Commons:Help desk/Archive/2012/01

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

A pair of markup problems

Hi. Today, trying to move a file listed here (i'm a file mover) I've seen that the "move & replace" tab was absent (by now it is the normal "move"). I performed my last move of a file tagged with "Rename" this night, and I had no problem. Is it a maintenance problem? I've got also another problem from a month or 2: the "keybord" below "edit" tab (standard, symbols, latin, greek etc...) doesn't work. It happended in a period (november, as I remember) when in all WM projects appeared a notice above the pages regarding the maintenance of the site. I performed that problem at en.wiki also, for 10-15 days, then it disappeared. Thanks for help, regards and, of course, HNY :). --Dэя-Бøяg 19:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I recently updated MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js. It might be possible that I broke something. Can you tell me whether there are javascript-errors in your browser's error-console? (Firefox: Ctr+Shift+J, IE: Look in the status-bar whether there is a yellow exclamation-mark and double-click it). -- RE rillke questions? 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If it is something like "this.i18n.moveAndReplace is undefined", please delete your cache/ temporary internet files and retry. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 21:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I've clicked but the message wasn't this. To try I've deleted my cache but still now the situation is the same. Thanx for attention :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please specify the error-message? You can select the message, right click and copy. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 22:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Does the exclamation mark is the one in the bar below? Ehm... I'm not so expert... Anyway, clicking, it appears a normal general message about the errors on this web page that may cause working problems. --Dэя-Бøяg 18:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Which Browser/Version are you using? Are you using IE7 and https://commons.wikimedia.org (SSL)? -- RE rillke questions? 00:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, please try to Please purge your browser’s cache. (You only need to do it once.)
Operating
system

Browser
 Microsoft Windows or Linux macOS
Chrome Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload 		Press ⌘ Cmd+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload
Mozilla Firefox Hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload
(or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R) 		Press ⌘ Cmd+R (reload page) or
⌘ Cmd+⇧ Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)
Safari Hold down ⇧ Shift+Alt while clicking Reload
Press Ctrl+R Press ⌘ Cmd+⌥ Option+E (clear browser cache)
or ⌘ Cmd+R (update)
Opera Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Konqueror
Internet Explorer Press Ctrl+F5

. I removed a trailing ",". IE is known not to like those. -- RE rillke questions? 00:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I use http://commons.wikimedia.org and IE7. Thanks a lot, now the "move and replace" tab works. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I have to say thank you. Thanks for your patience and the error-report. I should have checked the code more carefully before deploying. -- RE rillke questions? 13:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it's a reciprocal thanks :-) ... Ehm, just another question regarding the "keybord" below "edit" tab (standard, symbols, latin, greek etc...). Clicking, it doesn't work from november. But the keys above (bold, italic, signature, embedded file etc...) work normally. Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 12:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. We have many scripts but no maintainers. But which dev wants to work with a communtiy like this allowing trouble-only-making-users to attack hard-working users? -- RE rillke questions? 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please purge your browser’s cache. (You only need to do it once.)

Operating
system

Browser
 Microsoft Windows or Linux macOS
Chrome Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload 		Press ⌘ Cmd+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload
Mozilla Firefox Hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload
(or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R) 		Press ⌘ Cmd+R (reload page) or
⌘ Cmd+⇧ Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)
Safari Hold down ⇧ Shift+Alt while clicking Reload
Press Ctrl+R Press ⌘ Cmd+⌥ Option+E (clear browser cache)
or ⌘ Cmd+R (update)
Opera Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Konqueror
Internet Explorer Press Ctrl+F5

to see changes. -- RE rillke questions? 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: RE rillke questions? 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot again, the problem has been resolved :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 00:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Stockphoto.js bar not showing on one picture

Can you see the stockphoto.js bar on File:Bento de luxe.jpg ? I cannot see it, although I can see it on other files like File:Lomnicky stit ze Skalnateho plesa.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Information}} was missing. -- RE rillke questions? 13:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am editor in the Dolna Półka imprint of Timof comics. The file in question has been created for us exclusively by a Polish artist, Unka Odya. She has then given us rights to freely use it as the logotype for the publishing house DP. I could not use "I am the creator" lience, but there was no "I'm not a creator but still got rights" case for license. Which one should I choose then, before some zealot deletes it?

Regards,

--Godai (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would think that your logo is too simple to be copyrighted (although of course it can be trademarked) and would probably fall under {{PD-ineligible}}. But others may have different views. It would certainly also be appropriate to explain the design/ownership issue in the "Permissions" section. I won't be surprised, though, if someone else has more to add to my remarks. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Added pd-shape. It is legally protected as a trademark, and certainly does not qualify for copyright in the United States. Most simple shapes and motifs do not. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I suspected something like that, but could not touch it. Problem solved then Godai (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are licenses-not alowing-derivative-works not allowed?

I see that allowable licenses for image uploads must allow unlimited derivative works in order to be eligible for WP. This seems so unbalance a policy for images, since it is a rare, rare, rare percentage of files that are actually used that way, hacked into derivatives, but yet this policy still excludes a massive amount of quality pics that would be invaluable for WP... and the authors have given us permission to use them (!), just not hack them up into derivatives. In searching around, the only explanation I could find for this shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot, was simply the unreasonable answer that 'we have always done it that way, it's not going to change'. [[1]] is an example of a photo that the author has given us permission to use, just not hack it up. Is it only our internal policy that is excluding these myriad of valuable images? Is there something big I am misunderstanding here? Many thanks for your help. -- Tom Hulse (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically, if derivatives aren't allowed, you can't crop, adjust color balance, etc. Most reuse in print will want to do at least some post-processing of their own, though I agree that most online uses will not. - Jmabel ! talk 12:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Es ist das Foto der Taufmatrikel von Franz Gleißner aus dem "Liber ecclesiae S. Georgii civitatis Neustatt, Baptizorum". Standort der Matrikel: Diözesanarchiv in Regensburg. Ich habe das Foto schon 1967 im Pfarramt Neustadt a.d. Waldnaab gemacht. Es wurden mir keine Auflagen erteilt.


--Malzer Karl-Heinz (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sie müssten in der Bildbeschreibungsseite eine Angabe zu der Lizenz machen, unter der die Abbildung freigegeben wird. Wenn Sie das Foto selbst gemacht haben, können Sie es als "own work" mit der entsprechenden Freigabe (cc-by-sa 3.0/de) versehen. --Wvk (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Automatic file format conversion

Why do Commons restrict MP3 files from being uploaded here but not automatically convert it to OGG? Total Lunar Eclipse (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Because mp3 is/was patented and we prefer not to pay fees (there is a policy forbidding using patented software-parts in WMF) and MediaWiki developers aren't so fast. See en:Talk:MP3#Patents. You may file a feature-request at bugzilla:. -- RE rillke questions? 11:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: RE rillke questions? 11:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Journal Article Image of a Miniature

Hello,

Is it possible to upload a miniature drawing dating to the late 15th century? The journal is copyrighted by E.J. Brill and was published in 1995. See link http://www.jstor.org/pss/1523226. I intend on purchasing the article if reproducing is allowed.

--Huss4in (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of the journal is irrelevant. If they are simply reproducing a 2-dimensional public domain work, then it remains a 2-dimensional public domain work. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I upload similar image separately?

Resolved– Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In regards to File:Kate Beckinsale Comic-Con 2011.jpg, I found the brightest version to be too green (at least, to my liking). I downloaded the original source image, altered it, then uploaded it over the greenish version. The original uploader almost immediately reverted my upload. I'm not miffed or anything (my own version was probably still too dark), but I was curious as to whether this is an act of "ownership"? MyCanon found the image first and tweaked it to be bright for the article. I just found it unsettling in terms of color. What is the norm for handling this situation? Should I just re-upload my version as a separate file? It is a derivative, but of the source, not of MyCanon's uploads. And I would love an honest opinion from anyone swinging through as to which is more presentable: the brighter version, or the slightly darker that has more definition? (The brighter one also blows out some details.) Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely informal, but generally when uploading a new version of someone else's image (when it's not by their specific request), unless it is 100% obvious that what you are doing is an improvement (e.g. removal of excessive black borders, fixing red-eye from a flash) it is simply most diplomatic to upload to a distinct name. It's not a requirement, but it is more courteous and tends to avoid petty disputes. Also keeps licensing issues a bit straighter, in that you can take explicit credit for your changes. Use {{Derivative versions}} and {{Derived from}} (or, if appropriate, something more specific) to link the images. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
As for the two specific images, it looks to me like a choice between "too green" and "too dark", with little to say one is better than the other. - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I wondered! I felt weird uploading a new image on top of "someone else's", but wasn't sure the formalities about it. It's not like a Wiki article then. I really appreciate your answer! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This is strange. To my eyes, MyCanon's original image looks much more natural than the greenish one s/he replaced it by. I wonder why s/he prefers the greenish version. Maproom (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the greenish one in Photoshop and I guess it's more blue than green, but I also think it blows out a lot of details. It's simply too bright (for what the picture is). I agree mine is too warm and I've given up trying to tweak it. Maybe the original needs to be brightened and then left alone, rather than modified further? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a version at File:Kate Beckinsale 2011 Comic-Con (truer color).jpg. It is the original but color corrected using the black/white/mid-tone points of a curve layer. I would think this is as natural as it gets since no colors were altered or saturated. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 16:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

bitmap images exported from svg

May I ask a question: If a bitmap image, gif png or jpg, is a direct export of an svg image, are they eligible for deletion, since the same effects can be achieved by wiki code specifying the width of the svg?--Officer781 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

read Commons_talk:Superseded_images_policy --Wvk (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Das ist ein Scan aus einem 80 Jahre alten Atlas, welcher hier in einem Beitrag verwendet werden soll, der sich auf die Besonderheiten der Grenze zwischen Ostpreussen, Danzig, dem polnischen Korridor und dem Deutschen Reich bezieht. Als Bildzitat ist das nach deutschem Recht möglich. Das habe ich auch angegeben.


--Harka2 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bildzitate sind in Wikimedia-Projekten nicht möglich. Die freie Enzyklopädie - und ebenso Commons - sind Projekte für freie Inhalte, alle Inhalte müssen frei für jedwede Verwendung sein, einschließlich kommerzieller Verwendungen für die eine Berufung auf das Bildzitat nicht infrage kommt. Siehe Commons:Lizenzen oder Wikipedia:Bildrechte (auf de.wikipedia.org). Um die Datei auf einem der Projekte hochladen zu können muss das Urheberrecht abgelaufen sein, also alle beteiligten Urheber müssen >70 Jahre tot sein, für die fragliche Datei ist das nicht erfüllt (Edgar Lehmann *1905; †1990) --Martin H. (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad placing a black stone and his picture?

by the Islamic rules Muhammads picture is strictly abandoned in any way to be portrayed on any kind of visual showing on any kind of literature i can not understand how come wikileaks have rights to have art showing Muhammad taking a black stone of a carpet

The Commons is not censored. We let each wiki decide on what they want to do with the images of Muhammad. We are aware that Islamic custom does not want Muhammad to have his face shown, but the images are going nowhere and we will not blur every photo of him. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Many wikimedia contributors are not Muslims, and are not bound by the teachings of Islam. Maproom (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
We are not Wikileaks; there is no direct connection between the Wikimedia Foundation (the nonprofit that runs Commons and Wikipedia) and Wikileaks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My question is in regards to adding the licensing information for an image that I uploaded in the commons.

The image in question is the logo for the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP), which is funded by SAMHSA (federal govt agency). It was created under a government contract and is considered as public domain. I'm not exactly sure about the tags and information that should be added to make it compliant with the Wiki Commons policies.

--Jslacy (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have edited a page , Kanpur Institute of technology a uploaded college images, but it is showing warning that it will be deleted after seven days .Please suggest me the way how to overcome with this problem --Mparvez85 (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mparvez85, who is the photographer of this image? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Saibo, I have taken the photograph --Mparvez85 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mparvez85 (talk • contribs) 2011-12-30T05:30:09‎ (UTC)
Hi again Mparvez85, okay, that is okay then. But why did you mention "kit.ac.in" as source? And "P... Y..." as author? And I like to ask you to upload the original photos - not scaled down photos in collages. They are more useful then. :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Caption1
    Caption1
  • Caption2
    Caption2

Thumbnails showing with black

Hi there, I uploaded some images, most were uploaded correctly and can bee seen ok on both the thumbnail, the page and the file. Three images however can be viewed correctly as the full image file (therefore the original image does not have problems), but both in the image page and but the thumbnails have a black shroud that covers them in some parts.

These are the images: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mobile_metabolic_monitor_for_Cardio_Pulmonary_Exercise_Testing_%28CPET%29.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infant_body_composition_through_air_displacement_plethysmography.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Handheld_spirometer.jpg

Does anybody have a clue on how to have the thumbnail ?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.94.20.200 (talk • contribs) 2012-01-03T12:18:02‎ (UTC)

That's strange. I cleared the server’s cache to no avail (stripes appear also in all other preview sizes). In the future please sign (-- ~~~~) your posts. Thank you. Alfie↑↓© 17:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed see Help:JPEG#Color model. -- RE rillke questions? 18:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

--cosmed (Δ) Thanks for sorting the black shrouds. There is now only a small problem, that the preview sizes look a bit pale and with blurred colours (compared to the original)...it is not a big thing, but I was just wondering if it is normal (it is the first time I upload images)

You could try to export the images in RGB from Photoshop. The photos also contain color profiles: Some browsers care about those and some ignore them. But we have more experienced users at COM:GL/P, where you could also ask. -- RE rillke questions? 11:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I missed this point... The problem is now with the images that I have already uploaded, do I have to ask to cancel them and insert them again ? --cosmed (Δ)

Simply overwrite the photo: File:Mobile metabolic monitor for Cardio Pulmonary Exercise Testing (CPET).jpg#mw-imagepage-reupload-link. There is a link called Upload a new version of this file. -- RE rillke questions? 13:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyfraud?

