|(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.
Tip: Categorizing 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.
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.
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
- 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
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)
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
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.
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.
Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States