User talk:Edoderoo/Archive2012

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Edoderoo!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Image:Ronald-van-beuge-in-gesprek-met-europese-commissievoorzitter-jacques-delors-in-de-bijeenkomst-van-maastricht-in-1991-1323011618-rotate.jpg was uncategorized on 11 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Franklin-brown-1324426062.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Franklin-brown-1324426062.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Leyo 13:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Was uploaded this morning, but I missed to add the ticket number. Fixed this, and deleted the nomination template. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Edoderoo (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing licence

Hi Edoderoo. I saw that you used the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to some of these photos. Can you tell me if it applies to all the photos and if I can edit them identical. The author left me a message on it. Thank you. --Selligpau (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is actually applicable to all images uploaded by a French user, that used the images of Erik van Leeuwen, but with an unclear attribution and an old version of a license. We found out that the superb images of Erik van Leeuwen are often re-used by magazines, websites, etc, but often without contribution. Therefor I have changed about 100 images so far manually to a new license and a more clear attribution. This was done on request of Erik van Leeuwen. You can see here an example. Ah, wait, I now see, you are the user that initially uploaded the images ;-) Yes, please use a cc-by-sa-v3 license for the images of Erik van Leeuwen. Thanks anyways for uploading all those to commons, it must have been quite a job... Edoderoo (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you. I changed the license for some photos but the work still to be important. --Selligpau (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Edoderoo, many thanks for processing File:BG-Policies-on-MK.png and for your comments. Best, Apcbg (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And more thanks for the other three images! Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks to you for managing to makes those images free! Edoderoo (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your Permissions - Wikimedia Commons reply

Dear Edo Deroo, thanks for replying quickly yesterday to my letter sent to the Wikimedia Commons OTRS Response Team. You included the Ticket#2012050210000875 in your reply. Honestly, I don't know what to do with the ticket, but I was puzzled to see that you didn't like my source for the picture that I uploaded, which I will paste here again:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150448831469129&set=a.268336809128.181214.264726799128&type=3&theater

You wrote under that link the following message:

"If you wish for text from another website to be included in Wikimedia projects, it must be released by the copyright holder under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license, which may be viewed at <https://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>."

But Edo, although that page has public comments made by several people, I'm only interested in the picture. If I wanted to upload those comments, I would see your point, but I'm only interested in using the picture because I want that picture for a Wikipedia page. Again here is the picture page that I created:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Camille_and_Kennerly_Kitt_Promotional_Picture_For_A_Harp_Duet_Video.jpg

As you can see, the image is clearly the same. The twins released the picture under a suitable license, which was a very kind gesture, so it's frustrating to see that the picture page seems to be stuck in the middle of nowhere. I searched for that picture, and the source that I provided is the only link to that picture. Ideally, it would be a cleaner picture without any comments, but at least I did find a link to it, I uploaded it with an image only (no text), so I don't understand this obstacle. I really want to use the picture at Wikipedia. Please, what should I do? Can I use it there? The twins own the picture, so they wouldn't mind. Please tell me what I should do.

I have this other link which is a clean link to the picture, but I don't think you will accept it:

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/307152_10150448831469129_264726799128_11024194_631724624_n.jpg

I found that by "viewing the source" of the Facebook picture. I've tried everything, it seems.

Could you ask other OTRS members if the Facebook picture is okay in their opinion? I have slept two hours over the past 40 hours because of this problem, and I'm getting very desperate. Thanks in advance, and have a nice day... Dontreader (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Would it be better if the twins sent in a letter to the OTRS Response Team? Or not? Thanks... Dontreader (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that could be better, see my answer by mail from OTRS for the details. Edoderoo (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Edo, once again I'm very grateful for your generous letter, which will surely help me very much. Let me just add a few comments to clarify the situation. You wrote that you did not think that the twins had taken the picture because the picture is of themselves. Well, I know you receive lots of letters so I understand your assumption and it's impossible to remember everything (by the way, my ticket number is Ticket#2012050210000875). Here's what the twins wrote in their reply to my original letter: "The photo that you included with your email is owned by us (Camille and Kennerly Kitt). We took the photo with a our camera on our tripod." In my original letter to them, I stated "If I recall correctly from information about you that I have read, you use a camera on a tripod to take pictures of yourselves for video promotion, and for other purposes as well. This is very important to know, since I'm assuming that you are the owners of this image. If you are NOT the owners of this image, please indicate who I should contact, if you would be so generous." So, Edo, since they replied saying that they themselves took the picture, and that they own the picture, I don't see any reason to dispute that claim. They admit on their official Facebook Fan page that some other pictures of themselves belong to professional photographer Anthony Yoon, but this one is theirs. Also, you wrote: "As this is where it is all about, the image is shared to public, but it is nowhere written that the image is released under a certain license." Well, as I said, I know it's easy to forget some things when you deal with so many letters, but in their reply to my original letter, they wrote: "We give permission for this photo (or a cropped version) to be used for the Wikipedia page about us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_and_Kennerly_Kitt with the license permission: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License". However, I can try to contact them and tell them to send a better letter to your department, as you kindly suggested. Once again, thank you very much, Edo, for your kind help, and I hope that this message has clarified a couple of issues. Dontreader (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure did I answer your last question. I could not find a clear ccbysa-license on the image in facebook, but when the twin-sisters send a mail to permissions-commonswikimedia.org with a declaration like this one and a link to the image on commons, the image will be free enough to prevent deletion. Let me know if you need more information. Edoderoo (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Now I understand better the problem with the Facebook image. I found a few moments ago the same image on their Twitter account while performing a Google search, but I suppose it's not any better; here it is, just in case:

http://twitter.com/#!/CamilleKennerly/status/112533542562566144/photo/1/large

Please let me know if that source is better. I have contacted the twins with the exact instructions that you gave me, so I hope they will send a letter to your department very soon. Thanks again for your time and generosity! Dontreader (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just received, and processed, permission from the Harp-Twins! Edoderoo (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really appreciate your time, patience, and your fast and hard work! I must thank the Harp Twins, too, because they have been very generous and helpful. Now I can use the image on Wikipedia!!! Thanks again VERY much for your enormous help, and have a nice weekend! Dontreader (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