Is it really protected in New Zealand? Bulwersator (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Some countries have a very, very low threshold for copyright protection. en:Sweat of the brow. So possibly yes, but maybe NZ case law gives evidence that it is not protected. --Martin H. (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ive received permission from the author to upload the above files. I can forward the email detailing the permission. i was unsure as to the copyright status though. Exiledone (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Images by the US Army / All rights reserved on Flickr

Hello, can I check if we can use this image? It says "(U.S. Army photos by Sgt. Jessica M. Kuhn, XVIII Airborne Corps PAO)", but it's also all rights reserved on Flickr. The US Army photo status overrides "all rights reserved" to be in the public domain right? Starship.paint (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the image is made by personnell of the US federal government it's in PD, regardless of the Flickr tag. Exceptions are images not made by them but just published by them, those are often (but not always) marked as courtesy image. --Denniss (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Not just personnel of the US Government, but it has to be done in the course of their duties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Important: only PD if made during their offical duties - not during free time. More on that flickr user case: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rosa-Mendes-2011.jpg. --Saibo (Δ) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo!
Kann jemand diese Signatur identifizieren? Sie findet sich auf vielen Fotografien Ende des 19. Jhdts aus Wien (zwei Beispielsquellen in der Beschreibung). Meine Vermutung ist: Martin Gerlach senior (Atelier Gerlach). Auf Commons befindet sich bereits eine schöne Sammlung von Scans, die als Quelle unknown, Internet oder das entsprechene Buch angeben. Ehe ich mit Uploads beginne, möchte ich die Uhrheberrechtsfrage klären. Gruß Alfie↑↓© 14:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ergänzung: Beide meiner Quellen stammen vom Verlag Gerlach & Wiedling (siehe etwa auch hier); gegründet als Verlagsbuchhandlung Martin Gerlach 1872 in Berlin, 1874 nach Wien übersiedelt, umbenannt in Gerlach & Wiedling 1904, nach dem Tod Martin Gerlach seniors 1918 von seinem Sohn Martin (1879–1944) übernommen und später wiederum von dessen Sohn Kurt (1919–2003) als Photoatelier Gerlach (bis 1988) fortgeführt. Wie sehen jetzt die Rechte für Fotos vor 1900 aus? Alfie↑↓© 14:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Alfie66, die Signatur kenne ich leider nicht und konnte auch mit Bildsuchmaschinen nichts finden - vielleicht erkennt sie aber jemand, der öfters mit alten Fotostudios zu tun hat.
Rechte an Fotos bleiben in den hier relevanten Ländern bis 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Fotografen gültig (de:Schranken_des_Urheberrechts#Zeitliche_Begrenzung_des_Urheberrechts, de:Urheberrecht_(Österreich)#Dauer_des_Urheberrechtes_.28.C2.A7.C2.A7_60-65.29). Die Entstehungszeit des Fotos ("Fotos vor 1900") ist hierbei unerheblich. "Fotos vor 1900" ist auch zu jung, um bei uns unbekanntem Urheber (Fotograf, wenn es Fotografien sind) recht sicher davon ausgehen zu können, dass jener schon mehr als 70 Jahre verstorben ist.
Hilft dir das schonmal weiter? Es ist wohl noch Recherche nötig. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Saibo & Danke für die schnelle Reaktion! Ja, die Suchmaschinen haben mir auch nicht geholfen (da kommen tausende Aktiengesellschaften in die Quere). Kann man also folgende Rechnung aufmachen: 2011-70-100+20=1861 (70 Jahre Urheberrecht, mit 100 Jahren verstorben, mit 20 Jahren erstes Foto publiziert), d.h. praktisch alles ausser Daguerreotypien scheidet aus? Ich bin hier schnell fündig geworden; es gibt schon einiges mit der Signatur „AG” (etwa in der Kategorie Former_buildings_and_structures_of_Vienna (übrigens: wie verlinkt man das?). Ich bin mir inzwischen schon ziemlich sicher, dass das Atelier Gerlach hier der Urheber ist. Dafür spricht die Kennzeichnung in allen Photos der zwei von mir angegebenen Quellen. Ein Hinweis auf den Fotografen fehlt jedoch. Ist nicht der von dir verlinkten Abschnitt anzuwenden?
„Für Werke wo der Urheber nicht bekannt ist, endet das Urheberrecht 70 Jahre nach der Schaffung. Wurde das Werk innerhalb dieser 70 Jahre veröffentlicht, endet das Urheberrecht 70 Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung. (also maximal 140 Jahre) Als Berechtigter gilt der Herausgeber oder wenn dieser nicht angegeben ist, der Verleger.”
Der/die Fotograf/en ist/sind unbekannt, die Werke wurden 1906 und 1908 veröffentlicht; der Verleger Martin Gerlach senior ist 1918 verstorben. Die Witwe seines Enkels Kurt Gerlach (3. Generation des Ateliers; Spezialgebiet Architekur- und Industriefotografie) hat zufällig über mir gewohnt und ist vor ein paar Jahren gestorben; Recherche schwierig. Alfie↑↓© 18:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Ja, deine Rechnung wäre so in etwa anzuwenden, um einen bestehenden Schutz recht sicher ausschließen zu können.
So verlinkt man: Category:Former_buildings_and_structures_of_Vienna.
Ja, für wirklich anonyme Werke gilt nur ein Schutz von 70 Jahren nach Veröffentlichung. Es ist aber zwischen verwaisten Werken (bzw. für uns anscheinend anonym) und anonymen Werken zu unterscheiden. Diese Problematik ist im Abschnitt de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist (erste vier Absätze) besprochen. Hier in Commons gibt es im Gegensatz zur de.Wikipedia trotz der in Wikipedia:Bildrechte besprochenen Probleme und Unsicherheiten die Möglichkeit sich auf diese Urheberrechtsregel zu berufen {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} wäre ein passender Kennzeichnungsbaustein. Die Voraussetzungen dafür stehen im Baustein. Ich halte ihn entsprechend der Entscheidung in der de.Wikipedia nicht für gut, da zu oft (fast immer) unsicher ist, ob ein Werk wirklich anonym ist, oder wir nur zu wenig wissen, um den Urheber in Erfahrung zu bringen. Ich sage dir aber auch, dass andere Leute hier das lockerer als ich sehen.
So (beispielsweise) sollte es aber auf keinen Fall sein. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 20:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Saibo! Danke für die Hinweise. Juristendeutsch ist für mein Naturwissenschaftlerhirn immer eine besondere Herausforderung (etwa: „[…] ist wohl auf den Zeitpunkt der Erstellung des Werks abzuheben.”). Spannend finde ich de:Anonymes_Werk#Deckname oder Künstlerzeichen, besonders den 2. & 3. Absatz. Betrifft mMn die Fotos mit der Initiale "AG" (ich habe inzwischen hunderte gefunden). Der Herausgeber ist 1918 verstorben, der Sohn 1944 und der Enkel 1988. Eigentlich würde mir de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100 + die geforderten Belege am besten „schmecken” (ja ich weiss, nicht hier) – {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} ist eigentlich schwammiger. Wäre es sinnvoll, zusätzlich {{1918}} (mit |1918) einzubinden? Servus aus Wien! Alfie↑↓© 23:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hallo ALdie66, danke für deine Hilfe bei File:Krim 1900.jpg!
de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100 ist vor allem vorsichtiger was die Formulierung angeht - eventuellen Nachnutzern der Bilder mit der Vorlage wird nicht suggeriert, dass völlige Sicherheit herrscht. Wie du dir nun vielleicht denken kannst, bin ich auch kein "Fan" dieser Vorlage - aber sie ist mir fünfmal lieber, als die falsch verwendete (üblicherweise ohne jegliche Recherche) {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} hier in Commons.
Die Bilder mit dem AG-Zeichen werden sich hingegen wohl kaum als anonymes Werk ansehen lassen.
Der erste Parameter von {{PD-old-auto}} bezieht sich auf das Todesjahr des Urhebers - wenn du jenes nicht kennst, dann kannst du diese Vorlage nicht verwenden. Wenn du allerdings herausgefunden hast, dass dieses Zeichen zu einer gewissen Person gehört, dann natürlich schon. PD-old-xxx ist viel "stärker" als eine Rechtfertigung, die auf ein anonymes Werk abzielt und sogar gegensätzlich (denn das Todesjahr des urhebers muss ja bekannt sein). Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Saibo! Danke, ich denke jetzt hab’ ich’s begriffen und eine konsistente Vorgangsweise in meinem Werkzeugkasten. Kannst ja einmal nachsehen, wie ich’s bei einem Muster gahandhabt habe: File:Rotunde1.jpg. Ich bin eben damit fertiggeworden, deine Liste (bis auf File:Krim 1900.jpg) abzuarbeiten – mit der Entfernung des dortigen Bapperls warte ich noch die übliche Woche ab. Alfie↑↓© 01:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(Ich fange mal wieder hier links an.) Nun, wie ich ja in meinem letzen Kommentar schon sagte: ich sehe die mit Signatur versehenen Werke nicht als anonym an. Außerdem wäre auf der Dateiseite darzulegen, wie du jenes (Zitat aus der Vorlage) halbwegs sicherstellst: "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication." Weiterhin stimmt das Datum nicht - dort müsste nicht das Datum des Hochladesns hin, sondern jegliche Daten, die man zu dem Bild herausgefunden hat - vor allem aber das der ältesten Publikation (wie von der Vorlage gefordert: "published over 70 years ago").
Besten Dank für's Abarbeiten der Liste zu Max Mayer Sperling! Auch toll, dass du gleich noch andere Kleinigkeiten, wie die Beschreibung verbessert hast! Nur als Tipp: Ich hätte beim Bearbeiten den Löschantrag verlinkt (in der Zusammenfassungszeile), da dort ja noch mehr Erklärungen zu finden sind, sollte noch mal jemand etwas unklar sein. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 02:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ach herrjeh! ;-) Den Fotografen zu ermitteln ist mMn (nahezu) unmöglich. Auf meiner persönlichen Zitatsammlung findet sich dazu:
[The] impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (Carl Sagan, 1995)
Also unlösbar. In Berlin beschäftigte Gerlach 50 Angestellte – wird in Wien nicht anders gewesen sein. Daher beziehe ich mich auf die Funktion von Gerlach und Wilding als Herausgeber. Das Datum kann ich nur zwischen 1873 (Fertigstellung der Rotunde) und dem Publikationsdatum (1906) eingrenzen. Hilfe! Könnte ich etwa diese Seite verlinken? Danke für den Tipp zur Bearbeitungszeile. Servus! Alfie↑↓© 03:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: Wenn ich mir das da ansehe – warum tu’ ich mir das eigentlich an? :-| Alfie↑↓© 03:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Nur schonmal kurz: du wirst hier viele unzureichende "Lizenzierungen" finden und mal so gesagt: wenn ich nichts daran auszusetzen hätte, wäre es wirklich okay. ;-) Wir werden sehen, was der neue Löschantrag für Franz ergibt - vielleicht ist der Urheber ja falsch... Gute Nacht! --Saibo (Δ) 04:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Schöner 1. Satz. ;-) BTW, der LA hat sich „verdoppelt” als ich einen Tippfehler verbessert habe. Wunder der Technik. Gute Nacht – ist auch höchste Zeit. Alfie↑↓© 04:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Franzl stützt meine These dass Gerlach & Co. freizügig allen möglichen Bildern ihren Stempel aufgedrückt haben. In dem Jubelbändchen zum 60jährigen Regierungsjubiläum finden sich drei mit "AG" gekennzeichnete Abbildungen (zur Abwechslung links unten); Bildunterschriften: "Kaiser Franz Josef I. zur Zeit seines Regierungsantritts" (= 1848), "Kaiserin Elisabeth als Braut (1853)" und am schönsten "Kaiser Franz Josef I. im 60. Jahre seiner Regierung." (= 1908). Letzteres befindet sich auf einer rechten Seite und wurde daher in alter Buchdrucktradition gekontert. Das da wurde nach genau diesem Foto angefertigt (allerdings an drei Seiten beschnitten – Goldener Schnitt lässt grüßen). Da "AG" auch auf Abbildungen vor der Geburt der Herausgeber vorhanden ist, kann man wohl von Anonymität ausgehen. Alfie↑↓© 14:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Der LA hat sich verdoppelt, weil ich ihn startete und du ihn einige Minuten später nochmal. Ich habe beide nun vereinigt.
"Könnte ich etwa diese Seite verlinken?" - meinst du diese Diskussion hier? Nun, aktuell geht das so: Commons:Help_desk#Copyright help regarding File:Signatur AG.png; aber sobald der Abschnitt archiviert wird, funktioniert der Link nicht mehr. Du kannst auf eine bestimmte Version der Diskussion hier über die "Permanentlink"-Funktion in der Werkzeugleiste (oder aus der Versionsgeschichte - z.B. auch einen "Unterschied"-Link) verlinken.
Eine einigermaßen sichere Feststellung der Anonymität ist in der Tat nur selten möglich, ja. Das ist ja ein Grund, weswegen die de.wikipedia sich ganz gegen die 70-Jahre-nach-Publikation-Regel entschieden hat.
Wenn es so viele Bilder mit "AG" gibt, wäre es nicht möglich, dass jenes Kürzel eine ganz andere Bedeutung hat? "Veröffentlichung registriert beim Amtsgericht" vielleicht? ;-)
Was meinst du mit „"AG" auch auf Abbildungen vor der Geburt der Herausgeber“? Wie soll das denn gehen? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Danke für die Reduktion auf einen Post. ;-) Amtsgerichte gab’s im fraglichen Zeitraum hier nicht. Ich bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass "AG" einfach "Atelier Gerlach" bedeutet. Der Partner Wiedling stieg erst später ein; ich nehme einmal an, dass das (Logo?) damals schon bekannt war und dann nicht mehr geändert wurde (etwa auf die Verlagsbezeichnung "Gerlach & Wiedling" = "GW"). Mit vor der Geburt habe ich den Mund zu voll genommen (* 1846). Hier ein Beispiel mit "AG" links unten.
Dann kann ich noch ein propagandistisches Machwerk von 1913 anbieten (online). Interessanterweise am Anfang "Phot. von Martin Gerlach, jun." (sic! * 2. 4. 1879, † 18. 7. 1944). Keine Ahnung wie das PDF aufgelöst ist, aber (fast) alle Abbildungen tragen die Signatur "AK". Die Angabe "Phot." bezieht sich hier natürlich auf die Reproduktion von zeitgenössischen (1797–1813) Gemälden, Lithographien, Stichen, &c. Ich hoffe, ich nerve dich nicht. Alfie↑↓© 18:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Das mit dem Amtsgerichten war nur als völlig hypothetische Idee. Ja, das Buch von 1913 belegt es recht gut, denke ich. Nun fragt sich nur noch was uns das bringt; denn über den Fotograf wissen wir dadurch noch nichts, wenn es dort zig Mitarbeiter gab. Und wir wissen auch nicht, dass sich der jeweilige Fotograf nie öffentlich zu seinem Werk bekannt hat (anonymes Werk). Und: nein, du nervst nicht. :-) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 21:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Also zusammengefasst: Löschen? Betrifft natürlich alle aus dieser Quelle. GuntherZ hat dort dazu schon angemerkt: „Die hier gezeigten historischen Fotos wurden verschiedenen Quellen entnommen und haben aus Lizenzgründen auf den Commons leider kaum eine Überlebenschance.” Oder können wir bei bekanntem Land aus den Sterbetafeln z. B. mit 99% Sicherheit rückrechnen (herrjeh, meine statistische Berufsdeformation schlägt wieder zu). Im übrigen: „2. the original author’s actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication.” in {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} kann nur einem Juristen einfallen. Sicherheit gibt’s nur in der Mathematik (im Rahmen eines axiomatischen Beweises). Der geforderte Nachweis ist unmöglich (kann ja sein, dass ein Fotograf 1915 in der Schrebergartenzeitung von Lüderitz angemerkt hat, dass ein 1904 anonym in der Gartenlaube veröffentlichtes Bild von ihm ist). Die Vorlage ist daher mMn wegen Unerfüllbarkeit absurd. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 17:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ja, stimme ich dir zu - das geht (fast) nie. Mit recht hoher Wahrscheinlich geht es (was ich als ausreichend erachte), wenn man sehr viel über die Werkherkunft und die Umstände der Entstehung weiß. Übrigens taucht gelegentlich im Rahmen einer solchen Recherche dann doch der als anonym geglaubte Urheber auf. Falls es dich interessiert, das hier sind ein paar anderer Leute Ansichten: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shooting on an Italian airplane over Mte Chiesa.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schachtanlage Conow um 1920.jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-anon-70. Wenn ein Bild so alt ist, dass wir mit statistischen Altersdaten recht sicher (wie sicher auch immer) schätzen können, dass der Urheber mehr als 70 Jahre tot sein muss, dann ist das okay. Üblicherweise geht das aber bei solch jungen Werken (ca. 80 Jahre oder so) nicht. Wenn ein Werk 150 Jahre alt ist, dann kann man meiner Meinung nach für uns akzeptabel sicher sein, dass der Urheber mehr als 70 Jahre tot ist. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Saibo! Sorry für die späte Antwort. Danke auch für die spannende verlinkte Lektüre. Ja, es gibt eine Zeit vor dem Zwischennetz. ;-) Ich denke, wir können das hier jetzt einmal beenden. Falls ich nocheinmal Fragen habe, werde ich dich gnadenlos löchern. Im übrigen, was machen wir jetzt mit dem Joseph Franzl? Alfie↑↓© 00:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

