This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.
This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies.
- 1 Welcome
- 2 "Attached to an e-mail to me from The Salvation Army"
- 3 Notifications
- 4 Church of England diocesan arms
- 5 Please use
- 6 Aircraft categories
- 7 Eadweard Muybridge-related bird categories
- 8 Category sorting
- 9 Bots
- 10 Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
- 11 Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
- 12 A few notes
- 13 Categorization
- 14 Category:Births_out_of_wedlock
- 15 Category:Sitting_by_legs
- 16 Auto rows
- 17 Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_women_wearing_lingerie
- 18 Category:Topless_sunbathing_women
- 19 Category:Women_with_black_background
- 20 Category:People_by_background
- 21 Category:Threesome_with_one_woman_and_two_men_in_art
- 22 Category:Nipples_through_transparent_clothing
- 23 Category:Nude_men_kneeling_with_legs_apart
- 24 File:West Midlands Police.png
- 25 Category:Imitated_fellatio
- 26 Category:Topless_women_in_the_Americas
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).
You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
-- 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
"Attached to an e-mail to me from The Salvation Army"Edit
Sorry for the many notifications. To summarize in one notification:
- Im astonished that you upload cc-by-NC images because im sure you know that this projects are free content projects and that "free" includes the freedom to use the content for commercial purposes, anywhere, anytime and that NC means Non-Commercial.
- Commons licensing and copyright tags are about copyrights. Not about personality rights or legal regulations regarding COM:PEOPLE even if they are written in the copyright law (i.e. authorization requirements). PD-because is not the correct place to argue why a photographer cant freely publish his work even if the photo is the photographers work and he has intelectual property in the photos creation. Thats a separate issue, mentioned in Template:Romania personality rights. PD-because is the place to argue why the photographers intelectual property expired.
- Thank you for summarizing the notifications above. I should have realized that CC-BY-NC wasn't an acceptable license for Commons images; I will be sure to remember that in the future. I've gone through the Romanian photographs and added the relevant licensing tags. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. Neelix (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- The copyright tag only applies to photos taken between 1956 and 1996. And it requires that Romania is the country of origin. According to the Berne Convention the country of origin is the country of first publication, not the country of creation nor the homecountry of the depicted person. So evidence is required for the date of creation and at least for publication in Romania. I'd say "at least" because providing evidence that the romanian publication indeed is the first publication is extremly difficult while providing evidence of publication in Romania is simple by citing a relevant source, i.e. a Romanian newspaper or book of that time that used this photo. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- The copyright tag also covers images created before 1956: "The length of copyright over works that have been created before the enforcement of this law and whose protection terms had not expired according to the previous legislation are prolonged to the protection term provided by this law." As far as I understand, if the photograph was created in Romania before 1956, it is in the public domain, regardless of the time and location of first publication. Is your understanding different than mine? Neelix (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Church of England diocesan armsEdit
Thanks for the message. I had a spate of doing SVG versions of diocesan arms and I ought to go back to them at some point. The more geometrical ones are easier, as you can imagine, but the ones requiring artistry I left. (I also got distracted trying to do a more fiddly version of the heraldic mitre used on notepaper by the Diocese of St Albans and never quite finished. At some point I realized that I have a day job to do.)
I tried e-mailing a couple of dioceses, to no avail. There are convenient sources though:
- Holy Trinity, Amblecote, but it is not entirely accurate (the one it has for "Manchester" relates to a Roman diocese of the same name in America).
- Diocesan websites sometimes help.
- The Heraldry of the World website is good too.
- A book, The Blazon of Episcopacy is good up to its time though little help on the actual graphics.
- Thank you for introducing me to Cat-a-lot. I have been successful in moving multiple images to the same category simultaneously, but you suggest that I can use Cat-a-lot to add multiple categories to a single image simultaneously. I haven't managed to figure out how to do this and I don't see an explanation of how to do so on the help page. Any explanation you can provide about how to add multiple categories at once to an image would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you have moved several hundred images from Category:Aircraft to various categories under Category:Aircraft by color. I wish to draw your attention to the policy article COM:CAT, which addresses the issue of general categories (such as color), and how they are deprecated, under the term over-categorization. In the case of aircraft, the primary categorising parameters are manufacturer and aircraft model/typename. By removing the images from Category:Aircraft, you have caused them to be hidden from those of us who are attempting to assign the correct manufacturer and type categories. You might also consider that the primary function of categories is to enable users to find what they seek via the category hierarchy, and most people will want to find aircraft images by manufacturer/typename, then operator, then individual aircraft. I can't think of any Wikipedia articles that might need images mainly selected by colour. I have now dealt with about 200 images prefixed "Frola", but many more need to be copied back into Aircraft or Unidentified aircraft, where they can be seen as candidates for identification and appropriate categorisation. MTIA,PeterWD (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I hope that you have studied COM:CAT further than the simplistic summary at the top of the "Over-categorization" section, particularly the sub-sections "Why over-categorization is a problem" and "Improper categorization of categories is a cause of over-categorization". Those go some way towards an overall understanding of categories here. Aircraft-related images are among many subjects (eg taxonomy) that have their own well-established schema, so that the 'usual' additional parameters such as colour are not normally required, or even wanted, in order to satisfy the aim of allowing users to drill down through the hierarchy until they find what they are seeking. I hope that you will become more knowledgeable about aircraft, and I'm sure that you will be welcome to contribute to categorisation of aviation subjects, once you gain further understanding - eg see the discussions at: Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation. PeterWD (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Neelix - could I suggest renaming all these categories to something a bit clearer, so they are less likely to attract non-relevant files? I just removed a file from Category:Storks, swans, and other birds. I'd think this sort of miscategorisation will be repeated frequently, but could be avoided by renaming to Category:Eadweard Muybridge's 'Storks, swans, and other birds' or similar, and likewise for the other related categories in Category:Pictures of birds by Eadweard Muybridge in the USC digital library. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi MPF,
- Yes, feel free to rename them to whatever you think appropriate. There were more than 16,000 images in a single category to begin with, so I didn't bother deviating from the titles of the individual motion studies in the initial subcategorization, but we certainly don't want people placing images in these categories thinking their scopes are broader than they are. Thanks for the message!
