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.
I've analyzed freely available on the web data using SPSS software program.
I want to share the graph in wikipedia, however, I get an automatic message that the image is not licensed.
I wonder what is the licence policy about it?
Data analyzed on SPSS appears in scientific papers/journals just as if it was analyzed using any other program (e.g., excel or SAS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobastova (talk • contribs) 14:00, 01 January 2017 (UTC)
A copyright license wouldn't actually be applicable to it, since it isn't a creative work eligible for copyright protection, but it still needs a machine-readable tag with information about its copyright status. I added {{PD-ineligible}}. —LX (talk, contribs)17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
(via edit conflict) @Lobastova: Which is to say, you need to provide a license. If in doubt, I recommend {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} which reserves as many rights as you are allowed to. Just add {{self|Cc-by-sa-4.0|author=Lobastova}} to the page, just above the categories. If you wish to be attributed differently than your user name, you can stipulate that instead of your username, but since you have put that in the "author" field of the information template, I'm guessing that is what you want. - Jmabel ! talk17:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
LX is probably right, it's so simple it's probably not copyrightable. But in the future, if you have something above the threshold, my advice pertains. - Jmabel ! talk17:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Reuploading a file that gave an error in the first upload does not work
In uploading a series of 8 files there was one file that gave an error. I deleted that file.
Uploading that one file with the upload wizard gave the error "Er staat al een bestand met dezelfde inhoud in de wiki" (There is already a file with the same content in the wiki).
Changing the filename and uploading again gave the same error.
What to do?
Wouter (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on here, but it might be useful if you give the name of the file that you say you deleted, so that someone can check exactly what state it is in. - Jmabel ! talk17:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes indeed, that is the file. I found now the reason. 5 days earlier I had uploaded 4 photos of Playa San Juan and included at the same time the A0359... photo taken during the retour fight of the helicopter. Sorry. Wouter (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Several pages have appeared in Wikipedia in the past two years on my direct relatives.
I would like to open a correspondence with the author/ess to learn more about their sources and perhaps contribute.
How to I contact the author/esses, please?
I am:
William Martin JOHNSEN, and my email is wmfjohnsen@outlook.com
I'm not sure why you asked here (this is not Wikipedia, this is Wikimedia Commons, a distinct project, although both are projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. But here's what you probably should do.
Go to the relevant article on Wikipedia.
Click the "History" tab. That will show who worked on the article. You can use the information there, or work from there to do diffs, to determine what person or people were the primary authors of the article.
You can click through from there to their respective user pages or user talk page. I then recommend checking the "User Contributions" tab to check whether they show any recent activity. If not, they may have left the project and are less likely to respond to you.
You then have two choices to proceed: (1) you can leave remarks on their talk page and let them respond there. (2) You can open an account of your own. Make sure you associate an email address with your account. Assuming that the user in question has also provided an email address (most do), you can then use the "email this user" link on their user page or user talk page to send them an email.
A bit late to answer, but if you need any additional advice or help, most language-specific Wikipedia projects have their own separate help desk. For example, the analogous forum for the English-language Wikipedia is at en:Wikipedia:help desk. Most communications are not done via mail (except for confidential issues), but directly on such talkpages. So if you ask a question, you might want to check back yourself in a few hours. GermanJoe (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This picture is uploaded in Instagram by Management Soop, @management_soop. The photo was recognized by the actress herself, Ms. Nam Ji-hyun, using her account in Instagram, @hyuniiiiiii_95917. As far as I am aware, any picture uploaded in Instagram is free to all. Thank you.
Is there an easy way to add a category to a large number of files? I looked atVisualCategoryHelper (or something like that), and that didn't do it. Bubba73 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there some category they are already in or are they all from one uploader (in which case VFC should do nicely, using "append")? Otherwise, I'm not sure of any tool that would let you easily select the files to which to add the category. - Jmabel ! talk04:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
They are all in Category:Richmond Hill, Georgia - the B&W ones for Richmond Hill Plantation. They are most, but not all of the ones in the Richmond Hill category. They must have been uploaded by one person. I don't know how to proceed. Bubba73 (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
VisualFileChange does have advanced select files tool which would allow you to select all files in a category uploaded by a specific user. MKFI (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Help:VisualFileChange.js. It can be a little clunky, but it works. Install it, go to Category:Richmond Hill, Georgia and select "Perform batch task" in the left nav. Then you can visually select the images you want, and (given what you want to do) probably use the action "append any text". If you are adding a category, remember to put a newline before it. - Jmabel ! talk21:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I made a new version of File:Double six.svg where one set of six lines is colored differently to help differentiate it from the other set. Apparently I can't upload it without logging in, and I've been unable to log in ever since Wikimedia made HTTPS mandatory (long and complicated story that I won't go into). So all I can do is drop this link here and maybe someone will upload the file for me. The edit is completely trivial so the copyright status (i.e., Public Domain) should be unaffected. I don't know if this edit should replace the former version or not, that's for whoever uploads it (if anyone) to decide. --2001:7A8:78AE:0:0:0:0:122:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I think modifications such as this that add information rather than merely correcting errors should be uploaded as separate files, not as replacements for the existing files. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Done Please have look. You might want to update the code below as well. I archived your url so you can delete the page at madore.org http://web.archive.org/web/20170103032826/http://www.madore.org/~david/.misc/Double_six.svg Just drop me a line on my talk page if you have more updates to do. Cheers! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done. You just did the exact opposite of what I requested. I did not want this change made to the original file, and I thought I made that clear in my comment. Please fix. Also I have no idea what you're talking about re madore. Has someone named david archived my image there? It's not my page so why should I delete it? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Glad it seems to be resolved ("all's well that ends well" and such). But it would be clearer if the transient-overwrite were left visible in the file's history, rather than being rev-deleted. DMacks (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
hola
(I WILL talk in Spanish) Hola soy nuevo en Wikipedia y es un lugar muy interesante y ayuda a muchos a que encuentren todo lo que necesitan y yo soy de estos pero quiero subir una foto en ella a parece un logo, pero es el logo es mio la licencia me pertenece y quieria poner de ejemplo pero no me deja.
gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaydo100 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 02 January 2017 (UTC)
@Swaydo100: : ¿Entiende Vd. el respuesto de LX en ingles? O ¿debo traducir? El punto crucial es que, además de la cuestión técnica, el logotipo de una carnicería local estaría fuera del alcance de Commons y por eso, en cualquier caso, sería borrado. - Jmabel ! talk16:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I served as a Marine on this Cruiser and can verify that the USS Des Moines was not off of Boston during Nov 1949. We were in Malta in Oct 1949 and in Naples, Italy for Xmas and new Years of 1949. Returned to US January, 1950!! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 107.139.109.142 (talk) 06:43, 04 January 2017 (UTC)
My Grandfather's WIkipedia Page has an Incorrect Image
Hi there,
This page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Durnan features an image that is NOT my grandfather or the person you are referring to. The facts are right but the image is not. I've recently been flagged for using an image that supposedly has 'copyright violation'. I received this image from the NHL. How do I fix this image?
