User talk:Para/2007-07-07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Talk on: MetaWikimedia CommonsEnglish Wikipedia

Archives: archive — 2007-07-07 — archive — 2008-08-08 — archive — 2009-09-09


Thanks!

Hi Para, and Welcome to the Commons! Great job uploading the full resolution versions. Thanks, and keep up the good work! User:dbenbenn 19:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Happy to be here! --Para 12:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Codename: Gordon[edit]

Thanks for this category ; sorry, all this screenshot are copyrighted, but without your work it would have still remained a long time on Commons. ~ bayo or talk 12:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I usually don't touch any copyrighted stuff, and here too I checked the wikipedia article and the FAQ of the game, which both give the same artist names as the uploader of those images. But perhaps they have conceded some of the rights to Valve then, I wouldn't know. Anyway, seems I didn't get them all, there's still some more in X-Tender's gallery. --Para 12:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, i wanted to say "you do a good job, dont worry if the category is deleted". I can be on a mistake, for me Valve is a moral autor too, is permission it need. I do a request, better lawyers know what it need to do. ~ bayo or talk 09:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed licenses[edit]

I have created Template:Flickr-change-of-license for images whose license has been changed retroactively. Please use it when you notice license changes for now.--Eloquence 19:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

cleanup[edit]

hi Para, thank you for cleaning up and correcting some of the images of Frankfurter Tor, keep up your good work. with kind regards Gryffindor 11:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, I like playing with all these Commons images. While editing yours, I noticed that Image:Stalinbau_Frankfurter_Tor_Turm_Berlin.jpg says it's the north tower, but in the article page it's listed as a south one. The other south pictures don't seem to have the tree on the left side, but in the north ones there's a door. I've never been there so can't say which one it is, but it's fun traveling around the world through Commons! --Para 12:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:400px-Wenceslau Pereira de Lima.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:400px-Wenceslau Pereira de Lima.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 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 {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL 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. --bjh21 17:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Break kfc.jpg[edit]

hello, the pic you have as KFC Aberdeen was in fact taken in Dundee the preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.238.60 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. --Para 11:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:NewportBeach California USa.jpg[edit]

Hi!

You wrote:

"As mentioned in the deletion request discussion, should revoked licenses not be tagged with {{Flickr-change-of-license}} instead of blunt deletion?"

And how shall we proof, that the license changed and that it was a CC license before if one of these cases go to court? That is the only relevant question.

Regards --ALE! 07:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Entomart photos[edit]

Ok it's a pity but if this is the rule, it's Ok Before deleting i will try to contact the author to see if he would change his licence for CC-BY-SA. if not i ask for time to move all theses pict on fr:.

keep me well-informed Jeffdelonge 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

i create Template:Attribution Entomart, if that is right for the community, is it possible for some bot to change every photo description page from Category:Entomart 81.50.192.79 12:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks Para, but the licence on the source site has been changed, see http://www.entomart.be/contact.html and i only copy in good french (remove cependant repetition) what the author writes. so i think it's ok for any admin to check the licence. Jeffdelonge 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

ok i check the first site http://home.tiscali.be/entomart.ins/textes/avert.html and the licence has not yet be changed. i will ask to the author to change it also. Jeffdelonge 07:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

after my mail, Claude Galand, Entomart.ins author change the licence on Entomart first site. every troubles are solved.Jeffdelonge 16:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted FlickrLickr photos[edit]

Yes, we got a complaint about them. David.Monniaux 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Flickr pics[edit]

I'm afraid I don't have logs; however, it shouldn't be too hard to fish out the missing links using the timestamps.--Eloquence 18:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's cut it with the BS CC license![edit]

Let's loose all the CC images. This is a BS license that needs to dissapear. We need pure public domain images. The point is, people are going to take them and use them, just give up with the BS and do it public domain, or don't bother.

About Image:SunWuKongInBeijingOpera.jpg deletion[edit]

Thanks for your message in the deletion request of above image. But I don't understand Finnish language. Would you contact the Author of the image for permission usage in commicial purpose and tell him about use it in Commons. That would be very helpful and thank you a lot. --Fanghong 08:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Polarlicht.jpg[edit]

Thanks for updating the source links (and indeed the much larger image file) on Image:Polarlicht.jpg. That's looking like feature picture material now. -- Solipsist 20:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Lossless JPEG editing Q[edit]

