:I have created [[:Category:Izumo Taisha]] with the same content as [[:Category:Izumo Taisya]] and corrected all interwiki links on the other projects. However, as I am busy the next days, you need to change the category name for all media currently in the old category.
:I have created [[:Category:Izumo Taisha]] with the same content as [[:Category:Izumo Taisya]] and corrected all interwiki links on the other projects. However, as I am busy the next days, you need to change the category name for all media currently in the old category.
:What about the sub-cats [[:Category:Haiden, Izumo Taisya]], [[:Category:Izumo Taisya models]], [[:Category:Izumo-Taisha-Kyoto-bun'in]], [[:Category:Main hall, Izumo Taisya]] and [[:Category:Izumo-Taisya-Osaka-bunshi]]? Can they remain or should they be renamed following the same pattern Taisya -> Taisha ? --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
:What about the sub-cats [[:Category:Haiden, Izumo Taisya]], [[:Category:Izumo Taisya models]], [[:Category:Izumo-Taisha-Kyoto-bun'in]], [[:Category:Main hall, Izumo Taisya]] and [[:Category:Izumo-Taisya-Osaka-bunshi]]? Can they remain or should they be renamed following the same pattern Taisya -> Taisha ? --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Many Thanks for the help. Will fix the remaining categories this afternoon after work. [[User:Urashimataro|Urashimataro]] ([[User talk:Urashimataro|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
== Help ==
== Help ==
Revision as of 22:08, 27 September 2012
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
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:
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.
I hereby award Administrator Túrelio this special barnstar for the extra huge contributions as Administrator on Commons. Well done and keep going! Mit freundlichen Grüßen -- George Chernilevskytalk20:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Salvatore of Nina, your licensing of File:Woman figure.jpg does not make sense. If it is really your own work, then you do not need to add PD-Art. However, if it is not your own work, then you cannot add PD-Art, because it seems to be a 3-dimensional piece and PD-Art is only for 2-dimensional works. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vi que hace tiempo eleminastes la foto de la ficha de pagina Pabellon Girona Fontajau por violacion del copyright segun tu en la pag http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13024252, como veras ya dije que soy el autor de la foto como sale en panoramio subida por jmsolerb , osea YO, asi que vuelve a admitirla, GRACIAS
?
Good day Mr. or Ms. Taisuoms,
My name is Scotty, and within my wiki there is a Listed option now. My friends from here and I agreed that I could stay in good perspective of our project scope as well as not "inadvertently flaunt" any of the contributions to our Organization (I'm permitted to test within the Sandbox). I have been asked from brothers and their families to make sure their works do not become as profane as say "urbandictionary" where references are much to do with flamebait or hate speech coding. May I please have the list removed so I may stay; I gave my Word the contributions I moderate are to remain a part of the project.
Your Best Friend,
Riseandsine
Hi Scotty, I have no idea what you arte talking about. What "list" do you refer to? Did I delete any of your uploads and you disagree? --Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting some photos of my contributions
Dear Túrelio, you has put the deleting template of 7 photos of my own work. How I can to demostrate the authority of my works for avoid the deleting? I can´t understand how some image files hosted in wikimedia hasn´t problems in the past and now are questions of the image authority. for example, File:FranciscoBejarano.jpg and File:Estatualuiscoloma.jpg are photos taken with my own camera. thank you, Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cvluis,
to start with your last question. As we have very many uploads and only few people in the patrolling of new uploads, it is very common that when a new upload catches the attention of a new-uploads-patroler and he/she find a problem with it, he/she also checks all other uploads of the respective user. This comes simply out of our experience that when there is 1 problematic upload, there are often more.
I don't remember which of your files caught my attention, probably it was File:Carmenuñezfotos.jpg. When I viewed this image and saw your date-entry "2012", it was clearly not correct. When I found that at least one of the persons in this montage had died in 1923, it was clear to me that you can't be the photographer and that it can't be "own work" as you had claimed. Otherwise you would be at least 100 years of age. So, who is the photographer? Where did you find this photo? As you very often refer to the archives of some "José Luis Jiménez", who is this "Jose Luis Jiménez"? When did he die? Is he your father?
Hi Túrelio, i understand. I had confusions writing the details of the photos, for avoid the deleting, what i can do? I need send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS or simply change the information in the image details. Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I going to answer all questions from all files uploaded for Wikimedia:
File:Estatualuiscoloma.jpg Is a sculpture from Ramón Chaveli Carreres in 1919, and the photograph was taken by Jose Luis Jimenez, and he share the photo with the self|cc-by-sa-3.0 license.
File:FranciscoBejarano.jpg Is a photo taken by Jose Luis Jimenez, and he share the photo with the self|cc-by-sa-3.0 license.
File:Pemartinsanjuan.jpg as the last file, is a photo from a familiar archive of 1934, the photo was given to Jose luis Jimenez, and the life of the author plus 70 years.
And File:Isasi Ivison.jpg Is a photo taken by Jose Luis Jimenez, and he share the photo with the self|cc-by-sa-3.0 license.
O.k., thanks. I will work through all the images over the next day. The statue in Estatualuiscoloma.jpg is still protected (sculptor died only in 1947), but it should be covered by FoP of Spain. However, my most important question is still unanswered and that is about "Jose Luis Jiménez" (see above). If you don't want to answer that publicly, you may either send me an email or disclose it to [email protected] where it is also treated confidentially. --Túrelio (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks. Jose Luis Jiménez is a other colaborator of Wikipedia, and i help her to upload some files to wikimedia and to compose some biographies, because he don't know to write with Wikipedia editor, and all images that he gives me to upload are under the self|cc-by-sa-3.0 license. I hope to ask your question of the identity of Jose Luis Jiménez (Her User account is Jljimenez). Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio again, I like to know if my uploads going to remain in wikimedia, i only watch the missing of evidence of permission tag, and that says my files can be deleted the next monday. Thanks, regards. --Cvluis (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pemartinsanjuan.jpg: said to be shot in 1937 by unknown photographer. Then, how do you know it was shot in 1937? Further questions as 1 line above.
File:Isasi Ivison.jpg: said to be shot in 2012, which is surely wrong. So, when was it shot and by whom?
Hi, I confused to put the name of the source of the photo instead the author of the photo. If Jose Luis Jimenez obtain the photo from the descendants of the photo character, how i can put the information fields? Only File:FranciscoBejarano.jpg was shoted directly by Jose Luis Jiménez, and I send the confirmation permission email to [email protected]. Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will go offline now and cannot look into it today. Anyway, in all cases, in which Jose Luis Jimenez was not the true photographer, you need to remove his name from the Author entry. In those images, which were from his archive, you should put "Archive Jose Luis Jimenez" into the Source entry, but not in the Author entry. --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i can't understand this. I was from the last 28 of August claim the true information of my suspect copyright infraction images files, and them all photos be removed. How i can to improve Wikipedia and Wikipedia if i must to send to wikimedia a sworn statement of i'm not deceive to wikimedia?. And there a lot of users, and i can to report, that are uploading some images without any control of the copyright. I like to know if the Wikimedia administrators are creating a hunt for me and others users. Excuse my reproachfully and sarcastic tone, but i can't to understand this situation. Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's pretty cold comfort, it doesn't matter much that the files have been deleted, as un-deletion is just 2 clicks for any admin. Objectively, there were quite some inconsistencies with your uploads, though I am confident that it may be possible to solve them for most of the files. As per our policy we have to delete files if there is reasonable suspicion that they are not free. At the moment we have the problem that we are overwhelmed with uploads due to the recently started "Wikiloves monuments" action in addition to the currently high rate of clear copyvios which we need to detect shortly after upload. The few volunteer sysops at Commons have simply far too much workload in these days. So, don't despair. You can either wait til I have more time or try to involve another admin, eventually a es-native speaker. --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Loves Monuments entries
Hi, I have found some entries to Wiki Loves Monuments deleted on the basis of the following:
I believe it can be expected that the watermarks of the uploader may actually be the uploader's real name and it would be different from an account name the uploader had registered. The arbitrary deletion without careful consideration is very discouraging and would defeat the purpose of enticing active participation in Wiki Loves Monuments based on the reasons given. I may be wrong but I am hoping for a quick response regarding the matter. -- Wiki Loves Monuments Philippine project manager (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally reject your accusation "arbitrary deletion without careful consideration". All 3 files were tagged for speedy deletion by one of my most senior admin colleagues and then performed by me, as I found the given rationale plausible.
In general: if we find an upload highly suspicious of being a copyvio, it needs speedy deletion, as from that moment on we are aware that it might be illegal and violate the right of another person or institution. This is also coded in our policy: Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Of course, sometimes we err in our initial assessment, not the least as we have limited resources. But that is not a real problem, because a file can easily be undeleted.
Back to the problem at hand: an account calling himself "Greedyplus" surely doesn't sound very trustworthy from the beginning.