As for the file you uploaded, File:Source 246 3494.jpg, we only hosts content that is either in the public domain (i.e. not protected by copyright, for example because the copyright expired) or that the copyright holder has agreed to publish under a license that allows anyone to use it for any purpose. Before uploading anything here, you must make sure that's the case and provide enough information for others to verify it. See Commons:Project scope/Summary. —LX (talk, contribs)21:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Over at the Wikipedia Help Desk someone asked if it's ok to transfer a photo from English Wikipedia to Commons. The image in question is tagged with an OGL (Open Government License), which is issued by the United Kingdom. Is that an acceptable license for an image to be placed on Commons? The OGL license is included on the Wikipedia Free Licenses page, which makes me think OGL would be acceptable at Commons. There is a complicating factor that needs to be clarified. The image in question also has a conflicting license tag on its file page: a British Crown Copyright tag, which explicitly says it is a "non-free license for the purpose of Wikipedia." I don't know yet which license tag is correct for the image, OGL or Crown Copyright. Assuming Crown Copyright is not needed, and the OGL license is correct, can the image be uploaded to Commons? Thanks for any info. DonFB (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
OGL is accepted, there's a template {{OGL}}. Crown Copyright just means that the copyright holder is the crown, it's not a license and it doesn't conflict. --ghouston (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
logowanie w Creative Commons, czyli "drugie konto"
Mili administratorzy.
W moim skromnym dorobku nauczyłem się korzystać z zasobów Wikimedia Commons. Wstawiłem kilka zdjęć. Zrobiłem mapkę okolic Monumentu I Wojny Światowej w Atlantic City w New Jersey na moim Photoshop (około 80 godzin pracy). Niestety ekspert Christian Ferrer zgłosił mapkę do usunięcia. Nie mogę nawet formalnie apelować o przywrócenie mapki w obowiązującym trybie odwoławczym, gdyż nie mam osobnego konta w Wikimedia Commons tak jak np: Christian Ferrer. Moje pytanie jest, czy jeżeli otworzę takie konto w Wikimedia Commons, to czy to nie będzie pacynka. Dodam, że próbowałem zalogować się pod moim hasłem "Leo Uroboros" i nie dało się. Komputer pytał o zalogowanie pod nowym hasłem. Serdecznie pozdrawiam Leo Uroboros (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
logowanie w Creative Commons, second account czyli "drugie konto"
Dear administrators. In my humble achievements I have learned to use the resources of Wikimedia Commons. I put some pictures. I made a map surrounding the monument of World War I in Atlantic City, New Jersey on my Photoshop (about 80 hours of work). Sorry expert Christian Ferrer submitted a map to be removed. I can not even formally appeal for the restoration of maps in the current mode of appeal, since I do not have a separate account on Wikimedia Commons as for example: Christian Ferrer. My question is whether, if I open an account in the Wikimedia Commons, is that there will be puppet/stud. I would add that I tried to log into my nickname "Leo Ouroboros" and didnt work. The computer asked to sign the new password. I cordially greet Leo Uroboros. Leo Uroboros (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Mili administratorzy.
W moim skromnym dorobku nauczyłem się korzystać z zasobów Wikimedia Commons. Wstawiłem kilka zdjęć. Zrobiłem mapkę okolic Monumentu I Wojny Światowej w Atlantic City w New Jersey na moim Photoshop (około 80 godzin pracy). Niestety ekspert Christian Ferrer zgłosił mapkę do usunięcia. Nie mogę nawet formalnie apelować o przywrócenie mapki w obowiązującym trybie odwoławczym, gdyż nie mam osobnego konta w Wikimedia Commons tak jak np: Christian Ferrer. Moje pytanie jest, czy jeżeli otworzę takie konto w Wikimedia Commons, to czy to nie będzie pacynka. Dodam, że próbowałem zalogować się pod moim hasłem "Leo Uroboros" i nie dało się. Komputer pytał o zalogowanie pod nowym hasłem. Serdecznie pozdrawiam Leo Uroboros (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Nu cred ca e posibil. Probabil, fie partidul sau proiectantul are drepturi de autor pe logo-ul. Nu puteți acorda drepturi ce deține altcineva. - Jmabel ! talk20:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
In Roermond verkeerde straatnaam in onderschrift foto.
L.S.
U hebt een foto uit Roermond getoond van een huis in de Grote Kerkstraat.
De juiste straatnaam waarin zich het betreffende huis bevindt luidt: KRAANPOORT.
Met vriendelijke groet. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.211.158.191 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
We appear to have 1000+ photos of Roermond, and about a dozen of those mention "Grote Kerkstraat", so without identification of the photo in question I don't know what (if anything) to do with that information. - Jmabel ! talk00:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
reverting a version doesn't work
I have accidently overwritten an image file from another user (pictured above[1]) and I'm not able to revert and rollback it. Why? Could someone please fix it? Thanks, --Mattes (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I uploaded the file which was taken by a photographer for the The Russian Rhythmic Gymnastics Federation. All the photos of the gymnasts are available on their website with the credit given to the photographer who did the work. I included the link to the Federation website from where I took the picture and stated the Photographer as the Author but since I am new to editing the Wiki pages, I am not sure which licence is suitable if any.
The photo is copyrighted to the photographer and can not be uploaded to Commons without a photographer's permission. So, unfortunately, this image must be deleted. Ruslik (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sin detalles, es dificíl decir algo definitivo. Si se trata de una imagen de baja resolución y una subida iniciada en la Wikipedia en español en lugar de en Commons mismo, es posible que hayas encontrado un filtro, aunque no veo ninguna indicación de esto para tu cuenta. Es posible que tenga mejor suerte de subir directamente a Commons. ¿O era esto directo a Commons? - Jmabel ! talk21:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Upload Wizard gives error of too short file name when it hasn't combination of letters and numbers even if it is long enough.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@PsichoPuzo: Can you copy-paste the exact file name that is being rejected, and the exact error message? (Or even better, a screenshot of it?) That would help in finding the problem. Matma Rex (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
So was it lacking the '.png' extension? Because the extension is required. Емблема газети Флот України.png should be fine, Емблема газети Флот України should not. - Jmabel ! talk03:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Wild guess as to what might be going on: I notice that the filename that doesn't work consists entirely of Cyrillic characters except for the extension. Could it be that those don't get counted? —LX (talk, contribs)17:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to upload a photo of Kodak Black. Several mugshots are available online, such as this one, and are credited to the Broward Sheriffs Office. Would the "PD-FLGov" license cover these photos (such as it does for this photo)? If so, I have been unable to locate an original images distributed by the sheriff's office, and can only locate them on various non-Florida government sites. Does it matter what the source is, so long as the credit goes to the Broward Sheriffs Office? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If it is really a mugshot (and it seems it is) then, of course, you can upload it. The source does not really matter in this situation. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I have accidently removed a lode of files when I was trying to find the remove other categories, is there a way I can revert this? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi- I have an article I have created that is currently in my sandbox. i believe it is well researched and documented and is ready to be uploaded- what is the next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryAnthonyStartz (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello MaryAnthonyStartz, you should ask this question at the help desk of the specific Wikipedia project. Commons and the various language-specific Wikipedias are separate projects, with their own administration and guidelines. Commons is focussing on media hosting, not on the articles themselves. For example, the help desk for English-language Wikipedia is at en:Wikipedia:help desk. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Policies regarding adjudication of deletion requests
1. Is it acceptable for an OTRS administrator to nominate a page for deletion and then to be the person who makes the final ruling on that deletion request?
