User talk:Doncram
Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!Dear Doncram, Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, |
|
- Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Natchez On-Top-of-the-Hill Historic District
[edit]Dear Doncram, I quite remember well where that picture was taken, and it was right in front of the river, I actually took a picture of the plan.
Isn't that the Downriver Historic District? I was thinking the Natchez On-Top-of-the Hill was more or less above Pearl. I will check the pictures I uploaded matching with the boundaries of the various districts. As for other pictures, I uploaded all of them, so if you browse my uploading you can see them.
KR, Elisa
ETA: Dear Docram, I checked:
Downriver Residential Historic District: Roughly bounded by S. Canal St., Orleans St., the Illinois Central railroad tracks, and the bayou between Union and Rankin Sts.
Natchez On-Top-of-the-Hill Historic District: U.S. Routes 61, 84, and 98
Natchez Bluffs and Under-the-Hill Historic District: Bounded by S. Canal St., Broadway, and Mississippi River
The Swiss Chalet is on the block in front of Rosalie Mansion, which is on Orleans St, near the Mississippi River. So I added it to Downriver, but if you think it's better, I will move it to Under the Hill, for sure it's not On Top of the Hill.
Dear Doncram,
Thank you for your message regarding my image of the B Street Historic District in Livingston, Montana USA. I will endeavor to be more thorough in documenting locations when in the vehicle and on the road. Made an erroneous assumption that B Street in general WAS the historic district. The uploaded image was the most significant view that I saw on said thoroughfare. I fully concur. My error. Regards, Jon Roanhaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Roanhaus (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC) KR, Elisa
The Church Studio
[edit]
Hello! Thank you for pointing out the copyright of the photo of The Church Studio by http://picturesquephotosbyamanda.com/. I hired Amanda Bringham to take the photo, as the owner of The Church Studio, and own the full rights to the photo. How should I proceed?
- That note was from User:Teresaknox.
- Hi Teresaknox, thank you for contacting me. And I am glad to hear that the photo you uploaded is owned by you, which it would be if you paid for it. It's a nice photo, so I am glad it should be allowed to stay.
- My concern arose from indications at the photos' page:
- It shows that you uploaded it, but text states that it is a "November 2016 photo by Amanda Bringham prior to ...."
- Also the following appears in the "Metadata" section towards bottom: "Copyright holder: © 2014 Picturesque Photos by Amanda"
- I am an editor mostly involved in creating and improving articles about U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and I found my way to this photo from its use at en:The Church Studio article. Which I came to from en:Harwelden Mansion article, related to you also I think, and from my looking at a few edits by en:User:Raghun Baba there.
- I happened to be interested and noticed the potential problems. If i didn't raise concern, I think an automated process and/or a person not interested in this kind of place would eventually get around to noticing it and deleting it after giving short notice. Photos with appearance of potential copyright issues are deleted off Commons all the time. So I am glad you contacted me and this can be cleared up.
- Basically, I think you just need to correspond with Wikipedia's en:Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team (also known as wp:OTRS), which is a volunteer-run service that handles assertions of copyright and other stuff by private, confidential correspondence. To contact them, it looks like you send an email to info-en-o@wikimedia.org, and someone will open a ticket in their "Open-source Ticket Request System" and address the issue. Only relatively few trusted volunteers have access there, not including me, and I think they will probably just want you to provide a positive assertion that you do own the copyright, and that you wish to release it under what's called "CC-by-SA" or some other relatively open license instead, which is required for a photo to be at Commons. And they may wish for you to prove who you are in some way, like by your replying to an email from, say, an organization or business domain that is publicly associated with you, and/or replying to email sent to any email address set up in your account (which I can't see). I dunno if they would want to contact Amanda Bringham or not. Assuming they are satisfied, then they will mark the photo in Commons with a certificate stating its revised license and linking to the ticket number for the confidential correspondence that established it.
- Usually when anyone uploads a photo to commons, they're asked to state whether they took the photo (so own copyright) and to accept a default license or go through some steps to choose a different acceptable license. I guess your truthful statement that the photo was taken by someone else, and perhaps metadata settings within Amanda Bringham's camera which assert copyright, made this situation different.
- So anyhow, contact them, with reference to "File:The legendary The Church Studio in Tulsa, Oklahoma home to Leon Russell's recording studio and Shelter Records.jpg", and I will be interested to hear of it being settled eventually.
- And, thank you for your role in preserving and presenting several historic buildings!--Doncram (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
|
Category:HIghland_Park_(Denver,_Colorado) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Jeffrey Beall (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Welcome, Dear Filemover!
[edit]
Hi Doncram, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:
- Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
- Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
- Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.
rubin16 (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
How to request deletion
[edit]For some categories I mistakenly created, the quick way is to put {{speedydelete|Author request}} to the categories, then {{withdraw}} to cancel the bigger deletion discussion that I accidentally opened instead (using Tool at left hand side of page). Thanks User:Heavy Water for advising. --Doncram (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- No problem! Heavy Water (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Autopatrol given
[edit]
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Why make a separate category for a building for which we have only one picture? - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, wait, we have another, but instead of putting it in the category you just removed Category:Buildings in Aberdeen, Washington. What's going on here? - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing, fixing, yes I wanted the photo to be in "Odd Fellows Building (Aberdeen, Washington)" and for the "Buildings in Aberdeen, Washington" to be applied at that category.
- I see you also added use of {{Taken on}} template, which I probably haven't ever used. Is that particularly helpful to add, in my own photos when I upload them, or to add to other photos I am categorizing? Anyhow, thanks for the help. --Doncram (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- For about 6 years I've been consistent about adding it to my own uploads. I'm less systematic about adding it to other files when I work on them. Usually I add it when I have occasion to make edits on my own older photos, and I often add it on older (especially really old, e.g. 1910s) photos with a solid known date. I think the resulting categorization can potentially be pretty useful, especially in terms of sometimes making it easier to spot that a set of photos were taken by the same photographer as part of the same photo session. For example, a few times this has really helped on ID'ing photos where it turned out that a photographer was photographing a particular parade, or walking down a street photographing all of the buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