Hi, thank you for removing the watermark from Image:Daniella Sarahyba.jpg. The photo looks nicer than before. :) I wanted to ask you about the edit though.
Can I ask you which program you used? From a "reverse-paste" of the original and the current image, it looks like the unedited bits of the image are unchanged after resaving. Where can I get that program? :) --Kjoonlee 09:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it looked quite nice already, so I didn't want to degrade the quality. :) I used Better JPEG Lossless Resave plug-in for Adobe Photoshop, where you import an image using the plugin, edit it, export it with the same plugin, and it will recompress only the modified blocks. It would be nice to find a free alternative, so that this process for cleaning watermarks could be recommended to everyone. --Para 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :> --Kjoonlee 07:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hey there Para, just wanted to drop by and say thank you for cleaning up the image Image:Bild 406.jpg, it looks really good now. let me know if I can do anything in return... cheers Gryffindor 08:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just keep the challenges coming. :) Trying to fix the art ones is very subjective work, I hope the results still looks like the originals? Feel free to put them up for cleanup again if they're not up to par. --Para 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
Holy Cow! How do you do it? Thank you for the image Image:Virgilkapelle drawing.png, that is just amazing I can hardly recognise the image anymore. thanks alot, if there would be barnstars on the Commons, you would definetly get one from me. Gryffindor 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The drawing was easy to fix! I knew that the result would have only two colours, so all that had to be done was to choose which gray was white and which black. It's a whole different deal with paintings, where the uneven exposures need to be gradually equalised to a suitable level. What makes it problematic is the more than two possible resulting colours, all of which need to be guessed. I wonder if there are other photos of the same paintings somewhere on the net? --Para 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Flickr stuff[edit]

Hey, I was working on a script that could clean up this huge backlog. On VP they said that you were busy with something similar. Could you tell how far your progress is on VP? -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kraanvogelkop.jpg[edit]

Hi. It was good you noticed this image was a copyvio. I've delete it now. / Fred Chess 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, happy to help, but after you added the photographer's blanket statement "If you don't mind, drop me a line when you use one of my shots, you always have permission...I'm just curious" on the page, I figured it would lighten the notification requirement to a request. Having been uploaded on 11 February 2006, it would fit in the grace period described in Commons:Stock.xchng images and given the existing permission already and a possible email, it might turn out to be CopyrightedFreeUse. --Para 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Breakfast Japan.jpg[edit]

Hello. You've marked Image:Breakfast Japan.jpg as a duplicate. Could you please look at the CheckUsage and replace it? Thanks in advance, -- odder 14:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not. Tedious jobs like that should be left for bots or each project to handle. Since there are great tools like CommonsTicker and Commons dupes, it doesn't require great effort to see if a file marked as duplicate is used or not; it can stay as is until Someone does the replacing. --Para 00:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed licenses[edit]

Oops. I don't really know...

  1. If the image has been recently uploaded, I think it should be treated as a normal copyvio. Unless the uploader can prove that he/she is the owner of the pics or something like that, of course.
  2. If the image is old, maybe it has been re-licensed. But if no admin checked it before we don't really know and we simply cannot trust unknown people. So we could just delete them (specially if it's not used or we can easily replace it with a similar one) or we could ask for permission and delete it if we don't get it in a reasonable period of time.

But I think we should discuss this at the VP, where everybody can give their opinions.

And not, it's actually not very much work. Take a look at this. Regards. --Dodo 15:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the script is a great help. If you can read Spanish, you can find a briefing at my blog (with pictures!).
About the non-free images, not exactly:
  • I suggest deleting the recent ones (they're just copyvios), unless exceptions (the uploader being the copyright owner and proving it or obtaining a permission, for example).
  • I think the older ones are not our problem but the uploader's problem. I mean: we found an "old" image from Flickr, now it has an unfree license (we don't know before, so it doesn't matter). So we have three options: delete it without further warnings, warn the uploader and then delete it if he/she does nothing about it, or start the mass mailing. I strongly prefer the second option: if the uploader doesn't care about his/her images, we don't either.
Of course, I can be wrong. :-P Regards. --Dodo 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not? We can leave a message at the uploader talk page, something like "we have found that the following Flickr images you uploaded currently have an unacceptable license, so we'll delete them in 15 days if there are not relicensed or the copyright owner gives permission in the proper terms".
And that's all. ~3,000 images are not that much (compared to 1,000,000), specially if each uploader make the homework for his/her images.
Of course, we should mention this at the VP... --Dodo 07:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Flickr reviewing[edit]

Please take a look at User:Kaveh/Flickr (for example, here).

What should we do about this? --Dodo 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Graphic Lab[edit]

On the page you note that "This page will then be move to the english Wiki and is not plan to stay on commons." Why?? Something like this would fit perfectly into a media repository such as Commons and Commons definitely needs a more organised way of improving images than the one used now. I'd love to see the scrupulous review of COM:FPC applied to "cleanup" candidates as well. The deletion request process works in multiple languages and I think this one could as well. --Para 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have some plan for this [make a "common" page for wikigraphists]
But actually, it's more convenient an fun to make such work in one wikipedia, where users have friends, where the workshop will be more visible, etc. Wiki-commons is not a true "community", most of us spend just some minor time on commons, an much of their time in their respectives wiki, for various raisons (friend, language, visibility,...)
I lead this project since 2005, I think this is [now] the best way to raise contributions.
But that's not finish ;] Yug (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are approaching this project from the wrong angle. I see people on the English Wikipedia haven't been all that welcoming with your pages imported from the French Wikipedia. Why are you asking opinions on project names here, instead of where you're intending to place it? I'm sure the en people would like to have their say as well. If translation is all you wanted, you should have gone on meta, where translation is a coordinated project. Like pointed out on the Village Pump, there is an active community on Commons, and nothing stops people with image improvement requests to join it. By the way, please do not remove my comments from the Village Pump like you did here, even if you want to take discussions "private". It is best to discuss something like this where most people interested can see it. --Para 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The subject was "Translation + vote a name", so your comment -becoming the main issue- was not really in the good place neither. Since what I cut the section in two [so you can restaure your comment].
For where should be the Graphic Workshop (on the wikipedias), I have a such opinion because of a long daily experience with the project, including many talkings, many troubles, many observations, some about psychology of wikigraphist, how to make a peaceful G. Workshop.
You can insist on your opinion, and do as you want : it's a wiki. But by doing so your action will weaken the project [it's my conviction].
I prefer if you don't go in your way because I think that will not be good, no more. In fact I'm sure at 90%.
We have to do it in the good order to do the best. Yug (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The Commons Village Pump is for discussion of Commons. If you bring something up on the Village Pump of a project, it is very likely that people will talk about it related to that project, no matter what ulterior motive you may have. Translation for another project belongs on that other project, or in the case of multiple languages, on meta. The same applies for naming anything on those other projects. My comment on the Village Pump was not so important as others have expressed the same thoughts, but generally it is not considered good manners to remove people's comments, especially when they're not according to your own opinions.
You seem to be deeply involved in the project on the French Wikipedia, even on the level of conviction. It's understandable, and perhaps also why we're seeing this strong reaction from your side on something that isn't exactly a gift from heaven. On the French Wikipedia the featured pictures process isn't as active as it is here and on the English Wikipedia in reviewing and improving images, so I suppose you are not familiar with the existing structures. Thank you for bringing the doormat page here though, it looks pretty. We'll see how it can bring the community together. --Para 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
First, I act and edit in the way I think the best for the project, I judged that move your comment was just more efficient for the subject (the vote), and 7 minutes later I andded a visible link. No bad intentions in this, just moving on.
Second, as you insist (and also because I can't stop the idea), I will help to open a nice Graphic Lab on Commons. After this on Wikipedia en. I continue to think that a G. Lab on commons will be a mistake (=> too much graphists, working, talking about graphism, working, etc.) but I will give you an hand if you need.
I'm currently making some improvement to the G. Workshop wiki coding, then we will be able to spread it across the wikis and open it on Commons :]
I will say you when that will be ready.
拜拜 see you Yug (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Commons:Graphic_Village_Pump - No yet officialy open. Yug (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A Graphic Lab have Started on Wikipedia-en. You can help by reading this page, and help to copying some page from the french version.To learn how work a Graphic Lab, please see the French and Deutsch Graphic Labs : Deutsch | Français (which are already working).
Please, talk about this to other users who can be interesting. Yug (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello para,
I now have finished all the work that I planned to do, on commons, on en, on fr and on es, and I stop here my editions. The newest version of the Graphic Lab/workshop is the english one : Main page-Maps-Images.
Feel free to lead the english one, or to start and lead a commons one with your energy.
Yug (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

SXC[edit]

Hello, pics from SXC are fine as long as they are made before Dec 2005. I take 2 pics out because they are younger than that, if the author does not give permission --Unify 00:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC) The older pics are p.d. because:

