User talk:Willscrlt/Archives/2013-09

Copyright status: File:WP-F&B SB2-01-Intro.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:WP-F&B SB2-01-Intro.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you add regular {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} to this file? Same with

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

--Jarekt (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jarekt.

I am sorry that you are bothered by the template that I used to provide the information for the photos. I have very little time to spend editing on the various wikis. I am a student and a caregiver for a family member. That does not leave me much free time. The process of making all those screenshots and then using them to make a coherent discussion outline for a rather contentious WikiProject discussion concerning two competing ideas for how to redesign the main page of the WikiProject took most of a day. It is very frustrating to see that I have to spend more time on this project, especially for something as silly as a preference for one template or another to tag these images as CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Unless something has changed significantly since the days when I created my all-in-one Information template, there is no single "official" CC-BY-SA-3.0 template that is the only one that can be used. My template matches the official wording and it properly categorizes the images under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 category. The only thing it does not do is do all of that in multiple languages--something that was not standard in templates back when mine was created. It probably is something that I should look into building into my Information template (multilingualism is a great idea and beneficial to the overall community), but I do not have the time to do that right now.

I see no benefit in going through all those images and adding a second tag, duplicating what is already included in the Information template (at least what is already there in English). Deleting these photos, which are such an important part of a WikiProject's discussion, would be a "bad thing". Since these are obviously screen captures from Wikipedia, there's no question as to their license or copyright status. There's nothing "contradictory" or "unclear" about them. My template is very clear about the license and copyright, too. I just don't see any benefit in wasting time re-tagging these with a multilingual version of the template they are already tagged with, especially since these are being used on the English Wikipedia.

If you really preferred to see the images tagged with the standard CC-BY-SA-3.0 tag, then it would have been far more helpful to have tagged these images with that template instead of tagging them for deletion. All that your efforts did was to make more work for an already overworked and over-stressed editor who is trying to improve these projects. I would be very appreciative if you would un-tag the images for deletion. If you feel they should be tagged with the other template, then please do so at the same time. I really don't have the time to spare to do this myself, but I will, if necessary, to avoid the deletion. But that's a lousy way to inspire good will and encourage positive contributions to these projects. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Willscrlt, As far as I know there is only one single "official" generic {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} template, translated into few hundred languages with all the robot-friendly microtagging, and auto categories. We invest a lot of effort into generating and maintaining license templates, it would be crazy to maintain multiple copies. Right now your files are sitting in Category:Media without a license: needs history check as files that do not have any of the required "official" license templates listed in Commons:Copyright tags. We had a few thousand files like this and instead of tagging them all with {{No license}}, we are looking through all of them to see how did the files lost the license which is usually required at the upload time. Since you are a busy I will add a license section to your files, but it would be easier for everybody if you just use the same template everybody else is using. I am sorry, this inconveniences you but you are wasting time of all the editors on Commons who are tracking usage of license templates.--Jarekt (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to Commons:Copyright tags. I will work on updating my Information template to incorporate the standard Copyright Tags instead of using my own. The thing that I liked about mine was that it very nicely handled situations where an image was licensed under more than one license... rather than 2 or 3 separate license notifications (which is really ugly in my opinion), it just combined the wording into a single notification. Much more elegant. But, I guess that automation is more important than elegance, since, as we have both pointed out, time is far more precious to all the editors than attractiveness. Thank you for fixing the problem for me. I will avoid using my template for license tagging until it is fixed to use the standard templates. —Willscrlt ( Talk | w:en | b:en | meta ) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and I agree about ugliness of multiple licenses, that is why people use licenses like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}. Greetings. --Jarekt (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)