Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Pixel8tor!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Overwriting existing filesEdit

--Oursana (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

after this edit, explaining commons policy you did continue overwriting 16 files, please revert--Oursana (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite filesEdit

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | Українська | 中文 | +/−

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:Attributed to Bernardino da Asola - The Madonna and Child - Google Art Project.jpg. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

- Reventtalk 22:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to make it very clear, I'm not attempting to say that your versions are not 'better', merely that they are not minor changes. Such overwrites of artworks with color-corrected versions have been very controversial on Commons in the past, and so you should simply upload your version as a new file, and link it as a 'derivative work' of the original (see {{Derivative versions}}, and {{Derived from}}). This allows re-users to choose which version they prefer, instead of forcing the decision. - Reventtalk 22:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note explaining Wikimedia's policies about overwriting files. It's an unfortunate policy in my view. You've probably heard this before but I'm sure the original artists would be insulted that their art is being represented by images that mainly show how poorly their work has been conserved. (varnish yellowing, soot damage, poor lighting, bad camera technique) Especially these days when we have digital tools that allow us to mitigate some of the degradation the artwork has suffered -- so that the image can more closely represent the artists intent and not the yellow tinged perversion that most of us associate with older artwork. Having worked at National Geographic Magazine photo lab for 30+ years, I have a fair grasp of photography, image retouching and color correcting -- in all those years I have never met a professional photographer who feels the exposure captured by the camera is an accurate representation of the scene and should be published without adjustments. So saying the original capture is somehow sacrosanct is just silly. A camera isn't an eye. Sorry for the mini-rant but, as maybe you can tell, color is a passion of mine and seeing it mangled so badly turns my stomach. To me, it does a disservice to the artist, and the public for that matter, to represent the degraded images as their artwork -- since they *obviously* aren't.
So, while I will respect WikiMedia's policy about overwriting files in the future, I certainly don't endorse it.
If you have a second, a quick question: You suggested some templates or links I might use to publish my "versions" -- I'm relatively new to editing Wiki pages and not familiar with these. Would you point me to tutorials?
Thanks for your time and help. I do appreciate it. Pixel8tor (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not that I don't, in principle, agree, it's that such choices (how, exactly, to adjust the colors) are subjective, and so the community has chosen to offer all the versions, and allow reusers to choose. Instead of overwriting the existing files, you should upload your versions under new filenames, and then edit the other wikis where they are used to point at your new file. Also, many of the files that you overwrote are attributed to very specific sources (such as the Yorck Project, Web Gallery of Art, or Google Art Project) and should continue to reflect the exact version provided by that attributed source. One major reason for this is that editing the images creates a en:generation loss, and other people that wish to do their own retouching work should start with the original files.
As a practical measure, the policy about not overwriting files with major changes is intended to help avoid disruptive upload warring about whose version is 'better', which has been a repeated problem many times in the past.
There is not, afaik, any explicit tutorial, but you should simply use {{Derived from|Example.jpg}}, with the correct link, as the indicated source when uploading a new version, and then add {{derivative versions|derivative.jpg}} to the 'other versions' field in the information template on the file page of the source image.
File:OPEC01.jpg and File:OPEC headquarters.jpg are an example of this, though not 'art'. - Reventtalk 16:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for helping out a newbie. I've tried to follow your instructions. Would you mind looking over these pages and let me know if I've missed anything in the execution? Orig:File:Diego_Velázquez_016.jpg -- Derived:File:Diego_Velázquez_016_FXD.jpg Many thanks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixel8tor (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Image without licenseEdit

File:Carlo dolci, san girolamo in preghiera, 01FXD.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the   Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 00:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Philippe Chaperon - RigolettoFXD.jpgEdit

Just as a heads up, I finally went back and finished the restoration on the underlying image.

I like your colour edit a lot; I just don't like changing colours on Gallica files, as they seem to have pretty good colour fidelity. But that's why there's room for both: Yours is more likely to be how it was back then, mine is probably nearer the current colours, sans the poor treatment it got. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Y.haruo (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Template ArtworkEdit

Hi Pixel8tor. There is a discussion on the talk page of template:Artwork, that might interest you. It is here: Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for making some neat "other versions". But I still need your support on the issue. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Museo Correr Tapisserie Nativité 03032015 1FXD.jpgEdit

Copyright status: File:Museo Correr Tapisserie Nativité 03032015 1FXD.jpg

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | 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:Museo Correr Tapisserie Nativité 03032015 1FXD.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) 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 01:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 15:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Pixel8tor".