User talk:RichN

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 Image Tagging Image:1994ChevroletBlazer-front.jpg 2 Image Tagging Image:1994ChevroletBlazer-rear.jpg 3 Image Tagging Image:1996ChevroletBeretta-rear.jpg 4 Image:SonyCybershotDSCW100-001.jpg 5 Invalid source 6 Reply 7 POTY vote 8 [1] 9 Fair use tagging 10 Ilmor Images 11 Image:CallieThorne.jpg 12 Close those nominations. 13 Commons:Deletion requests/Gumpert images 14 Copyvios 15 File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg 16 File:Sigma8mmF35EXDG-001.jpg 17 Quality Image Promotion 18 I can't get a break! 19 Please link images

[edit] Image Tagging Image:1994ChevroletBlazer-front.jpg

العربية | Asturianu | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Euskara | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1994ChevroletBlazer-front.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons 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. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:1994ChevroletBlazer-rear.jpg

العربية | Asturianu | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Euskara | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1994ChevroletBlazer-rear.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons 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. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:1996ChevroletBeretta-rear.jpg

العربية | Asturianu | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Euskara | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1996ChevroletBeretta-rear.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons 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. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SonyCybershotDSCW100-001.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

Image:SonyCybershotDSCW100-001.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation because it is a derivative work. The 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. 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. Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Български | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Postdlf 19:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid source

It's pretty easy: I cannot find the image at the source URL (http://www.projectrich.com/gallery/main.php). If you can, please change the previous URL with the one pointed to that very image. I also left a generic message to the uploader. --Dodo 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I take the photographs of the cars where I find them, and with the purging of fair use images, the alternatives are either no image or one of worse quality for every single one that makes it into an article. I can't control the weather, or where the cars are parked, or most anything else. There's no amount of time spent that gets certain vehicles' pictures to come out well. Most of the pictures aren't wonderful, but when better alternatives emerge I'd be happy to have them be inserted into the articles. There aren't good alternatives, which is why I'm taking the pictures en masse.

Also, I feel the rain pictures work very well. There is no glare, and the cars all appear clean. IFCAR 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem, and I wasn't insulted. I just wanted to make it clear that I realize images of other people's cars shot in public places will have some quality deficiencies compared to someone's carefully composed image of their personal vehicle. But, a picture is a picture. I'd be happy to have someone replace an image I got walking past a car in a parking lot with something of their own, as long as it's better. IFCAR 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POTY vote

Can you reduce your selection to 5, please? You have chosen 6! --MichaelMaggs 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [1]

Hey,

I assume that the above website is yours. It would be very helpful if you sent a permission from an address associated with that website to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and then include that permission with all photos that are found both on commons and on your website so people don't incorrectly tag your pictures as copyright infringements. Thanks, Yonatanh 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use tagging

When tagging an image as fair use, please also notify the uploader, using {{copyvionotice}} (the full syntax is noted on {{fair use}}). — Giggy 00:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ilmor Images

I have no problem with replacing the low resolution image with a higher resolution one, but since you knew of my image's existence why didnt you just upload your image as a new version of my image? Chris Ssk 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CallieThorne.jpg

Български | Česky | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Italiano | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Svenska | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

---

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

This message was added automatically by John Bot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. -- John Bot_{(My Operator|My Contribs)} 17:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Close those nominations.

Yes, it may seem weird, but Ford has released press photos under CC licenses. Do some research, and consider withdrawing those nominations. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing the imagepages (deleting licences and review tags) is also not appreciated here, please stop to do so if you are nominating images for deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did any of you do any research? I have renominated and I expect proper arbitration. If there is a discussion I have missed on this, point me to it. RichN (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You nominated them because of the non-commercial licence on Flickr, the licence on Flickr is changeable, but a release under a licence is on the other hand irrevocable. So we transfered the images from Flickr at a time they are under a free licence which allows commercial use. The licence was again reviewed at Commons by a Bot, so it is 100% trustful, that the licence was free at this time on Flickr. There is not a minimal suspicion that the Flickr user is not authorized to publish Ford images, so the images are absolutly ok and there are hundreds more waiting on Flickr. Of course, it is a great thing for Ford to appear with profesional photos on Wikipedia articles, but the inclusion of images to articles is still made by a community which will observe excessive advertising. And please: do not manipulate deletion requests like you did with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2009 Ford Flex (1).jpg, just post the new request at the bottom of the page below the archive (ends with {{delf}} and include it at the actual deletion log. --Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it not Common's job to respect the artist's (in this case, Ford) copyright? It would seem that if this image was originally published with no commercial restriction and then changed, it was meant to really be used for non-commercial purposes. RichN (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We are in danger of giving the concept of commons licensing a bad name if we seize such advantage from people's honest mistakes, if that's what happened with the flickr licensing. This matters, because it could ultimately put people off so licensing future work. 81.178.67.229 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but thats the terms. I dont think, that the licencing at Flickr was an Error, the upload to Commons was more than a half year after the upload to Flickr and the Flickr user still releases images under a free licence (270 images, all uploaded the last five months). --Martin H. (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Deletion requests/Gumpert images

