User talk:GreenMeansGo

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

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

Warning: this page is guarded by Mr. Fuzzybottom, and he don't mess around.

No source notices[edit]

Hi, please be cautious when marking apparently old works with the 'no source' notice. Files like File:CharlesBoissevain.jpg are highly likely to be deleted once marked, yet they are verifiably public domain even without any known source. There is no consensus to delete files from Commons which are public domain but unsourced. Thanks -- (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly sure. I tried to find a source for it, and came up empty handed. Since he died in 1927, it wouldn't fall under PD-old-assumed, and it seemed very possible that the author died 1947 or later. So I didn't want to just leave it hanging out there so-to-speak. GMGtalk 21:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The saving grace is that the photographer is unknown, and with these sorts of photos if the name is not etched on, nobody is likely to work it out. Raise a DR if you think it's worth a deeper review, I'm not personally invested. Thanks -- (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Planet of the Apes Last Frontier logo 2017 black.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Planet of the Apes Last Frontier logo 2017 black.png 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

AUT_Kindberg_COA.jpg[edit]

Hello GreenMeansGo, thanx for the move of AUT_Kindberg_COA.jpg to AUT_Kindberg_COA_–2014.jpg. Now I got the problem that I can't delete the redirection to upload the new file. (If I had known this problem before, I would have decided to upload the new file as a .png instead of a .jpg-file.) Regards Kontrollstelle Kundl 15:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kontrollstelle Kundl. As far as I know (and I'm not exactly an expert), there isn't any option to supress redirects on Commons for file moves, and I believe an administrator will have to delete it in order for you to upload the (presumably) post-2014 version. Maybe User:Nick is around and can push some buttons for us. GMGtalk 15:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Looks like you're good to go Kontrollstelle Kundl. GMGtalk 22:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Uploading screenshots[edit]

Please provide me with steps on how to upload a screenshot from a game, app, or other piece of software without getting copyright problem messages. --Calebjosh (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Calebjosh: Unfortunately, the short answer is that you simply can't. Software including games are subject to copyright protections, and so are screenshots of them, meaning that they cannot be uploaded to Commons. GMGtalk 16:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, GMG. @Calebjosh:, in addition, see Commons:Screenshots. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


Precision needed[edit]

GMG hello, as for this edit, please ping me if it was intended to me. Part seems intended to Davey, part to me, so I'am not sure. Yug (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't directed at you Yug. Just pointing out that someone can't accuse someone of canvassing and at the same time claim that it never happens. GMGtalk 11:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I would not be offended as I indeed canvassed (via clumsy message, unawareness of the local rule), and apologized for it. I find embarrassing that Davey and Wiki** were both hard pressing me on canvassing and are now pressing to not document it on Commons. Yug (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think that policy at its best is in situations where it documents existing community norms rather than creating new ones. It's not really for the benefit of those who already know, but rather who those who dont. Frankly I was surprised to find there wasnt a policy or even an essay on it already. I should be back at a computer next week and I'll try to look more into it, assuming it survives deletion. GMGtalk 13:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a wiki, it's always in construction, it happen to have missing pages. I'am rather surprised that active users using the concept fight against its documentation. Redirect doesn't seems right to me, as search result may be affected. I also think it's better to have some hold on this, so to ensure it's benevolent, beneficial and adapted to Commons without being overflown by wiki:en. Yug (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

File:Armageddon flowchart.png[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 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 information 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 MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 21:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done GMGtalk 21:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

LOC crops[edit]

If a photograph is of particular interest and worth a crop, the best results will be from visiting the TIFF version, downloading the jpeg preview, cropping that, then creating as a new crop. This is relatively easy with User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js to assist. Some of the TIFFs in my recent uploads are many times the resolution of the jpeg. Thanks -- (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I hadn't checked honestly. I just figured they were the same resolution, probably out of laziness I suppose. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the note. GMGtalk 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37084910924).jpg[edit]

Extended content
Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37084910924).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37124228053).jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37124228053).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37124235453).jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37124235453).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37535976140).jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37535976140).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37535985910).jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37535985910).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37762418732).jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Greenmarket in Schenectady, New York (37762418732).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Friendly dogs at Wertmans Farm (34737845913).jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Friendly dogs at Wertmans Farm (34737845913).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Tourism Gnome and Elektrik City Hot Dawgs (23841632748).jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Tourism Gnome and Elektrik City Hot Dawgs (23841632748).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Tourism Gnome and Elektrik City Hot Dawgs (37645947406).jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Tourism Gnome and Elektrik City Hot Dawgs (37645947406).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Tourism Gnome and Elektrik City Hot Dawgs (37645949746).jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Tourism Gnome and Elektrik City Hot Dawgs (37645949746).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey Ron. Thanks for that. This was a pretty big dump of files, at least for the likes of me. I definitely still needed to go through them in detail beyond categories. Sorry you got to it first, but thanks for taking care of it. GMGtalk 21:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Ha, Yes. It might be better at a DR - I'll change it over if you like - I saw the gnome, and my thoughts were "who designed the gnome? It is copyrightable? - well it a bit like a COM:TOY so probably yes", then I saw a second... and a third, but they were well spaced out in the category I was viewing or I would have bulked them. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Alot of the images were like that, but for most I figured it was incidental enough to be alright. Obviously not all of them though. I take another look through them next week to be sure. Flickr2Commons is a blunt tool when it's a few hundred images. GMGtalk 16:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Well Ron, I'm going through and doing a lot of cropping and SD nominating in case you log on and feel like padding your admin statistics. GMGtalk 12:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll let you sort it out, I'm sure you know what you are doing. I don't worry about admin stats any more :-) Sorry to see the result about your own en RfA - it can get so brutal over there (mine was nail biting enough). Worth trying again sometime, there were a lot of supports (me included). Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Meh. Maybe one day. No time soon though. Thanks for the thought anyway. No shortage of work to be done admin or no. GMGtalk 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


