Olpl

Welcome! 0151

Duplicates

Duplicates only must be marked by {{Duplicate}} if a file is...

1. a 100% duplicate (which would be noticed by the software automatically) or
2. it is a reduced size of "same appearance".

Neither was the case with File:Women of Arles.JPG. My way to handle such cases is as I recently did in this file; might also have a look at User_talk:Lycaon#File:Women_of_Arles.JPG, on the more official point of view on such (you will not make many friends amongst admins if your contributions cause too much work to them, or too often ;) Best, [w.] 13:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will do like you did on other "similar" images. 4649 13:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated files

The three vGs from "Needs to be updated" should be fine, unless you'd like to provide titles in ru.

PS: Are those files the ~.big.html ones? I would not be able to download them ;) ciao, [w.] 14:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, they are. Just change ~.big.html to ~.big.jpg. It is pretty easy to figure out if you look into the page source. 4649 05:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty easy for someone reading sources, I suppose ;) -- for me, I usually cannot help if the mouseclick "right" sends me to the spacer.jpg ;}}

In case you know how-to, and like to, I'd like some help on {{VG doubt}}. It would be nice if the template would sign "by itself", especially in case someone puts it without giving a reason or, at least, filling in the "Summary" field of the editing mask (nobody would later have to search the file history on that).

I'm unfortunately unable to write such, see my unlucky experiment. So, if you can manage, please do so (I have no idea whether this is totally simple or not). Tag File:How-To.gif for testing which is one of my dummies for anything. [w.] 11:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

your last upload to "Ladies of Arles~"

I actually do not think such files are of very much use to "average worldwide possible user". It cost me [having a cheap account] ~5min to download it. I'm aware that "WP" very much likes to have files as-big-as-ever-possible-unless-disallowed, but I am in doubt about the REAL use of such: It might just be "mis"used by someone who creates "saleable" stuff from wp content [which might even be its "master", JIMBO].

This is not what I, for myself, am working for in this "so-called" project. May be, you make up your mind on this, and change your mind upon uploading really huge files created by third party. It feels, to me, like kind of "stealing", in my private experience. [w.] 11:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people out there create "saleable" stuff from postcard-sized reproductions: they just call an experienced painter and he makes a full-sized reproduction from a postcard or a book, indistinguishable from an original painting by an unexperienced viewer. I think these files won't change anything in this field. Again, they are freely available for anyone for about a year or so (just wait for a month or two to download them, like I did) and this is public domain aka public property and available for anyone to use for any purpose. 4649 11:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For sure, you're right, in so far that: Things are the way they are.

BUT:

Do you really think such should be supported? I, for-myself, do NOT_THINK_SO. Best, [w.] 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What would you say about someone selling PD-Art images to schools and universities? Why should we pay them for public property?..

I think this should not be supported: they can and should give these PD images to everyone for free. This is very easy and cheap today, I must say. Really cheap. 4649 18:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see that issue more from the point of view of online wikipedia users with low budget and therefore slow internet (like myself), who would have to downlod ~26MB just to have a somewhat closer look at this picture. I do not know where such was discussed, but I think for such huge file a slim alternative ~2MB would more be appropriate for general online use (in articles), whilst linking to the BIGone under "other versions=". [w.] 09:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thinking this concerns more than just the two of us, I put the question on COM:VP#Policy on "~duplicates" - sheer vs. reasonable filesize. -- maybe we better continue the talk over there. Best, [w.] 11:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Kleine Dada Soirée 1922.jpg

Hello Olpl, you claim that this poster was co-designed by Kurt Schwitters. Do you have any proof of this? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, here: http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=5533

There it's dated 1922. Kurt Schwitters arrived in the Netherlands on 5 January 1923 (see Els Hoek in Theo van Doesburg. Oeuvrecatalogus. (2000; ISBN 9068682555), p. 318). So I think the MoMA page is out-dated. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly when this work was made (January 1923). Also, this matter should be discussed at File_talk:Kleine_Dada_Soirée_1922.jpg not here. 4649 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are sure that Kurt Schwitters did nothing with this work you can change the license back to PD-Art. 4649 02:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:EveningLandscape.jpg

Hi, I just now see that you recently edited thisone (thanks!), and want to notify you that there is no need to categorize explicitely "vG", if you use tl|creator:vG which is self-categorizing.

