User talk:Mdd4696/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2

War memorial

Hi, Sorry, but I think you didn't put the link in your message, both seem to go to the original I uploaded! --fir0002 05:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hang on I think I found it... Image:West face of melb war memorial03.jpg right? I had a quick look through your contribs! But I think that version is great, what software did you use? --fir0002 05:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Note on Village pump

Oops. I looked, and I really didn't notice that at the time. So I apologise for my wrong accusation.

Yeah, I'm sure you can spend your time more productively anyway. :)

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The template Series

I love the idea. It is exactly the part I though commons was missing. For future images, should I put a zero in the front of the file name? --Tarawneh 02:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually. It's a little bit simpler if there are no leading zeros. How are you naming your files? Do you have a program? ~MDD4696 03:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I use ACDSee Photo Manager, it renames the photos with a single pass. --Tarawneh 04:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
But your template contains index size. 1, 2, ... 22 should be 01, 02, ...22. Is that right? --Tarawneh 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming

This is an expansion of a side comment on VP. We also have interest in such things in the Project Commons:Wikiproject Time.

  • It would not be obvious to a naive visitor to Commons what a "Series" is. Series doesn't at all imply navigation There are many such ways to implement such things. I would suggest that any such thing that allows you to go directly from one Image page to another is such a thing. Proposals:
    • Tours
      • Pros: Stronger responsibility to editor implied- If you are taken on a tour, it is expected that you will be shown things of note, and that there will be some logic in the sequence.
    • Trails
      • Pros: Vannevar Bush first described these as trails, in an Atlantic article in the 1940s. The terminology is non techical.
      • Cons: Ambiguity may result with actual trails- like the Lewis and Clark Trail. "Tours" are less so- since the dominant noun form is a commercially arranged operation designed for tourists.
    • Browse sequences
      • Pros: Technically accurate, though (Cons:) a bit off putting to the non technical visitor.
    • Web Rings
      • Pros: Leverages a more broadly known term that has a similarity with the general notion of trails.
      • Cons: Many dissimilarities: Rings are intersite, at the granularity of the site, not specific pages.

My current favorite is "Tours". Your thoughts? -Mak 15:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My original intention with Template:Series was to create a template that would make browsing between sequentially indexed files' description pages easier. Thus I see the template being applicable not just to tours, but also, say, a set of photographs one might have taken of an apple. Right now I am adding the template to the sets of photographs User:Tarawneh has uploaded. I think series is the perfect term for such groups of files; it implies that there is a sequential group of related files.
Unfortunately, not all sequentially named files are necessarily related, nor are all directly related files named sequentially. However, with time I expect this to become less of a problem, as people upload files with this template, or a future template's, usage in mind.
I think that there are many other possibilities with browsing templates similar to the one I created. However I also think that it would be wise to restrict Template:Series to its current functionality. Specialized templates that do one thing well are probably preferable over one that does everything just ok... (Unix vs. Windows?).
Are we on the same page? ~MDD4696 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my poor communication. I was refering to the name of a category, not templates. Of course series makes perfect sense for the name of your template. What I was suggesting was that that folks visiting commons should have an easy way to get at all of them regardless how they are implemented (my current one uses no templates), using a term that a newcomer would understand. The idea is that user goes to one cat, and there are entries to article pages that are jumping off points to the various trails. As the cat grows, we add subcats, eg art history tours, travelogue tours (such as Barcelona), Animal Kingdom tours, etc etc. How about that? -Mak 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a proposed example top level category Category:Tours with an example jumping off page Tours of World War II. We can change the names and what not, but it was easier to just create some examples rather than describe what I was suggesting. -Mak 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Signpost recordings

Thanks for helping me out on the template – I wasn't quite sure how to use it. I'm doing the recordings for the Wikicast project which is still in alpha development and hasn't been endorsed by the foundation as of yet, but it does have a focus on free content, which is why we are using the commons to post our material for now. If you have any furter questions check out #wikicast on Freenode IRC or visit the Wikicast mini-wiki at http://www.bitshuffle.org/wikicast/Main_Page. Again, thanks for the help --Omaryak 06:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am aware of Spoken Wikipedia, which is where I started before moving on to the Wikicast project. I didn't create a user page explaining all this because I already have one over at Wikipedia, though admittedly it doesn't mention Wikicast. I suppose I'm just lazy. :)

P.P.S. More Wikicast material can be found in the Wikicast material category.