„Previous to 29. December 2005 SXC didn't have a legal frame that did restrict the usage of images with "no usage restrictions" tag. That's why images that were uploaded from SXC previous to that date in Wikimedia Commons are allowed for the time being.“ See here for details: [1] the preceding unsigned comment is by Unify (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that date refers to when the image was taken from the site, not when the photographer took the photo. Since we can't see when each file was downloaded, our only option is the date of upload here. These files have all been uploaded in 2006, so they're not ok. The photographer might still agree to release them though, if only Someone asked. --Para 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? The text in Wiki:Commons is not clear. It says "However all images uploaded past 26. June 2006 will be tagged ((subst:nld)) and will be deleted if the uploader didn't provide a written permission of the copyright owner within 7 days." ...uploaded on what? on wiki or on sxc? The pics are clearly uploaded on sxc before June 2006 but after that on wiki. The possible meaning as 'uploaded on sxc' seems more logical since the pics were released as p.d. and now nobody could claim any copyright. Any 'authorized' person could make the sentence clear? (sorry my english is not perfect I hope you get the meaning) Anyway there are 500+ of cc pics from the park sanssouci available on flickr, so it doesnt matter about these ones. --Unify 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)o
I understand your confusion. You have to take a closer look at what the dates mean to get a better understanding of the situation. The bad sources page links to Commons:Stock.xchng images, which explains the situation better, together with its subpages. 29 December 2005 was the date when sxc changed their terms of use and license agreement. That is the first date when people downloading photos from sxc.hu could have seen that sxc is in a position to restrict the use of the photos more than they show just below the photo. Following the opinion of our legal advisors, 26 June 2006 was when the Commons policy on sxc as a source was updated to what it is now, forbidding any sxc sourced upload without a permission mail.
This all means that anyone who took a photo from sxc.hu and uploaded it here after 2005 had not read sxc terms of use, and anyone who did so after June 2006 had not read our own policy on sxc as a source. Neither of them is very visible so it makes sense that it happens from time to time.
I'm glad to hear that the sxc photos you uploaded aren't irreplaceable. But pay attention to respect the rules of Commons:Licensing when uploading photos, specifically that commercial use and derivative work is allowed. For example, you have uploaded Image:Pyramide Neuer Garten.jpg and currently its Flickr page says that commercial use and derivative work is not allowed. With Flickr there is the problem of licenses changing without leaving any trace, so we have no way to proof if it really was free or not. By the way, sxc content has never been in the public domain, it is still copyrighted and the "no restrictions" corresponds to {{Copyrighted free use}}. See how hard it is to reuse copyrighted content? Again that Someone should come up with a solution to help Commons with all these problems. --Para 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I think I got it... I replaced 2 pics with some similar selfmade ones (I live in Potsdam). I wrote to the author, if he doesn't answer or says "no", I will take the rest of the pics out or replace them with similar legal pics from flickr or from my own pics. --Unify 02:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Flick reviewing (clowns)[edit]

Hi, sorry, but I don't speak English :-/
About Image:Head to head clowns.jpg, it's now released on Flick as noncommercial ... :-(
What to do?

--「Twice28.0 · contributi · talk」 19:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You're doing fine with English, and there's always Google and Babelfish translators if you have problems. With this photo you should contact the author and ask him to relicense it to cc-by again. If that doesn't work, it will probably have to be deleted, like all of Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images. --Para 18:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

tag for deleting a picture[edit]

On Image:FeriaAbrilSevillaA Caballo.jpg you made a tag but I changed it for a {{delete|reason}} tag (remove reason and list your explanations) and then follow instructions.

It's better in this cas because you may explain to uploader what's wrong. --Patricia.fidi 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the tag because the image would be easy to fix. Currently neither of its sources are freely licensed however, so it should probably be deleted, yes, especially since it's not even being used. --Para 18:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Flickreviewr bugs[edit]

Hi, thanks for reporting the bug. I am working on a solution. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Flickr images[edit]

Ok Para, sorry, it seems I didn't read the guidelines quite well. Regards Anna 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:275252580 822c5b26b9 b.jpg[edit]

An identification isn't possible without having a note on the locality. Thanks for cooperation. --Dysmachus 21:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ulucamii-turkey-2001.jpg[edit]

Hi Para, you have reverted the changes made by me. The image is non-commercial and could not be used as free use on commons. The source mentioned on the image clearly claims for non-commercial image. If you really think, the uploaders on flickr and enwp are same then please ask her to change the license on the flickr. Please consider discussing before reverting an edit. Thank you, Shyam (T/C) 12:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, the user profiles and contributions are similar enough. Mentioning other locations for a photo is a good thing for people who wish to get more information about it. We should encourage it and not do the opposite by making things more complicated for the photographers. People who upload their own photos here can still share them elsewhere with different licensing and there is no need for us to try changing their decisions. By the way, please notify the photographer when you nominate their file for deletion. --Para 13:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rob McArthur.jpg[edit]