Question[edit]

Hello, I'm unfamiliar with where to go with this, but I followed some clues and hope this is a start- I own the rights to the Capital District Tourism Gnome and all the media of it, and I'm the one who took the photos. But I have never given my permission for them to be downloaded to Wikimedia, though I guess the copyright I chose on Flickr means they can be without my permission. I would however like to know why someone is downloading them to Commons... —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:8806:3004:6500:4D5B:FF7:BF77:695C (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. The images were transferred using a semi-automated process because they were licensed for free public use. Wikimedia Commons is part of a non-profit network that includes sites like Wikipedia and Wikiquote, but the license the images were released under allows anyone to reuse them for any purpose so long as they're attributed. GMGtalk 10:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
May I ask that they be attributed to Scott Meislin, as the photographer, instead of Henry Bellagnome, as Henry Bellagnome is the copyrighted gnome and obviously then not the photographer? Otherwise you're not fulfilling the terms of use which requires proper attribution. Also, if I remember correctly my CC on Flickr requires that any other use makes sure that the same terms of using it requires that any derivative work is also not copyrighted and the same terms as I have on my originals must be put on any other use. Does the Commons make it clear that the photos cannot be put in a derivative work which is then copyrighted? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:8806:3004:6500:D8AD:6256:AEAA:751C (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the attribution to Henry Bellagnome is legally an attribution to the Flickr account, and if pseudonymous, the online identity of the account owner (just as my contributions to Wikipedia are legally attributed to "GreenMeansGo" as a pseudonym for myself as the account owner).
As to the more complex issues of a CC-BY-SA license, you, as the legal "creator" still retain copyright to the media, and will continue to do so until expiration, 70 years after your death. You have however, as the copyright owner chosen to irrevocably and legally license them for public use. As the copyright owner, you could choose to re-license them in a way that is less restrictive (for example, a CC0 license), but you could not re-license them in a way that is more restrictive than you already have, because that would violate your own original license.
For others who may reuse the content, it is their responsibility to comply with the license, which would include proper attribution and licensing any derivative work in a way that is compatible with the original. This is the same with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. For example, we could not legally include one of the images in a Wikipedia article without providing a link to the file description which includes the attribution and link to the original on Flickr. And, for example, if someone decided to reuse one of your images on the cover of their surprise-best-selling novel without attributing the source, you could still seek legal action against them for violating the terms of the license. Hopefully that clears up more than it confuses. GMGtalk 14:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

File:The Mary White life boat rescuing the crew of the American Ship the Northern Belle RMG PY8529.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:The Mary White life boat rescuing the crew of the American Ship the Northern Belle RMG PY8529.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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Broichmore (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:200th anniversary of Albany as the New York state capital (34907946675) (cropped).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:200th anniversary of Albany as the New York state capital (34907946675) (cropped).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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Guanaco (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

I can see you are busy making this a better document. When it comes down to it, could you think twice before moving to make it a guideline or part of policy? We have essays that are just as effective for advising people as to project norms, without making our body of policies larger. Any guideline on canvassing is only ever going to be advisory and we probably do want it to be a longish explanation of the issues in a way that a firm guideline of "do this, not that" probably should not be.

As an example of a solid essay that nails a norm, I quite like referencing to User:Elcobbola/Stuffed Animals which is extensive and maintained without needing to fill guidelines with all the details.

Thanks -- (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Umm...well I'm not saying I'm planning on trying to make it a guideline any time soon. Heck, I've worked on and off on w:WP:NAC for almost a year and a half now and haven't started a discussion about making it a guideline yet.
But I would certainly like broader input on and contribution to what's written there, since at this point, I've written almost the whole thing myself. I think we do need some kind of guid-ance, even if it's not a guide-line. Commons:Administrators/Requests/Yug shows I think pretty well the confusion that can be caused when people say "follow this advice that doesn't exist". But getting that advice from advice to a guideline would mean finding the median of the position of many many users. So gotta start somewhere I guess. GMGtalk 19:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open![edit]

POTY barnstar.svg

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear GreenMeansGo,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)