--Ocelot1962 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I got explicit permission to use a photo of Gjeke Marinaj from the author of the photo, Blerim Valla. Also, on the www.marinaj.info website, it says: "This photo may be used by anyone for private or commercial use if the author and source are properly credited." You can read this right here: http://marinaj.info/supportet_by.html.

uploading photo of my group

Trying to upload a photo so i can edit the Vancouver Southsiders page with the new logo: http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/639/southsidelogo01032011b.png but it's not mine and I'm wondering since it's not mine but I'm uploading it to the southsiders page will it be denied? thanks, iain

If you do not have permission from the copyright-holder, it will be denied. Maproom (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this file unused?

More than a week ago I requested a file name change of File:Colt Texas Paterson 1836.jpg. After the rename, the file become unused, while it is still in use (for example here: [2]). What happened? Kekator (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you give the answer in your question: the articles use the name of the redirection page, so you will find the usages listed at the name of that redirection [3]. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I was suspecting that. How to fix it? Kekator (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Edit the page that uses it to replace the old name with the new one. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be done automatically after the file renaming? What if for example the file would be used not on 2 pages, but 200? Kekator (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It probably should be but it isn't. People can task CommonsDelinker to it if it's a big deal. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look on this: [4]. Isn't it added to CommonsDelinker, but without result? Kekator (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

personal picture of museum object

Hello,

I'd like to use my own image of an object in a museum. Is this allowed?

Thank you,

Shoshana

Depends exactly what the object is, and whether it is covered by your country's freedom of panorama laws or not. For old stuff (creator dead 70+ yrs) it's certainly fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Tag for inadequate source

I know that the tag for a file with no specified source is {{Source missing}}. Is there a tag for a file with a specified source inadequate to verify the copyright status? I am thinking in particular of File:General Olmsted with United World Federalists Florida Delegates (1952).jpeg. If it was published before 1978, it seems to me the source should be the publication. (Or am I too picky.) —teb728 t c 08:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

{{subst:npd}} is what you want. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Request script assistance for renaming images

The Wikisource, Popular Science Monthly Project on Wikisource needs the following images LISTED HERE to be renamed because of a corrected page number error which shifted the image numbers by two. Your kind help is much appreciated. Thank you. - Ineuw talk page on en.ws 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done - Ineuw talk page on en.ws 05:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Upload pics

Can i upload pics from | here?--ORIGINAL21 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the terms of service of that website not allow you to copy their content under a free license. In general you are not allowed to copy any content and upload it here with false claims that you created it. You are allowed to copy freely licensed content as long as you provide a source and comply with the license requirements. --Martin H. (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So, were i can find coins images t upload? --ORIGINAL21 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In your wallet, provided that the design of the coins is not protected by copyright you can create your own photos of coins. If you only have € in your wallet you will have a hard time, because we already have photos of all Euro coins or we not have photos because the coins design is protected by copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In my wallet i've euros. Can i upload euro coins photos from ECB site? --ORIGINAL21 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As i understand, i can upload coin images, even of copyrighted ones, from ECB site provided that i mention the source--ORIGINAL21 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, illustrations from that website are not free content. Read the disclaimer of their website, there are restrictions on commercial reuse and restrictions on modifications. --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It says: 1.When such information is distributed or reproduced, it must appear accurately and the ECB must be cited as the source. Read it again please--ORIGINAL21 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete File:George gough arbuthnot.jpg

Delete Better duplicate Kittybrewster (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not a duplicate. They are two different images of the same person. There is no requirement to have only one image of a person. - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
More importantly, though, neither image is Kittybrewster's "own work", though she has marked both as such. Powers (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I delete a photo I uploaded?

How do I delete a photo I uploaded? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMZ 1111 (talk • contribs)

I believe the attribution of the unsigned statement to TMZ1111 is incorrect; that account shows no contributions, and would presumably show this edit if the attribution were correct. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Space fixed. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not nearly specific enough to be easily answered. In many cases {{Speedydelete}} or {{Bad name}} would be appropriate, but it would be a lot easier to give an answer about a specific photo and knowing why you want to delete it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
If for some reason you are reluctant to identify the photo before learning about the procedure, Commons:Deletion requests may help. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You haven't uploaded anything, but generally if you nominate it for deletion then it will get looked at. But please, while we accept mistakes can be made while uploading, and are generally happy to correct such errors, by uploading things to Commons you are irrevocably releasing them under a free licence, and lose the right to demand we stop hosting it. You can ask, and in many cases we'll say yes if the image seems replaceable, but don't think it is guaranteed. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Should this image be uploaded to commons?
The copyright information on the site is :© European Union, 2004-2012 Reproduction authorised provided the source is acknowledged, except for commercial purposes.
So that's basically attribution but non commercial?Gauravjuvekar (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct, so no, not suitable. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not the original creator of the file, I'm authorized to distribute it as I'm the web editor for the Miami New Times. If you have any question, feel free to contact me at jose [dot] duran [at] miaminewtimes [dot] com. --Jdduran (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a written permission that agrees to free reuse, free in terms of free content or Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms under a free license allowing this? --Martin H. (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright help - a friend has given me written permission to use his images

Help! I made a new shell friend in Russia, a cone guy, who is an awesome photographer and has thousands of beautiful cone shells which he has photographed. His name is Alexander Medvedev. He has a website devoted to his shells, and has seen our Wikipedia articles. He has given me permission in writing via Facebook to download his images and upload them to Wikicommons to use in the cone snail articles on Wikipedia. He also has uploaded images to Gastropods.com and Schooner Specimen Shells cone shell pages. His exact words to me are:
"Dear David, I give you full permission to use my photos in your article. For me it is an Honor !!! Some of my photos used http://www.gastropods.com/Taxon_pages/Family_CONIDAE.shtml http://schnr-specimen-shells.com/ConidaeChecklist.html Best regards, Alex"

I have uploaded one of Alex's images as a test. See Conus andremenezi for the second image, below the taxobox. My image is inside the taxobox, Alex's image is below. My question is, does this suffice to use the images and upload them for the Wikipedia Encyclopedia copyright purposes? If not, what do we need to do to allow for it? Do I need him to sign some lawyer written form, or is what I have from him enough. He seems more than happy to share his images. Your thoughts?Shellnut (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing Shellnut meant to link en:Conus andremenezi, not the non-existent Conus andremenezi. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Releases only for use in Wikipedia aren't enough for Commons. Please see COM:OTRS if you (and the copyright holder) want these on Commons. Otherwise, assuming I am correct that you are talking about the English-language Wikipedia, you might look into their notion of non-free use. If the picture is important enough for the article, but not free-licensed, you can upload the image to en-wiki and fill out en-wiki's Non-free_use_rationale template as part of the image's talk page.
I know that's several concepts in very few sentences: we have multiple pages about this sort of issue. If it is not clear, and you can't find the answer in the links from COM:OTRS, please be specific about what might still be unclear to you and someone can expand on the relevant points. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proper format sequence for tagging photos previously submitted

Daer Sir/Madam:

We are new to Wikipedia. In our enthusiasm to supply articles and various articles we added several photos which are now slated for "speedy deletion" due to a lack of information, including their status as Public Domain availability and/or Creative Commons. We can provide the required info but are unsure how to insert )or exectly where to) this info on the already placed photos. We have spent considerable time reading Wikipedia guidelines but cannot find any samples which would help us format the needed information. Can this be accomplished without deleting the file photos and re-uploading them? Thanks for your consideration.

Sentinel1978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentinel1978 (talk • contribs)

I see no indication of any images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under this account. You seem to have made over 100 edits (including some uploads) on the English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps you meant to ask your question there, at [:en:Wikipedia:Help desk]]? - Jmabel ! talk 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at en:File:US-Arab Business Roundtable1.jpg, you seem not to have understood how to include the license template on that page. You wrote {{CC-by3.0-us,November=16=1979}} which would only make sense if there was a template called "CC-by3.0-us,November=16=1979". You probably wanted {{Cc-by-3.0-us}}. Not sure what that date is about (maybe the actual date of the photo? You certainly don't make it clear.)
In general, I'd suggest that both on Commons and on the English-language Wikipedia, you would do well to fill out en:Template:Information / Template:Information — that is, use {{Information}} with the documented fields filled — for each uploaded image, as well as providing a license. I hope that helps; if it doesn't, though, since your uploads are (apparently) on the English-language Wikipedia, probably you'd do better to follow up there. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Black block over image

File:Taupathy.svg has a strange black block over it, but renders as a PNG correctly. I must admit I'm stumped why this is. Any help? Resident Mario (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Help:SVG#Frequently asked questions, en:Wikipedia:SVG Help#Common problems. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the proper license to use for this magazine cover image used to illustrate the article about that magazine?

--Marcus334 (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

None, as the copyright holder apparently did not freely license it. The proper tag would be Copyvio. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

using photos in a magazine

I have read the licenses and I still cannot ascertain whether I can use images, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zinnia_elegans_02.jpg in the magazine I edit (Heirloom Gardener). The magazine is distributed to paid subscribers and is also for sale on newsstands across the country.

99.196.173.88 21:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Karen Keb Will Editor, Heirloom Gardener kkwill10@gmail.com

Sure, you can. That's the idea of the free licenses. For each image, you can see what license is offered and apply its terms. As an example, for the image linked above, just choose one of the five licenses offered by the author of this image (the CC-by-sa 3.0 unported license would probably be a good choice for you), read its terms and apply them. I.e. basically credit the author under his/her chosen name or pseudonym (Goku122) and mention the title of the image, the url of the image, the name of the license, the url of the license and any modifications you made to the image. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Change file extension.

Is it possible to change file extension on commons? For example, when file is uploaded in JPG format, while it should be in PNG (it's clear image with just text). To fix such a wrong format chosen I have to upload a new file and delete this improper in JPG or it's possible to change the extension and simply upload a new version in PNG format? Thanks in advance. Kekator (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying the image doesn't match the format? That can be fixed with a move (use {{Rename}}). Or are you talking about uploading a better file with a different format (in which case the existence of the prior file is irrelevant). - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories - question

It is obvious that Category:Houses is better than nothing but it should be replaced with a detailed ones. Now my question - is it possible to do sth like this in a easy way? Bulwersator (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that is a liability. You've placed it in three categories that should not directly contain images at all. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

--Jk spkos (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly ineligible for copyright, in which case it's public domain, and fine. It's close to the border. You might get better advice at Commons:Village Pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Contacting a member

I would like to get in touch with Deror Avi, who says he is a lawyer in Israel involved in copyright litigation. Is there a way I can connect through Commons or get an email address or website to leave a message? Thanks

While logged-in you can contact him by email. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A way to avoid license crap?