Now, his upload File:Sunset_by_the_Yatch.jpg not only has an artist's credit "Jonathan A. San Juan" in its EXIF and IPTC data, but also has a big watermark "Copyright" through the whole image, rendering it rather useless, in addition to being discouraged on Commons (Commons:Watermarks).
Doing some more time-consuming research, I found the blog http://maynardandrew.blogspot.de/, whose owner calls himself "Maynard Andrew Rabanal", which suggests that at least 5 of the 6 images may come from this photographer. Whether Greedyplus (talk·contribs) is identical to Mr. Maynard Andrew Rabanal still needs verification. Therefore I suggest that you contact either User:Greedyplus or the above mentioned blog-owner Maynard Andrew Rabanal and ask him to send either a permission for the uploads or a confirmation of the identity of user/blog owner, to be sent from an email address clearly associated with the blog or Maynard Andrew Rabanal, to [email protected] (emails to this account are not published or publicly disclosed). If you agree to this I can temporarily un-delete 2 of the deleted files, except File:Sunset by the Yatch.jpg, which still needs 1) an explaination and 2) removal of the watermark.
In addition, I suggest that you from "Wiki Loves Monuments Philippine" notify/educate your contributors, not to put watermarks on their uploads, as this makes the images less usable and as they will be removed anyway, if possible. They may put the name or wording for their attribution/credit into the EXIF data. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I have sent notice to the uploader regarding the matter regarding watermarks. As per several WLM discussions when we were still starting the project back in February, they advised us not to include in our criteria the need for photos not to bear watermarks and would rather leave it up to the jury to decide if they shall consider it. Our website gives some tips on what to submit, but cannot impose it as a requirement, as per advise of the WLM International Committee. I would appreciate notices, if similar incidents arise from entries coming from the Philippines before further action can be taken so as not to cause any confusion. Namayan (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., I have undelete 2 images.
If you want to get notified in case of similar problems, you should name a project or talk page, which is patrolled (more or less) round the clock. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what the file is deleted David Michael Bentle 16 September 2012 Rostov on Don stadium Olimp 2.jpg, before you delete something, we must analyze the situation and make smart decisions. I am the administrator of the Russian section and perfectly know the rules of the project's image obtained consent to the deployment of the file in the repository Commons. Please return the file and return to do it to the page of Wikipedia, he was removed from the bot. I consider your actions as harmful and rash does not correspond to the status of the administrator.
The page you brought up as evidence in Russian agreement described the author's photo on the Announcement is it to Commons under a free license. JukoFF (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice that you know the rules and the situation on Commons sooo well, that you feel entitled to throw around accusations. Lets summarize the known facts:
So, I still fail to see where the free license, that you mentioned, is found. Direct me to it, then I can consider undeleting the image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We say quietly. on page http://fc-rostov.livejournal.com/159728.html , Indicated that the original of these photos is available at http://starostin-a.livejournal.com/75629.html on this page in the dialogue between the author of photos and me (and nicknames starostin_a vesel_kartinki) is a dialogue in which the author agrees to the placement of photos under a free license. The source of N's personal website for compliance, in the description of the photos on Commons, you can specify both the source. 188.123.237.71 13:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC) JukoFF (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., I have temporarily undeleted the file, just out of good-will, as I can't really follow your conversation on livejournal. I have removed the copyvio-tag but added a no-permission-tag (which is less speedy). Now you should ask a ru-native-speaking Commons' admin to check whether the dialogue contains a valid permission and eventually to remove the no-perm-tag. Probably the dialogue needs to be archived in OTRS, as the livejournal entry can go away at any time. --Túrelio (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At my request, party resend email with your permission, I think your mistake is obvious, please return the photograph in all language versions, from which it was removed by bots with your submission. JukoFF (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have problems to acknowledge facts. My above listed evidence was clearly suggestive of a copyvio and in such a situation deletion is mandatory (Commons:PRP), otherwise we would deliberately risk a copyright infringement. Even your conversation with Ahonc[2] shows that I was not the only one who failed to see a permission on the page you provided. While I am glad that now, 8 days after upload, a valid permission has been arrived at OTRS, that doesn't change the fact that it was missing on September 19.
Next time when you upload similar material, before a permission has been accepted by OTRS, you should put the {{OTRS pending}} template on the image page, as this gives you more time and usually prevents a copyvio-tagging. --Túrelio (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I do not doubt that. The problem is that the content of the poster itself is copyrighted and by publishing your photo of that poster you are violating the copyright of the creator of the poster. The freedom-of-panorama exemption of Argentinian copyright law covers only buildings, nothing else. --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Headshot removal
It has recently been brought to the attention of Peter DeLuise that you have removed his personal headshot (in which he owns the copyright for) from his Wiki page. It is kindly requested that this headshot is put back, and not changed again in the future.
