User talk:Nightscream/Archive 3

Duplicate files and the Attribution license template

Never remove the description of a file!!! If you add {{Duplicate}} or {{Delete}} or whatever, just add it to the description but DO NOT remove the description like you did here. Thank you! Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Something else: If you use the CC-by-3.0 license like this: {{cc-by-3.0|Luigi Novi}} it will automatically give you a license where you name has to be stated. Try it out!. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

np, sorry about the capital 'never' ;-) Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:6.16.08UNMSculptureByLuigiNovi2.jpg

File:6.16.08UNMSculptureByLuigiNovi2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Wknight94 ^talk 11:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File:6.16.08UNMSculptureByLuigiNovi1.jpg

File:6.16.08UNMSculptureByLuigiNovi1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Wknight94 ^talk 12:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Union City seal

Hi. Did you by any chance inform the editor who uploaded the Union City seal that it was to be deleted and/or that it should've been uploaded to the English Wikipedia? Nightscream (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I did notify them of the deletion, see User talk:UCstaffer. I would have uploaded it to the EN wiki myself, but I don't think it had a source. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that I was having a lot of trouble determining what license was to be used for municipal city property, since the only templates or policies I could find for government images were for federal or state one. I ultimate went to Union City's City Hall, where I asked one of the government administrators to upload it. UCstaffer was that person. He created that account in order to do so, and hasn't used it since, so I would imagine he never got your message. Had I known about this, I would've told him. Now I guess I have to go back to City Hall to ask him to reupload it. What license should we use? Do you know? Nightscream (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, shit. Sorry about that, it wasn't clear from the info. Maybe you can get the deletion reversed by an admin? I'm not sure if the city can place the seal under a free license. If they can, they should make their choice in license from this list. They should file an OTRS ticket to make clear that permission is explicitly granted and put {{OTRS pending}} on the image page. Now, if they can't choose a free license for the logo legally, then it could still be used on the EN wiki under fair use. You might be able to get an admin to help with getting the deleted image out and putting it on EN. Try asking an admin at COM:ANB. Again, sorry for the trouble. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Alessandra Torresani

Could you add the geocoding of this image os yours?

I believe it could be nominated to "Valued Image", but geocoding would be necessary.

o/ Flávio "Maddox" ^go! 21:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Says Commons:Valued images:

"Valued images are images which are considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects. A valued image is considered to be the most valued illustration of its kind by the Commons community", and that's exactly what I believe your file is.

Anyway, one of the criteria established is "geocoding, when relevant". I don't know if that's the case, but Commons:Geocoding adresses this issue.

I'm new to Commons policies and procedures, but I'm trying to help out as much as possible.

Flávio "Maddox" ^go! 00:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorising pages

Hallo

I categorised this subcategory under Olivia Munn because it grouped images of Olivia Munn [1]. Greetings. --Javier ME (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, redundant category links must be removed from file description pages. I haven't fixed all of them, but there are bots that carry this kind of repetitive tasks. Peace. --Javier ME (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Crop at File:President Obama on The Daily Show close.jpg

• File:President Obama on The Daily Show close.jpg

Please do not directly upload an edited image over this one. Please upload your edited cropped image, with a new name as a new page, then referenced back to this one. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Because I personally prefer the other one, and would like to retain it for user by other users on other projects.
2. Because this way we can clearly and easily retain versions of edited images.
3. Because this is customary practice when editing images, not to upload directly over existing, but instead to upload as a new page, and link back to the old one.
4. Note that there is even a tool to make this easier to upload as a new image, with changes noted on the new image page, see http://toolserver.org/~luxo/derivativeFX/deri1.php

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The same point applies. In the future, please do not upload over another image. Please create a new page. Then link back to the source image. This tool will make it much easier for you to do that. -- Cirt (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'll echo Cirt's comment with regards to the crop you did of File:Snooki in Chicago.jpg. Make a new image instead of over-righting the old one, as a crop such as what you did significantly alters the image. For instance, what if the uncropped image was used in an article to illustrate a point about the yellow dress? All of a sudden anyone looking at the article sees an image which doesn't match up with the article's discussion. Tabercil (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I check which articles use a given photo prior to altering it. If I find it being used by articles in which the altered version would be inapplicable, then indeed I will upload the altered version separately. This was not the case with the Obama or Snooki photos, which are only being used in articles where the cropped versions are of better use. This is why I don't see why the considerations you point out apply to those two, nor why you and he decline to answer my quite reasonable question: If uploaded new versions over the old ones is not desired, why does every image file's page present a tool for doing so as an option? Using a tool whose link is on the same page as the image is far easier than one on a different page, and as long as that option is there, I'm disinclined to create new pages for each version of an image, particularly given the number of images I alter (most of which ones I take for use in specific articles). Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment - Nightscream, you have now been advised by two different users to modify your inappropriate behavior with regard to uploading over existing files on this site. Please take this advice under consideration, and modify your future behavior patterns accordingly. If the inappropriate behavior pattern continues, it might necessitate being reported and/or admin actions. -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Your response is less than satisfactory. Note that my own personal rationale was but one of the multiple reasons cited above, the majority of other ones are not related. I hope you take the above comments from two different users under advisement, and adjust future edit patterns. -- Cirt (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User_Nightscream_-_uploading_edited_images_over_pre-existing_image_pages. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, it might be a better practice to upload a new version with a new file name, and then replace it with an image used in an article. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How can you replace an uploaded image with one used in an article? Nightscream (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Another question, Nightscream. Do you know any artist or painter that would appreciate that his works are cropped or its colors changed ? What if people would start cropping your images because they prefer landscape instead of portrait, or a bit more blue (or any other reason) ? --Foroa (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean like when someone took this photo I took of Richard Dreyfuss, and cropped it without asking me, even though I wasn't sure (and am still not sure) that I like it that way?

