User talk:Andrew Gray

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:LibraryBot)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Falcon 1[edit]

See Image:Falcon 1 compare.gif, the source page is a BBC one, I don't know more. Yug (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Overwriting images[edit]

Hey. When you upload an image over an existing image, anything you put in the text box will showup next to the newer version upload information near the bottom of the page. For example, if you look at Image:12th Royal Scots Lewis gunners in gas masks 25-06-1918.jpg, you'll see the 3 images you uploaded after it say nothing. But, if you put something like "cropped image" in the text, it would say "cropped image" instead of nothing. It's kinda like the edit summary, but for images. Just a little tid-bit, not a mandatory thing, but helpful for folks looking at those things. MECUtalk 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:St_Anne's_Limehouse_2.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.

Thanks for uploading Image:St_Anne's_Limehouse_2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Adambro 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


File:M10 Wolverine of 628th TDs in Dreux.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:M10 Wolverine of 628th TDs in Dreux.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Teofilo (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


File source is not properly indicated: File:MA-8_capsule_being_recovered.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:MA-8_capsule_being_recovered.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!

High Contrast (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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, Andrew Gray!

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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]]
[[Category:Comets]]

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 06:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Good Article nominations graph 2010.svg[edit]

Shimgray, if it's possible you can get us one more update of that graph for the end of en.wiki's GAN backlog elimination drive, that would be outstanding (especially given the slope of the graph looks like The Price is Right pricing game Cliff Hangers). MuZemike (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Assessments/wmf/blog[edit]

Let me know if you want more work on this. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Files featured on Wikimedia Foundation blog[edit]

Hi, may I also suggest updating the gallery along with the tagging. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

spaces with pywikipediabot[edit]

This is what I have in my script to upload a file with the linebreaks preserved:



python ../../../pywikipedia/upload.py -keep -noverify ABS-3401.0-OverseasArrivalsDeparturesAustralia-ShorttermMovementResidentDepartures_IntendedLengthStayMainReasonForJourney-Original-NumberMovements-1Under2Weeks-A1830821W.svg "== {{int:filedesc}} ==
{{Information
|Description={{en|3401.0 Overseas Arrivals and Departures, Australia<br/>Table 10: Short-term Movement, Resident Departures - Intended Length of Stay and Main Reason for Journey: Original<br/>Number of movements ;  1 and under 2 weeks ; {{AustralianBureauStatistics-header| 1=Number| 2=Original| 3=Flow| 4=Month| 5=1| 6=Jan-1991}}.<br/>The graph was plotted with [[w:gnuplot|gnuplot]], and shows both the raw data (black points), and a trend constructed from a weighted cubic spline with a weighting of 1e-22 (red line).}}
|Source={{own}}
{{AustralianBureauStatistics|1=A1830821W|2=3|3=3401010|4=3401.0|5=abs@archive.nsf}}
|Date=2012-06-01
|Author=[[User:99of9|Toby Hudson]]
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}
== {{int:license}} ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0-au}}
{{User:99of9/ABS-graph}}
[[Category:Statistics about short-term departures from Australia]]"


--99of9 (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm currently feeding the text in via cat, which probably explains the linebreaks issue! I'll have a work on updating this today. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
...and it seems to be working a bit weirdly for me; still not quite right. I'll have a think about this over the next couple of days! Other than formatting, is it looking okay? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
How's this? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Good on the whitespace. I couldn't find the license info on the source page. Can you link to it and put a {{License Review}} tag on in-copyright pics. --99of9 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The license information isn't on the source pages as yet (it's a known issue with all BL-hosted released content), but I'm sitting next to the IDP image manager, who's providing me with the material. I'll get an OTRS ticket sorted out to verify this if needed. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Quick update - image copyright labels are on the IDP "to resolve" list. I've not normally worried with BL material before, but that was my personal account and the linkage was clear. Hmm. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
That one will definitely need OTRS, because there's no clue who John Falconer is, or what his relationship with the BL/DP is. In the file exif the copyright holder=Macintosh!-99of9 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll file one of these (it may not get sorted out immediately) and add the tag to the new uploads + retroactively to the others. It may even be possible to cascade it through the template... Andrew Gray (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:LibraryBot[edit]

Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Aurel Stein photos[edit]

Hi Andrew, I've noticed that your bot has uploaded a number of photos by Aurel Stein, e.g those in Category:Kharakhoto. As Stein died in 1943 his photos are still in copyright until 2014, so unless I'm missing something I think they need to be deleted from commons. BabelStone (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you had any more thoughts about these? Your bot has uploaded quite a large number of photos by Stein that are probably still in copyright, including some or all of the following. I think it best to delete them if we cannot be sure that IDP owns their copyright (if they do own their copyright then they are wrongly licensed), and reupload them in January 2014. BabelStone (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I've finally managed to track down an answer to this. The IDP believe themselves to be the copyright holders of Stein's works, and are happy to release them as public domain-equivalent (which they're going to hit in thirteen months anyway). I think the best solution here is to relabel them {{CC-0}}, and leave a note to switch it come Jan 2014; I'll try to get this done before I go away at the weekend.
Thanks again for chasing me up on these! Andrew Gray (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on this. BabelStone (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 08:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Possible copyright issue?[edit]

File:HMS GLOWWORM makes smoke as she attempts to attack the German heavy cruiser ADMIRAL HIPPER during the Norwegian campaign, 8 April 1940. The destroyer was sunk when she rammed the German ship. FL1973.jpg is almost certainly not Crown Copyright expired... something to look into. I'm not sure the best way to flag it up other than to let you know! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Fae thinks otherwise, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:HMS GLOWWORM makes smoke as she attempts to attack the German heavy cruiser ADMIRAL HIPPER during the Norwegian campaign, 8 April 1940. The destroyer was sunk when she rammed the German ship. FL1973.jpg. Would be good if we could keep it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving files[edit]

Hi, you may want to ask for Commons:Requests_for_rights#Filemover. It's handy, saves time by doing it yourself, and you have well over the minimum sort of contributions that are needed. Cheers -- (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

Commons File mover.svg

Hi Andrew Gray, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch | English | 한국어 | മലയാളം | Русский | +/−

--Didym (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

BL mass import[edit]

Hi Andrew,

In cas you would miss it, please see User talk:Andrew Gray/Canada.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - hadn't seen that trick before. I've updated it. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

Kudos fot the music manuscripts uplaod, these are beautiful.

Just so you know: {{PD-old}} is not a good template to use. It is the least precise template we have around and he is to be deprecated (well, someday).

{{PD-old-100-1923}} is a far better choice for your case here.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that I don't know for sure these were all published in some form before 1923... Andrew Gray (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Philip Timms[edit]

Thanks for creating the Category:Philip T. Timms sub-cat. Do you have any more images by him in your archives? Our GLAM Canada user at en:wp is wondering how to approach the Vancouver Archives to see if they want to participate. User:The Interior is he, and probably easier to contact on his talk page at en:wp. I started a GLAM section there if you want to use that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for adding those. I am still trying to get my head around public domain copyright in Canada vs. USA copyright laws. I found a bunch of pictures on the net of w:Joe Fortes who died in 1922. Do images need to be created before 1923 to be public domain or published before 1923?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
That is what I feared. We need to prove publication date or wait 120 years from date of creation, if unknown, or 70 pma if the author is known.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly a bit of a mess. I do have at least one Fortes picture in the collection (IIRC) but it's not been uploaded yet - I'll do a little digging and see if we can find it. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Canada has more lax dates for public domain and I think someone mentioned that the US law is not being read correctly. One says that the US law makes works public domain in the US at the same time they become public domain in Canada. SeeTemplate:PD-Canada. I may email copyright.usa.gov and ask them. I have emailed my Canadian copyright minister a few times with no results. We did get results with the Canadian Space Agency when we emailed them they released all photos by our Canadians in space to the public domain the same as NASA does. Would you be interested in emailing copyright.ca and copyright.us if I can find their emails? My email address may seem odd to them and they may just dump them all in spam folders. I will ask at vp/copyright here and at en:wp first in case they may have a link to a discussion that settled it somewhere.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

British Library - WiR and Labs[edit]

Greetings -

Congratulations on your productive year at the BL! Also, the project page at w:WP:GLAM/BL is a wonderful model for our smaller project at w:WP:GLAM/GFPLM.