Hi PeterDeLuise, the way you are writing suggests that you, i.e. the account PeterDeLuise (talk·contribs), are not the real Mr. Peter DeLuise. Is that correct?
Re: "Wiki page" - I am not sure to what you are referring with that term. I have neither deleted the image (likely you are refering to File:Peter DeLuise Headshot.jpg) nor removed it from anywhere. However, I had tagged it for deletion for suspected copyvio. The uploader, you, had declared it to be from September 24, 2012, while it was found to be published already in 2008[3]. Also, it has been found elsewhere in higher resolution[4]. In addition, you claimed "PeterDeLuise" being the author (=photographer), which is somewhat unlikely with such a shot. Taken all this together, the file is highly suspicious of being the work of somebody else, i.e. a copyvio. In such a situation, speedy deletion is appropriate — the more as undeletion is rather easy, if evidence of true authorship/rights are provided.
Now the solution: you should ask the true rights holder for this image to send a written confirmation 1) of his ownership of the copyright and 2) of the release of the uploaded version under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license to [email protected] (OTRS). (emails to this address are treated confidentially) An OTRS volunteer will then check the permission, issue a so-called OTRS ticket and put a label on the image page, which marks it as having a valid permission. --Túrelio (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sources etc
I need some clarification about PD. Does PD mean that the creator has to have been dead for over 70 years? Can a pic be in the PD if the creator has not been dead for 70 years, if so in what circumstances? (I asked one of those other people but frankly didn't understand a word he said.)
to 1) today yes, for most countries, surely in France. {{PD-France}} (click on it) even suggests the possibility of a longer protection.
to 2) yes, if the creator put it voluntarily (per declaration) in the PD, as today several users do with their contributions to Commons, but which is very unlikely for a photographer of early 20th century. There may be other reasons, such as #2 in {{PD-France}}. However, claiming a work/photo to be anonymous requires a thorough research, as you and any re-user may be hold liable if the work actually isn't anonymous and still protected. Therefore, :de-wikipedia does not accept any anonymous works, which might still be copyright per age of creation. As the Papin photos concern France, you might ask a fr-native admin/user, such a my colleague User:Yann for example, who might know more specifics about exeptions and exemptions in France copyright laws. --Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ich hatte dir schon heute vormittag auf :de geantwortet bzw. nachgefragt, weil mir unklar ist, was du genau meinst. Schau dort bitte mal nach und gib mir hier Bescheid. --Túrelio (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ich meine die Metadatei des Bildes meine Cameradaten betreffend. Diese Rekonstruktion hat nichts mit einem Foto mehr zu tun --Haubi (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Turelio.
I need your help for something I don't know how to handle. Izumo Taisha's photos (it's an extremely important Shinto shrine in Japan) are classified under Izumo Taisya, while Izumo Taisha is a redirect. Alas, the opposite is correct. Taisya is a Japanese romanization used nowhere else. Nobody but a Japanese would use it, and it's technically obsolete to boot. Wikipedia uses the spelling Taisha.
Can you help?
Urashimataro (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proper command for such an operation is {{moveto|<new category name>}} .
I have created Category:Izumo Taisha with the same content as Category:Izumo Taisya and corrected all interwiki links on the other projects. However, as I am busy the next days, you need to change the category name for all media currently in the old category.
Hi Tú, another adm, I believe, eliminated this, but he din't see the OTRS permisson template, I guess. A lot of sysop do that, I don't know why. Can you upload the pic again? I received the authorization yesterday and sent to OTRS in the same day. Thanks. +PrinceWilly15:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Willy Weazley, well, actually it wasn't a OTRS-permission, only a "OTRS pending", which may take some days to become an accepted permission. Anyway, I agree that such an early deletion was unnecessary. I'll contact my colleague. --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://amansaja.com/index.php?q=Mfv0Kfa6bO9DL21TL25NbZJXM2BTnqvXou5RKAKRJ2BVMu9rK2rOp3vFLgU6wqFRLAaDvABUntXiopnXnh9zMqzYoqrUp0dBLZvUnr8PzB8Qyr8OajiOp1dRK3vRJB9RLB9iL25HK3vFngB1Lr9xLgBTKh8ObAXQnQ%3D%3D##File:David_Michael_Bentle_16_09_2012_Rostov_on_Don_stadium_Olimp_2.jpg){kind=link}