In fact, if some day all content of this category would be adequately sub-categorized (to one of the sub-cats of "Category:Van Gogh Works by Date", this self-categorizing might better be "switched off", so that the main CAT would not contain any file any more. This, imo, would help to find out new uploads which are less-than-well categorized (as they would quite obviously show up on THAT place). Best, [w.] 22:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure that was my mistake. I just overcopypasted a description template from other work.

Usually I do not add an author category then there is a creator template. 4649 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncropped images

Listing good images for speedy deletion just because there is some hint of frame is on the limits of disruptive editing. If you cannot crop them yourself, you may post a list and request assistance at Commons:Village pump or Commons:Graphics village pump. Sv1xv (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will list only those which are already have a cropped version here. 4649 07:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sv1xv. You should never have tagged these as speedy. Yann (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded those images after the public appeal for those images. I consider to be good having the original images, and not just the crops. Note that those image have a color palette beside them, something very useful for any subsequent color correcting. I used exactly the same names from the torrent (except adding some diacritics to painter names) to make really easy to find them, and expected to then have cropped images with a different name.

I suspect you're angry on seeing that I did some uploads over the images Image:Monet,_Claude_-_Waterloo_Bridge._Effect_of_Fog.jpg and Image:Monet,_Claude_-_Haystack_at_Giverny.jpg and that it's the reason of your hostile behavior.

As I said I tried to keep all the images with the same names as in the torrent, which in these cases you had already used. Since your images were of lower resolution, I uploaded the new ones. And by lower resolution I mean that the Waterloo bridge image is 3.5 times bigger, and the Haystack 4.5 times. However, we can revert to your version, if that's what you want.

Regarding the frames issue, images like Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Portrait of an Old Man in Red.jpg and Image:Gérôme, Jean-Léon - Pool in a Harem.jpg can be problematic, but I don't think the frame of Image:Leonardo da Vinci - The Madonna and Child (The Litta Madonna).jpg makes it a 3D object.

I think that the fact that it is flipped is a bigger concern than its border.

Platonides (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Your message seem to imply that you did the cropping and color-correction but those images are the same as the ones at the museum page [1] [2].

Dear wikipedia user, you are always welcome here! ... Wow, that's indeed very nice. I wouldn't have expected that. I made the descriptions with just the filename available. I think I have already uploaded all images from the torrent which can be uploaded, don't worry about that. I'll try to pay more attention to the frames in the future. Platonides (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Please do not speedy delete these files. A lot of work was done to make them available, so at least a discussion is necessary. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gogh, Vincent van - Memory of the Garden at Etten (Ladies of Arles).jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not 2D works of art, they are photographs of a 3D-object (e.g. have blurred background visible) thus violate copyright of the photographer. Storing non-free images is against Commons policy. 4649 05:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy, please. In most of these images the 3D effects are minimal, incidental or de minimis, and they can easily be cropped out. Nominating numerous images for speedy deletion on this basis is against common sense and, possibly, disruptive editing. Sv1xv (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Response

I responded here. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Olpl!

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) 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Georges Seurat - Bathers at Asnières.jpg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Portraits of rulers of Europe

Hello. My name is Igor Sokolov. I am a history teacher at the university. I am very interested in portraits of rulers of Europe. Maybe you have the ability and desire to place and other high-resolution images from the collections of the National Gallery? I'll be very grateful for the help. I think these high-quality images will please many fans of portraiture.

Hi. You can do that by yourself by means of Help:Zoomable_images#National_Gallery_collection or simply download everything in a torrent. 4649 06:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately, I can not figure out how to extract high-resolution images.

I am a teacher of history and not versed in computer technology. Maybe I would have understood if the tip was in Russian. And in English I can understand only simple texts. I've already got the most important for me the portraits from the collection of the National Gallery. I would be extremely grateful for the help.

As for the Russian, here is what I found so far: Коллекция Лондонской Национальной галереи. 4649 02:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Vincent van Gogh - Boats at Saintes-Marie watercolour.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Vincent van Gogh - Boats at Saintes-Marie watercolour.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.

Yann (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)