken from the beginning: the ShareSpace web site, in typical fashion, has a "Press" section with copies of their various press releases, so I am going to do some more research in the pages which you have pointed me to above to see if using a press release image might simplify things. Synchronist (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good approach. Alternative approach they can take would be to send the image and standard permission to OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Welburn_Hall
Thanks for the information re license. Blank postcards are a bit hard to define. I hope the alteration is acceptable. Image accompanies discourse 'Welburn, Kirkbymooreside' on Wikipedia.
Cheers Dingarwil
Hi Jarekt, I have retrieved the original "postcard" that was sent to me. As you noted, it appears to have been copied or scanned. It is actually a photo (c1960) of another image. Given that the photographer made it for me and gave it to me, I suggest the right to reproduce it lies with me. However, the question remains, the age of the original image is unknown , therefore, does copyright still apply?
Cheers Dingarwil.
I was only referring to copyrights of the original photograph. Whichever way the postcard was digitized should not have introduced additional copyrights. --Jarekt (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
hi.
i have read, that the license for a photo which i uploadet was not correct. i don't know how to license it because it's a private photo from the artist and he gave it to me with the agreement to use it in wikipedia. i have copied {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to the photo. is it now correct? thank you.
ina
Ina, The license should be chosen by the photographer, who was not provided and the photographer should send the permission to use this photo under that license to COM:OTRS. I will tag this photograph as missing permission. Let me know if you need help with what is needed. --Jarekt (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
RE: Research Complex
After careful review of the copyright policy regarding non-US domain, I realize that even though this photo is indeed on public domain for Korean webs, it is no so for the U.S. Please go ahead and delete the file, I will upload a less attractive photo that I took myself with my mobile phone to substitute the picture.
FDMS, All files need a license at the upload time. We give a week to comply, but anybody uploading needs to know that the file is being distributed under compatible license before they upload. OTRS requirement has little to do with license requirement. --Jarekt (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way if this or other file ever gets deleted while waiting, contact me and I will be happy to undelete. --Jarekt (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What difference does it make whether there's a wrong license or no license at all? IMO the OTRS month overrides the nld week, plus we shouldn't confuse customers with nld notifications since they are already in touch with us and their files will be deleted no matter what license tag they have unless an agent replaces the {{OTRS received}}. FDMS 4 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
FDMS, Currently we interpret the requirement that all files require a license as that all files need to have a license, {{No license}} tag or a deletion template. We were not making exceptions for files with OTRS, or other templates. There seem to be a lot of misunderstanding about licenses and OTRS but the expected steps are outlined in Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_not_the_copyright_holder where it is clearly explained that the image should be uploaded after the author of the image picks the license. In case of this file the OTRS "permission" did not come from the author and it did not mentioned any licenses. I agree there should be no "difference [] whether there's a wrong license or no license at all", they both should be deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
FDMS I read the exchange on OTRS and I do not know what is so confusing to the middle-person. As far as I can tell the copyright holder needs to send the standard permission email to OTRS. If Mr. K. is the copyright holder and he is willing to say it in writing than we need the permission from him. If the photographer holds the copyrights than we need to hear from the photographer. I can reply at OTRS if that helps. --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, glad that it's not me just not getting something. For now, with further action taken by neither the customer nor Mr. K., I don't think another response would be helpful. FDMS 4 23:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from June 9. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from June 10. It will be on all Wikipedias from June 11 (calendar). [212][213]
If you use the Monobook skin, the buttons and other controls now look more the same in VisualEditor and other tools. [214]
When you edit links and other items in VisualEditor, you now need to apply your change before closing the tool. [215]
The title of dialogs is now easier to see when it is near long buttons. [216]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 9 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Many thanks for removing the "missing license" tags from my batch upload. Learned a valuable lesson there re: adding the right template for the Permissions field! heh. Best, Ndalyrose (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
File:M.azamikia.jpg and File:M.azamikia2.jpg copyright
Hello
Thanks for your help in advance. Both pictures are sent by the person in them to me to create a wiki page (both in Persian and English). Not sure what else I need to add to the copyright information.
Cheers
P.S. Emailed the copyright holder and sent him the link from your FAQ to email and explain the situation.
Hi, I saw that you tagged this photo above due to insufficient copyright information. However, I don't know what to do since I took a photo of it from my phone. Could you please advise me? Sangrecaliente Sangchaud (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, if you took this image than you are the copyright holder to the image, since I do not think items in the image would carry copyrights. You should look through COM:LIC and COM:CT and choose a license you would like to use. I would recommend the default {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} license which is what I also use. I can also undeleate File:Pasig River - Guadalupe View.jpg if you let me know what license to use. Let me know if I can help more. --Jarekt (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree that it is the best copyright option. However, I have been trying to find how to edit the copyright options. I am not that smart to find it. Sangrecaliente Sangchaud (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this is regarding the image that is uploaded "File:Dracone.jpeg". This image was from the study material provided to us in our college, so can such images be uploaded, if so what should be the license info. Thank you.Srinivasprabhu933 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You can upload images you took, otherwise you have to prove that the image is in Public Domain or released under a Free license. I doubt you going to find enough info about that image to prove that. --Jarekt (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Uploading photos
Thank you for your message regarding uploading photos and copyright. For all the photos the copyright is owned by Divine Chocolate Ltd, and I am authorised on their behalf to upload them for use on Wikipedia. Is that permissable? Should I index them differently on Wikimedia Commons?
Thanks Charlottejb
User:Charlottejb, Thanks for your uploads those are great images. There are two you will have to do:
The copyright owner of the images, which are usually Photographers unless they transferred their rights to Divine Chocolate Ltd., should pick a license, like {{Cc-by-4.0}} I often use. Than you can add this license to the images.
The copyright owner(s) of the images need to send permission to OTRS. Please read details at com:OTRS.
Thank you Jarekt
I think those photographers have transferred the rights to those photos to Divine Chocolate Ltd - I will check. In the meantime I could just upload images Divine took ourselves. Thank you again for your help
User:Charlottejb
File:Portal web USINA.jpg
This file is from argentine goverment (free distribution like any creation of the goverment). ¿why considerate a copyright inflingation? The source is from prezi and here acept derivate works, prease reconsiderate revert this action. Thanks.
Cześć. Widzę, że pozwolenie podpisane przez M. Kubskiego jeszcze nie zostało przez niego potwierdzone z jego adresu mailowego. Zaraz mu o tym przypomnę i mam nadzieję, że to ogarnie na czas. Proszę tylko jeszcze o kilka dni. Dzięki H.Rabiega (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'll have to remove the votes you added to this challenge after 31 May 2015. I'm sorry I didn't update the page to make it clear that voting had closed. However, I can only accept votes during the month voting is open. -- Colin (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jared. Another first-time uploader. Thank you for contacting me. I have an email from the photographer granting permission to use this photo. The details were included during the uploading process. Is there somewhere to forward that email? Thank you for your help during this process.
Please read COM:OTRS and send permission to the address provided there. In case the photographer's permission does not mention license, then he/she should read COM:CT, pick a license (current recommended license for new uploads is {{CC-by-sa-4.0}}) and send permission based on this example directly to OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Jared. I have contacted the photographic agency and hope to have this resolved to the proper standard very soon.
The photographic agency has contacted me and has asked to fill out a license. I have provided the email address "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" and asked them to send the following text along with an attachment of the image to that address.
"I hereby affirm that I represent Image of Sport the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached image.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Kirby Lee
Copyright Holder
Hello Jared. The Photographer received an automatically generated response to the above email that included the Ticket #2015061610021551. Thank you for all your help. Hopefully his email was sufficient. Thank you.
Hi Jarekt,
I made 1965 a little movie with Prager for TV. He is a well-known author. I got his signature in a letter for me and he dedicated his signature in a book. From another account I dedicateted different signatures from prominent people to commons and there were no problems. Can you please help? Thanks--Duschan1944 13:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Users have created more than 5000 articles with the new translation tool. [219]
Editing a page is now faster. This is because some statistics about edit filters were removed. [220]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from 17 June. It will be on all Wikipedias from 18 June (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 16 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hi Jarekt, thank you for your message re license for Touch Bank logo. Touch Bank is the trade mark of a new Russian bank. However, it is currently in a process of registration. So the only document I have for this logo is a letter on behalf of the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, dated April 16, 2015 which informs on the following: Our Ref: 806/877747201. International Registration No 1 243 120 (TOUCHBANK). In accordance of the Rule 14(1) of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and the Protocol to that Agreement, please find herewith the certificate for the above-mentioned international registration. This certificate is issued only in the language in which the international application was filed.
This international registration will be published in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks No: 14/2015.
The process used does not allow in all cases the exact reproduction of all the different shades of colors.
The Certificate of Registration gives the registration number - 1 243 120 and registration date - February 4, 2015, the name of the holder - Akzionernoe Obshchestvo "OTP Bank", its postal address and its representative SOUZPATENT, Russian Federation.
Is that all needs to be downloaded as license?
Thank you again for your cooperation and support.
--IvMaRus (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
IvMaRus, So here is the issue: I think all you just described is related to the trademarks (and I added template {{Trademark}} to the files), but what Commons need is clarification of copyrights. Copyrights make very little sense in case of corporate logos and we often end up using {{PD-text-logo}} or {{PD-shape}} for very simple logos using either text or simple figures. Your logos might be simple enough to use them otherwise we would need to hear from the Copyright holder to the image (designer? or Bank itself?) who would need to send proper permissions to OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jarekt, what I've found out is the following: the Touch Bank logo was created by an advertising agency (usual way), and the bank ibtained it by purchasing it from the agency according to an agreement between them. So this logo is protected by copyright which belongs to OTP Bank (legal entity, because Touch Bank - is a brand which belongs to OTP Bank). I have a pdf copy of Act with stamps and signatures (in Russian language) which confirms that the creation of Touch Bank logo by the agency together with brandbook costed so much... and that this work was paid off by OTP Bank. So what should I do in this case with the logo? Thank you in advance.
"IvMaRus (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)"
IvMaRus, I am not a layer and I find logos especially tricky since they make little sense in case of logos. But here are some thoughts:
The fact that the bank purchased the right to use the logo does not always mean that they purchased copyrights to the logo. So unless the copyrights are specifically mentioned in the document it is unclear if the advertising agency or the bank holds the copyrights.
Assuming that the bank does hold the copyrights than one course of action would be for the bank to pick a license which will describe how others might use the image. All available licenses are listed at COM:CT and some more info at COM:LIC. The most popular license used at the moment is {{CC-by-sa-4.0}}. Once the bank chooses the license than they need to add the template to the image and send the permission to OTRS. A sample permissions can be found at Commons:OTRS/ru or [Commons:Email templates]].
Since the logos are very simple we could just add {{PD-text-logo}} or {{PD-shape}} license templates, stating that logos are in Public Domain. That is what happen to File:Google+ logo.png and many others. That might be the simplest solution.
You can also ask at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright where you might find other users who specialize in copyright issues. In case your logo gets deleted while we are still processing I can always undelete them once they have license templates. --Jarekt (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the absurdly overhanded use of protection to protect your preferred version when there is threat of neither vandalism nor edit war (the standard required by Commons:Protection policy) ...
License templates are supposed to be protected, since unlike other templates it is important to keep license templates as unchanging as possible or as Commons:Protection policy puts it they "should not be modified for copyright or legal reasons". I was surprised to discover that Walters templates were not protected and corrected the problem. The Template:Walters Art Museum license/3D is not just my "preferred version", it is a version which community settled on after discussions. All 2D and 3D artworks alike need a license stating why are they in the public domain. 3D artworks also need a separate license dealing with photographers copyrights. I removed them from Category:Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images. --Jarekt (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a horribly written template, and, considering that in two years the only edits are mine and then your reversion, there is no need for protection. One simple improvement would be to rearrange it so that the actual image license (CC-BY-SA-3.0 / GFDL) is positioned ABOVE the PD tag. This way a potential well-meaning reuser wouldn't look at it and the first thing he sees is a PD tag. (A better improvement would be to not use the PD tag at all because nobody is going to wonder if 2000-year-old pottery and the like might be copyrighted.) --B (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
B, The template is used on plenty of contemporary artworks in addition to "2000-year-old pottery". See for example this one. The sub-templates use chronological order starting from the earliest copyright holder. That is how most other license templates do it. See for example Template:Licensed-PD-Art or Template:Walters Art Museum license/2D . If you want suggest any changes to the template than you should propose it at template talk page or at Commons talk:Walters Art Museum where more people will see it. --Jarekt (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a problem that when someone looks at the image you named, they are told, incorrectly, "This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights." In some fashion, that problem needs to be remedied. Protecting the template from being modified under the guise of preventing vandalism isn't a solution - it's an insult. --B (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
That is a problem with all PD licenses that use Template:Cc-pd-mark-footer, which was discussed in the past. When they are used in combination with other licenses which are not PD than the footer displays wrong info. There are probably thousands of files like that. I do not have a solution for it, but it has nothing to do with Walters files and deleting license templates without discussion is not a solution. I would welcome a new discussion about remedy to Template:Cc-pd-mark-footer problem as I would like to fix it as well, but I do not have many ideas about how to do it for all the files. There are many types of files that require multiple license templates for multiple parts of the work: 3D artworks, many buildings, music, some movies, etc. and they are often not handled properly by templates or Media Viewers. I am sorry you feel insulted, by breaking license templates is usually considered vandalism. If you want changes to license templates than you need to discuss them first at the talk pages. --Jarekt (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism is by definition malicious. Even if you were to presume that my change was incorrect, it does not constitute vandalism. --B (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
That is true. I should not have said that. Although sometimes I feel like well intended changes against consensus where the user is aware of the consensus should also qualify but that is also not the category I would place your edits. --Jarekt (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Zgadzam się. Nie ma licencji i wygląda na to ze osoba przesyłająca nie jest autorem, ale można by było spytać się autora (tomasz@szediwy.com ). --Jarekt (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for correcting things. There was a confusion about the copyright/left of the photo and I also would like to apologize to Manfred Werner, who made the wonderful photo. No hard feelings I hope and for the future quick-thinking research.
User:Tricky Women Filmfestival, All of your recent uploads are missing license templates. Please read com:lic so you are familiar with Commons requirements. The photographers who took the photographs or artists who created the graphics should also read COM:CT and COM:OTRS, choose a license and send their permissions to OTRS. Let me know if I can help more. --Jarekt (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
J'ai demandé l'autorisation à la personne qui a pris ces photos (et qui les a publiées sur la page facebook non-officielle du film) de les publier sur Commons et elle me l'a donné. Je les ai donc publiées mais je n'ai pas trouvé de licence du genre "le créateur de l'image a donné son autorisation" ou quelque chose comme ça : que dois-je donc faire pour que ces photos restent sur Commons ? - Groupir ! (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Groupir !, We do not have a template with "le créateur de l'image a donné son autorisation" and the copyright holder needs to choose one of the standard, license templates like current default {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} or similar. You should also read Commons:OTRS/fr and ask the copyright holder to send permission like this to OTRS. Let me know if I can help mode or you can ask for help at Commons:Bistro. --Jarekt (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Un message de ce genre est-il convenable pour l'OTRS ?
Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif des œuvres publiées sur Commons aux adresses suivantes :
Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette œuvre sous la licence CC-BY-SA-4.0. Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence.
Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées.
Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.
Le 15 juin 2015, [écrivez le NOM CIVIL DE L'AUTEUR DES PHOTOS et SES COORDONNÉES]
Groupir !, That seems right (at least Google Translate version does). The author should send an email with that info from his email account (best if the email account uses his name) to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org. --Jarekt (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
L'auteur a en fait envoyé son autorisation depuis longtemps mais c'est l'OTRS qui n'a pas encore enregistré l'autorisation. Est-ce que je peux prolonger l'"OTRS pending" ? - Groupir ! (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jarekt,
we decided some months ago to ask the challenge winners if they could help to decide the themes for the next month needing themes - in this case July.
If you are ready to help us, just start a section on commons talk:Photo challenge (e.g. July themes), where you post your suggestion / decide which of the posted suggestions (e.g. from the other winner) you like best. If you are looking for ideas, here's a list of suggestions that are waiting to be chosen, but you are welcome to propose another theme.
If possible, it would be great if we manage to decide on themes before the next weekend, as we need some time to prepare & translate the theme pages.