- Thanks! Will do, but it might be a little while till I can get round to it. Ultimately I'd guess it would probably best be done for all the Muybridge-related categories, which would be better suited to a bot - if you know someone who can do a bot run on them, that might be better? - MPF (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Neelix. Thanks for helping in cleaning up Category:All media needing categories as of 2012. Where possible, please be more specific in categorizing. For example, with a little research you find that File:Los Vecinos del Callejón en Plaza Mayor de Salamanca 01.jpg can be categorized in Category:Musical groups from Spain instead of just Category:Musical groups, or that for File:Loschmidts-molecules.jpg, categories "Ethylene" and "Acetylene" are much more suitable than Category:White background. In other words, categorizing will need a little research and then put it in the most specific category. Thanks again for your help. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
More tips: Categories such as "White background" or "Transparent background" or similar broad categories should not be used as primary/only category. For instance, it is not the background that matters in File:Lu'an Melon Seed tea.jpg, the main object is tea. Same with File:Lrl.svg. Or for File:LPG at the stadium.jpg, the Category:Photographs of men is too broad and this file would never be found if looked for in the categories where he is really related to (i.e. "People of New York City" and "New York Giants"). Yeah, finding the right category can be a hassle and time consuming, but in the end, it will be much more helpful in finding files. Just dumping files into broad categories is just as useless as being uncategorized. Regards, --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a policy on this? I feel like, considering the overwhelmingly large backlog of completely uncategorized images, a better plan of attack would be to simply get as many of the images tagged as quickly as possible. Neelix (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- No there is no policy, but tagging images quickly also serves no purpose. It merely moves the problem to other categories, and actually makes it worse IMO, because nobody will be looking for/finding these images anymore. For example, you just categorized File:Maestro Golpeador del Sindicato Democratico.jpg to Category:White hats. Is that really the best and only category??? The hat is so incidental to the image! This one was actually easy because the caption identifies them as Category:People of Michoacán. It's great that you help tackle the backlog, but it would even be more helpful if the images are categorized properly once and for all. Look at this way: the categories are there to find images easier. If they are filed in a wrong or incidental or broad category, the image is just as lost as being uncategorized. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- That is true. We probably will never see or deal with the same image again, considering that the backlog is growing faster than we process them (but this view is also so defeatist). Anyway, it just highlights that Commons is becoming less and less viable. But that is an issue we can't resolve here... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!
- The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
- Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.
Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.
Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit
(Sorry to write in Engilsh)
A few notesEdit
I'm very glad, that you are doing so much cleanup work here. But I'm a little bit concerned about the quality of some of your categorizations. When you've moved a file out of the uncategorized category, no one will probably touch it again.
Also: A pure language classifications ("Diagrams in Russian") can't be sufficient (File:3-битовый FCSR.png).
Do you understand my reservations?
- Hi Mechanical Turk,
- Thank you for contacting me on this issue. I had a conversation with another editor on this subject two years ago, which you can read above in the section called "Category sorting". Although most of the categories I add are fairly specific, I continue adding less specific categories as well, primarily because the backlog of uncategorized files is growing much faster than we are getting through it. That's the main reason that many files take a long time to be further categorized after receiving a single category: we simply aren't getting through the backlog of files with zero categories. If we were, then we would be getting to the single-category files much quicker. As such, my priority is getting through the uncategorized backlog. I try to maintain both speed and precision, but with a preference for speed. Until the backlog gets a lot smaller (if it ever does), then I think this is our best option. If I haven't succeeded in convincing you that this is the best option, I hope that I have at least demonstrated that there is room for both of our approaches on the Commons. If you have additional concerns, please let me know!
20:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This seems a bit odd. If we are going to add something related to the mid-20th-century auto row in this area, I would think we would either add it to Category:Westlake Avenue, Seattle or create a separate Category:Westlake Avenue auto row, since the "auto row" didn't completely coincide with the one street. But it seems a bit odd to connect an "auto row" category to a single building. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for contacting me on this subject. I added Category:Auto rows to Category:Pacific McKay and Ford McKay buildings because of the first line on the latter category page. If I have misunderstood the meaning of that line, feel free to remove the category, or create the separate category that you suggest. Neelix (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
22.214.171.124 18:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
126.96.36.199 09:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
188.8.131.52 23:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
File:West Midlands Police.png 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.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.
184.108.40.206 15:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)