2. Is it acceptable for an OTRS administrator to make a demonstrably false statement in the closing statement of the deletion request discussion page?
Of course, this is unacceptable and may result in the user's admin privilege withdrawn, possibly after a clear consensus to do so. Wikicology (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
If the answer to either of these questions is no, how can I lodge a complaint about this behavior? And if the answer to either question is yes, could you please explain why? They both certainly seem to me like they should be policy violations.
Why is wikipedia so hard to use????
i want to upload a photo for a page i want to write and it wont upload. I believe it would be considered public domain since it is a city landmark, of sorts. If it is not public domain, then who would have the copyright, the person to take the very first picture of the building or the architect?
i dont know what the problem is and how to fix it. also... how do i just write a page about something that isn't here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherbug (talk • contribs) 07:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Motherbug, If it's a building, the original copyright holder of the work is the architect and not the person who took the photograph of the building. A photograph of a building under copyright is a derivative work and such work requires a written permission from the original copyright holder of the work (the architect) before it can be uploaded here. Wikicology (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
And the details of this vary from country to country. This is not a case of Wikipedia being difficult, but of copyright law being difficult.
In the U.S., while buildings are technically copyrighted, there is no problem photographing them: copyright of the photo simply belongs to the photographer. In France, on the other hand, they are much stricter, and you need the architect's (or the architect's heir's) permission. You don't say what country you are in, so it's hard to give you more concrete advice. - Jmabel ! talk16:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
When I try to upload an image, I keep receiving this error message:
Could not store upload in the stash (UploadStashFileException): "Error storing file in '/tmp/AseJ60': Could not connect to storage backend "local-swift-eqiad".".
I had the same problem few minutes ago when I tried to download some photos. Also not all my download page photos dosen't show properly. Is there a technical problem that could be solved soon?--Paasikivi (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could help me upload an image I made for the voice leading article on Wikipedia. The first image I uploaded seemed to work at first, and then when I saved my edit on the page, the image didn't load correctly.
I thought maybe there was something wrong with the file, so I reformatted it and tried the upload again. This time I get the error: Could not store upload in the stash (UploadStashFileException): "Error storing file in '/tmp/6LmvX0': An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad".".
Hi. There is a photo I would like to upload that appears in a book published in 1916 in Australia. The book is out of copyright (the author died in 1918) and the photo does not appear to be credited to anyone. Am I safe to assume the photo is in the public domain now? Thanks.VirtualDave (talk)
That's a really unhelpful answer, with an NSFW link.
Steeve Austin, it's not at all clear what you are asking. Are you trying to add some image that is already on Commons to a new page, or are you asking about uploading an image? If you can be more specific, someone can almost certainly help you. - Jmabel ! talk22:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Based on the filter log, it looks like Steeve is trying to upload low-resolution (1024×724px and 327×304px) photos of himself for the autobiography that he's created for himself over at en:Steeve Austin (in contravention of their guidelines). The uploads were blocked by an automatic filter that prevents low-resolution uploads using the particular upload process used by Steeve, on the basis that they overwhelmingly turn out to be copyright violations. Without having seen the photos, if they do depict the uploader, it's unlikely that they are the uploader's own work, so it looks like the filter worked as intended. Copyright issues aside, since it's likely that the English Wikipedia article will be deleted again, it's also questionable whether the photos would be within our project scope. —LX (talk, contribs)23:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but succeeded in connecting through Google Chrome, not through Mozilla Firefox, which I usually use. --User:Silverije — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.142.15.211 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Sometimes I upload an image and use it immediately to several languages in wikipedia that need it. I used to edit many wikipedia versions in a few seconds, but it's been a while I get this message: "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data". I think they put a brake to avoid cross-wiki spam, because this has never happened before and now it happens to me all the time. I am not a spammer, I am just a commoneer who usually has to edit several languages pages, is there a way to avoid this block? Any idea where I can ask this? (Mediawiki? Wikimedia.org?) Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sailko: It's a bug in the new Firefox version, see phab:T151770, and not any kind of a block. It mostly affects users who edit/visit many wikis. The workaround is to use a different browser, or set network.cookie.maxPerHost much higher in Firefox's about:config menu. Matma Rex (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: Thanks for the info. Anyway, the version of firefox I use has not "maxPerHost" cookie setting... it looks like I'll just have to wait and retry until pages get loaded... --Sailko (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Sailko, I had to do it as well some days ago. Go to about:config, right-click, New, add an Integer named network.cookie.maxPerHost and set its value to 250. --Achim (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The Phabricator task is restricted and I can't see it. But your pointer to the XML declaration put me on the right track to figure it out. Thanks! - Htonl (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to delete an uploaded image by my. Carlos P.
@Carlos P.: I see you have only a small number of uploads (7) and they are all recent enough that it would be OK to ask for any of them to be deleted as a courtesy. Can you be specific about what you want deleted? - Jmabel ! talk20:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"it have been deleted yet" falta sentido. Dígame en español, por favor, si es más fácil: ¿queda algo ahora que quieres borrar? - Jmabel ! talk16:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
API call for random image
Hi!
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this. Let me know, if it's not.
I was trying to figure out how to receive a random image from the wikimedia commons API. Unfortunately I could not figure this out.
Actually I'm looking for the same thing that happens when clicking on the link 'random file' in the main menu. So, here are the questions:
1. Is there an API call that does exactly this?
2. If not, would it be ok to do this by scraping the HTML behind the 'Random file' link?
this looks promising.. But is there a way to include a thumb url and the picture size in the query result? I tried to get more properties with the props parameter. But it does not change the output. My intention would be to download the image (as a second step/http request) in a certain size. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.52.84.15 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Wuld I have to do it like so?
1. get some random images (as you suggest)
2. query information for those filenames (with titles=...)
3. download some images
Great! I was trying to figure this out for a while.. Would this request maybe even be possible with multiple images as return? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.52.84.15 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It turns out that the iiurlwidth causes some trouble. Compare the results of the following queries:
In the first query everything is fine.