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Some wikis can now be used only with HTTPS. This includes the English, Russian and Chinese Wikipedias, among others. Soon all wikis will use only HTTPS for all users. [226][227]
You can't use HTTPS wikis with Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP. You need to use another browser. [228]
Problems
On June 15, search was broken on all wikis for several hours. [229][230][231]
Many Labs tools were broken for several days. Almost all of them are back now. They may be missing some data for the last 10 days. [235][236][237]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from June 23. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from June 24. It will be on all Wikipedias from June 25 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 23 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hi Jarekt,
I placed a photo in the Commons that has been deleted because I didn't state the rights. I handed my personal camera to another person, Subin Khuenkaew, to take the picture. I do have the rights, Subin took the picture for me to keep and use for myself, but because I didn't take the picture myself, I was unsure how to select the ownership. I would like to put it back in the Commons, but I receive a message saying another photo with similar content has already been deleted. The filename that you deleted was: Author_and_Khun_Sa.jpg
Patricia, I am sorry your photo was deleted. The problem is that all files on Commons need a license template (aka copyright tag), please see COM:LIC and COM:CT and all files missing them are automatically deleted. We do alert the uploders about the problem and wait for a week so they can fix the issue, but if the license is still missing after a week than the images are deleted. The license template should be chosen by the copyright holder or holders, which is usually the photographer / author. If you are unsure about something, me or other commons admins can always help, or you can ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or Commons:Help desk. In case when you compose the shot and than hand your camera to someone else to take the photo, most people interpret as either join authorship and copyrights or authorship and copyrights by the photographer. You and Subin K. should agree on the license template (I usually use the default {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}) and Subin K. should send permission to use the image to OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Mimics image copyright fix
Hi Jarek! Thanks for your note on copyright of the Mimics image. It's helpful to get this input as for beginning Wikipedians it's very difficult to get started and do everything in the appropriate way it seems. So I tried to add the code 'self' {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}, but I'm not sure if I did it in the right way? I had no clue on where to add it exactly... Thanks!
I think everything seems fine now, license wise. It would be nice if you identify what is the plot showing (what is the red part). By the way any chance you can extract the Wilms tumor out of this file? That is something that can be used in articles? Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. --Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, great news. I'm unfortunately such a beginner that I don't know even how to open this file...
File:Seite Haltieniemi.jpg
Hi Jarekt! You informed me some days ago that the abovementioned file did not have a valid license. I had put a bad link in, so your observation was correct. However, I knew that there was a license, and I changed the link in order to show this. Nevertheless, the file has now been deleted. Do you know anything about this and is it possible for you to restore it again?--Skogsfrun (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Skogsfrun, all files on Commons are required to have a Commons license template, like the ones in COM:CT. My message was meant to alert you that you did not have one. Under closer inspection it seems your image was released under CC BY-NC-ND 2.5 which belong to the class of non-commercial licenses which are not allowed on Commons. See Commons:Licensing. So unfortunately we can not host this image. --Jarekt (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The 2.5 vs 3.0 makes no difference it is the NC or ND part that is the problem. It has to be a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license. --Jarekt (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I don't understand the issue with the licence (probably too technical for me). I have indicated the link to the site in the details, and the site contains a link about "Are you interested in using this photo". This link is in the page
here (link "are you interested in using this photo"), and the licence is indicated in the section "Publications", "copyright policy", then jump to "Copyright Information / Disclaimer". Can you explain me what is the problem ? thx.
Maimonid (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry I did not find the path to the part where it says what type of CC license to follow. It is all fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jarekt, you informed me there was some problem with File:Burgemeester Wilmink.jpg. If you go to that page and click on the source-link you will see at the left site a CC-BY-SA statement. If you click on that, it turns out to be the CC-BY-SA 4.0 international license. I just changed the permission text on the page File:Burgemeester Wilmink.jpg into: {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}
I hope that is all that was needed. If not, please inform me what else needs to be done. - Robotje (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick action. I noticed you also did this edit to mark it as confirmed to be on Europeana site with that license. I'm considering to add a few dozen more pictures with the same license from that Europeana site about other Dutch mayors. Is it OK every time a have another 5 or 8 files uploaded I contact you to confirm that small batch? Or should I request that review at some special page? - Robotje (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
When you read a page on the mobile site, you can now see a link to go to its talk page. [240]
The code coloring tool has changed. You can now use many more languages. It now also works on mobile. [241][242][243]
You can look at a new site to learn how to reuse data from Wikimedia sites. [244]
Problems
JavaScript was broken on some wikis due to a code error. VisualEditor and other tools that use JavaScript were broken. [245]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from June 30. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 1. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 2 (calendar).
You can now use a tool in VisualEditor to add and edit code in color. [246]
When you edit a sentence in the Translate tool, it can show you older translations. They help you save time if they look alike. The older translations should now work better. If you see problems, you should report them. [247]
If you are an admin or have other special rights, you now need a strong password. [248]
Bot and JavaScript coders: The old continuation mode of the API for action=query doesn't work any more. [249]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 30 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future
When you create a new account, it will also create one on Meta-Wiki and mediawiki.org. [250]
RE: Copyright status: File:Major Daniel Lawrence Kenan.jpg
Jarekt,
In response to yours of 15:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC), I had posted as much information as I was able to obtain regarding the File:Major Daniel Lawrence Kenan.jpg when it was uploaded.
The image is in the "public domain"; following information is respectfully submitted; spec.,
The source from which the image was obtained is “The Kenan Family and Some Allied Families of the Compiler and Publisher”, THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, THE COLLECTION OF NORTH CAROLINIANA, ENDOWED BY JOHN SPRUNT HILL, CLASS OF 1889.
“This book has not been copyrighted. If there is good within, then let it be shared.” - The Compiler - (who is) Mrs. Alvaretta Kenan Register 5514 Monroe Place, Apt. 302-B Norfolk, Virginia - 23508
Thank you for your interest and clarification re guarding the image of D. L. Kenan.
I have just sent a request to the University of North Carolina -
"Dear Sir (or Ma'am, as may be the case)
By way of background, I am an American Civil War re-enactor and "living historian", and have established an organization; Company H, 6th Florida Infantry (www.unionrebels.com).
For the past three years, I have been conducting research for this company (and regiment). I have just recently been honored to have an article published by Wikipedia, "6th Florida Infantry Regiment" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Florida_Infantry_Regiment).
I "stumbled" upon an image of Daniel Lawrence Kenan, who was elected as a field officer (Major) when the 6th Florida was placed into Confederate service.
The image was obtained from "Florida Plantations Past" at "http://www.dejaelaine.com/miscplantations3.html". Underneath the image is the statement, "Images are in Public Domain - from book: The Kenan family and some allied families of the compiler and publisher".
“The Kenan family and some allied families of the compiler and publisher”, THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, THE COLLECTION OF NORTH CAROLINIANA, ENDOWED BY JOHN SPRUNT HILL, CLASS OF 1889
“This book has not been copyrighted. If there is good within, then let it be shared.” - The Compiler -
Mrs. Alvaretta Kenan Register
5514 Monroe Place, Apt. 302-B
Norfolk, Virginia - 23508
July 11, 1967"
Such being the case, I uploaded the image to my Wikipedia article. This morning, I received a message that, "Thanks for uploading File:Major Daniel Lawrence Kenan.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you." Upon informing the sender of the image source and information, he responded that, "my note was related to the requirement that all files on Commons need to have a license template which explains the copyright status of the photograph. Please see COM:LIC and COM:CT for list of possible license templates. In general all photographs are assumed to be copyrighted and we have one license template for each exception from that rule. If the source country of this photograph is the US than you might find Commons:Hirtle chart a usefull tool for finding the correct license template."
As this book is reported to be in your library, may I prevail upon you to provide information regarding whether the image is "in the public domain", or if it is "copy-righted and if so, by who and how may I contact them?
Your assistance and attention shall be very greatly appreciated; I hope that I may be able to have the image retained with the Wikipedia article.
With greatest respect &c, I am very sincerely
Mathew "J" Sterman
Fort Walton Beach, FL"
I very much hope that I may receive the necessary information from UNC in the very near future; if that should not happen before the image must be removed, no ill-will on my part shall attend. Should the required information be sufficient, I will provide it as soon as it is received, and "re-upload" the image; if the information RE copyright does not meet requirement, I understand that the image cannot be added to the article.
Thank you again for your attention, courtesy...and infinite patience.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
On the mobile site, you now see more information when you search for a page. It now shows the description from Wikidata. [251]
Problems
The code of long pages is not colored any more. You may see this problem on the pages of long gadgets. [252]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 7. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 8. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 9 (calendar).
The "Page information" tool shows how many users watch the page. You can now see how many are active. [253][254]
You can now translate articles into English with the new translation tool. [255]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on July 7 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
De Weed page
Dear Jarek,
There are copyright problems with Kaart_1911.jpg and Openstreetview2015.jpg.
In the first, I scanned a part of an old topographical card from the government and must have the same permission as for example File:Topografie_De_Krim_1914.jpg,
the second image is from a public domain site openstreetview.
I don't know how to alter the tags to achieve this.
Reindu
Yanmar marine page.
Dear Jarekt,
could you please share with me a lonk of he licensed template you mentioned?
it is my first post on wikipedia.
Thank you
Steven036
copyright issues
Hello i upload a document but i d'ont know what the copyrigth is. It's an old document (1627) from the Spanish General Archive. The rigth has been buy to the archives services giving the rigth to be use and diffused. Can you tell me how i can class it, under wich copyrigth on wikipédia? Thnak You.
copyright issues
I added a photo File:Ben Mittelman.JPG that was taken and given to me by the person in it, for the purpose of publishing it in the Wikipedia article about him. I added a license tag, but I don't know how to remove the deletion warning. could you help?
~~~~
FG2A logo
Hello,
Thank you for your help regarding the upload of the FG2A logo. I have to admit I am not quite sure I understand what I need to do to upload the logo on the page. In order to get real copyright, I reached out to them on their contact us page asking them to send me a copy of their logo in order for me to use (with their rights) on Wikipédia. I hope they will answer but they might never see my email... In case I do get an email back from them (or even if I don't), what am I supposed to do to upload it onto their wikipedia page?
Question. Glacier , a very high two mile high one from the past places a massive weight on the bottom.
Can the rock against rock, cause when moving a heat caused by friction to melt the rock?
MD SAGIR-userbox
The pic Madina Masjid Chas is a big place which is situated in Ghaous Nagar Colony,Chas,Bokaro(India).
And i think this info should be in Wikipedia also as because this info is available already in Google Map.Therfore, i think for this u dont require any license.
If then also license is required,then please help me to get license by which i can upload
All info of my area Chas Bokaro.
Phantom File Question
Hi! I'm not entirely sure to how to change the tag on the photo, but in your FAQ it says something about how if it's deleted you can undelete and fix the problem? I'm not sure how to tag it as the "fair use" mentioned on the last bulletpoint of the third FAQ- Could you either help me understand how to do it or do it yourself? I contacted the publisher of the comic (Hermes Press) and he said I could upload the image, but I wasn't sure how to tag it. If I've misunderstood, could you help me?
Thanks!
Rosa Maria Paz
Hello,
regarding the pictures of Rosa Maria Paz, you can find these pictures everywhere to Paz webs, the pictures belongs to Rosa Maria Paz.
We are very busy people, and unfortunely your systems are for us to complicated. Thank you so much for your attention. Q-ART
Hello Jarekt. I edited the file that I uploaded with public domain tagged. The owner give it to me and it's now open for public. Thank you!
Koka Lapidot
I uploaded the photoes and I can't delete them. Can you delete them?
File:Russian nobility Perekhrestov Osipov .jpg
Good day. Thank you for the comment posted by me image. I have made changes in licensing. Check the correctness of the operations performed by me. I usually use pictures made by me. But in this situation, to illuminate the history I describe in the region had to use this image. Thank you for your help. Blitz1980 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Marker "PD-RusEmpire". If quality, thanks to You I learned about the lack of continuity of Russia against the Russian Empire. Also this coat of arms was approved in the late eighteenth century (1796). I used the marker "PD-old-100". As it is just as good. I hope to use more than one marker is permitted. Blitz1980 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Photo of JP Rangaswami
Hi Jared
I got your note on the photo. I have made changes, first time using wiki commons but I hope I got it right.
Email proving permission for upload and using images under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Hey
As I said before, in the bottom right hand side it is said that "Content is available under CC-BY-SA"
100 Year Journey Picture
Hi there,
Thanks for your response. The owner of the picture was supposed to email you about releasing the image in public domain for free. Will you be able to check the email containing URL for the same picture?
Thanks once again.
Public Emblem Work
Hello Jarekt,
thanks for your message. The picture NuovoMarchioBL.gif I uploaded is a public emblem taken from the government site. I think the one Provincia di Belluno-Stemma.gif is from the same source and the two should have identical licence terms, but I do not have any further method to confirm. If you think this is not sufficient, please remove it, as I am out of options. Thanks!
Support request with team editing experiment project
Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.
I'm not sure how to further clarify that the images I am uploading, Doris Cole.jpg, Damson & Greengage Gourmet Deli.jpg, East Boston High School.jpg, and Arcology Skyscraper.jpg, were sent to me from Doris Cole, who owns all rights to the photos and has given me permission to release them under a free license to be on Wikipedia. If the information I have provided is not enough, please let me know what else I need to provide to have the photos uploaded.
Thank you. Can you recommend the valid license for the logo of the university? And it is still unclear why I should use another license information since I have already obtained and specified in file description OTRS permission: {{PermissionOTRS|2015021010012043}}
License template and OTRS permission are mostly unrelated to each other: license template tells other users under what conditions was image released by the copyright holder (university in your case) and {{PermissionOTRS}} provides a link which can be followed by few trusted users to a database with correspondence related to this image. All images are required to have a license template. Luckily I was able to look up the license under {{PermissionOTRS|2015021010012043}} and apparently the image was released under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. That is all I was looking for. --Jarekt (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Pliki z szablonem {{subst:OP}}
Cześć. Dostałem od Ciebie ostrzeżenie, że pliki, które dziś dodałem nie zawierają informacji o licencjach i mogą być usunięte. Jak widać np. w tym pliku i w każdym innym dziś dodanym wstawiłem tam szablon {{subst:OP}}, czyli o przesłaniu pozwolenia do systemu OTRS. Czy tych informacji nie widać, albo czy użyłem szablonu nieprawidłowo? H.Rabiega (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear sir, since you've had some doubts regarding the copyrights of the photo I uploaded a couple days ago, I want to make sure you know that there is 100% no issue with publishing the book cover in the wikipedia especially that the resolution used was quiet low and in addition, the author of this book, Mr Alfakhroo, has noted in his book (on page 2) that he has no problem with anyone republishing text or photos available if attributed to him and with no-commercial benefits. Kind regards, Mohamed bin Ibrahim (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
Yes, really No required license templates, but they always deleting my files (strictly 7 times), where don't have to required license templates. I don't no why (?)
Titan971118 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Titan, You should read com:lic. In short, all the files on commons are required to have a license template and all files without them are deleted. So please do not upload files without them. License templates are chosen by the copyright holders or authors, If you do not created the photo or image or do not hold copyrights to it than you can not pick a license (unless it is in Public domain). Once you read com:lic and you have questions let me know and I will try to help. --Jarekt (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
All of them are really good and nice, but i would like to ask something: Why are on the Wikipedia so much logo of football teams, teams, towns and others? Because, that i uploaded with commons, that's logo of a national football team. What have to do to agree that? Titan971118 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Titan971118, All files on Commons have licenses, and you should look at each file to see what license they used. Although, some licenses might not be correct. --Jarekt (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jarekt: Sorry for this upload, which I wanted to remove myself straight away, but which I do not know how to! So could you please do it (ie delete it) for me, thanks. The reason is that the picture is un-usable because it is 1. (Far) too small and 2. Too low definition. I took it off the Professor's webpage and he wrote the accompanying permission note for it. I have now written to him to ask him to please get me the original of the webpage picture or send me an alternative, picture of himself, provided either are full-size. So, whatever happens, I will not be using, nor am I planning to ever use the picture I just uploaded. So I would be happy if you could delete it. Sorry for this. Pronacampo9 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Pronacampo9
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
There was a problem with editing on Thursday. Some tools like bots and VisualEditor were broken on all wikis for 10 minutes. [258]
There was a problem with images on Thursday. They were broken on all wikis for 15 minutes. [259]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 15. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 16 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join a technical meeting at Wikimania in Mexico City this week. [260]
This image is in the public domain because the Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright of 2010 specifies (§91, 5) that all photographic images not considered to be "photographic works" that were created before 1 January 1970 are exempt from protection.
