User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2019 08
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2005
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2006
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2007
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2008
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2009
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2011
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2012
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2013
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2014
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2015
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2016
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2017
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2020 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2021 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2022
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2023
- User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/2024 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
TUSC token 70dfd90b6e52c9080a8e30c0dd592336
[edit]I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 70dfd90b6e52c9080a8e30c0dd592336 Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dates on files you uploaded
[edit]Hello again. I've been date categorizing some Toronto-related files, and have come across a number of photos taken by you that have confusing dates. (For example, there are different dates listed for the upload date, Exif date, and the summary date.) Examples include:
- File:Rental bikes by the John Street Roundhouse -a.jpg
- File:Railway control building, moved to the John Street Roundhouse Museum.jpg
- File:Little red locomotive at the John Street Roundhouse.jpg
- File:Don train station after being moved to the John Street Roundhouse Museum -a.jpg
I'm inclined to think that the Exif date is correct in these examples, and that the upload date is almost never the date the photo was taken (with the exception of photos you upload on the same day you take them, of course). A few others I've already figured out, but there are many more that need fixing.
I guess this leaves a few questions:
- When you upload files, are you using a script or program on your computer and auto-filling the summary 'date' field for batches?
- Is the Exif date on your camera correct for all your photos (and should I use that to categorize files)?
Thanks. Mindmatrix 16:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Mindmatrix: I can't blame a bad script.
- If I was looking at someone else's photos I'd suspect human error, and trust the exif date, unless it was January 1. January 1st, of the year of manufacture, being the default date for older cameras.
- I think that during my long history, and many cameras, there may have been an instances or two when I was walking around with a camera that had the wrong date. But I would just go with my photo's exif dates, unless there were a clear clue it was wrong.
- Sorry for the confusion. The explanation is almost certainly human error, on my part. My current camera has built-in GPS, so my exif dates should all be correct, for the last five or six years.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I'll use the Exif date. Like you, I don't trust the date January 1 unless the photo's description or content clearly indicates it. Mindmatrix 17:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Heroic Coast Guard sailor John F. McCormick.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Angela McShan.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:HMS Limbourne, under tow.jpeg
[edit]Copyright status: File:HMS Limbourne, under tow.jpeg
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:HMS Limbourne, under tow.jpeg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:US patrol vessels in American Samoa - 190803-G-IA651-182.jpg
[edit]Copyright status: File:US patrol vessels in American Samoa - 190803-G-IA651-182.jpg
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:US patrol vessels in American Samoa - 190803-G-IA651-182.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Waheed Murad with Noor Jehan (cropped).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is a URAA claim - although the images are now public domain in Pakistan, they weren't public domain in the USA, when it signed the URAA. The interpretation of the nominator is that it is the copyright status when the USA signed that counts, and, at that point, it is locked in to the term for US images - longer than Pakistan's, that counts. Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)