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.
ihnen (LETHMATE et al.) gegenüber gestellt. Man kann nämlich natürlich Ökosysteme mit weit weniger Begriffen total befriedigend – und vor allem interdisziplinär unstrittig eindeutig! – ansprechen. Siehe dazu schon jetzt diese und ind. Das wäre ja dann eigentlich total leicht zu verkraften (und zu ignorieren), wenn nicht derlei Begriffsballast es inzwischen bis in die bundesdeutschen Geographie-Schulbücher geschafft hätte!
Die vielen Mikroartikel, die ich gestern abend in die Wikipedia gestellt habe, sind die ersten Vorarbeiten zu einem Artikel, den ich 'Ansprache von Ökosystemen'[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/eindeutig! – ansprechen. Siehe dazu schon jetzt [http.org/wiki/ signs shown for meetings for it cash$ to
Admittedly I'm not a native German speaker, but this looks to me like a nearly meaningless hash, and I don't see a question. - Jmabel ! talk21:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
For mysterious reasons, the buttons that allow me to add, change or remove categories have disappeared, so I have to do it by editing the page. How do I restore the buttons?
HotCat is enabled. I've been adviced to make sure I have JavaScript enabled in my browser. There is a problem with this. In preferences, content (in Firefox), no alternative for js is displayed, as it is supposed to do. I have tried using IE and Chrome, but the buttons don't display there either. And I have tested another computer, where the alternative for js is displayed and chosen, but no buttons for adding or removing categories are displayed there either. --Jonund (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Your User:Jonund/common.js looks strange. Try deleting the line ":Indenterad rad"; that's not valid JavaScript, which may be causing this. (BTW, what's with this "HotCatAutoRemoveCheckCat" setting? AFAIK, HotCat has no such setting.) Lupo16:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! It works now, and I truly appreciate your help.
As for the "HotCatAutoRemoveCheckCat", it may be space aliens who have put it there. I don't understand JavaScript, and I haven't written the lines. I don't know if it harms or helps, so I keep it. --Jonund (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You've successfully reverted to the initial image. There's no particular reason to delete the intervening incorrect upload: it takes up just as much space on the server even if we "delete" it. Usually we only delete versions if there is an issue like copyright violations or inadvertant disclosure of private information (e.g. in EXIF data, or if someone meant to apply Gaussian blur to a license plate and didn't). - Jmabel ! talk
Recently, I added a photo file named "Ghale Afghan or Tul-e Afghan" on the Khanmirza plain page (Persian Equivalent; دشت خانمیرزا) which the picture was published in ArchAtlas journal, Version 4.1 in 2005. Now this article is available for public people on "http://www.archatlas.org/Petrie/Lordegan.php".
The mentioned contains of Tul-e Afghan historical place is registered and documented in list of Iranians national historical places. I think that this picture help readers to have a better understand of historical status of Khanmirza Plain. Also, I added a valid reference on the photo.
Could you tell me there any problem in this regard is?
URL:http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4_%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%E2%80%8C%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%A7
user:shahab.javi
You don't say anything about licensing there. Everything on Commons has to be either in the public domain or available under a free license, and you must state what license (or why public domain). See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. I don't see any indication of either here, nor do I see any reason to think this would qualify. - Jmabel ! talk18:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
newbie trying to enter short factual bio of American POW #260 at Berga in WWII
HI! I am computer less literate and tried to enter this brief bio of an American POW at Berga, who was my cousin, but was not allowed to enter unless I log in. But I do not want to permanently log in for a single entry. My name is Ellen N. Lawson Ph.D., and my email is lawsonellen@yahoo.com. I also wanted to upload a portrait of Leavitt in uniform but can't figure out how to do that and attach it to the bio. Can you pleae help me?
Leavitt, Ralph Hodsdon (1925-45). Leavitt's name is #260 (misspelled as Levitt) on the list of American POWs forced to labor at Berga, Germany, during World War II. Roger Cohen, Soldiers and Slaves, 2006, recounts the wartime experiences of the 350 American soldiers sent to Berga, but includes no testimony from Leavitt who did not survive. An Illinois native, the nineteen year old Leavitt was captured in the Battle of the Bulge and imprisoned at Stalag IX-B before being transferred to Berga and forced to work in an underground tunnel project with slave labor transferred from Buchenwald Concentration camp and Russian POWs. Leavitt died of starvation and dystentery on a forced march south on April 17, 1945, and six days later the remaining marchers were liberated by the American army. His body was eventually exhumed and interred in the military cemetery at St. Avold, France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.206.3 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Commons is the media repository (images, sound) for Wikimedia foundation, not a place for articles.
If his person were of encyclopedic notability, you could write an article in Wikipedia, but nothing in what you say here suggests that this person would be important enough to merit an encyclopedia article.
There is nothing "permanent" about logging in. When you are done working, you log back out.
If the photo is in the public domain or if you own the intellectual property rights (e.g. if you are the heir of the photographer) you could upload the photo here and add about that amount of information you give above as a photo description. However, if those conditions don't apply -- and it sounds like they probably don't since you seem to have gotten this from a book -- we couldn't accept the photo unless you obtain permission from the copyright holder. See Commons:Licensing and (for the release of permissions we'd need from a third party) COM:OTRS.
I was editing a page and wound up looking at an Admin's user page. I noticed he had a neat little table of his stats. Tracking down the code, he's using the adminstats template. Unfortunately, this only works for "admins and account creators only". Is there a similar template for non-admins? --Rsberzerker (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to use some Wikimedia photos on a freepost political election leaflet for the Green Party of England and Wales with a print run of several million. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivers (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It's possible. If the images aren't public domain, you'd have to either conform to the license terms or negotiate different terms with the copyright holder. In particular, under almost all licenses here, you'd have to make it clear that the use of the photo does not imply the photographer's endorsement of your party. If you can indicate what specific pictures you are interested in, someone an help you craft an appropriate credit that would conform to the licensing. - Jmabel ! talk21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I upload this photo from flickr? The licence is ok (cc-by-sa-2.0), but there are a girl and a boy. I need a photo of Pasquali ([1]) Thanks --Lkcl it (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
License looks fine. You say "there are a girl and a boy". That is factually true, but I can't tell what you are driving at. Perhaps you are simply saying that this might need the {{Personality rights}} template, which I think it would.
If it is easier for you to ask your question at greater length and more clearly in Italian, that would be fine. - Jmabel ! talk18:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was refering to the {{Personality rights}} template. I'm sorry, but I don't understand: can I simply upload the file with this template?(Sì. mi riferivo al template sui diritti delle persone. Scusami, ma non ho capito bene: posso caricare l'immagine aggiungendo semplicemente il template?) Thanks Lkcl it (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
hi,
what's going wrong generating image in 1024px-size for use in wikisource?
files: Deutsche Rundschau 1880 23 104.png - Deutsche Rundschau 1880 23 114.png
Include in ws (de):
html code:
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Deutsche_Rundschau_1880_23_104.png/1024px-Deutsche_Rundschau_1880_23_104.png
They do look slightly different (amount of border). At the very least they should be cross-linked with {{Other versions}}. If someone decides they are effectively identical (or if one is clearly superior), the one to be deleted can be tagged with {{Duplicate}} and someone will delete it. Sometimes one has the better image and the other has the better description, it's worth copying the description over before doing this. - Jmabel ! talk16:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
How do I change the Category of 2 photos I just uploaded?
I am a newbie. I just uploaded 2 photos of birds and put them in a Category called Birds. Obviously I need to change the category to the scientific name of the species shown. How do I find my 2 photos and then make these changes. (Sorry for the dumb question but I really did not find a quick answer in the Help Desk)Peter W. Thayer (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Peter W. Thayer
You can find your uploads here; there should be an "uploads" link at the upper right when you are logged in, which will bring you there.
Once you get to the right pages, click "edit". The categories should be pretty obvious. You edit them just like any text. - Jmabel ! talk16:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
May be you have already the right answer, but what follows it was already written.
