User talk:Jasc PL

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






Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jasc PL!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Pomoc[edit]

Cześć – ja z problemami na Commons zwracam się do Piastu, jestem pewien, że chętnie pomogą również Yarl i SpiderMum / jak wiem Polimerek zna się na sprawach licencji – zajmuje się OTRS – ważne przy wrzucaniu plików nie swojego autorstwa – Darekm135 (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi[edit]

Niestety jak autor nie wydał zgodę na licencję bez warunku "NC" - to pliki są na Commons do usunięcia. Polimerek (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Nie wiadomo na jakiej konkretnie licencji CC on to udostępnił - więc jak się nie odzywa to też nie bardzo się da to użyć. Polimerek (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Nie da się tego użyć. Polimerek (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Flickr source[edit]

When uploading images from Flickr please put the entire link down as the source. The direct link. Not the album link. Doing so causes automated checking to error and shoves the uploads into a manual checking queue which takes a lot of time and effort to clear. If you continue to upload images from Flickr I would really appreciate it if you could help those of us out by putting the direct link next time. Thank you! --Majora (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Thanks for your message. My files = my work: I will fix myself all of these 20 with mistakes and discuss some technical details with Jdx or someone else experienced BEFORE next uploads from Flickr. --Jasc PL (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Error retrieving token: mwoauthdatastore-request-token-not-found

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasc PL (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove problem tags[edit]

Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Svenska | Українська | +/−


Nuvola apps important.svg
Hi! It has come to my attention that you have removed a warning which says that a file doesn't have enough information about the source or license conditions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this information is still missing and I have restored the tag. You may either add the required information or, if you think that required information is already given, put the image up for a deletion request so that it won't automatically be deleted. Thank you.

Usuwanie szablonów takich jak {{no permission}} bez wskazania linku do strony z pozwoleniem jest niezgodne z zasadami i może być podstawą do zablokowania użytkownika. Nie rób tego, proszę. Ankry (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned file (3 files); I'm sure are absolutely legal, but - yes, at the moment they have same issue concerning formal licensing proof.
Hej @Ankry - dzięki Bogu że po polsku :); zupełnie zaskoczyło (i zirytowało - to nie był dobry moment) mnie to wczoraj, trochę nie doczytałem treści poprzedniego szablonu, obawiałem się, że te 3 pliki w każdej chwili mogą zostać skasowane - a to by mogło mieć fatalne konsekwencje. Teraz sprawa jest jasna i prosta, wiem (?) że na liście nominacji mogę wstawić hold z opisem, i te pliki mi nagle nie znikną. Rozmawiałem o tym właśnie z @Fallanerem, jeszcze wczoraj z @Wostr, już wcześniej chciałem zwrócić się do @Jarekt, a mam też tutaj namiary na @Polimerka - mam nadzieję, że obaj dadzą się tutaj zaprosić.

Kwestie licencyjne[edit]

Sprawa tych 3 plików jest dla mnie prosta i oczywista - sam doprowadzę ją w taki czy inny sposób formalnie do końca; tutaj jest zgoda FETY (2009051410028286) na wykorzystanie materiałów z ich strony - tylko Koledzy z OTRS mają dostęp i wiedzę, by sprawdzić szczegóły; czy dotyczy ona tylko tekstów, czy jest szersza i/lub może być zinterpretowana w sposób obejmujący także fotografie i ew. multimedia.

Ściąganie plików od firm i instytucji[edit]