I am organizing an application and a team for the BL Labs Competition and was hoping you might be willing to answer a few questions about the feasibility of my project proposal (which is centered around the BL image collections and Wikimedia Commons). And yes, even though I'm in the US, I can still apply! Thanks for your time. Bdcousineau (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WLM in the UK[edit]

Thanks for your interest in this. I'd like to get some proper teams in place now, so we can decide who will be doing what, and I wonder if you could go to Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom/People and move your signature to the correct heading? Many thanks, MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Girdwood[edit]

Re: Category:British Library Photo 24 (Girdwood Collection)

My 2p of feedback is that I like the idea of having a Commons project page that explains the context of a collection. It might be an idea to add a couple of sentences to the catalogue page which currently is the parent of the project subpage and ensure that people are encouraged to follow the link to find out more. A tip from an experience I had with some Boston library collections of multiple prints, is to add these as other_versions of each other, and again ensure that the introduction to the category explains that some images in the category may be prints of the same negative, but have value in the future digital reconstruction or clean-up of images, so for these reasons it is helpful to retain multiple prints - an example being File:9th Gurkhas drawing rations at a French farm house St Floris, France (Photo 24-57).jpg and File:9th Gurkhas drawing rations at a French farm house St Floris, France (Photo 24-56).jpg. -- (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

region categories for British Columbia[edit]

As I commented elsewhere, I've long been a critic of using regional districts for classifying topics and images from British Columbia. They are only one kind of governmental subdivision used in the province and their use in describing/classifying where something is is often not directly citable, and is in fact original research in many cases. Their names are often composed of the traditional/geographic regions laid out in here in Wikipedia, and in some cases, such as those in the Okanagan region, where there are three regional districts, it's clumsy to break such regions up that way; and in at least one of those cases, other areas not in the Okanagan (the Boundary and Similkameen regions) are included; the regional district names and origins are all political in nature; the region commonly called the West Kootenay is mostly the REgional District of Central Kootenay, for example; before that RDs naming the term "Central Kootenay" did not exist, and if used at all refers only to the operations and board of the regional district. Geographic studies and botanical and so on are often classified/cited by forest district, for example. Hospitals by Health Region and so on; BC Names uses Land Districts, which are the cadastral land-survey system's regions. All this by way of asking how to make categories within the Commons; many of the images I've been adding categories for I've pointedly not using the available regional district category, partly because of the research it would take to find out which one they're in......is there any way to bot-o-mate adding/creating categories by analyzing/parsing what wikipedia pages/categories given images are used on?Skookum1 (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably not easily (you'd have to write one). Is it simpler to stick to town-based classification? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No, because of the vast expanses of non-municipal land.....and also Indian Reserves are outside regional district governance, though in their cases there's an existing series of names which can be used for their territories/articles, some of which are already here I think. I think the mountain range categories are already in place, maybe not, and that includes plateaus and highlands and such, the parent of that is the Landforms category. Items like teh Mount Cheam image are relatively easy; Category:Chilliwack, British Columbia and Category:Cascade Mountains apply (or Category:North Cascades if it exists, it's actually in the Category:Skagit Range which is a subcat of that..... but for other mountains and localities, they're not anywhere near municipalities; ghost towns nearly all disappeared before regional districts were even created in 1966-67 by the way.....very awkward to say "in such-and-so a regional district" in those cases.....their available citations will be, as noted, by Land District (those can be as large as several US states, or on Vancouver Island a good dozen will fit in one US county, it's a very out of date system but the basis of legal land regulation...). So I can just create categories then, as in Wikipedia?Skookum1 (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I just created Category:Canadian Cascades, see Category talk:Cascade Range re the redundancy of Category:Cascade Mountains, which I'm about to depopulate and should be a redirect to "Cascade Range".Skookum1 (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I think "create the most reasonable category" is a good bet, but make sure they're subsets of the existing BC cats in some way and crosslink to the new areas where appropriate. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

