User talk:De728631/2016

Archives 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

hi

I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte.McMahon (talk • contribs)

Alright. Please try to remember the following:

• unless you did not take any photographs yourself please do not upload them.
• Stuff you find on the internet is almost always copyright and non-free. Do not upload it unless you know that the website has a free licence.
• Screenshots or frames copied out of videos, TV series, or video games are not allowed either. Extracting a still from foreign videos does not make you the copyright holder of that single image. It is still copyrighted to the original artist.
• For a start you may want to watch out for Creative Commons licenses that are compatible with the requirements of Wikimedia Commons. If a website has a disclaimer with any of the following icons you can upload its content here:
  • or
  • or or
  • or or or .

De728631 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hii.excuse me ...

Why you deleted my uploads... Those pics are my own WORK .. NOT FROM WEBSITE. Charlotte.McMahon (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

FSZEK

FSZEK "A szerzői jog által már nem védett képek

A könyvtár az eredeti képek és a digitális másolatok példányainak tulajdonosi jogait gyakorolja, továbbá azon képek esetében, amelyeknek a védelmi ideje már lejárt, de a nyilvánosságra hozatalára először ebben az adatbázisban került sor, a szerzői jogok vagyoni részeire terjedően is jogok illetik meg (1999. évi. LXXVI. Tv. 32. §). Erre a kép szöveges adatainál a Megjegyzés rovatban a „Jogok: FSZEK” rövidítés utal." --Gammagaba (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment here. FSZEK is claiming rights of use for the image in question and published it under a non-commercial licence which Commons does not accept. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!

Upload pictures for Carrie Underwood why I deleted? What can I do to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogada1972 (talk • contribs)

You cannot upload photos taken by another and claimed as own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(That's what I wrote at Mogada's talk page. De728631 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC))

Appreciated

Good work thanks - account blocked and original user warned. It is Flickr washing without doubt but I'm guessing it is ignorance rather than particularly evil intent. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Courtesy Arizona State University, 2015.jpg

Hi De728631. Are you able to verify the OTRS ticket for File:Courtesy Arizona State University, 2015.jpg? I think the uploader (the same user from that VP thread) may have misinterpreted something I wrote on ther user talk about permissions emails and "OTRS pending" templates. I guess it's not impossible that a major US university would agree to freely license such content, but it does seem a little unusual, doesn't it? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't have access to the OTRS system but I a similar case is being discussed at the OTRS noticeboard. Anyhow, this file doesn't have any licence at all. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought admins also had access to OTRS, so my mistake. Thanks for checking the licensing and for post on their user talk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Public domain Mark 1.0

Hi, Most people, including Carl Lindberg, think that this is OK. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:J. Yancey McGill and Nikki Haley.jpg‎. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yann, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Even Carl wrote that "we don't trust simply any PDM mark out there, since we don't know what was behind the determination". That image of Prince Ali I refused to restore was clearly not his own work but made a by another photographer so we need to know who released this into the public domain and why. It alls depends on the individual work and in this case I thought there was insufficient evidence to restore the file. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Any Suggestions on how to proceed? This issue with the PD and Flickr seems as clear as mud and a source of (frequent) contention. The photos of Prince Ali are the public domain images provided to the press/media/etc. He is running for the presidency of FIFA. PeterWesco (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As always, we need permissions from the original photographers and/or copyright holders. We don't know where these photos were taken so maybe they are a work for hire making Prince Ali the copyright holder, maybe they are still copyrighted to the photographer who just granted full rights of use to the Prince but some PR agent uploaded the images to Flickr under a seemingly PD licence. Unless this is clearly disclosed at the relevant page on Flickr I'm not comfortable with uploading those images here. De728631 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have sent a message to the Flickr account holder to request 1) update the images to CC0 2) Post a proper release in the album (if possible). I will let you know when/if a response is received. PeterWesco (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope that account holder will change the licenses to a more explicit type. De728631 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar ;) Pyb (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

iPad file

Can I then upload it as a new version of Apple iPad 2.jpg ? Because apart of the disturbing Frame it is the same picture.--Punkt64 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you cannot upload any random photograph that you did not originally make yourself. The picture itself is copyrighted and non-free to use. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

BuNo aircraft categories

Hi, I saw that you introduced U.S. Navy Bureau Number categories. I would prefer, if the photos would be in the general category and the BuNo category, otherwise you have to call up dozens or hundreds of cateogories with 1-2 pictures to find a photo you might like to use (like it was done at Category:F-4F Phantom II). Thank you and Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cobatfor: Hi there. I fear I can't remember which category you are referring to. I presume you're talking about registration numbers but could you give me an example of the categories in question I created? De728631 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:E-2C Hawkeye, categories Category:164486 (aircraft)‎, Category:165648 (aircraft)‎ and Category:165823 (aircraft)‎. Cobatfor (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. However, the purpose of more sophisticated categories is to avoid over-categorisation: "always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those". Category:E-2C Hawkeye and Category:F-4F Phantom II still have lots of indicative images for the type of aircraft, but having dozens or hundreds of images in a category does not necessarily make it easier for the user to find what they are looking for. There is even a template to request category diffusion. Also, if you compare civil aircraft categories it seems to be common practice to create registration number categories even for a single file — and remove this file from the respective parent categories. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

coats of arms

Hello, I am interested in hiring an artist who knows heraldry. If you are interested, please contact me at coadb@mail.com.

I'm sorry, I'm not a professional artist and I don't have a lot of time anyway. So I'll have to turn your offer down. If you have questions on heraldry though, please feel free to ask them here. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Barwis

Hello, I recently submitted a number of our companies registered logos to our owners Wiki page and it was deleted. We own rights 100% to those images and shouldn't have been deleted. Can you please re-add the deleted items please.

Thank you. In good health,

Zac Lucius Sales & Events Manager Barwis Methods zlucius@barwismethods.com www.barwismethods.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlucius (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 April 2016‎ (UTC)

File:AurelioSavinaVball.jpg

You deliated my photo because you thought it was a TV-Screenshoot. That's wrong. I was at the Event and took the picture at a TV-Commercial-Break. So the scene doen't even aired on TV. I uploaded some pictures I took before the event here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Die_gro%C3%9Fe_ProSieben_V%C3%B6lkerball_Meisterschaft_2016 One is even a picture of Aurelio. There are a lot more to come when I got more time. When you don't believe me, I can upload the Picture-Version from the Camera.. This one is only a copy afer I uploaded it on Facebook.. Here is a link to my Facebook-Album: https://www.facebook.com/christianfischer1981/posts/10154689746589692?pnref=story --CHR!S (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Arise, Woman! Art Exhibition

Hello, the website showing ownership and declared release of use for Wikimedia Commons: http://www.usmanchohan.com/#!art/wxnrz

For the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arise,_Woman!_Art_Exhibition_by_Ambassador_Naela_Chohan,_Australia_%282016%29.png Thank you,-Uchohan (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I have now updated your file page at Commons. De728631 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please help!

Hello! It would be very helpful if you'd give us your opinion here. Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Tom-L. De728631 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Du bist einer der besten Talk Page Stalker auf Commons. Vielen Dank fuer Deine Hilfe auf meiner Diskussionsseite. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! De728631 (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Primer Congreso Eucarístico Nacional. Lima 1935.jpg

This is a 70+ years old photo (1935), so all the possible copyrights are due. Best Regards.--Ipeape (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment at the deletion discussion which is over here. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Collection Beyeren

Hello De728631, Its getting time to collect the images into a collection. There are 5 chapters:

• A knight tournement in Compiègne feb 1238; 337 shields, folio's 1r-8v en 18r-28v
• A knight tournement in Mons in 1310; 191 shields, folio's 28v-35v en 49r-52v
• Raid against Frysians in Kuinre in 1396 (Count Albrecht of Holland beated them at the Battle at Schoterzijl); 404 shields, folio's 52v-57v, 36r-48v en 9r-13r
• The siege of Gorinchem in 1402; 122 shields, folio's 13r-17v en 58r-60r
• The 'Drie Besten' (three best); 14 sets, folio's 60r-62v

There are several ways to do it, the easiest way seems to me, is creating categories for them. Simple: Category:Beyeren Armorial Folio 60v, Category:Beyeren Armorial Folio 61r etc. So under each of the 8 shields, the right category will matching that particular page from the book. In that case the main categorie will showing the pages nice and on a alfabetical order and shall be very usefull to compere with the book. There's also the Category:Gelre Armorial method, like using pages as: this. Not prefered by me, I must admit. Becausse it's not very practical, and above all, it cost lots of time. Its not user friendly too, becausse there is only one language on that pages, after that, the info is double within the file decription ofcourse. There is just one avantage; the pages can made in the right order. But if I see the page Armorial de Gelre, I can see that is isn't finished, so I'm affaid thats a system that will not work. An alternative could be to create 5 master categories: Beyeren Armorial Compiègne 1238, Beyeren Armorial Mons 1310, Beyeren Armorial Kuinre 1396, Beyeren Armorial Gorinchem 1402, Beyeren Armorial Three Best. In that case each file wil get "automatic" the correct date. Do you have ideas about it? Take your time, I'm going to sleep now, the answer doesn't need speed ;) Arch (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey there. I think the easiest and most suitable way would creating the master categories as you suggested. I'm not a friend of gallery pages either and categories do have the advantage that you can use them with the Cat-a-lot tool to add and adjust other categories for individual images. De728631 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! I guess I'll be finished soon with the files, I've have already sorted files in the chapters on my pesonal space (see: here). As soon I'm ready I have to check and compare everything so filter away mistakes and errors, but after that its a matter of an eyeblink, so it will be very easy and quick to categorise them. Take probely just an hour. Arch (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arch: We should also create categories according to the armigers' rank and origin, i. e.:

• Category:Coats of arms of kings in Armorial de Beyeren
• Coats of arms of dukes in AdB
• Coats of arms of counts in AdB
• Coats of arms of English nobility in AdB (to match Category:Coats of arms of English nobility)
• Coats of arms of families of France in AdB

and so on. I could start with those right now if you like. De728631 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea, if you would just go ahead :) Arch (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Pelzwerk

Hello, De728631. I saw that you changed the colour on the Hermelinshields, but they are "Pelzwerk" not metal. Thats why I keep the shield in a white/grey clour (White wil made them disapear on wikipages with them white BG, to made a difference between silver, that should indeed be shiney. I geuss the intention is good, but I think that them shields out of pelzwerk (fur?) keep the way they are? I like it more in silver, thats fot sure. But I dont honestly now or using such metalic colour for Hermelin is historical correct. I should dig up some books, I have two books were the images from the coats of arms are displayed in real silver and gold colours, so I can compere them. I've never take a close look for the particular subject. -update- I've search and looked in the meanwhile trough my books, but there's not one hermelin wappen in it. Too bad. However, via search on the web I can see that both ways are accepted, the Hermelin in silver and hermelin in white. So it seems to be OK to display them silverish. ;) Greetz Arch (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you've got a point there. I tried to make them look alike to the argent shields, but then ermine is in fact a fur (Pelzwerk) which might not be sparkling and glittering. On the other hand you could argue that even the fur of live animals can be shiny and reflective when some strong light is shining spot on them, so I'd say there's nothing wrong with having a "fancy" rendition of ermine in these cases. But please feel free to revert my changes if you like, although if you prefer plain colors for the background, I would recommend white instead of grey. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I did read some books about it last night, "Lexikon der Heraldik, von Gert Oswald 2006" Wich nemed the colour silver, besides the rare variation Goldhermelin (wich sounds logical to me) ...Just in the early beginning they did use real fur on the shield, and/or nailed the tales (die schwänze) on the shields. In later times they stylized them in the figures which are known today. I found another book with gold and silver paint wich did content one (!) shield wich had indeed silver used vor the hermelin. So let them be shiney, I dont see a problem now after consulting some books about it. Sorry to bother you about it Grtz Arch (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's awesome. Thanks for your research! De728631 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Cats

Hi De728631, Thanks for categorizing the buses,
The bad news is tho some of the images will be deleted (I've not gone through them myself yet) so it may be a better idea not to categorize them - Don't get me wrong it's extremely extremely appreciated but I'd hate to end up CSD'ing those you've categorized,
Thanks for your help tho, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Why do you think some of those will be deleted? Unfree Flickr images or rather redundant photos? De728631 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I plan on CSD'ing the crap-quality ones and at the moment I have no idea what's crap and what's good so didn't want you essentially wasting your time, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright then. Keep up the good work. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and you keep up the great work too :), Thanks for taking the time to categorize them and helping - It's extremely appreciated :), Happy editing & uploading :), –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ambulances_of_Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe

Category:Ambulances_of_Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe 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!

84.141.27.178 07:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Fight being picked?

Hello! I am amazed and dismayed and turned off by this. How serious is it that I uploaded a file and didn't notice the Metadata until it was too late? Bad enough to be taken to task at length? Tried to explain immediately on the image's talk page.

You seem to know that user. Can I now expect lots of trouble from that direction? Was in a very good mood, despite that mistake I made, and felt fit to go on after a nap now. People who pick fights scare me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know anything about LX and his habits. I wouldn't take this as picking a fight though. Maybe LX was just a bit annoyed that you didn't use the regular means of getting the image deleted. And he is actually right that claiming something to be your "own work" when you are just the uploader and not the author is already a breach of copyright. Which is why I, too, tried to urge you to reconsider your standard descriptions for mass uploads. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't figure out where/how (on the upload form I use) to do as you suggested. E-mailing you now about that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Got it, reply has been sent. De728631 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Reinstate

Now that I have clarified what I would have used, can we please reinstate this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi-res images of Beyeren armorial

Hi De728631,

I'd like to inform you that I just uploaded the full Beyeren armorial in hi-res, pls check https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Armorial_de_Beyeren

(these are the images that are visible in https://galerij.kb.nl/kb.html#/nl/wapenboek

With kind regards, --OlafJanssen (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Bedankt! This is good news. It's too bad that Arch quit his activities at Commons but then it's nice to see that someone else is interested in his projects. I'm now going to sort the original images into the subcategories. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Sonny Chiba 1961.jpg

Hi De728631. Please delete the File:Sonny Chiba 1961.jpg because there is not any legal reference (source). Best regards Kontoreg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontoreg (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kontoreg: Hi there. It does have a source "Marubell Company, Ltd." and says that this was a promotional image. However, it is unclear how the image was obtained and whether it is in fact a a promotional image (note that it has been categorised in "film stills"). I have now flagged the page for a missing source and if no input is given by the uploader, the file may be deleted in a week. De728631 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontoreg (talk • contribs) 06:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Kontoreg, You are wrong. Marubell is famous company of the Japanese actor, actress, singer, musician bromides. Most Japanese know Marubell's bromides. You don't know these situation in Japan. This photo is clearing PD-Japan-organization. --こういぇはつ (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have linked Marubell Company, Ltd. It is source and author of this file.--こういぇはつ (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontoreg (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I saw you are helping other user especially freshman users and its so nice to me . i think somebody like you is eligible to get this . thanks for your guideline, that was short but enough either. that was so kind of you. health and wealth AmirMuhammad1 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Change of location of this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CSgt_OBrien.png

I am not going to try to argue with you since its obvious I'm wrong, so I assume the guy in the center is who I thought the other guy was? It would make sense with the naming at the bottom, is that correct? I just made before a stupid guess based on that he looked vaguely like an image already available on the internet and the different uniform. So the guy in the center with the shield at his knees is the lieutenant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blight55 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 05 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The names below the image should correspond to the order of the persons depicted there. So the central guy in the second row would be Lt. Panter Downes. I could have overwritten your crop with a new image but I thought I'd prefer a clean start with a new image for the lieutenant. Please feel free to upload a new cropped picture for Panter Downes. Oh, and thank you for adjusting the licenses. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo

Hi, De728631, can you explain to me why Brimz keeps removing the files on the dutch version of DuckDuckGo pretending they are copyright files? I taking a look at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-07# and Category:DuckDuckGo this doesn't make sense to me. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hoi, @Lotje: . Judging from the design I can understand how Brimz thinks this is copyrighted. You should drop him a note on his Dutch talkpage and explain to him that the logo is part of the software and has been released under a free licence. Actually it IS copyrighted but the licence allows using the logo anywhere else. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Lotje (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Abtswind Logo.svg

Hallo - Du hast soeben dieses Logo zwei Kategorien "... in heraldry" zugeordnet. Es handelt sich bei dieser Abbildung jedoch nicht um ein Wappen. Es ist lediglich ein Logo, dass Jedermann verwenden kann. Deshalb hatte ich die Kategorien gestern mit diff getiglt. War das falsch? -- MaxxL - talk 15:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Siehe dazu bitte die Diskussion auf Commons:Village pump/Copyright#If missing, licensing to CC0?. Auch wenn es als Logo Verwendung findet, ist es letztendlich nichts anderes als der offizielle Wappenschild der Gemeinde. Daher kann man die Datei auch als solches verwenden und kategorisieren. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Entschuldige, aber da muss ich widersprechen: es ist nicht das amtliche Wappenschild, sondern das Logo, das Jedermann nutzen darf. Das amtliche Wappen findest Du auf dem Amtsblatt der Gemeinde und dies ist weitaus detaillierter als die abstrahierte Logoversion. Das ist auch die Aussage der Verwaltung in Abtswind. Der erste Bürgermeister ist am Montag wieder aus dem Urlaub zurück. Ich werde ihn sofort um eine schriftliche Bestätigung der mündlichen Auskunft bitten. -- MaxxL - talk 15:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Das diesd gar kein so seltener Fall ist - NRW hat ein Bürger Logo ebenso wie viele Stadte - schau Dir bitte dieses sehr informative Beispiel Düsseldorf. Es hat den äußeren Anschein das Düsseldorfer Wappen zusein, ist es aber nicht. -- MaxxL - talk 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Aus heraldischer Sicht gibt es aber keinen Unterschied zwischen abstrahierten und detaillierten Versionen, solange die Blasonierung stimmt. Fakt ist, dass das Logo die selben Figuren zeigt, wie das Wappen und eindeutig als Wappenschild aufgebaut ist. De728631 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Der Wappenberechtigte - der Markt Abtswind - vertreten durch seinen Bürgermeister sagt: dies ist nicht unser Wappen, dies ist das das abgeleitete Logo. In commons soll dem aber widersprochen werden und das Logo als Wappen benannt werden? Ist das ernst gemeint? -- MaxxL - talk 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ja, das ist teilweise ernst gemeint. Commons ist eine Sammlung von frei verfügbaren Medien für alle möglichen Zwecke. Auch wenn die Gemeinde die Originalgrafik als Logo verwendet, haben wir hier eine SVG-Datei mit heraldischen Elementen (Fuchs, STAB, Schild), die lle auch einzeln benutzt werden können. Darum sollte man die Datei sowohl als Logo einstufen, als auch unter heraldischen Aspekten. Ich bin jetzt erstmal offline, werde mich aber morgen gerne weiter dafzu äußern. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Danke De728631 noch mal für dein Statement. Die ganze Geschichte kommt doch vollkommen absurd daher. Hier wird geltendes Recht (per Gesetz) durch eine nicht nachvollziehbare Behauptung außer Kraft gesetzt. Falls es stimmt was MaxxL "erzählt" müsste eine solche Deklaration öffentlich bekanntgegeben werden. Niemand kann hier ein Wappenlogo/Wappenzeichen erkennen geschweige denn ein Logo. Hier ist also nicht nur ein Nachweis per Email nötig (noch nicht mal OTRS). Ich für meinen Teil warte noch eine gewisse Zeit auf eine Erklärung per Email oder anderen Beleg.

PS: Der Vergleich mit den "gängigen" Wappenzeichen hinkt doch arg (OT: wobei hier doch das Wappen Schleswig-Holsteins also Kuriosität heraussticht, da das Wappenlogo wie ein normales Wappen ausschaut mit vermeintlich mehr Details und das Wappen wie ein Logo, hier wurde wohl auf die Schildform wert gelegt).

@"Kein so seltener Fall" dort wird genau ein Wappenzeichen einer Stadt gezeigt (nämlich genau das erwähnte, wo sind die vielen anderen?). Hier handelt sich um eine kleine Gemeinde (Markt um nicht zu sagen Dorf). Da kann man froh sein, dass hier überhaupt ein amtliches Wappen vorhanden ist. Ein Wappenlogo bei derart kleinen Orten steht wohl als Rarität dar (ist mir jedenfalls noch nie untergekommen). ↔ User: Perhelion 20:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Email Antwort: Der 2. Bürgermeister hat mir nur inhaltlich knapp geantwortet, dass man "Mit dem geänderten Wappen zufrieden ist". Obwohl ich explizit das Logo-Problem angesprochen hatte. Damit wäre zumindest die Ersetzung nun begründet. @MaxxL: wie machst du das, fragst du vorher bei den Gemeinden an oder nachher? ↔ User: Perhelion 19:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Email die 2.: Auf nochmaliges Nachhaken, habe ich freundlicher Weise eine etwas konkretere Antwort bekommen, die da lautet: er hat "ehrlich gesagt, keine Ahnung" ... "Am einfachsten ist es, dass MaxxL seine Aussage beweisen würde.". Somit kann - wie ich nicht ohne Grund vermutet habe - MaxxL all seine Änderungen an dem Wappen (vermeintlichen Logo) rückgängig machen, falls er binnen einer Woche nichts besseres vorlegen kann. MfG ↔ User: Perhelion 07:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für deine Bemühungen. Was MaxxL angeht, stimme ich dir vollkommen zu, obwohl das für die Kategorisierung der Datei sowieso unerheblich ist. Über den Dateinamen kann man sich allerdings nach wie vor streiten. De728631 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:File:Teniente coronel César Muro cropped.jpg

Hi De728631, I'd like to kindly ask you to respect my uploads. As you possibly know, any uploader is granted the right to ask for the deletion of his/her uploads, provided that no more than a few days have passed since upload. Thus, I've deleted the file I've just uploaded and upload the version I like. Feel free to upload the original image (I'm not interested in such image) but please, leave the version I want to upload, provided that I'm following the rules. Thank you for your understanding --Discasto _talk 21:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC) PS: I've been a commons admin for years and I do know the basic rules pretty well

The version you last uploaded is in File:Teniente coronel César Muro cropped.jpg. Just without the larger image in the upload history. Please note also that you did not delete your first upload. You just overwrote it with the cropped image but it is still present in the history of the file. This is not what we want at Commons. Please see Commons:Overwriting existing files. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please remove the file I requested? Best regards --Discasto _talk 21:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you want to remove it because I'm going to re-upload it anyway. But if it pleases you, I'm going to remove it now. De728631 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't believe what you did and the basis you did it

Can't believe how destructive action you took, rather than attempt to be helpful instead. I'm average WP editor, with little experience loading files needing permissions. However I did the best that I knew how with this system (upload specifications), and did the correct things in getting the copyright holder to send the right information to the right place. If you were trying to be a pain, and as unhelpul as possible, I don't know how you could have possibly improved on your response at the Noticeboard, and with your action. This has left a very very bad taste in my mounth. I wonder why you are in the position you are in, to shoot from the hip with unhelpful/destructive reponse/action, rather than work to help someone who asked for help to resolve what went wrong??? I do believe that nothing went wrong on my end, but judging by your knee-jerk responses it is easy to think that much is going on wrong here at COMMONS with the way things are managed here.

You shouldn't make the assumptions you made without putting your finger on the permissions Email. I'll pay you $1000 if there is any inadequacy about that Email. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You've put me in IMPOSSIBLE POSITION -- don't you see that at all??? (By telling me "something is wrong" and at same time that you don't know what is wrong.) That is crazy-making. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If there was someone I could report you to and get you fired from your job at COMMONS, I would do it!!! You should be trying to resolve things and helping people who need it, rather than frustrating them further with non-reponses and destructive actions. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't even know that something is wrong in the first place -- you've assumed that. Yes there may be something wrong ... something wrong with OTRS overlooking a permissions Email that was sent to them. You never even attempted to confirm the Email content, you made assumption it was defective. Bad assumption. And you took action on that basis. Bad basis for action. How about reversing your destructive action and restoring what you deleted??? And are you in a position or not, to both FIND and REVIEW the permissions Email sent June 27 by the copyright holder??? How about some answers and some help, instead of the crazy-making approach that you have already executed??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are an administrator. (Excuse me for not being very impressed. Or differently, I'm impressed, but the wrong way.) How about un-doing the damage you've done, then just getting someone more qualified to help me??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You might not know it but when we delete files, they are not ultimately erased but the file history and edit history are kept on the file servers, just not visible for everyone. That is why I could see that on 6 August 2016, at 00:04, user BU Rob13 put {{this template}} on the file page which says "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. ..." Apart from that, other editors have now explained to you at the OTRS noticeboard what may have been wrong. De728631 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That's confusing. (First you said "I cannot read the email that was sent", now you're quoting someone saying "can be read here by users with an OTRS account". That seems contradictory. Do you have an "OTRS account"?) Second, the client confirmed in their permissions Email to be both owner and copyright holder. Is OTRS honestly taking the position of telling the client (a notable US attorney & law professor) that he is mistaken!? And on the basis "probably the photographer is the sole copyright holder"!? (Just what position has OTRS taken? The client asked to be informed of any deficit to the permission he submitted. Was that done? ... I was supposed to be in the loop on communications, but OTRS dropped the ball on that by overlooking my Email address in the CC of the permissions Email, so I'm asking. I'd like to be sent a copy, seeing how I've been told that OTRS dropped the ball re including me in communications.) Update: I've asked for said copy at the Noticeboard. Ok, IHTS (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not have an OTRS account, and with "can be read here by users with an OTRS account" I was quoting a generic message that was not written by me but is included in Template:OTRS received. It means that other volunteers that do have an OTRS account can read any email messages sent to OTRS. It is not contradictory because I was pointing you to this templated message that was placed on the file page 30 days before the file got deleted, and which you could have read in due time. As to the OTRS team not including you in their emails, I'm afraid I don't know why that happened. Again, I do not have any access to OTRS emails but can only tell you what happened to the image file itself. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

PS: For your future reference, people with OTRS access usually display a tag on their userpage as BU Rob13 does. And it is not uncommon for "simple" administrators without OTRS access to provide answers at the OTRS notice board. De728631 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I got to answers now, as much as is feasible. Thank you for your participation & timely responses that helped get me there. Sincere, IHTS (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Acta constitución LIADA.jpg

Thanks for your opinion on the discussion about the status of the transcript of the foundation of this organization, I was thinking like you, but I didn't know what licence I was able to use for that. I still need to learn a lot about the licenses in Commons. Thanks. --JoRgE-1987 (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons VP

Hi De728631. Thanks you for your help at the VP. What do you think about File:Philippine Revolutionary Army Rifles.jpg, File:QuezonVehicle.jpg and File:MTUST.jpg uploaded by the same editor? The first two appear to be museum exhibits and are 3d, so I'm not sure if the objects of the photos still can be considered protected under copyright. The third one appears to be a fair use being claimed as "own work", and it does not look old enough to qualify for PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. The first two are so-called utilitarian objects, i.e. things for everyday-use, and they are not generally copyrighted. As to File:MTUST.jpg, this is apparently another copyright infringement so I have opened a deletion discussion for this one, too. De728631 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. De728631 (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, You realize that this comment might be used as a statement loosening the user's unblock conditions? I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just checking that's what you're doing. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Thank you for pointing this out. I wasn't aware that Light Show had been placed under any unblock unconditions, but this makes it clear. I was not going to lift these conditions anyway but was merely replying to what looked like a general copyright inquiry. @Revent: as the unblocking admin who enacted these conditions, would you say that Light Show's upload conditions regarding out-of-copyright US media should be levied or would you rather keep them intact? I have asked Light show to keep requesting approval but I think we can also lift these conditions.

If anyone is still in doubt about Light show's uploading habits we could perhaps change his uploading conditions. We could drop the talk page request prior to uploading but have him add weblinks to the file description or to the licence section that point to the relevant copyright catalogues. De728631 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I recall this case. The "tight leash" has been applied for nearly a year. Perhaps the more standard process of adding {{LicenseReview}} to uploads would be a good intermediary step if precautions are still thought sensible? There should be caution in terms of process. Blocks tend to be strictly limited and have a defined appeal procedure, while unusual conditions like this one frequently turn out to be hard for the subject to appeal or otherwise get lifted as they fall outside our community agreed policies. --Fæ (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

{{LicenseReview}} sounds like a good idea to me if some level of control is still desired. De728631 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I see two issues with relaxing this... one being that Light Show is still completely banned from uploading any images to enwiki, because of his extremely long history of copyright problems there. Not that we are required to listen to them, but it will be a source of drama that we should be prepared for.

The other, and more significant, problem is that I really don't think that Light Show has learned much (if anything) about exercising any kind of 'due diligence' regarding what he asks to upload... as an example, on the 21st of last month, he asked on the VPC about uploading this image, which actually has a visible copyright notice in the bottom right corner. He also, about the same time, wanted to upload this AP image, which (if you are not familiar with it) is an extremely famous photo, and it's incredibly hard to conceive of the AP not protecting it given that they are known to be well aware of copyright and that's it's a 'valuable' image, in monetary terms.... I suspect it probably would have resulted in a DMCA notice, to be honest. I unfortunately think he's just throwing 'whatever' at the community, and seeing what gets past, without much in the way of filtering. Revent^talk 09:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. I find it hard to understand their motivation or persistent failure to grasp policy. --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, Revent. Given these examples and the local upload ban, I agree that relaxing Light Show's conditions would only produce problems, so we better keep his restrictions as they are. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

As to Revent's comment at VPC, I agree with him. VPC is more frequented and thus better suited for upload inquiries than one's user talk page. I would suggest that future upload requests by Light Show shall now be made there instead of using his user talk page. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Asking there was actually a 'change' to the rule made by Light show himself, that I had absolutely no problem with (he's been doing so consistently)... it's probably what I should have said in the first place. FYI, my 'examples' were just of the recent issues... soon after his unblock, he also tried to argue about things like the 'validity' of a visible copyright notice, as a reason that a work should be allowable (as I recall, it was another case where the notice had been written on the negative, and the year was not written, but it was clearly a notice). Light show seems to consider himself an expert on copyright.... in the sense of being a 'sea lawyer', my impression is that instead of objectively looking for the actual status, he's looking for an 'out' that lets him upload the work IF someone objects, and otherwise wants to rely on 'generic' arguments about such works in general. It's unfortunate, as he does seem to want to contribute useful material, and in a way my unblocking him was an unintended burden on the community, but... c'est la vie.

I'd ask that, due to the history, @Moonriddengirl: be consulted before any slacking of his sanction happens in the future, even though she's not really active here. Revent^talk 19:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted image

I noticed that even though you deleted File:Karikatur-Hattar.gif its talk page File talk:Karikatur-Hattar.gif is still available. Did you have a specific reason for that? Ww2censor (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't know why this talk page slipped through the overall deletion process. Anyhow I have now deleted it. Thank you for notifying me. De728631 (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem. I occasionally see them when I have nominated a file and have it watchlisted. Ww2censor (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WPA images

Hi, the Highsmith photographs of WPA works could use {{PD-USGov-WPA}}. The recent categorizations are at search, though there are probably a hundred more outside of the review category. --Fæ (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

As a separate collection, I have written to the current chief exec for the Deep Ellum Foundation to confirm whether these are public domain or something else (search). If the response is negative, I'll use that information to raise a deletion request. --Fæ (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was also thinking about {{PD-USGov-WPA}}. I did a search last night and tried to sort as many images into Category:WPA mural photographs by Carol M. Highsmith as I could find jduging from the filenames, but there are certainly lots of other WPA photographs by her. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a pudding

Sütlü irmik tatlısı (semolina with milk dessert)

I'm serving you your own slice. Guten Appetit! (It may be smaller than that of Jim, but notice all the raisins you've got! :-) Also notice the texture and consistency of this "Sütlü irmik tatlısı": It is not a "Semolina pudding" with an English, German or Turkish name. I know what a "pudding" is. Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! De728631 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Salad ingredients

Hallo again. I see that you like food items, like me. I recently created a category on "salad ingredients". I am sure you may find many items to fit in there. Thank you and have a good week-end. --E4024 (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hrm, this might become a very indiferrent category because you can make a salad out of so many variable ingredients. But let's see how this develops. De728631 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

License review tag

It looks like Rillke's review script doesn't recognize {{License-review}}. When I review your uploads, Rillke's script ignores it and adds {{LicenseReview}} [1], [2], [3]... The script tells me a review template hasn't been found, and prompts me to add one and then to pass the review. I've had this same problem when the full review template with the parameters is placed on a file page. Rillke's script won't detect that either. lNeverCry 23:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: That might occur because {{License-review}} is just a redirect to the proper template page {{LicenseReview}}. Perhaps we should ask Rillke to adapt his script. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he's editing any more. Or at least he's on vacation for a while the last I looked. lNeverCry 18:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I see. Well, at least I'm now using {{LicenseReview}}.Would somebody else have access to the script code? De728631 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately he hasn't edited since May, so almost 5 months ago. Any admin can edit User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js. I'm 48, and haven't ever written a line of code in my life, so I'm afraid I'm useless in this area... lNeverCry 19:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Meh, I've done a fair bit of coding but Java just isn't my cup of tea. I'm wondering if there are any active Commons admins among these guys. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe someone like Steinsplitter, but I hate to overburden him. I can always make the extra click, and remove the unrecognized version of the review template as I've done in the past. It doesn't happen often. This is only the second time I've seen this issue; the other was with a Tasnim uploader who isn't active anymore. He used the template with all the blank parameters. I don't remember if he used a dash. lNeverCry 20:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

File:View from Mercedes-Benz Arena.jpg

I am the owner of this photo. Google decide to shut down Panoramio, so I choose to donate this very photo to wikimedia. 我即是这张照片原作者。Google公司决定关闭Panoramio网站，所以我决定将其捐赠给wikimedia。

之乎 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Search255: The problem is that even though you may have uploaded it at Panoramio with a Creative Commons licence, Google has now shut down the old server and archived this photo without any licence information at all, so I cannot verify your claim. Our policy is that images from external sources need to have a verifiable free licence. I suggest that you send an email to OTRS as explained here to verify your authorship and the free licence. Once you have sent the mail, please let me know on my talk page, and I will restore the image. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Hurricane Matthew color.png.

I got this file, with a user's permission from Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki. I have the chat logs, as well. http://hypotheticalhurricanes.wikia.com/wiki/Hypothetical_Hurricanes_Wiki:CCB_Logs/2.8/10-17-2016 Scroll down a bit to when DarrenDude talks about a higher-quality image he created. Thank you and have a great day. :) Jdcomix (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jdcomix: Darren Dude is obviously not the copyright holder unless he operates his own satellite. This appears to be an image from NOAA or some other agency and it is most likely in the public domain. So we need to know the original source. De728631 (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@De728631: I'm trying to find that source right now on chat. I'll let you know when I find it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jdcomix (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Got a source. http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/archdat/test/kml/TC/2016/ATL/14L/visir/. The JTWC website is currently down due to Typhoon Sarika and Haima, most likely, but this is what Darren gave me. Jdcomix (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you. That makes sense given the other Visir images in the Commons category. I'm going to add this link as the original source but will flag the file for licence review pending the return of the JTWC website. De728631 (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jdcomix: I see you uploaded the high-resolution image at File:Matthew color (1).png. Where does the Creative Commons 2.5 licence come from, though? Is this what Darren Dude asked you to add? The image looks like it is the original satellite snapshot, maybe cropped a little, but as a work by the US government that was not changed in a creative way, it should be in the public domain. De728631 (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@De728631: Sorry, this was my first time uploading an image like this. You can change the creative commons thing to the US government one, I don't really know how this works. Sorry for the inconvenience, and have a great day. :) Jdcomix (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, have a great day too. De728631 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: you can add a public domain licence from NOAA by putting a text string {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} on a Commons file page. I did this now for the Matthew image but when you come across another US government work, feel free to use the templated tags in Category:PD-USGov license tags. De728631 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For reference

I think https://ibin.co/2z3vy8PmCSoJ.png is fair use, for the purpose of the discussion. Revent^talk

If the photo is kept then as we know that the text is public domain, if the webpage stuff is cropped out, the rest can be uploaded to Commons to give context. --Fæ (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Rama Rama Re Poster.png

This is a poster of a film. How to upload this image.. Kindly help. --RohithKumarPatali (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@RohithKumarPatali: This poster is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded at Commons without permission from the original designer or the film company. You can, however, upload film posters locally at certain Wikipedias that support "fair use" images with a specific rationale. I found the article Rama Rama Re... that you created at the English Wikipedia and this Wikipedia accepts fair use content.

But the version you uploaded here seems to be the "preview" poster since it includes the announcement "Releasing on 21st October". This is undesirable for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles should reflect on established facts on not on something yet to come. I found this poster though which looks like a valid alternative, so I will upload it at the English Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@De728631: Thank you for your help.

RohithKumarPatali (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Aviation files

Hi, I noticed you've uploaded numerous aviation photos. Could I ask that in future you add Category:Aviation files (check needed) to such uploads, as I have noticed that your uploads are missing "critical" categories. Others who are going through that check category will know what categories to add (there's instructions there). Cheers, Fairchildfh227 (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to remember next time I upload some aircraft images. I've added this category to the templated set of aviation categories I try to add as a minimum. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fairchildfh227: The more I think about it, the more I tend to disagree with the very rigid requirements formulated at this category page: "Do not delete this check category from files in this category until they are categorised inline with the above." Especially the registration number is often not visible in aircraft photos, so theoretically the image would have to stay in this maintenance category forever. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Trouting noted

Apologies for missing this, I was getting married that weekend. I deleted it for the reason you described, but should have noted that in the rationale. MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, congratulations! That is in fact a valid excuse. Wishing you both all the best. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI

5. Bild von oben. Der SHZ lernt es nie, mit denen hatte ich auch schon Ärger... Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Danke für den Tipp. Das ist aber gar nicht mein Bild, ich habe das lediglich von dewiki hierher übertragen. Hab aber trotzdem mal Stoertebeker eine Nachricht hinterlassen. Allerdings ist der seit Jahren nicht mehr aktiv gewesen. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry für die Belästigung, da hab ich nicht genau genug gelesen... :-) Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

YouTube licenses

Hi, De728631. Where is the license on a YouTube video located, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyBvnnZsSLA ? --Rrburke (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rrburke: Below the video screen, click on "Show more". There is a link to this page which in turn links to the CC-by-3.0 licence. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

PS: For other external websites, please have a look at this new manual. De728631 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rrburke (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Rustica

Thanks for yours modifications ! --Varaine (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding new author and books

New contributor here. Attempting to add an author and her books including book cover images to Wiki. Just having a hard time finding the proper procedures/etiquette. The images are owned by author, so what am I doing wrong?

--Troutmanjeff (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Troutmanjeff: Book covers are almost always copyrighted and non-free so you cannot upload them here without explicit permission from the original designers. The same goes for the portrait photograph that would be copyrighted to the photographer. Once there is an article about an individual book at the English Wikipedia, you could upload the cover locally at Wikipedia with a fair use claim, but Commons requires that all media files be free for anyone to use for any purpose. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@De728631: Okay, thanks! When I drum up more patience for this all, I'll give it another go, but Wiki sure doesn't make it easy to promote the induction of new contributors. Thanks again. --Troutmanjeff (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright is not a trivial thing and we have to ensure that the original authors won't have to claim their rights to the files that are uploaded here. Sometimes that is not easy for a new editor so you should perhaps just start writing the Wikipedia article and then add the images later. De728631 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, De728631!

Happy New Year!

De728631, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)