Image:BuddhisticStatuesHKe1.jpg

Hi. When I edit photos, I ususaly set the license "GFDL contents from English Wikipedia". Probably, I did not pay attention when I chose the license for BuddhisticStatuesHKe1.jpg. Olegivvit 08:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifying file history on Image:Solsort.jpg

Hi Mdd4696. I uploaded the file to the danish Wikipedia. Later da:User:Wegge uploaded it for me to Commons. Since then I have uploaded a higher resolution version. Together with this image User:Wegge uploaded a bunch of other photos of mine. Some of them I have not been able to clean up yet, but I hope to find some time for it in the future - my list of the photos that still needs clean up is here: da:Bruger:Malene/Egne billeduploads til commons. Is there some way I can help to avoid confusion about my images moved here from dawiki?

Regards Malene Thyssen 18:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The upload was nearly perfect :). The only thing I think was lacking was a link to the original file on dawiki (this should be included even if it is deleted). Image:Solsort.jpg is a good example to follow now, I think. Thanks! ~MDD4696 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator

Congratulations! You are administrator now. --EugeneZelenko 15:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you much :). ~MDD4696 22:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

As I said on your Wikipedia talk page, thanks for deleting it. I think this was the main reason my Userpage over there was vandalized by Korean vandals with racist attacks. Jun Kazama from Tekken should just break their arms for stupid behavior like that. --WTGDMan1986 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Thosa images are folk paintings and they haven't got any their author or copyright holder. So I still need to provide more information on them ? Ok, I will add more information in next time I log in. Casablanca1911 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

irc

Do you use IRC? If so, please jump on now :) irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-commons --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Hi, I always post the license data just after I upload so please don't tag anymore. Thanks Arniep 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks... thought that was a little strange. ~MDD4696 22:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Licencing

Hi. I am not sure I understand. The photos have self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5 as licensing. Isn't it correct? --Harrieta171 12:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

When you first uploaded them, they did not have any license information. You have since tagged them with "self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5", which is what I requested that you do. Thanks! ~MDD4696 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Licensing

I marked all of the pictures with their license indication. If I forgot any of them, please tell me the urls and will complete the work. Best wishes. --G.dallorto 20:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OOPS! I forgot to mention it in the first caption, then I cut-and-paste the rest, sto the mistake carried on for the whole series. Now it has been fixed. Vest wishes. --G.dallorto 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a tool?

Dear Mdd4696, rethinking about my images whose licence I had forgotten to add, how could you spot them out that fast? Do you use any software/functionality? It would be useful to me to know about it to check myself my uploads. I am making huge uploads (scores at a time) and antyhing making the task faster would be welcome. --G.dallorto 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually have a tool... I just happened to be checking new uploads and noticed yours. The Toolserver has been having problems lately, but the Orphans and Untagged tabs at the top of the screen might be helpful. Have you taken a look at the Commonist tool? I haven't used it, but maybe you could check it out. ~MDD4696 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Typoghaphia.svg

Thanks! In point of fact, probably there are other parts... and not only, of course, for latin. Since you are interested I can delve into this thing! Cheers, F l a n k e r 18:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No source?

Image:LesDessousElegantsMars1912page17.png The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haabet (talk • contribs) at 02:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur drawings

Good point. I've started adding source materials to the descriptions. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting non-free images

Hi. I've noticed that you've deleted some images that I've tagged as copyvio. Thanks! But... I'm frustrated to see that some images I've tagged as copyvio two weeks ago are still on Commons. What should i do to gain power to delete such images? Bojan 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You can start by reading over the material at Commons:Administrators. There you should find all the information you need. There's lots of work to be done at Commons, so more help is always welcome! ~MDD4696 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Bojan 15:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

houdini

excuse. But with that license i can to up-load one cover with a album? admitted that it is possible...

excuse for my English but I have used a translator automatic rifle. --Wim_b 22:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Album covers are not free. Pictures of album covers are also not free. You cannot use {{GFDL-self}} on album covers. Please read Commons:Licenze.
Le coperture dell'album non sono libere. Le immagini delle coperture dell'album non sono inoltre libere. Non potete usare {{GFDL-self}} sulle coperture dell'album. Legga prego Commons:Licenze. ~MDD4696 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Gold star

It is the same copyvio, vandalism-only image discussed on en:Talk:Main Page/Archive 85#Discussion on the image on the Main Page. It is much easier to detect here because of the thumbnails on Special:Newimages. Most people on en.wikipedia are only monitoring en:Special:recentchanges and the vandal is using deceptive edits. Zzyzx11 08:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Url

I will delete the url's as soon as I find some time... Deleting by anyone is appreciated... --Nevit 09:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Italy 1934 World Cup.jpg

Hi! I want to know why you deleted the tag of {{PD-art}} to Image:Italy 1934 World Cup.jpg. I think that the problem is that I tagged with PD-Art but it has to be PD-old... but if I'm wrong, please tell me. Greetings, B1mbo 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-old}} only applies when the author of the work has been dead for 70 years, not that the work was published 70 years ago. Please read the license tags carefully. ~MDD4696 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
But... who is the author? In this case, FIFA was/is the copyright holder, not an individual person, right? So, and according to what I've seen in Commons, in this case the copyright expires 70 years after the first publication. --B1mbo 01:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I always use Cornell's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States as a reference for copyright expiration. Modern copyright law has specified that works of corporate authorship fall into the public domain 95 years after publication. We really need more information about where the poster was published (which country) and whether it was published with a copyright notice or not. I don't see a copyright notice on the image, but it could have been removed or perhaps it's too small to see.
If it was published in the U.S. without a copyright notice, then it is in the public domain. If it has a notice, but the copyright was not renewed, it is in the public domain (I doubt that its copyright was renewed). If it as published in another country, we have to review that country's copyright law, and it gets more complicated.
Do you have any more information on the source of the image? ~MDD4696 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No, there is no more information available about the image. Just as speculation: as Italy was chosen to host the World Cup on May 14, 1932, the poster should be created between this day and the opening of the tournament (May 27, 1934). The poster should be submitted in Italy, Switzerland (FIFA's headquarters) or other European country. I don't know what happens to the copyrights in the European Union, but I guess the time will be 95 years too. So, I guess the image in any case, isn't in the public domain and it has to be deleted. Thanks, B1mbo 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! For other reasons, I was reading Commons:Licensing and I found this in Material in the public domain: If the work is anonymous or a collaborate work (..) it is, according to the Berne convention, in the public domain 70 years after the date of publication. The term of 95 years probably applies only in the US and not in Europe, so I reverted the last edition in the image. Of course, if you have other info we can change the license again... --B1mbo 02:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you for looking into this! ~MDD4696 02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:ST-new voyages-creative commons released.jpg license

Sorry for my missing about the proper image license, the license was given by theme, directly by e-mail.

This is the email I sent theme:

Hi,
I'm Francesco, aan italian wikipedia user and fan of new voyages fantastic work.

Since I was writing and improving the article on http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_New_Voyages
I wanted to insert just some picture/poster on that page.
To do this I need some freely distributable image under creative common license.

the english page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_New_Voyages ) has some pictures, but they have no compatible license for wiki commons (The place where to put images for wikipedia), so I can't use theme.

Could you be please so kind to provide some picture with a creative common license ?

Thank you very much, and grate compliments for your great work !

I wrote to this address, I don't know if it is the appropriate one.

Salutes
Francesco

This is their replay (With the image in attachment):

Francesco,

Give this a try.

Russ Haslage, Public Relations Director
STAR TREK: NEW VOYAGES

__________________________________________
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF TREKKERS
World Headquarters - Operations Department
www.iftcommand.com
 
Official Fan Club of
STAR TREK: NEW VOYAGES
 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jeff hayes [mailto:jhayes6@austin.rr.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:26 AM
> > To: James Cawley
> > Cc: IFT Operations
> > Subject: Re: some poster/image Star Trek: New Voyages on wikipedia
> > 
> > James and Russ,
> > 
> > Attached is the artwork we can send to Francesco. In reading over the
> > Wiki copyright, it is a boiler plate language that prohibits people
> > from using the image already posted there. If we send this one to
> > Francesco, with a short written "used with permission e-mail," he
> > should be able to use it with no problem. It is too small an image to
> > be used improperly on printed material, so we are as safe as we can
> > be.
> > No profit to be gained, so it appears OK.
> > 
> > If he can't use this for the Italian Wiki, I'm not sure what he can
> > use, unless its an image without the logo. (?) I dunno.  :-) 
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Jeff

