Metadata in file description
Hi, I noticed that you added metadata in file description. Your photos are good and I understand you pay attention to technical specs, but I wonder if this is necessary to do that. For users that do not know much about photo technique, it looks rather confusing. For those who know, it is better to directly look at the automatically added metadata: they are not wiki-editable (fool-proof), machine readable and translated into numerous languages, which is not the case of manually added metadata)--Zolo (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I automated metadata listing for my files in 2006 when support for extracting metadata was unreliable and my bug report was not addressed in a reasonable time, c.f., File:Purshia tridentata 8234.jpg. It seems to be more robust now. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded a picture from flickr this morning (File:GoreText_Experience_Tour_-_Chris_Sharma.jpg). But I've seen that I did a mistake regarding to the license. Can you help me to correct this and delete the file that, if I'm correct, doesn't fit Wiki license? Cordially. --Helgismidh (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was deleted yesterday by Lymantria. The CC NonCommercial-NoDerivs license is not permitted on Commons. Please see COM:L for more. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
|North_Santiam_River 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 gallery, 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.
- Please see my talk page here for my response to your post. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)