User talk:MarmadukePercy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

English: Welcome to the Commons, MarmadukePercy!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, which produces: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|Correct name}}` For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Sz-iwbot 04:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1 Image Tagging Image:ThaddeusLeavitthouse.jpg
2 Image Tagging Image:Johnleavittsm.jpg
3 Image:CushingIsland.JPG
4 Please link images
5 uploads and review systems
6 File Tagging File:NewNorthChurch.jpg
7 File Tagging File:SamuelLincolnHouse1.jpg
8 File Tagging File:SamuelLincolnHouseSign.jpg
9 2d vs 3d
10 Comment
11 File Tagging File:OldBuryingGroundHingham.jpg
12 File Tagging File:FirstMeetingHouse.jpg
13 Timothy Valentine's images
14 Done
15 Your Flickr account
16 File:Governor Ames launch.jpg

[edit] Image Tagging Image:ThaddeusLeavitthouse.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ThaddeusLeavitthouse.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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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.

This message was added automatically by User:Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 04:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Johnleavittsm.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnleavittsm.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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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.

This message was added automatically by User:Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 05:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have left messages on both uploaded images that these photos were taken by my cousin Patti Albaugh and emailed to me in 2005. They are both images of family-associated landmarks: one is a family home; the other a family tombstone. The photos were taken by Patti Albaugh, who emailed them to me. I have helped her with her genealogical and historical inquiries. She has given me express permission to use these photos as I see fit. As a former journalist (TIME magazine), I see no copyright issues involved: I was given express permission by the creator of the images to use them.MarmadukePercy 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how wikimedia commons works, but I have attempted to upload two photographs sent to me by a cousin with explicit permission to post them or use them in whatever way I see fit. If there is an issue here, I would appreciate an administrator addressing it. These are simply two digital jpg files, which were taken by a family member, who released them to me. Thank you.MarmadukePercy 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed this issue repeatedly, but never heard back from anyone. How exactly does one get a response, or rectify a problem? Thanks.MarmadukePercy 01:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CushingIsland.JPG

Pay attention to copyright

Image:CushingIsland.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please link images

Hello MarmadukePercy!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:LevettsFarm.JPG is uncategorized since 25 November 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:114-Leavitt St. sign, in Hingham, Plymouth Co., MA.jpg is uncategorized since 24 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:HinghamBellTower.jpeg is uncategorized since 24 January 2009. BotMultichillT 05:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. Will attempt to categorize what I've added.MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uploads and review systems

I am unknowing of the OTRS stuff here and have rarely seen images managed this way nor have I uploaded or worked with that method of licensing here. The one thing that is a constant here is that images needing OTRS confirmation often get backlogged and it seems to be used more as a suggestion for the administration and other "trusted users" to stop wasting time and abusing responsibility and to do some of the tedious work that their popularity enabled them to do....

This is what I would have done had I encountered the problems you have. I would have downloaded images from the Flickr gallery but uploaded them the same way that used to be successful and without resistance from the systems which are in place here. Since you (or "If you") do have the permission that is required, any person challenging the existence of these images here would possibly also be able to complete the process which possibly would circumvent the backlog problem.

Your problem with these images seems to be software triggered and your lack of problems with previous uploads has to do with not triggering software problems.

And yes, the Creative Commons licenses are somewhat confusing and as a real person uploader, there might be moments when even when you "get it", you didn't briefly. That problem becomes so much more complex when the other licenses get added into the database. The Creative Commons licenses are actually kind of simple when compared to the license (and re-legislated licenses) soup which existed before them. That photographer could ease things by being consistent with the license here and there.

Also, some of the bots (software) working here are their own gradient of intelligence and dependability and often the quality of their output is more of a mirroring of the intelligence of the operator and sometimes of the author. A doctor or a construction company should have some big problems if they remove the wrong organ (in the case of a doctor) or demolish the wrong building (a construction company). Here, so far, there does not seem to be a mechanism to prevent that and even the users that demand/prefer/want to be taken seriously have histories that are contrary to this. But I rant. I miss the days that were not so long ago for me where the environment was that the people not take themselves so seriously but their work/product/output and accomplishments were what was being measured. Especially when compared to their access and enabling.

