Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, MauraWen!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Contents

File:MHFrye Adventure of Nils Illustration 1.jpgEdit

 
File:MHFrye Adventure of Nils Illustration 1.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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Illustrations and other thingsEdit

I tried uploading the first illustration to en.wikipedia. I kept getting errors.

What errors did you get?

Some other things: File:Becca Peixotto and Marina Elliott (14050842062).jpg is not CC0. CC0 is a license. I, for example, usually release photos I took with CC0. The photo from AMISOM has a Public Domain Mark. It just says the work is in the public domain, but doesn't explain why. In this case, it's because {{PD-Somalia}}. My mistake, it is CC0.

I see you also uploaded some stained glass. Stained glass is also complicated, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/05#Modern stained glass for example. The photos you uploaded are not free ("all rights reserved" on Flickr) but according to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Usage examples they can be considered "slavish copies". In that case the original creator should be credited though.

Where does 1937 come from on File:Isaiah stained glass window, All Saints Church, Petersbourough, NH by Margaret Redmond.jpg? The stained glass wasn't installed before 1923? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I had a long response and then ran into an edit conflict and lost my work. I am starting again. First, the error I got earlier today stated that the image already existed on wikicommons. So I changed the file name and it still did not work. I kept changing the file name and I could not get the image to load in my article.

I am more confused now about all images. I uploaded the Margaret Redmond image from the same book I got the Mary Frye Image. I decided it was ok to use these images because of the way I interpreted the answers to my question about stained glass art in books below. I can remove both Redmond's image and Frye's image if you think they are not copyright free. MauraWen (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump question Aug 2 (from me)

Hi,

I have seen fellow editors on Wikipedia use photos of paintings from art museums websites in their articles. I was wondering if images from an art book where the art itself would be considered public domain (1908-author died 1918), but the photograph of the art used in the book is probably less than 10 years old, be considered public domain also? Or not? What are the guidelines on this type of image? I cannot find anything in the FAQ or archives that help. thx MauraWen (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You might find Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag relevant. —RP88 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Short version: as long as it doesn't contain other elements (like a frame), there's nothing creative about taking a photo of a flat painting, and it doesn't create any new copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC) i have uploaded many scans of exhibition catalogs, especially for works in private collections. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks! @RP88, Jmabel, Slowking4: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MauraWen (talk • contribs) 10:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC

They are probably okay now, I made some edits like this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: thanks for all your help. I understand now about the author being Richmond and not the Flickr photographer. MauraWen (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. One more detail, when using croptool, preferably always use lossless mode. Reason for this is generation loss that will occur otherwise. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Ugh, this is frustrating! I did not understand what you meant about the stained glass flickr photo being "all rights reserved", but this morning I went on Flickr to check the stained glass images that I asked the photographer to change to public domain for WB Richmond's Wiki Profile. Paula and I had about 10 emails back and forth, where she was great about sharing info about stained glass artists, said she was happy to help. She emailed me when she changed the license and said she would do the same for Karl Parsons when I needed it.
Now I see, the copyright has been changed back. I do not know what that is about, but plan to email her today. I know I will have to take those images down, but this is frustrating. I wanted to have images for the stained glass artists I am going to start articles on, to show the wonderful glass they had created. I guess I am going to have to plan a trip to England to take photos myself. MauraWen (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
"Looks great, we’ll done! I’ve changed the copyright on my WBR photos so help yourself"———email from Paula to me about copyright on WB Redmond images.
No need to take them down. Current policy considers these "slavish copies" without serious creative input (anyone could take the photos, with near-identical results). In the future, use Commons:Flickr2Commons. A bot will confirm the license so it doesn't matter if the license is changed later or the picture deleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, Oh thanks for explaining that (I was not sure if I still could use a slavish copy) and the quick reply. I was getting really discouraged about working with images. Does that mean I can use any of the stained glass images on Flickr that are "all rights reserved" for my articles or do I need to ask for permission from the photographers? MauraWen (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
It depends. If there is some creative choice in the picture like a particular angle, lighting or photoshop you may need permission. File:Angel window - geograph.org.uk - 880160.jpg for example would require permission, which this photo has in the form of a Creative Commons license. There are two copyrights here: the copyright of the creator of the stained glass and the photographer. The photographer released the photo as Creative Commons. The copyright of the creator is probably covered by freedom of panorama but may also have expired. Selwyn Image died more than 70 years ago, so British copyright has expired. US copyright has expired if the windows were installed before 1923. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, Oh thanks, I won't take the images down from William Blake Richmond, I can use some images from Flickr if they meet certain guidelines. Got that. Have a nice day! MauraWen (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that freedom of panorama varies wildly from country to country, so you have to be careful if you have to depend on that when it comes to the copyright of the creator of the stained glass. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Natalia VogeikoffEdit

Can you still reach Natalia Vogeikoff? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I should still have her email address. Do you need me to contact her about Ida Hill, Blegens? MauraWen (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually she could maybe send permission to COM:OTRS for Bert Hodge Hill.jpg if she or the school holds the rights. She already gave permission for Ida Hill and Blegen. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:CW St. Elizabeth Hungary.jpgEdit

Copyright status: File:CW St. Elizabeth Hungary.jpg

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:CW St. Elizabeth Hungary.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 OTRS 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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:CW Playful Angels St. Andrew Farnham, Surrey.jpgEdit

Copyright status: File:CW Playful Angels St. Andrew Farnham, Surrey.jpg

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:CW Playful Angels St. Andrew Farnham, Surrey.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 OTRS 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.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Archiving talk page messagesEdit

I've just reverted your removal of messages from this page, not because it was wrong but because after I've posted this thread you may not be able to easily undo those edits anymore.

See Commons:Talk page guidelines#Archiving:

"Archive rather than delete: When a talk page's content has become extremely large or the discussion of the issue in hand has simply died down and no one has a reasonable chance of adding to it, create a new page and move the content there. (See Help:Starting a new page and w:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for details.)"

Here is an example you can add to the top of this page for automated archiving:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(30d)
| archive={{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| minthreadsleft=6
| minthreadstoarchive=2
}}

If you prefer to simply delete those threads anyway you can re-delete them, but please consider archiving. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Alexis Jazz:. I was in cleanup mode yesterday. I usually save copies of discussions on my Google drive to reference later if needed. In the case of the "Angel" stained glass delete message, I just assumed the message was no longer relevant. I should have figured that content might need to be archived, I have seen administrators archive content on their talk pages, but I have not considered that for myself. So thanks for the information, I will try to add an archive page this week. MauraWen (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I just added the archive code to the top of my page, replacing the user name with my own. Did not seem to work. I will work on this later. MauraWen (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The deletion notices are sometimes relevant later. In some cases I search for them, to find vandalism or images that shouldn't have been deleted. Your Google drive is obviously not indexed by Wikimedia, so archiving is more practical. MiszaBot should not be replaced with your username, it's the name of the (ro)bot that used to do archiving tasks. Nowadays User:ArchiverBot does it, but the configuration is still called MiszaBot. You can adjust the numbers as you wish btw. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:. Got it about the code, thanks for explaining. I didn't think my old discussions were important, and thought I was being efficient by removing them from Wikipedia/Wikicommons. I understand now why they should be archived. MauraWen (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Karl ParsonsEdit

Hi, do you have a scan of the complete picture that the crop of Karl Parsons is taken from? Better to have the original in the main body rather than a poorer quality crop to form a portrait, then direct the reader to Parsons in the caption. Regards81.149.141.199 15:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Replaced cropped image with original group image 11/9/2018. MauraWen (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "MauraWen".