UserHgfhf7657575

UserHgfhf7657575 Hello Edoderoo why do I delete a photo I have everything picture priyanka chopra diva this pics is not copy

Can you send a mail to permissions-ru@wikimedia.org (in case you want to write in Russian) or permission-commons@wikimedia.org (in English) to explain the copyright situation of the image. Edoderoo (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There's an existing Creative Commons statement on the FilmiTadka site that supposedly covers the situation here. Tabercil (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I will ask to restore the image, and file that permission. Edoderoo (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

UserHgfhf7657575 Hello Edoderoo Well I added the same license on the site my photo priyaka Chopra wild http://www.filmitadka.in/static/filmitadka-creative-commons-attribution-share-alike-license.html This license does it add to the picture but you deleted it to me http://www.filmitadka.in/static/filmitadka-creative-commons-attribution-share-alike-license.html

I didn't see that, indeed. And the moderator who deleted it, didn't see that either. Probably, because the license was not next to the image on that site, and only images that are in the galleries, are ccbysa licensed. I spend half an hour finding back that image in those galleries, so I'm still not sure will it be in or not. If it is in, it is obviously free, if we can not point it in the galleries, the license is not clear. Besides that, i found the same image on 10 other websites, without attribution, and often with a watermark of glamsite.com. The issue on wikipedia/wikimedia now is: if the license of an image is not clear, it should be deleted. If you know in which of the galleries the image is, we should keep it after all. The good news is, that we have plenty of images for this actress. Edoderoo (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

File:David-crocaerts-1311875954.jpg

File:David-crocaerts-1311875954.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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

84.196.194.25 15:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I know ;-) And I support the deletion request. Edoderoo (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

License

This is Bengt Nyman speaking: Why Edoderoo ?? Other People have been uploading my images from my Flickr site (>250) to Wikimedia Commons for years. Why should my own uploading require a different license ?? Please explain yourself. ALSO: Please do not send me messages from an email address that do not accept answers !! Bengt Nyman

The license on Flickr was "some rights reserved" plus "Getty images", the last means someone can pay to get a license to use your image. This license is not accepted on Wikipedia, where all images are free, mostly under a ccbysa-license that has hardly no restrictions. If all of your Flickr images have the same Getty Image license, they might need to go through the same process. I'll ask for some other admins for help, and come back to you, as my (and other people on commons) intention is not to delete your images, but to keep them. The thing is, that with the current licenses used, you kind of violate your own copyright. Obviously, this is something you can solve yourself with little effort after all.

About the mail-adres, you probably got a mail from the wikipedia-system, that your talkpage was changed, I did not send you anything by mail. Edoderoo (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime I figured out that the Getty Image thing is pretty meaningless for us, and the images are indeed free as you said. I made a mistake, like I explained on your talkpage as well, and offer my appologies for the inconvenience that is created. The nominations are stopped, and if a sysop will still delete them, then let me know, then I will sort it out for you! Edoderoo (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Bengt Nyman speaking: Please then remove the deletion request template from the files !!

Done!

Please clearify/explain why a photo that is not free on Flickr can be free on Wikipedia Commons.

I am one of thos users that have "been uploading Nymans images from my Flickr to Wikimedia Commons for years". Only photos licensed under CC-BY-2.0 though, all verified. /Esquilo (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Forget that! /Esquilo (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK :-) Edoderoo (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Munisha khatwani.jpg

Bollywood hungama files have a special license

This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2008030310010794. If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the VRT noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2008030310010794 Find other files from the same ticket:

Bollywood Hungama (formerly IndiaFM) grants permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this photograph, provided it is: attributed to Bollywood Hungama; from BollywoodHungama.com (with a link to the source page); of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India; taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer; This permission does not extend to: screenshots, wallpapers, vacation pictures, promotional posters; photographs copyrighted by others; and similar exceptions.

This image, which was originally posted to Bollywood Hungama, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. See Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama for further instructions.

. They don't need separate permissions.

Ah, I now see that the OTRS-part was lower at the screen ... sorry, I should have seen that! Edoderoo (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Timothy-Herman-1340169915.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Timothy-Herman-1340169915.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Leyo 22:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Once in 100 uploaded images I forget to copy the OTRS ticket#. Thanks for letting me know, I have added the ticket and removed the no-permission tag. Edoderoo (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for letting you know in this way, but it's just the quickest. :-) I hope you don't mind. --Leyo 08:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's OK. It's the quickest way to get the issue solved. Once again, thanks for reminding me! Edoderoo (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated License

---

Hello. Thank you for uploading File:Adriaan-pietersz-raap-2e-van-links-kapitein-1345725970.jpg, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the file correctly? If you are not able to do this, the file will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the Help desk. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 16:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)