User talk:Animalparty

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Animalparty!

File: Tachypompilus unicolor.jpg[edit]

This file was licensed for use under Creative Commons 4.0, according to the licence information on http://inaturalist.ca/observations/3903168. I am not going to request a reversal of your decisions regarding the three images I uploaded on 2 September but I would like a fuller explanation, the other two images had Creative Common 3.0 licences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetzal1964 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 03 September 2016 (UTC) Read through the licences and I understand, no need for a response.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetzal1964 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


File:William Sergeant Kendall - Elisabeth Kendall 1987.624.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:William Sergeant Kendall - Elisabeth Kendall 1987.624.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 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!

Howhontanozaz (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

File:H4712-L60541001.jpg Pay attention to licensing Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. File:H4712-L60541001.jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file description page. Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ svenska ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ +/−

Please do not claim copyright on images you did not create, and/or that are in the public domain. Scanning or photographing a pre-existing image (like this one) does not grant you new copyright or attribution rights. Always indicate the source and enough evidence to credibly indicate the public domain status or copyright license. ----Animalparty (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty,

The process to upload directly to the Wiki article only allowed me to state that I had the copyright to it. It's about 100 years old and was given to me for my research - I haven't seen anything else like it on the internet. The original copyright holder passed in 1940. That should qualify for public domain I would think.


--Ilikewiki2020 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have looked into it more and have changed the license tag accordingly. --Ilikewiki2020 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


Code issues in User:Animalparty/common.js[edit]

Hi Animalparty, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Animalparty/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 18 character 47: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: importScript('User:Magnus Manske/sdc tool.js')

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 20:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC).

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.

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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain...[edit]

You cropped File:Amy_Madigan_(40389212382).jpg. You could have kept the original, and made the cropped version a brand new image. You chose to overwrite the original.

But you didn't say why, in your edit summary, or on File talk:Amy_Madigan_(40389212382).jpg.

Are you responsible for other similar crops? Geo Swan (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting_a_Large-scale_Courtesy_Deletion_of_Personal_Images_of_Myself and Category:Pending removals to be checked. I may have cropped other images created by the same person, in reasonable and respectful compliance with their wishes. --Animalparty (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I did find that discussion, on my own, a few minutes ago.
I am going to suggest that either (1) all the affected images should have been explicitly listed at the discussion; (2) or every crop should contain a link to the discussion, in its edit summary. If the images were explicitly listed at the discussion, then those with questions over the images could find the discussion with the "what links here" button.
I think your edits, related to that discussion, not only have to make sense to the other people who participated in that discussion, but they have to make sense to uninvolved third parties, like myself, who review what is left behind, later. Geo Swan (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

About public domain images, a question[edit]

Thank you Animalparty. If I make a modification to an image in the public domain, here from Wikimedia Commons, and generate a new upload, will its license be the standard license from Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0) or will it enter the public domain too? Mário NET (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mário NET: If you make minor modifications to a public domain image (for example, simple crops, slight color adjustment, or simple arrows and labels), then the modified image is still probably in the public domain. If you modify the image so much that it becomes a new creative work (see threshold of originality and derivative works), then you could potentially claim authorship and copyright of the new image (but not the original), and release it under any license of your choice. Public domain means that either the copyright has expired (it was published too long ago), or that the creator/copyright holder has explicitly abandoned copyright. Most Creative Commons licenses still indicate the work is under copyright: the creator retains some control over how the image is reused. If you reuse or modify an image released under a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, you must attribute the creator, and must indicate if changes have been made (and if modifying a CC-BY-SA image, you must release the modified version under the same or compatible license as the original). This is why the CropTool is so useful: it automatically adds {{Extracted image}}, which indicates the image is modified (cropped) from a larger image. Other templates include {{Retouched picture}} (where you can specify the changes made as well as the editor who made the changes), and {{Derived from}} (useful for more extensive modifications, and/or collages assembled from multiple images). --Animalparty (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

ːThanks. I have a lot to study about it. Mário NET (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)