Sigh. I owe you some rant time. -- carol (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention to copyright

File:SamuelLincolnHouse.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

-Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File Tagging File:NewNorthChurch.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:NewNorthChurch.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Lupo 12:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you have given the photographer's e-mail address. I don't see that published on Flickr, so I presume you did have e-mail contact with him. If you have an e-mail in which he agrees to a plain CC-BY-SA license (without the NC part used on Flickr), please forward that whole e-mail exchange to OTRS. Thank you. Lupo 12:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File Tagging File:SamuelLincolnHouse1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:SamuelLincolnHouse1.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Lupo 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Same as above. Lupo 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File Tagging File:SamuelLincolnHouseSign.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:SamuelLincolnHouseSign.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Lupo 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It will be nice if the email, once received, doesn't end up in OTRS pending forever. -- carol (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just forward the e-mails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Mention exactly which file this agreement applies to. If it's just for these three images, point them out: File:NewNorthChurch.jpg, File:SamuelLincolnHouse1.jpg, File:SamuelLincolnHouseSign.jpg. If there are others, point them out, too. If the {{OTRS pending}} tag is not replaced by an OTRS person in due course, contact one of the OTRS people directly. Lupo 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see there was also File:SamuelLincolnHouse.jpg, which someone already deleted. I've restored it now and also marked it as {{OTRS pending}}. BTW, an even simpler way is to get the Flickr photographer to change the license on Flickr to plain CC-BY-SA. If he does that, notify me and I'll tag the files as having passed our Flickr review process. If the license on Flickr is changed to CC-BY-SA, there's no need to go through OTRS. Lupo 20:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And now I see that there are a lot more of these images... really, he easiest is if you get Timothy to change the license at Flickr to plain CC-BY-SA. Otherwise, forward the e-mail permission to OTRS and list all these images. Lupo 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2d vs 3d

I just saw a show which was supposed to be the history of Pixar and some of the problems I saw there seem to overlap some of the problems I see lately in other movies. Instead of being distracted by these thoughts, I thought I would put them here.

I don't think that people care about if a movie is hand-drawn, computer rendered, puppets or real people. It is a combination of a good story told well, knowing who will be in your audience and every person working on it working together and acknowledging each others strengths and flaws.

The verbal telling of the Pixar story, (I have reason to mistrust the faces I saw there and no reason not to mistrust) did not exactly say this, but it seemed as if there were a lot of technicians involved without much background in story-telling. Their first movie (Toy Story) was really good in spite of this however. And due to one of my jobs, I had to see A Bugs Life perhaps 6 and maybe even 8 or 9 times and I liked it. After seeing a movie a few times, it is difficult to not become a critic and it was that first little story of the chess game which I started to become critical of. To me, that the chess board was so lush and the players faces were so flat -- while I loved the lush of the chess board, toning that down would have made the picture easier to look at.

That history also said that Disney shut down their 2d stuff because they thought that people were interested in seeing computer generated animations. It is one dimensional thinking? How can such one dimensional thinkers even know when they see a good dramatic outline or not?

Since then it has been my pleasure to watch Cowboy Bebop, a half an hour series that was imported from Japan. I think the frames were hand drawn and I watched several episodes at first just due to the beauty of the images in it. As I started to comprehend the story, I was as impressed with that. Gorgeous stuff; I still feel my eyes filling with tears for the beauty of this animation. That being said, another animation I really enjoyed which was computer rendered but kind of comically so (or not rendered very well or quite crudely) Lucy, Daughter of the Devil -- the episodes I liked of that show (and I did not like all of them) it didn't matter if they had been rendered or drawn, what was good about it was the funny of the stories.

