Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Thoughtfortheday!

-- 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistakes edit

Copyright status: File:Geograph-4018473-by-JThomas.jpg edit

Copyright status: File:Geograph-4018473-by-JThomas.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Geograph-4018473-by-JThomas.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Consuegra Dam in Spain.jpg edit

Copyright status: File:Consuegra Dam in Spain.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Consuegra Dam in Spain.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Arvo Pärt Centre from the air.jpg edit

Deutsch  English  español  فارسی  français  hrvatski  italiano  日本語  മലയാളം  Nederlands  sicilianu  Tiếng Việt  +/−


 
A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Arvo Pärt Centre from the air.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial ( ), No derivative works ( ), or All Rights Reserved ( ), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as   (CC BY),     (CC BY-SA),   (CC0) and   (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

My bad. (All part of the learning process).--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Category:The Gardens‎ edit

I hope you don't mind: I have made Category:The Gardens‎ into a disambiguation page rather than redirecting it to one individual topic as Category:The Gardens, Northern Territory, which the pictures in the category were of, already existed. Calistemon (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems a good idea. I don't know much about the Northern Territory, so I wasn't sure how to deal with this category. Thoughtfortheday (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any opinion regarding the above discussion? (The design and use of early churches and high crosses is a deflection - I'm not asking you about that). My main concern is that the editor concerned is continually removing "chancel" categories and replacing them with "apse" categories and/or "eastern end" categories, regardless of whether the church is oriented east-west. I don't mind if they use the "apse" categories or "eastern end" categories where appropriate. The problem is that they remove the "chancel" categories, and I have so far failed to persuade them of the existence of the chancel. I have so far only been concerned with changes made on images of North and West Yorkshire 19th-century churches, uploaded by me. Most 19th-century English churches, as you will know, are consistent in design regarding the location and usage of the chancel, so in all the cases so far, the chancel can be easily identified. Any ideas about what to do about this? Cheers. Storye book (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I first noticed this editor's ongoing work on "eastern ends" in connection with chancels in Hertfordshire, where apses were newly highlighted as a category. I found the apse category useful for Hertfordshire where there are a small number of apses providing a contrast with the typical chancels. However, looking at the changes in respect of Yorkshire chancels, I agree that the "eastern end" category isn't really adequate as a replacement for the word chancel. Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

How to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category edit

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Ocatgonal church towers in Spain. ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Thoughtfortheday (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply