User talk:MauraWen

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, MauraWen!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Photographs credited to Nathan Williams

Hi, I noticed you have a few photos of flowers credited to Nathan Williams, but there’s no URL provided to help verify the license information. Do you have links, or could you have the photographer submit a license statement via COM:OTRS. Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ytoyoda, Nathan is my son and has given me verbal permission to add his images to Wikicommons. I will check out the page you provided and ask him to submit a license statement. MauraWen (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering, since all your other photos are properly sourced so I figured they were legit. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Great Tomb Burial Chamber Porth Hellick Down.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Great Tomb Burial Chamber Porth Hellick Down.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio, I try to get the licensing right when I upload images. I have created and expanded articles on Wikipedia for a few years. Because I enjoy images, I usually check out the sources of existing images. Many articles have had the 2.0 license. So, when I need an image, I first go to Wikicommons, and if not available, I often can find a good one at Geograph or Flickr, I upload images with the 2.0 license, if no public domain images are available. I do not believe that Flickr offers the Creative Commos 4.0 license, which I know is currently preferred. Please help me understand, why uploading new flickr images or geograph images with 2.0 license is not ok and the existing images that are currently embedded in Wikipedia articles with 2.0 licenses are fine. MauraWen (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The version of the license isn't that important. A 2.0 license acts pretty much the same as a 4.0 license. However, the issue with your latest Flickr uploads were that they had a non-commercial license (see the dollar sign symbol next to "some rights reserved"). Commons does not accept images that don't allow commercial use or modification, like {{Cc-by-nc-2.0}} or {{Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}}. You can avoid uploading unfree files by using tools like Flinfo and Flickr2Commons, both of which automatically fill out source information and filter out unfree files. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ytoyoda, Thank you so much for explaining that to me! I have been an editor for Wikipedia for 3 1/2 years, and no one has explained the 2.0 vs 4.0 license situation to me in detail. I did not notice the $sign when I viewed the image on Flickr. I will keep these tools and use them in the future. I want to get the correctly licensed images for articles. I will also keep your user name in case I have questions in the future. MauraWen (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:Rock & Roll rose bud 1918.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rock & Roll rose bud 1918.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

And also:

• File:Rock & Roll rose shrub Porland.jpg
• File:Rock & Roll rose.jpg
• File:Rock and roll rose 2020.jpg
• File:Rosa 'Pope John Paul II'.jpg
• File:Rosa Harlekin 2019.jpg
• File:Rosa Pope John Paul II July 2019.jpg

Yours sincerely, JuTa 09:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JuTa Thanks for all the information. I have sent my son, Nathan, who is the photographer and the copyright holder of the images, the format of the letter that he needs to send and where to send it. I am hoping he does this in the next few days before his photos get deleted. MauraWen (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

As soon you know he sent it, please add {{subst:OP}} to the file description pages. This will add {{OTRS pending}} with date paraters. You can remove the problems tas then. regards --JuTa 16:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JuTa, Ytoyoda Nathan just sent the email sent me a copy. Would you mind checking the description on one of the images to see if I added the "pending" txt correctly?. Did you also just say that I can remove the template saying there is a problem "This media file is missing evidence of permission" notice, on each image, or is that something that an administrator does? thx MauraWen (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thx, I removed the problems tags now myself. The OTRS pending tag will give more time (normaly about a month) before the image get deleted if they dont get confirmed by OTRS stuff. --JuTa 17:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)