Hancock is a recent movie that I have to sit back and ask "Who the hell is managing these things?" The first half of this movie was completely awesome and funnier than most, the downside of being an immortal super-hero. Somewhere in the middle it was completely lost -- the story started to appear as if it had not been planned and if it had, it had not been planned by any person with even a slight interest in making stories for theatrical enjoyment. And that claim is being made by a person who had once considered to be employed in that industry and all I did was a little extra work beyond what had been required in high school -- high school! Subject matter for ages 14-18 year olds; not even anything like college or managing a branch of the industry. I will watch the first half of Hancock again for certain. But the second half is too painful to see and makes me seriously question who the hell is managing things: approving the story, scheduling the actors and the technicians, funding it and what made them think they could manage? Me and my sad little self-boosted high school experience seem like an expert in comparison.

And one more thing. The person I met from Mozilla (who resembled the character in the Pixar movie) who I had never heard of before was unable to explain to me some of the basic stuff about actually living in this area that she had lived in and I had recently moved to -- so perhaps this person was an invention of the publishing company who hosted the meeting. None of that has anything to do with it being a good movie. The film cells could have been hand drawn or computer rendered and it would have been a good movie.

Do you have any idea what reason such one dimensional thinkers are running those big companies? I doubt that the goal was to make a person with a background like me look like a freaking genius comparatively.... -- carol (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, like I said I am a complete techno-klutz, and know nothing about how any of the behind-the-scenes technology works. But like you, I feel like I can recognize a decent plot and decent characters, and I certainly know if something grabs me or not. Tron, for instance, was a noble effort, I suppose, but it was a pretty crappy movie. The plot was lame, and the characters even more so. Even the inimitable Jeff Bridges couldn't save that one. So just as you say, one can have all the greatest gizmos and gimgracks in the world, but if it's lacking plot and heart and soul, then what good is it?

I was interested in the animation you mentioned which I'd never heard of. Just for myself, I've found the Japanese stuff far more compelling lately than most all the American animation. I think particularly of "Tokyo Godfathers." Did you see that one? I just loved that film. Also, of course, there was "Spirited Away," a bit more mainstream, but very impressive in the illustration department. Miyazaki can always be counted on for some good illustration, although I wasn't as much a fan of "Howl's Moving Castle."

Are you still working in the tech area then? And was the documentary on Pixar the one that aired recently on Turner Classic Movies? MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have this theory that every large pile of money has an equal amount of lies surrounding it. I also awoke today with the thought that the Pixar history (yes, via Turner Broadcasting) had been filled with lies -- the kind of lies that the always perfect and always socially astute "corporate face" like to tell. And being sorry that I reacted as I did to this yesterday.

I am accomplished enough in the tech world that it will be more interesting to watch the lies that are told by that perfect corporate face fail and fail and fail. Do you lie to yourself while you grab some money/value which is not yours and not pay the people who actually did the accomplishment enough to live where they work? If not, in theory, you should be safe.

Thank you for your recommendations. TiVO and Amazon recommendations suck. What a waste of perfectly good pixels and scanlines.... -- carol (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think you'll really enjoy Tokyo Godfathers. A really offbeat work with extraordinary graphics, and, in my opinion, much better than the same creator's later Paprika, which although it had some interesting graphics, wasn't nearly so involving on the plot and character level (at least to me). I also noted your comment about 'every large pile of money having an equal amount of lies surrounding it.' You sure have that right. Along those lines, you might be interested in my contribution to today's DYK. [1] If this New Yorker writer were alive today, he would relish the chance to reveal many of the lies in today's financial world, from Bernard Madoff on down.... Take care and enjoy your weekend! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

If you are using flickr to upload images, make sure they are licensed on Flickr as either 'Attribution Creative Commons' like this: [2] OR 'Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons' like this: [3]

Flickr images with a "Non-Commercial" or "No-Derivatives" restriction aren't allowed on Commons. You can always contact a flickr owner to see if he/she will change the license of an image to one of these 2 options. If not, OTRS is the only other option. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Regards,

