User talk:Peeeeet

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Peeeeet!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads from Geograph[edit]

Hello. When uploading images from Geograph, it's useful if you use the {{Geograph}} template, which adds them to Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project and also gets the licence right. If you use the the "Wikipedia Template" at the bottom of the reuse page or geograph2commons (linked at the bottom of the reuse page), this happens automatically. I've added these to the pictures you uploaded.

Also, in-image Watermarks are unnecessary on Commons, since image pages here carry the necessary metadata, so I've substituted the versions from Geograph without watermarks.

Thank you for contributing to Commons!

--bjh21 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for making those corrections bjh21! I expect a lot of people would have simply quoted the manual page at me and then left me to it. You went the exra mile there.

I know how to use Geograph content properly now, and if I ever use another provider then I'll take the time to run it through the Commons help center first.

Much appreciated.

Peeeeet (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid watermarked pictures[edit]

čeština  Deutsch  español  English  italiano  magyar  македонски  русский  हिन्दी  ಕನ್ನಡ  +/−


The image File:Belvoir Park Hospital.jpg you uploaded contain(s) watermarks. The usage of watermarks is discouraged according to policy. If a non-watermarked version of the image is available, please upload it under the same file name. After removing the watermark, ensure that the removed information is present in the EXIF tags, the image description page, or both. Thank you for understanding.

Elisfkc (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Forgive me, I am confused. Also new. Please advise.
The image I uploaded had no watermark, and had all the metadata in place. Technically it would be a derivitive work (as permitted by the license), even though I only performed light colour correction and removed the watermark.

You re-uploaded it as the original artists work which has their watermark in place.
Is there a solution? What should I do to correct this please?



Peeeeet (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the question. Was answered in help center.

The solution is to upload the original artists image first, so it can be reverted to in the case of poor editing. Then replace with the modified version.

Peeeeet (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]



I am new and have made an error by uploading the following image. It is CC Non-Commercial Non-Derivative. Not valid for use in Commons. I nominated it for delection immediately on learning this.

File:Sir Ronnie Flanagan circa 2001.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. 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!

Peeeeet (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Audio_files_of_background_music 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!


Estopedist1 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]