You can also find them in the link "Watchlist" (also in the top right corner). In that page, they are under your user name: "Peter W. Thayer (talk | contribs)". If you click "contribs" you will find all your contributions. I Hope this helps, otherwise feel free to ask again --JotaCartas (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, no image from Google Earth is free. Is there any specific reason to think this would be an exception? - Jmabel ! talk21:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Google Earth sometimes uses public domain imagery from NASA, USGS and other US Government entities, but mainly for things like really zoomed out satellite overviews of the Earth and for images of remote places like Antarctica where private entities have little interest in sending planes to take high-resolution aerial photographs. Reasonably zoomed in imagery of populated places is almost always sourced from private entities and is non-free. —LX (talk, contribs)18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Enhancing someone else's Commons image via Photoshop
Is it possible to enhance an image that was taken in poor light and which, via Photoshop, can be lightened up and have a lot more impact?
The interior of the current Glyndebourne theatre.
The image is pretty dark. I've already enhanced it, but am I able to substitute mine? Or do I have to get the person who posted it originally to do that? Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
If you are in any doubt, upload it under a distinct name, and link them with {{Derivative versions}} and {{Derived from}}. One problem with uploading under the same name is that it does imply endorsement by the original uploader, which may be counter to the license. - Jmabel ! talk04:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that claim is a bad precedent to get into. I might even go so far as to add a note to Commons:General disclaimer or some place that this is a wiki and as such, modifications on images are not to be taken as endorsement by the original uploader. I certainly wouldn't infer it right now, given that it is a WMF wiki and just like Wikipedia, in-place modifications are okay and reasonable, if not as culturally normal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
In this case (as it has a PD license) you may overwrite. For CC licensed works, you need to specify that the original has modified and what modifications are done per their new amendment. This obligation applies whether or not the modifications produced adapted material. Jee06:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Viva-Verdi! Yes, you can improve on other people's work that they've published here on Commons, and since we only host content that is in the public domain or published under a free license, you can upload the modified versions without involving the original author or uploader. To understand the dos, don'ts and how tos of overwriting existing files, please read Commons:Overwriting existing files, and when uploading the result under a different file name, I recommend using the Derivative FX tool to upload the file with an appropriate file description. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs)18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Madam/Sir,
I am working on wiki page of my adviser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_L._Bras who the provost of the Georgia tech now. I want to use of his photo which is copyright protected by gatech which is protected under the Fair use images. The copyright law is in here http://www.library.gatech.edu/archives/copyright_info.php. Now the photo is uploaded as Free license and public domain images. I appreciate your assistance and comment in this regard.
Best,
Mo
The following is not a Commons issue, but it is an issue on en-wiki, where I am also an administrator. You say that he is your advisor, and that you are working on the article, but I don't see anywhere at Talk:Rafael L. Bras where you have disclosed your conflict of interest. Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? I would strongly recommend making a disclosure on that talk page.
Any "fair use" of the image would be strictly an en-wiki concern. Commons does not allow images on a "fair use" basis.
You write "Now the photo is uploaded as Free license and public domain images." I have no idea what you mean by that. Uploaded where? How can it possibly be both "free license" and "public domain": if it is in the public domain, who would be in the position to grant a license?
As far as I can tell, Georgia Tech's site still says that the image is copyrighted and that they hold the copyright. If they want to waive that, there are three ways to do that:
they could specify a free license (or a release into the public domain) on the page where the image appears on their site,
they could specify a free license (or a release into the public domain) somewhere else on their site with an indication that this image is among the materials covered or
they could follow the procedure laid out at COM:OTRS to email us with a clear statement of the license they are making available, or to release it into the public domain.
If you literally just want to provide a link between the two accounts, you can add links to your user page: [[:en:User:Jobu]] here on Commons will provide a link to your English Wikipedia user page, and [[commons:User:TheMightyJobu]] will provide a link to your Commons user page from English Wikipedia. If what you want is to have the same username across all Wikimedia projects, see meta:Help:Unified login, Commons:Changing username and en:Wikipedia:Changing username. —LX (talk, contribs)19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Should Common Name or Scientific Name (or both) be Used to Categorize Animal Species?
When I click "Little Blue Heron" I see 108 items and when I click "Egretta caerulea" I only see 82 items - yet these are the same species.
Likewise when I click "American Robin" I see 495 items and when I click "Turdus migratorius" I only see 270 items.
Should Both the Common AND Scientific names be use as a Category of a specific species when adding a bird photo? Would users then have to be aware to search both terms to find all images of that species?
On a related note - when I enter Mexican Chickadee I see 6 items - and all three photos are NOT a Mexican Chickadee (they are Mountain Chickadees). When I enter Poecile sclateri I only see four items - none of which is a photo. Is this an error that should be reported to someone? I can only assume that there is not a single photo of a Mexican Chickadee on Wikimedia yet - correct?
(Thanks for all your help! We are about to encourage hundreds of amateur bird photographers to start contributing to Wikimedia and I need to make a video to show them how easy this is to do! So I need to get my facts straight before I start the process. www.ThayerBirding.com www.WildBirds.com)
Peter W. Thayer (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Peter W. Thayer.
We have a "norm" of preferring scientific names but providing the common name both on the file page and for any main categories. For an example, take a look at Category:Crows. My preference is to use both common name and scientific name in the filename with the scientific name going first so that sorting by standard taxonomies is possible. --Fæ (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
We prefer a combination of scientific name + location. We prefer to avoid Common Names because they vary from place to place, and there are many shared and overlapped common names for similar species. Moreover, English names have no relevance in other language speaking countries. That may be a reason why species:Help:Image Guidelines prefer to avoid vernacular names in the caption section of the image. There is a special {{Specimen}} available for such uploads too.
There are exceptions. Domesticated animals and cultivars are usually categorized on the basis of common names.
I'm not a subject expert; even though 99% of my uploads are plants and animals. Hope people like MPF can give you a better advice. Jee15:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep, as mentioned, in general, the scientific name only should be used as the category, thus Category:Poecile gambeli for Mountain Chickadee. The exceptions to scientific names are as Jkadavoor gives, for domesticated animals (e.g. Category:Domesticated ducks) and food crop plants (e.g. Category:Tomatoes). You couldn't find anything for Poecile sclateri, as sadly we don't yet have a single pic of one on Commons - so your project will be very welcome if it provides some ;-) Where a species doesn't have its own category, then add it to the genus category instead (i.e., Category:Poecile for any Mexican Chickadee pics), and an established editor here will soon create the necessary category for it (or you can always drop me a request on my talk page). For birds, Commons follows IOC as the global authority for scientific names - note that these are sometimes different to what the US local bird authorities (AOU etc) use (e.g. IOC, and therefore also Commons, splits Audubon's Warbler Setophaga auduboni and Myrtle Warbler Setophaga coronata whereas AOU doesn't yet). Hope this helps, and looking forward to the influx of new pics! - MPF (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Automatic categorization by camera using ParserFunctions
I've fixed it on that category by moving {Categorise} above the Sisterheader. As an aside, "Sisterheader" really ought to be renamed, as it's sexist. - MPF (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The Sisterhead template still covers up the "L" when using Firefox 26.0. Is there a way that it could push down the "Subcategories" stuff? Funandtrvl (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It didn't seem like the floating divs did anything, but the clear both template did work. That's why I'm thinking one of the sisterheader templates needs a "clear:right;". Funandtrvl (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
My Chrome with a Monobook skin accepted it. FF 10.0.12esr (one year old) with a Vector skin overwrote the L, your new version works. The floating effect would be nice to have on wide 16:9 displays, but above all it should work in every browser not worse than IE6 ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
--InkolMU (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
God day!
I'm PR-Manager IES Holding Company. I've loaded file "Logo IES Holding.jpg"
It's Logo my company. What information i must provide about license? What i did wrong?
Best regaeds
Inna Kolesnikova
Hi, at Commons we can only accept files that have a free license. The image you have uploaded is a company logo (and we would assume copyrighted), you have provided no evidence that it is in fact licensed under a free license. For the file to remain a ticket would have to be lodged at COM:OTRS by the copyright holder (that is the person(s) legally enabled to re-license the image), but, that would mean the file would then be free for anyone to use and manipulate for (pretty much) any reason they want; the copyright holder would loose most control they have over it's use, distribution, and manipulation, something I doubt they would want. I would suggest that the image should be uploaded instead to the local project where you wish to use it under 'fair use' provisions (English Wikipedia's can be found at en:WP:NFCC). I would also point out that if you have been paid to write or alter a Wikipedia article you should be very very familiar with en:WP:COI/en:WP:PAY. Liamdavies (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
At the very least, you need a copyright tag. How is it licensed? For company logos, I would suggest the tag {{cc-by-3.0}}. If it's trademarked, which is likely, you'll also want the trademarked tag {{Trademarked}}. Some more categories would also be nice. Look around for those that apply. I personally try to find at least 3 categories for every file I upload. Occasionally I fail, but that's very rare. --Rsberzerker (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Rsberzerker you can only choose the cc-by-3.0 (or similar) license, if either: you are the copyright holder, or you provide proof that the image is licensed under said license (as I mentioned, OTRS is very good for this if a copyright notice is not publicly available). I very much doubt that someone at a PR firm would have the authority to make such a decision, and I very much hope you are only labelling files with such licenses when either of the two mentioned criteria occur. Liamdavies (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I did assume he had permission to upload it when making the suggestion, although you do make a good point about him having permission. I have not labeled files I have upload myself with cc-by-3.0 IIRC (the couple of question marks in my mind were pictures I took). The suggestion was based on what I've seen another company do, and what would seem reasonable to me if I were a company executive. Overall though, your answer above mine is very good and complete. --Rsberzerker (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The link "upload a new version of this file" is too hard to find
I have just uploaded a new version of a file. I remembered that this was a link that was hard to find, so I looked for some time and indeed, after scrolling down 10 screens, I found it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg
Why is this link SO well hidden? It seems to me that this is the second most important function of the entire page! The first thing that visitors will want to do is use the image, the second is to edit it. I strongly believe that this should be a link at the top next to the various "use this image" buttons. KarlFrei (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
A very large proportion of the time that users who aren't very experienced with Commons use this, it's either an error or vandalism. So I think it's probably just as well that the link not be too obvious. - Jmabel ! talk21:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
But perhaps you could make it easier for users who have for instance already had a (Wikipedia) account for seven years? At some point there must be trust. Now, ALL legitimite users have to do extra work, especially those like me who spend most of their time on Wikipedia and not Wikimedia. (I would think that you also have pretty good anti-vandalism tools, but I appreciate that vandalism might be harder to detect automatically for images.) KarlFrei (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm; people here for 7 years should know that there is such an option under "File history". Here in this particular case the problem is that file has too many versions. May be moving the link top of that section helps. Jee11:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I didn't. That change would indeed help a bit. The problem is that I have been at WikiPedia for 7 years, but rarely did anything in WikiMedia, as I tried to point out above. I think that many users in my situation would be struggling to find the link. KarlFrei (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Instead of "Seisenjyogakuenuniv" it should be "Keisenjyog...."
There are two very different universities with these similar names, so it is not a simple spelling mistake.
Not knowing the language in question, I'm not getting in there myself, but you can request a presumably uncontroversial rename of any file by putting {{Rename}} on the file page in question. - Jmabel ! talk06:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I sent the correct copyright release form to the subject of the photo, Patricia O'Callaghan, who completed it and returned it to Wikimedia Commons. However, the photo was removed about 14 days later by an administrator in (I think) Germany. I think there may have been a breakdown in communications somewhere. I am sorry I have not tried to resolve this issue earlier. Can someone help me get the photo restored?
Never was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, so probably no one even went looking for OTRS before deleting it. Does anyone know how best to sort it out at this point? Roger, next time you do something along these lines, that template alerts admins etc. to look for a permission email before deleting.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I suspect that you misunderstand what this site (Wikimedia Commons) is for. This is a site for making available public domain and free-licensed photos, other images, sound files, videos, etc., that are of an educational nature. - Jmabel ! talk04:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
No subject
Praise Lord ;
I have honnor to write to your this message applaying a help to study at University Baylor.
In fact Pastor,iam Burundian Citezen aged 29.I have a Diploma of Nursing School.So i would like to study a theological at University Baylor Or California Baptist university OR University of North Texas.I have vocation but i miss some one who help me to study.
I hope to get a good answer.
Yours faithfully Livingstone Nibaruta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.79.46.237 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the Wikimedia Commons help desk, we are a media repository that supports various Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedias. I am having trouble understanding your question in relation to that, could you please restate what Commons related issue you need help with? Liamdavies (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
toollabs:svgedit doesn't display anything at all (both versions) reporting no problem. toollabs:svgcheck and Chrome show only the red county reporting no problem. commons: and a Windows explorer SVG extension show the map incl. red county as intended. The W3C validator reports a SVG element nesting error (both versions) and the NMTOKEN nits (numerical xml:id) in the old version already fixed by you. Just removing the offending <g> tag after <clippath> with corresponding </g>, or removing the <clippath> + closing tag before the offending <g>, does not help toollabs:svgedit to grok this broken SVG. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please help with editing of "categories" - Consequences of rapid population growth..pdf (file)
I have just uploaded two diagrams - but I am afraid I might have used wrong categories. They should appear under something like "demography","population growth","analytical diagram". I could not figure out how to change the categories.
Also, I forgot to modify the title of the second diagram - it should be the same as the title of the first.
Thank you for helping!
GKH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerhardheilig (talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Information about categorising, adding/removing and finding categories can be found at COM:CAT. To request a file rename you can you use the script from the drop down menu next to the search bar in the top right hand corner, or use Template:Rename. Liamdavies (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't find a proper copyright tag for the file I just uploaded.
This file is an repealed scheme of a state organ, therefore not eligible for copyright according to Copyright Law of PRC, Chapter I, Article 5("This law shall not be applicable to: (1) laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs;...". See website of National Copyright Administration of PRC for more information).
You can't. However files should not be uploaded over old ones unless there are minor improvements from previous versions. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It is technically possible, but we don't protect them unless it is logo used in the interface, or there is edit war. —레비Revi13:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I realize Wikidata isn't fully functional on Commons yet (or is it?), but I have already been able to add Wikipedia links to Commons categories. See for example Category:Britta Reimers and d:Q110783#sitelinks-commons, where I've added the link to the Commons category. Did I do this correctly? Or is that space only meant for Commons galleries and not categories? Mathonius (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It is more likely to be Wikidata stuff. Well, per Wikidata RFC for Commons link, (If I remember correctly) Wikidata developers will make both Cats and Galleries to be added for Commons. —레비Revi13:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Se a Força Pública de São Paulo deu lugar à PMSP, por que a Brigada Militar não é designada PMRS ( Polícia Militar do Rio Grande do Sul)? A Wikipédia poderia fazer essa pesquisa ante o que eu diria existir uma incongruência desconfortável. Agradeço se isso é viável. P.Marcellino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo Marcellino (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not impossible, see User:Сидик_из_ПТУ/Sandbox for a quick and dirty test. Just blank your personal sandbox later, or use it for other tests. Obvious unsolved problems:
Is a given 1st parameter a valid YYYY? For photos only 19YY or 20YY are relevant.
Is a given 2nd parameter a valid MM from 01 to 12? Fix any M to 0M before.
Is a given 3rd parameter a valid DD from 01 to 28? Fix any D to 0D before, handle 29, 30, 31 depending on YYYY-MM.
Does the resulting link (article in the test, category for your suggestion) exist? Compare #ifexist.
Are you 100% sure that nobody already created something in this direction with another name? Stupid date templates were hot in 2007 when the parser functions were introduced, something better than this quick and dirty test exists (check also on m:, it has some portable no-w:-nonsense templates). –Be..anyone (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Not too worried about the category not existing, red links can always be fixed, or if this becomes at all widespread we can just pre-build them. - Jmabel ! talk16:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Ovide Pomerleau portrait.jpg
I am writing regarding an image I uploaded in September, 2012 under the filename Ovide Pomerleau portrait.jpg, to accompany an article entitled Ovide F. Pomerleau.
Now, in February 2014, a year and a half later, I have received a message from JuTa stating as follows:
"There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 15:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC"
I did my best when I uploaded this image but I may have inadequately or incorrectly categorized the copyright status. The correct information is as follows: The photographer's name is Nathanial Ehrlich; on February 6, 2014, he e-mailed the following message: "To whom it may concern: I shot the image previously uploaded as Ovide Pomerleau portrait.jpg at the request of Cindy and Ovide. I never claimed copyright. The image is in the public domain."
