User talk:Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy)!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

[edit]

Hi, I noticed you uploaded three pdfs of Gilchrist's Pictor Ignotus. While the text is in the public domain, surely the Google logo that those pdfs contain is not...? Just wondering. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy). I'm not aware of a problem, except the free advertising. Removing the first page is a trick I have not given a high priority, I'm more interested in the content. Let me know if you find it is a serious problem, or if you are interested in what I'm doing with Blake. cygnis insignis 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Never mind; it seems that the file of the logo itself is labeled as "non-copyrightable" because it consists only of typeface. Good luck with the Blake PDFs; myself I hope to have all of the files from the Blake archive uploaded here at some point, when I have time to do so. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm considered[ing] the categorisation, along with everything else. This is a very famous poem, so why modify these? I'm sure you have your reasons, but you might consider seeing what I come up with before removing things - I'm not exactly new at this. Or give helpful suggestions, the project I am beginning is very complex. And why haven't you downloaded the Blake archive yet?! cygnis insignis 17:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Look, I don't go around looking for things to remove. It's just a question of sub-categorization. If Category:Songs of Innocence and Experience is categorized under Category:Poetry books, which is categorized under Category:Poetry, then the Categorization of The Tyger as poetry is redundant. Helpful suggestions? Be less confrontational. I'm trying to earn my BFA, and there are a truckload of files on the Blake archive. I download them as I need them, ie in working with the various articles relating to William Blake that I write for Wikipedia. ..and there's still a lot of writing to do before I start thinking about images. Furthermore the Blake Archive insists that its images not be used without permission, which I have obviously not been doing. If I take images as needed and in batches that are too small to be easily noticed, it helps prevent things like this from happening. What a tone!? I'll get around to it when I have time. I'm a volunteer and it's not my obligation, so don't presume to scold me for my inaction.

I hope in the future our relations can be more cordial. Until then, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I merged the threads and struck the comment. I assumed the 'demand', an enormous task mentioned only 2 days before, was ludicrous enough to indicate its humorous intent. Barring that, is there still a problem? I've seen your (or your proxy's) own contributions to Blake articles, and talk pages, I'm sure you are aware that "The Tyger" is a poem, not a book. Good luck with the studies, cygnis insignis 08:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll finalise the other details as they emerge. I'm uploading better images if you interested. cygnis insignis 15:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I apologize, I'm under a lot of stress and I overreacted. Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't give it another thought :) I noticed your work below got promoted, deservedly, but the weird thing is I had just finished working on the Descriptive Catalogue when I came here to do something else. Nearly finished I should say, because the same work was not reproduced in the scan of Gilchrist's Blake. This would have been a perfect coincidence, but the version of the Canterbury Pilgrims is, I think, slightly different. However, I can link yours in until I get around to replacing it with the exact version. Cheers, cygnis insignis 09:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Blake Canterbury Pilgrims engraving.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Blake Canterbury Pilgrims engraving.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blake Canterbury Pilgrims engraving.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ukiyo-e[edit]

Thanx and yeah, I know those are ukiyo-e. Greetings. --r@ge (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, my mistake. --r@ge (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


Category:Northwest Coast masks[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Northwest Coast masks has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Copyright status: File:Weingut I top of collapsed arch.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Weingut I top of collapsed arch.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

JuTa 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Weingut I Arch I remains.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Weingut I Arch I remains.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

JuTa 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Weingut I Arch 7 hole.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Weingut I Arch 7 hole.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

JuTa 20:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)