File:2nd Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Force, 21st Battalion, Kingston, Nov. 21, 1914. In quarter column formation (HS85-10-29775).jpg[edit]

The original .tif version is missing, please upload or delete the link to it. --Denniss (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this may be one of the ones with an original tiff over 100MB (which failed). I'll comment it out for now and fix by hand later. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I just tried Commons:Up! for a very large file and it worked well. I just thought I would let you know in case you weren't aware of it. File:Altmer High Elf three point defense.png is the file.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Some more missing .tif files:

--Denniss (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - these ones should definitely be there! A little worrying; will check tonight. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I've now figured out (after a lot of work) what went wrong with these; seems that some .tif uploads fail without my script realising. This is annoying, to put it mildly. Fixing them by hand, now... Andrew Gray (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Votre participation à Wiki Loves Monuments[edit]

Bonjour, (for an english translation, scroll down)

Merci pour votre participation au concours Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 sur Wikimedia Commons. Je me permets de vous laisser ce message pour vous informer, au cas où vous ne l'auriez pas vu, que la participation au concours n'est pas limitée à une seule contribution. Si vous souhaitez soumettre d'autres images dans le cadre de WLM 2013, il vous reste donc jusqu'au 30 septembre.

Si vous avez besoin de précisions sur ce concours n'hésitez pas à revenir vers moi.


English translation : Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 on Wikimedia Commons. I send you this email to inform you, in case you didn't notice, that the contest is not limited to a single contribution. If you have other images of historical monuments then you have until September 30 to contribute to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. If you need information on this contest feel free to contact me. Sincerely.


Symac, WLM2013 - France.


العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Andrew Gray,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Editor @ ar.wiki[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Panoramic photograph of Powell River (HS85-10-30390) original.tif[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Panoramic photograph of Powell River (HS85-10-30390) original.tif 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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Andrew Gray (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Panoramic photograph of Powell River (HS85-10-30390).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Panoramic photograph of Powell River (HS85-10-30390).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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Andrew Gray (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)



العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Andrew Gray,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Holiday wishes[edit]

Christmas Barnstar2.png Happy Holidays!
Vera (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Nederlands | +/−

File:Picking strawberries Mr Pyiiuui's orchard, Kelow-na, British Columbia (HS85-10-21212) original.tif[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Picking strawberries Mr Pyiiuui's orchard, Kelow-na, British Columbia (HS85-10-21212) original.tif 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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


I suppose you uploaded this. This file is broken. Any reason to keep it? Best regards, Yann (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay - I've been travelling and wasn't able to reply sooner. I can reupload it, but before I do - do you remember what the problem with this file was? You noted "404 error" but I'm not sure what that means. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

BL Mechanical Curator image script[edit]

Hi Andrew!

I've made a suggestion at Commons_talk:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection#Templates to change the {{British Library image}} template added by the Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/script in favour of a new template, more specific to the BL 1million image collection.

You're the expert in this area (and it's your script and your template!), so your thoughts would be invaluable. All best, Jheald (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice on British Library classmarks[edit]

Hi Andrew. I've been wrangling metadata with a view to trying to use the new GWtoolset system for an automated upload of the set of 430 BL Images Online images recently released to Flickr,

  http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/sets/72157640831988343/

I've got the following shelfmarks. For the {{British Library image}} template, can you tell me which ones I should be recognising as needing the ms-shelfmark parameter, as opposed to the ordinary shelfmark ? Are there patterns? I know the numeric ones are likely to be standard books, but I'm not sure how to distinguish the rest. Also, is there anything in the classmarks that jumps out at you as needing cleanup, in order for them to go smoothly with the template? (Some of the titles I know have a problem, but that I can deal with separately)