PLEASE let me know precisely what I need to do to get the information associated with this file corrected and to resolve the problem identified by JuTa. Thanks! Moonandback (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for contributing to the Commons. The quoted message was not from JuTa, but it was from Nikbot, an automated system used to detect missing tags on the description pages. Also, the message was not about the file you uploaded in September, 2012 but it was about the file you uploaded on August 12, 2012. And the message is not from February, 2014 but it is from August 12, 2012, the same day you uploaded the file in question. (JuTa did write to you in 2014 about about another file (Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco logo.jpg), but this was immediately solved and did not require any action from you.) For details, you can see: 1) the logs relating to the file Ovide Pomerleau portrait.jpg, 2) your user logs of operations, and 3) your talk page history. That said, it looks like the problem can be solved very easily. The content of the e-mail you quoted looks fine. Please just have the author send this e-mail to the Commons permissions address mentioned in the help page Commons:OTRS and everything should be fine. (This help page also explains the reasons for this process.) Once his e-mail will be received and processed by the OTRS volunteers (this may take a few days or weeks depending on the current backlog), the file in question, File:Ovide Pomerleau portrait.jpg, will be undeleted and it should be tagged as dedicated to the public domain, according to the explicit declaration of the author. (N.B.: When possible, a public domain dedication referring explicitly to the CC-0 universal public domain dedication is recommended. But if the author prefers to stick to the wording "the image is in the public domain" quoted above, that can be okay too.) If you need more specific help with the OTRS process, you can also use the OTRS noticeboard. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
How to link a URL with bad characters?
I am trying to link the following URL, however Commons doesn't like some of the characters in it and so the URL won't properly direct you to the website. The only way I can think of to fix this is to use TinyURL which does work, but Commons' spam filter blocks TinyURL-created URLs so I can't post it anywhere on Commons. What can I do?
Hello. First time creating a page. Honoring the great bassist, John Cartwright who played with Harry Belafonte for 35 years. I was doing fine, then tried to upload an image and now my work page is just boxes of topics. How do I get back to seeing a preview of the page laid out? Many thanks. Diana
What is your basis to consider this image either free-licensed or in the public domain? I think it is not, and therefore it does not belong on Commons.
Could you please provide a link to the page you are saying has a problem? No one can help you without seeing the page.
I've placed the older (lower-resolution) version at File:Cassatt Mary The Cup of Tea 1880 alt.jpg. Seems to me, though, that there was nothing in this process you could not have done yourself: clicked through to the old version, downloaded it to my computer, uploaded under a different filename, edited description accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk06:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hm, i exactly thought of splitting, without doubling the file, because doubling data is in common a stupid thing(though usual). At least i hoped there is a way without doubling for admins, and also had this in mind. --Itu (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Have Many Odd Questions about Wikimedia Commons - Need Answers for Article I am Writing
1. What is the optimal size for photos I upload. What is too big or too small?
2. How can I search Wikimedia for mp3 sound files only (of bird songs, for example)?
3. Is Flickr related in any way to Wikimedia? There seem to be many good photos that say they were originally posted to Flicker and were uploaded using a Flicker upload bot.
4. Where would I go in my personal Flickr account to give permission to Wikimedia to use all my photos at Flickr - and who would move them? How long would it take for the move to be completed?
5. Can I freely use a photo where there is an OTRS tag symbol - or must I sign up someplace and then e-mail someone for permission? Is OTRS a "red flag" that I should just avoid?
6. I created an account using my full name (Peter W. Thayer). How would I go about changing that to something shorter (Pete Thayer) or to something longer (Peter W. Thayer/www.ThayerBirding.com) as a credit? Would this change appear on everything I uploaded to Wikimedia since day one? Are URLs frowned upon in credits?
7. How can I contact people when I use their photos? I would think they would like to see what a contribution they have made. Sometimes I see names that make sense (like Dominic Sherony) but others say things like Alpsdake or Alnus or MPF (this was an image of a pair of Pink-footed Geese taken in England.) There do not seem to be e-mail addresses for photographers at Wikimedia (understandable.)
8. I am aware of 5-6 extremely large collections of bird photos on the Internet. Would each individual contributor have to individually agree to let their photos be used at Wikimedia or could the organization hosting the photo collection offer up everything to Wikimedia (since the original idea was to share bird photos.) Individuals already agreed to some sort of release simply by making the original upload? [ Here is a perfect example: http://www.flickr.com/groups/birdshare/ and here is a less perfect example http://www.xeno-canto.org ] This seems like a huge untapped potential for high-quality nature images and sounds. If this is not strictly "legal" then how would you suggest these tax-exempt organizations go about notifying their individual contributors about Wikimedia and how could the transfer be made "painless" if an individual agreed?
9. Wikimedia makes sense only if the photos, etc. are out there "forever." I assume the images and songs and videos are in the "Cloud" and will stay there for hundreds of years. Where are the physical server farms housing Wikimedia and are there mirror sites around the world? Who pays for all this?
1. You are welcome to upload high-resolution pictures. I've seen pictures of 20 megabytes and more. Don't worry about resizing, the MediaWIki software can do that easily.
2. The MP3 file format isn't free, so there is no MP3 files in Commons. Every audio file is located in Category:Audio files and its subcategories.
3. Flickr allows users to upload images under free licenses. Therefore, many Wikimedia users upload interesting images from Flickr. But there is no formal link: Flick is a company owned by Yahoo, Wikimedia Commons is a project run by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is non-profit.
4. Every time you upload a file, you must pick a free licence, like CC BY-SA. You can upload files to Commons manually.
5. OTRS is a system to make sure that our images are actually free. You don't have to worry when you find a file tagged with it, it's a free image.
6. I don't remember, but yes you can change your user name.
In terms of the credit on an individual photo, you can add "author" to the {{Information}} template (e.g. I've been known to use |author = [[User:Jmabel|Joe Mabel]] (on Flickr as [http://www.flickr.com/people/7943225@N02 Joe Mabel] from Seattle, US) or to most licensing templates (e.g. I routinely use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|author=[[User:Jmabel|Joe Mabel]]}}( - Jmabel ! talk17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Every file in Commons has the authors named in the respective page. If they are Wikimedia users, you can write to them in their user talk page, or email them if they have given permission.
Depending on the "skin" you use, the link to email may be differently located, but in English it should normally say "Email this user" and will typically be on the left of the user's page or user's talk page. - Jmabel ! talk17:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
8. If any file was published under a free licence, then you can upload it to Commons. It it wasn't, then you could try contacting the author.
Typically, copyright remains with the photographer, not the site that might host the photo. For example, Commons does not own the copyrights of user-generated content you see posted here. That's why we (and, similarly, Flickr) post clear copyright information for each individual photo. If you need more than that as an answer (your question was pretty broad), please feel free to ask a followup. - Jmabel ! talk17:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
9. As I said, this website is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. They have the main servers in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation relies on donations from volunteers.
MP3 is not one of the file types hosted on Commons. There is currently no convenient way to search for audio files only, but you could do something like adding "intitle:ogg" to your search.
No. We get media from a number of different sources, and Flickr just happens to be one of them. It's a popular site that makes it easy to publish content and makes it easy to do so under a free license, and we have some good tools to make it easy to copy content from there to here. See Commons:Flickr files.
Assuming you mean {{PermissionOTRS}} with a valid ticket number added by an OTRS volunteer, then no. OTRS is a system that we use to verify and archive licensing permissions given by copyright holders. You don't have to do anything differently to use a file tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}}. Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia applies, and all the information you should need to use the file should already be on the file description page. That said, there are some OTRS-related problem tags which should be seen as "red flags", including {{OTRS received}} and {{No OTRS permission since}}.
To change your user name, see Commons:Changing username, but of course, you don't need to be credited by your user name. You can choose to be attributed however you like. For example, I use my full name with a link to my user page. It's not a very good idea to have a URL as part of your user name, but using it as part of how you want to be attributed is fine.
The individual copyright holders would need to agree to publication under a free license. Flickr, as mentioned, does give copyright holders the opportunity to do that, and it looks like xeno-canto.org also give copyright holders that choice.
Wikimedia Commons is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. See foundation:FAQ.