The second however does not include the image info data for say almost every second entry. Even though those entries do possess such data, as further querying can show-
Hmm, apparently, "For performance reasons if this option is used, no more than 50 scaled images will be returned." (quoting a message shown when you try those queries with Special:ApiSandbox). So I guess you'll have to do this in batches of 50 random files. Matma Rex (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Categorizing data sets
Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/New York City.tab I'd like to know how to use these data forms. I know that they operate differently than standard pages. It's my understanding that MediaWiki now has a few content models: MassMessageListContent, JavaScript, JSON, CSS, and plain text. Is this related to that? Any pointers would be appreciated. Please use {{Ping}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Help with category move, the prior category was correct
I recently shifted Category:Vogelschutzreservat Flughafensee to Category:Vogelschutzgebiet Flughafensee in the belief that the new category was the correct descriptor. This is not true and I want to revert the move and the associated re-categorizations I made. However I am prevented from shifting the category back because the first category still exists. Would someone with more authority than me please make the correction? I am sorry for any inconvenience. I will also check later that the three images involved have the correct tags. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Should now be fixed. By the way, as far as I can tell you could have done this yourself: it's all just ordinary page editing (category pages edit like any others), and one page deletion (which you might have had to request, depending on your level of privileges). - Jmabel ! talk16:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I am in Portugal can I apply to organise the contest in Portugal? Which are the conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2017 95.95.116.198 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 12 January (UTC)
Bir sayfa oluşturmaya çalışıyorum ama sürekli aynı gün içinde siliniyor... Neden acaba? Bu konuda ne yapmamı önerirsiniz? Resmi bir derneği eklemeye çalışıyorum olmuyor...Lütfen bana bir yol gösterin yada yardım edin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yüzyıllık Markalar (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Based on Special:CentralAuth/Yüzyıllık Markalar (where the edit count includes deleted edits), this is the user's first edit on Commons. This question seems to concern the user's activities over at the Turkish Wikipedia, where the user is blocked without access to their own user talk page for having a user name that violates user name policy. The user should read that policy, create a new account that complies with their policy and ask any further questions concerning the Turkish Wikipedia on that site. If someone could translate this information to Turkish, it would be helpful. —LX (talk, contribs)15:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Using an image from Italian wikipedia in English wikipedia
Some time ago I was able to do this, but have forgotten the steps to make it work. Can someone refresh my memory? User:TimeForLunch
It would help if you could identify the image in question, so that we can determine if it is hosted here on Commons or locally hosted on the Italian Wikipedia, and in the latter case whether it is eligible for transfer here or to the English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs)15:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That file (it:File:Chiostro canonici genova.jpg) is strictly on the Italian Wikipedia and has a tag indicating that it is not eligible for Commons: "A causa di restrizioni che riguardano esclusivamente Wikipedia in lingua italiana, questa immagine non deve essere sostituita con corrispondenti esistenti su Wikimedia Commons." - Jmabel ! talk16:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)User:TimeForLunch
I believe this is all tied in with some restrictions on publishing images of cultural properties in Italy, but I don't offhand know the details. Someone else may be able to fill that in. - Jmabel ! talk16:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Automatic uploading of images from public domain stock photography sites
Hello, I would like to make the following request:
I've recently noticed that there are a number of websites hosting free images licenced with CC0. I've just found a list a of such sites.
The biggest such site is probably Pixabay.
So I think those images should be uploaded automatically and periodically (for example, upload the new images, once in a month) on Wikimedia Commons.
If and when those websites will go down (and some of them will, for sure, because they belong to a single photographer), the images will not be lost.
— Ark25 (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Not everything will be useful within our scope, and like everything else, such content needs to be license reviewed. To be useful, it needs to be properly described and categorized. I don't think more rushed bulk uploads with sloppy file descriptions and without evaluation of usefulness are what we need right now. —LX (talk, contribs)16:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Still, it looks like there is a lot of nice stuff on some of those sites. For at least some sites, it might be worth someone assaying what's there, seeing if it's likely that a very high percentage of it is legitimate, and uploading periodically into a category specific to the site, from which people can review. But, to a large extent I agree with LX: the main value of Commons is that most of our content is (1) pretty well vetted and (2) pretty well described and categorized. The bulk of the work involved in making Commons what it is comes from those two things, not just obtaining photos. I often spend up to 10 minutes categorizing someone else's poorly described image because it looks like it might be an image of something important. That time may be free in that I'm a volunteer, but it's not free in that I could be doing something else, thank you. - Jmabel ! talk16:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have time to check them all, but at least for Pixabay, many of the images are simply breathtaking - they can easily enter in the "Picture of the year" contest. The average quality of images at Pixabay is greatly higher than the average on Wikimedia Commons images. They are all CC0 and the majority of them are useful for educational purposes without any doubt, and also well categorized with tags. A robot can upload them, add them in a special, temporary "Pixabay" category, and also auto-fill categories using tags - and the author name. And then, let the community check the category "Pixabay" and review each image (reviewing means checking/adjusting the categories and maybe add descriptions sometimes). When a user finishes reviewing an image, they should mark it as such, and remove it from the "Pixabay" category. The new articles on Wikipedia (many of them poorly categorized) can be kept until the community reviews them and decides to keep or delete. Many times, I've also spent 5-10 minutes for categorizing new Wikipedia articles made by others - that's how this system works. The images can have the same treatment. I notice that images on Pixabay have no description - so we can ask them nicely if they would agree to add a description field. In any case, Wikimedia Commons has plenty of images without description or with useless descriptions so that shouldn't be a big deal anyway.
It really looks like a huge percent of the images are worth uploading, and then it might be a good idea to ask someone to evaluate them - even to pay someone - I think the WMF can easily afford that. — Ark25 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It's chemically incorrect. Either it is covalent to lithium, with there are Li–O bonds and no atomic charges or it is ionic with charges but no actual bonds to lithium. And if there are charges, there "+" on Li are balanced by "–" on adjacent O (a en:carbonate ion). Check the relevant articles to decide which approach is correct. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Chemically valid now, yes. The +/– signs should all be equally superscripted, and better to use an en-dash (or is there a special numerical minus sign?) than hyphen? The geometry is off (the three C–O bonds should be 120° from each other). It's not really true that there are two O single-bonded anions and one O double-bonded neutral, but it's a pretty common way to represent it. DMacks (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I intentionally did not since I thought this discussion would continue, and benefit from seeing both for comparison. Is the new version you uploaded at File:Li2CO3.svg actually mine from File:Sodium carbonate.svg, or did you recreate one that just looks about the same? DMacks (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to create the exact same picture or maybe the upside down version two weeks ago, but I wasn't notified about your further comments. If I was, I would've definitely done this earlier. I just downloaded your image and edited in Photoshop so I could upload it here. No special changes were made since this was the version I wanted to make. Vs650710:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You can contact the bot operator, User:Shizhao, to report the problem. If there are only two cases, they could be fixed individually, I suppose. One method could be: 1. Revert to the first image (the link in the description refers to the first image). 2. Copy the second image and upload it under a different name. 3. Find the second image on panoramio (its panoramio number is in the Commons upload log) and copy its source link (and eventually other information) in the new description page. Another method is to do the opposite: adjust the description page to describe the second photo, and copy and upload the first photo under a different name. But before doing anything, I think it would better to get advice from the bot operator. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Request a split, either with {{Split}} or, if you want to write a bit more like pointing to the very similar file (for a later addition as other version), see COM:SPLIT and sections below. — Speravir– 19:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Picture is Copyrightable, but shot is made in macro mode, so its around "less than 1% of all banknote", where No.1 rule might be applied for de minimis. I also tried if Google will find the result, he couldnt. Is de minimis legal here ? Picture is not croped, but macro zoomed. Could someone help here. --Mile (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion Commons:De minimis applies and the image can be kept. Only a small part of the banknote is visible, and more importantly the subject of the image is the printing process pattern. MKFI (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If banknotes are copyrightable in your country then this image here is certainly displaying enough artistic expression to be copyrightable itself. I also think that someone familiar with the banknotes could identify which one, so it fails the test. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That part of Commons:De minimis is more about a work appearing as a very small detail in a larger context (e.g. a photo of a market where someone happens to hold a banknote) – not about the portion of the work being included. There are cases where extreme crops may be unaffected by the copyright of the work they are taken from, but it would depend on the cropped part on its own being ineligible for copyright (e.g. a single dot from a dithered pop art poster). That's clearly not the case here. The cropped portion is above the threshold of originality for copyright protection on its own. Comparing with literary copyright, while you can copy a word or two from a copyrighted text, you can't copy longer passages, but it's the originality of the copied passage that matters, not its length as a percentage of the whole text. —LX (talk, contribs)15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
We have some rules here, its Copyrightable, Chinese renminbi, as whole banknote could not be here, as zoomed into the pattern it goes under De minimis. See the rules. --Mile (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to know do we must clarify what banknote is that, since De minimis is about to not to configure what/which bankonote is it !? Copy-paste : Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable. --Mile (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The image Teengirl.GIF
Hi,
Back in 2008 I uploaded the files Teenboy.GIF and Teengirl.GIF to the commons. I can no longer remember what my username was. They were deleted, with one person saying they could find no use for them, other than "userboxes or jokes".
