More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
I've moved File:KB Hungary.svg as you requested however I'd just thought I'd let you know a bot (CommonsDelinker) processes the renaming of files across all wikis. At the moment there is quite a backlog of images for it to go through so if you want to do it yourself, go right ahead. Regards 07:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would, but I didn't realize that the wick list wouldn't be saved. Is there another way to check which projects used the old filename? Trlkly (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Your statement here is inappropriate. The two people arguing for the image have no background in copyright and have misstated things about the cases. Furthermore, the only case law they have used regards a smooth, blue bottle with simple gold font, and the case made it clear that they did not declare if Skyy had the right to copyright the look but only that a person who took a later image could not prevent Skyy from licensing others from taking pictures of the bottle. The case was also not infront of the Supreme Court so does not have the ability to determine precise Constitutional precedence, especially when a later case declared that minor alterations to common items can be copyrightable. At no time can the picture of the man be said to be copyrightable, which Dcoetzee points out. Dcoetzee is a long term admin with a strong background in copyright. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've opened Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Ottava_Rima as a partial response to this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do not respond to me on my talk page because you do not like what I said in the deletion request. Discuss it there, where the interested parties can still argue with you.
- As far as I am concerned, my argument is sound. Expertise is irrelevant on Wikimedia. All that matters is whether or not you have a valid source backing your argument. From my reading up to that point, you did not. And if you are so sure I'm wrong, you can prove it there, rather than trying to get me to recant. I will not recant unless you provide a citation to the relevant case law by which you make your arguments. Trlkly (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
- [[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
- [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.
- Image:Tamale Oaxaqueño thumb.png was uncategorized on 3 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Image:Freudenberg IT logo.svg was uncategorized on 14 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"DOCTYPE" can only be considered bad if you completely ignore SGML, which the codifiers of the SVG standard did not do, since they include a DTD definition of SVG in the very first appendix ("Appendix A") of the SVG standard. In any case, there are probably at least tens of thousands of SVG files on Commons with DOCTYPE declarations, and I don't know that I found your "cleanup" of File:Function x^2.svg to be overall too impressive... AnonMoos (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't do any actual "cleanup," I reduced filesize by eliminating a useless declaration. I don't plan on going through and fixing every image, but when I happen to encounter an image that has been repeatedly recreated to reduce filesize, I'm going to reduce it still if I can. If such editing is going to be done, it makes sense for the file to be as small as possible.
- Perhaps calling it invalid was too far. My point is that it's not required for validation anymore, and it's definitely not required for rendering. It's superfluous, and in an image that is trying to be as tiny as possible, it makes no sense to include it. There's a reason why it's in an appendix.
- And, frankly, your response to me comes off as a bit more insulting than I hope you intended. It seems rather snarky. I know there's no "CIVIL" policy here, but I do think it helps if we try to be friendly when responding to each other. If I'd responded as "I'm don't see why whether you find something 'impressive' is all that relevant," or "I don't find your 'reason' for using my talk page to be at all impressive," I'm pretty sure I'd have set you on edge, too. Trlkly (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)