Other users have already answered very well. I add a few elements and links to pages where you may find more details:
1. The idea mentioned in the Commons:FAQ#Technical questions is the higher resolution the better. That general principle remains valid, although the FAQ is outdated on some specific details. About the file sizes, you may find more up-to-date information somewhere between many pages that seem to address the question: Commons:Maximum file size, Commons:File types, Commons:First steps/Quality and description. (It could be useful if someone in the know would have a look at the consistency between pages and make it easier for newbies to find the correct information in the FAQ.)
4. 4a) I don't use flickr, but I think there should be a place in your flickr account preferences where you can set a license to be applied by default to the files you upload there. But I don't know if that can change the licenses for the files already uploaded. If not, you may need to change the license for each file. Free licenses for which flickr has specific tags are CC-by 2.0 and CC-by-sa 2.0. Those tags on flickr will be recognized by upload bots for transfer to Wikimedia and by the flickr reviewer bot. You can also offer any other free license of your choice or dedicate your works to the public domain by specifying your offer on each flickr image page or on the page of your flickr public profile, but bots will not recognize it so that will require a human reviewer on Commons. Please note that you cannot just "give permission to Wikimedia". If you freely license your works, the free license will per definition be available to the public in general. 4b) Any Wikimedia Commons user can copy the files from flickr to Commons, either manually or with the help of an upload bot, provided you have explicitly licensed them with a free license on flickr. You can, of course, copy your own works yourself to Commons and offer them under a free license on Commons even if you did not license them freely on flickr. In any case, I suggest that, in in your flickr public profile page, you specify that you are User:Peter W. Thayer on Wikimedia Commons. That will make it much easier for human reviewers and anyone to verify that your copies from flickr to Commons and your licensing on Commons are legitimate. 4c) The time required depends on the copy process and the number of files. You can see also the pages: Commons:Flickr files#Uploading images, Commons:Flickr batch uploading, Commons:Welcome, Flickr users (not much there) or more generally Category:Commons. Flickr.
5. The first thing to do is check the history of the file, and see if, at least, the OTRS tag was placed by an authorized OTRS volunteer. An OTRS tag means that the authorized OTRS volunteer who placed that tag on that page personally certifies that he has read something that would verify either the identity of the author, or the author's choice of licence, or some other information, and that in his opinion, something in the OTRS communication tells something useful relating in some way to the file. So, all depends on the context surrounding the particular file, on what element of that context may have required an OTRS communication, on what you already know about that context, and very importantly on the trust you place on the personal competence of this particular OTRS volunteer. So, IMO, unless you already know the exact contents of the OTRS communication, yes an OTRS tag is a red flag. In theory, it tells that here was some essential information about the file was unclear, and that the person who added the OTRS tag holds the opinion that a sufficient clarification was made in a communication to which you don't have direct access, although this element of information is necessarily something that its author basically intends to communicate to you as the potential reuser and as the party to the license, and something that is important for you to know as such. Other people may give you different advice but, FWIW, me, I would not use a file that has an OTRS tag, unless I know exactly what the OTRS tag is about and I check with the OTRS noticeboard or directly with OTRS volunteers who I know can be trusted, and that I'm confident that I have obtained all the information to know exactly the exact wording of the relevant parts of the OTRS communication that I need to know as a reuser. Do not hesitate to request all the information you need about an OTRS ticket when you want to use a file that is tagged. Or before you take the risk to blindly trust an OTRS tag without making the necessary verifications, you better look that it was placed by an OTRS volunteer and check the track record and reliability of the OTRS volunteer who placed it.
6. In the description page of the file, you can specify whatever credit line you want to be credited with, in the "attribution" parameter in the license template, if you use a license template that allows it. You can also specify that same credit line in the "author" field of the "Information" template.
7. You can mention it on their user talk page. If you use a file outside the Wikimedia sites, you can add a mention on the talk page of the specific file, using if possible the template "published".
8. You must obtain a free license from the owner of the copyright. Normally, that would be the individual author. Again, you can't upload to Wikimedia something with a "permission to use on Wikimedia". One should not request such permission for Wikimedia, as that would be unusable. A free license must be available for the public in general. Please see Commons:Licensing and Commons:OTRS for suggestions about how to request free licenses for files that don't already have one.
CC-BY-SA 3.0 - Can Images Be Used in A Commercial Product?
Sorry to be a pain. I am still slightly puzzled. I uploaded photos to Wikimedia and used license CC-BY-SA 3.0 (the default on the upload page I found.) I thought I was basically giving away my image to anyone for any use. I assumed this license meant I would just receive credit somewhere on the person's web site. No financial transaction was expected. Anyone can use my image for personal use, on a Wikipedia page or even in a book, calendar or software program that they will be selling to the public. IS THIS CORRECT? Is that what CC-BY-SA 3.0 really says??
Joe Mabel did a fantastic job of answering my last question. But at User:Jmabel Joe said "If your use is commercial and does not conform to GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or other license I have explicitly granted), please do contact me, and I'm sure we can reach a reasonable licensing agreement suitable to your needs." When I read this I began to wonder if somehow GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0 does NOT give me the right to use photos in a commercial product.
We make a birding software program that is sold to the public. We are adding many more images in our new version 7. I got some images from Wikimedia. I thought this was OK. IS THIS CORRECT?
We are also building a Free Online Quiz Site for Birds. Folks will be able to come and take 5,000 different quizzes on the birds of the world. So if you wanted to see a quiz on the birds you may see while doing the Cincinnati, Ohio Christmas Bird Count, the quiz would be right there - any time. You will be able to set the quiz to "Easy" or "Intermediate" or Hard" depending on your ID skills (we do not want new birders to get discouraged.) There might also be another Quiz on the Birds of Iguazu Falls (Argentina side.) Using Wikimedia images for this project seems like a no-brainer. I am 100% sure this is OK and it is exactly what the image contributors would hope would happen to their images. IS THIS CORRECT?Peter W. Thayer - www.ThayerBirding.com (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Peter W. Thayer
This is basically correct (licenses that forbid commercial reuse are not allowed as the sole license on any image on commons), as long as you abide by the license terms. BY means that attribution must be given to the picture, preferably close to the picture, and SA means that you cannot claim copyright on the images (it should be stated on the website and in the software that the images are freely licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0). --Dschwen (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
GFDL, CC-BY-SA, and various other licenses all require both a credit and a statement of the license terms. Sometimes the latter is not practical. E.g., most recently, I had a case recently where CNN wanted to use a photo of mine in a montage. They didn't have any practical way to credit the photos in the montage. They contacted me to ask if we could come to some other arrangement. In this case, we couldn't: they wanted to use it with no credit and no compensation, and I don't have any particular reason to do CNN a favor. But I've had a few other cases where in a similar circumstance someone paid me a small sum to use one or several photos, and many cases where I have either waived the need to state the license terms or have signed an overt, individual license for someone (e.g. a filmmaker) whose company's policies require an overt license and won't allow the to just cite a "free" CC license.
To get to the heart of your question: laying aside issues of personality rights, trademarks, etc., and sticking strictly to copyright issues, yes CC-BY-SA 3.0 images can be used in a commercial product, as long as you conform to the license (e.g. credit the image and indicate the license terms). - Jmabel ! talk20:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I need guidance. I am uploading photos to update my boss's Wikipedia- Brad Little (politician).
The photo's are from this office's official photos drive. I have looked at how other similar offices have uploaded them, but it's still unclear. What do I have to do to prevent this picture from being deleted? How can you verify my ability to upload these photos properly?
The immediate problem was a typo in your upload that prevented a bot (or anyone else if they didn't go into "edit" mode) from seeing that your image had a license at all. That's why it got tagged as having no license. I've fixed that, but there are still some possible problems, as follows:
You say the author of the photo is "Idaho Lieutenant Governor's Office". Clearly that is not the photographer. Was the photographer a state employee (in which case, yes, the state or the particular office persumably owns the intellectual property rights to the photo) or an outside photographer (in which case that person would own the copyright, unless it was signed over). Could you clarify which is the case? If it was an outside photographer and they have not signed over the copyright, you should probably get him/her to do so; if not, then the OTRS email described in the next bullet point would have to come from that copyright holder.