[[261]]
Yours sincerely, --Juan Diego Manuel (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a beautiful shot... I'm not sure how you time-travelled to next October to take it, but at least I know when to be waiting there with a camera. ;) --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
ExifTool has a nice "copy" function that I sometimes use after stitching panoramas, etc... of course, this only helps when you still have the original file... --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Advice needed for template and tag for File:2015-07-14 1504 Lincliff captured by Bing from Wikipedia.png.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, the photo in this file is not my original photograph. However I did create the file. I tried uploading the photo of the entrance to Lincliff directly from a Wikipedia article entitled Lincliff into a draft of an article I am writing about Eleanor Silliman Belknap Humphrey, whose father built Lincliff, an historic building which was her family home. However, the photo, which had been designated by the person who created the file as available for re-use, uploaded much too large. In an attempt to diminish its size in my draft, I captured it with Bing and created a new file. How do I answer the question about whether this FILE is my own work? Yes, I created the file, but I did not shoot the photo. Which license tag should I use, and where should it be placed in relation to the file name in my edit?
It seems that every time I try to submit a photo to Wikimedia, the circumstances are different, and the re-directs are so frequent, that I have a hard time getting it right. Thank you for your assistance.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Mitzi.humphrey, I do not get it. So you cropped the image and you dropped the resolution. But why? Why is the original "much too large"?--Jarekt (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Paulie Zink photo
Hi Jarekt,
I'm pretty new to uploading photos and permissions. I did upload a photo along with a description of the type of permission slip, but didn't see any way of uploading the permission form. So I sent an email to Wikimedia Permissions (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) with both the photo and a signed permission slip attached.
I just today received an email back from Leon Haanstra at Wikimedia Permissions.
Dear EMP,
This permission seems to be from a person depicted in the photograph, but the copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Can you please have the photographer send in a free license release for this image, or clarify how the copyright was transferred?
Yours sincerely,
Leon Haanstra
I am just now checking with Paulie and his wife (who I think took the photo) to get the details. Leon said if someone other than Paulie's spouse took the photo, I'd have to send in another permission form, signed by the photographer (even if the photographer has given the photo to Paulie). But if Paulie's wife did take it, no further paperwork would be needed.
But should I send in something else for your files?
EMP I added license templates based on the description found. Leon is right about the permission. It is a common misunderstanding about copyright holders. --Jarekt (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Fairfax City Parade - 2015-07-04 - NON-Chevrolet Caprice
Jarek, czy jednak to oraz to nie wymagają oddzielnego OTRS? Pierwsze wymieniłem w artykule na aktualne – dodano nowe detale na elewacji i przemalowano budynek na biało. Boston9 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Dzięki! Kupiłem niedawno Lightrooma, żeby w końcu zacząć ogarniać swoje zdjęcia, ale nie mam czasu, żeby się do niego na poważnie przysiąść. Wgram zatem ten i będę stosował - od czegoś trzeba zacząć! Boston9 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Chciałem Ci bardzo podziękować – ShiftN jest super! To zupełnie nowa jakość! Zacząłem poprawiać i wgrywać ponownie swoje wcześniejsze zdjęcia, z fatalną perspektywą (dopiero teraz widzę, jak fatalną). Dziękuję raz jeszcze:) Boston9 (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, the Wikidata thing seems to place itself in the title parameter, which this template normally doesn't use. Looks kinda awkward, but probably working as designed. Tom-L (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: your deletion notice
Thanks for your efforts to track permissions, protecting both wikipedia and authors. I'll post this on your Talk page too. I was kindly helped in setting up this permission by Antrandrus a couple of years ago, so maybe there's something new needed? John Wiley (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jarekt. So if I'm understanding correctly then, from now on when I paste in the text linking to the OTRS ticket, it will now correctly show the v3 info?
v3 = CC3.0 [262] I'm not clear on what you changed, and whether there's anything more I'd need do in future to avoid triggering another takedown notice. John Wiley (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry I assumed you could check what I have done. Here is my edit and you can get it by clicking History next to Edit source. And in the future you always need to add {{CC-by-3.0}} (or other license template) when uploading as with any image upload, and if you have OTRS ticket than you should paste it as well when uploading. --Jarekt (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, so apparently there's something different required now than in the years since Antandrus added the OTRS ticket. My understanding then was that someone wanted to take down my CC3 work because it was similar to my larger (c) versions of the same pix on Flickr. I've posted many pix since then with no problems, but maybe there's something new that means the CC3 tag you've added will be required going forward (or maybe must now be retroactively added to all my prior published work?)? Or is it just that some new feature now flags volunteers like you when the two specific "int:license-header CC-by-3.0" lines aren't present on a NEW page? I thought that the OTRS ticket already specified CC3 while also adding the clarification as to why there were multiple versions of my same pix (some (c), some CC3). Is there a way to add a specific CC3 line inside the existing OTRS ticket, so another volunteer doesn't flag it for takedown as happened before the OTRS ticket? As you can see, it's all a bit confusing for me so I appreciate your help in figuring it out. Again, thanks for your efforts to protect both WikiMedia and its contributors of original work. John Wiley (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No Response to my permissions amendment
Hi,
I sent an email to the permissions address explaining that I do have the rights to a photo I uploaded, but more than a month has passed without any response, and I still can't re-upload the photo you deleted (Author_and_Khun_Sa.jpg). Is there some way to resolve this issue?
- Patricia Elliott
Patricia, As far as I can tell the process was stalled due after Nahid S. replied to you on 26/06/2015 asking if you already uploaded the file, and he never got an answer. I replied for you so hopefully process will restart. Let me know if you run into more issues. --Jarekt (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 21. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 22. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 23 (calendar).
You now see more warnings in the image viewer. They tell you to be careful when using the image, for example if it shows a person. [263]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on July 21 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Soon you won't be able to use MathJax to display math. [264]
The copyright was approved by the Dutch OTRS-team. Kawahara died before 1866 so his work is well PD-Art-100, which tag i put on with the metadata (i intended to put this license on all files in the mass upload, apparently this fish escaped.)
Regards, Hansmuller (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello: please assist me in identifying this image correctly. I desire to post this information as follows:
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:
it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),
it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,
it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).
For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights. Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings.
It is an image of which there is no known author and/or that this image was taken by a photographer over 50 years ago (in 1926). Please help. Thanks.
Man, you guys make it very hard. I was only trying to add a picture of me that a friend took of me for my own wiki page. I've already uploaded this pic to public use with her permission, sent her permission to you. I'm getting quite tired of all this. I guess you'll delete the pic if that's what you feel you need to do. Maybe I'll take a selfie of myself and upload it straight from my phone. Who knows if that'll even work. And who cares anyway, right?
User:Crispydersen, All I am saying is that you are missing a license template which is required for all new uploads (with or without OTRS permission). Ask you friend to pick a license (for example I use {{Cc-by-4.0}}), and I promise you will not hear from me again. However you still will have to complete the OTRS to avoid deletion. --Jarekt (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Zmieniłeś licencję z PD-author na PD-anon-1923 w pliku File:Praga 1867.png. Po pierwsze, nie jestem pewien, czy to poprawne, bo opis pliku w bibliotece Polona.pl [265] podaje "Âdrov, Ivan Alekseevič. Oprac Goc. Rys.", co znaczy, że jest nazwana z imienia i nazwiska osoba, która kiedyś mogła sobie rościć jakieś prawa autorskie do tej mapy. Po drugie, jeśli Twoje działanie jest poprawne, to czy dałoby się je zastosować do tej mapy [266]. Wprawdzie jest udostępniana na licencji Creative Commons, ale z wyłączeniem publikcji komercyjnej, co wyklucza jej pobranie i umieszczenie tutaj. Ale może jedak da się naszą intepretacją przypisać jej licencję PD-anon-1923 i jednak sprowadzić?
Gżdacz, PD-author było nie poprawne bo znaczyło by to ze "Âdrov, Ivan Alekseevič" przesłał ten plik. Ale masz racje ze PD-anon-1923 także nie działa jeśli znamy autora. Template:PD-Polish może być użyte tylko dla fotografii. Template:PD-RusEmpire nie działa na terenach Królestwa Polskiego. Wiec Template:PD-old-70-1923 chyba będzie najbardziej pasować. Gżdacz proszę użyj {{Map}} zamiast {{Information}} i spróbuj dodać wszystkie metadane z [267]. Może także byś mógł przesłać całe wersje tych map. Pozdrawiam, --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ja użyłem PD-author z taką interpretacją: Biblioteka Narodowa, autor skanu tej mapy, udostępnia ten oto skan do PD. Zatem istnieje domniemanie, że dysponuje informacjami, które pozwalają jej uznać, że mapa też jest w PD. Zauważ, że nie jest to Józio z Pcimia, tylko Biblioteka Narodowa, instytucja z domeny gov.pl. Niestety, w metadanych nie podzieliła się z nami informacjami, na jakiej podstawie uważa mapę za PD. W tej sytuacji wskazuję autora skanu jako źródło informacji że skan jest w PD i umywam ręce. Całość postaram się wgrać, ale są jakieś problemy techniczne z pobieraniem całych plików. Jeśli chodzi o metadane, to trzeba umieć je przełożyc na system commons, czego nie umiem. Gżdacz (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Rozumiem pomysl z PD-author, ale na commons jest zalozenie ze digitalizacja nie daje ci dodatkowych praw autorskich (zobacz {{PD-Scan}}), wiec jak mówimy o autorze czy dacie to zawsze mowimy o autorze i dacie oryginału. Dlatego szablon Template:PD-old-70-1923 jest chyba najlepszy mimo ze nie znamy daty śmierci autora. --Jarekt (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jaarekt,
recently you filed a claim of insufficient copyright status on the arms of Manetin I uploaded. The arms are sourced from the Heraldry of the world website which in turn sources them from the Czech national municipal symbol register. Here the arms of most armiguous Czech towns and cities are stored and published under no licence. I am afraid that I have no idea what a licence template is on Wikipedia and quite honestly don't have the time or feel an inclination to study it. If you are interested in keeping the arms on Wikipedia, feel free to add a licence template. :)
Sincerely
--Avenflight (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Avenflight, when uploading new images to Commons you have two options: (1) create graphics yourself -> than you can give it any license you want or (2) download it from somewhere -> but then you have to prove that image is in public domain or released under open license. If you "don't have the time or feel an inclination" to figure out "what a licence template is", than you should stick to option #1 and only upload graphics you created. --Jarekt (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that if a government website isn't good enough for you then nothing will be and there isn't really much I can do. *Shrugs* Your loss I guess :) --Avenflight (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Which is what I tried to explain to you in the first message. Czech heraldry is completely unregulated when it comes to the use of the arms. As long as you aren't trying to use them in some official capacity (which is illegal and regulated by the municipalities in question), anybody is permitted to display, edit or use them. They are published, to quote myself, in the Czech national municipal symbol register and there is no licence attributed to these images. They are free to use and in the public domain just like, for example, the Czech Republic's arms. I truly don't know how much more I can simplify it for you and this is really taking up way more of my time than it's worth o_O --Avenflight (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Avenflight, all images on commons are required to have a license template at the time of the uploading, and it is uploader's responsibility to provide it. If what you said is true than there have to be some license template related to that Czech law or you have to talk to other Czech users to create new template. {{PD-CzechGov}} might be the template you are looking for is the coat of arms is a "symbol of a regional self-governing unit" ("symbol jednotky územní samosprávy"), but it is your job to find the templates. I do not know anything about Czech copyright law so you might learn more if you ask at Commons:Hospoda U Commons. My only role is to alert you that you uploded image without a license and that it will be deleted if you do not fix it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Cześć, mam krótkie pytanie: niektóre zdjęcia z Senatu są przekształcane, przede wszystkim użytkownicy wycinają z nich fragmenty (-> cropped). Czy w takiej sytuacji na przekształconym zdjęciu powinien zostać przyznany pierwotnie numer OTRS, czy też nie? Przykład z tego tygodnia to Adam Bodnar, dodałem, ale czy słusznie? Nie mam uprawnień do nadawania OTRS, z drugiej strony wydaje mi się, że OTRS powinien tutaj być powtórzony. Jak sądzisz? Ew. kto powinien tego dopilnować? Boston9 (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ja sadzę ze jest to w porządku. Ale masz racje ze tylko członkowie OTRS powinni dodawać szablony OTRS, reszta ląduje na jakiejś liście która pewnie nigdy nie jest sprawdzana. jak chcesz ko ja zawsze mogę te szablony dodać. --Jarekt (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can now use redirects to link to JavaScript pages. [268]
There was a problem with some Lua modules on July 22 and 23. Some pages using them did not list them in "what links here". You can fix those pages with a null edit: edit and save the page without making any change.
There was a problem with the abuse filter page on big wikis on July 23. It was due to a code error. [273]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 28. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 29. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 30 (calendar).
JavaScript authors: You cannot use wgNoticeUserData to get edit counts anymore. [274]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on July 28 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Thank you for your feedback. My impression was that since I uploaded the images from my Flickr account, the license will be transferred automatically. I am more familiar with Flickr environment, and would be interested in case studies where content from Flickr is uploaded to Commons.
There is a problem with images which has the "Public Domain 1.0 Mark" on Flickr, since Commons does not support that as a "complete" realease, per {{PD}}. Also see the Phabricator-task linked above (right) on why it wasn't tagged with more than 'undefined'. Josve05a (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean category: Vehicle Unfamiliar Photo Challenge?
Sincerely,--Famberhorst (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much for your message. My English language not! Everything goes through Google Translate. Then the messages are often not good about. Do I have the photos to challenge competition sites, whether you do it?
Sincerely,
Dominicus Bergsma. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your message. I read it this morning only. So too late. Have yet posted 4 photos.
I see you have been active in checking licencing of the uploads. I suspect the remained are in a parlous state as well. Timtrent (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You've submitted five images into the challenge, when only at most four are permitted. Could you please remove one ASAP. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
On July 17 you inserted the parameter wikidata; thince then every file description shows an empty link to Wikidata. Please repair it and remove the "no entry"-default by changing |wikidata = {{{wikidata|no entry}}} to |wikidata = {{{wikidata|}}}. Thanx sarang♥사랑17:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the image (File:Patherpanchali -stamps 1994.jpg) does not fall into either of the two categories you mentioned: that is, it is not an image created by me, and it is not a copyrighted image created by anyone else. It is a public domain image (a reproduction of a 1994 postage stamp) created by the government of India. When I uploaded it as a free image and looked at the choices, one of those choices said something like "created by the United States government" as a valid category for a free image. But it did not allow me to select "created by another government" as a valid category. Therefore, I had to choose "Other" and leave the comment I wrote under Licensing "This stamp was issued by the government of India and is thus in the public domain." If it had been a U.S.-issued stamp, there would have been no problem, but because it is an Indian-issued stamp, it became a problem (an odd circumstance for an international platform like Wiki). A postage stamp is NOT a copyrighted document; it is a public-domain document and thus is a valid free image.
Dylanexpert (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Charles Joisten ((1936-1981), conservateur au Musée dauphinois de 1970 à 1981.jpg
Hello, I didn’t upload this picture, I just modified it after it was uploaded by musee dauphinois. The rights on the pictures may be detained by the Musée Dauphinois in Grenoble (France) or more precisely by Alice Joisten, widow of Charles Joisten. I try to contact somebody there. --Morburre (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Back again. Mr Franck Philippeaux, conservateur du Musée dauphinois de Grenoble, holder of the rights, will send two emails to OTRS about this picture and another one, File:Hippolyte Müller.jpg. Regards. --Morburre (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Re Courtenay Place Photo
Hi, Under license I inserted text from Turnbull Library which grants permission to use photo:
"You can copy this item for personal use, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It cannot be used commercially without permission, please ask us for advice. If reproducing this item, please maintain the integrity of the image (i.e. don't crop, recolour or overprint it), and ensure the following credit accompanies it:
Looking down Courtenay Place from Cambridge Terrace. Negatives of the Evening Post newspaper. Ref: EP-1736-1/2-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/23236758 "
Other tags seem to conflict with "cannot be used commercially ".
I have added the appropriate license to the file that may be deleted. The mistake was unintentional, and so the tag should be removed. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Right below the SUMMARY on
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joseph_Rescigno_%28conductor%29.jpg
is LICENSING and it says Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
I originally uploaded a different version and moments later realized I'd picked the wrong crop. (DUMB!) So I replaced it. I don't think I gave the new pic a license because it was a "replace" (or some such) operation and I saw no obvious request. Anyway, are you looking at something other than this page and it hasn't made the adjustment I expected? or did a human or the system "catch up"? Because right now, I see a license. Am I in trouble? ;-)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The ContentTranslation extension has been updated:
You can now type in list paragraphs on wikis with right-to-left scripts. [275]
Some user interface updates changed how details in the ContentTranslation extension look. [276][277][278][279]
The error page you see when the sites are not working is now simpler and easier to read. It also shows the Wikimedia logo. [280]
MediaWiki now supports redirects for CSS pages. [281]
Bots can't guess captchas unlimited times anymore. [282]
Problems
There was a problem with thumbnails on wikis with local images on July 24 and 25. It was due to a code error. [283]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 4. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from August 5. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 6 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on August 4 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hi, you have seen how the "COAInformation/Imgen" expansion eases the work?