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me flooding your talk page with the above. A bit more digging suggests I may be in trouble -- especially, the "Add." items appear to be utterly mixed between items in the main catalogue and items in the manuscript catalogue (which I believe really ought to be shelfmarked "Add. MS". I may need to sort by date, and try to fix it by hand from there.
The BL search engines also seem to be rather picky -- especially if the search term is in quotes, which the template does automatically. For example, Add. 23920 works, but "Add. 23920" (with quotes) doesn't. There also seems to be no particular way to specify a search by classmark -- I'm guessing it's doing a very literal text search.
What appears to be needed is "Add.23,920", but then that pulls up all the contents, which the top level container item then gets lost in. (In any case there seems to be no scope for hierarchical browsing, so if one did happen to be at the container item, e.g. by putting in the new BL system number for it, there seems to be no way to get to its content, even though that content is in the system). So I'm not even sure what the right answer is, that I ought to be putting in to the template, even having done all the discovery. And I'm not looking forward to having to do a similar process, for all 430 objects. Any advice as to what in your view is going to be the best way forward? Jheald (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
... while Add. 27254 or Add.Or.4973 I can't seem to find in any of the catalogues. Jheald (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, lots of answers follow!
First of all, it's important to remember that a lot of this is really old data. As in, transcribed onto computer in the early nineties, verbatim from slips in the old central index, and with very little standardisation - it was intended for human lookup. So "Additional MS 23920" might be "Add. MS. 23920", "Add. 23920", "Additional 23920" - or any of the above with commas in the thousands place. Ultimately, we're working against a pretty variable record which is fine for a competent human user but problematic for automated matching like we want to do.
When using either Explore catalogue, it's often a lot more reliable to give a system number than the shelfmark - eg/ File:A Description of Fonthill Abbey and Desmene - John Rutter (1822).pdf or File:South East View of Whitby Abbey, Wardale, 1812 (Maps K. Top. 44.53.d).jpg. This is not desirable, since we have to look them up by hand, but it's at least predictable in its results. I may be able to get system numbers for these for you - if you drop me an email I'll put you in touch with someone at the BL digital curator team.
The standard catalogue cannot search against shelfmark - it has to do a keyword search against the whole record to see this field. However, the MS one can by doing a field search on "reference code", but I never figured out how to construct a search string for it.
Most Add. MS. material should (as the name suggests) be in the MS catalogue, but for Reasons there are bits in both. I believe in the case of Add. 23920 it's because it's grouped with the cartographic items - note that you can find the same record in both. One additional complication is that the MS catalogue does not contain all manuscript/artwork items (yet) - some is not yet electronic, such as the Oriental Collections (your Add.Or.4973) and some of the older material is mainly covered by the Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts - definitely the case for the Royal MS, generally speaking. It is quite possible that some of these items just will not have a catalogue entry to point to.
Again, drop me an email and I'll put you in touch. I actually owe them an email about this collection anyway :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, one last thing. Identifying - it's not incredibly easy to pattern-match, but generally speaking anything that is solely numeric or just numbers and single letters (eg 1786.c.9 or C.58.cc.1.(2)) is a book. Cup. is "cupboard" - large books. "I.O." is India Office and probably on MS catalogue but may not be there at all. Maps unexpectedly includes a lot of "illustrations of places", sketches and photographs, rather than just maps - but should be on the MS catalogue. P.P. is periodicals (?) - not sure where. Almost everything else, especially if it has a word in there (eg Royal, Yates Thompson, etc) is MS. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied by email; but my email's been playing up, so could you let me know whether you got it? Jheald (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing, sorry! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Problem seems to have been trying to send an XML file -- email with it seemed to be blocked, either as an attachment, or in plaintext. I've tried again with it attached as a zip file, and this time it seems to have gone through. Jheald (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Not seeing it... Which address did you send it to? Andrew Gray (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Sent to [omitted], split over three separate emails -- cover email / detailed to-do file / xml of the metadata. 14:41, 14:42, 14:48 Jheald (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Aha, didn't think to check the work account :-). I'll take a quick look at it tomorrow (webmail is a bit iffy) & put you in touch with Ben if needed. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Aero view. Lachine Lode, P.Q (HS85-10-38642).jpg[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aero view. Lachine Lode, P.Q (HS85-10-38642).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird - looks like this didn't have any metadata. Will fix it just now (upload glitch, presumably). Andrew Gray (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thx, it is a bug --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing original files[edit]

the .TIF files of these JPGs got lost somehow. --Denniss (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Some additions to the British Library image template[edit]

Hi! I've been tinkering with the {{British Library image}} template. I hope you don't mind. I wanted to check in with you before I start uploaded.

