User talk:凰兰时罗
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
File tagging File:UWLetter2.png
[edit]This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:UWLetter2.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:UWLetter2.png]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
And also:
Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding File:National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Diploma sm.png: doesn't it satisfy item (d) of the attached template -- "Ukrainian government awards"? (en:Kyiv-Mohyla Academy is a government entity.
- Regarding the letters from the University of Washington: I'll look into it. Do I need a permission from the author, University of Washington or both?
- @EugeneZelenko: Почекай, будь ласка, не видаляй. Розібратися з дозволами займе якийсь час. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- On my understanding, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy own copyrights for diploma design. If letters from are official, University of Washington should provide permissions. But are all these documents are really necessary for article? Link to organization web-site is more then enough for those who will be interested in subject. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: But it's still a government entity, so item (d) should apply.
- Regarding your broader question, I'm not 100% sure that they are needed, but a couple of the article's statements are not substantiated by anything except for these letters. I'll know by the end of the week how easy it's going to be to obtain those permissions. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I know university is separate entities, even if some of them are financed by government. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: , I checked with UW on those letters, and it looks like the permission process isn't worth it, so please delete those letters.
- As to the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy diploma, I still believe that this is a public domain image. However, I've been told that in Wikipedia the interpretations of copyright laws are "extremely lopsided against uploaders," and I am not sure that this diploma is worth a futile argument...
- Thank you for waiting with deletions until I clarified my position on those letters. I appreciate it! 凰兰时罗 (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- I deleted these files. Please read Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle to understand "lopsiding". --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: Thanks! This principle confirms what I've been told. I'm still wondering why this principle is in place, but perhaps I'll learn with experience. Let me ask a related question:
- Can images generated by US government agencies such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suddenly create "significant doubt" as to their public domain status (PD-USGov)? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not everything what bear name state or national is part of government. Universities are good example. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: Certainly not US universities — I understand that, and I don't want to go back to Kyiv-Mohyla Academy conversation :). But what about National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? My take is that this administration is 100% US Federal Government. Any 'significant doubts' about that? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- w:en:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is under w:en:United States Department of Commerce. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: Eugene, I'm sorry, if i'm making this conversation unnecessary long, but I just want to be clear. Does your reply mean that images produced by NOAA fall under PD-USGov without 'significant doubts'? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is even dedicated tag for such images: {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. But you need to specify source for verification purposes. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: Oh, okay, got it. Thanks for your time, explaining this to me! 凰兰时罗 (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is even dedicated tag for such images: {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. But you need to specify source for verification purposes. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: Eugene, I'm sorry, if i'm making this conversation unnecessary long, but I just want to be clear. Does your reply mean that images produced by NOAA fall under PD-USGov without 'significant doubts'? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- w:en:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is under w:en:United States Department of Commerce. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: Certainly not US universities — I understand that, and I don't want to go back to Kyiv-Mohyla Academy conversation :). But what about National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? My take is that this administration is 100% US Federal Government. Any 'significant doubts' about that? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not everything what bear name state or national is part of government. Universities are good example. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I deleted these files. Please read Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle to understand "lopsiding". --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I know university is separate entities, even if some of them are financed by government. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- On my understanding, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy own copyrights for diploma design. If letters from are official, University of Washington should provide permissions. But are all these documents are really necessary for article? Link to organization web-site is more then enough for those who will be interested in subject. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:MstyslavChernov2017.jpg
[edit]This media was probably deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:MstyslavChernov2017.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file (
[[:File:MstyslavChernov2017.jpg]] ).
If you created the content yourself, enter If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |
Anatoliy (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Ahonc: , I don't understand -- the image was and is properly attributed as own work. What's the problem? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:MstyslavChernov2017.jpg
[edit]This file may be deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:MstyslavChernov2017.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |