User talk:Matti

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Matti!

-- 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hello, Matti!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Проблемы с файлами[edit]

Выше я пометил на удаление файлы, которые вы посчитали находящимися в общественном достоянии, хотя это не так. Фотография является творческой работой, и авторские права на неё принадлежат фотографу. Для фотографий двумерных произведений, в том числе картин, ситуация обратная — все права сохраняются за автором картины.

Впрочем, это не единственная проблема с загруженными вами файлами. Например, своё авторство на File:Voskresensky monastery in Murom.jpg заявил другой участник, приведя ссылки на эту же работу в большем разрешении, также он готов предоставить raw-файл, если это будет оспорено. В этой ситуации я склонен доверять его претензиям на авторство больше, чем вашим.

Для файла File:Petr Celebrovskiy Sower.jpg вы указали, что автор неизвестен, хотя, насколько я понимаю, это работа Петра Целебровского.

Мне бы очень не хотелось проверять каждое ваше изображение на нарушение авторских прав, поэтому я очень надеюсь, что вы просмотрите их сами и поправите те, у которых есть проблемы с авторством или лицензией. — putnik? 14:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • В установке шаблонов лицензии я ещё не очень опытный, прошу простить, если что не так и сделать снисхождение.
    • Если оригинальный файл File:Voskresensky monastery in Murom.jpg находится на [1] с разрешением (как я понимаю) копировать, то правильно ли я указал лицензию {{Attribution}}, при условии, что я сделал с оригинала cropp?
      • Чтобы можно было поставить {{Attribution}}, для файла должно быть явное разрешение на распространение, изменение и использование в любых (в т. ч. коммерческих) целях. Это по сути свободная лицензия, но в неформальном виде. То, что файл находится в публичном доступе, даёт лишь право использовать в личных целях. Изменять и распространять его нельзя. — putnik? 18:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • С файлом File:Petr Celebrovskiy Sower.jpg не совсем понятно: в графе автор указывается автор двухмерной работы (Петр Целебровский) или автор фото? Указал авторство картины.
      • В графе автор указываются все люди, которых можно назвать авторами данного произведения. Т. е. для фотографии картины это художник (фотографирование в таком случае не создаёт производной работы), для фотографии людей или зданий — фотограф. Для коллажа — авторы каждого изображения. — putnik? 18:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Двухмерные изображения File:Vladimir Bataev Village Borisogleb.jpg и File:Vladimir Bataev Murom Smolenskaja church.jpg проданы автором и не являются теперь его собственностью. Правильно ли я понимаю, что они доступны теперь по лицензии {{Attribution}}?
      • Если вы имеете ввиду, что проданы сами картины, и вы их владелец, то да, вы можете их выложить под любой лицензией, которую выберете. Но при этом за автором остаётся право на имя, поэтому авторство всё равно нужно обязательно указывать. Если проданы только фотографии картин, то зависит от договора купли-продажи. И если право не эксклюзивное, то выкладывать в свободный доступ нельзя. — putnik? 18:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

являются изображениями церковных деятелей, выполненными в публичных местах (не постановочные фотографии), не имеют какой-либо эксклюзивности ("являются тривиальными"), выполнены неизвестными фотографами, то почему Вас не удовлетворил выставленный шаблон лицензии {{PD-ineligible}}?

      • {{PD-ineligible}} — это геометрические фигуры, текст, схемы — всё то, что может быть повторено кем угодно и не требует творческого вклада. Любая фотография, снятая человеком, — творческая работа, она автоматически защищается авторским правом, независимо от того, сделана ли она в публичном месте и имеет или нет эксклюзивность. — putnik? 18:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Сможете ли убрать шаблоны об удалении файлов, в случае, если указанные поправки приемлемы. Спасибо, если найдете возможность ответить. Matti (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Я перенёс ваше сообщение сюда, и ответил по пунктам. Если вы не против, давайте так и продолжим общаться. Такой способ более привычный для Википедии, нежели для Викисклада, но мне кажется, что обсуждение по пунктам будет проще, чем один ответ на всё сразу. — putnik? 18:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Загружая иконы, пожалуйста, добавляйте правильные теги, например, icons of apostles, Marian icons.--Shakko (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your uploads[edit]

  • you said that the recent photos you toke from external sources are public domain, thats incorrect.
  • you many, many, many times said the untruth. You said that you created photos, but in fact you copied them.

I delete all your uploads that not have a clear public domain reason. This includes all recent uploads with false {{Pd-ineligible}} claims tagged above as missing permission. This includes all uploads that you claimed you created yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You have been blocked for a duration of 1 month[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 month for the following reason: copyright violations.

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.


العربية  azərbaycanca  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  Esperanto  euskara  français  Gaeilge  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk  occitan  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  română  sicilianu  Simple English  slovenščina  svenska  suomi  Türkçe  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  български  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  বাংলা  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  فارسی  +/−

Martin H. (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I downloaded the files for the first time and not properly understood the meaning of the template license. This question I discussed with the administrator putnik? (18:44, 1 October) and some files were in the process of obtaining permission to publish from their authors. Please remove me from blocking, because after seeking clarification from putnik I do not repeat my mistakes.Matti (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that was a little too much. I counted numerous files taken from other peoples panoramio.com pages, numerous photos of priests, and so on. The problem is not that you not provided permission. The problem is that you declared this photos your own work. Given your number of edits on the projects it can be expected that you well know what "own work" means and that you know that it is not ok to write your own name into the author field if you not authored something. I see much false information written to author fields and I see zero efforts to correct this. --Martin H. (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly thought that after "my editing" the files is "my own work". ;) When the administrator explained to me my mistake, I corrected some files, and some had no time. I did not do anything with bad intent, but only by inexperienced.Matti (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention to copyright
File:Saint Ansgar.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Painted by Alexander Stoljarov, still alive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Empress Maria, Mariehamn.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Apalsola tc 21:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aleksandr Rybakov.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stadshuset1, Mariehamn.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Stefan4 (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:St.Olaf II of Norway.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:St.Olaf II of Norway.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Yours sincerely, Tom-L (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:St. Xenia of Saint Petersburg.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:St. Xenia of Saint Petersburg.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Yours sincerely, Tom-L (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Gallery of Greece.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Elisfkc (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Åland Stamp.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Gone Postal ( ) 19:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prästöturnet.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

In fact, I do not nominate this photo for deletion but for renaming, because the wrong name has been used. Unfortunately I don't know if there is another place for nominations for renaming; that's why I did it this way. Erik Wannee (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]