I see you reviewed this image on Flickr. However, the image copyright states "non-commercial" use which makes it inappropriate for commons. Did you contact the photographer and receive a different copyright? Rklawton 13:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The image was uploaded by the trusted bot User:FlickrLickr, which spiders CC-BY licensed images only. The photographer has since then changed the license. I have never communicated with him. --Para 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. I left a note for the photographer on Flickr with a link back to the image page. I sure wish Flickr wouldn't let its users violate their own copyright agreements. At least the trusted bot and/or reviewer idea makes a usable work around. Rklawton 15:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Para/Flickr/Licensing_changes[edit]

You might like to put this information on a more public page so people know to look for it. You'd probably have to suggest it at the village pump first though. Thanks, Yonatanh 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have provided those license history snippets to some deletion discussions, and it seems all it does is stall the process. Nobody really knows what to do. It has been discussed on the Village Pump (here, here and here at least), and people seem to have trust issues on any license info that isn't from the hosting site or the photographer. I suppose they're right that my lists can not really be considered absolute proof. --Para 21:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's known that there is an automated bot that checks the licenses every some time then I doubt anybody would still have any trust issues. If they still do then it's probably due to an issue of trust they have with you, in which case, if you wouldn't mind, someone else could run it. Thanks, Yonatanh 15:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's anything personal. It's just that we as keepers of this free media repository are not impartial to any license history data. It would be better done by some totally unaffiliated third party, as was pointed out in a Village pump discussion (or another about saving screenshots instead). The likes of Internet Archive or WebCite would be good, but this kind of periodical or instantaneous type of archival for thousands of pages doesn't really fit in their "business" model. I tried suggesting to Flickr to run a license history service, but that didn't really catch on either. Flickr is only one example - though very visible at that - of the results of licensing confusion. If stock.xchng for example was better run for our purposes, we would probably have someone run a similar script for their images too, and I don't like the idea of having to have separate bots for all sorts of different sites. It's the same problem for all third party resources that have been used to get files on Commons. Instead, we should be investigating the possibility of some centralised solution that would be compatible with any page.
That said, a license history database is still interesting to convince people seeking permission from the photographers, even if it may not legally stand as proof. At the moment my script isn't totally automated, but it could certainly be improved and perhaps be run on the toolserver, with the source and database open for viewing. I'm just not entirely sure if it's worth the trouble. --Para 16:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well what could be done is perhaps mirroring a web page when it has a permission on it (whether it's a flickr page or just any website). Basically, it's the same thing as OTRS because when you forward an e-mail you could've just as well have faked it. If we're talking specifically about flickr pictures, logging the licenses at the time of uploading (we basically do the same when we review the pictures now, flickr reviewers won't okay a picture if its license isn't free although mistakes are possible) may not stand legally but it's good enough for our purposes. If there were to actually be legal problems, we would probably have to contact flickr to prove that the old license on the photo was a free one anyway. Yonatanh 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference between OTRS and a web page archive is that email leaves a verifiable trace on all the servers it passes through, whereas with web pages there is no such thing, and thus the archiver needs to be a trusted and unaffiliated third party. The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine as it is wouldn't be appropriate because of their huge delay, but since they have a similar goal as Wikimedia projects, perhaps they would cooperate with the Foundation? After all, Wikipedia has the same problem with disappearing sources. --Para 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
However since OTRS requests are forwarded by the user who got the permission, the headers information for the original e-mail is lost in the process. This could be fixed by making users copy the whole e-mail including the headers when forwarding to OTRS but then again, that can be faked as well. I personally don't know what archive.org's goal is but do they spider all flickr user pages? I think the WMF could be considered trusted as after all, why would we go through such great lengths to get free images only to then cheat the world by stealing flickr images that aren't free. By the way, it's late here so this edit may not be coherent. ;) Yonatanh 01:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your rv at Image:Eye makeup.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure why you expect me to be the one to find an OTRS gnome; I would think that the onus should be on you. Nonetheless, I've asked Drini. --Iamunknown 08:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they should react to all messages without any nudging. It's only been a few days though, perhaps there's a long backlog. --Para 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I've actually wondered a lot about the OTRS system. I don't know what the proper format for requesting permission is. Furthermore, the images I'm interested in are already uploaded to this site, but the license at the source is too vagure for Commons' pruposes. I guess I just don't know how to word the e-mail given that the images are already uploaded.. --Iamunknown 08:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There's examples at Commons:Email templates and en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, but you can write your own as long as you get the author to confirm the criteria of free mentioned on Commons:Licensing. Most people I've contacted have been happy to find out that their images are on Wikipedia and have agreed to make them free entirely. Presuming of course that the images have been free to some degree already, otherwise it might seem rude indeed. --Para 08:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Para, OTRS has been pending on Image:Derawar Fort by gul791.jpg for six days now. I am reinstating {{sxc-warning}} and I ask that you please not remove it again. The template does not indicate that the image will soon be deleted; instead, it is useful to track which images were uploaded from stock.xchng. An OTRS staff person will likely remove it when s/he adds the appropriate permission template(s). --Iamunknown 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a backlog on OTRS, I haven't gotten a response for a few of my OTRS permissions request. There's no harm in waiting a little longer, I'm sure you won't forget. ;) If the OTRS permission isn't acceptable then the image will be removed anyway (probably by the OTRS person). Yonatanh 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
All I have seen that template do is make clueless admins delete images because of the license text that may not even be relevant to the image. By categorizing stock.xchng images we are going against community consensus and against lawyer advice specifically about not making an easy gallery of images sourced from there. When the author has agreed to a license totally separate from stock.xchng, the template has nothing to do with the image and should be removed as soon as possible to avoid any misunderstanding. --Para 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection[edit]