Recently I scanned and uploaded the old (and obsolete) logo's of 2 organizations: file:Acc1.png and file:Hcc1.png.
The first one was created by someone (I know his name) in 1973.
The second one was drawn by me in 1977 and is clearly a derivative (and intended to be so).
Although I'm confident that these logo's hardly count as work of art (cannot be copyright protected as they hardly have any creative content: "they do not pass the threshold of originality".), I have to stick by the rules. So when asked by the upload routine, I faithfully reported that I'm not the designer of the first drawing.
Along comes the Nikbot telling me sternly to do something (not quit clear what I should do).
In the past week I have spent very, very many hours trying to find any trace of the maker of the first logo. Also I'm going nuts trying to assimilate the Wiki HelpDesk Archive with questions about copyrights. Fully aware that these discussions are important and relevant, I've grown tired of them. I want to spend time on articles; not searching for copyright owners that may have died long ago.
Then the following occurred to me: If I make a photograph of the publication showing the logo (from which I made the scan), not as a photographic reproduction, but as a picture that also shows the logo, I would be the copyright owner of that picture and be able to upload it. This idea came to when I noticed the archived HelpDesk item about a picture of a boxing glove clearly showing the logo of the maker. In the case of my first logo, I could take a picture of (part of) the newsletter page. In the case of the second logo, I could make a picture of (part of) the envelope. Especially when not pictured directly from front and including some environment, this could be an acceptable way to show any copyrighted material. Note that such a picture can't be used in any way to re-use the copyrighted part as it's not a direct reproduction. So a slantwise picture of a billboard or advert or a product label could be a legal way to illustrate the Coca Cola logo for instance.
What do you think about this? Is this approach acceptable? - Opa-dick (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Commons:De minimis doesn't apply if the purpose of the image is to illustrate the thing which is supposed to be too trivial a part of the image to worry about. However, in this case, if the logos do not pass the threshold of originality (COM:TOO), then they would be in the public domain ({{PD-textlogo}}). However COM:TOO doesn't have any examples from the Netherlands (if that was the country of publication, as I'm guessing). Rd232 (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Examples from the Netherlands could include File:VPRO.svg and File:NOS logo.svg - both national broadcaster logos. I would class file:Acc1.png in the same category: PD-textlogo. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

AjaxQuickDelete and image deletion

How the hell do I use the MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js script? I have activated it in the preferences, but nothing is happening, no new tabs even after bypassing the cache! And the documentation of the script is some utter piece of crap! I am trying to tag an image for deletion because someone is adding that image all over all the Wikis there are, claiming that the image is under Creative Commons while the source explicitly states that this license is only valid for images labelled with "Copyright: MFO". Maybe someone else can delete the image. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Help:Nominate for deletion. No need to activate the gadget. Just JavaScript activated in your browser's settings required. Please look into your toolbox. There is a link "Nominate for deletion". -- RE rillke questions? 21:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It didn't occur to me that that link was hidden in the Toolbox. I wished Wikis were more coherent in this regard. Nageh (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: RE rillke questions? 21:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, replacing a Wikimedia Commons image

I have edited the text on a Wikipedia page (Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies). The Wikimedia Commons photo on that page is no longer applicable (the building was vacated in 2011) and needs replacing with one of my own but I can't figure out how to do this

Either go to File history and upload a new version or upload the file completely new on Commons and replace the link in the article.--Trex2001 (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Please don't overwrite the file; if the real world has changed, we should have pictures of the way it was as well as the way it is. Upload it as a new file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
agreed, why did i even mention the possibilty to overwrite it? sorry for that...--Trex2001 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

remplacement page couvertureOGIO SAN de Ioan timus

Bonjour ,

Pourrais je avoir votre aide pour remplacer la photo de la couverture du livre " OGIO SAN" de Ioan TIMUS , avec la couverture originale , choisie par l' auteur lui même ,,lors de la première édition de son roman.

En vous remerciant,

Sorin Timus ( fils de Ioan Timus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.224.129.158 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 January 2012‎ (UTC)

It would help a lot if you could be specific about the page/image you are talking about (a link). It is possible that you've directed your question to the wrong site: in general, Commons doesn't replace images, we simply accumulate them. Perhaps your question is about the use in either the English- or French-language Wikipedia, in which case you would do better to ask on their site. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Donnez les liens ce qui doit être remplacée par l'original, s'il vous plaît. -- RE rillke questions? 17:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably File:Ioan Timuș.JPG (a file without a status tag, btw). -- Asclepias (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, Avant tout, il sera important de vous assurer que la couverture originale est soit dans le domaine public, soit sous licence libre. Il faudrait notamment savoir : Qui est l'auteur de cette couverture ? En quelle année et dans quel pays cette couverture a-t-elle été publiée pour la première fois ? Cette couverture dépasse-t-elle le seuil d'originalité requis pour générer un droit d'auteur ? Si oui, qui est propriétaire des droits d'auteur sur cette couverture et quel est le statut de droit d'auteur sur cette couverture ? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions regarding some images

I have uploaded lots and lots of images last week and it got deleted due to copyright issues. I want to make it sure that this time, the images that I will upload would not be deleted. I still don't understand those licenses, so I really need your help.

Can I upload the following images?:

How about this one? Can I crop it and upload it in Wiki Commons?

SOURCE: Source of Image 1

And how can I upload it properly (right tags, licenses, right source, and right author)? Can I crop them and upload the cropped version here?

Please do help me, please. I really need your help. :( --Renzoy16 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, because they're not your images to upload. Look at all the first images you linked -- they're copyrighted to some photographer and Getty Images. Take the Lyor photo: October 31, 2010 - Photo by Henry S. Dziekan III/Getty Images North America. The Hill photo: September 30, 2011 - Photo by Chris McKay/Getty Images North America. Those pictures won't be free to use (free of copyright) until you're basically dead (at least 70+ years from now, unless copyright is extended). The pictures don't belong to you and so you shouldn't upload them, because the Commons is supposed to be only for pictures that are completely free to use (although you do have to watch for some attribution and other rules for using some of the imaages, but by and large, they should pretty much be free to use). Those images are definitely not free to use. Banaticus (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
How about this one?

SOURCE: Source of Image 1

Can I crop and upload it?--Renzoy16 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The default is that an image is copyrighted at creation, and unless its creator has explicitly granted rights, all rights are reserved. It gets more complicated for older images, and for very simple images (like text logos) that can't be copyrighted, but in general, if you basically don't understand how copyrights work, you probably shouldn't try to upload anything to Commons except your own entirely original work. You could learn what you need to know in an hour or two, but you do need to put in that hour or two before uploading other people's work. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Communitry Commons pictures jpg?

Moved here from Commons talk:Community portal

This must seem like a foolish question, but I am having trouble understanding the concept of "community commons" photos I am writing an e-book book and need a jpg picture for the front cover that I can add my title and my name to it.

I see commercial sites, but what are community commons files? Are they free to download and use as I wish? Do they require payment to the author?

I know this is ultra elementary, but I just don't understand the concept despite reading some descriptions on the web.


I don't want to inadvertently steal someone elses intellectual property.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrsmd (talk • contribs) 8. Januar 2012, 04:15 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC))

Ähem, where did you read/find the term "community commons photos"? "Commons" is per se a somewhat generic term. Users of this "community" use the term usually for "Wikimedia Commons", i.e. this project here. --Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over terminology, so let's start with some definitions. Wikimedia Commons (this site) is a repository of files that are either in the public domain (meaning that they are not protected by copyright) or published under copyright licenses that allow anyone to use them in modified or unmodified form for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Some of the more popular copyright licenses include Creative Commons Attribution and Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. These licenses are created by Creative Commons, which has no immediate connection to Wikimedia Commons despite the similar names. Creative Commons also maintains some licenses which prohibit commercial use or derivative works, but works published under such licenses are not accepted by Wikimedia Commons.
The talk page where you posted your question is for discussion of the Commons:Community portal page, which contains information for participants of Wikimedia Commons. Collectively, these participants could be called the "Commons community," but Community Commons is not a term used around here.
For information about reusing content from Wikimedia Commons, see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. The exact requirements depend on the licensing of each individual file. Most licenses require you to attribute the author, and some licenses require you to release any modifications you make to the content under the same free terms. Content published under licenses requiring payment are not accepted by Wikimedia Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete my file?

Ok, so I uploaded a file that I own, and that has my own copyright. I included permissions properly. Then I get a message from you guys saying, hey, you didn't include permissions (which I did), and threatening to delete the file in a week, unless I wrote an email to you guys with explicit permission.

So I wrote the email, with specific permission that you asked for.

AND YOU DELETED THE FILE ANYWAY.

What's wrong with you guys? How many times do I have to give you permission? Don't you even read your own email? Why did you ask for permission when you're just going to ignore the permission I give you?

Keith Pickering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithpickering (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 January 2012‎ (UTC)

File name: CC-V3.jpg

Hmm, you were notified about the missing permission on January 1st, but you did not reply on-site until today, January 11th. If you have sent a permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS), then a OTRS-volunteer will check your permission and, if accepted, will undelete the file, though this may take some time. Next time, you get such a missing-permission message add {{OTRS pending}} to the image page after you have sent the permission to OTRS. This will prevent premature deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of an unfree source anyway. So not only missing permission from given source ("own work") but also from the not named source. --Martin H. (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

would it be sufficient if the contributor, Evan Fales, son of Walter Feilchenfeld-Fales, gives his permission for one of the valid licenses? (The photographer is not known)

Yours, --KurtSchwitters (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Although, it might seem counter-intuitive subject of the photographs have no copyrights to the image, only photographers do. So we need permission from the photographer. Other possibility is to check if the image do not meet requirements of some other Commons:Copyright tags. The image looks like it was published somewhere. If you provide information where, than possibly {{Anonymous-EU}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}} might work. --Jarekt (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I use this? File:bouazizistamp.jpg

Hi I uploaded this a few weeks ago. Am I allowed to show a low res image of a postage stamp that comes from the Tunisian Government Postal service web site? Glennconti (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Duda sobre derechos de autor de imágenes

A quien corresponda:

Subí algunas imágenes de las tapas del Semanario Hebreo de Montevideo. Me las envió la propia directora del medio periodístico. ¿Como hago para indicar que ella me las cedió y que, por los tanto, las puedo usar para ilustrar el artículo Semanario Hebreo de la Wikipedia en español?

Gracias,

Martín Kalenberg (Montevideo, Uruguay).

Aquí en Wikimedia Commons, no sufice tener permiso para usarlos en Wikipedia. Necesitamos una licencia libre. Vea COM:OTRS/es. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, ich habe ein Foto hochgeladen und eine Lizensvorlage ausgefüllt. Nun kommt darunter u.a. dieser Text: "Der hochladende Benutzer hat keine ausreichenden Urheberrechtsinformationen (eine gültige und passende Lizenzvorlage) zu dieser Datei angegeben..."

Was bedeutet das? Muss das Foto noch von einem Administrator vervollständigt werden? Fehlt noch was?

Mit besten Grüßen --Yearning (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC) --Yearning (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Laut dem Haftungsausschluß der Homepage ist das Bild nicht Commons-tauglich, da URV.--Trex2001 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
URV = Urheberrechtsverletzung. Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

--Руслан2011 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not OK without OTRS permission. The graphic at left looks to me to be complex enough to be eligible for copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I Upload Wordpress images?

According to their Terms of Service, Wordpress contents are under Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Creative Commons license.

It also says there that Wordpress users are:

By submitting Content to Automattic for inclusion on your Website, you grant Automattic a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your blog. If you delete Content, Automattic will use reasonable efforts to remove it from the Website, but you acknowledge that caching or references to the Content may not be made immediately unavailable.

So can I upload images coming from this blogs?:

Another one, can I upload the images coming from this website? I don't know what license this site has. It does not even an "All Rights Reserved" in its page:

    • The Wordpress Terms of Service are available under this CC license, not their website content.
--Denniss (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct. For the page "neffworking.com" it does not even have any free license in its page, this means it is unfree. All Rights Reserved applies to all works by default. --Martin H. (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix this 'The uploader did not provide sufficient information' problem. But I'm new to the editing wikimedia commons, and don't know how to go back.

--Cocosua88 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You cant fix it. The sarcophagus is of course very old and there is no copyright in the old artwork. The photo of it is however very new and the photographer has a copyright too, and the photographer did not publish this photographic work under a free license at source. Its unfree. This applies to all your uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Korean War / War Crimes

I am new to Commons and would appreciate guidance on how to make a particular contribution.

In the separate categories Korean War and War Crimes, I would like to upload a dozen JPEGs of documents relating to a specific major event. I would like to group them under their own single subheading. How do I go about doing that, step by step? Should this be a ``gallery or a ``subcategory?

I experimented with one document by clicking on the ``Upload file button and uploading it. But the process never gave me an opportunity to establish a new subheaded unit within Korean War, which was the category I entered during the uploading. And, in addition, I don't find it under Korean War, although it's a contribution listed at my user page, with a history etc.

Your help would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Charles Hanley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjthanley (talk • contribs)

Without much context here, either a gallery or a category might be appropriate. Or both, with the gallery placed in the category. If there is a particular order for the images (or other media files) that would belong in a gallery.
If you want to create a category (for example) Category:War crimes of the Korean War, you would go to the URL where the category page would be (following the link I made will do that) and you would put on that page [[Category:War crimes]] and [[Category:Korean War]]. You can look at pretty much any other category page if you want to see more about how this is done. (A handful are built with templates, but probably upward of 98% are built exactly this way.)
By the way, I would hope that the files you are uploading are public domain (since in this context they are not likely to be your own work). - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions about licences

I have two questions about licences. I have a photo that I would like to upload so that the photo can be used on Wikipedia. I don't like that the photo can be used outside of Wikipedia.

1: Is it possible to upload a photo under a licens that allows use of the photo only on Wikipedia?

2: There are many different licences here on Commons. What licence should I use if I would like to upload a photo under your must restrictive licence that allows others to as little as possible?

--Fanoftheworld (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

1) Possibly, for the Wikipedia in some particular language (each has its own policies), but that would in no way be Commons' affair (you would have to upload to the individual Wikipedia, not to Commons). Some Wikipedias would refuse that outright (e.g. the German Wikipedia). The English-language Wikipedia would use an image like that only if it were an important image for an article and there was no free-licensed or public domain alternative (although they would require you to fill out Template:Non-free use rationale. Other Wikipedias doubtless have other policies. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
2) Probably the most restrictive license we accept is {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, which requires attribution and also requires that any derivative works be similarly licensed. (There are a few more terms relating to making the license terms apparent, see the template and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en for details). Note that the requirement about derivative works does not prevent (for example) using your photo (with appropriate credits and copyright and license notice) in a normal commercially published book, but it does mean that if someone (for example) improves the color balance, performs a perspective adjustment, or does an engraving of your photo, their work would have to be similarly free-licensed. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know as to make this photo licensed. It is a logo of the known company and I don't know who the author of this logo. Please help me to keep this logo.