Of course, Commons has no automatic way to tie your account to that office. Therefore, even though I fully believe that you work there, we need to have a release from that office as described in COM:OTRS. Given that you work there and presumably have authority to release the photo, please send an email from your official office email, as described there. Once you do that, you can put {{OTRS pending}} on the file page, and everyone will know to give some time for that to run through the process; eventually, it will be tagged with an OTRS ticket number.
Hello,
I would like to know if it is possible at all to subscribe to changes in a certain category in Commons so that I get some notification when content is added to that category. For instance, I would like to know when new images are added to Category:SVG maps showing history in French and what they are so that I can consider whether I may be interested in translating the new map from French to Spanish. Is this feasible? If so, is there any guide I can follow to set up the notifications? Thank you!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This file does not work. I tried to fix it, but probably contributed to the mess. The root cause could be a problem to revert a svg image. I am thankful for any help to make it work again. Jorchr (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This image: File:Map_of_the_War_of_the_Pacific.en.svg
Shows all of northern Argentina as bolivian territory before the war. This is false. Older versions of the image have the real information, but I don't know how to edit images here. --209.45.97.3623:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've uploaded some 100+ photos of World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka but after I finished uploading, I was told by Revi about Commons:FOP#Sri_Lanka. It seems some of the images I uploaded fall under FOP and should be deleted because FOB is not okay in Sri Lanka but I'm not sure which ones. Beside, most of the images I uploaded are actually same already existing on Commons so I wonder why those files were not deleted but mine. --Saqib (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
How to use image,
Hello. FOP rules restrict uploading photographs of subjects (statues, monuments, buildings) which are still covered by copyright in Sri Lanka. In order to find out if your files (many of which are quite nice photos by the way) violate FOP we would first need to figure out if the subject is still under copyright (life + 70 years, Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Sri Lanka). Many World Heritage Sites are quite old for example; any photograph of a 19th century (or older) building is probably safe. Even if the building is newer, it might not meet local Commons:Threshold of originality (military fortifications for example). From a quick check File:View of Colombo galle face.JPG shows several modern building and is probably in violation of FOP rules. MKFI (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have read your Help Pages but am still not 100% sure that Wikipedia Images can freely be used on websites.
Am I right in assuming all Wikipedia Images can be use on our website, www.drivecheap.co.uk, provided the image is attributed to Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.234.184 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. First of all, the site you're on is not Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free, educational media files used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and others. The free part is very important – we strive to only host content that can be used by anyone for any purpose. For many images and other media files, you will be required to mention the license under which they've been published and to attribute the author. There is usually no requirement to attribute Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, unless the author has specified that. See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia and the information on the file description page of each specific file.
As for Wikipedia, there are close to 300 different language editions of Wikipedia. Some of them only use media files from Commons, while others also host files locally on the specific project. Some of the projects that do allow local uploads also host non-free content, which you may not be able to use freely. How well this is handled and the quality of the information provided on the file description pages varies from project to project. —LX (talk, contribs)23:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me reiterate what may be the most important point in what LX wrote above: you don't attribute Wikipedia, you attribute the image as indicated on the image page. Typically, that means you attribute the photographer and you explicitly indicate the terms of the license under which you are using it.
Neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia Commons are creators of content. They are hosts of content created by their contributors. The Commons is a repository of images, but it is not the owner of those images. - Jmabel ! talk07:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Am I allowed to use this image on Wiki?
I am not sure if I can upload this image to Wiki and use it on here.
I guessed some of you might help me out.
I don't see any indication that those images are either public domain or free-licensed, so unless you have some such indication that I'm missing, no, you cannot upload this to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk17:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Cannot see my uploads and my username was not changed
Hi,
I asked two weeks ago the change of my username and nothing has been done. Can you do something?
This system is so long and complicate...
I uploaded two weeks ago several photos and I cannot see anything in my menu "uploads". How I can access and edit these photos?
Thank you for your help!
Best Regards,
Jean-Louis de Biasi
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian1897 (talk • contribs)
Given that you have no significant activity on this account, why bother getting the name changed? Why not just create a new account? - Jmabel ! talk17:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Adding my photo to a subject
I want to add a photo i have taken of a courthouse in Lincoln county, WA. The list does not currently have a photo of this building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)|Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jmabel ! talk16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)|contribs]])
Yes, I hope it's been made clear on the appropriate template and category pages that media can only use this category when dual licensed with another license with no NC clause.
We should probably add some appropriate categories to the other CC-BY-NC templates, I guess. This was just the first one I came across. HYanWong (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Just had a quick look. This is by far the most used of the CC-non-compliant dual licensed templates (about 4000 images). Most others have <100 media files in each, apart from Template:GFDL or cc-by-nc-2.0 (about 900). To deal with these particular ones, I've just created Category:CC-BY-NC-2.0. If an admin wants to add
The migration blurb makes no sense in this case, GFDL + CC-BY-NC can't be migrated to GFDL + CC-BY-SA + CC-BY-NC. Maybe force migration=non-eligible. NC icons for mw:InstantCommons uses exist. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Can i speedy delete?
Hello, can i speedy delete a file submitted by me? (or delete it) Reasons can be found here. I can take another photo, upload to flickr, send an email to political party with permission. and then upload it to here. --GM83 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Only in the first 7 days. After that you have to go through the same deletion process as anyone else. And while this image is clearly on its way to deletion, I don't see any reason to speedy-delete it. - Jmabel ! talk04:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, You can at any time request the speedy deletion of a file that is clearly not free, uploaded by anyone, including you. If you realize that you have made a mistake of that sort and you want to correct it, you can tag the file with the template "speedydelete" and mention clearly the facts in the parameter. Or you can of course tag it with the more specific template "copyvio", but that may leave a bad impression in your logs. However, now you have already tagged this file with the template "delete", and it would not be useful to complicate the situation by changing the type of deletion process already begun. If you want, you can just mention clearly, in your comments in the existing deletion request page, that you suggest speedy deletion. Please note that if you do a personal photographic reproduction of a non-free original photo, then for the file to be uploaded to Commons, the permission about the original must be a free license and it must be from the copyright owner, so you must determine who is the copyright owner (is it the original photographer or the political party?) -- Asclepias (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I found the photo on the link I provided as a source and asked the campaign to provide the photo to me to use on the page. What else do I need to do to seek permission?
Who owns the copyright of the photo? That's whose permission you need. Typically this would be the photographer, but sometimes in work for hire (which this could well be) there is an over transfer of copyright, in which case it would probably be the campaign. However, it's not enough to have just permission to use it "on the page". Commons only hosts photos that are free-licensed or in the public domain. And given that this photo has already appeared on the web, unless they post the relevant permissions on their site (unlikely from a political campaign) you are going to have to have them send an email as described in COM:OTRS, specifying precisely under what license they are releasing it. - Jmabel ! talk04:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
"How do I create an account at Wikimedia in order to post pictures on my fathers wikipedia site?"
"How do I create an account at Wikimedia in order to post pictures on my fathers wikipedia site?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjcgrey (talk • contribs)
You already have an account. You used it to post this question.
I'm not sure what you mean by "my fathers wikipedia site". Would this be a page about your father on the Wikipedia in some language, or do you mean something else?
There are many ways to upload photos. Probably the simplest is to start with Commons:Upload.
