User talk:Tetra quark

File source is not properly indicated: File:Edwin Hubble in 1922.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Edwin Hubble in 1922.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Edwin Hubble in 1922.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

~Kevin Payravi (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Expanding on this, Tetra, you need to take the time to understand how licensing and copyright work on the Commons before uploading images. You labelled this file as being your own work, and listed yourself as the author. I have doubts that you yourself took the picture in the late 20s. The original source and authorship of the image is needed, along with the appropriate licensing (as has been mentioned and linked to you in the past). Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Payravi: Fine, but try to put yourself in my place. How the hell am I supposed to find the original source for that? It is just someone who took a picture a hundred years ago. Jesus Christ. Tetra quark (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, that’s not an excuse – the point of sourcing is to give proper credit to the original author (or if it is in the public domain, to verify that the image is old enough to fall in the public domain). Similar to the way Wikipedia uses sources to verify information, source information needs to be stated to verify that the image is properly licensed for the Commons. Your stated source just has to be where you took the image from (news article, website, etc.) – but the source should also adequately show the image’s licensing (or date, to verify that it’s in the public domain if published before 1923). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Payravi: Well, thanks for the reply. Sonner or later I'll get the gist of that copyright stuff, which still seems kind of confusing Tetra quark (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

File:All Messier objects.jpg

File:All Messier objects.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

~Kevin Payravi (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:How the James Webb Space Telescope will deploy post-launch..jpg

File:How the James Webb Space Telescope will deploy post-launch..jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

— Huntster (t @ c) 05:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster: the problem in deleting files is that I can't check where I got it from and what source I used. As far as I remember it was from NASA's flickr. What’s the problem? Is it because it is a montage? I believe it has been licensed either way Tetra quark (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

TQ: the source was https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasawebbtelescope/6888421535/. It doesn't matter that it was uploaded by NASA to Flickr, they explicitly credit the image to Northrop Grumman in the description. This is the same as if NASA uploaded an image created by Roscosmos…it wasn't created by NASA, so it is not freely licensed. You've got to make absolutely 100% certain of an image’s origin before you upload to Commons. In that same train of thought, I would suggest not transferring images from the Pixabay website, as they do not disclose where they got the image from. It appears they are simply an image aggregator. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Huntster: It’s ok, I didn't care much about that image, to be honest. But tell me a thing: What about the fact that NASA (JWST page) uploaded the image under the CC license? Should that be disregarded? Thanks. By the way, I'm looking forward to learn more, not to be insistent. Tetra quark (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That NASA uploaded the image under that CC license means that whomever controls that account either does not understand copyright or does not care, or possibly that they have no idea that they can set the license on Flickr to All Rights Reserved for images not belonging to NASA. Usually I ascribe these situations to simple laziness on their part. That’s one of the reasons that images on the NSSDC are pretty much banned from Commons; images there are never attributed to their respective agencies or companies, leading many people to believe they are all public domain. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, the owner of the compilation is going to review his cc tag and I'll re-upload it.

Commons (and all of WMF) never actually deletes anything, so ordinarily a reupload wastes resources and is a violation of policy. All that is necessary is for an Admin to restore it.

In this case, though, your instincts are correct, because he will have to change the license embedded in the image. Please ask him to relicense both versions, with and without the numbers, so we can have them both. Thanks for your efforts in this case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I think I'd be too much if I asked him to relicense the image without the numbers as well. I don't want to seem annoying. Anyways, he’s uploaded the image with the new license embedded here. I guess you could add this image now, as I wait him to update his blog which will be used as the source Tetra quark (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I've uploaded both! Tetra quark (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

hey

@Denniss: @Tiptoety: wanna know why i did that? Tetra quark (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to attempt to provide an explanation for your vandalism, but it is unlikely to result in your account being unblocked. Tiptoety ^talk 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Tetra, I would certainly like to know what incurred this outburst. I considered you a good editor, so your actions here and on en.wiki are greatly disturbing. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As well as telling us whatever your grievance was, please also give your justification for the proportionality and object of your response. You turned my image of a stained glass window of Jesus into pornography which you decided should be shown on around 300 pages in 30 languages. Do you think this was somehow equal to whatever was done to you? Do you think it was a fair response for the ~10 viewers per minute to be inflicted with this (for 14 minutes)? Are they the ones who should suffer your revenge? How will you make it up to them? You need to grow up, dude, and fast. PS, thanks Tiptoety and Denniss for your fast mitigation of this situation. --99of9 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)