Okay, many thanks for the advice! MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One important word of advice. Before you upload a flickr image which is NOT licensed as 'cc by 2.0' or 'cc by sa 2.0' (the 2 license options I mentioned above), first contact the flickr owner to get him/her to change the license before you upload it here on Commons. Only upload the image on Commons after the license has been changed. It will save you a lot of grief! I have always uploaded images this way and never had any rejected by flickr review because the Admin or flickr review bot can tell right away that the flickr image is licensed freely. Once the image is approved on Commons, only then do I use it in a Wikipedia article and notify the flickr owner of its use. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HinghamBellTower.jpeg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Stifle (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File Tagging File:OldBuryingGroundHingham.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:OldBuryingGroundHingham.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Stifle (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File Tagging File:FirstMeetingHouse.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:FirstMeetingHouse.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Stifle (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Valentine's images

Apparently the OTRS permission was valid only for exactly three images. If you want to keep the earlier uploads that are still CC-BY-NC-SA, I'd suggest switching all of them to plain CC-BY-SA-2.0 at Flickr, too. Or send a followup to OTRS explaining that Timothy's permission also applied to these earlier uploads. But frankly said, switching the licenses at Flickr to a truly free one is simpler.

By the way, many of these are great photos. I have enjoyed immensely watching them! Kudos to the photographer! Lupo 23:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Tim says that he has changed all the licenses now in his Hingham images -- the images I'm using, and some of which I've suggested that he photograph. This is an on-going collaboration, struck up through Flickr. So he and I will be working together for awhile to get his lovely images onto Wikipedia. I'm so glad you enjoyed them. I think he's a very gifted photographer who now happens to be doing social work. Many thanks for your help. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim Valentine (the creator of all these lovely images), some of which he has photographed at my suggestion (this is a collaborative effort), has now changed all the licenses at Flickr to permit sharing, so I assume this will pass muster. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You will need to put a link to the flickr image on each of the image pages here at Commons, then add the template {{flickrreview}}. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop posting Mr. Valentine's e-mail address on each upload? I doubt that he would like to receive tons of spam as the result of his generous release of these images... Lupo 23:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did stop posting it on the last few images, after I realized my mistake. Thanks again for your help. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Should I affix that template even to images from the same photographer that have already been cleared by OTRS? (Some images the photographer took at my request and emailed to me, along with permission. He subsequently posted some of those to his Flickr page.) Thanks.MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, anything cleared by OTRS doesn't need any more work. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Done

Here he is. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your Flickr account

Hi, I wonder why you upload images first to your flickr account and then to Commons. Why not directly uploading images here. Uploading them to Commons and giving flickr as the source only breaks the source chain to the original source, in fact your images are unsourced.

File:Yankee Coast Coffin.jpg is a book cover. The Flicker user is not the author, the author is the book publisher. A correct source is Book name, publisher, year, ISBN, scanned by... or something like that. The book cover is not licensed under cc-by-sa by the copyright holder I assume, so whats the correct copyright status?
File:Phillips Exeter view.jpg, this image is not published on flickr but comes from a library, a source information about the original source is missing...

