User talk:Anna Frodesiak

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search



If I started a thread on your talk page, I am watching. Please reply there.
To leave me a message at this talk page, please click here.
To leave me a message at English Wikipedia (where I am more active), please click here.


1, 2, 3, 4, 5

File source is not properly indicated: File:Lance Armstrong on August 24, 2011.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Lance Armstrong on August 24, 2011.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

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.

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!

Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it looks like scott mecum took his Flickr pics away before the bot had a chance to pass this image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
You have to place the appropriate template 1 on the file page. Otherwise the bot will never pass this image. --McZusatz (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for letting me know. Noted. I never knew before. I will do it next time. Because of my ignorance, enwp just lost a great pic. Dang! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/120001428[edit]

Was this a mistake? If not, overwriting files does not make you the copyright holder – please keep that in mind when reviewing licenses …    FDMS  4    15:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And, is User:Viriditas a second account of this one?    FDMS  4    15:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I've been doing something wrong. I thought the category has nothing to do with copyright status. I include that in files that I want to keep track of. If I don't, and somebody, say, uploads a newer version, it drops from my watchlist. I never meant to imply ownership. Also, I added the author because that is required. Am I not allowed to add that category to files that I don't own? I've added that category to many files that I've uploaded, but, don't own (and occasionally files that have been uploaded at my request. I'm sorry if I've been doing something wrong.
User:Viriditas is a friend and colleague at enwp. I am in China where uploading images is often blocked. He sometimes uploads images for me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hm, I thought about the user category and came to the conclusion that you are allowed to add it to files you overwrite. However, you also changed the license in the diff, which I am sure you are not allowed to do as a non-copyright-holder. I am not sure whether I understood you correctly, but overwriting does not change anything about any watch status.
It would help if User:Viriditas (the page) said something like

Uploading on behalf of User:Anna Frodesiak

Confirmed. Anna Frodesiak (talk)
. Anyways, great to hear that Chinese people (or rather temporary residents) can access Commons at all. And BTW, I also watch talkpages I contribute to … :)    FDMS  4    23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about Pig blood jelly, right? Viriditas didn't help with that. User:Howicus did. In the major diff, I didn't change the license -- I added one. I didn't change the author -- I added a link for it. During the same edit, I added the category. Should I have separated the edits? Did I do something wrong. Please accept my apologies if I did. Please let me know.
By the way, I am Canadian, but live in permanently in China. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link to my enwp talk. Viritidas uploaded those. I own those images. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking about two different things. In my eyes, adding a license means changing the license, at least changing the license status – why did you do that in the first place? [end of 1st, beginning of 2nd] I believed you telling me Viriditas had the authority to upload these files, but if he uploaded a higher number of files on a regular basis I thought it might be a good idea to mention that on his userpage to avoid confusion.    FDMS  4   
Adding a license means changing the license? Why did I do that in the first place? There was no license. Howicus uploaded it without adding the license, so I added it. That was necessary, correct? Should I not have added the license. And if a license is wrong, should I not change it? About Viriditas, mention "that" on his commons userpage or talk page or his enwp userpage or talk page? And mention what? That he uploads images for me? Is that really needed? After all, he's a long time editor and in each case, I've come along and modified the license or something else to show that I know about it. Do you think the images may be challenged and deleted? Forgive me if these are stupid questions. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Before, the picture was tagged with CC BY-SA 2.0, the same license the uploader used on Flickr (Special:Permalink/119998929). You added CC BY 2.5 in the diff, although Flickr only allows CC 2.0 licenses (Special:Permalink/120001428). I thought about mentioning the Uploading on behalf of […] from above on his Commons userpage, but this is definitely not needed. The files might unlikely but still possibly get challenged (probably by an inattentive or rather new user as no permission), but I cannot imagine deleted. Have a nice evening,    FDMS  4    11:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's a new one for me. I didn't see that the original upload had a 2.0. It's so strange that the diff didn't show the replacement of that, but rather showed the addition of the 2.5. My apologies.
As for the notification that their is a mismatch between uploader/owner/category, perhaps I could add it to an "| Other_fields =" line as shown at Template:Information. That would be more visible to protect against accidental deletion nomination. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem :) .
Sounds like a good idea to me, if you want and have the time for it you could do that to prevent accidental nominations or confusion. Thanks for your cooperation and of course your contributions to Commons.    FDMS  4    12:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Splendid. Thanks for your patience. I will do that in the future. Oh, and I missed that you wrote above "...overwriting does not change anything about any watch status....". It used to vanish from my gallery list. That is why I made the category. I'm not sure if it still does that. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)