--212.73.97.97 06:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This user uploaded it, by copying it off of this website. I've asked to see if permission can be obtained from the website to keep it... Ajraddatz (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
According to people on IRC, it can be kept by uploading it to the local wiki that you want to use it on, and recognise that it is a copyrighted image. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Global Usage

Is there a way to determine the number of results that "Global Usage" returns, rather than the actual list of files? Useddenim (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

GLAMorous for a category/user-list. -- RE rillke questions? 18:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Nope. That's not what I was looking for. I want a tool that essentially counts the number of result lines returned from a Special:GlobalUsage request. Useddenim (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
mw.util.$content.append($('<pre>', { text: 'Count: ' + $('#mw-globalusage-result').find('ul > li').length }))

-- RE rillke questions? 21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, looks like some JavaScript. Where does this patch go, and how do I do it? Useddenim (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
→Special:MyPage/common.js
// Add the result-line-count at the bottom of [[Special:GlobalUsage]]
$(function() {
  if ('GlobalUsage' !== mw.config.get('wgCanonicalSpecialPageName')) return;
  mw.util.$content.append($('<pre>', { text: 'Count: ' + $('#mw-globalusage-result').find('ul > li').length }));
});
It just counts the lines. Nothing more. We have also tools:~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php but it is a bit slow... -- RE rillke questions? 15:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Perfect! That's exactly what I needed. Useddenim (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: RE rillke questions? 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Nikbot template vs license

Upon receiving a message from a bot stating that I've inserted a template instead of a license on the file:

I am unsure as to what exactly am I to do. Moreover, I do not even understand what the problem is let alone solve it. The assistance of someone more proficient than myself in the Commons jargon would be very much appreciated.

Thank you in advance, Tomás de Sousa Athayde e Noronha (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Fixed Bulwersator (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Retiring from Commons only?

First of all my apologies for asking a question that has probably been asked before, I simply could not find the answer anywhere. I am just wondering if it is possible for a user to formally retire for good from Commons while staying active with the same username in the other wikipedia sites. I found this information in the English wikipedia but it seems to refer to a global retirement (i.e from all wikipedia projects) while I would like to know if a partial one (from certain projects only) is feasible at all. If so, where could I read about the right procedure to follow? Thanks a lot in advance!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can stop contributing to one Wikimedia project and still continue contributing to others. The page you linked from the English-language Wikipedia is not really a procedure, it looks more like a general explanation. It refers to retirement from the English-language Wikipedia. But you can probably consider that its general idea, and some of the usages developed on that Wikipedia for that sort of things, could be similar in other Wikimedia projects, mutatis mutandis. On Commons, I don't think there's one procedure. It really depends what you want to do exactly. You can just stop contributing. In that case, it would be a good idea to place a note to this effect on your user page, so people will know that you will not come back (and they will not expect a reply if they leave a message on your talk page). If you want, you can use the template {{Retired}} for that. And it's as simple as that. However, if you only abandon your current Commons account but you continue contributing to Commons with another account, the note on your user page should be worded accordingly. That could be in the context of a en:Wikipedia:Clean start, but not necessarily. Finally, in case of privacy concerns, some more complex usages exist, like en:Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, but I don't think that's what you're looking for. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind explanation, Asclepias. My worry was on the possibility of using the template from the link I showed (that specifies I would be leaving Wikipedia entirely or so I understood) when I would only be leaving some of its projects (say Commons or the German and Russian wikipedias while staying in, say, the Greek and English ones). But your template looks just what I may need if I make up my mind to quit. Thanks again.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ashdod.jpg is a redirection to an irrelevant image; deletion requested

Misleading, wrong redirection - no reason why users searching Ashdod.jpg will end up in Isdud, AND I'd mostly like to use this one filename for an image of the town of Ashdod, which is impossible as long as the redirecting page exists :) Thanx, Orrling's talk 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Six-letter names are usually bad ones. There's no reason there should be only one image of Ashdod; if you use a descriptive name for yours, you won't have to worry about overwriting it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
NOT accepted; The discussed Redirection page is an erroneous, not to mention biasing flop, which was the basic claim behind the above request - if it was somehow misunderstood; and it should be deleted with or without anything to do with users' wish to reuse the filename. Check similar cases if from some reason you're not sure Orrling's talk 01:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please help me to legitimize the use of this file!ие этого файла!--Tatyana Zundelevich (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Jobs in Dubai,com, Inc. logo.png

I would like to ask for deletion of the said file. The logo should not be uploaded here, sorry if I have made this mistake.-- Renzoy16 | (Talk) 14:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The photo is intended for Jobs in Dubai, and I thought company logos are required uploaded here. I never knew until Wikipedia allows upload of this type of logos for specific use. Please delete the logo so I could upload it in Wikipedia. Thanks!-- Renzoy16 | (Talk) 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Accounts owned by companies?

I know a company that would like to upload some pictures of there products to Commons. How does the company upload the pictures – is a company allowed to have an account here on Commons and to upload pictures of there products? I know that companies are not allowed to have accounts on Wikipedia but what about on Commons? As I see it, it should be acceptable for a company to have an account on Commons and to upload pictures to Commons, because a company can not write positive things or commercials about themselves on Commons as opposed to Wikipedia. On Commons the company can only upload pictures. I can not find any guidelines etc. about this. Where can I read about this? --Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The best solution would be to just have someone from the company upload images as a volunteer - so long as the images have encyclopaedic value and some use. They also need to be released under some public license, if the company is willing to do that. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

License in the Upload wizard

I tried to upload a few images with the upload wizard and wrote {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, but when I hit the button, nothing happened, and I had to upload them without license and add it later. Shouldn't it work with all templates? At least some work. Besides, it would be very good if one could customize the upload wizard so that one just had to click on the licenses one often use. --Jonund (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

UploadWizard can sometimes be a bit buggy, if you are having issues try the regular Special:Upload form. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I usually do that, but it would be an advantage with the upload wizard when you upload several images from the same source, and because you can easily see if the categories you add are available. I also miss autofill in other fields, that would make many uploads much easier. --Jonund (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

License display problem - File:10th AAA Bn coa.jpeg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 16:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wie kann ich nachreichen, dass dieses Bild verwendet werden darf? Habe eine E-Mail in der folgendes steht:

Hiermit bestätige ich die Nutzung der Bilder von Mia Gray in Las Vegas für Wikipedia!

Markus Schnitzler

Emotionpictures GbR, Brüderstr.9, Lauingen tel 00499072 9640177 mobil 0049171 6252224 www.emotionpics.de

Make-Up Artists, Photography & digital Artwork


Reicht das? Oder was wird noch benötigt?! Da dies ja der Fotograf und er dies Bild freigegeben hat (Für Wikipedia) dürfte dies ja ausreichen. --Sschramek (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Das reicht so leider nicht. Die Lizenz für die Bilder muss folgendes erlauben: a) Wiederveröffentlichung und Verbreitung müssen erlaubt sein; b) Veröffentlichung von Bearbeitungen muss erlaubt sein; c) Kommerzielle Verwendung muss erlaubt sein.
Die folgende Einschränkung darf nicht gelten: Verwendung ist auf die Wikipedia beschränkt. Siehe Welche Lizenz ist OK?.
Informationen, wie du eine korrekte Genehmigung einholst und registrieren lässt findest du unter Commons:OTRS. --GeorgHH • talk   11:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Clean Me", said the yellow car

Can anyone get my talkpage archived? Don't know how to do that. ThanXX, Orrling's talk 21:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just move the page to a subpage (eg User talk:Orrling/Archive 1) and put a link to it at the top of the new talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm a techdumb. That's life. What's the meaning of "move the page"? Where is "the new talk page"? Will anyone simply do it so I can follow-learn? Orrling's talk 15:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Orrling, can we take this as a request for someone to do this on your behalf? - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I just - as I said - don't know how this is done. It would look nice to me to have the talk sheet blank as I lately became significantly active here; - is it more common that one does the "archiving" on one's own? If so, would you give me the instructions so I follow them.. Orrling's talk
It seems it is done! :) Thank you Orrling's talkOrrling's talk 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have blanked your talk page, leaving only a link to an archive sub-page I have created, which now has everything from your talk page.
I don't know whether I have done it in the approved way, nor whather I have done exactly what you wanted. If you pay peanuts, you get a monkey :-) Maproom (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh. I actually don't know myself whether this is how/what one does. I just wished to clear the page for new support themes or discussions to come & keep a neat working environment :)) and I never say no to a monkey. Thanx, 11:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My diagram is posted but not appearing in searches

I posted a pen & ink diagram of a cnidarian planular larva yesterday (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cnidarian_Planula_Larva.jpg), but I cannot bring it up with a keyword/category search. "Planula" brings up other images, but not this one. I am having a similar problem with a drawing of a trochophore larva. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trochophore-_generalized.jpg shows under the category "trochophore", but it does not show when I simply search for "trohophore"

In general, wiki search doesn't work well. The best way to ensure that images can be found is to ensure that they are part of all related categories, and have a detailed description that the search engine can use when refining results. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

--André Maroco (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not much to help with. Given that the author is unknown, it's pretty much impossible to see how this could be free-licensed or public domain, so it's a copyright violation and should be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Template for "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)"?

See also: Commons talk:Licensing#Template for "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)"?.

I have just uploaded the file File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano - model D-274 - manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.tif and I would like to license it under "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)" (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Therefore, I have written {{cc-by-nc-nd-3.0}}, but it doesn't seem to work. What is the template for "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)"? --Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

COM:L#Well-known licenses. You need at least one compatible license. nc-nd templates can be built in your user-namespace (User:Fanoftheworld/licenses/nc-nd) and additionally added. -- RE rillke questions? 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "nc-nd templates can be built in your user-namespace (User:Fanoftheworld/licenses/nc-nd) and additionally added."? --Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Something like User:Grand-Duc/Template:cc-by-nc-nd-3.0-de used on File:Weihnachtsbaum mit roter Dekoschleife.jpg. Read COM:L#Multi-licensing. -- RE rillke questions? 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, User:Rillke. It seems to be a little advanced to do it that way. And I don't understand why a license making a work only allowed for non-commercial purposes is not allowed (for example: "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)", http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), when nc-nd templates built in user-namespaces are allowed – as I see it, it gives the same result, but I assume that it does not. In any case, I would like to ask for a mentor, that would help me to do this. Thank you. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
A license with "ND" or "NC" is not considered a "free" license. A work must be licensed with a such a free license to be hosted here (see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses). Authors can, of course, add more licenses to a work if they want -- the situation described above is only appropriate if there is already a free license on a work, and an author wanted to add another non-free license. Commons would only use the work under terms of the first, free license, but the other one could potentially make a work available to more third-party users. For example, if a work is licensed CC-BY-SA, an author could add a CC-BY-NC license, thus allowing non-commercial users to use the work without forcing CC-BY-SA on any of their derivative works. However, the work must be made available under at least one free license. The NC or ND license cannot be the only one present, so we don't make make such tags easily usable as otherwise they may be used by mistake (or may make people assume we accept images only licensed that way). So, you have to go out of your way to use them, and only after putting a free license on the work in the first place. Your stated desire (to license an image using only CC-BY-NC-ND) is therefore not possible for an image hosted here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to amplify on that: Commons could perfectly legally host images that can't be reproduced commercially, but it is our policy not to. That's so that people who want to reuse images don't have to sort out that particular issue on a per-photo basis. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo file

I uploaded a photo and didn't state that it was my photo. I need to delete it and correct the way I entered the photo. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkymd (talk • contribs)

  • You can fix this after the fact by editing the page. No need to delete (and, indeed, only an admin can delete). Link the image and someone can help you further. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I forgot the license for this file : Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). Can you put it please.

--Raremenvussa (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused: what is the basis for saying it has that license?
Assuming that is, indeed the correct license, just add {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the page. - Jmabel ! talk 03:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I forgot the license for this file : Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). Can you put it please.

--Raremenvussa (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Same answer as previous question. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a picture of an author, which was provided to me by her, that I am trying to add to the wikipedia page. The picture was taken by her sister and does not have any copyright attached to it. I contacted her publisher and they confirmed. However, I do not know which option to pick on the drop down menu when asked about copyright information. Please let me know which option would be most appropriate for a picture that is nto copyrighted but was not taken by me.

Thank you!

--Jgh888 (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine how the picture would "not have any copyright attached to it." In pretty nearly every country in the world, a recent photo like this would be copyrighted by default. We would need COM:OTRS permission from her sister, who presumably owns the copyright (unless copyright has been explicitly reassigned, which is unlikely). - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Siemens_Metals

I've checked a quarter of this editors contributions and they all appear to be copyright violations - it's trivial to check - typically enter the description text into google and the page the image is from comess up in the first few links eg File:Steelmaking and Continuous Casting.jpg "The Siemens LiquiRob robot system in operation in the electric arc furnace of SAM Neuves-Maisons, Riva France" is from http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2010/industry_solutions/iis201005920.htm - I have no doubt that they all are copied from Siemens website. The press pictures are copyright eg see http://www.siemens.com/press/en/presspicture/copyright.htm Can they be block removed please, and the editor blocked. Mddkpp (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

--Michael Padada (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please help me provide license in this file...

Unless you photographed it yourself, it will need COM:OTRS before we can use it. So I'm guessing it is not usable. - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong nomination

Hi,

I have nominated File:Moordrecht, Oost Ringdijk 3.JPG for deletion but as it turns out, I was given misleading information on a lawsuit that in fact didn't really apply here. On top of that, the verdict has been overturned. In short, I would like to un-nominate. How do I do that?

Richardw (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply make a comment on the deletion request mentioning that you've withdrawn. It will be closed, and the template removed from the file by an admin. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know it was that simple. I already did that so now all I have to do is wait ;) Thanks for your reply. Richardw (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Upon request from a local user I removed the template myself. Richardw (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question

I encountered an interesting question today here. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

USGS publications for map projections

Do these files have a license suitable for Commons?