How about your opinion to make something comparable to it into the Info box? Currently much more work than needed is necessary — and each time the other_fields needs to be written explicitly. I would like to discuss a better solution. sarang♥사랑13:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I generally do not like infobox templates with build-in calls to other templates and prefer passing results of one template to another. Otherwise you get situation like with the Template:COAInformation/old where the only way to figure out the parameters to pass was to study the source code. I was fine with COAInformation/Imgen because it was setting some COAInformation specific parameters, but I do not think it it would benefit {{Information}}. Sorry --Jarekt (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleanup of dates
Hello Jarekt, hope you are good. I am currently cleaning dates. Could you please be so kind and replace the may-string by 05 in the following files? I do not have permissions to do so. Thank you very much, --Arnd (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC) PS: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=incategory%3A%22MediaWiki+edit+toolbar%22++insource%3A%2F\|date+*%3D+*[0-9+][0-9+][0-9+][0-9+]\-may\-[0-9+][0-9+]%2Fi&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&profile=advanced
Hello, I wanted to place the picture on arabic wikicommons for use in wikipedia but that is not possible so I read somewhere that I can reupload it on english wikicommons and state the source which I did. I provided the link in the source. And it is stated as public domain. There is no reason for the deletion of this image. Please help. --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jarekt
I work with Lia Rumantscha. Due to structural changes and a new logo I have to change the text (and add logo) on the Wikipedia sites.
I already added logo and a foto in the Wikimedia Commons database (with indication of license). Why doesn't it work on the English site (on the German and Romanshe site it works perfectly)? Could you please help?
Thanks very much! I look forward to hearing from you.
liarumantscha
The file has been amended with a copyright notice. Please note that the image is released into public domain by the author providing that it is not used to imply authority of the crown or as means to represent the Crown while conducting business. If there is a more appropriate copyright notice that can be filed with the image please inform me, thanks :) --Olowe2011 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Olowe2011, I do not know much about copyrights related to such images. My previous note was due to lack of any license template. You have fixed that, but unfortunately if you are not the copyright holder than we either need a permission from the copyright holder to be send to OTRS or we need a website which says that this image is released under stated license. --Jarekt (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yorùbá: Jarekt
the permission is granted under the condition it's not used in the manner quoted. If we went down this line we would be looking at removing all Coat of Arms images that could translate to appearing like the Royal Standard for the monarch of the United Kingdom. Olowe2011 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Olowe2011, all I am asking is for you to show me where do copyrights of File:Crown of HM The Queen of Great Britain and Commonwealth States.gif are discussed. You use {{Copyrighted free use}} license which says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose provided that ..." but it is not clear, if the design is copyrighted, who the copyright holder might be and where did he stated the above. I read http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/LCODec14/ROYAL%20ARMS%20BLUE%20BOOKLET20152.pdf and the only mention of copyright is in "Any question of copyright involved in the reproduction of a Royal Image must be settled by the prospective user directly with the copyright holder." while most of the document deals with non-copyright restrictions like trademarks etc. It is quite possible that image is in the public domain if the design is old enough for {{PD-old-1923}} to apply, but then we would need to know when did that design was created. I am all for keeping the image but we need more clear justification. --Jarekt (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here that could benefit from your input
Yorùbá: Jarekt
I have started a discussion here regarding my uploaded contribution. The aim of the discussion is to reach a practical, factually based and fair outcome regarding my upload. Please feel free to participate in the discussion as you will. Until the discussion is convened id appreciate if you could stay the deletion at least until we can reach an agreement on a fair course of action. Thank you Olowe2011 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Pierre Saint-Paul, photo André Morain 1999
Bonjour, suite à votre message concernant la photo de Pierre Saint-Paul, je précise que j'ai envoyé un mail à permissions-commons-fr@wikimédia.org le 28 05 2015 avec en PJ la lettre type d'autorisation: datée, cachetée et signée par André Morain. Je ne vois pas ce que je peux faire de plus. Merci de m'en informer. Bien cordialement --Philippe HENRION (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Philippe, when you send permission to permissions-commons-fr@wikimédia.org, it should have looked like this and I am looking for the license that the image was supposed to use. For example in here the license is "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International", which matches {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license template. You should have got a reply email back with 16 digit ticket number. Can you give it to me? than I can look up the license. --Jarekt (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, si je comprends bien votre demande: oui j'ai bien stipulé sur la lettre type "créative commons attribution-share alike 4.0 international". Mais je n'ai pas reçu un email de réponse avec 16 chiffres, je n'ai rien reçu de tout... Bien cordialement --Philippe HENRION (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Philippe, I added {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} to the image and removed {{No license}}. The next step would be to wait for OTRS to process your ticket. I could not find any new OTRS ticket while searching for "Pierre Saint-Paul" or for "André Morain". I do not know if permissions-commons-fr@wikimédia.org automatically sends confirmation email with 16 digit ticket number. It is a new thing and some parts of OTRS already do and some do not yet. However if you do not hear from OTRS in a week or two than I would ask for help one of those guys. Regards. --Jarekt (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, je n'ai pas de nouvelle d'OTRS. Une personne a posé un bandeau comme quoi la photo allait être supprimée. J' ai posé la question sur "le bulletin de l'OTRS" en expliquant le problème: je n'ai pas de réponse... Que dois-je faire???? --Philippe HENRION (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Philippe, sorry to hear about your problems. I searched OTRS for "Pierre Saint-Paul" and "André Morain" and did not find any permissions related to those key words. Did you received any confirmation email with permission number? I would just send it again if you can and if you get confirmation email with permission number than tell me what that number is. I will undelete your image once I can confirm a proper permission was send. --Jarekt (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, je suis très en colère, un certain JuTa a supprimé la photo, alors que je viens de réitérer ma demande auprès d'OTRS, je lui ai demandé de la rétablir, mais le fera-t-il ???? Pouvez-vous faire quelque chose??? Bien cordialement --Philippe HENRION (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, merci, si je n'ai pas de réponse à la fin de cette semaine je contacterai un membre d'OTRS pour lui expliquer le problème et connaitre la marche à suivre pour être efficace... Que de temps perdu !!! merci encore pour votre soutient. Bien cordialement--Philippe HENRION (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt and Philippe HENRION: J’ai identifié les tickets OTRS (l'un datant de mai, le second de juillet) et confirme la permission. La photo est restaurée. Désolé pour le mic-mac ; le système OTRS est entièrement géré par des bénévoles, et on manque énormément de main d’œuvre − des permisions restent ainsi ignorées pendant des mois et des fichiers sont supprimés à tort :-(
Bonjour, ok merci à tous les deux... mais comment je remets la photo sur l'article??? Je peux le faire ou il vous faut le numéro Ticket#2015052810008948 ? Bien cordialement --Philippe HENRION (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, j'ai remis la photo en faisant "annuler" mais il y a un bandeau! Il semble nécessaire qu'un habilité OTRS fasse une manipulation, sinon me signaler si problème... Merci, cordialement--Philippe HENRION (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
MediaWiki can now hide the signature button when you edit a content page. [285]
The "Your preferences have been saved" message has changed. You can now see more easily what was saved when you change preferences several times. [286]
You can now play Ogg video files in some browsers that don't support this format. This solution uses JavaScript and works on desktop browsers only for now. It will work on mobile later. [287]
You can now use the same tools to edit style in VisualEditor on mobile as in desktop browsers. [288]
It is now easier to see if there is a JavaScript error in a user or site script. [289]
JavaScript authors:
You can no longer use the Sajax library. You can see a list of pages to fix. [290][291]
You can no longer use document.write on Wikimedia wikis. You can see a list of pages to fix. [292][293]
The content translation tool now works better. It is easier to use math, and useless tags are no longer added. [294]
Problems
More edits have been rejected due to loss of session data lately. This is now fixed. [295]
Importing a Lua module sometimes didn't work. This is now fixed. [296]
Text was sometimes lost in the content translation tool. One part of the problem is now fixed. [297]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from August 12. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 13 (calendar).
UploadWizard is getting a new look. The look of buttons and checkboxes has already changed. This week, UploadWizard gets a new date picker. The other text fields will change soon. [298]
You can now test VisualEditor on mobile devices of all sizes. [299]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on August 11 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Some things in the watchlist will get a new look. [300]
this picture was sent to me by the subject's ex wife for use in this article. She sent me a letter with it indicating so. What do I need to do to properly license it? LynnWysong (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
LynnWysong, Sorry, I missed this message. You should read COM:OTRS and check if the letter follows the format of the standard permission required among other things the permission letter needs to mention specific license template. If not than may be you could kindly request subject's ex wife to resend the permission which follows standard permission format. That by the way assumes that she is the photographer or the copyright owner not just owner of this print. As for licenses, you can read COM:LIC and COM:CT to get the full picture, many photographers like to be very specific and ave very opinionated about this or that license, others like me just use default {{CC-BY-4.0}}, {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} or {{PD-Author}}. --Jarekt (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
user:Jarekt: She sent me a photocopy of the picture, with permission to use it, and I scanned and cropped it. So does that make me the "creator of the media work"? Also, she's 80 plus years old (I'm sure the photo is 50 years old) and may not be online. I wrote her a physical letter. LynnWysong (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
LynnWysong, If it is so impossible than we just might not be able to use the image. We need a permission in a specific format (see here) from the copyright owner who is usually the photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jarekt,
I did load a photo for the first time.
As I see, the questions about this photo are:
1. license templates;
I did copy the license information from a Russian-language site of Panoramio.com/ Hear it is:
- Разрешается использовать фотографию в любых целях при условии упоминания имени (ника) автора (CC-BY)
The translation is:
- Allowed to use the photo for any purpose, subject to the mention of the name (nick) of the author (CC-BY)
I'm don't know, is it suitable for usage in Wikimedia Commons. Can you tell me the answer?
2. Site of the photo (and license) is: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/15448437
3. Author is: balepc.
Information about source site, author, and license (in Russian language) I did include to description of the uploaded photo.
Tell me please further action I need to do.
Thank you !
--TsymbalAV
Fæ, No nobody is working on this at the moment that I know of. YiFeiBot is adding all the files without a license we detect to Category:Media without a license: needs history check, using a query which should be similar to this query and we do not have hardly any backlog of files without license and Commons, so all the files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license do have licenses, just not recognized by the "software" (not sure how this category is added). We should identify which licenses are not recognized and see what can we do to make them "machine-readable". --Jarekt (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I was also inspired by one of the Wikimania presentations about inability of tracking which templates are license templates and which not, to create a flat category of license templates. This might help with the effort. --Jarekt (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I can imagine ways of 'just getting on with it', which are not that hard, though I would guess that the current detection process has been subject to some phabricator discussion. I might take a look at some point, it being possible to improve how things are classified/detected without making any particular decisions about implementation. --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. By the way, I noticed that you when you applied the machine-readable data you didn't include the nowiki tags around the license link that I specified in my protected edit request. The nowiki is required. By not including it you've broken Media Viewer. You also might want to close my edit request :-) —RP88 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for applying the edit requests and also for running touch.py. A lot of the files appear in the category due to a bug with file moves (the old file name shows up as having no machine readable license until you null edit the old file name). I wasn't previously aware of touch.py, thanks for pointing it out, it looks useful. I appreciate the work you put into making the SQL query, but I'm still kind of worried about how many false positives it will produce, even after all the file redirects are eliminated, since from my experimentation MediaWiki considers any file which has multiple license templates as having no machine readable licensing if even just one of the license template lacks info. Also, with regards to Quarry, is there a way to rerun/refresh a query without copy-pasting the query? —RP88 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with File:(Jurchen) Jin Dynasty bronze cymbals.JPG is not "self", it's {{Gary Lee Todd permission}}. Because that template uses {{Copyrighted-Layout}} it has a "licensetpl_wrapper" div, which is what the MediaWiki PHP code uses to identify license tags, so MediaWiki considers {{Gary Lee Todd permission}} to be a license tag with no macihne-readable fields. I see two fixes: either (a) change {{Gary Lee Todd permission}} to use a non-license layout like {{Source-Layout}} or {{Infobar-Layout}}, or (b) add license fields to {{Gary Lee Todd permission}}. This template is kind of weird in that it mixes source information, OTRS permissions, and a textual mention of GFDL and CC-by-sa-all. The easiest fix is probably adding appropriate license fields (even if this ends up being redundant with license tags further down on the page). A better fix might be combining the tags and updating all files that use {tl|Gary Lee Todd permission}} (which is ~500 files). —RP88 (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Template talk:ODbL OpenStreetMap — Tacsipacsi has a pending edit request for his conversion of this to use autotranslate. I updated his layout subpage to add machine-readable license data, so if you apply his change, the machine-readable data will be added.
Another at User talk:-jha-/Lizenz. It's a custom user template that needed lots of fixes, so you'll find a prototype subpage at the edit request with complete replacement code. Two more protected templates that I haven't gotten around to writing a fix for are Template:Pennsylvania State Parks permission and Template:OAL. These later two are not highly used, so if you like you could just unprotect them and I;ll make the appropriate fixes. —RP88 (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
RP88, with a single source or single author templates I prefer to take different approach of fixing them: replace them with customized calls to standard templates like {{Attribution}} or CC templates. I would like to reduce the number of "primary" license templates by changing some of them to "secondary" ones that depend on other "primary" ones. That helps with maintenance and internationalization. Templates like User talk:-jha-/Lizenz are even more tricky: I usually rewrite them and than replace each file using them with the the corrected template. Templates in user namespace is a bad news, they are easily modified without any trace in file history. I have a little TO DO list related to templates at User:Jarekt/c and I will add User talk:-jha-/Lizenz to my substitution list. I am usually OK with unprotecting hardly used templates, but the protecting reason was related to protecting license files with OTRS and I see the point of such protection, so I will lave them as is, but will be happy to help with the edits. By the way I noticed that when we started there were over 200k files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license and now we have 27k :) . Thanks for all your hard work.
RP88, Yes I know. I did one pass to replace the most commons version, than replaced the second and 3rd most common. I am almost done but now I have some questions about files using User:-jha-/Lizenz and CC-by-sa-3.0. Those files make no sense. By the way, I noticed that most files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license, seem to be redirects to existing files ( the icon shows up, but the name under the file is not the name of the file you are going to go to when you click on it). I can not figure out if that is a bug with "Files with no machine-readable ..." categories or a problem with cashing and the way my still running touch.py can refresh some files but not the others. --Jarekt (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed the same regarding the redirects, new ones are appearing from recent moves as well. However, I've found that I can fix most (except for ones with non-deleted files on the redirect page) by doing a null edit on the redirect page (not the target page). I've noticed that file moves performed by other Commons volunteers today are adding the redirects to these categories. I don't know if it's a bug with file moves that leave behind these categories on the old file name or if a background process is supposed to clean them up and it is just slow. With regards to adding machine-readable data to license templates, I think I've gotten to all that are in use except for two protected templates (Template:OAL and Template:PolishSenateCopyright) and some remaining user templates (such as User:D-Kuru/Cc-by-2.0-stma). —RP88 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
We're down to only about ~1000 files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. It looks like all of the remaining fixes are either user template licenses or pages that need individual attention. Here are some interesting user template licenses that need addressing:
Licenses that are CC licenses, but specify a logo as an optional form of attribution:
this one is used like {{User:D-Kuru/Cc-by-2.0-stma}}[[User:Sanandros/E-Mail]], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=350715 OTRS ticket:2006071410004268] on every page I've seen it. So it could probably be replaced with a custom template that was basically {{Cc-by-2.0|attribution=Steyr Mannlicher}}{{PermissionOTRS...}}
Three totally custom licenses with requirements kind of like CC-BY-SA but with an additional restriction on size:
User:Chriusha/License — he explains his rationale for the custom license on his main user page.
One thing nice about these two are that everywhere he used these he used them like {{self|User:UnreifeKirsche/Template:cc-by-nc-3.0-de|GFDL-1.2}}, so they are already validly wrapped. Maybe we can leave them alone.
All these images are CERN property, is it ok if I include the link http://copyright.web.cern.ch/ (to CERNs copyrights policy) and CC-BY? Thank you in advance! Csumstudent
It is an advertising sign from India from 1930s (thus no longer copyrighted in India). Rare, but historic. I got it from ebay. I am thinking of deleting it, since I cannot think of a suitable tag. What would you suggest? Thanks. Malaiya (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I see that you have marked the image "File:Tam Mutu as Dr. Zhivago in the 2015 Broadway Production(Photo by Matthew Murphy).jpg" as having inadequate liscensing verification. I followed all the licensing procedures I followed for the other photograph currently on the page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Korie", forwarding an email chain in which the photographer and copyright holder gave expression permission through the standard licensing agreement (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License) and was hoping you could elaborate as to what else I need to do to fulfill the proper requirements. Thanks so much for your time.
