User talk:JoJan/Archive 6

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

File source is not properly indicated: File:Cellana_ornata_002.jpg[edit]

I've replaced the wrong source url by the right one. JoJan (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now tagged as reviewed. -- (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates on images[edit]

Just an FYI, the date field in the {{Information}} template should be the date when the image was taken, not the date when you upload the image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musée_Matisse014.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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

sугсго 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please categorize images[edit]

They are all categorized now. JoJan (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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 information 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 Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. JoJan (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


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 information 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 Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. JoJan (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Vissersvrouwen(01).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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ComMonster (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vissersvrouwen(02).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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ComMonster (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dikke_Matilde(01).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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Grcampbell (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tall ships - what to include[edit]

I see you created Category:Tall ships. We should have a clearer definition about what to include in the category, so you might want to tell your view on the category talk page. --LPfi (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


FYI: I added your image of the ship to the above page. --  Docu  at 09:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pleasant surprise. JoJan (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Conus obscurus 001.jpg[edit]

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  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:Conus obscurus 001.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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source added. JoJan (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borders are not needed[edit]

Hello, thank you for your long-term contributing to wikimedia, but I would expect, that you would also have some basal knowledge what is and what is not helpful: images with borders are not needed on Wikimedia: Commons:Media for cleanup#Images with unnecessary borders. Thank you that you WILL remove the border in all images, that you have uploaded. It is also helpful to provide link to the source (if it is available on internet) optimally precisely to the source page. By the way, Manual of Conchology was published in the USA, so template {{PD-1923}} instead of {{Pd-old-100}} should be used and there is a category Category:Images from Manual of Conchology for them. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a handbook, downloaded from the internet (556 pages) ([1]). I thought there was no link on the internet to an individual page. But now I found one. But it will add to my already overburdened workload. Thanks also for pointing out the existence of the Category:Images from Manual of Conchology. I didn't know it existed. Future uploads will be without borders. The already uploaded images are already deleted from my hard disk. All the images are of low quality. But they are the only images available with a suitable license. I hope that in the future they can be replaced with an image of better quality. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Resilient Barnstar
for JoJan, who is the editor that learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede his growth as Wikipedian. Cheers, --Snek01 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely Jean-Fred (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner warrant[edit]

Nice to have this in the article - but surely you have it inverted - it should be black on white. Can you please correct this? - otherwise I think it will have to be removed, or, if it can't be corrected for whatever reason, explained - thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is how it was presented at the exhibition in the Deutscher Dom, Berlin. This photo is an exact copy. However, I'll upload an inverted image. No problem. JoJan (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it should be marked as in the public domain given. I doubt that the oldest person in the world in 1941 was of an age to have produced this document 92 years earlier. --Peter cohen (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the license : PD-Old. JoJan (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bernisse.Oostende_voor_Anker2009.019.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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

66.183.245.166 21:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm. JoJan (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]