Hey guys, The Phase Master Here. I made a screenshot of Chrome that is showing a page that I created in HTML. It's very simple, just a title saying hello and a single line that says hello world. I know that the uploader says that you can't upload screenshots of software, but is this one instance that I've described okay?
Showing your own page content that happens to have been in a browser window shouldn't raise any copyright concerns, but don't show the surrounding browser menus, etc., which are copyrighted by Google. Whether this is in scope is another matter from the copyright issues. - Jmabel ! talk15:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The data area of a browser is always okay, when it's your code that is to be seen there. But like Jmabel said, the browser could be copyrighted. Even when it is not (e.g. Firefox), then the OS might be unless you use BSD or Linux, but usually Windows OS or Mac OS-X is copyrighted. So, to be safe, just use the inner data area without any surroundings, like the right/left and up/down sliders (=OS, unless it's Linux or BSD and uses a free (as in freedom) GUI) or Icons or Menu bars (=browser, when copyrighted) --Rava77 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Adding an image with consent from the owner
I am currently trying to add a Wikipedia page for a company, Athenasphere. If I get consent from that company, can I upload their logo onto the page? What would need to be included in a letter of consent from that company?
P.S.: I am looking to do this for a number of companies I see aren't yet on Wikipedia. If there is a standardized letter I can send out to them to request using their logo, that would be greatly appreciated.
--Adisciu (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
If the logos are so simple as not to be eligible for copyright, just mark them {{PD-ineligible}}. If they qualify for copyright, see COM:OTRS for what we need. Note that Commons can accept these only if the copyright-holder releases the logo under a free license, which companies rarely are willing to do with copyrighted logos (although of course they can retain trademark, and if the logos are trademarked you can add {{Trademarked}} to clarify that).
Also: I notice that en:Athenasphere is a tiny stub that you started yourself, and that it has been nominated for deletion for non-notability. If this is paid work you are doing for companies that do not yet have Wikipedia articles, it is very likely that these logos will be outside of Commons' scope. Further, if you are editing Wikipedia on their behalf as a paid editor, make sure you are fully familiar with en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and its equivalents for other-language Wikipedias. - Jmabel ! talk16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, Adisciu, I suggest you first create the article in your own user space (using the planed article name), and invite some experienced editors or admins to have a look at them when they seem finished to you. An article won't be deleted in your own user space. Just comment-out the categories as long as the article is not in the main space. When experienced user(s) tell you that they think the article is okay, then copy all the code and create the article in the mainspace (removing the "comment-out" "brackets" from the category wiki code.) HTH, Cheers, --Rava77 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Link to foreign language wiki
How can I link from a Wikimedia file to a foreign Wikipedia article? I am thinking of File:Adolph Chlumksy, who has a cs.wikipedia.org about him. It wouldn't be {w|Aldolph Chlumsky}, so what would it be? Thanks, Drbones1950 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no page "Aldolph Chlumsky" on cs.wikipedia. And no page "Adolph Chlumksy" either. But if you wanted to link to a page named, for example, Adolf Chlumský, you could link like this: [[:cs:Adolf Chlumský|Adolf Chlumský]]. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Looks fine to me. It's a placeholder for missing flags: a question mark on a two-tone gray background (two columns in different grays). Are you seeing something different from that? - Jmabel ! talk00:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, that's what I'm seeing. In the context that I saw it, including an non-existent image doesn't seem appropriate, so I assumed that there was a problem with the file itself. Thanks for explaining it to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It should also be free-rotated, approx 1.5% or such. If you don't feel up for that task I can do so for you, AugusteBlanqui. Since the photographer Antoinette Frissell died in 1988, it is still copyrighted and I presume it will be taken down from commons in due time anyway, or is there a different rational that it could stay? --Rava77 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The two possible public domain rationales are stated on the description page. The uploader believed that it is PD-USGov. That is possible, perhaps, if on that day Frissell took that particular photo in the course of duties for the WAC. However, the negatives remained with Frissell and her statement of release to the public domain suggests that she owned the copyright until the release. The LoC considers that it is in the public domain by the release by Frissell, not as PD-Gov. For that reason, I added the template PD-Frissell, which seems safer. It's one or the other, PD-USGov or PD-Frissell, but either way it's in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
When the extraneous material contains some information that might be useful to preserve, it is better to crop after. When it contains nothing useful, it may be better to crop before. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The area around would only be important if someone wants to change hue, gamma or such. For cropping and rotating the surrounding data is not necessary, and for the photo itself it also contains no data useful to preserve, still I say the original photo should be preserved as well, and the cropped & rotated version should be saved as a new file, since I am no expert when it comes to gamma, hue or even raw processing (though, we have no raw data scan anyway I presume?) So, who will do the crop&rotating. Should I do it? If AugusteBlanqui not answers in the next 6 hours I will do the job. --Rava77 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
4,921 × 6,000 pixels, file size: 84.51 MB, indeed that's some high quality. Thanks. I wonder, should the rotate/crop first be saved as a tiff, and then converted as a png? Or only saved as an png since tiff is usually not used on the web for displaying images? --Rava77 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a personal decision. There's an argument to go straight to JPG, as that's the most web-friendly image format, and forcing anyone who wants to do further edits to go back to the TIFF is probably not a problem. A PNG or TIFF can be used if you think that people will probably want to reedit starting from the crop; note that Wikimedia serves JPG versions of TIFF files for normal display, but PNG versions of PNG files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Image was deleted
I uploaded an image to which we have full rights, but the image was deleted with the notation that it was a possibly copyright violation. How do we get the image to display? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianaHistory (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. We host media files for Wikipedia articles, but we don't host articles. See en:WP:MOVE for instructions on how to move pages at the English Wikipedia. --rimshottalk23:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, the only place the first image is available is as part of the history of the file. We don't delete those unless there are legal issues, etc. "Deletion" is always "soft", so it doesn't save any disk space, and no one sees these images unless they are specifically looking at the file history. - Jmabel ! talk16:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, there are tens of thousands of these on Commons, maybe hundreds of thousands, and I bet you never noticed any. Almost no one ever does, which is why it isn't worth the cleanup effort, any more than the fact that there might have been misspellings somewhere in the history of a page. - Jmabel ! talk00:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Please don't bother to take the time to reply to this, it is just a statement of my opinion. On my computer I can easily delete a brain cramp and allow the disk space to be overwritten by another file. I don't understand why it is such an effort for the commons to do that, and thus force memory to be used forever by brain cramps. Please, don't reply. DennisPietras (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
What to do about thousands of images uploaded into multiple categories
Panoramio upload bot apparently uploaded thousands of images on January 16 from [[5]] and placed them in multiple categories of Pakistan, all of them having the "needs checking" template on them. The photos have multiple tages on them and apparently somehow they are being put in many of those categories at once. I noticed when I tried putting some new uploads in Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and saw about 1500 new images in that category, all needing checking. First I moved about 150 into separate categories, (Category:Dallan (73), Category:Daber road (61), Category:Dallan Madrassa (3), Category:Dallan road (7), even though the categories made no sense to me for the photos, but then I realized the job was too big for me. Many of them are also in other Pakistan categories simultaneously. For example, 143 are in Category:North Waziristan Agency, Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at the same time. There are probably other Pakistan categories flooded as well.