I have forwarded the email chain to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, so I will add {{OTRS Pending}} to the image. I appreciate your help.
File:Bandit Kings of Ancient China cover art.jpg
Hi Jarekt,
The file was uploaded with the uploading wizard. There does not seem to be any field to input copyright details. I am not sure how to amend it now. But the image was taken from en wiki, the "Bandit Kings of Ancient China" page. It is part of the cover artwork of a computer game. I am sure the use of low-resolution (300dpi) images of game cover art constitutes fair use under the copyright laws of most jurisdictions. Please see if you can help. Cheers.--SiuMai (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyright suggestions regarding the file File:18032013MAUD MS94.PDF , I have taken the file from government website which is in public domain and it can be used openly as it was a government order, I have also provided the website link from where it was taken. If any further copyright tags have to be provided ,please tell me how can I do that.
Thanks
Cocanad (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Cocanad (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
!===========
yes, i posted 2 letters from the smithsonian on my wiki commons, one from may 1991 from Dan Hagerdorn and the other from aug 13, 2015 from Kate Igoe. The are the previous and current Rights Management Archivists, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution. They gave permission for me to post these pictures PLUS the one of NC1776 flying around the statue of liberty. I posted their letters on wiki commons. See their terms of use: http://www.si.edu/termsofuse/
both photos have met their terms of use and i published their specific permissions as well on my commons. wiki only asks for flickr or public domain info. i do not know how to "tag" any photos that owner(s) have given permission to use; in this case the smithsonian. can you tell me what i need to put in what field?? thanks...
SOMEONE DELETED A SMITHSONIAN PHOTO I HAVE PERMISSION TO USE
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Many Wikipedias can now use information from any Wikidata item in any Wikipedia article. Before they could only use the Wikidata item that matched the subject of the article. [302][303][304]
Some auto-saving problems and other issues in the Content Translation tool are now fixed. Please report to the Content Translation feedback page if you still have problems. [305]
Problems
Older gadgets that are not using ResourceLoader are not loading anymore. They need to be updated. [306][307]
On August 12 the machine translation servers and the Content Translation tool didn't work. This was fixed on the same day. [308]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 18. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from August 19. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 20 (calendar).
You can soon watch when something is added to or removed from a category. [309]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on August 18 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Disambiguation pages are now excluded from the random page function. [310]
Problems
There was a problem with CAPTCHAs in VisualEditor. This has now been fixed. [311]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from August 26. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 27 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on August 25 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
The file I uploaded was only a cropping of an existent file [[312]] from the German National Archives uploaded 7 years ago by the Wikimedia Commons itself. I don"t know what to do next since categories regarding copyrights are quite unclear on Commons.--Ddjahh (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not convinced that this logo does not meet the threshold of originality, but if it does than it is fine. --Jarekt (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
VisualEditor will now automatically create a link when you type in or paste an ISBN, PMID, or RFC. [313][314]
The link editor in VisualEditor is now a bit wider. It's now the same width as the automatic citation tool. [315]
VisualEditor gadget authors can no longer use the backwards-compatibility module ext.visualEditor.viewPageTarget.init. Use ext.visualEditor.desktopArticleTarget.init instead. [316]
Gadget writers can now use mediawiki.ForeignApi to communicate between different Wikimedia wikis. [317]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 1. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 2. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 3 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on September 1 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
The Wikidata API will be updated with breaking changes. This will probably happen on September 9. [318]
Yuanga, all files are required to have license template independent of the fact if they are going through the OTRS process or not. So to fix the issue just add license template matching the license mentioned by Daisuke in the email. --Jarekt (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I forgot it. Anyway, I don't understand why trying to delete a file taht is waiting for definitive approval.--Yuanga (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yuanga, We only have one pipeline for dealing with files lacking a license: we mark it with {{No license}} tag which will lead to deletion if not fixed within a week or so. I agree that it would be nice to use a different pipeline for files waiting OTRS permission, but at the moment we do not have a separate queue for those. Maybe we should develop one in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
File: Lt. Col. Suresh Prasad Sarbadhikari.jpg
Hello, Jarekt
I think I have corrected the source information of the subject file.
The picture is my own. It is a picture of my maternal grandfather from my own collection; not borrowed or copied from any other source. I am adding this picture because he was a famous doctor in India and Britain during his time (see my Wikipedia draft file "Lt. Col. Suresh Prasad Sarbadhikari" awaiting review).
I wish to share this picture universally. This picture can be used universally by anyone.
I am 72 years old, the Wikipedia rules are very complex for someone like me, and so I need your help to correct the data further if needed.
Regards,
goborgunk
goborgunk, thank you for sharing this picture. I see you already added a license, but I replaced it with {{PD-India}}. I hope you do not mind, but otherwise you would need to explain why you think you are a copyright holder instead of the heirs of the photographer. Good luck. --Jarekt (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, i am currently thinking about what to do with the files using the mentioned template. Is it possible to just remove this template and add the contained data into an Information template together with the description in the file? --Arnd (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing shows that Justinedock and Mustapha Chaoui are the same person. Therefore I asked Justinedock to prove, via OTRS, that this file has the {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. Is my request unappropriate?
To me there's a possible copyvio. The fact that this file HAS a license, as you say, doesn't prove anything: I could upload the Coca-Cola logo with the cc-by-sa-4.0 license, but that wouldn't do much, isn't it?
This photo https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binger_Loch#/media/File:WSA_Bingen,_Loch_1966.png shows really important information in historical and geological sense. The Rhine in the largest transport way of Europe. It was made by an unknown photografor in 1966 in Germany (BRD). So its legal state is following the German laws of 1966. The owner of this photo is the WSA in Bingen, a German governmental institute. The owner thinks to have the right for giving this photo free without restrictions. Why you should remove this photo? Why should people from the UK or USA make decisions about licences and the legal state of media in the Dutch and German wikipedia?
Greeting,
Willem Schot,
Den Bosch, Netherlands
Willem, All files on Commons are required to have a License template and this file is lacking it. The copyright owner of this photograph (if known) needs to choose one of those licenses. May be User:Jcb who was handling OTRS can help clarify the copyright issue. --Jarekt (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The copyright situation of this file seems problematic, like I explained to Willem in my 25 augustus email message. I'm actually not from the UK or the USA, I'm from the Netherlands. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Your policy makes it impossible to place a large category of media. Among them nearly all the photo’s from the recent past, because of the unkown photographer. We need the information from these photo’s for insight in the historical proces, the deveplopment, the changements of the things. The admission or rejection seems often with neglect and ignorance of the legal state of the copyright by the local laws and by that more strict than necessery. 5-9-2015, Willem
I agree that it can take a LOT of work to check copyright status of large number of images, especially recent images of unknown photographers. However that research should be done before the upload. One think I really dislike is when I spend a lot of time uploading, categorizing, writing and translating the description, researching people or places depicted in the images, only to discovered that the images will need to be deleted due to insufficient copyright research. It happen to me couple times and it is really demoralizing. --Jarekt (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my willfulness, but my protest is more than my personal concern or frustation about this possible delete. My point is you can only seldom place a photo made between about 1900 and 2000 because than the photographer mostly is not to be found. Indeed only a few photo's of between 1900 and 2000 are to be seen in the wikimedia commons. So the copyright policy of wiki produces a lack in the historical information. The is inevitable in the rules of wikipedia, but the real legal rules may be often less strikt. You also can say in many countries 'we did spend effords to find all the owners of the copyright, but this was not possible in all the cases'. This is legally reasonable and made also by Dutch TV stations. Willem Schot
That is all true and was discussed a lot in early days of Wikipedia and Commons. Back then the consensus was to follow this set of rules and we still follow them even if it would be easier to have much more lax rules. --Jarekt (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
photo "Grigoriev, Eugene G." (Jeka)
Hello,
we sent a letter, but there is no answer.
Please tell me what we need to change the image data in the license that they had not been removed?
Я согласен опубликовать это произведение на условиях свободной лицензииCreative Commons Attribution http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike Free Art License
...
[ 03 сентября 2015 года,Григорьев Евгений Геннадьевич (творческий псевдоним - Жека]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
You can now mention up to 50 users in a post and they will get a notification. Previously you could notify up to 20 users. [319]
A new version of the Wikidata Toolkit has been released. It now has Wikibase API support. [320]
You can now use Wikidata to find all good or featured articles in a Wikipedia version. [321]
Problems
There was a problem with Tool Labs due to kernel issues. This has been fixed. [322]
The Content Translation tool published some pages with the same reference repeated several times. This has been fixed. [323][324]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 8. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 9. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 10 (calendar).
The maximum character length when you search for something on the Wikimedia wikis is now 300 characters. [325]
The notifications list has been split into two lists. As a first step, notifications about messages on your user talk page will be placed in the second list. Feedback is requested at the Echo talk page. [326][327]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on September 8 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the Wikitech ambassadors mailing list. The list is for Wikimedians interested in spreading information about Wikimedia technology news. See how to join.
Future changes
The Wikimedia mailing lists will be moved to a new server and the software will be upgraded. This will happen on September 9 at 14:00 (UTC). The mailing lists will not be working during the move. It can take up to four hours. [328]
Wikidata will soon be able to store measurements, such as a mountain's height or the distance between two places. [329][330]
File:Capella-1.01-12.05.1992.png was deleted because the uploader did not provide license template required by our policies, which were agreed on by the whole community. We alerted the uploader about the issue and waited for 7 days before deletion. You lost me with accusation of "Vandalism". Can you point me to any of my edits you consider Vandalism? --Jarekt (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
i upload my media by cell phone and use Wikimedia app for it. Wikimedia app not have another character for add more information about my media. please guide and help me.
serenely
hamid - iran Hamid Soufi (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hamid, I am sorry but I am not familiar with Wikimedia app interface, but if it does not allow you to properly specify the license than you should alter the image description afterward. The image will need a license template (perhaps {{PD-Iran}}). Also please add more info about "iranian oil company monthly magazine" (like date and place of publication) and change the date to year then the original photograph was taken. Also author should the the original photographer, if known. --Jarekt (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
improper tag Adam Bitler pics
I uploaded these so I could include the urls in the email of the OTR template that I sent the author. That has gone out to him and should be returned shortly.
Slipandslide, You can add {{OTRS pending}} but you still need the license template as in any other uploded image. Author should specify the license to be used, and you will need to add it withing a week of the upload. {{OTRS pending}} will give you about a month to finalize the OTRS permission process. --Jarekt (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
And you left me this message: No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on...
Logos like any other files also need to be released by the copyright owners under an open licenses and need a license templates which describe the terms. For "simple" logos we use {{PD-textlogo}} but if this file is copyrighted as indicated than we will also need a permission from the copyright owners send to OTRS. See COM:OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Cześć Jarku, mam małe pytanie: czy w preferencjach istnieje taka opcja, żeby autor był informowany, że ktoś przekształcił (np. cropped) Twoje zdjęcia, np. tutaj. Niestety, nie dostaję powiadomień o tym, tylko wpadam na to często przypadkiem. Z góry serdeczne dzięki za podpowiedź! Boston9 (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Boston9, W preferencjach masz opcja "Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist" i powinieneś być powiadomiony o jakiekolwiek zmianach stron na liście obserwowanych. Lepszego systemu nie znam. --Jarekt (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I've added the copyright tag that was on the original picture to the one I made, since it is a detail of the original; I hope this is correct. --Marjaliisa (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I am unfortunately on wikislow and react after more that a year. I do not understand why this image was removed. It is a picture of a plate kept un Musée Carnavalet in Paris. The plate was created more that 200 years ago. Best regards, Jatayou (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Jatayou, your image did not have any license information which is required for each file. in case of 3D artwork you will need 2 licenses one for the object, which would be {{PD-old-100}} and one for the photograph. If you are the photographer than you need to pick the license, like {{PD-user}} or {{Cc-by-4.0}}. If you agree to one of those licenses I will undelete the image. Regards--Jarekt (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Photo Marie Galmiche
Hello Jarekt, the photo File:Général Marie-Olivier Galmiche.jpg, is on Flickr in CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)Public Domain Dedication.
Regards,
--Marcroux (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Georges Stobbaerts.JPG
Hey thanks for the heads up about the picture copyright status being a "This media may be deleted".
But even after reading your FAQ I still don't know what else I should have Chosen...
The pic was made by request of Georges Stobbaerts (the person in the pic) by one of the persons in his company at the time of his visit to Rio.
The picture in question is used all over the internet and on almost every conference he attended as his presentation picture as you can see in the links below: https://caminhosdodespertar.wordpress.com/convidados/ http://www.grandyoga.com/pt/2014/01/07/portugal-mestre-georges-stobbaerts-1940-2014/
I have spoken to the "picture taker" but he says he has no license, he is no photographer and has given the rights to Mr Georges Stobbaerts, for use in any way chosen.
What should I do? Mr Georges Stobbaerts is sadly not among us anymore, and his family has agreed to the use of the picture on Wikipedia. It was the picture chosen by the Mr Eric Stobbaerts and Ms Magali Stobbaerts (the children of Mr Georges Stobbaerts) for the Wikipedia page.
User:Sani2Bmais, The "picture taker" is the copyright holder and he/she should be the one to send a permission to OTRS. Please read COM:OTRS. He or she should also be listed as an "author" and also should pick a license which lists conditions of the release. It sounds like Mr Eric Stobbaerts and Ms Magali Stobbaerts might have much more opinion on the , but it is the "picture taker" who needs to give us the permission. Some of the licenses to consider: {{CC-zero}} and {{CC-by-4.0}}, for more options see COM:LIC. Let me know if you have more questions and I will try to help. Regards --Jarekt (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Belarusian-Taraškievica Wikipedia was moved from be-x-old.wikipedia.org to be-tarask.wikipedia.org. This caused some issues, but most of them were resolved. [332]
Language preferences might not be changed immediately when you adjust them. Language selection might work slower. Please report any problems. [333][334]
The Wikimedia mailing lists should have been upgraded on September 9. It didn't work as planned and will now happen later. [336]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 15. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 16. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 17 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on September 15 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
ContentTranslation will show more data on the Special:ContentTranslationStats page. For example, it will show translation trends and information about deleted translations. [337]
The first version of the translation suggestions feature will be deployed soon. [338]
Hello Jarekt,
I added the logo of W Motors to be used on our page.
I am currently working at the company in Marketing and communications and have the permission to publish it to be used on the page.
If you can tell me which copyright status should I use I would thank you.
( I also am having trouble changing the content on the page, if you can help me with that I would be thankful).
Deleted photo of Former Governor of Alaska Sean Parnell
Hi Jarekt,
I understand that the photograph I used for Governor Sean Parnell's page didn't include a licensing template. I am sorry for my mistake. I would like to use the Attribution licensing tag. The photographer was Michael Soukup, who worked for the Parnell campaign and the photograph was used by the campaign and is now the profile picture on Sean Parnell's Facebook page. The link to that page is here: https://www.facebook.com/SeanParnellAK/photos/a.467283846671.281267.254668146671/10152819518261672/?type=1&theater. Please tell me what else you need from me in order to un-delete this photo so that I can edit the page with an updated photograph. Thank you.
Your edit seems to have broken most uses of the template - uses of the form {{user at project|USERNAME|wikipedia|en}} are rendering as {{{realname}}} at English Wikipedia. The links are correct, but the username is not displayed. I'd appreciate if you could either sort this out or revert to the last version. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks for the quick fix. I'm very grateful for editors like you who are capable of dealing with the more intricate parts of template syntax. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Venturia
Bonjour, le collègue Scoopfinder est entrain de regarder la licence. Il n'est peut-être pas nécéssaire de multiplier les bannières, Cordialement. --Bildoj (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
MON
Cześć. Ja się nie kontaktowałem z MONem, nie robiłem tego szablonu i taki copyright w ogóle wygląda według mnie dośc podejrzanie. Jak dla mnie - wszystko do usunięcia. Pibwl (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Last week a few issues with UploadWizard were fixed. Before this was done, UploadWizard would stop you from uploading your files if something went wrong. [342][343][344][345]
More Wikipedias can now use information from any Wikidata item in any Wikipedia article. Previously they could only use the Wikidata item that matched the subject of the article. [346]
The VisualEditor welcome dialogue has been changed. The intention is to make it more helpful for new users. [347]
Problems
Wikimedia Labs' HTTPS certificate expired for most of Tuesday 15 September. To reach Wikimedia Labs and Tool Labs securely you had to ignore your browser's security error message. There was no risk to data security during this time. [348]
Last week the notification system was split into two parts. This was temporarily undone because of a bug and performance concerns. It will return to two parts this week. [349][350]
UploadWizard couldn't upload files larger than 5 MB when using chunked uploads. This has now been fixed. [351]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 22. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 23. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 24 (calendar).