I hope it's enough, I have just done this because the Image on the english article, was having no copyright information at all, so I thought that I should have asked for some licensed image directly to theme . --Francescobrisa 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, images are allowed "with permission". However, on Commons, this is not enough. We need the copyright holders to specifically say that they release an image under one of the allowed licenses.
In the email, they said "No profit to be gained, so it appears OK." One of the requirements for files on Commons is that files may be used commercially, no strings attached, so it seems that for now, the file must stay deleted. If you can contact them again and emphasize the Creative Commons license part, perhaps they will grant permission. ~MDD4696 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I see the problem, tonight I will send theme an email to get an appropriate license (Showing theme some of the CC license availeable). --Francescobrisa 07:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Photographs of books

Hi. I responded here: Commons:Village_pump#Photographs_of_books. ~~helix84 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:SSttiiaann...

...probably won't notice a notice on his/her user page.  :) Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for catching that. ~MDD4696 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Granville Cent Proverbes

Hello! I have the book. I scan illustrations for wikisource:fr:Cent Proverbes where you'll soon find all proverbs engraved by Granville. If you need HiRes image, ask me here. Philippe Kurlapski 17:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Untagged Images:

Be sure to notify the uploader if you tag an image! -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I typically do unless the particular user has received other source warnings. Sometimes I just forget, sorry. ~MDD4696 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Guy Lafleur action.jpg

Thanks for mentioning, I've noticed either that it was missing from the inclusion page, and saw your message while getting there.. Regards, HawkFest 04:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW.. On another hand, is there any template for book cover references? I'd like to write a page about a book, but wonder how that can be done (including a book cover scan) without any infrigement, if it can be done at all. Thks, HawkFest 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps next to the template you could explain the exact licensing status of the image, so even if you cannot find the proper template, someone else could? Also, book covers are almost always copyrighted and cannot be accepted on Commons. ~MDD4696 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Mattk4e

Nice work, you beat me. :) Just from reading the comments above on this page, I wonder if you have MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js installed?

cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, actually. I'll check it out. Also... you speedied his images as "no source". I mean, it was pretty obvious they were copyvios, but generally we try not to speedy no-sources, right? ~MDD4696 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
D'oh! I did have it installed, but I guess it wasn't working or something. I've changed it to a link like described on the talk page. ~MDD4696 03:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I have started speedying no-source and no-license ones that I catch on special:newimages, because (A) if they have just been uploaded, they probably haven't been linked anywhere (saves a TON of hassle later on), and (B) we already tell users we will do this -- check special:upload. I think we may as well actually do what we say we're going to. It has been going well. Many of the 'day' categories for NSD (eg Category:Images with unknown source as of 31 January 2007) have between 150 and 200 items. Give them a week or two, and it becomes a big job to delink them and delete them all. If we can delete the newly uploaded ones on sight, this category will just be for old-uploaded images without source/licensing. They will still be annoying to delink and delete, but I guess there will be far less of them. What do you think? cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, so long as you wait at least 5 or 10 minutes after the person uploads the images. Sometimes users upload photos and don't realize until afterwards that they forgot something. Also, I think the user has to be taken into account... new users are more likely to upload files that aren't appropriate for Commons, but new users are also more likely to forget information for files we want.
I think that it should probably just be a judgement call... I will start speedying files with no source that look like they probably weren't produced by the uploader. ~MDD4696 14:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting categories...

Ok, but for the future: please do not create empty categories – at first, upload images with proper categories and then create them. /odder 09:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikijuegoslogo.png

I have changed the license of the image already. Thanks for the notice. Regards. --Onipsis 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

John Hodgman.

This image. http://www.areasofmyexpertise.com/images/hodgman_ap01_hi.jpg John Hodgman said the purpose of the picture was for use online and in the press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Hodgman#IMAGE I'm not sure if I need more information or licenses for it to replace the image currently used on the page. --Plankton5005 05:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to replace the existing image on his Wikipedia entry, since the current one is a nice head shot under a free license. However, you can still upload the new image here on Commons with the appropriate source and license information. I cannot find source or licensing information at the URL you provided. If John Hodgman owns the image, he must contact permissions@wikimedia.org granting permission for use of the image under an appropriate license. Hope this helps. ~MDD4696 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)