  1. Map Projections used by the U.S Geological Survey http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/b1532
  2. Map Projections: A Working Manual http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1395
  3. An Album of Map Projections http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1453

Template:PD-USGov-USGS? Bulwersator (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Trajan Langdon.jpg

This file seems to be a cropped copy from FlickR. I've tagged this with the template:flickrreview, but there's no possibility in the template to link to the original file on FlickR. So, is there a template for notifying reviewers of a file originating from FlickR, but lacking any links to the original file in the description? --Axolotl Nr. 733 (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer. I know I could have provided the source within the description, but it was uploaded with no indication of that source, and with a different license given. Since I'm just an occasional editor with little knowledge of such issues, I just wanted to avoid indicating the file to have been uploaded with that license on Commons in the first place. --Axolotl Nr. 733 (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Check user's edit

Good afternoon, can someone please check out the nature of the edit row logged here today 18 January between 03:21 and 04:33, revealing no fewer than 41(!) undo edits all unexplained which bares the smell of a small-scale mass vandalization over the Somalia tree - not including re-establishing TWO duplic-subcategories that a senior delete-permissioned Commons user had earlier deleted upon the fair logic of Prevention of nuance duplications. If you guys convince me this edit series from 9 hours ago is a Good faith use of free edit features these edits won't be reverted. - but for the present this situation that I yesterday was repairing spells out great unneeded perplexity and confusion whereas no reasonable reader will ever tell "Somali women" from "Women of Somalia" and hence the former definition should not take case as a parallel category or altogether exist. Thank you,Orrling's talk 12:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The user above has for no apparent reason been tagging for speedy deletion all sorts of legitimate, long-standing Somali categories. These speedy deletion attempts have been reverted multiple times by other editors (c.f. [5], [6], [7]). The Category:Somali men and Category:Somali women categories are just two of the many such categories that the user tagged. They are also the only ones that he successfully managed to have deleted, ostensibly under the false pretext that they were "duplicates" given the existence of the Category:Men of Somalia and Category:Women of Somalia parent categories. However, as I explained on each categories' talk page ([8], [9]), the Somali men and Somali women categories are actually reserved for people from the Somali ethnic group, not the nationality. Somalia is a multiethnic country inhabited by diverse populations (ergo, Category:Ethnic groups in Somalia). These Somali men and Somali women categories are thus earmarked for people from only one of the nation's ethnic groups. The Somali ethnic group in question also traditionally inhabits more countries than just Somalia; c.f. Greater Somalia. This is why the Category:Somalis is additionally linked to under Category:Ethnic groups in Ethiopia, among others. The reverts that the user above alludes to were thus me simply restoring the Somali men and Somali women category links on various files that he had unhelpfully attempted to replace en masse with the Men of Somalia and Women of Somalia parent categories. Middayexpress (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The explanation by Middayexpress about ethnic groups makes sense to me. Orrling, what is the problem with that? Yann (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
In this sort of collabrative place one cannot just unexplainably reach from nowhere and Undo other contributors in a massive row before presenting one's motive for discussion, add to the fact that the after-hand "explanation" is using lies from the type of presenting my edits as having been "multiple times reverted by others". Well I guess that's about it. Orrling's talk 17:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, my restorations were many in number because you first replaced en masse the legitimate categories above -- all with no explanation. I also did already explain my rationale for doing so on the two category talk pages in question, both posts of which I have linked to above. Your other legitimate category deletion attempts were likewise indeed all reverted and not by me (as the difs above also show), so no point in denying it. Middayexpress (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it is very important when contributors like Orrling are trying to clean-up category trees, that they not be chastised for being bold and they feel comfortable addressing duplication and inconsistencies head-on. That sort of freedom is really important to keep Commons functioning, and I am really glad to see Orrling putting so much effort into category clean-up. However, it is a two-way street, and other editors should have just as much freedom to reverse edits that have a detrimental effect on the category tree (although they should do so with edit summaries). That's the very nature of this collaborative environment. Orrling made his initial edits without any prior discussion, seemingly from "nowhere" without any prior consensus, which is fine, but I don't think it is then reasonable for him to take another editor to task for doing the same thing in order to keep the category tree intact. Some of Orrling's changes were problematic, and I am not sure it is good for the project for such contested changes to remain in place while someone is required to "present their motives for discussion". Where major changes are proposed to a category tree, including speedy deletions, it is perfectly fair for someone with legitimate concerns to put the brakes on and revert the changes, hopefully followed by good faith discussions by all involved. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

USGS publications for map projections

Can these publications be legally uploaded to Commons? Author is United States Geological Survey 1. Map Projections used by the U.S Geological Survey at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/b1532 2. Map Projections: A Working Manual at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1395 3. An Album of Map Projections at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1453

1.55.105.18 00:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


Very partial answer: "Map Projections: A Working Manual" is described as 1987 professional paper by John P. Snyder. Was Snyder a federal government employee? If so, then his work is certainly public domain. If not, then I'm not sure if it matters that a government agency published it. Anyone know more? - Jmabel ! talk 03:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

He worked for USGS in 2 years. Probably public domain. Refereced (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect sorting

Hi everyone. Here's a bit of a riddle for you all (maybe this should be VP, but oh well...)

Category:Birmingham New Street railway station - as best I can tell, none of the images in this category have any sortkeys, and as we know, anything with a sortkey appears in a category before anything lacking a sortkey. So, explain this. In the list we have

...
File:Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 01 170633 350113 221140 323204.jpg
File:Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 03 323209.jpg
...
File:Platform 6B, New Street station, looking west - geograph.org.uk - 1610251.jpg
File:Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 02 323204.jpg
...
File:Railway lines converging at the eastern end of the platforms, New Street - geograph.org.uk - 1715229.jpg
...

Why are some of my images being sorted incorrectly? I've noted this occasionally in other categories as well, not sure it was just my images. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality images are sorted at the letter "Q" (between P and R)? Might it have something to do with this? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hm, I shall revert that edit then. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass upload from flickr?

I just discovered on flickr that there is over 400 pictures up loaded by the Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning Association that are all free to use and distribute ( i uploaded two from Meredith NH before i realized they were all free). they state on their flicker page and have tagged every photo except for the newest 25 as completly free (the newest 25 say no comercial use allowed) http://www.flickr.com/people/nnecapa/ . Am I correct in this? Is there any way to add them all here as they are great pictures and useful for many articles i would believe?--Found5dollar (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hard to be sure. It's not clear that they actually have clean rights to these images themselves. It depends on who the photographers were (their employees? Employees of architecture firms?). - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to upload new version of a file

I've been trying to upload an jpeg of File:Bluebeard.png but it's not working. Do I need to create an entirely different file? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you do. You can't upload a file to a filename that ends in the wrong extension. (Your computer probably doesn't like it when you do this either.) Upload your jpg at File:Bluebeard.jpg. You can then list your version in the "other versions" section of Bluebeard.png, if you think yours is superior. Regards, --Quintucket (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the first one mistakenly saved as .png but that explains why the jpeg won't work. I'll add the new file. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If they're exactly the same, then you can insert the template {{duplicate|other file}} on the png, which will ask an administrator to speedily delete it. --Quintucket (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
They were, but I already uploaded. The only problem is that I'm using on en and there's already a :File:Bluebeard.jpg there which is a different image. How do I rename it? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You have a few choices.
  1. You can ask a Commons administrator to move the file by posting here.
  2. You can upload a file called something like Bluebeard2.jpg and ask an admin to delete both.
  3. You can go on WP and ask for the file to be moved. I'm not going to try to figure that one out. I know it's possible, but I don't know how likely it is that anyone would do it. If you want to go this way, you can ask over there.
  4. You can just use the .png file and ask for the jpg file to be deleted.
Regards, Quintucket (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The jpeg is better and the en file is an entirely different image, so I'll ask for a move. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"We Can Do IT" (Rosie the Riveter) Image

Hello, I'm wishing to use the classic Rosie the Riveter Image on some t-shirts for our school nurses/union. Would this be legal since the image is not copyrighted? Is there anything else I should consider before having the t-shirts made? Is there a template available to insert specific information pertaining to the nurses and/our union motto?

Thanks for your help!

Heidi

Hi Heidi,
That depends on where you live. The famous poster is out of copyright in the United States, and being in the public domain you can do anything you want with it. (You can even submit it to an art contest and claim that you made it.) If you live in Canada though, well, that's a different story. --Quintucket (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This image was deleted here [10] a while ago. Unrelated to this copyright violation (I had no idea it was previously uploaded), I have obtained permission from the photographer to upload the image. Is there a way to do this? I do NOT want to upload it to "SaraPaxtonNov07". For one thing, I don't want to be associated with the copyvio. But mainly because my uploads generally have specific titles, not generic looking ones. Can someone help me bypass this? The email will be sent to OTRS once I can upload the image. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this place is dead. I've essentially started a conversation here in hopes of moving this along. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody with a bot want to do me a favor?

Resolved

As was pointed out to me, when I uploaded a whole bunch of screenshots of Wikipedia pages during the SOPA protests, most of them with the wrong year. Does anybody who uses those automated scripts want an excuse to rack up over 60 easy edits to their count? I'll do it eventually when I decide I need to procrastinate, but given that half the changes on my watchlist seem to come from people using HotCat, I figure there might be someone who can do it without wasting the 20 minutes or so I expect it would take me doing it manually. Thanks, --Quintucket (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Could this be done by just changing every occurrence of "2011" for images in that category to "2012"? Or does it need closer scrutiny because "2011" may occur in some of these correctly somewhere in the description? (In other words, if you can give me something algorithmic to do, it's easily done.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Jmabel, it could be done exactly that way. At least as of now, the only images there are ones I created, and all of them are from 18 or 19 January 2011. Thanks. Quintucket (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
DONE. Please mark this section {{Resolved}} after you verify that this did what you wanted. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

en:Talk:Russian Orbital Segment#File:MLM Mockup.png Nominated for Deletion

Done, thank you

en:Talk:Russian Orbital Segment#File:MLM Mockup.png Nominated for Deletion

I can't find discussion of this file's deletion anywhere, and only traces of it on google. Where can I suggest it's return ? I don't know who uploaded it, and haven't seen it, but it may well be a NASA image, I'd like to take a look. Penyulap (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MLM Mockup.png. It had an ESA watermark. --Martin H. (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Martin H. those two know what they are doing. Penyulap (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we see what's been deleted?

Hi! Can anyone say if there's a page logging the DELETED items on Commons where one can go and take a look? i.e some "red" list where deletions are being archived.... Thanx, Orrlingtalk 03:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're very kind! thanx Orrlingtalk 08:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Resolved

Bulwersator (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Own work Licences

I don't understand much about licences so please tell me which i should use as: I have some own works (images) and i want that anyone can use it for themselves but it 'll better if not more than this (using for themselves). I've not added any copyright in the images, i mean they are just as they were clicked by me with the phone camera, but they are entirely my own work. So Which licence tag should i use?? And please obliged by answering it on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TariButtar (talk • contribs) 06:25, 21 January 2012‎ (UTC)

  • Limitations on reuse like that mean Commons isn't interested in the images. You could upload them to (for example) Flickr, and use (for example) a non-commercial CC license. As for "adding copyright to the images": there is no such thing as "adding copyright". As far as I know, nowadays if present-day images are copyrightable, then they are inherently copyrighted, it's just a matter of how explicit you are about clarifying that. And I'll leave a message on the user's talk page telling him/her to look here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Largest file on Commons

What is the most massive file on Commons? (I am referring to the technical size measured in bytes, kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, ...) 113.190.101.248 06:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a limit of 100MB, so this gets to be a little like asking for the tallest midget. Something must be just under that limitation. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This file, transferred from it.wikipedia, is released under a GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. However this licence did not appear in the pull-down menu during upload. Would some kind person be good enough to check whether in fact the file should be here? I also note that it carries a copyright claim in addition to its free release licence. --Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not GFDL 1.2 but GFDL 1.2 or any later version (and with disclaimers), this makes it eligible for license migration. The transfer tool got it right already, I fixed the rest. --Martin H. (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy help requested with File:Mist lifting off cedars.jpg and File:XXX Censored Mist Lifting off Cedars by DJ Schulte.jpg

Could someone black out my last two uploads to commons at least temporarily I just realized they are NC licensed and wish to contact the artist to request a release, in the mean time they cannot be used . Penyulap (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


PLEASE RESTORE THESE IMAGES AS A MATTER OF URGENCY

I have just heard from the artist and have permission for PD, or CCSA, he asked my advice I recommended CC-SA and I have the form from him done too. ! Penyulap (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


I have forwarded the email to commons, although, as I had asked for the deletion myself, and have V.good standing as far as my contributions go, I think a few minutes grace would benefit the high traffic en:SOPA article. Penyulap (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


The images are to be used here I've contacted DJ, and as you can see from the sources in the article he is an activist who feels strongly about the topic. I would much appreciate if someone can check through the permissions email queue, or restore the images. Penyulap (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the urgency (and in any case the place to ask for undeletion is Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests). If you've sent along the permission as required by COM:OTRS, you'll be notified when the OTRS token is approved. It is possible if there is a real urgency that someone might let these be restored sooner and marked as "OTRS pending". - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for the response, I shall do that promptly. Penyulap (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised he considered the possibility of PD, as that would have sort of justified the use by the infringing website. The matter is much more interesting with a license. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit like that sometimes, when I approach an artist and request they release an image into the public domain, in all the cases where I can actually speak with them they are very positive to my approach. Basically respecting the artist, and their work, and the fact it is often their livelihood. Indeed he would put them into PD if I asked him to, but I said he can use CC SA and have all the same effects for everyone, and decide later about PD. Myself, I do not care about this SOPA issue at all, I simply stumbled onto it because I couldn't save my work at all during the blackout. I could use all of en wiki otherwise, and use all other wikis just the same, but that sopa article and the editors were in such a mess that I couldn't help but to help. DJ doesn't seem like any big kind of activist, he talks with his son about it and they seem awestruck to me about the whole internet user revolution and winning sort of thing. I can't possibly relate to any of it as I am far, far away culturally from all of this. Woah ! way off topic here. Well CC SA is good because people can learn about these free licenses and still give credit where it is due, which is respectful. But as for getting any of this onto english wikipedia, forget it, Lamar can talk about the images all day long to the press and they'll never get into the article. That's English Wiki for you. It is such a dull drab article too. On Jimbo's scale it sucks I think he would say. Penyulap (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Glienicker Bruecke, Blick nach Norden.jpg

Hallo! Den Text zum Bild, einschließlich Lizenz, habe ich inzwischen mehrfach überprüft - scheint mir vollständig und regelgerecht. Er stimmt auch in den Lizenzangaben völlig überein mit den Angaben zum Foto Glienicker Brücke, Blick nach Osten.jpg, das gleichzeitig hochgeladen und zunächst jedenfalls nicht beanstandet wurde. Trotzdem: ein Blackout ist bei mir natürlich möglich, ich glaub nur nicht recht daran. Und zuletzt: die Aufnahme ist ganz ordentlich, aber nicht wichtig. Beste Grüße! --Eisenacher (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Du hast keinen Lizenzbaustein auf die Bildbeschreibungsseite gesetzt. --Martin H. (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Diese Bild ist eine einfache Fotographie habe ich im Speicher gefunden Urheber unbekannt muss ein altes Familienmitglied gewesen sein. --Mkummerer (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

wie alt ist die Stadt? Wenn das Foto ist alt genug, können Sie es verwenden. Penyulap (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort to answer, but asking for the age of the city isnt the key question for uploading this ;)
Mkummerer, welche Anhaltspunkte hast du, um auf das Alter der Fotografie zu schließen. Der physikalische Besitz der Fotografie alleine genügt nicht um auch der Rechteinhaber zu sein. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Ein ähnliches Bild hier deutet auf 1950 hin--Trex2001 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
hmmm, könnte der gleiche User sein...--Trex2001 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, where should i get the 'permission' to use a image? I found it in the web page of the Werder Bremen the first one --SachaNoah (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Commons:Licensing or maybe Commons:Project scope? To upload someone else work here you need written permission from the copyright holder that anyone, worldwide, can reuse this photo freely for every purpose including commercial purposes. There is no such permission on the website, the content is unfree and you can not copy it. --Martin H. (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Resolved

