User talk:Jason Quinn
Tip: Categorizing images
Hello, Jason Quinn!
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.
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]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.
- Image:McDonald Observatory.jpg is uncategorized since 15 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Image:No flagged revisions.svg was uncategorized on 18 September 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Image:Lomo a lo pobre Oct 29 2011 Santiago Chile.jpg was uncategorized on 21 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
TUSC token 74a1a13006248f1af0accfa8646cad6b
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Hi Jason Quinn, thank you for helping with renaming files. I noted that there were two spelling errors in this renaming request . Please be carefull of mistakes like these. Thank you for your time. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I reverted your nomination for speedy deletion of File:Ladewbowl.jpg. You might want to read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. You should only use speedy deletion for obvious copyright violations btw, this if far from that ;-) Multichill (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I used the "Report a copyright violation" link in the Toolbox for this. That link used the speedy deletion, not really me. Also, I found several places that suggest speedy deletion is the proper thing to do. [I suppose there is a distinction between a "copyright violation" and an "improper licensing" but I have not yet found a way to easily report media under an invalid license on Commons.] This is a photo on private property where signs explicitly state no commercial photography, which typical US law would uphold. No licenses on Commons are compatible with non-commercial use, let alone a public domain license. If a user nominates an image for having some problem, what is not the proper thing to do is to remove the nomination and leave the image as is as if there was never a problem. That's trying to sweep an issue under the rug. I would have been much happier if you nominated for a less speedy deletion process. The Non-copyright restrictions guideline has little, if any, bearing here that I see. If you are implicitly arguing for a "breach of the rules" museum-type situation, I would prefer you spell it out. I find that angle shady at best. Polluting the Commons with photos that allow commercial photography but that cannot be used for actual commercial photography without opening our users up to legal action is not something I support. And it's just a slimy approach anyhow. I'll renominate the image for a slower deletion but I don't think this revert was handled correctly. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)