I've added a few more fields and a bit more plumbing (so far not documented, and only in the English version). Please let me know if you think it's okay, or whether there are better ways to call things and better ways to do things.

They can be seen in action at User:Jheald/sandbox/test2, or rather its various subpages

Fields added:

  • cim-msid, cim-coll, cim-nstart
    -- used to specify parameters for the Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts, which appears as " - Illustrated catalogue" when available. cim-msid is used preferentially, otherwise cim-coll and cim-nstart
  • ios-record-id, ios-shelfmark
    -- attempts to send people to a details page of the India Office Special Material catalogue. However, this currently mostly fails at the moment with a 404, unless a search for the item has recently been made through the catalogue. So it may be necessary just to dump people at the search screen. (I wasn't sure what the existing ios did, or was intended to do, so I've left it alone).

Plumbing added:

  • dips
    -- now pulls up the corresponding page in the online manuscript viewer

Fields added:

  • ms-digi
    -- variant of ms-shelfmark with underscores, to link to the Digitised Manuscript project's information page for the MS. Usually specified with dips, in which case it produces "(info)". Otherwise produces " - Digitised manuscript"
  • hasLicense
    -- to shut off the licensing nag message

I have only used ms-shelfmark when I have verified that the item does have an entry in the Archives & Manuscripts catalogue, rather than let people come up with nothing; which is why I've added the ios-shelfmark and ms-digi, which otherwise could perhaps have been constructed from ms-shelfmark. But not sure whether this is the best strategy -- should I have put up a link to the Archives & Manuscripts search anyway, because one day it might lead to something (and the parametrisation would have been more unified). Or is this way better, because more flexible, and only showing what actually exists. (And presumably there is a chance the present web urls and presentation etc may get changed completely, before much more gets added to any of the catalogues).

Anyhow, wanted to let you know what I'd been up to, before I uploaded any pic descriptions with these parameters, in case there is a Much Better Way to Do it. Cheers, Jheald (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And one more:
  • ios-photo-coll
    -- collection ID for India Office Select Materials photographs, eg 117 for Photo 21/.
I could have linked to catalogue entries for individual photographs, but the ones I looked at weren't very informative, and gave no way to step back up the hierarchy. Linking to the collection level allows the set to be browsed, with the possibility to step down to the specific entry. Jheald (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
These look awesome - well done, and please do feel free to overwrite! My ios is unused because I could never get that to work properly. How are you using the CIM entries? IIRC, those all have to be looked up by hand, which is a bit irritating. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The files are now slowly uploading to Category:Images_released_by_British_Library_Images_Online. Unfortunately for my carefully constructed filenames, the uploader doesn't like any of my commas, brackets or apostrophes -- looks like I picked the right week to get the file renaming bit set. It also produces rather messy upload page code; but I guess that's the kind of thing one has just to deal with, if one is going to use v0.1 software. I also should have made the 'defaultsort' a bit more cunning within each volume. But never mind; it's not a bad start, I think.
The nice thing about the CIM entries is that the catalogue is fairly tolerant -- you don't usually need all three. Usually it's enough to specify the coll and the nstart, the coll being fixed for each collection, and the nstart being the numerical part of each reference (with the exception of the Royal MSS, which are coded in a fairly straightforward way; and the Cotton MSS, which haven't been done yet. It's only if you get an MS with lots of different suffices that you really need the msid parameter, which I only had one of.
Having looked at the Girdwood Collection, I now realise that Photo 21 could have been pointed to the Manuscripts search instead, which would have saved some trouble. In truth, I haven't really got IOS to work properly either -- my additions to the template unfortunately just give 404s -- so as noted above I will probably just dump people at the search screen instead. But it's all a start. Jheald (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Girdwood photographs[edit]