Bulwersator (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Portada de un Libro

Gracias por la atención. Estoy hablando en un artículo de la obra de un fotógrafo, deseo subir la foto de la portada del libro, mencionando obviamente que la fotografía de portada es propiedad del autor y de la editorial. Me deseo acojer al Fair Use pero no sé cómo hacerlo! Gracias de nuevo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Carlos Bustamante G. (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Donde quiere Vd. usarlo? No hay artículos en Wikimedia Commons, y no se permite Fair Use. Si es in la wikipedia en español, sería mejor preguntar allí, a menos que pasa que alguien aquí conoce sus políticas y puede responder. Será imposible poner un imágen en Commons bajo Fair Use; you no sé si la wikipedia en español lo permite para un imágen puesto directamente en su base de datos. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

{{Seecat}}

Question about {{Seecat}}: is it supposed to put the redirected category in the proper category or not? I would think not, but right now it seems to be inconsistent, which is particularly odd. Category:Powwow is showing up in Category:Pow wows; Category:Pow Wows is not. - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ResolvedJmabel ! talk 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories

I seem to have trouble categorising the files I upload on Wikimedia Comomons. I'd be very grateful if somebody would kindly help me rectifying my past errors and help me not to repeat them. Please contact me on my French Wikipedia talk page : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Robert_Ferrieux
Thanks, Robert Ferrieux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Ferrieux (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Hi Robert, I do not know if you already got answer- hope so. Please write here again if you still need help. Please do not request answeres to go elsewhere - that is difficult for the organization here (if no one leaves a note that the question is answered or not). Of general help may be: Commons:Categories. And: don't worry about categories that much - try to do as best as you can and have a look at similar files. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 17:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia project screenshots

I'd like to upload some screenshots of non-English Wikipedias that had a banner and/or splash page in solidarity with the EN-Wikipedia SOPA protest. I know that on account of the logo, there's a special permission for this: "Wikimedia project screenshot." For example the Navajo project screenshots would be {{Wikimedia project screenshot|logo=yes|project=Navajo Wikipedia}}. This means I can't use any of the default licenses, however when I try to use "Non selected (add a license tag [etc])" I get the old "I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave" from the Wikimedia software. How do I handle this? Thanks --Quintucket (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you're using the Upload Wizard which is a BadIdea™ for people who are doing more advanced things such as what you're attempting to do. Try Special:Upload instead. Killiondude (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I am using Special:Upload. I don't think I've ever used the UW in my life. --Quintucket (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh. My apologies. There is that option in Special:Upload. Silly me. Did you put the {{Wikimedia project screenshot}} template in the permission box? Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I did, except for the "tlx|" I just tried that part. You had me hopeful that those four letters would fix it, but that does not seem to be the case. --Quintucket (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, disabling Javascript apparently works. ;-) --Quintucket (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Weird! Sorry I wasn't much help at all. Perhaps someone more technically inclined will be able to lend a helping hand so future use-cases won't have to disable js to use that template. Killiondude (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually not all that weird, I do it to get around things that annoy me on websites all the time. I have a special Firefox plugin called "NoScript" I use to make it easy to selectively block JavaScript on sites. That said, it shouldn't be all that hard to add a statement that checks for a valid license tag in the permissions field.
Better still would be if it checked for a valid license tag in the descriptions field as well, and for author and source information in the same.. I discovered that disabling JS means there's only one text box and I can plug the whole file description template in in wikitext. That makes things lot easier when I want to upload a lot of similar files, and I'll probably disable JS while uploading from now on.
Oddly though, the "my uploads" tab disappears when I disable JS. --Quintucket (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You can keep JS on and use Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic instead. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Howdy all--

Could one of you help me out with the licensing for File:Sirio wrecked.jpg and File:Sirio survivors.jpg? It's from an Argentinian publication, 1906. Thanks very much, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it's published before 1923, it would be {{pd-US}}. As for Argentine copyright law (required by the Commons) Wikipedia tells me that Argentina didn't have any copyright law until 1913. --Quintucket (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
And actually, Argentina's current law is life of author + 70 years, which according to our "pd-old" tag would make it public domain even Argentina had had copyright law. I've added permission tags, not going to remove the tags though until someone who's done this longer confirms the accuracy of my interpretation. --Quintucket (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks--I appreciate your help. I'm trying to get the associated article (SS Sirio) on the main page, for DYK... Drmies (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Good luck on your DYK. By the way, you might want to check out the page on interwiki linking at Wikipedia. I found it quite helpful when I started working across projects. --Quintucket (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

→ Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sirio_wrecked.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 17:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 17:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Logo Worms.png

I recently created the above-mentioned file for the german Illustration workshop. This raised the discussion if the usage of german Coat of Arms for decorative purposes like this portal image is legal. Can someone clarify this please?--Trex2001 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Usage of files is not Commons' "job" (that question is not even about copyright (the - it may be about trademarks or similar "CoA laws". Please ask maybe at de:WP:UF. Übrigens: willst du wirklich behaupten, dass du für diese simple Anordnung von Wappen einen Urheberrechtsschutz beanspruchen kannst (das sagt die von dir gewählte {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-de}} aus - andernfalls nimm {{CC-zero}} oder ähnliche Gemeinfreiheits-"Lizenzbausteine")? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 17:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lost all of my work

HELP! I have been working on a page for the last week and have finally started to figure out how everything works. I went to upload a picture to use in the article and now I can't locate the page I was working on. Why does editing in Wikipedia have to be so frustrating? The page I am looking for is for Restraining Hollywood. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarticlemaster (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 January 2012‎ (UTC)
You are here on Commons. Your article is on Wikipedia. en:Special:Contributions/Wikiarticlemaster
Wenn man es mit dem Holzhammer versucht, macht es sicherlich keinen Spaß. -- RE rillke questions? 22:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
And your uploaded image is here: Special:Log/Wikiarticlemaster. Help on how to get it in an article is here: en:Help:Picture tutorial. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No thumbnail of photo

What is the problem with the photo File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png, that I have just uploaded. The thumbnail of the photo is not displayed. Instead of showing the thumbnail, this text is displayed: "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters". --Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"...thumbnail parameters or..." - continue reading. --Martin H. (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your answer, sorry. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It says: "Error creating thumbnail: (...) PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels". See also Commons:FAQ#What resolution should the images I upload be?. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 17:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to upload some picture from other website. I don't know about copyright. How can I do that?

--203.81.165.129 14:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You require the copyright holders written permission to a free license. See Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain and see Commons:Licensing. Otherwise and in this case for example: Do not upload. --Martin H. (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
You may want to read about Internet images and the intro of Commons:Licensing (already mentioned by Martin). Thanks for your help anyway. Please ask on this page if you are not sure about copyright. --Saibo (Δ) 17:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 17:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

how do I request a deletion of an image uploaded by someone else?

How do I request a deletion of an image uploaded by someone else? (Tac582001 (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

Please see Commons:Deletion requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Images for Artists Anna P. Baker

Please help me upload these files. I am trying to put together a wikipedia entry for the deceased artist Anna P. Baker. The owner of all of her works and estate has asked that I include images on the page and I have been given the images by this owner of the copyright to use, but they should not be allowed copied or sold by anyone else. What do I do? How can I make this happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhermant (talk • contribs)

You will not be allowed to upload these images on Commons, as a requirement for any image here is that they be usable by anyone for any purpose, including copying, etc. Instead, you will have to upload one or two examples at whichever Wikipedia you want to create the article on, assuming that project allows fair use images. See WP:FUR for more information. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

--Svch433 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. You uploaded it and didn't provide a license template.
  2. You are very vague about who took the photo and why you would hold the copyright and be in a position to release rights.
  3. You might try contacting an administrator who speaks Russian to help you out further. - Jmabel ! talk

Dan Leno - The Comic Journal

Hi

I would like to upoad an image of the above which was a magazine published between 1898 - 1900. I want to add it to the Leno article which I am steering in the direction of GAC. Dan Leno was the author and editor of the magazine and he died in 1904. This particular edition is dated 26 February 1898.

  • Licensing

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.

Is the above the correct licence? and if so is it suitable to be added? -- Cassianto (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there are ongoing discussions about US-copyrigh-law you may use {{Pd/1923|year of author's death}} = {{Pd/1923|1901}} -- RE rillke questions? 20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for that! -- Cassianto (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: RE rillke questions? 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This drawing was made in 1915. The architect of the building (and presumably of the drawing) died in 1934. I found this drawing and some pictures of the building (in which I am one of the tenants nowadays) in the City Archive of 's-Hertogenbosch. I do hope that this will be enough information to prevent this picture from removal.

--Aureliusmax (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This drawing was taken in 1937. The architect of the building died in 1934. This picture was taken by Fotopersbureau Het Zuiden. As far as I can find out that organisation no longer exists. I found this drawing and some pictures of the building (in which I am one of the tenants nowadays) in the City Archive of 's-Hertogenbosch. Please advice how I can prevent deletion and properly attribute this picture.

--Aureliusmax (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Was it published before 2003? If it was, it's still under copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to upload this picture so it can be on the bands Wikipedia page. I am new to this and do not know if I'm going about it the right way. Here is the bands wiki and they deserve a picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichya


--Cpucourage (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are the copyright owner of the picture, to upload it on Commons, you will need to find the copyright owner and go through COM:OTRS to get permission. Otherwise, you can upload on en-wiki and fill out en:template:Non-free use rationale for the image. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

i copied a image from anothersite which is provided to free access,but how to get the copyright information of this file --Anoopkd (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Flickr

Why some people on the Flickr use Creative Commons license AND request page? What it really means, can we take these photos or definitely not? IP 13:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.180.208.187 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 January 2012‎ (UTC)

What image are you talking about mickit 22:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
All files on flickr have a Getty licensing request below the license, unless the flickr user opted-out this option. And thats no problem, a Creative Commons license is non-exclusive, a copyright holder can of course publish a work under various licenses. Free licenses (with Attribution requirement and Share-alike requirement) and commercial licenses without this requirements or with other requirements. The only impossible option is to license an image under CC and under an exclusive license via Getty. --Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to determine if this photograph on the English Wikipedia is public domain in the UK or not (so I can transfer it to Commons). The photograph was created by the National Gallery, London, in 1914 and subsequently published in several British newspapers the same year. There are several sub-questions involved:

  1. Is the photograph copyrightable to begin with?
  2. Are works by the National Gallery covered under crown copyright?
  3. Would this be considered an artistic work (the photograph, not the painting)?
  4. What is the copyright term for a work created by a corporation in the UK in 1914?

Any help would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Licensing#United_Kingdom states:
Exceptions to copyright

As with many other countries the UK defines an exception to copyright infringement for artistic works on public display. Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 states that it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
which I think applies here and would meet PD-UK-unknown...--Trex2001 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate-archive error

Hi, I am trying to upload an image but I receive a duplicate-archive error message when I submit it. In a Wikimedia search, I do not find the image. I did request removal of this image a month ago for copyright issues, but the author is now interested in having this image back on Wikimedia Commons to be used in the public domain. I have tried uploading it under a different name, etc, but to no avail. Please advise. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carla McL (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Hello, 1) Please ask the author to write and send his explicit public domain release (or his free license release, as the case may be), using the procedure explained at Commons:OTRS. (It will make things easier if he also mentions what was the exact name of the deleted file on Commons.) 2) Request the undeletion of the file at Commons:Undeletion requests. The file can be undeleted after the author's valid declaration is received. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo taken from a book

Can I upload a photo taken from a book ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J10452M (talk • contribs)

Usually, you are not allowed. Exceptions are: very old photos whose photographers is dead for more than 70 years, 2D works of art (i.e. paintings, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If they are photos captured during a war ?

Makes no difference. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Come to think of it, there are a few countries with special rules about World War II, so you'll have to be more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it was taken by U.S. army soldier? (Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army) Bulwersator (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
But that only matters if it was taken as part of the soldier's official duties. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Down loading

How do I Down load pictures from your site to my iPad 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond atkins (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Pretty much the same was as pictures from any other site, I would presume. What's been different about our site?- Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read the manual of your client (Safari?) or ask Apple. -- RE rillke questions? 20:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What is the problem you get when trying to download files here to your iPad 2? 123.24.124.68 01:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

UK road signs

Is it okay to upload UK road signs as a vector version on Wikimedia Commons? Or its copyrighted and can't be accepted here just like currency. Kindly regards --Katarighe (Talk) 00:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Most road signs are simple enough for {{PD-ineligible}}. Can you give an example of what might be problematic? - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Painting deleted

Hi there, I had a painting of my father uploaded a week ago, it's my own work, it got deleted, although I clearly stated it was my own work, and waived all copyrights, what should I do if I want to re-upload it?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samerfaraj01 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 January 2012‎ (UTC)

I've notified Mmxx the user who requested the source information. -- RE rillke questions? 20:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

SVG displayed as PNG is incorrect

This is the file : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TREP-RT_Overview.svg

Note that font sizes and colors are incorrect when compared to the original SVG file. How can we fix the SVG -> PNG renderer ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanteadon (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Help:SVG. The extension used to render is called rsvg. But this particular SVG also suffers from substantial problems. -- RE rillke questions? 20:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with image

File:Rogowo.jpg - what happened here? Bulwersator (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Help:JPEG#Color model -- RE rillke questions? 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have reuploaded it in RGB. --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Vertical bar!