I have to the wrote authority with a request for publication on Wikipedia, the could not tell me who the author was and how the obtained to the photo! I was allowed to publish the photo on Wikipedia because they had received the pictures again and had no idea if it was not allowed. Ik have the emails to confirm it. My question is what copyright tag I should use on this picture?--Maddriver371 (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Before you use a copyright tag for the image, you must know its copyright status. Firstly, it was a good idea to request a permission for an image, but it was a bad idea to request it "for publication in Wikipedia". The permission requested must be for a free license. Please read Commons:OTRS for information about how to proceed for permission requests. Secondly, when the people at the source website do not own the copyright, they cannot give a valid permission about the copyright. What you can do now is try to find a better source that can tell the author and the original publication of the photo, so you can determine its copyright status. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Repeating something Asclepias said: you need to work out who actually owns the copyright on this. It looks like the site where you found this is using it either on a "fair use" basis or just plain in violation of copyright law, so their permission would not be relevant. - Jmabel ! talk16:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably neither, since neither is obviously inferior. Just connect them using the other_version field of the information template. - Jmabel ! talk18:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Upload a Google screen shot
Hi there. I recently created this page [2] on Wikipedia about Google Traffic. I'd like to add a screenshot of the 'Google Traffic' webpage, but I know there are lots of restrictions on doing this. The upload form doesn't give a "screenshot" licensing option either. I copied the licensing information from other screenshots, but I'm not sure how or where to apply them. Your help would be great. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I've gotten a copyright notice about the file Ann Millikan.jpg. I got this from Flickr, but the bot couldn't find it. I can't enter any more info as I don't have it. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeets (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You should provide the url of the source. Someone else found it. The image is not freely licensed. Non-free images can't be uploaded to Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The linked page on Flickr currently says "All rights reserved". Unless this had a different license on Flickr less than a day ago when you took it from Flickr, and you can prove that, this is not eligible to be on Commons. Even if it did have a different license yesterday, it would still probably be an appropriate courtesy to the photographer for us to delete it, since he or she obviously was on the verge of changing that to all rights reserved (e.g. it isn't like a case where someone tried to change their mind a year after the fact). - Jmabel ! talk18:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Multiple images unencyclopedic?
Hi,
I've noticed that some stream and highway articles (for instance) already have photos depicting certain locations along them. Just wondering, would it be unencyclopedic to upload images of the said streams or highways provided they are taken in a completely different location (as in, in another county or at least several miles away). Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you are mixing two concerns: what is in a given Wikipedia article and what belongs on Commons. Many images belong on Commons that will never belong in a Wikipedia article. For example, for Commons it is reasonable to take multiple photos of every building in a historical district; of course most of those photos will never be in an encyclopedia. - Jmabel ! talk02:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Contributions here needn’t be encyclopaedic, just educational or informative. There’s no problem at all having multiple different images of the same or similar subjects: the more choices users are given, the better. While the images that go into a given WP article should be carefully chosen, the broader the selection hosted here, the more likely editors will be able to find ones that illustrate that article well. For use by others, you never know what will be of value—what’s “just another hill”, to you or me, might be of enormous interest to a geologist or forester (assuming that appropriate categories, description, and geolocation are provided with each image). Have a look at some of the categories of rivers and roads and you’ll see both similarity and variety; note also that many images have multiple categories, often unrelated to the principal subject or the title.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been wondering if the file at left would make for a good quality image. I tend to be a terrible judge of image quality so it might be good to ask whether it could be a quality image here. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Not particularly visually interesting, not particularly high-resolution. Offhand, I'd say that the bulk of the pictures I take are at least of this quality. What makes you think it would be in the range of a "quality image"? I may be missing something. - Jmabel ! talk01:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Granted, it's not the most interesting picture, but apparently quality images don't have to be incredibly awe-inspiring, right? I couldn't identify any major unsolvable problems with the picture, even if there isn't too much going for it (and it is three times the minimum resolution for QI). --Jakob (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Certainly you should feel free to nominate it & see what happens. I've never gotten particularly involved with that process. I don't think any of the tens of thousands of images I've uploaded have ever been designated "quality images" so I'm a bit skeptical looking at that one as meeting the threshold but maybe it's just because I haven't bothered self-nominating. - Jmabel ! talk05:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The annotations - wouldn't "not vertical" be shorter and more precise? I thought at first that "perpendicular" referred to the 14th-century architectural style. Maproom (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Annotations were added by someone explaining why he rejected it as a quality image. I think this is ridiculous: the image would be weaker if the camera were not tilted upward. But (no big surprise to me) the people selecting "quality images" seem to have an extremely conservative aesthetic that would rule out most images in museums of photography, not to mention newspapers and magazines. I've tried to start a discussion of this at Commons talk:Quality images candidates#Distortion and perspective, but so over the course of about 2 days no one has seen fit to respond. - Jmabel ! talk21:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Cornhornhas uploaded a bunch of, admittedly usefull, images but all are watermarked and sure don't seem to be copyright free. Do we have any responsibility to fix that? can we go in and remove the watermarks? see Special:Contributions/Cornhorn
I downloaded your file, and it works for me. After that I tried the usual "open, do nothing, save" procedure for hard cases, and learned that my XnView cannot create animated GIFs (it can do other multi-picture formats, but not this.) I'm not fit enough to try ffmpeg. If you have working (for you) variants you can upload them as new version, and if commons still does not grok it, just revert to the also not working first (current) version. At the top and right side of this page are links to various "graphics labs", where you might find users with a better clue what's going wrong, e.g., folks with a {{User ANI}} box on their page. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
As you suggested I uploaded a new version (with reduced number of steps and smaller filesize). Now it works! But, the question is: Is there any limit of filesize for gif-animation? Anyhow, thanks a lot for your hints! --Udo (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Works now also here, nice. I had no idea about size limits and tried the radical approach, typing "upload size limit" in the search box ;-) With that I found Commons:Maximum file size, claiming that more than 50MB was a problem at some point in time. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
We are obviously German native speakers. Herzlichen Dank für deine Recherche! Es scheint danach bei meiner Datei nicht an der Dateigröße zu liegen (665 KB << 50 MB). Wahrscheinlich spielt bei GIF-Dateien auch die Anzahl der Einzelbilder und die Änderungsgeschwindigkeit eine Rolle. Jedenfalls ist dieses Problem erledigt. Nochmals vielen Dank und schöne Grüße--Udo (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm new, I admit it freely, but I still think my idea has merit.
When I attempt to start a Wikipedia topic, thus far, it has gotten rejected, every time. Therefor, I must be doing something wrong, but I'm not sure what.
I would like to see a reference for identifying collectable cups, saucers, plates, and so on. I'm willing to start with photo's that I will take and provide, of the makers marks on the back of the pieces. These marks are called back stamps. An example can be a crown with a scroll below it, and in the scroll the makers name. Another example can simply be the word, "Japan". There are 1,000's of such marks.
There are a handful of Wikipedia pages that are devoted to particular makers, Spode for instance. I like reading them, but they are few in number, and don't really focus on identification methods, from what I've seen.
A collector, or dealer, is going to want to identify that new little treasure they just picked up at a second hand store, or garage sale, or obtained when an elderly relative died and the house was being cleared out in the cleaning process prior to the house's sale to settle the estate, or where ever.
Everything one sees on the internet refers you to the library and good, old fashioned, books. I like going to the library, and the State Historical Society is a short bike ride away, but this is the age of the internet, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real Cabdriver (talk • contribs)
Certainly Commons would welcome such photos, as long as they don't infringe copyrights and as long as you categorize them appropriately. So if you have access to the objects in question, and if the marks themselves are not copyrighted, or the copyrights have expired, you could take such photos and upload them. You could even put together a gallery page that would show a representative set of marks. But, in general, Commons is not a place for articles. - Jmabel ! talk16:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree the images would be welcome, assuming they’re well described and categorized. I think gallery pages with little text other than brief captions, to identify the marks and call attention to significant features, would also be in scope. (As for Wikipedia, one of the things it specifically says it is not is a how-to guide; if you want to publish more extensive articles, you might want to consider running your own wiki dedicated to the subject—where you needn’t worry about “notability” from a general encylopaedic perspective. That said, well-organized categories and galleries would need minimal additional explanation to serve as a useful identification guide.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Die Person ist Ehrenbürger der Stadt Schramberg. Deshalb ist das Bild auf der Website veröffentlicht. Die Person ist 1920 verstorben. Danke!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Janem1977 (talk • contribs)
Die Seite von der das Bild stammt gibt leider keine besonders detaillierten Informationen. Grundsätzlich müsste man wissen, wer das Bild wann gemacht hat und wann es zuerst veröffentlicht wurde. Vielleicht könnte da das erwähnte Buch "100 Jahre Arthur Junghans" weiterhelfen. --rimshottalk20:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Public buildings
I have pictures that I have taken of the Adrienne Arsht Performing Arts Center in Miami, the Parker Playhouse in Fort Lauderdale and the Broward Performing Arts Center also in Fort Lauderdale--most are of the outer facades though I do have some pictures within the theatre.
What about movie houses of which I have many different ones including a couple that have closed down.
If I donate them to wikimedia commons can I use them in blogs, etc.
