User talk:JonRidinger
Our first steps help file and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
| |
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) |
--SieBot 20:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
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 informations 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 MifterBot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (MifterBot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --MifterBot (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
[edit]
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.BotMultichillT 05:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Merrill Hall 1.jpg is uncategorized since 27 May 2009.
Re: File:South Endzone Aerial Large.jpg
[edit]Yeah, thanks for giving me a heads up anyway. I knew I had seen the image somewhere else, but couldn't remember where it was. :) Latics (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Then again, when was that image placed on their page? Because if you go to the "panoramic view" button, it links to the image that I took and uploaded to the commons. :s Latics (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. As far as I can see, there is nothing on the page to indicate where the images were acquired from. In the case of your panoramic view, though (which, by the way is an awesome picture...thanks for uploading it!), the website links directly to the Commons file rather than sticking it on the page. Because the bottom of the CrimsonTider.com page has a "Copyright 2009" on it, we have to assume that all the pictures on the page are not public domain and are owned by or approved for the website. It is, however, common for people to assume they are public domain. Just from seeing the picture, I find it unlikely it was on the Commons or Wikipedia first as a public domain image since it was abviously taken with a professional camera in an aircraft. It's not unheard of to have photographers upload those kinds of images to the Commons, but it's unusual. In most cases, the University owns the copyright to the photo if they commissioned it and fans upload them with incorrect licenses. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Davey Tree Company Photo
[edit]I have added a photograph of a Davey truck to the article on the Davey Tree Expert Compan article. I placed it above your photo of the company headquarters with the fountain. This may give my photo more prominence but I felt since there was already a photo of the HQ building in the infobox it would be better to put my photo where I put it, but if you object, then move it. I would suggest, however, that the article doesn not need two pictures of the HQ building and the more interesting picture with the water fountain should be moved to the infobox. Dwight Burdette (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- To be totally honest, the article is so small right now, it barely merits either of the two. I put them there months ago just to give it some kind of visual aid. The area at the top of the infobox is really for the logo, which I went ahead and added, taking out the picture that was there. I have no problem with the truck photo, though was wondering if you had one that showed one more from the front. The current photo is nice, but emphasizes the machinery on the back with the truck in the background. In any case, what the article needs now is some actual content. Thanks for your contributions! --JonRidinger (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I took the truck picture from within my car while on the way to photograph pictures for a different Wiki article. I will keep my eye open for a better photo. Dwight Burdette (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK sounds good! --JonRidinger (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I took the truck picture from within my car while on the way to photograph pictures for a different Wiki article. I will keep my eye open for a better photo. Dwight Burdette (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate License
[edit]You removed what you said was a 'redundant license' from my photograph of the Davey Tree truck. I'm quite certain that I've been threatened with image removal when I have not had both a 'license' and 'permisssion' value. As I understand it, a 'license' refers to the justification for being able to use or upload an image while a 'permission' refers to being able to re-use an image outsise of Wikimedia Commons. Although they may normally be the same, on Wikipedia at least, one can upload use an image on a fair-use basis, but not be able to re-use the image elsewhere. If this is not the case, then it makes no sense that the Wikimedia Commons upload form has separate 'License' and 'Permission' fields. Do you have a different understanding? Dwight Burdette (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've uploaded over 200 PD image files on the Commons and pretty much all of them simply have the permission field only. Some of them have gone through the Featured Article process, so I know they've been looked over and scrutinized and none have come back and said they need to have both permission and license filled out. If you leave "permission" blank in an upload, it will simply say "See below" and refer to the license. If you leave both permission and license blank during an upload, you'll get a warning, but not when you leave license blank but have a permission. The license you choose is the level of permission you allow it to be used, so having templates in both license and permission that say the same thing is redundant. I'm not even quite sure why both are available, but they are and only one needs to be used, not both. The difference is that the "License" section has a drop-down selection menu while the "Permission" section is part of a template and you actually have to input a license template manually. "Permission" is also only available on Public Domain images. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/LUSITANA_WLM_2011_d.svg/120px-LUSITANA_WLM_2011_d.svg.png)
Dear JonRidinger,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States. The images you uploaded will help illustrate Wikipedia articles on historic sites in the United States. We are delighted to share the winning images and our top 10 finalists with you.
Click here to read our press release and view the winning submissions »
We invite you to continue uploading images to Wikimedia Commons and we hope you will return for Wiki Loves Monuments again in September 2014. For more information about Wikimedia Commons, please visit our welcome page. For more information about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, please click here. Once again, thank you for sharing your images and participating in our contest.
—
Organizing Team
Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States
![]() |
File:Jacobs Field logo 2.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
And also:
Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Magog the Ogre, I put an undeletion request because I'm not seeing how these logos are copyrightable, hence why I uploaded them here to begin with instead of Wikipedia. My understanding for logos has always been that any logo with just text and shapes doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Both Jacobs Field logos I uploaded do not include any original artwork; only the text and the shapes of a diamond, home plate, and the banner. The other logo File:Jacobs Field logo.png just has the added representation of the light towers, which is just rectangles and stars. Again, had there been some question in my mind, I would've uploaded them at Wikipedia, but I still don't see what part of them is protected by copyright that prevents them from being uploaded here like other similar logos. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- No problem; that is well within your right. I wasn't trying to template the regular, so to speak, but just performing my normal maintenance. Apologies about the cold warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Still can't say I'm convinced it's even copyrighted, but so goes consensus. In the long run, I guess it's not really needed on the article since the subject isn't the logo but the stadium (so I didn't try and upload it on Wikipedia). Oh well. Thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No problem; that is well within your right. I wasn't trying to template the regular, so to speak, but just performing my normal maintenance. Apologies about the cold warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
File:Solomiya Krushelnytska statue Ternopil.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. |
Микола Василечко (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Kentlogo.svg
[edit]Copyright status: File:Kentlogo.svg
![]() |
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Kentlogo.svg. 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. |
This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
File tagging File:Kentlogo.svg
[edit]![]() |
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Kentlogo.svg. 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:Kentlogo.svg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
JuTa 03:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
File:Kentlogo.svg 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. |