The page move tool has been switched over to the new standard look for forms. [352]
You can now choose whether to extend a link or not when editing one in VisualEditor. This means it is easier to choose how much of what you type before and after the link is part of it. [353]
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on 22 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can register to the Wikimedia Developer Summit 2016 in San Francisco 4–6 January 2016. Gadget, template, bot, and tool developers are welcome as well. Call for participation and travel sponsorship requests are open until 2 October.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
In UploadWizard, the dialog to see an image preview has been removed. You already see the images in the thumbnails when you upload them. [355]
UploadWizard dialogs look a bit different now. They have been updated to the new OOUI look. [356]
You can now edit music scores in VisualEditor. You can add new sheet music scores and get live updates when you edit one. [357]
When you send an e-mail to another editor using Special:EmailUser, that user will now get a notification on the wiki as well. [358]
You can now see 500 images when you upload images from Flickr with UploadWizard. Before this change the limit was 50. [359]
The Wikimedia mailing lists have been upgraded. [360]
MediaWiki developers spent a day looking at proposed code changes in Gerrit. The goal was to clean up the backlog and give feedback to volunteer developers. [361]
Problems
Some visitors had problems reaching the Wikimedia sites for an hour on September 24. [362][363]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 29. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 30. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 1 (calendar).
There will be a new beta feature that allows editors to use Flow on their user talkpage if they want to. Each wiki can decide if they want to enable it. [364]
The Content Translation tool can give translation suggestions. This feature will now be available in more languages: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, Japanese, Italian, and Catalan. [365]
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on 29 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
The Wikimedia Foundation developers want the community to decide who can use OAuth in the future. You can discuss it on Meta.
Hello Jarekt! Thank you notification and maintaining works. I added license tag to the file description page of File:Cortical areas processing object shape.jpg. License status of each content in Frontiers Media is shown at bottom of the each papers (for this paper, license, CC-BY-4.0, is shown at the bottom of this page[367]). Frontiers Media is very similar to {{PLOS}}, but Frontiers content has different license status for each papers (most papers are CC-BY, but some papers are CC-BY-NC). So, I suppose, there is not license template for Frontiers in Commons. If there are any other problems, let me know. Thank you. --Was a bee (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Was a bee, The image was fine. It was my mistake as I did not noticed you corrected it. I usually check for this but must have done something wrong. --Jarekt (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thank you for your kindness and support. The picture has free license, since the artwork is dated 1894. I used the tag "PD-old". Is anything missing? Thank you so much for your kindness.
I really loved your picture of a girl jumping off a cliff following a parabolic path. It's much more interesting than the usual example of a ball thrown from a hill :)
By the way, I am a physics teacher and I'm planning to make short movies about physical topics. I would like to know if it will be ok to use this picture in one of the films.
I hope one day to make a living out of these films. If this would happen to be the case, and the films would be good enough so that people would pay for them, I'll be happy to pay you royalties for the use of the picture. Do you happen to know how much would you want for the use of the picture?
Elad189, I relicensed the image to CC-BY license so at this point all I ask for is attribution. If you can make a living by making "short movies about physical topics" I will be happy to help out by providing images for free. By the way, another physics teacher used the images to explain entropy, see chapter 8 here. --Jarekt (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, I noticed you recently changed the text of {{PD-old-100}} from "This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less" to "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or less", removing the claim that the work is public domain in the United States. If you're going to remove the claim that the work is public domain in the United States you should add the "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States" warning that is present on tags like {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-old-80}}. I see that you also changed {{PD-old-90}} in a similar manner, so it now needs a warning added identical to the one currently on {{PD-old-80}} (including the note about Mexico). —RP88 (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I am just synchronizing the wording to be the same for all the PD-old templates and use the one in {{PD-old-text}}. You are right about the US copyright warning. However I am puzzled a bit about all the text about Mexico etc. since the templates already say PD in "those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus X years or less", so why list all the countries that do not meet that criteria. But anyhow I will work on expanding Template:PD-old-warning-text to provide the warnings for all PD-old-X templates. Probably add a parameter providing the "X" so each template can have slightly different message. --Jarekt (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to add the "must also include a United States public domain tag" warning to PD-old-100/PD-old-90 now that you've synchronizing the wording to be same as the other PD-old templates. Regarding the rest of the warning, I assume it mentions specific countries because the actual restriction is more accurately "those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus X years or less as well as any country that implements the rule of the shorter term" and that is a lot harder to look up. As far as I am aware, only two countries have terms longer that 70 years and do not implement the rule of the shorter term (Mexico (100), Columbia (80)), although the recent extension of the term in Jamaica (95) will add it to this list. —RP88 (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The link editor in the visual editor now shows results below the search box. This improves the usability on desktop and mobile. [368]
The description at Special:ChangeEmail now clearly explains that the page can also be used to remove your email. [369]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 6. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 7. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 8 (calendar).
UploadWizard will remind users to add a category. [370]
UploadWizard's category selectors will be easier to use. [371]
A new Cite error will be shown if a named reference is defined more than once in the same article. [372]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on 6 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Re: File: Family tree Sept (1)jpg in Wikipedia entry "Radhabinod Pal"
The copyright holder of this image Dr. Madhumita Roy (nee Pal), grand daughter of Radhabinod Pal has already issued Free licence in the prescribed template and emailed this to Wikimedia commons in the prescribed manner. - Sayed1951 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed1951 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 05 October 2015 (UTC)
Witam! Mam pytanie?! Ostatnio zgłosiłam zdjęcie Magdy Femme z 2014 do usunięcia, bo autor tego zdjęcia nie jest autorem. Tylko sama Magda Femme. Było napisane na Facebooku. Mnie za coś takiego kiedyś zablokowano na jeden dzień i pouczono, żeby nie wstawiać cudzych zdjęć, nawet jeżeli dostałam od tej osoby zezwolenie albo w prezencie. Zdjęcie M. Femme dalej znajduję się w galerii. Nikt z tym nic nie robi, a poszczególna osoba wstawiła to foto po raz kolejny. Oczywiście odrzuciłam, bo to, ta sama sprawa, co u mnie była. --Milagros aal (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jarek. Your last edit to {{GFDL-en}} (made on October 2) has broken many license boxes on Commons. The "migration" parameter has been dropped, and now many GFDL license boxes don't show the migration to CC v3. As a test case, see User:Hike395/sandbox.
hike395, Thanks for alerting me. I re-add migration parameter so it should be fixed now. By the way, in this case revert is not an option since all the templates old version was relying on are gone. --Jarekt (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Leon Bączkiewicz - Notatnik - 012.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
I removed {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old}} or similar templates from the files whose authors who died less then 70 years ago. Now the files have no license and unless it is fixed will be deleted in a week. If you know of other reason why those files are in public domain please feel free to add a new license template and alert me and I will remove {{No license}} tag. If you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Removing licenses
Hi, why are you simply removing licenses from multiple images instead of adding more appropriate ones, which would take about a second? FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
FunkMonk, I am removing wrong licenses and if it is the only license template notifying uploaders about the problem. I did a batch of about 200, and I checked many of them beforehand if I could find more "appropriate" license. I suspect most images in Category:Media without a license as of 9 October 2015 are there because I removed {{PD-old}}. I am browsing through them to see what can be rescued. Feel free to help. --Jarekt (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Apparently I screwed up when I uploaded this one. it was supposed to have PD-Norway50 (50 years since publishing and 15 years since the photographer passed away). I have corrected it accordingly. If you stumble on more off these please let me know. Profoss (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear sir/madam
You've deleted file Alexei_Mordashov.jpg from the Commons despite it had the permission OTRS|2015091110013162
The comment said that the file didn't have proper copyrite tags. I just wonder what kind of tags do you mean if there is a permission for usage? Should I just point from what sours is this file?
I've uploaded the file again and the Licensing section says "This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page."
Best,
Nufunnya (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Nufunnya
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The database size lists have been updated. These control special page update frequency and which wikis use global abuse filters. [373]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 13. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 14. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 15 (calendar).
You will be able to upload images to Wikimedia Commons using the visual editor. When the image is uploaded it will be added to the article you're editing. [374]
Pages that show citation error messages will automatically be placed in a hidden category. [375]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 13 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Dziękuję za zainteresowanie się statusem praw autorskich do tych dwóch zdjęć. Są one dosłanym przeze mnie uzupełnieniem zbioru 20 zdjęć, jakie parę dni wcześniej załadowałem do Commons (a z tymi dwoma miałem kłopot), wraz z oświadczeniem prezesa stowarzyszenia, które jest właścicielem praw autorskich, według wzoru wikipedycznego. Oświadczenie to wysłałem do OTRS (na permissions@...). Otrzymałem odpowiedź, że koledzy pracują nad konkretnymi uwagami do tego oświadczenia i że mam czekać. Skoro już zainteresowałeś się tymi dwoma zdjęcia, i masz odpowiednie uprawnienia, to czy mógłbyś im nadać ten sam status, jaki mają pozostałe zdjęcia tej serii (w tej samej kategorii), bo jest to jeden komplecik. Pozdrawiam, Happa (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.
To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.
Wiki-psyc, it is still not right. Each file on Commons is required to have a license template, like the ones found in COM:CT or Category:Primary license tags (flat list). each file has to be matched to one or more of those existing licenses, and in a rare case that is not possible one can start a discussion to create a new license template. The allowed licenses have to meet some conditions listed here and the text of the license of File:Eric Berne 1969.jpg does not meet those conditions, for example it does not seem commercial uses allowed. You can also ask about it at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Jarekt (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
3-4 days ago I was in Ankara. I wanted them. The organization sent me a picture of the flag (sehnazgulamiddin@hotmail.com - an employee of the organization). I have explained to them that this picture will be loaded Wikipedia. What do I do now? Thanks in advance. Idin Mammadof15:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Tech News is trying to make reading the newsletter easier. The icon means the item is in the newsletter every week, but with new dates. The icon means the item is mainly relevant for readers with technical knowledge. You can leave feedback on this change.
Timestamps in the protection log will now be in the user's timezone. Previously they would show Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). [376]
Problems
A problem with MediaWiki made some pages show no content on October 14. This has now been fixed. [377]
Some templates were misplaced in the Flow description bar. This could make it impossible to click on links. This will be fixed this week. [378]
The deployment of the new MediaWiki version was stopped on October 14. No new code was deployed for the rest of week. This meant planned changes did not happen. [379]
Changes this week
Changes that were planned to happen last week will happen this week. [380]
Wikispecies, Meta and MediaWiki.org will be able to use Wikidata for sitelinks. [381][382][383][384]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 20 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Zhuyifei1999, The easiest approach I found was to add all the files to Category:Media without a license as of unknown date using AutoWikiBrouwser which is less fussy about existing/non-existing pages. That creates a page for the file and than VFC or any other tool can be used. By the way What is the SQL to find such pages, I am always on a lookout for a new SQL tricks to do things I do not know how to do. --Jarekt (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 27. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 28. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 29 (calendar).
The first time you use the visual editor, pop-ups will explain why and when you should use the citation and link tools. [385]
You will be able to upload images to Wikimedia Commons from inside the wikitext editor by clicking "Upload" in the "Insert file" dialog. You will also be able to drag and drop them into an article when using the visual editor. [386][387]
When you edit a code block in visual editor, you will have the syntax highlighted. [388][389]
Index and Page namespaces on Wikisource will be defined as content namespaces in $wgContentNamespaces. [390]
JarektBot's merge of PD-old and PD-1923 licenses into PD-old-70-1923
Jarekt, I noticed that the logic used by JarektBot during its merge of PD-old and PD-1923 licenses into PD-old-70-1923 does not correctly handle PD-Art-two, resulting in some awkward results. It is changing licenses like {{PD-Art-two|PD-old|PD-1923}} into {{PD-Art-two|PD-old-70-1923|PD-1923}}. This is incorrect, if it going to merge this specific case, it should instead output {{PD-Art-two|PD-old-70|PD-1923}} or {{PD-Art|PD-old-70-1923}}. For an example, see File:Madame Georges Bizet by Jules-Élie Delaunay.jpg. Do you think you could update your bot and then have it fix the cases where it made these awkward changes to the licenses? —RP88 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought I was handling those cases outputing {{PD-Art|PD-old-70-1923}}. I found and fixed ~30 files with this issue. --Jarekt (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, I just noticed that JarektBot has two more issues related to it's merge of PD-old and PD-1923:
It's altering the contents of "original upload logs". For example, see [391] and [392]. I've corrected these two files, but it's likely that there are others. JarektBot should not perform substitutions on anything bracketed by nowiki tags.
It's adding "deathdate" parameters to PD-Art. For an example, see [393]. As before, I've corrected this file, but it's likely that there are others. PD-Art has no deathdate parameter, it does, however, have a deathyear parameter.
RP88, Unfortunately I do not know a way of preventing AWB from altering <nowiki> and <!-- --> sections. I asked for that code modification some years ago, but it never happen. When it really matters I do files with <nowiki> sections by hand. In my view PD files do not need any "original upload logs" as that info is irrelevant to license determination. I should be just removing them from PD files (without CC photographer licenses) but also did not found robust way to do it. As for "deathdate"/"deathyear", I thought I found my mistake before doing any edits, so thank you for alerting me. I went through Category:PD Old auto: no death date and fixed all "deathdate"/"deathyear" issues (mine and not mine). --Jarekt (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really concerned about the nowiki stuff, I just thought I'd bring it to your attention (I thought you were coding your own bot, rather than using AWB). Thanks for taking a look at the deathdate/deathyear issue. —RP88 (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Majority of my bot edits are very simple regexp find and replace run on output of CatScan searches and those can be done the easiest in AWB. Occasionally I write bigger bots in python, but that takes much more effort and I have not done it in a while. --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I was asked by Candice Pillay to help her with her wiki page. I was given express permission via email and sent this photo to upload (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Candice_Pillay_-_High_Cover_Artwork.jpg). Candice is the owner of this image. While reading all the copyright options none seemed to apply. How do I go about correcting the license portion? Or should I create a wiki commons account for Candice?
I refer to File:1976Oct6-FangChihPreparesDisasterRelief.jpg and 1976Oct6-ChineseEarthquakeRelief.jpg which you tagged as not sufficient information on copyright. I inform you that the images in question are in the public domain government creation and have incorporated the relevant tags. Unless you have further objection, I shall remove your tag of insufficient copyright information within 2 days. - MargaritaPoppa (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
If you are using the mobile version of Wikipedia, you can now see Wikidata descriptions under article titles in search results. [395]
Editing conflicts are now detected when you edit on a mobile device. Before, this did not work properly on mobile. [396]
Problems
On October 26 the Wikimedia sites went down for ten minutes. [397]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 3. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 4. It will be on all Wikipedias from November 5 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 3 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join. You can also read the latest VisualEditor newsletter.
Hi. I'm newcomer to wiki. Excuse me, I'm using Google translator.
I took the original image and the color correction made. It's all. But I can not overwrite the file.
1) Can I just copy a block of text from a section of the original license from the page images? Do I need to add information about color correction? is that enough?
2) Or someone can fix / replace the original picture?
Then my page is not needed and it can be removed.
original image with license note: File:Wassilij_Dimitriewitsch_Polenow_002.jpg
simply color corrected image: File:Wassilij_Dimitriewitsch_Polenow_002_corr.jpg
Your removing of editportected request is not correct, so I have undid it. The site has clearly updated its license to 4.0 version, question was only about 3.0 link preservation. Alex Spade (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia, mimo, że wielu 'Userów' stanie szturmem w jej obranie, wynosząc ją na piedestał, niestety nie ułatwia działań. Podjąłeś temat praw. Proszę o klarowne wyjaśnienie co jest nie tak - bez bawienie się w odsyłanie do niekończących się stron i milionowych opcji licencyjnych. Pomoc rodak - rodakowi mile widziana. Pomoc nowicjuszowi również.
Chętnie wytłumaczę jak wygląda sytuacja ze skanem zdjęcia jakie uploadowałam, a Drogi J. mógłby pomóc pokierować mnie w odpowiednie miejsce, abym nie zatrzymała się na rzeczach skomplikowanych, kończąc praktycznie artykuł, który chę publikować.
Agato, Problem jest w tym ze ten plik nie ma szablonu licencji. Licencja musi być wybrana przez właściciela praw autorskich, zazwyczaj fotografa w przypadku zdjęć. Napisałaś ze "I received this image directly from David Bradish, the musiscian about whom I am writing article on Wikipedia." W twoim wypadku powuinnas praeczytac COM:OTRS (nie zbyt długie) a potem poprosić Davida Bradish żeby poprosił fotografa który zrobił to zdjęcie (napisałaś ze nazywa się "Huset, Gröna Lund, Stockholm, Sweden") aby przesłał odpowiednie pozwolenie do OTRS. Napisz jeśli coś jest niejasne. Pozdrowienia. --Jarekt (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Missing license.
Thank you for informing me about the missing license. The photo has an OTRS pending the photographer sent an e-mail to commons giving his permission for the photo to be used with the Cc-by-sa-3.0 license.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
You can now switch between the wikitext editor and the visual editor without saving. You will not lose the changes you have made. [401]
JSON dumps of the production search indexes are now available. They can be imported to Elasticsearch. [402]
Problems
Some translations for the Thanks and Echo extensions were missing. Translators have been asked to help and this should be solved soon. [403]
Changes this week
Thumbnails of 16-bit TIFF files will be displayed properly. Before, this didn't work. [404]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 10. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 11. It will be on all Wikipedias from November 12 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 10 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
ich habe bereits 3x den kontakt gehabt mit commons OTRS. Siehe ticket nr.:
[Ticket#2015110910007188] Eingangsbestätigung (Re: Bilder Teil 1)
[Ticket#2015110910008365] Eingangsbestätigung (Re: Bilder Teil 1)
[Ticket#2015110910008856] Eingangsbestätigung (Re: Bilder Teil 1)
und 3x gemailt.
Siehe:
Betr.: Freigabe des Urhebers
Das Bild File:Hauptbahnunterführung Stolberg Atsch.jpgwurde dem Uploader (Albert Gr.) vom Bildaufnehmendem (Urheber) Axel Grundig mit unten angefügter Mail zur Nutzung formfrei freigestellt.
Gruß Albert Grundig
Von: Axel Grundig (Urheber)
Datum: Montag, 9. November 2015 07:57
An: 'A.Grundig' (Uploader
Betreff: WG: Bilder Teil 1
Morgen Bert, (Albert Grundig)
Wenn du das machen möchtest, ich erteile die Bildfreigabe.
Axel Grundig
) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts oder
) die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes rechtmäßig vertrete.
Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de).
Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.
Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.
Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.
{{{09.11.2015}}}, {{{Albert Grundig}}} =====
Von: A.Grundig
Datum: Montag, 9. November 2015 09:08
An: permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org
Cc: axel p.
Betreff: WG: Bilder Teil 1
Hi
Could you help me please? What is a license template? Can you give me an example? Also, Why does the pic I try to add always get deleted or undid? I manage Taya Parker. The pic on her wiki is horrible. She hates it Her eyes are closed and she's in some costume not even facing the camera. We have thousands of pics but everytime I change the pic, someone is determined to change it back. Why? How can I fix this? Could you please email me directly at jazzinohio@aol. com (not through wiki talk or discussion)
I'm not even sure how I found this discussion tab here. Thank you very much. Jazzinohio (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Photos on Ines Gomez Carrillo
Hello,
Thanks a lot for contacting me. I'm not sure of what I should add, as I said in Commons who is the owner and who took the photo.
These are regular professional photos my mother always used all over, without any problem, considering she owned them. But if there's something to add, I'll gladly do it, though i seem to have problems in getting the point.
I don't understand either:
And also:
File:PerIzq-WP.jpg
No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I checked your FAQs, of course, but I don't seem to get there.
I'm really sorry and would very much appreciate a more specific help, if possible at all.
Victoria, your images description indicate that photographs were taken by "Bruno Hollywood" and "Ernesto Monteavaro". Those two people (or their descendants) would be the copyright holders and only they can release the images under a open license required on Commons. If it is possible to contact them and ask them to send in an official permission than we could keep the images. Please read COM:OTRS for a full story. If it is not possible than maybe an alternative solution would be to find some non-professional photographs made by you or family members. Photographs made by you can be released under whatever license you choose (I use the default {{CC-by-sa-4.0}}) without a need to send permissions to OTRS. Photographs by family members should be accompanied by a permission send by the copyright holder (usually photographer or descents). Let me know if I can help more and thanks for sharing. --Jarekt (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm so sorry I don't seem to find any pace on the bottom to ask a new question or something. About the files already in "Ines Gomez Carrillo" I tried by all means to contact BRuno Hollywood. So far, nothing. About the other photographer I have hopes and I'm, sure I have sketches of my mother and of course I do have family photos I'll try to upload. Thanks again and maybe you could help me on where's the "bottom" where I should type. I apologize for taking your time. I really do. -- Victoria Campos Victoria.i.campos (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You reply to discussion by clicking on [Edit] button next to section title, it is more convinient than clicking [Edit] button on top of the page (to the right). As for images, good luck with getting permissions, I realize those do not happen quickly especially with old images (I have some old images too). Let me know if you have any more questions. Also if your images get deleted, before you secure a permission than contact me and I will undelete once I can find permission on OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank so much!!! (for the help on "edit" too) and your nice offer. Yes, old pics authorzation's will be hard to get. Anyway, though my Mom won't look as gorgeous as in the oldest, I'll choose family nice ones. And I won't hesitate in contacting you when I try to upload those!!!!
Thanks again.
Would this source work? It did for my grandad......
This is how it worked for my grandad, it's in Commons.
DescriptionManuel G. Carrillo.jpg English: Manuel Gómez Carrillo- músico Date 1983 Source http://www.ciweb.com.ar/gomezcarrillo/index.php Author Robert
(343 × 497 (53 KB)) - 19:20, 21 December 2014
Victoria, I assume you are referring to File:Manuel G. Carrillo.jpg, which uses {{PD-AR-Photo}} license template. If the country of origin of those photographs is Argentina and the images meet the requirements of the template (at least 25 years have passed since the photograph was created, and it was first published at least 20 years ago) than the image can use this license template and not require photographer permissions. You might need to specify when and where the image was published and when image was created (approximately). Your current dates ("2015") for the date of creation seem to be wrong. --Jarekt (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I know I'm being a little thick, still, where did I state "2015"?. I mean, both pics, wrongly or not, I uploaded in Commons, are much much older.
This last one I propose meets all the requirements you mention though I'm not sure I'll be able to save it in Commons and state the correct info. The photo in Ciweb is around the 1960's. The article itself is updated every once in a while as I see they posted my mom's death (but she was 96 not 95).
The same pic I last mention is also in
Victoria, No need to apologize, I am here to help navigating the maze of rules and licenses. The 2015 I found when looking at the image descriptions here (date=2015-11-09 21:21:05) and here (date=2015-11-09 21:18:55) those should be corrected if you tr to use {{PD-AR-Photo}} license. The cib photo is probably fine to update if you use {{PD-AR-Photo}} provide correct date and mention where it was published "at least 20 years ago". The thing about Commons is that issues with license can be unnoticed for years but once they are noticed images often get deleted. So it pays to do your homework beforehand or invest your time and effort in images with no license issues, like the image you or your family took. --Jarekt (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I still appreciate your patience!
I really don't realize if I ever put those dates. It looks like somehow it assumes the date I was doing it, yesterday!!! I'll try to study those PD-AR-Photo and do it for all three. I don't know if I'll be able to edit those that I already uploaded to Common, but I'll try, of course.
If I fail to understand PD-AR-Photo I'll ask for your help again.
I agree that everything should be correct so it stays there forever!
I'll keep you posted anyway.
Hello again! I got to this place uploading in Commons
(I deleted here lines I wouldn't use)
This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it.
This file is not my own work.
Another reason not mentioned above
'The license is described by the following wikitext (must contain a valid copyright tag): **'Preview
NOW, where I'm suppose to insert PD-AR-Photo? PD-AR-Photo (between {{}}) and if I go to the edited template... I don't know what I'm supposed to write (if anything).
Maybe I should place PD-AR-Photo in the source or author? Or where it says as in ** above maybe?
Well, thanks and I'll be staying at that point in uploading to Commons (in release rights) because I don't dare to continue until I know what to write...
Victoria, Sorry for the delay. But I do not remember the sequence of screens of the upload wizard. I think what you do is Another reason not mentioned above and than a window shows up where you can add {{PD-AR-Photo}} (with {{}} brackets). --Jarekt (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I found how to ask for a permisson for one of the photos, the old one, so I'll be waiting if they grant it. But maybe I'll upload first to Common, some other photos taken at home by me or a family member. These would be all older than 20 years, should I use PD-AR-Photo? SOme other template?
Another doubt I have, do you check them in Common or once they are on the page?
Should I let you know the file names here?
Hi again... And I'm really sorry I don't seem to get the whole picture and keep writing you.
I've been searching on my mother's archive and there is a number of photos that had never been published and are very obviously, anonymous. So how do I do in those cases? I'm actually just trying to upload up to maybe four photos the most, and publish on Wikipedia's entry only two, but I've been searching de PDs and they don't seem to cover all the combinations I might need.
So:
PD-self: got it
PD-AR-photo: got it
PD-Author: NEEDS an OTRS permission even being a family member? Say, my brother?
PD-heir: My uncle's daughter would be his heir for a pic he shoot? Needs an OTRS permission?
And last:
How can I upload an anonymous and unpublished photo? I have plenty of those, but I don't find a template that covers this.
And regarding the photo FotoNueva-B%26W-WP.jpg already in Commons, I found out it has never been published, the author is dead, and there's no way, so far, to find a heir. All I found was an article about his passing. Is there any PD I could use for that one?
And also, the photos I already uploaded into Commons with incorrect info and/or template. Can I delete them somehow and try to find the proper licensing? Maybe I can upload them again with a new name?
re: this diff
Way back in 2006-07 I ran a project to normalize Templates versions across interwiki projects. So I'm sympathetic with your edit aims, but please note the lack of the last few arguments in the version you morphed {{Tlx}} into.
Since you cannot tell who may have used it for what, purposes, keeping the arg count consistent on any site is important when changing things such as this, so please correct your oversight and edit back in the missing args. You might be interested in knowing that SISTER parameter was authored/invented initially by me. The original Metawiki tlx template had about 25 args, IIRC. Most sites eventually adopted about 8-12. Best regards, // FrankB07:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Done You right, I should have noticed it. I mostly concentrated on testing old and new versions and missed the number of arguments. --Jarekt (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Alex, All /lang pages did not work for many years (clicking on the link does not get you to the subpage as expected). Whenever I run into template that still uses them I remove them, but there was no push for deleting unused /lang pages. As far as I can tell they are unused and we do not need them. I can delete them if you want. --Jarekt (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
You can use TemplateData to indicate how you want a template to be displayed in wikitext. Tools like VisualEditor that edit templates will soon use this information. [407]
Echo notification icons in MonoBook will look more like other icons in the theme. [408]
Wikis can make the welcome notification link to a specific page. [409]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 17. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 18. It will be on all Wikipedias from November 19 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 17 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Internet Explorer 8 will no longer have JavaScript support. You will still be able to browse and edit Wikipedia, but will not be able to use some features. This can be solved by upgrading to a newer version or switching to a different browser. The change will happen in January 2016. [410][411]
Hello. I thought that {{LOC-image}} was a license in the public domain and that the images were made by officials of the United States government. Thanks for the info. Érico(msg)21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Wysłałam zgodnie z Twoimi wcześniejszymi wskazówkami mail z written permission przekazanym przez fotografa, właściciela praw, który wykonał zdjęcie Davida i zgadza się na wykorzystanie go w tworzonym przeze mnie artykule. Wskazałam też rodzaj licencji – Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Otrzymałam z Wikimedia Commons ticket i wprowadziłam informację pod zdjęcie o oczekiwanym akcepcie. Niestety inny użytkownik wkleił informację:
the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published.
W mailu od fotografa do mnie, sforwardowanym przeze mnie do Wikimedia Commons widnieje wyraźna zgoda. Mail jest sforwardowany, bowiem tylko mój adres mailowy jest powiązany z kontem na Wikipedii, jako że tworzę artykuł - co jest logiczne.
Hello Jarekt. I saw you removed my notice on the {{Kopimi}} template. I only just saw it because I'm usually not active here. I came upon the template while working on the Kopimi text over at en.wp, a few months ago.
I've done some research on this, and concluded that Kopimi is *not* a copyright license, see en:Piratbyrån#Kopimi. You wrote that, even if that's true, it has been used as one for years. This is correct and I also thought of that, so I browsed through the first 150 transclusions, if I remember correctly. I did found a few files that used only the Kopimi template, with nothing else. But almost all files labeled with Kopimi also used another copyright banner, such as CC0. I figured that it wasn't worth the effort of finding those few files that have only Kopimi on them. It is reasonable to assume that people who labeled their file with Kopimi are not that much interested in their rights. If we want to fix it, we'd have to contact the uploaders individually, and ask them what license they would like. I decided to spare me the trouble.
So, I added a notification to remind other users to apply an actual free content license, not just Kopimi. Frankly, I see no reason why we shouldn't display such a reminder, so perhaps you could clarify? Thanks! Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We try to have clear distinction what is a license template and what is not, since we have two independent systems for finding images without "license " templates. I do not have much of an opinion on the subject, but this template is set up as a license template and the automatic tools that look for files without license templates will not seek files with only {{Kopimi}} template. Also some years back the community decided (Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Kopimi) to keep it as a copyright tag / license template and like it or not that is how people were using it. Your edit, suggested this it is not a license template, which is opposite to the internal set up. If it is not a license than all the files just using {{Kopimi}} should be nominated for deletion, as lacking a license. Also You can not just decide that this is no longer a license template. That is usually by done per consensus. --Jarekt (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't get it. Kopimi is not a copyright license. That's pretty much a fact. Did you read this paragraph: en:Piratbyrån#Kopimi
No one from the Piratbyrån, including Ibrahim Botani, ever called Kopimi a license. It has never been recognized as a license by the OSI, the FSF, or any other organisation. It has no legal code, no terms of use. Even the WTFPL has a (mock) legal code. Are you saying that the Commons community decides whether something is a copyright license or not?
Yes, I read the deletion request. The template had people understandably confused. Some actually believed it was a license, others were beter informed. The debate closed with no consensus.
Manifestation, as I said I do not have much of an opinion on a subject. All I know is that people on Commons were using {{Kopimi}} template as a license for many years, and if it is not a license than we need to deal with all the affected files, which only have {{Kopimi}} template. There should be less than 60 files like that, see here. We should see if those files are properly licensed, may be add other license files if possible. Than we can propose to demote this template from license template status and nominate unlicensed files for deletion, unless uploaders can change the license. --Jarekt (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for notification. I sent the permission that author of the photo gave to me on the e-mail address permissions-sr@wikimedia.org. I got back permission to upload that photo. Can you contact our administrator about that, please?
I just posted another permission for other two photos. Can you tell me which option for other author I have to choose in this case?
Sorry, I'm new here BuhaM (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I FixedFile:DUD SAM-DUD Zoran Stevic.jpg. All it needed was the license template matching license picked by the author. As for the other two photos, I am sorry but I do not understand the question, and which 2 photographs are we talking about? --Jarekt (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't upload them yet. Still waiting for permission from administrator. I think that I understand what to do next time. Serbian translate is a bit confusing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuhaM (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
A new Pageview API has been announced. Feedback is requested to help decide which data to add to it next.