Hi, You can always use your own pictures anywhere and anyway you want. If you upload them to Commons, you don't donate them to Wikimedia, you authorize everybody to also use them anywhere and for any purpose. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
That permission on the web site doesn't seem to give clear permission for derivative works, which we require. I suspect the would be amenable; please see COM:OTRS for how they can email us clearer permission with a specific license of their choosing (I suggest CC-BY, which is probably their intent). Once we have that, we'll probably create a specialized template, much like Template:Seattle Neighborhood Atlas disclaimer, to be used in addition to the license. Assuming you go ahead with seeking permission via OTRS, for now you can tag this particular image with {{OTRS pending}}. - Jmabel ! talk16:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Please may I have some help here. This file has been given a bad name with a stray bracket and surplus period / full-stop. I used it in an article. Now Bracketbot is being nasty to me. Please would someone who can do these things fix it? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the file for renaming, which feat itself I believe to be beyond my power, using Template:Rename. I don’t know how long these things take, so keep an eye on it in order to update the WP link as soon as it’s fixed.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to request for cleaning up our account ban log? I was banned 4 times because of my bad experience with licensing. Is it possible to clear the deletion log? UBS 12:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I never heard of any log clean-up. Don't worry about old logs, nobody will look for it as long as there's no new problem. For a proper signature with links to your user and talk pages try four tildes ~~~~ — depending on your editing preferences there can be also a button for the signature. Be..anyone (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. I noticed you filed the deletion request 5 minutes after initial upload. Perhaps in future you could ensure you actually want the file uploaded before you do it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, a user asking for their upload to be deleted 5 minutes after they uploaded it is suitable criteria. Courtesy deletion, whatever you want to call it, in the one hour it was up it's highly unlikely anyone so much as looked at it, let alone decided to reuse it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi community, does anyone know whom we could ask for assistance? I posted a message on User:Romaine's talkpage already and hopefully more helpful hands will show up here. Lotje (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, you want to find images on Commons that match the names of towns and villages in England whose Welsh Wikipedia articles have infoboxes but no images and add those images to the corresponding articles. The place to request bot work on Commons is Commons:Bots/Requests, but if my understanding of what you want to do is correct, no bot edits would take place on Commons. Instead, the bot would need to run on the Welsh Wikipedia, so it's there that you need to request the bot work. —LX (talk, contribs)12:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:LX, thank you very much for your kind help. That is exactly what I am going to dright now: put my request forward at the cy:wikipedia. Lotje (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Owner has provided his own photo and requested that I upload it and link it to his wiki page. What measures do I need to take in order to satisfy wiki's copyright policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taayka (talk • contribs)
This is so unclear that i hesitate to answer, so I will mostly ask questions.
What page, what photo? Because what you say here is vague.
Owner of what? Are we talking about a user page (which I guess does have an owner)? Because articles don't have owners. Or are we talking about the owner of the rights to the photo (in which case what you probably want is COM:OTRS), but keep in mind that the subject of a photo is very rarely the holder of the copyright: such rights have to be signed over by the photographer.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "wiki's copyright policy", but I'm guessing that you mean the licensing policy of either Commons or of some particular language Wikipedia, each of which have their own licensing policy. Again, could you be more specific?
Why are my pics getting copyright marks, i took the screenshots from my own pc, its my program that i use to work, i need to the pics to create a guide in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camileing (talk • contribs)
Hi Ron! There are many reasons why you might want to contribute to Commons. Seeing your content being used to enhance educational pages in hundreds of languages is deeply satisfying. Contributing to the most frequently used freely accessible educational resource in the world is a very efficient way to give those born into less fortunate circumstances a chance to learn and empower themselves. It's probably one of the easiest and most efficient ways you can help improve the world. It can also be fun, social, and you might even learn a thing or two on the way.
There are also reasons why you might not want to do it. Although most contributors choose to publish their content under a license that requires their work to be properly attributed to them, there is of course no guarantee that it won't be used without attribution – which is a violation of the author's copyright (not theft – only physical property can be stolen). But then that's true of anything that you publish, regardless of the terms. We do insist that contributions must be free to use for commercial purposes, because there are many beneficial ways of using the content that might be considered commercial by some definitions, and if you can't stand the thought of that, you shouldn't contribute. Yes, this means that the content could be sold by someone else, but most people won't pay for content that they could get elsewhere (i.e. here) for free. —LX (talk, contribs)19:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Please use new version of file
Hi,
I uploaded a picture under a new name, as I'm not allowed to overwrite the existing one.
The tool available from the link "page view statistics", in the history of the description page, provides some indication, probably telling how many times the Commons description page was viewed, although it probably doesn't tell how many more times the image may have been viewed without access to that page. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
What to do when i suppuose another Wikimedian is operating with two 'parallel' accounts (socketpuppets) ?
Hi, usually i'm not interested in Wikimedia Commons "administrative" questions, but that one will be, i hope so, an exception: What is to do, so i just suppose, having some minor 'presumptive evidence' that another Wikimedian is working with two 'parallel' accounts respectively did not rename the elder one and does not 'declare that', imho usually called that Wikimedian operates with 'socketpuppets' ? btw: Some days ago, for the very first one, i supposed so and asked another user directly on her/his talk page, but personally had no problem getting no answer by that Wikimedian imho at least having 'good intentions'. In that case i'm beset by doubts and feel 'foolished' by that Wikimedian, that's why i ask here. Sorry about my written English being not my Mother tongue. Thank you very much for assistance and best regards, Roland zh (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
However, there is no rule against having more than one account. It is a problem if they are (for example) voting twice on the same matter, evading the three-revert rule through a sockpuppet, or giving an illusion of broad consensus where there is none. Has there been any apparent problem with this person's conduct? If there is, then you might ask for a checkuser. But, if not, there would be no basis for that. - Jmabel ! talk01:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Rybec and Jmabel, thank you very much :-) No, it's no problem of voting, but some 'strange kind' of maybe 'trolling', sometimes it may described as, again imho a 'strange kind' of 'vandalism' similar edits:
The first account is imho 'eperienced' being established in January 2012, the second one was established yesterday, as imho it seems to re-categorize the first one's uploads, strange!?! In fact > 200 edits within the past about 12 hours (as of Feb 25 midnigt), i do/did correct and reported several times in both user talks ...
Honestly, i'm not 'motivated' to act as in widest sense, no better description for that, as a 'Wikimedian Common activity police', for that kind of operations again, that's why i called id 'foolished by' (pleae see above).
Hmm...not on Commons. For encyclopedia article, please create on Wikipedia. For English article create on en.wikipedia.org, and if you create French article it's on fr.wikipedia.org. Hope that helps. Please clarify with me if I misunderstood your question. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 10:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
For the first three links, the problem is stated in the bot message. The photos are offered under the license CC-by-nc 2.0, which is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons, but you wrote that they are offered under the license CC-by-sa 2.0. You cannot do that. For the fourth link, there is no file of that name. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I corrected the fourth link, now it works. About the main issue, I wrote not in the right way, but It was not intentionally. Can you correct writing that pics are offered under the license CC-by-nc 2.0? --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
That's right. The restriction "nc" means that the image can't be used for some purposes. On Wikimedia Commons, the images must be usable for any purpose. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No; the ND condition prohibits publication of derivative works, while images on Commons must be free to crop, adjust, retouch, combine with others, and so on (with appropriate attribution if required, as with the BY condition, which is allowed), whether to enhance their educational & informative value here, or elsewhere for whatever purposes.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
_Headquarter_in_Fort_Meade,_Maryland_photo_by_Trevor_Paglen.jpg){kind=link}
_by_John_Frederick_Herring,_Sr..jpg){kind=link}
_Headquarter_in_Fort_Meade,_Maryland_photo_by_Trevor_Paglen.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Google_maps_screenshot.png){kind=link}
_Edit1.JPG)
an error occured:
_by_John_Frederick_Herring,_Sr..jpg){kind=link}
_by_John_Frederick_Herring,_Sr..jpg){kind=link}
Done. I noticed you filed the deletion request 5 minutes after initial upload. Perhaps in future you could ensure you actually want the file uploaded before you do it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Lotje (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Certosa_pontignano_unisi_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Certosa_pontignano_unisi_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Certosa_pontignano_unisi_4.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Certosa_pontignano_unisi.jpg){kind=link}