User talk:Robert of Ramsor

Welcome

to my Talk page.  I've just joined Wikimedia on St David's Day 2008.

I found I needed a Wikimedia Commons account so that I could include some photos in my article on Ramsor. (And do we need a Wikimedia Lords account for Peer review?) (I'd better explain to the Americans that we have 2 Houses of Parliament - Commons and Lords. Members of the house of Lords are also called Peers.)

I am thinking of starting a Photos for Dummies guide on Wikimedia so that newcomers don't take as long as I did to find out how to upload their photos. The pages on Wikimedia and Wikipedia about uploading files are very good on providing the information, but are a massive amount of information to sift and absorb. I might make a start here, and let Admin move it to somewhere useful. The point is that we all write instruction assuming that the reader knows what we do.

I came to Wiki with some HTML web page experience, and found that I needed to learn a whole new syntax to use a very good and powerful host system. The Wikipedia system does a very good job and the more I discover the more good points I find. It just takes a bit of learning.

Robert of Ramsor 15:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

 

abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this relates to a mistake in which I created a Talk page where I did not intend. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Some useful information

• Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
• All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery
• Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
• Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
• To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg
• If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper

Made a mistake?

• Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}}
• For more information read the full deletion guidelines.

File:New_Forest_sunset_birch_02.jpg

File:New_Forest_sunset_birch_02.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!

D-Kuru (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-commercial use only is not allowed here

Hello, you have uploaded several images with CC-BY-3.0 as their license, but you have written ”Non-commercial with attribution” to the permission field. Images for non-commercial use only are not allowed here, as this is a free collection of images. See Commons:Project scope. CC-BY-3.0 allows also commercial use. If you did not know that, and you do not want your images to be used for commercial purposes, write that to the deletion request of your images. If you do allow use for commercial purposes, remove the ”Non-commercial with attribution” -line from your images and write your decision to the deletion request. Gratefully, Joku Janne^(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your images

If you need some ideas to choose a licence you can have a look at Commons:Copyright_tags#GNU_Licenses and below. Commons:Choosing a license and Commons:First steps/License selection will may help you as well. I usually prefer to ask user if something is wrong with their files. However from experience "we have som trubles with your file" notes usually do not change anything. Many user also upload their files and do not care any longer if the image is uploaded. Even I'm not happy about it, a deletion request is the best way to manage such files. If the user cares there is no problem. If the user doesn't care the file gets deleted without wating for some answer. Some uploaders tag their images with {{Noncommercial}} or {{Nonderivative}} which is a speedy deletion tag.
If you have chosen a licence under wich you want to re-release all your files you can tell me and I can help you processing the images. "Non-commercial with attribution" would be BY-NC. If you want to include as much restrictions as possible I can help you to get the best licencecompilation. Tell me if you need some extra help
--D-Kuru (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As I know the most restrictive licence we have on Commons is {{GFDL-1.2}}. If you want to use an image published under that licence you have to atrribute the author, share-alike and include the full licence text. Because GFDL 1.2 is a free licence and because you would have published your images under CC-BY-NC in any way you can multilicence your images: As well under GFDL 1.2 as well as under CC-BY-NC.

However, usually there is no need for a long permission text. you can cancel your text and it will automatically turn to "see below" or "see below" in your language. You can use the permission option for example as it is in use on Romanian B33 (8x8) Armored Personnel Carriers.jpg. If you want I can create a licence tag for you which you can easily include in every of your pictures. If you want I can also include a note which tells everybody how they should attribute you.

--D-Kuru (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see you have uploaded some new images and (I guess) solved the question of licensing. Just to notify you: You have changed the licence of all your old images to CC-BY-3.0. Because CC licences are irrevocable there wouldn't be any use if you replace them by a more restrictive licence. If you would have replaced them ~24h after you have changed the licence I don't think that it would have been a big problem, because you could claim that the licencechange was an accident. However I don't think that some CC-BY images will kill you :-)

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Shrewsbury_landmarks_03.jpg

File:Shrewsbury_landmarks_03.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!

Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Cradley Heath Baptist Church 02.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 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 Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Nikbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Nikbot (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to myself

This happened because I forgot to change the source photo when uploading second of a set of images; the Wikimedia computer warned me of this; when I went back to change the source file, I assumed that the license information had been retained. I missed seeing that the license had been cleareed and that I had to repeat the license selection procedure.

Reminder The Shrewsbury Landmark deletion was one I had requested following error uploading. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

SUL

Hi, I noticed your comment at the FPC talk page, regarding SUL accounts. SUL means Single Unified Login, and it definitely isn't a requirement. It is sometimes referred to as a "global account". Having a SUL can be beneficial as it "reserves" your user name for you on loads of other Wikimedia projects, even if you have never signed in. It also has the added benefit of just making sure that your contributions over Wikimedia can be tracked in a single place, namely on the SUL checker here. As you can see, I am "registered" on projects I have never edited, but whenever I want to pop in to, say, the Danish wiki to make a small correction, I don't have to sign up or sign in . . . it was automatically taken care of for me when I created the SUL. You can read more about it on Meta. The reason why this is mentioned so often with the voting and such is because it makes it so easy to check how many edits a single user may have on other projects besides commons. Some editors will have completely different or slightly different user names in different projects and if they haven't declared what their other user names are, it would be very difficult to track their project experience. Even without an SUL, this does still sort of work . . . the same check shows your edits at en wiki and commons, but because the username is being tracked without an SUL, there is no way for another editor to be certain that the contributions of both accounts are actually yours. If someone were to create your user name at the Spanish wiki, for example, then it would also show up in the list, but wouldn't relate to your edits. Hope all of that helps, though I'm sure other people understand it better or could help you further, :-) Maedin\^talk 06:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New proposal for the FP candidates voting process

Hello! I've written a proposal to bring more impartiality in the voting process of FP candidates. Could you please give your comment on that here? Regards -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Grindon Church

Hi Robert
Since the last update here was some time ago, I don't know how often you visit your talk page. Nevertheless, I am following your request to "advise you in advance" that I would like to use your image of Grindon Church in the snow. It will be used to illustrate part of a video of my new version of Ding Dong Merrily on High - which will be public domain on YouTube, duly credited
I'll post the URL when it's ready.
Kind regards
David Dwsolo (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Robert

Here is the video
Ding Dong Merrily on High - a somewhat different version
I hope you like it
Kind regards
David
Dwsolo (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)