You can not create sources by uploading images to your flickr account, close this account and correct the sources. --Martin H. (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Initially I opened my Flickr account so as to resolve issues on bmp images that had to be converted, and I was told by Commons staffer User:Pieter Kuiper that that was the most efficient manner of doing so. With the latest images, I was trying to find a way to edit the image and I couldn't figure out a way to do that on Commons. From my long history of uploading images onto Commons, it is apparent that I am straightforward and always credit the source. The source for these images is the New York Public Library Digital Collection. I can certainly credit them. As I say, if you look at all my images, I am always very careful to credit the source. But if one wants to edit an image (crop it, etc.) how does one do that when one uploads to Commons? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I copied the above comment back here. Of course, or regretably, it is not possible to edit images on Commons directly, you have to do this on your computer or, if you want, you can use flickr as the source. But that not mades flickr the source, only a software you use. You may add "retouched by MarmadukePercy" to the source or author field. Commons hosts ~37,000 images from the nypl, so a lot of examples, File:Alexander Anderson.jpg is a good and simple example image. --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for letting me know. As you can probably tell, I'm not the most proficient person at technology. I will try to edit these images in the future on my computer. I knew that some images from the New York Public LIbrary were on Commons, but in the past I've had trouble locating some of them because they weren't tagged in a way I could find them. Is there a central repository on Commons for them and an easy way to find them? Many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Most images from the New York Public Library are collected in Category:Images from the New York Public Library, User:Dcoetzee made a batch upload for this images. Searching in such a large category is impossible, so you should use the search. E.g. your upload File:Phillips Exeter view.jpg is from NYPL Image ID G91F006_015F, the permalink is on the NYPL website bottom right: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?G91F006_015F, thats a good source link. If you want to look if this image already is on Commons you may search for "G91F006" or "G91F006_015F" or some other terms like Philips Exeter Academ. I marked the images from Flickr with the harmles Template:Bsr, while editing them i added this images to my watchlist and will also try to correct the source or assist you if I see that you have any problems. --Martin H. (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your help and explanation. Sorry to have created any confusion. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks :) File:Yankee Coast Coffin.jpg is left. The Creative Commons license from Flickr is incorrect, so I removed it. I cant find a reason for this beeing public domain, per COM:L#United States, the copyright records show results for the book, so without knowing what exactly is covered by the copyright record I can not determine the copyright status. Also the NYPL not says something about the copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, many thanks for helping walk me through this. I was wondering if I might try writing someone at Macmillan (assuming they still exist), and asking if I might reuse the image from the book cover? It's probably the only approach I know at this point, and as you say, the copyright status does appear unclear. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, just one further question. Is it okay to use Flickr to crop and edit, as long as one attributes the source directly (instead of to Flickr), and if one makes the notation that the image has been modified? I want to do things correctly, and if it's better instead to do that function on my computer instead of Flickr, I'll do that. Thanks for letting me know. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok, you can also add your flickr as a secondary source and write this with e.g. "retouched by user... on flickr, ''[http://flickr.com/xyz name of the flickr image]''". I can imagine so many reasons to do this: the possibility to edit images there, maybe it is interesting or helpful for other reasons, you can compare images on Flickr in sets without having them uploaded here, you can tell a story, link to personal information, write personal opinions or add personal notes, simply promote your flickr account... and many more. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for letting me know. I found personally that it is particularly useful for these images like the postcard that need cropping and editing, especially for the technologically-challenged amongst us. :-) Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Governor Ames launch.jpg

Hello, I have over-uploaded image with full resolution, but as I have noticed you did some colour tweaking over small size image, please do the same with big resolution image if you think it is necessary. --Justass (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In case if you ever will need to upload another image from mainememory.net or any other website that uses Zoomify technology (like [4]) please read Help:Zoomable_images#Zoomify, there is a nice tutorial how to get full size images --Justass (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MarmadukePercy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents

[edit] Image Tagging Image:ThaddeusLeavitthouse.jpg

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Johnleavittsm.jpg

[edit] Image:CushingIsland.JPG

[edit] Please link images

[edit] uploads and review systems

[edit] File Tagging File:NewNorthChurch.jpg

[edit] File Tagging File:SamuelLincolnHouse1.jpg

[edit] File Tagging File:SamuelLincolnHouseSign.jpg

[edit] 2d vs 3d

[edit] Comment

[edit] File Tagging File:OldBuryingGroundHingham.jpg

[edit] File Tagging File:FirstMeetingHouse.jpg

[edit] Timothy Valentine's images

[edit] Done

[edit] Your Flickr account

[edit] File:Governor Ames launch.jpg

Views

Personal tools

Search

Navigation

Participate

Toolbox