Changes this week
There are no MediaWiki deployments this week (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Language Engineering team. The topic is: Content Translation updates and Questions & Answers. The meeting will be on 25 November at 13:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 24 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
If you created this creator, 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Adding an image taken from a research article on to a Wikipage
Hi, I am not entirely sure how to add an image taken from a research paper without violating copyrights. Please advice. I tried uploading it to Wikimedia commons but it was removed. - Judith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judithdemel (talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Judith, I am not sure either, but you only can upload it if the author agreed to publication of the image under free license. Author can do it in 2 ways: state in the research paper what the copyright status is of send permission to OTRS. Please read com:OTRS and let me know if you have any questions. --Jarekt (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Brian Clough trophy.jpg
Hi Jarekt, I have already sent everything to the OTRS with an e-mail (23 Nomember 2015 at 14:13 CET). My ticket number is 2015112310013742. I have contacted the owner of the photo and he gave me the permission to use it, he just want to have a credit of his website. What can I do more? Thanks --Towerman86 (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Witam i dziękuje za zainteresowanie się danymi o licencji dla dodanych przeze mnie materiałów w Wikimedia Commons przy artykule o Leonie Landowskim. Do zrobionych zdjęć różnych zbiorów dokumentów jak np:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wspomnienie_o_Leonie_Landowskim.JPG , nie potrafię dodać odpowiedniej licencji. Zależy mi na pokazaniu tych dokumentów, albowiem właśnie one stały się powodem dużej popularności samego Leona Landowskiego. Rodzina, która mi udostępniła kserokopie dokumentów do sfotografowania, jest wdzięczna, że się tym zająłem. Proszę o wyrozumienie i o pomoc.--ryszardwojdowski 15:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Ryszard, co mogłem to zreperowałem, np. File:Wykaz osób eksterminowanych na terenie Gminy Kaliska.JPG. Te trzy pliki są bardziej skomplikowane. Zarówno Text artykułów jak i zdjęcia będą potrzebować pozwolenie od autorów lub właścicieli praw majątkowych. Przeczytaj Commons:OTRS/pl. Niestety autorzy mogą być trudni do znalezienia, i pliki trzeba będzie skasować. Jeśli piszesz artykuł pl:Leon Landowski to nie potrzebujesz fotografii tekstu źródeł. Streść i zacytuj Merkuriusza Czarnej Wody i jeśli możesz to prześlij dokumenty do serwisów gdzie nikt się nie martwi o prawa autorskie, żeby inni mieli dostęp do tego artykułu, ale nie musi to być na Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Serdecznie dziękuje za szybką reakcję w mojej sprawie. Trzy zdjęcia stron z Merkuriusza Czarnej Wody mam usunąć samemu, czy mi pomożesz (nigdy tego jeszcze nie robiłem)?, natomiast rozumiem, że do dwóch zdjęć muszę uzyskać pozwolenie od upoważnionych osób i dostarczyć we wskazane miejsce. Mam dostęp do spadkobierców Leona Landowskiego, więc chyba nie będzie problemu. Najważniejsze jest właściwie tylko jedno zdjęcie. To co jest w infoboxie. Pozdrawiam i jeszcze raz dziękuje.--ryszardwojdowski 21:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Ryszard, Trzy zdjęcia stron z Merkuriusza Czarnej Wody zostaną usunięte automatycznie o ile nie zostaną poprawione. Dwa zdjęcia o których mówisz to zakładam ze to File:Leon Landowski z rodziną.jpg i File:Leon Landowski.jpg. Rzeczywiście spadkobiercy fotografów powinni przesłać pozwolenie do OTRS. Wiec jeśli zdjęcia były zrobione przez rodzinę Leona to spadkobiercy fotografów mogą być ci sami co spadkobiercy Leona i mogą przesłać pozwolenie. Pozdrowienia --Jarekt (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Witam i dziękuję serdecznie za wszelaką pomoc. Zdjęcie File:Leon Landowski z rodziną.jpg proszę też usunąć. Ja już usunąłem z kategorii więc nie figurują publicznie jak i te trzy z Merkuriusza.--ryszardwojdowski 19:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestion to correct the license? I've used this file: File:Karte Deutschland Schleswig-Holstein.svg as a base for my modifications. It bears the cc by-sa 2.0 as I have copied to "my" file.
Hmh, thanks for fixing, but the upload wizard does not have an option for cc-by-sa 2.0 but only 2.5 or cc 1.0. Any suggestions for me? It seems the only way for this cases is to choose the normal upload?! --Wassertraeger (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The symbol for advanced news items has been changed. This is because the symbols were too similar. If a news item is for more technical readers it now looks like this: . You can give feedback on this change.
Problems
On September 29 users' skin preferences were removed by mistake on small and medium-sized wikis. This changed preferences back to Vector. Restoring all data would cause even more problems. Affected users who want to have their preference changed back globally can ask for it as a comment on Phabricator task T119206 until December 21 2015. [413]
Some scheduled tasks were not working properly from September to recently. This meant some pages in the special pages namespace were not updated. It has now been fixed. [414]
Changes this week
Wikinews, Wikispecies, MediaWiki.org and Meta will be able to use information from Wikidata. [415][416]
There are no MediaWiki deployments this week (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 1 December at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Today at 07:41 AM (UTC+1) Poul Kattlel, copyright owner, informed me, that he sent an e-mail to OTRS system. Image will be published under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Muri (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt, can you please help understanding Jdforresters comment and code change? Why is it bad wikitext when always using "1=" in language templates? Thank you in advance, --Arnd (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Arnd, I have no idea what he meant and can not imagine anything he can do to "fix" the problem other than adding "1=". What changes did he make? --Jarekt (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Revision scoring will help to automatically identify bad-faith and good-faith edits. The point is to make it easier to block vandals and welcome newcomers. It currently supports Wikidata and 14 Wikipedias. [420]
Problems
Meta was not given access to information from Wikidata last week. This will happen later. [421]
Changes this week
You will be able to use wikilinks in Flow topic titles. [422]
IP users will have a toolbar with links to the user talk page and user contributions. Some Wikipedias already have this feature. [423]
You will be able to edit the graph size in the visual editor. You can either specify the size in the graph dialog or drag it to be the size you want it to be. [424]
It will be easier to write math in the visual editor if you don't know LaTeX. You can use symbol buttons instead. [425]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 December. It will be on all Wikipedias from 10 December. (calendar).
New MediaWiki versions will now be on Catalan and Hebrew Wikipedia on Wednesdays. Other Wikipedias get the new MediaWiki version on Thursdays. [428]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 8 December at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Nie pochodzą one z wymienionej przez Pana strony. Wszelkie prawa do tych zdjęć posiada pani Nina Nowak, zostałem upoważniony do umieszczenia ich w Wikimedia Commons.
Proszę o odpowiedź.
Pozdrawiam serdecznie,
ShankhPL
ShankhPL, Ok jeśli to jest to zrobione z oficjalnym upoważnieniem, to zróbmy tak:
Problem może być z tym ze zazwyczaj fotografowie maja prawa autorskie do zdjęć a nie osoby na zdjęciach, wiec pani Nina powinna także napisać w jaki sposób nabyła ona te prawa.
W wypadku jeśli pani Nina nie jest właścicielem praw autorskich, to pozwolenie powinno być przesłane przez fotografów.
Jak mi napiszesz ze pozwolenie zostało przesłane to usunę propozycje usuwania zdjęć. Napisz jeśli masz jakieś pytania. Pozdrowienia. --Jarekt (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
!!NOWY WPIS!! Pani Nina Nowak przesłała pismo nt. praw autorskich i zgodę na ich używanie. Po zapoznaniu się z nim, proszę o usunięcie propozycji usuwania zdjęć.
Hello! I agree with your opinion about the removal of this photo. In the Russian Wikipedia, there is a rule: if the file of 70 years and more, it's a free file. I made a mistake, thinking that this is true in the other language editions of Wikipedia. I see that I am wrong.--Bgelo777 (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have a license. So best to remove the photos. Moreover, that this image is removed from the article about the man. --Bgelo777 (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No licence required for the file:Logo Rosalis.png
Hi, this image is the logo of the library where I work. I downloaded it to illustrate a Wikipedia article about the digital library we are managing. I know it can't be free, it's not a common, but I didn't find any other solution. What am I supposed to do ? Thanks. Sincerely yours
--Christelle Molinié (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Witam,
przepraszam, że zakładam nowy temat, ale nie wiem, czy wiadomość którą napisałem (o przesłaniu przez panią Ninę Nowak zgody o umieszczeniu zdjęć w Wikimedia Common) została przez Pana przeczytana. Strasznie nieintuicyjne jest dla mnie poruszanie się tutaj :)
If you created this template, 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I have found Template:Map an extremely useful tool. Jarekt, Thank you for contributing towards it.
I would very much appreciate a similar template with which we could describe old prints (woodcuts, lithographs, coperplates etc)
How difficult a job is it?
I am afraid I am not at all good at creating new templates. It is beyond my capabilities.
So, if there is a chance for you to create one, I would be very much obliged.
Jarekt thank you very much for the immediate response.
I looked at the templates that you suggested, but I think that there should be another one for engravings/etchings/prints. I suggest that it could be a simpler template than the {{Map}}. I will come back to you with the records that should be included it it.
Thanks again NikosActia Nicopolis (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This template is also being used as the standard template for images that have been uploaded from the British Library collection of 1 million images from scanned 19th century books, eg
you have posted a photography of Guido Renis "Ecstasy of Saint Philipp Neri". I wanted to ask you: Do you posses a high resoluting file of this photography? I am preparing a text to be published and printed and this is by far the best photography I could find. Best regards, Arun! Arun34 (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ecstasy of Saint Filippo Neri
Dear Jarekt, you posted a very good photography of Guido Renis "Ecstasy of Saint Filippo Neri" in the Vallicella-Church in Rome. The colours are perfect, especially the incarnat of the Saints head and the chasuble. I wanted to ask you: Do you have a high resoluting file of your photography? I am preparing a text for publication and print. Could I use your photography for this?
for your work on for example Template:Institution:Naturalis. I'll ask staff there if they approve of the old logo - they didn't want the current logo on WP. Best regards, Hansmuller (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me for not working immediately on Template:Biohist/sandbox. These days, fast uploading with GWToolset was possible (still is, i hope), so i concentrate on uploading more first. (In the end, the Naturalis project leader still has to agree with the template for their donation.) Cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hans no problem. You work on uploads and I will work on Template:Biohist/sandbox. I am close to being done except for some fields which seem to be rarely used and I do not understand their English names. My plan was to finish with Template:Biohist/sandbox, so the field names and information presented shows up in users language in as many languages as possible. I will talk to you once I think I am done. In the mean time can you make sure Template:Biohist/i18n has Dutch translations for all the fields and maybe Italian and French as well. --Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Naveencm, I do not do much on OTRS and I only answer easy and clear cases and leave the rest for more experienced users. Ticket:2015121210002559 is not clear as it is a permission which does not mention the name of the copyright holder. So lets wait not more experienced user to reply. --Jarekt (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
File:David on Valjays.jpg
Witaj ponownie!
Ostatnim razem pomogłeś mi z oczekującą akceptacją zdjęcia. Dziękuję! Czy mogę prosić o spojrzenie na plik zdjęciowy (David on the right jamming with his student Michael at the College of Marin, 1970), który uploadowałam w listopadzie (17/11) na / przez Wikimedia Commons? W odpowiedzi na wysłaną licencję posiadacza praw autorskich otrzymałam zwrotne info z Ticket:2015111710015511 Confirmation of receipt (Re: the photo for Wikape [...])
Będę zobowiązana. Agata Mayer (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News
Because of the holidays, the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 11 January 2016.
The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2015? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us! You can write in your language. Thank you!
Recent changes
CompletionSuggester is a new suggestions algorithm for Search. It is available as a Beta feature since 17 December. (more information)
The Multimedia team is running an A/B test for the cross-wiki upload tool. They are testing four different interfaces. The test is running from 16-23 December. (more information)
Changes this week
There is no deployment of MediaWiki scheduled until 12 January 2016 (calendar).
Meetings
Should administrators and other users with advanced tools need stronger passwords? You can discuss about it in a Request for Comments.
No meeting with the VisualEditor team on 22 and 29 December, and 5 January.
All images uploaded by me on that topic are either my property or are prior to 1920, mostly from 1900-03.
Copyright has expired and the photographer is unknown. Government councils are reselling copies of the photos but they have not asserted copyright or attributed any photos to an author as the photographer is unknown due to the photos being over 100 years old
User:Armourae, I have a lot of photos that are my property, but that does not make me their copyright holder. Being in possession of a rare photograph does not give you any extra rights, except maybe to restrict the access to it. If photograph is old it is most likely in PD, but you still need to figure out which Copyright tag to use. That is the responsibility of the uploader, because we just do not have enough volunteers to fix all the images uploaded without licenses. That is why we try to contact people and warn them that if the problems are not fixed than most likely file will be deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
*** Happy holidays! *** 2016! ***
* * * Happy Holidays 2016 ! * * *
* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! -- George Chernilevskytalk19:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2016 !
Remember:
Look sweet...
Eat everything...
Seek the warmest spots to nap and purr...
Try to wait until after to demolish the paper and ornaments...
you marked the pictures HallertauerGillet.jpg, HallertauerJoppe.jpg and Hopfendirndl.jpg. I added the licence code. Could you please check if it's ok now?
I got the pics from Mrs. Josefine Raith for documentation of traditional clothing of Hallertau
--GregorWild (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
[432] Jarekt, I can't find a way to translate "Difference in words:" and "Difference in characters:" in move template. There's nothing to translate here. Am I missing something?--Ma▀▄Ga13:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
These two sentences are in the template, after fulfilling move request. See uploaded picture on postimg.org, please.--Ma▀▄Ga13:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I started the license wizard and the author (Arno Gisinger) has sent a mail to permissions@wikipedia.org about this and a second file I added recently (even before I uploaded them).
Hope it all turns out well for the process, all people invovled are in favor of it.
Maybe you can help me how I can avoid these misunderstandings in the future adding a proper license dirctly with a author's OK.
I put in ( Jonathan Haidt(author)|cc-by-sa-2.5 ) along with -in comments - the email granting permission. If this is not correct could PLEASE let me know. Thank you. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Done --Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.--Jarekt (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thanks. Be..anyone (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 
Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
--jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
) now shows hidden templates in VisualEditor. You can edit the template by clicking the icon. For example, you can now edit anchor templates. [96] [97]
Resolved
.jpg){kind=link}
_Savieckaja_vulica.jpg){kind=link}
![50 Copyright status: File:"All My Hope" quilt by Mary Catherine Lamb.jpg](#Copyright_status:_File:"All_My_Hope"_quilt_by_Mary_Catherine_Lamb.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_file:Wróblik_Szlachecki,_006.jpg,_file:2011_Dakar_Rally_Alessandro_Zanotti_Tucuman.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_01.jpg){kind=link}
_Bronzi_etruschi_-_T_15.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_23:17,_16_July_2015_(UTC)){kind=link}
,_conservateur_au_Musée_dauphinois_de_1970_à_1981.jpg){kind=link}
![339.1 About [File:Mangharam1930s.JPG]](#About_[File:Mangharam1930s.JPG]){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slika:Jezek_borut_pecar.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Savieckaja_vulica.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Du_pont_ruth_henry.jpg){kind=link}
![18:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jarekt/2015#c-Ailemadrah-2015-01-24T18:07:00.000Z-Copyright_status:_File:"All_My_Hope"_quilt_by_Mary_Catherine_Lamb.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A5_Ursyn%C3%B3w_-_budowa_stacji,_1986-04.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A5_Ursyn%C3%B3w_-_budowa_stacji,_1986-06.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A4_Stok%C5%82osy_-_budowa_stacji,_1986-11_%281%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A4_Stok%C5%82osy_-_budowa_stacji,_1986-11_%282%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B5_Stok%C5%82osy-Ursyn%C3%B3w_-_budowa_tunelu,_1986-11.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APilar%C3%ADn_Bay%C3%A9s_Josep_Pallach_Gav%C3%A0.jpg&diff=148841721&oldid=148814028){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[51]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Photographs_of_Polish_II_Corps_by_Benon_Tuszy%C5%84ski#mediaviewer/File:Kennkarte_B._Tuszynski_-_inside.jpg){kind=link}
![[52]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Photographs_of_Polish_II_Corps_by_Benon_Tuszy%C5%84ski#mediaviewer/File:Kennkarte_-_B._Tuszynski_-_1944.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Die_Fremden_beherbergen.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alimujiang_Yimiti2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&curid=34566364&diff=151386155&oldid=140415361){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_01.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_02.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_03.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_04.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_05.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_06.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_07.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_08.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_09.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_10.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_11.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_12.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_13.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_14.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_15.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_16.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_17.jpg){kind=link}
_Wroclaw_dwarf_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[104]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Zitadelle_Tartus_Befestigung.JPG){kind=link}
_Bronzi_etruschi_-_T_15.jpg){kind=link}
![[112]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jarekt/2015#Copyright_status:_File:.22All_My_Hope.22_quilt_by_Mary_Catherine_Lamb.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[181]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deep_Purple_(UK_Tour_1976).JPG){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
![[211]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANH703A-IN.svg&type=revision&diff=162486161&oldid=162482771){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
--Fæ (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)_Jin_Dynasty_bronze_cymbals.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[312]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michel_Debré.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
icon means the item is in the newsletter every week, but with new dates. The 
icon means the item is mainly relevant for readers with technical knowledge. You can leave feedback on this change.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 27. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 28. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 29 (calendar).
![[391]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:HarmindarSahib.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=176273394){kind=link}
![[392]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Anti-Chinese_Cartoon_from_1886.png&diff=prev&oldid=176274315){kind=link}
![[393]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sharaku_(1794)_Segawa_Tomisaburō_as_yadorigi,_wife_of_Ogishi_Kurando.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=176273596){kind=link}
You made a good catch there! Best, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
,_northwest_view,_wooden_domes,_Kimzha,_Russia.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
. You can give feedback on this change.
_p067_VILLA_FRANCA_HARBOUR.jpg){kind=link}
![[430]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Olbrycht.jpg){kind=link}
![[431]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AS_6_z_podpisem_2015.jpg){kind=link}
![[432]](http://s13.postimg.org/y84a52vx3/Untitled_1.jpg){kind=link}