Done. Yonatan talk 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:225px-ABQ fall skyline.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:225px-ABQ fall skyline.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from BryanBot. 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Flickr copyvios[edit]

My logic is that I can't prove that it wasn't under a free license. The fact I can't find the image would only seem to be more of a "no source" deletion criteria than an invalid license criteria, but, they have a url from flickr, and especially if the photo is marked "private" this doesn't make sense either. So I'm at a loss of what to really do with these anyways. They don't seem to fit anywhere, but I figured having them in the "possible unfree flickr" category would allow something to be done with them later, when someone figures out what to do with them. MECUtalk 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with "respecting the author's wishes" and deleting the image because they no longer want to share it. You license the image under terms usable by us, we took it at that time and verified it, we have the rights, legally, to keep using it, and why shouldn't we? Revoking a license isn't allowed (legally) and I don't see why we allow it. Assuming that deleting an image on flickr means revoking license isn't a good idea either. That being said, images which aren't being used or aren't usable by us I would have no problem deleting if the author wishes it. But if it's in use, sorry. MECUtalk 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
More thought? Howso? I will no mark no source for images that aren't available on flickr then. MECUtalk 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS[edit]

Could you please clarify the current status of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:JakeGyllenhaalcropped.jpg per the most recent reply to OTRS # 2007031610007516? Thanks, Yonatan talk 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Followup sent. --Para 12:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

templatetiger[edit]

Hello, perhaps you work also in the Wikipedia, I want to give you a tip: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kolossos/templatetiger/template-choice.php?lang=fi

It's a result of my project: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Vorlagenauswertung/en

I hope it help. Greetings Kolossos 12:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

parsecommonsdump.pl[edit]

Hey Para, I noticed your effort on creating a GE commons thumbs layer. Nice work! Did you perform any modifications on the parsecommonsdump.pl script and if so would you mind sharing them :-) What database backend are you using for your script? MySQL with geospatial extensions? What's your opinion on the performance? Acceptable? --Dschwen 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've only done slight modifications so far (diff against an early April version). The data is formatted differently for my use, I dropped the character conversions, and used Parse::MediaWikiDump which I feel is slightly quicker, though both taking ages and unbenchmarkable. :) For the database I'm using MySQL with its geospatial extensions yes, and the queries run quicker than network latency so I haven't done further tests with that and am very happy for not having had to code the data structures myself. All in all I think it's working great and should scale well too. --Para 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. I've started reworking my MiniAtlas codebase to use MySQL geospatial extensions too. I don't know how I could live without Parse::MediaWikiDump ... --Dschwen 18:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount[edit]

Hello Para,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to Zedler-admins.png. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.

Geocoding[edit]

Now, I have a question: Could you give me the code of our program and the database-layout, because I am interesting on Spatial-Extension of MySQL? I see 3 possible ways for doing that:

  1. give read-access on our directory, like I do it. (password- problem)
  2. use a script like my [2] for publishing. You can find the source-code in my directory.
  3. send me an Email. Thanks.