Hi Rich, I have opened a mass deletion request for images from Gumpert. Some of them were already nominated by you, so please participate at the mass request, if you like. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios

Hello mate, you recently marked some files such as Image:Eminem logo.gif and Image:Beatles logo.png for speedy deletion. Please note that they're not eligible for copyright as the consist entirely of text (see {{PD-textlogo}}). Regards, →Na·gy 20:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg

The image is very clearly marked as being not allowable for commercial purposes. This makes it unacceptable for Commons. I've re-deleted the image. Please do not re-upload the image. Thank you. --Durin (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg and my closing rationale there. --Durin (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sigma8mmF35EXDG-001.jpg

Hay, it seems that you have an issue of my edit to this photo. I made the modifications to give better contrast to the image, as well as that the photo had a slightly yellow tint. Is there any particular reason for this resistance? If its how the image looks, I'm cool with discussing that. Am I mistaken with the licence that you have released your photo under. Does it not allow me to modify this image. Or is it that you don't like the idea of a modified image to be uploaded under the same name? As far as I know there is nothing wrong with that, as long as I follow the terms of the licence agreement. I think uploading a photograph under a different file name that is a modified version of another is kinda silly, as then it is required for me to edit any page that uses the image. I really hope this can be resolved. Nebrot (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nebrot. Thanks for the message. I probably should have sent you a comment before my multiple reverts, so I'm sorry for that. I'm assuming your wanting the subject on a white background. It's a good idea. My problem with the edit is the technique used to create the white background. Clipping the white includes clipping of all the lettering on the lens itself where definition should keep. It's also created a non-uniform very slightly off-white background which, in my opinion, looks worse than a purposely gray background. For the effect you're trying to get, I would mask out the subject from the background and then make your adjustments instead of doing an overall adjustment that affects everything.

I can also see why the color balance was done, but this is really a matter of which part of the subject do you want keep correct. The item definitely wasn't shot in a color controlled environment and there is a difference in temperature from the middle of the lens to the ends with the ends being slightly warmer. I went with keeping the center correct. If you look at the center of the lower ring in the original image, you'll find RGB values of around 17-17-17 with the top ring being around 17-15-16. This compared to your edit which has values in the same area at about 14-16-18 and 14-15-17. I mean it's all subjective and the differences are so slight that they really don't matter all that much. I just wanted to show you my rationale.

As far as the license goes, nothing stops anyone from making any modifications or derivatives of the images. It is, after all, licensed under a cc-by-2.5 license. I don't think it's strange to make another file with a different name. I actually think that's a rather normal occurrence here with derivative work (ie. Category:Jason_Patric) which is why I'm suggesting using something like File:Sigma8mmF35EXDG-001-post.jpg. I welcome your feedback. Thoughts? RichN (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm just glad we got this cleared up. And your right, I should have done a better job in making sure the lettering was not completely clipped, while making the background brighter. As for making derivative works, I'm inexperienced on what the consensus is when it comes to how that is applied(either upload over old, or make new file). I have seen both methods, and have had people make derivatives of my photo's under different file names, but also seen people just re-upload over same file. I get the feeling that the latter is not a very nice thing to do, I was a bit lazy. Well I think I'm just gonna take a photograph of my own Sigma 8mm fisheye. That way I can work with 14-bit RAW file instead of 8-bit JPEG, and get better resulting photograph. Sorry for the trouble, I learned from this experience, and next time I'll discuss with user before doing anything similar again. Thanks Nebrot (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Sigma8mmF35EXDG-001.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Wow. Thanks! RichN (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I can't get a break!

So I finally got to making a photo of the Sigma 8mm fisheye [2]. Which is pretty much how you commented it should be, no blown out text on lens, it's close, but still very light grey. So I then edit page on English Wikipedia, and in less than 3 hours [3] undid it, citing that your image is "Quality Image". But yours was promoted only a week ago! Do I need to have my photograph promoted to "Quality Images" for it to be respected? Don't get me wrong, your photo is great. I just found grey background distracts for the subject, the lens. Almost all other lens photo's (commercial/most amateur) have a blown out background. So I felt a photo with such characteristics would help communicate the subject better. I just can't get a break, LOL , what gives! Sorry this is mostly a rant, I just though you might want to know. Thanks! Nebrot (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha. I'm sorry. I didn't know that was going to happen. RichN (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please link images

BotMultichillT 06:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image:U2-panorama.jpg was uncategorized on 28 October 2009.