User talk:Jason Quinn

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


català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Jason Quinn!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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]]

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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 (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 74a1a13006248f1af0accfa8646cad6b[edit]

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 [1]. Please be carefull of mistakes like these. Thank you for your time. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Non-copyright restrictions[edit]

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)