Let them.

If it serves a given article better, than it's justified. It's why, for example, the consensus decided in this discussion that a cropped photo was better for an article's main Infobox portrait, even though the photographer complained that he didn't like that, and tried to change it back.

The operative phrase, Foroa, is "his works". All content on the Commons is free content, so a given painting on the commons is not "his". The highest criterion should be what serves a given article, and not the whims of the image's creator. If someone changes an image that another disagrees with, then they (or if necessary, a group discussion), can hash it out. Sometimes another set of eyes can improve an image, the same way it can improve other aspects of an article. The original image is still there on the same page, and in the case of my images, they're still on my computer. (Another user on the Admin Noticeboard has made the distinction that uploading over the original can be done for minor changes, but that things like major crops should employ alternate image uploads instead.) If cropping a given image for a particular purpose is good enough for the Mona Lisa, then it's good enough for me. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:University of Wisconsin

I see you added University of Wisconsin System schools like University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point to the category. I think it's misplaced. These schools are not the University of Wisconsin, which has historically been attached to the University of Wisconsin-Madison. These "state" schools have never been named what you have categorized them as. So I'm fine if you want to change that category name to University of Wisconsin System, but I disagree with University of Wisconsin. There are long discussions about the topic on the English Wikipedia. Royalbroil 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Jeeja2008.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 04:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:GerryAlanguilan.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:GerryAlanguilan.jpg. This media 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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:GerryAlanguilan.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Dave simons.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Dave simons.jpg. This media 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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Dave simons.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Dansmithflier.png

File:Dansmithflier.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:TouréMay2006.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:TouréMay2006.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Martin H. (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:FrankLucas11.15.08ByLuigiNovi.jpg

Hello,

I restored the photo for now. It was tagged as copyright violation as it appears on [2]. Since this is smaller, I think it is OK. Yann (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold and wave tagged it: [3]. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:2.11.11SpiderManTurnOffTheDarkByLuigiNovi1.jpg

File:2.11.11SpiderManTurnOffTheDarkByLuigiNovi1.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Dream out loud (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Movie theaters

Hi,

back in 2010 you made the Category:Movie theaters while the Category:Cinemas already existed. More people seem to place images in this category, so I made it a redirect. The reason I'm writing to you is that you placed this category in the Category:Entertainment venues in the United States and Category:Cinemas in New Jersey. This is not in line with the hierarchy of categories: not all theaters are in the US. Please be more careful when making new categories. --IIVeaa (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Worldwide-plaza-fount-medium.jpg

File:Worldwide-plaza-fount-medium.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

cat yronwode

Hello. What is the reason for your creating a new category Category:Catherine Yronwode and moving images out of Category:catherine yronwode to populate it? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the image you just uploaded. It is historically significant and could be a great illustration for many projects. Keep up the great work! —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:5.21.11MargueriteVanCookByLuigiNovi.jpg

File:5.21.11MargueriteVanCookByLuigiNovi.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JosephFumetti (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Permission box

The coding and wording that I used is adapted from about 3 users who have a similar permissions template for their uploads. I looked through the users who are recognized as being outstanding photographers and who were still active for ideas. You are welcome to adapt what I used for my current permission box. BrokenSphere (Talk) 14:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried plugging your name into the template directly to see how it works - the result is here. You could copy the coding in your own namespace (e.g. User:Nightscream/Credits), modify the wording as you see fit, and put it into your image pages as a template. BrokenSphere (Talk) 14:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Taking this from my en profile - I was playing Final Fantasy X-2 when I registered and my username is derived from the Sphere Break mini game, although the term "broken sphere" is not actually used in relation to this mini game. BrokenSphere (Talk) 14:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That clause applies more to commercial or for profit use of the image, which as I understand it is allowed by the CC. It is adapted from what I've seen other users put into their credit boxes in case these circumstances arise. You are welcome to modify or keep it out. BrokenSphere (Talk) 15:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that if someone would like to use one of my images in a commercial manner (and there is a lot of latitude as to what "commercial" means), I would like to receive some consideration if possible. It's not required, but it's a bonus if they do choose to go ahead and go through the process. Of course they may go ahead and use the image (s) anyway with or without attribution and with or without notification and compensation, as the enforceability of this clause is as you can guess, haphazard to nonexistent at best. There are many other contributors here who do not have such language if they use a customized attribution/copyright template, it is up to each person how they want to deal with possible commercial use of their works that they choose to upload here. However bottom line the intent of putting media up here to share for me has always been to share what I can, not to make money off it (there are better places, obviously). I have found that editorial use in websites, articles, blogs or even offline as some people have notified me about, for me is generally OK. The contact me part is more of so that I know where the image is being used so that I can link to it using the {{Published}} template. I don't claim to be an expert on CC or GFDL, so I hope that this discussion has not been too confusing for you! BrokenSphere (Talk) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)