User talk:Nathan B2/Archive 2017
Logo[edit]
- use in any work, regardless of content
- creation of derivative works
- commercial use
- free distribution
See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.
Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.Yours sincerely, Dereckson (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Evangelical Christian megachurch building has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Wikimandia (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Renaming historic buildings[edit]
Hi ServB1, I noticed you have been requesting the renaming of photo files of historic buildings that in recent years have become evangelical/pentecostal churches. For example:
- File:London, Woolwich, former Granada Cinema 01.jpg -> File:Christ Faith Tabernacle Cathedral3.jpg
- File:London, Woolwich, John Wilson St, Gateway House02.jpg -> File:New Wine Church building02.jpg
- File:Apeldoorn MinervaTheater.jpg -> File:Evangelische Zendingsgemeente Menorah church.jpg
I do not agree with this. I think in these cases the historic names of the buildings (perhaps with the addition 'former') are to be preferred above the names of the (often temporary) occupants. Similarly, we usually do not change the names of churches and monasteries after they have been secularized. Also, the reason for renaming that you have provided (Criterion 3: obvious error) is dubious. In the case of "Gateway House" in Woolwich, London, the name is even on the building, clearly visible in the photograph... I noticed that you state at your user page that you "mainly contribute to the portals Christianity and Evangelical christianity". I hope there is no hidden agenda behind this? All the best, Kleon3 (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Kleon3 (talk · contribs). I think that the new name is more appropriate. For example, if a building has multiples owners, we can't put all them in the title. It was a request that was approved by another user. Thank you very much. --ServB1 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- It is not all right and you must know it. "I think the new name is more appropriate" is not a valid reason. The Woolwich buildings are referred to in the Survey of London, Volume 44, with their historic names, not the names of their recent occupiers. I will keep an eye on this. Best, Kleon3 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Kleon3 (talk · contribs). The name of a building depends on the date of taking a photo and must reflect the name according to the time of taking the photo. This is what allows readers to understand! Otherwise, the photo name would be too long. Off course, the historic usage can figure in the description space. Thank you very much. --ServB1 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Again, you are mistaken. If a major publication about this part of London uses the historic names of the buildings, who are you to change the names into something else? Best, Kleon3 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Kleon3 (talk · contribs). The name of a building depends on the date of taking a photo and must reflect the name according to the time of taking the photo. This is what allows readers to understand! Otherwise, the photo name would be too long. Off course, the historic usage can figure in the description space. Thank you very much. --ServB1 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- It is not all right and you must know it. "I think the new name is more appropriate" is not a valid reason. The Woolwich buildings are referred to in the Survey of London, Volume 44, with their historic names, not the names of their recent occupiers. I will keep an eye on this. Best, Kleon3 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Elevation church Uptown worship service.jpg[edit]
), 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.