If the Panoramio upload bot is uploading all photos from this photographer at Panoramio, them there are thousand more. How to deal with this? Kalbbes (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
VFC is probably your "best friend" in matters like this. Assuming the same pattern of text is in the categories area of numerous photos, you can use VFC to replace that with something more appropriate (e.g. strip the repeating block and replace it with a single Category:Pakistan files from Panoramio to be checked). Unless you are very experienced with VFC, I strongly recommend that you experiment with a handful of files first. - Jmabel ! talk16:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel, never mind. I've made 98,254 edits here in a year. I'd burn myself out taking care of over 1500 files in Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa alone by hand, not counting the other Pakistan categories flooded by this Panoramio upload bot. I'll no longer watch over Pakistan. Thanks for your suggestions, but this is over my head, ruined my enjoyment here, so it's best I stay away from things I can't handle. Thanks again, Kalbbes (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleting a photo
I want to delete a photo I put in by mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drenowe (talk • contribs)
@Drenowe: It would sure help if you would indicate what photo! If it's a recent upload, this can easily be accommodated; if it's older, presuming you licensed it correctly, you'll have to go through the same deletion process as for anyone else's photo, because once you've granted an irrevocable license you can't take it back.
Who holds the copyright on a picture I took of municipal building in Maryland, U.S.?
I took a picture of a building owned by the Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks that was constructed in 1974 and I'm trying to figure out if I hold the copyright as the photographer or if the copyright holder is the building's architect. I came across a similar discussion in the archives and one of the replies seems to imply that I have the copyright: In the U.S., while buildings are technically copyrighted, there is no problem photographing them: copyright of the photo simply belongs to the photographer." Is the answer that simple or is there more to it? I'm not sure if this matters, but FWIW there is some scenery in the background, but the only reason I'd want to upload it would be to use it in a few articles that talk about that building. Thoughts? Permstrump (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Bill Winters, a former American Football player. and I created a page for him. He has a picture of himself when he played for the San Antonio Gunslingers, a football team that existed only for a year in the 80s. He says the picture belongs to him and wants the picture on his wikipedia page, and does not care if it is reused. I have tried to upload it twice now, and apparently am not classifying it correctly for the copyright. How would I go about uploading this picture for it to remain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delfry88 (talk • contribs)
Physical possession of a photograph does not mean owning the copyright to it, which would typically belong to the photographer or the photographer's heirs. Similarly, being the subject of the photo gives you personality rights, but not the copyright. So unless you know who that photographer would be, and can get their permission, there is no way to meet the requirements here on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk01:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Not only I'm a newbie here on Wiki, but I find it EXTREMELY difficult to find my way around.Someone please help me!
I have created a page named, Barb Schwarz that has been promptly deleted due to possible violation of copyrights. Ms. Schwarz her self has given me the permission to use the content from her personal website in order to create "her page" here on Wikipedia. What can I do know? Should I recreate the page again with the same contents? Will I be banned from the community? Thank you in advance
Sincerely, Sanja Radovanovic (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Sanja Radovanovic
I don't want to go too heavily into the English Wikipedia issues here, because that is a different site, but I happen to be an admin there as well, so... The main issue would be that you need to provide independent citations that show that this person is notable. You said in the deleted article that she has been written about in a lot of publications, but you did not give a single specific citation from any of those publications. That is probably the main thing you need to do. The less broadly and obviously famous a person is, the more such citation is needed to establish notability. - Jmabel ! talk15:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Building a possibility to search for wikimedia-users in different parts of the world
Hello, I was searching for a picture of a buidling which is not in my actual living place. Is there a function to search for users worldwide so that I could contact wikimedia users in the near of this object with the wish to them to make photos of things in their near? Or is it able to create something like this? I think it could be helpful. Informationskampagne (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I came across File:Bell telephone magazine (1922) (14569824378).jpg. The image cannot possibly be 1922, the technology is much too recent. It is actually from the magazine vol. 46, no. 3, May/June 1967. I have corrected the dates in the template, and somebody else had already taken care of the category. So should the title also be changed? There seems to be a large number of images from Bell Telephone Magazine, all titled as "1922" and with the same similar problems on the page. Way more than I want to deal with. SpinningSpark17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: we have quite a few periodicals sourced from archive.org, who file all the issues under the date of the first one in their collection—which then shows up in our filenames or metadata. Fæ does a lot of automated uploading and also runs bots through a lot of the files afterwards to fix such problems; at any rate he’d probably be the best person to ask about the feasibility of handling them ‘in bulk’. (@Ruslik0: I guess they‘re {{PD-US-no notice}}.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The IA is only as good as the contributor, in this case the source is the Prelinger Library. The digitization was for a 'book' of Bell telephone magazines dating from 1922 through to 1967. Unfortunately both on Flickr (where IA has put clips from the "book") and at the IA source, the only date against pages or extracted images is the first year of publication. There is then the presumption of 'no copyright known'. If we have a DR which assesses that images from the magazine are copyright if after, say, 1946, then we can use the IA 'page' number to check which images were published after that year. This would be the only way of doing this without a human identifying where one issue of the magazine ends and another starts.
The binding is not actually all years 1922-1967 and it should be possible to discover a more accurate date by automatic process. Following the link to "Catalog Entry" takes you to the Internet Archive page where the "Volume" field tells me the binding is actually vols. 45-46. That can be converted to a year with vol+1921. This binding therefore covers 1966-1967. Pinning it down to an exact magazine issue is more problematic, but "1966-1967" is at least not misleading whereas "1922" is so wildly innacurate that if I were to use that information on Wikipedia, I would be accused of creating hoaxes. This picture would imply, for instance, that not only transistors were in existence in 1922, but that integrated circuits using them were already a mature technology. As someone who worked in the industry for a long time, the "wrongness" of the date just leapt out at me. Other users may not have the benefit of that experience. SpinningSpark12:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Upload picture
How do u upload picture i try but it not working. 208.131.186.88
File:BaddieWinkle.jpeg was changed to a very different image, although apparently the same person at a much younger age. The problem is this is a radical change as the younger image doesn't represent the person's notability, which occurred when she was elderly. I don't have much knowledge about Commons practices, but I think the uploading user should have created a separate new image. What can be done here? (please ping me) Stevietheman (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Have fixed it for you. Yes, the user needs to upload the other image as a separate file, and not overwrite what was already there. :This section was archived on a request by: Schwede6619:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Material from Greek Police surveillance files has recently been published, including these three photographs ( 1, 2, 3) that I uploaded of Aris Velouchiotis. According to the newspaper article in which the photographs were contained (see here -- in Greek) the file contains material from the 1930s till Velouchiotis's death in 1945, but, taking into account Velouchiotis's appearance and attire, these photographs were surely taken before 1942. Are these photographs considered to be in the public domain? It seems to me that this must be the case, but I am not sure about it. If so, could someone please let me know what is the appropriate tag? Many thanks in advance.