To performance-question, I got my last problem on the moment we arrived more than 100.000 Coordinates (now we have nearly 200.000 Coordinats and Commons could go to 1 million): The problem was the ordering of nearly 40.000 articles if you was looking on an great area like europe. I think the ordering was a greater problem than the using of B-Tree or R-Tree. Thanks. Kolossos 10:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you were my inspiration! Thanks for the original script. I plan to put all the code to hemlock's svn system once I clean up the code and figure out how to use subversion, but meanwhile I allowed all toolserver users to read the directory and its files, except for the password. I'll be around on IRC if you need any explanation.
I haven't had performance problems since I sort by the numeric score and then only take the 100 first results. I suppose in your case an index of some sort would help, but I'm not too familiar with advanced indexing. Next thing I'll have to start looking into is giving more sparse results as some areas are very busy. Nested regions could be useful for you too, though it will make ordering even more complicated. --Para 11:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you using a MySQL index on the score collumn? --Dschwen 11:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No. If I understand correctly, it would not be useful since the subset in view has already been chosen, while the index covers the whole column. Sorting numbers should be quick, though I also use a semi-random number to get an even cover, as opposed to Kolossos's way of splitting the screen in four squares and handling them individually. --Para 12:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OTRS question[edit]

You handled an OTRS case that I submitted. It involved many images but either one was left out by you or I failed to include it in the image list submitted. A person on a message board that I'm on agreed to allow me to use several photos he took. I submitted a screenshot of his permission which included the images. It seems one of the main images I was wanting the permission for is still lacking OTRS permission. It is Image:HolmbergHall2.jpg. This image was taken by the same person that took many others you tagged and should have been included in the same permission. Let me know what needs to be done to get this taken care of. Thank you.Nmajdan 02:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

Para, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
EugeneZelenko 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth/geocoding stuff[edit]

Hi Para,

I'm planning to write a press release to promote some geocoding/google earth stuff with Commons. I know you've worked on stuff like this lately. Can you help me out? (Commons:Press releases/Wikimedia Commons and Google Earth mashup) cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks a lot for helping me on IRC. Real96 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth -Layer[edit]

Hello Para, I see our work at: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~para/earth.php?latdegdec=51.525833&londegdec=7.442778&scale=10000 is it possible to support my thumbs modus? (...&thumbs=yes...) I see Wikipedia not as a competition for Commons. Thanks.

With our image-layer I have two problems: Is it really neccesary to support other websites? There is panoramio, which is also integrated in Google Earth and also a financial part of google. With flickr I see the bug that the show images from the whole world and not only from the area of view. In my opinion there should be only websites in the layer which support free licences, so flickr is ok.

We saw that for thumbnails like http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Allerheiligenkirche.jpg&w=128 the "w=" part was the problem, so perhaps you have contact to a admin which can change this thumb.php a little bit so that also f.i. "widht=" would also support. This could be a solution. --Kolossos 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone was complaining on the English Wikipedia about there being too many links on the GeoHack page, so I thought that the Google Earth related links could be given in the kml response instead. GeoHack links to so many different map services, which mostly are not for any reuse, so I think it might as well links to useful photo sites as well. Those other photo services really are very useful when geocoding images here, since with them it's possible to have so many reference photos. Panoramio especially gets better and better because of their "suggest a correction" feature. The Flickr layer seems to give placemarks a bit outside the viewpoint, but I haven't noticed it giving the whole world, that would probably kill my GE.
Anyway, it might make sense to give Wikimedia projects higher priority and have them all on the first level, and then the others in a subfolder. I'll do that and add your Wikipedia images layer as well, it's useful for many purposes too.
About thumb.php, I gave up on it because of the same problems you've had, and I now compute the direct thumbnail address myself. For image sizes I use the toolserver database to know if an image is higher than it's wide exactly for this aspect ratio issue. You can see the source in ~para/public_html/GeoCommons/kml.php, feel free to ask if there's anything odd. --Para 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaning me the reasons. If you think that the other photo services are very useful when geocoding images here, why doesn't integrated the crosshair http://www.alder-digital.de/wiki/images/Ald-Hjl-Koord-en.kmz ? (More spam from me, but you can also get the code.) It's difficult to decide, should the layer more a tool or an entertainment program.
I hope you understand it right my Wikipedia "image-layer" is only a parameter that works in all languages, so you need a understandable user-frontend for choose. Good night. Kolossos 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's added now! Hope the tree structure is fine for you. I use the crosshair tool every time I look for coordinates on Google Earth, it's very useful. However, all the links on GeoHack and in my Google Earth "resource" link give some information of the given location, and hjl-koord isn't really information, but a tool, just like a compass overlay is. Maybe we should collect these things in one place somewhere, such as Commons:Geocoding or en:Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. --Para 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fine. One big problem I see, is that it is not so easy possible to shut off a layer. If you use the button on "Geodata from Wikipedia" for shut off and than shut it on again, you have the first, the czech-layer on. It should be easy to use! A little problem is, that you perhaps should use our Statistic window for call our source, a link for contact and perhaps a licences. Kolossos 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a note on the GeoHack page that people can move any of the layers to "My Places", where they can have any structure they want. Maybe that's not enough for some people though? This is a GE issue really, as it supports either radio or checkbox selection, and currently all the radio boxes can be unselected only be unchecking the containing folder.
For the statistics window you would have to implement a kml interface with the relevant information included.
What you could perhaps do is a kml of your own with all the possible parameters the Wikipedia-World project supports, and then I could just link to that kml file? --Para 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Caballero.jpeg[edit]