Problem jest jednak znacznie poważniejszy i dotyczy znacznie większej ilości plików - i w kontekście licencji i kwestii technicznych; tytułem wstępu:
"... jeśli oni będą musieli do każdego pliku wysyłać zgodę to - dziękujemy, do widzenia - temat zakończony, zanim się jeszcze na dobre zaczął - a ja się ośmieszę. Z trojmiasto.pl dostanę prawdopodobnie kilkadziesiąt/kilkaset profesjonalnych zdjęć - nie dla mnie, dla nas - wypuszczonych specjalnie na CC bez -NC. To komercyjna firma, największy portal regionalny w PL, są bardzo zajęci - robią nam tym DUŻĄ grzeczność; załatwiłem to na 1 telefon i 1 maila (i nie pytali mnie o numer dowodu czy pesel :) na pewno nie będą się bawili w czasochłonną biurokrację. Trzeba to jakoś sensownie pogodzić - bo inaczej zostaniemy z niczym..."
Skontaktowałem się z kilkoma instytucjami publicznymi i dużym portalem, prosząc ich o udostępnienie zdjęć dla nas - głównie dotyczących Gdańska, ale też FETY. Znam nasze zasady licencyjne, mam całą kolekcję odnośników do tego w zakładkach, wczoraj przeczytałem jeszcze dwa artykuły po polsku, mimo tego na początku nie dopilnowałem jednak wszystkiego - całe szczęście że problem wyszedł już teraz i dotyczy tylko 3 plików
Pytanie brzmi: jak w najprostszy i najmniej pracochłonny sposób pogodzić jedno z drugim? Przy niewielkiej ilości plików bez problemu można zrobić wszystko ręcznie (listę nazw plików w pozwoleniu - wystarczą same nazwy, nie musi być też linka do źródła pliku?). Przy większej ilości - niezbyt wyobrażam sobie ręczne "rzeźbienie" wszystkiego - zarówno po stronie dostawcy, jak i mojej.

Kwestie techniczne[edit]

  • Upload plików: "Kreator przesyłania plików" w tym przypadku się nie nadaje (własnie przetestowałem); mogę je ściągnąć z FTP dostawców lub udostępnić im swój (zgoda pójdzie osobno) - tym sposobem mogę paroma kliknięciami wygenerować dowolnie długą listę nazw plików z parametrami. Czy mamy jeszcze jakąś inną alternatywę w rezerwie?
  • Import danych: zdjęcia u dostawców są jakoś skatalogowane, skategoryzowane, opisane (szczególnie na trojmiasto.pl) - jak można zaimportować te dane np. z pliku XLS, CSV itp., ew. gdyby wykonali dump z tego kawałka bazy danych?
FETA - idealnie byłoby zaimportować z ich strony całość opisów i programów ze wszystkich edycji festiwalu, teatrów, spektakli. Zakładając że ich zgoda (pisałem wyżej) jest nadal aktualna - bardzo by się to nam przydało, zarówno do artykułu w plwiki jak i opisów zdjęć.


Z góry dziękuję za czas poświęcony przez Was na tą sprawę --Jasc PL (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
ping: @Ankry: @Fallaner: @Jarekt: @Polimerek:

Re:Kategoria Gdańsk‎[edit]

Hej! Dzięki za miłe słowa. Oczywiście masz rację, że zdjęcia powinny być w konkretnej kategorii miejsca, czyli nazwa budynku czy nazwa ulicy itp. Ja się nie znam na Gdańsku więc ciężko mi było dodać te kategorię. Ja obecnie zajmuję się przenoszeniem zdjęć z kategorii takich jak przykładowo Category:Photographs taken on 2016-04-25 do Category:Poland photographs taken on 2016-04-25 przy okazji dodając kategorię miasta czyli np April 2016 in Warsaw czy 2016 in Poznań. Użytkownicy Commons, najlepiej znający Gdańsk jeśli już mówimy o przypadku tegoż miasta, powinni dodać kategorię miejsca czy budynku. Ogólnie rzecz biorąc, nie powinno być w ogóle zdjęć w kategorii głównej miasta czyli Category:Gdańsk gdyż jest ona zdecydowanie zbyt ogólna. Zasadą Commons jest umieszczanie zdjęć w jak najbardziej konkretnych kategoriach. Jeśli ty znasz się na Gdańsku, proszę dodaj te kategorie miejsc. Pozdrawiam, Marcin --Halavar (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Poprawiłem kategoryzację tych 4 plików. Jeśli masz czas i chęci, to proszę popraw także inne zdjęcia, aby przenieść pliki z kategorii głównej Gdańska do tych bardziej konkretnych. Jeśli zaś chodzi o Twe pytanie, to zasadą na Commons jest to, że używamy nazw angielskojęzycznych dla nazw kategorii. Pozdrawiam, Marcin --Halavar (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