PS. I thought I should add FWIW that, upon more careful inspection, one of the three photographs (all of which seem to be parts of the same mug shot series) displays a sign with a date "31-7-1930", which -I infer- should be the date the photographs were taken. Ασμοδαίος (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It would help to know more about the publication history. Even assuming their original copyrights to have expired, if the photos were previously unpublished then Realnews will have publication rights for 25 years (until the end of 2041). I don’t know what the pre-1997 Greek law said about work for hire, but if the police service owned the rights and a 70-y post-creation term applied, the photos would not have been free until 2001, so under URAA would receive extended US copyright for 120 y after creation (until the end of 2050). I think you’re only safe if you can find evidence of publication before 1992 (2017 − 25 y) and that the Greek copyright expired before 1996.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You can only overwrite files with files of the same type, in this case PNG. Obviously you try to upload a JPEG instead of a PNG. --Magnus (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Bonjour, j'ai inséré lundi 23 janvier une photo plus récente (AlexandreDesplat-gros-plan.jpg) sur la page
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Desplat.
J'avais auparavant placé la photo sur Wikimedia Commons et envoyé, comme indiqué sur le site,
ma Déclaration de consentement de l'image à permissions-fr@wikimedia.org
Pourtant, sur Wikimedia Commons la photo est encore marquée
"Il manque une preuve de permission pour ce fichier"
et elle a été retirée de la page Wikipedia pour cette raison.
Ai-je manqué une étape?
Merci de me répondre.
Cordialement,
SweetSueSociety
Bonjour, Compte tenu du grand nombre de courriels et du petit nombre de volontaires OTRS pour s'en occuper, le délai de traitement peut parfois prendre environ un mois. Lorsque votre message sera traité et si tout est conforme, la confirmation sera ajoutée par un volontaire OTRS dans la page de description. D'ici là, il est conseillé que vous ajoutiez le modèle {{subst:OP}} dans la page de description du fichier, ce qui indique aux lecteurs et aux opérateurs que vous avez envoyé un courriel et évite que le fichier soit supprimé pendant que votre message est en attente de traitement. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Copyright permissions
From time to time, I accept a request to create a modified version of a map or other image on Commons, when the copyright status of the image I'm modifying is not among those listed in the dropdown box on the "Special:Upload page" I'm using. I fill in the form using "not known" for the license, and explain the circumstances as well as I can, but a few weeks later my version gets deleted; as you can see on my talk page. Other editors have recommend various versions of the Special:Upload page 123, but trying all three is a palaver, and sometimes none of them lists the license I need.
But last month, another editor recommended a trick to use: do the upload using any license that's listed in the dropdown list, and once it's done, edit the image's page so as to show the correct license instead of the one I uploaded it with. Is that trick acceptable? If it is it's very useful, and I wonder why it isn't documented. Maproom (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Exceptional situations might exist where a trick might be acceptable, but this does not sound like an exceptional situation. In the case you explain, it's not the best solution, because if, as you say, you actually know the correct license tag that you would add later, then you can as easily add that correct license tag directly when uploading. You say other users suggested Special:Upload, which I suppose should work fine if you insert the license tag in the permission field there. Was there a problem when you tried it? Another option is my favorite upload form, the basic form, where you can format everything before uploading exactly as it should be. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Asclepias, I'll try that next time. The dropdown list has more options than any of the Special:Upload pages, so I hope it'll cover what I need. What do I put in the "Source", "Date", and "Author" fields? the data for the existing file that I've modified, or for my modified version? Maproom (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you're giving too much importance to dropdown lists. Dropdown lists are just optional tools that list some frequent options and, if they happen to list what you want, you may use them, or not. In your case, you said you know what tag you would use if you edited the description page after the upload. So, if a dropdown list doesn't have what you want, don't use a dropdown list. Instead, before the upload, simply use exactly the tag you want directly in the freely editable box of the basic upload form. (Or in the permission field of the Special:Upload form). You can edit what you want there, before upload, just like you would do it in a description page after the upload.
In the source, date, and author fields, well, write what you normally write in those fields. It's hard to be specific without knowing the actual files. It depends in part on the requirements of the license of each original work. The idea is that the description page should include what is necessary to allow the readers to know clearly all the information relating to the original work and to your modified version. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
When using UploadWizard (your third link), you just need to select "This file is not my own work." and "Another reason not mentioned above" when choosing the license, and copy-paste the license wikitext from the original file into the text field. Matma Rex (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
My experience (as evidenced on my talk page) is that when I don't select the "right" license from the dropdown list, it doesn't matter how much I explain all the details in the other fields, the image gets deleted. That is why I consider the dropdown list important. Maproom (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Annotations
I see annotations on the photograph of Princess Maud's wedding here. I see most major figures highlighted, but future King George V and his wife Queen Mary, both standing behind Queen Victoria, are not noted.
It would seem that a tool should exist to add annotations, but I cannot find such a tool. Is it disabled? Can additional annotations be added to this photo?
Hello, this is Ahn Kim from Hyler Management. We represent Ms. Karen Allen who personally wanted to author the info on her page here on Wikipedia. I tried to make this edit for her, which went through initially, but then everything reverted back to the way it was. Can someone please help me with how to go about making these edits? We also would like to take down the photos that are already there, and replace them with photos of Ms. Allen's choosing. Many thanks. Hylermgmt (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hylermgm: I'm afraid you've asked for help from the wrong website. Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository. You're probably looking for the Wikipedia's help desk, which you can find on Wikipedia's website at w:en:Wikipedia:Help desk. I can't help you with your issue, but I am familiar with Wikipedia, and I suggest that you might want to start by reviewing Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest editing, which you can find at w:en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. —RP88 (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hylermgm: I would like to add that Commons will welcome any images you care to provide under a free licence. However, the choice of images to illustrate any Wikipedia article is made locally (and independently on each language project). That said, I think most editors will be open to reasonable arguments on the article’s Talk page, based on such concerns as accuracy, currency, and quality, as long as you’re transparent about your relation to the subject per the last link in RP88’s reply above.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
How may I update the status of this file to be reclassified under a non-free use rationale? It has been taken from QueenOnline.com (Queen's official website), and I believe it is therefore owned by Queen Productions, Ltd. Its purpose in the "Queen + Adam Lambert Tour 2017" page on Wikipedia is only to provide a photo illustrating the band's upcoming tour. My intention is solely for it to be used for articles related to the subject. Thank you for your help!