Hi, Para. I have uploaded the bookcover Image:Caballero.jpeg and Lise Drougge, the creator of the design and author of the book, has managed after much effort to release it under a free licence. Unfortunately, only now do I realize just how small the image is. Would it be OK to upload a bigger version to overwrite it with, considering that the OTRS ticket etc are now all clear? (Publisher's permission, everything.) And if I'm allowed to do that, what should I write under provenance and licence and so on on the new upload, to avoid immediate deletion? In my experience, I never get any chance to explain or add anything to my uploads--images get deleted before I have saved any additions--so I figgered I'd better start by asking. Whatever needs doing, it would be a big help if I could do it, as opposed to L. Drougge doing it, because stuff like uploads are mysteries to her. And she doesn't want to "out" her account name, either. Best wishes, Bishonen 16:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Hello there. That's a good approach to ask first. Unfortunately she specifically licensed only this image file of the cover, and not some bigger image or the book cover itself. In my understanding that's a difference big enough that using a higher resolution image would not be covered under the same permission anymore. I think you'll have to show her another file and ask again. Otherwise no problem with you forwarding the message and uploading the image over the old one. --Para 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, over the old one—I missed that, sorry. I have a new ticket, and have uploaded the bigger version as Image:Caballero.big.jpeg. Could you delete the small version, Image:Caballero.jpeg, for me, please? It doesn't serve any purpose any longer. Bishonen 19:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
That's fine. Done. --Para 10:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons Geocoding[edit]

Bonsoir Para,

Merci de vous intéresser à mes photos et d'attirer mon attention sur leur coordonnées exactes.

En effet les premières coordonnées à laquelle vous faites allusion n'étaient manifestement pas exactes et les vôtres se rapprochaient de la valeur idéale. Je les ai changées en fonction de ma connaissance précise du terrain et de l'utilisation de Google Earth mais je dois y apporter une dernière modification en tenant compte de votre message et d'une étude encore plus attentive

Camera location 50° 00′ 27″ N, 5° 09′ 33″ E View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap - Google Earth info

.

En effet, je n'avais pas différencié les photographies de l'ancienne école de Redu et celle de son arbre remarquable. Il est vrai que je suis un peu novice en la matière et que j'aimerai d'ailleurs être éclairé sur la manière de lier mes photographies avec Google Earth. Votre aide dans ce domaine me serait agréable.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Geocoding[edit]

Hello Para, thanks for geocoding my image Image:Lisbon (Lisboa) historic elevator Santa Justa Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg --LucaG 20:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! Looking at a map of Lisbon, there doesn't seem to be many geocoded Commons images of the area. If you're interested of the project, Commons:Geocoding could use some help. And I can of course help too, with more stunning images or otherwise. --Para 20:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Microformat move[edit]

What was the idea behind the move of the Geo microformat from coor dms to Location? --Dschwen 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It made copy&paste difficult, as the display:none content is still rendered and copied even though it's not displayed. It was discussed at Template talk:Coor dms. I suppose wouldn't have that problem, if only it was supported. --Para 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Even with visibility:hidden it gets copied? Odd! --Dschwen 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That's how it works with at least Firefox and IE. visibility:hidden leaves long placeholder spaces and display:none just doesn't show the foobar content, but both are still copied. Without reading guidelines I would guess that these styles were made for accessibility purposes, and copying should work without a hassle for people with those problems too. A switch would be nice, but copy&paste isn't entirely logical with css-ordered pages anyway so browser developers have some work there. But about the usefulness of microformats in the bare coor dms template and friends... if people want to start geocoding something else than just camera locations, I think we need another template set for that, with object names, Wikipedia links and all. So yea, I don't see much use for inline coordinates really. --Para 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)