User talk:Jane023/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
GPL
Please set accurate license information on the images. GPL is a software license. You'd set it to PD-old images (images in public domain for being too old). Platonides 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.Platonides 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:HopeHouse.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HopeHouse.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
GIF
GIFs are not good for photos in most cases... AnonMoos 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Berkenrode-map.GIF has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
--Teun Spaans 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Orgullomoore 15:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --
Image deletion warning | Image:Pilgrim Passport2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
--Commment 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Pilgrim Passport1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
--Commment 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Pilgrim Compostela.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
--Commment 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright | Image:Het-geheim-van-holland.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
|
-Mcke (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright | Image:Kaart-haarlem.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
|
-Mcke (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
These maps are clearly copyrighted. Sorry, Yann (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You can ask for an Undeletion requests. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Jane023 (talk · contribs) restored the image which was original deleted as copyvio, without waiting for a response. I was going to restore the image and send to DR, which I have just done anyway. Discussion is here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kaart-haarlem.JPG. -- I am curious as to why you did not simply wait for a response from myself or another administrator? Cirt (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Clicking on a purge tab would not undelete an entry. If we are talking about this particular image then from your edit summary you clearly chose to re-upload the image. Am I incorrect? And if not, why did you do so without first waiting for feedback from an administrator? Cirt (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kaart-haarlem.JPG - This image should be visible to you now. You uploaded it the first time on 14:13, 3 January 2008 with no edit summary, just the description of the image itself. It was tagged as copyvio by Mcke (talk · contribs) and I deleted it as copyvio. You uploaded it a second time at 09:56, 31 August 2008 with the comment: I don't think this file should be deleted, neither do I feel that I have infringed on a copyright violation, because the picture I took is in the public space, attached to the side of a shower building for watersporters. Pedestrian traffic passes the building. I can upload a larger image which shows the building in its entirety, but the map itself I found interesting as it shows some major touristic attractions. In principle all works communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities (government) are not copyright protected in the Netherlands, unless the copyright has been reserved explicitly, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public. I am also surprised that the file has been deleted without nomination. - Jane023 - So, in summary, you uploaded it once, it got deleted as copyvio, you knew it was deleted as copyvio, you asked me on my talk page about it, did not wait to hear for a response, and went ahead and uploaded a suspected copyvio image a second time. Please in the future wait to hear back for a response from an administrator instead of re-uploading an image that was deleted with the rationale of copyvio. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- You have still not acknowledged that you first uploaded the image on 3 January 2008, and then again a second time on 31 August 2008 after it was deleted. Is my statement above about the chronology of your uploads of that image incorrect? Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Cirt, I can acknowlege that I and only I uploaded the image, and I and only I wrote the comment you have listed above. The scenario was slightly different, in that I think you were actually the third person I contacted. I don't know if you noticed, the problem is with two pictures, not just Image:Kaart-haarlem.JPG, but also Image:Het-geheim-van-holland.JPG. I just uploaded a larger image Image:Douche-gravenstenebrug-haarlem.JPG that shows both in their original context. Hopefully this will shed some light on the matter. Jane023 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- So yes, you acknowledge that you did upload the image after you saw it was deleted as suspected copyio instead of waiting to hear back from an administrator? Cirt (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Cirt, No, as I stated before, I only uploaded the image once last year. You seem to feel I uploaded a second version, but I did't. I have only tried my best to follow the advice of all the links to make an undeletion request, which is quite confusing for me. I certainly hope you can help me out here. If not and the image has been damaged, then I can re-upload the image. Jane023 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- So yes, you acknowledge that you did upload the image after you saw it was deleted as suspected copyio instead of waiting to hear back from an administrator? Cirt (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Cirt, I can acknowlege that I and only I uploaded the image, and I and only I wrote the comment you have listed above. The scenario was slightly different, in that I think you were actually the third person I contacted. I don't know if you noticed, the problem is with two pictures, not just Image:Kaart-haarlem.JPG, but also Image:Het-geheim-van-holland.JPG. I just uploaded a larger image Image:Douche-gravenstenebrug-haarlem.JPG that shows both in their original context. Hopefully this will shed some light on the matter. Jane023 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears I made a mistake in my assessment - you recreated the page where the image was located by adding your comment, but did not re-upload the image itself. I am going to take a break from this issue and defer to whatever is the outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kaart-haarlem.JPG. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Kaart-haarlem.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. |
Cirt (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
File:Frans-hals-explanation-of-golden-age-paintings2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
--Mcke (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Frans-hals-explanation-of-golden-age-paintings.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
--Mcke (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Wiki Takes Haarlem
Hoi Jane023, volgens mij kom jij uit Haarlem en misschien vind je het wel leuk om mee te doen met http://wikilovesmonuments.nl/wiki-takes-haarlem/ aanstaande zaterdag. Inschrijven kan op nl:Wikipedia:Ontmoeten#Wiki takes Haarlem (puur om een idee te krijgen met hoeveel we zijn). Multichill (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Multichill, Bedankt voor de uitnodiging! Misschien kom ik wel, want ik had het al gezien. Echter, ik geloof dat ik mijn tijd beter kan besteden met het ordenen van mijn photos. Ik heb de afgelopen dagen al heel wat monumentjes toegevoegd waarvan ik niet eens wist dat het monumentjes waren! Ik vind het trouwens wel een leuke actie, want al uploadend, kom ik een hoop info tegen dankzij de RM site.Jane023 (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Als je het {{Rijksmonument}} id eenmaal gevonden hebt en hebt toegevoegd dan gaat er een wereld van mogelijkheden open ;-)
- Er zullen routes met lijsten zijn zodat je op een hoog tempo foto's kan nemen en later ook nog weet welke foto bij wel id hoort. Mijn bot zoekt er dan weer alle info bij. Multichill (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interessant! Ik vroeg me af hoe de coordinates bijkwamen! Ik heb me opgegeven.Jane023 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Als het {{Rijksmonument}} erop zit met een juist id dan:
- Voegt de bot de meest specifieke Rijksmonumenten in... categorie toe
- Voegt de bot de meest specifieke gebouw categorie toe (churches in Haarlem, houses in Haarlem)
- Voegt de bot {{Object location}} toe
- Scheelt dus een hoop handwerk! Leuk dat je erbij bent. Tot zaterdag, Multichill (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kan het zijn dat de overlay in Google maps niet helemaal goed is? Ik zie een paar nummers die plotseling naar de Molen Adriaan wijzen (bv "hortus medicus", RM 19667 - dit moet zijn de tuintje bij de stedelijk gym achter het stadhuis - photo is File:Statue of Laurens Jansz. Coster, designed by Romeyn de Hooghe.jpg). Ik zag eerder hetzelfde bij een ander monumentvan Coster - ipv in het bos zegt Google maps dat het staat midden op de Dreef.Jane023 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Als het {{Rijksmonument}} erop zit met een juist id dan:
- Interessant! Ik vroeg me af hoe de coordinates bijkwamen! Ik heb me opgegeven.Jane023 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)