@Bp0413: non-free files are not allowed on Commons, and the above image will probably be deleted soon. You will have to upload it to Wikipedia instead, accompanied by a fair use rationale for every intended use. Your description of the situation is a good start, but it will be harder to show that no free replacement is possible, even if none can be found at the moment, because someone could take a photo during the tour.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello again folks! I'm a newbie intent on adding images and video content to biology pages. I've deceived myself into feeling confident enough about images that I switched to my first video. There is a wonderful video at https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e21600/media2 that compares the protein actin, found in us, and the protein crenactin, found in bacteria. I figure out how to save it from the elife site to my computer, then tried to upload it to the commons. The wizard stopped me because it doesn't accept mp4 files. So, I went to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Converting_video for help, which led me to the online converter at http://convert-video-online.com/ It seemed that I could upload the file OK, and was able to select the commons prefered webm output format, but when I tried to convert, it gave me an error message "conversion error occurred". So, I turned to another approach suggested on the help page: VLC on my computer. The VLC approach worked to convert it to a .ogg file, but as you can see if you compare the 2 videos, the ogg is poor in comparison to the mp4. Now, IMHO, the ogg file is still a great video, but not as great as the mp4. I have 2 concerns: 1) I'm concerned about the licensing, because the ogg video is not the same as the mp4 video, yet the wizard didn't give me an opportunity to declare that I converted the video, which would take elife "off the hook" for preparing a lesser quality video. 2) Do you have any experience with this sort of conversion and suggestions for how I can make a higher quality conversion? I'm using a Dell PC. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Creating an svg of a logo that was previously unavailable.
Hello,
I have been creating svgs of older logos for a while now, and would like to add them to their respective pages. How would I got about this?
I know you "should have permission from the original author" in order to upload logos, but the majority of the logos I have created a well out of date, and the majority of the companies they belong to have either died off or were merged.
Whether the company is still around could be a trademark issue, but not a copyright issue, and all that's needed here for a trademarked image as such is the {{Trademark}} template.
Copyright, however, is not extinguished by the company dying. If you are talking about logos from, say, the 19th century, they should be public domain, as should be anything from the U.S. pre-1923 (since a logo was inevitably published). U.S. logos up to 1963 would be OK if the owner ever published them in a work that was not copyrighted or for which copyright was not renewed, and clear up to 1978 in a work that was not copyrighted. For other countries this will be different; you don't say what countries you are concerned with.
As for "permission from the original author", though, that does not change just because the original author is difficult or impossible to locate. Orphaned copyrights are very inconvenient and annoying, but that's simply the way it is. - Jmabel ! talk06:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The country of origin hasn’t been mentioned, but in the US the threshold of originality is quite high. Marks comprising only simple logotypes, geometric shapes, and conventional iconic symbols have been held not to be copyrightable by American courts, so can be treated as public-domain and uploaded here on that basis. But most other countries have lower TOO, at least presumably—legal precedents are often lacking. See en:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg for an example of how simple a design can be protected in Australia.
When you say “their respective pages“, @19adam99, do you mean on the English Wikipedia? If so, you can probably upload them there, as non-free content. You will have to supply a fair use rationale, and make the nominal size of each graphic no larger than 10,000 square pixels (pointless though this is in practice for vector art). Only one logo per article is usually allowed, unless the text discusses the branding in enough detail to warrant fuller illustration, and unused files will get deleted.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes User's are uploading Movies Copy in Commons so there should me an act in Commons to come over this problem if The publisher of movie claim agains wikimedia foundation that will be collision. like this file:
If you find a copyright violation, you can nominate it for deletion. Publishers can do the same thing, or they can submit a DMCA takedown. --ghouston (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! To file "Google Play Services Logo.png" are notified of the need to specify the license information.
Purpose of use the image of this file in article: to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question.
Can you helm me to correctly identify the information to indicate the type of license?
File:Google_Play.svg is very close to the maximum complexity for {{PD-shape}}. That is, in fact, the one place I'd have some doubts about File:Google_Play.svg, but not to the level where I personally would challenge it. File:Google Play Services Logo.png is distinctly farther from being "simple geometric shapes", to the point where I believe it would not be eligible for Commons.
I don't know what rules ru-wiki may have for non-free use. It may be possible to upload this image to ru-wiki on a non-free use basis and use it in that particular wiki. - Jmabel ! talk16:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
My Question 3: Which template (or several templates) is the most appropriate for inclusion in the section "Licensing" for the file "File:Google Play Services Logo.png"?
You said: "I don't know what rules ru-wiki may have for non-free use."
My Question 4: Why do you remember about the "ru-wiki"?
My Question 5: What do you mean by the phrase "for non-free use"?
You said: "It may be possible to upload this image to ru-wiki on a non-free use basis and use it in that particular wiki."
Re question 7, I'm one of the main people who answers questions here on the help desk.
Re question 8: Yes, I think he was correct to do that. As I said above, I don't think that image is eligible to be on Commons.
Re question 9: I "know" him only in the sense that he is another very active admin here, so occasionally we cross paths on the wiki.
Re question 10: I don't know why he did it, you'd have to ask him. @Jcb: any comment here? But I'd presume he did so for the reason I gave above: it looks to me to be too complicated to be in the public domain, so it's presumably a copyright violation. His deletion summary " external source, no license, no permission" didn't use the actual phrase "copyright violation", but it's tantamount to that.
Re question 11: I know nothing about User:Carlitoscarlos. As far as I can tell, it's the first time I've heard of him. & I have no idea how a user would have "suspicious" connections to a wiki. What's your point?
This started out as being about you wanting to use an image in ru-wiki. I've told you that the image is not appropriate for Commons and aimed you at the Russian-language page in ru-wiki that discusses whether you can upload it there. I don't read much Russian, so at this point I think you are better equipped than I to read the relevant policy and act accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted it as a copyright violation. The image is above the threshold of originality, so that {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-textlogo}} cannot be applied. The summary "external source, no license, no permission" is automatically being generated by one of our robots that is in place to tag the most obvious copyright violations for deletion directly after upload. Jcb (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Fotos vom Bundesarchiv
Hallo, dürfen die Fotos, die das Bundesarchiv zur Verfügung stellte, auch in die englische Wikipedia eingebracht werden? Ich frage, weil es heißt, es ist eine Vereinbarung zwischen Bundesarchiv und Wikimedia Deutschland. Grüße--Buchbibliothek (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
In english: Hello, is it allowed, to transfer the photos from the German Bundesarchiv into articles from english Wikipedia? Regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can think, any photos on Commons can be used in the English-language Wikipedia, so yes. It does not matter at all that Wikimedia Deutschland made some of the arrangements, rather than an individual participant. - Jmabel ! talk16:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Done That was a quick fix. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I have accidently overwritten an image file from another user (pictured above[1]) and I'm not able to revert and rollback it. Why? Could someone please fix it? Thanks, --Mattes (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you., now it works properly.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
. You can start sifting through: Category:Location user templates --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![69 "File extension ".png" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/jpeg)"](#"File_extension_".png"_does_not_match_the_detected_MIME_type_of_the_file_(image/jpeg)"){kind=link}
_off_Boston_in_November_1949.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Binder_clips.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chiostro_canonici_genova.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(14569824378).jpg){kind=link}
_(14580245160).jpg){kind=link}
![19:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2017/01#c-LeGabrie-2017-01-21T19:33:00.000Z-"File_extension_".png"_does_not_match_the_detected_MIME_type_of_the_file_(image/){kind=link}
![16:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2017/01#c-LeGabrie-2017-01-24T16:04:00.000Z-"File_extension_".png"_does_not_match_the_detected_MIME_type_of_the_file_(image/){kind=link}
-3-phenyl-cyclohanone.gif){kind=link}