√ Resolved
A somewhat esoteric matter and yet one that bares practical significance for me: How do you produce the |-sign on the standard Microsoft keyboard? I know, it's found to the top-right between Backspace and (+/=). But when I press the combined Shift+(|) it would type a tilde (~). I must switch to the Hebrew mode each time I need the (|). :-( Is my keyboard totally f***ed-up? Orrlingtalk 19:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as the standard Microsoft keyboard. Not even English-speaking countries seem to be able to agree on a single keyboard layout. If pressing the key that has the symbol on it doesn't produce the result you expect, you probably have the wrong keyboard layout selected in your operating system – most likely UK instead of US or vice versa. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Any idea how to switch it then? Thanks Orrlingtalk 21:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Which operating system are you using? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
XP Home. Orrlingtalk 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.conversationexchange.com/resources/keyboard-language.php —LX (talk, contribs) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Orrlingtalk 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I now followed the above page to finally match my keyboard language definition with the system language one (= it appeared to have been UK-English on the language side and US-English on the keyboard side). But sadly this didnot change anything in the typing results, and Shift+2 still produces " instead of @ and Shift+| generates ~. That is, the keyboard only functions well when I'm on the Hebrew mode, to which I constantly need to toggle. How annoying Orrlingtalk 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Matching the keyboard layout to the system language is not really important for this. The main thing is to match the keyboard language setting to the physical keyboard layout that you actually have. en:British and American keyboards might be helpful to understand the issue better. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you contribute here? Orrlingtalk 23:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh well it just recently terminated in success :-} Thank you, Orrlingtalk 23:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Replacing an image

Is there any possibility to replace an image I uploaded by a newer version using a new account?

--Menganito2 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally, you should only replace an image with a better version of the same image. Otherwise, you should simply upload to a new filename. But if you do want to upload to replace an image, you don't need to be the same account; anyone can do this. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have a better version of that image, but I would like to know how to replace the old image by the new one. --Menganito2 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ich bin neu hier und weiß noch nicht wie ich korrekte Angaben über die Quelle, den/die Urheber und/oder die Lizenz machen muss. kann mir jemand helfen? Das Bild ist von folgender Seite:

http://www.ziarullumina.ro/articole;1850;1;68419;0;Neomartir-german-in-calendarul-orthodox.html

--Wurzelfein (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Wurzelfein, wie du in der Einleitung von Commons:Lizenzierung nachlesen kannst, haben wir hier nur "freie" Medien. Wir müssen also jeweils wissen, wieso eine Datei durch jedermann benutzbar ist. Alexander Schmorell starb 1943, also ist das Bild wohl noch nicht so alt. Weißt du, wann und von wem es gemalt wurde? Oder wie alt es mindestens ist? Wenn der Maler schon länger als 70 Jahre verstorben ist, können wir es behalten. Antworte einfach hier unterhalb. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Fort Qu'Appelle Broadway Avenue circa 1948.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fort_Qu%27Appelle_Broadway_Avenue_circa_1948.jpg I am advised as to a long out-of-copyright photo that it is liable to be deleted because insufficient information is provided. How may I address this issue? Masalai (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

By providing an appropriate Commons:Copyright tag. It has none. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and in the future: a question like this belongs on Commons:Help desk, not Commons talk:Help desk, which is for discussing how we operate Commons:Help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

↑↑ this is a misplaced question from Commons talk:Help desk (moved to here). --Saibo (Δ) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Murals; Copyvio or not?

I've considered adding an image of a mural painted on a wall in Lutz, Florida, and while I've seen plenty of murals posted in the commons, I wonder if such an image would be considered a copyright violation, especially since I had nothing to do with the creation or the work on this mural. Is something like this still okay to post, or not? ----DanTD (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be considered a copyright violation, unless the mural is old enough to be in the public domain, or the mural is an unimportant part of the image, or the author of the mural offered it under a free license or granted his permission for showing the mural on the freely-licensed image. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
And in the future: a question like this belongs on Commons:Help desk, not Commons talk:Help desk, which is for discussing how we operate Commons:Help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

↑↑ this is a misplaced question from Commons talk:Help desk (moved to here). --Saibo (Δ) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the policy?

Parent categories and sub-categories applied together to same file: How come?

Quick background: Tell Abu Hawam is an archaeological site in Haifa, Israel, which is an irrelevant place in national discourse and is little known beyond circles of scholars in Haifa.. and the only-and-one aim of that user is - as it comes - to "push" that local place upwards in the categoric and symbolic hierarchy and force the attribution of the "Category:Archaeological sites in Israel" aside to the Category:Archaeological sites in Haifa, possibly because he or she has created that site's cat....

Please see if you can determine whether that person arguing "Categories in Commons can be created also horizontally not only vertically" is right or (most probably) wrong as I've been a Wiki editor now for over 3 years and one thing I know, is that, as a rule, when a subcategory is attributed to an item, the next-higher cat of the same tree won't be attributed. This is a very reasonable, self-understood rule. - Alas, we're facing some user who also seems to manifest no less than "ownership" over his uploads and will not learn the a-b-c of using categories in Wiki; It's more than one particular item in question (ex. here). Best Regards. Orrlingtalk 08:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

See COM:OVERCAT. In short: you're right. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
What is the issue? There is freedom of panorama for buildings in Germany. Deutsche Fotothek released the photo under an appropriate license. Is there an issue here that I'm missing? You don't ask any specific question about what concerns you here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 Info Chris655 did ask a question, but removed it shortly after, leaving only the heading and commented-out instructions. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Taken care of (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hohenstein-Ernstthal Bahnhof.jpg). --Saibo (Δ) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Newbie - 1st upload

I just uploaded a file for the first time and would appreciate if somebody would look over what I did. The file is "File:Arthur Bernier hockey card 1.jpg". I tried to enter the info from the source (I indicated the link) as I best could, but I suspect some of it may have to be edited. Saveur (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For a first upload, you did very well. The PD-because tag is a good and logical idea, as the source does state the PD status without telling precisely on what section of the Copyright Act the statement is based. Still, the PD-Canada tag might be used, although it does not mention section 6.1, which might be the relevant section in this case. I left, in the permission field, the reference to the LAC statement, to be safe. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. The procedures and documentation of Wikipedia/Commons can be intense at times, but it's great that people like you help out the newcomers. Your info will be useful as I will likely upload a few more pictures from the same source. Saveur (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi.tif and File:Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi.jpg

These two files have been uncategorized.How do I categorize them in view of the page titled Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi in Wikipedia encyclopedia? What if they are allowed to remain uncategorized? Thanks. Soni Ruchi (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

They are allowed to stay uncategorized - don't worry. However, it would be nice if you could make you aware of some basic categorization. See COM:CAT. Thank you!. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've recently uploaded the old photo of Earl Boen Im not sure who the copyright holder is.--500HX (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case it needs to be deleted. We can only accept Free content. You can tag it with
{{speedy|uploaded by error}}
and an administrator will take care of it. --  Docu  at 17:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The author of the image granted permission to download the file (see quoted text) . Please help me to describe the license information properly for this case 

Wes Higgins

To 'Andrey Stsherbakov'

Hi Andrey,

Glad you like the photo, you have my permission to download the photo of Aristillus and use it in Wikipedia.

Wes Higgins

--Андрей Щербаков (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please forward the email, per COM:OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
First ask for a real permission, for a free license. A permission for you to download and for you to reuse in Wikipedia is insufficient, see Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete the two oldest photos in the file history

I have uploaded the photo File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png. In the file history there are two earlier photos of higher resolution. Can somebody please delete the two earlier photos of 4.05 MB and 10.42 MB, because these two photos were not allowed to be uploaded. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not allowed because...? - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess it means the copyright owner specified that the free license covers the lower resolution only. The OTRS member who will process the case will probably verify what the license says and act accordingly. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I still need to get the two oldest photos deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise I'll have to advise the copyright holder not to confirm the uploading. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Would an administrator do the necessary? It's an upload that was made just minutes before the above request. --  Docu  at 13:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok? -- RE rillke questions? 15:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like the two oldest photos to be deleted completely, not only hidden for normal users. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done - Amada44  talk to me 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 01:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Permission

I want to upload some picture from other website. I don't know about copyright. How can I do that? about Wikimedia Commons my picture name is Toyama Keichiro.jpg --2.185.122.90 17:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello,
You need to obtain first the permission from the web site. See COM:OTRS for details. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I would like help to determine the copyright status of the files given at http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/1800_1899/britishrule/pomp/pomp.html

The images are photographs, scans of engravings, and illustrations, from 1872 - 1911. Most were probably first published in either India or United Kingdom. I find it difficult to ascertain the creators of the images. Is there a way to determine if they're public domain?

An advance thanks for any help that anyone may provide. And if any of the images is public domain, I'd really appreciate it if someone could upload them. Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on need for more specific information

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AnttlersM81M82.jpg

"Description This is a visible light image of Messier 81 (left) and Messier 82 (right) taken with my backyard telescope in Kalkaska, MI in April of 2007."

The telescope should be described less colloquially and more informatively by type and aperture, e.g. Schmidt-Cassegrain 10"; "backyard telescope" is not very informative.

I do not know another way to make this comment and I could not find a way by browsing the help. Sorry.

Gary Palmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.64.118 (talk • contribs)

The uploader hasn't been active since 2008 so asking on his user talk page probably won't do any good, and it's not likely that anyone else can provide that information. You may be able to find him on Facebook or Google+ and ask him, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Restore of deletet images for tpl fix

Hello, a bot deleted some of my images from commons because something was wrong with the source. I just noted it somewhat late because I only looked in my enWP talk page, sorry. All this deleted images (graphics) are my work. That and the licence should be in the template I used. It seems something was worong with the template that it faild auto detection of source and licence. Maybe some space or "cr" is the problem. I used that template before and had only problems with my last batch. Can you help me to fix the template and restore the images? -- Portolanero (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the files have been deleted, I can't say exactly what was wrong with them, but it may just have been a missing or incorrectly linked licensing template, as you say. The files were tagged by a bot, but deleted by a flesh and blood administrator: Fastily. (Bots don't delete files – only admins do.) I'm guessing the files in question are File:Pinax-Drake Passage.jpg, File:Antarctica 1531-Modern.png, File:Antarctica 1531-Modern Tracks.png and File:Marinus of Tyre Pinax.png. You could ask Fastily about it or request undeletion. Be sure to name the files and state the intended license. If you want to make sure you don't miss future notices on your user talk page, you can enable e-mail notifications in your preferences. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I will ask Fastily. -- Portolanero (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Role Playing Game covers

I wish to show artwork from the core rules box covers of a French roleplaying game (Malefices) for an article about the game on the English version of wikipedia. The copyrights are currently held by Asmodee Editions. I consider it fair use because the pictures depict the product being shown. Also they are the out-of-print 1st and 2nd edition covers by Jeux Descartes, not the new 3rd edition cover by Asmodee (though I would include that too if the company allows it and supplies it). Hotspur23 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you intend a "fair use" inclusion, then that has nothing to do with Commons. You can't upload the images here. You need to upload them directly to the English-language Wikipedia (use en:Special:Upload) and fill out en:template:non-free use rationale. - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The source is privat:"family Barthel"


--Koenigeberh (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You still need to provide a license. And you need to have the rights yourself to provide that license. I suspect this will require explicit permission from a copyright holder who is not you. See COM:OTRS (or COM:OTRS/de). - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

svg file rights - map of south orkney islands translation

Hello! I have uploaded a .svg file I translated in Bulgarian from the source here File:South_Orkney_Islands-en.svg What should I do so I don't get the message that the file will be deleted: File:South_Orkney_Islands-bg.svg

I don't know what tag to put on this file. There are other language versions too. I only see it is a derivative work.

Please help! --Vladimir Penov (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. You forget to add a license. Yann (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

License

Does this license, make an image proper to upload and use in wiki? Secret of success (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Seek (ctrl+F) for Non-Commercial Only on COM:L#Well-known licenses. -- RE rillke questions? 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist register suddenly moves the registers "View"/"Edit"/"View history"

When I access an article, e.g. a file description, to edit it, it needs always to wait a bit, because the registers as "View"/"Edit"/"View history" are suddenly moved to the left to give space to a register "☆" (add this page to your watchlist). If I am too swift clicking on "Edit" it is moved to the left and I get "View history" instead.

This is a bit annoying because it happens frequently. I could not find how to get rid of having this watchlist-☆-register inserted inbetween. Does an easy method exist to assign it off? If you answer after a delay of a couple of days, please give me a note at my talk page. Thank you -- sarang사랑 15:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are using the vector skin? Which browser do you use? I could not reproduce that with FF 3.6 and Vector. Switching your skin to Monobook could be a workaround. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Da war ich an der falschen Stelle, danke Saibo, dass du das repariert hast.
I had been using Vector skin and FF which is now 9.0.1. With Monobook as the solution it looks very different but it does not any longer pull away the register. I shall try to get accustomed to the other skin. Thank you, -- sarang사랑 17:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have now FF 10 and tried again with Vector: I cannot reproduce your problem. The tabs do not move at all. However, I know that Vector is a bit buggy. Another try: does the same happen if you are not logged in? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
With skin Monobook I don't have the mentioned trouble. When I am not logged in Vector skin is assigned by default, and it occurs as described: at the 1st selection of an article or file the registers are View | Edit | View History . After an instant these go to the left making space for another register "" (like the star if logged in). When I tried to click "Edit" I get instead of that "View history" which slipped in that moment to the cursor position, when I had been too fast.
It happens often that pages change something after the first appearance, esp. when banners are inserted above making the page content going down. Thank you for your caring -- sarang사랑 07:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
simulation (Saibo (Δ) 22:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC))
Ah, I can notice the same when I am logged-out (tested only in Opera). Yes, the browser seems to render the other tabs first and then add the . I think that is "by design". Another workaround for you would be a faster computer and/or Internet connection. ;-) Or to increase the "show delay" (or similar) in your browser - to not show any content until it is fully loaded. Sorry, I think there cannot be done anything - at least from "our" side here. If you want me to (if you do not have an account) I can report it to the developers in Wikimedia's bugzilla system. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Saibo, I asked because I thought there might be a simple solution others know; and your suggestion to use another skin helped a lot. And I learned that the correct name is "tab". Of course it had been better when pages were sent fully prepared, instead of changing essential tab positions after their appearance — but this happens on many sites, Wikipedia and others. So I had to disable the helpful enhanced editing toolbar above of the edit window to avoid its delayed display, which lets me click one of its buttons when I intend to type into the edit window. I think I can live with all of that if no simple solution or appropriate workaround exists. -- sarang사랑 07:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. A suggestion regarding the enhanced toolbar: you can hit the key ESC on your keyboard before it loads. I have it enabled but stop its loading like that if I want to type right away. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Saibo (Δ) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2012/01&oldid=371842231"