File:AVC logo animation (4535364520).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:AVC logo animation (4535364520).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)‎ | +/−

Taivo (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Translation help[edit]

Hi, again I need your help for translation. The complementaries to "Valid" are "Invalid", "Uncheckable" and now "Unspecified" (when the template is transcluded without any info about W3C). When you remember, far below at Template:Created with ...#Examples are examples, and now also one for that case: I put in the template {{Created with/pl}} the text ^specifik^ where you can insert a correct Polish word. -- sarang사랑 14:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @sarang! OK, but one problem is: I can't fully understand the meaning of "Unspecified" in this context; what characteristic attributes have such files? Why they are "Unspecified"? If they lacking information about and can't be W3C verified - why we can't use "unverifiable" or simply invalid? What exactly is not specified?
I ask you, because there are many synonyms in Polish, so I should use the better. Greetings :), --Jasc PL (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I choose 'unspecified' for the many files that have just a template "Created with Xxx" without any specification whether they are W3C-valid or -invalid (some contain at another place the "Valid SVG" template, but it is not yet possible to combine the two templates; so these files are possibly checked, but they cannot be subcategorized depending on the W3C-result).
All the categories in SVG files without W3C-specification are maintenance categories, the files are missing this specification. BTW, there are many other properties missing, e.g. whether text is embedded or pathed, their topic and all the other specifications — but this "unspecified' tells only about W3C. In other words, it says "please check the W3C-validity of this SVG file and then specify the "Created ..."-template with the result". Thank you for being so precise, you will find the best word, and Polish people will not have to riddle when they read it. -- sarang사랑 04:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
working draft: nie zweryfikowany / nie sprawdzony z W3C ...plik/obraz..., / nie ustalony... status W3C

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Raspbian - Raspberry Pi 2 (16747589098).png[edit]

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | Tiếng Việt | 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:Raspbian - Raspberry Pi 2 (16747589098).png, 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!

BevinKacon (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@BevinKacon:, please explain precisely - where is the "derivative work" in the mentioned file, or is it derivative work of what?
What is unclear for you? --Jasc PL (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Tagged because image contains copyrighted video game content.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Kano projects (26818817286).png[edit]

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | Tiếng Việt | 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:Kano projects (26818817286).png, 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!

BevinKacon (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Project3 (16810526967).png[edit]

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | Tiếng Việt | 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:Project3 (16810526967).png, 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!

BevinKacon (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'v just checked again 3 mentioned files above. I appreciate your licence proofing work but in this particular situation - unfortunately, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please check carefully and understand first what exact you see and then act. --Jasc PL (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
They contain screenshots of a copyrighted video game, they technically qualify for speedy deletion, however if the content is removed, the license is valid. This is preferable. I tag it this way to give 7 days to fix it. As you disagree and have reverted, I will tag them for speedy deletion for a review by admin shortly.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You are still wrong - free and Open Source software is NOT copyrighted by proprietary manner - the two things are mutually exclusive.
I hope you understand my comment accompanying to reverts, otherwise - please provide argumentative evidence supporting your point of view. --Jasc PL (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The screenshots contain images of "Minecraft PI edition", you need to provide proof it is released under the license you've tagged it with.--BevinKacon (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You know already that's not a "video game" - congratulations, but you must search deeper. You should check licences for Debian and Raspbian first - it's easy to find, then learn what GNU/GPL licences mean here, or in the corresponding Wikipedia articles.
You are wasting my time, so for. --Jasc PL (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Raspbian - Raspberry Pi 2 (16747589098).png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Raspbian - Raspberry Pi 2 (16747589098).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)‎ | +/−

BevinKacon (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:RPi-Logo-Stacked-Reg-SCREEN.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:RPi-Logo-Stacked-Reg-SCREEN.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)‎ | +/−

Hercule (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Gdańsk, Muzeum II Wojny Światowej (37243961380).jpg[edit]

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | Tiếng Việt | 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:Gdańsk, Muzeum II Wojny Światowej (37243961380).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!

Yours sincerely, BevinKacon (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

In this particular situation - I agree --Jasc PL (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)