I've now begun going through Category:Images released by British Library Images Online, starting at the back with the 5 Girdwood images now in Category:British Library Photo 21 (India Office Official Record of the Great War)

A couple of questions:

  • The descriptions in the online catalogue at Photo 21/ date each of these to 1915. But this clearly isn't correct -- for instance the wrecked Zeppelin is from September 1916, and both the tank and the Sopwith Camel weren't introduced until 1917. So all of the 1915 dates appear questionable (as your Commons Girdwood page suggests). Are there any good places to look for clues for the correct dates, so I can correct the misleading filenames that I made?
  • What's the copyright status? Clearly the images are PD in the United States. But Girdwood was a commercial photographer, and lived until 1964; so one would have thought the images might be still under copyright in the EU until January 1st 2035. Are there any grounds for thinking they may not be in copyright -- eg that they might be Crown Copyright that has expired? Or that Girdwood or his heirs and assigns may have sold or given up the copyright? Just thought I should check. Jheald (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems from the "Great War in Stereoviews" site [1] that many of the photographs were issued as "Crown Copyright". This would make sense if Girdwood was at this time an employee of the Crown, and the images were created as part of his work as an employee. Crown copyright would (on current rules) have expired after 50 years; i.e. on 1 January 1966 for photographs taken in 1915.
On the other hand, Google Books turned up one of the 1916 United States copyright registers, which show a number of pictures in that year being registered by Girdwood's company "Realistic Travels". [2] (pages 305-306 / frames 317-318 of the PDF). The Australian National Library also turns up a set of views of Palestine, again with copyright registered by Realistic Travels [3] (now expired under Australian law).
I suppose it also might be possible that Girdwood was acting as a freelance on commission to the Crown, who was then allowed to license back his own photographs. If I understand the law correctly in that scenario, the pictures would be subject to copyright for life + 70, ie until 2035; but the copyright would belong to the Crown, so it could be released CC0 if the appropriate department decided to do so.
I see from your page on Girdwood that there was a lengthy wrangle about copyright which seriously held up the release of his cine films. But AFAICS you don't record what the outcome was, or what the position was for his still pictures.
I'm particularly interested in eg the picture of the wrecked Zeppelin, India Office frame / stereopair, which on the face of it Girdwood would not have needed to be a Crown employee to gain access to. On the other hand, if he was a Crown employee, on the payroll to produce morale-boosting photographs, this would be just such a photograph. Is any more known? Jheald (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the answer is "Girdwood is really, really, awfully complicated", and it's not helped by a lot of deliberate murkiness around the man and his business. :-)
Anything after September 1915 is probably private work not as a government employee - I think they'd more or less sacked him by then. He definitely wanted marketable propaganda pictures, but for the purposes of selling them himself.
I am guessing the confident release of these came from the fact that the album is titled "Official Record", suggesting they're all government photographs. However, even if it was licensed to the India Office at life+70 (I'm a little hazy on whether that would indeed be the case), the responsible body - bizarrely - may actually be the British Library - they hold the archives. The matter is further complicated by the fact that some of this may have been first published in the US; and by the fact that RT marketed a lot of material taken by other contributors (there's photographs from Gallipoli in their sets, for example) and some of these got attributed to him. For example, the Snipe photo - if actually taken in France in 1918 - is definitely not Girdwood; there's no way they would have allowed him back, and in any case he was probably in America by then. I am tempted to call these de minimis and not look too closely ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking closely at the others, the tank photo is strangely familiar (though he could of course have taken an iconic photo!) but either way, I suspect it's not his own work - reason as above. The zeppelin photo could well be his (note the mysterious film in 1916) but it's definitely an "outsider" photo - if you look closely, the photographer is unambiguously on the far side of the security cordon, and being watched carefully by the guards in the foreground. I can't imagine a photographer with official access and authority wouldn't have gone around to the side or shooed them away... Andrew Gray (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Radley Hall, Radley College, 22-05-2007.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Radley Hall.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Andrew Gray,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)