User talk:Ryan Vesey
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 contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki — it is really easy.
More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.
-- 20:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit
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.
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]]
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.
TUSC token c17825258baa38d1cb54c5e366f8cca4Edit
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
TUSC token 6fc6c8969d903a722f66362c4f7d9678Edit
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Cats by alphabet on CFDEdit
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, you can now share images from Flickr using the UploadWizard, batch-upload up to 500 files with UploadWizard instead of 50 and upload freely licensed audio files in the MP3 format. Thank you. INeverCry 02:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Logo stade françaisEdit
Hello Ryan Vesey,
As you participated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo-SFP-Stade-Français-Paris-Rugby.png, I just mention you that the logo has been uploaded and that its deletion is discussed again : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stade Francais logo.png. Regards, Udufruduhu (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ryan, are you still interested in proceeding with your bot request? I think the latest status is that we are waiting for test edits from you. Otherwise I'd close it as stale in the next few days (can easily be reopened on request). Best Dschwen (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments re: JW's talk pageEdit
Hi Ryan, in relation to your comments here, I would rather talk to editors and inform them on issues. This is an interesting image -- obvious trolling by Delicious carbuncle, Tarc, etc aside. This is within the scope of two distinct subjects -- Polandball (which exists on [http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q88870 over 60 projects, including pl.wp where it was kept) and en:Polish jokes -- in fact, it is a prime example of Polish jokes, hence I've inserted it on the pl.wp article. The rest of Category:Polandball comics are clearly within the Polandball scope and as we are a repository we host the materials and let editors decide which media they will use. Hope this helps you understand this non-issue a little bit more, and if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me and ask those questions, rather than relying on information you get from obvious trolls such as Delicious carbuncle, Tarc, etc. russavia (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Please note I was not aware of Russavia's comments above until visiting this page. I am sure you are not an habitual troll, and I am sure you will be horrified that I am accusing you of trolling, however that is exactly how I would see your village pump comments, editing pattern here, taken in conjunction with your's and others' comments at Jimbo's talk page. Maybe it is pure coincidence that Russavia's ban at WP was due to expire in May and that he has now been paroled by arbcom, but really if there was such an issue with Russavia's Polandball images why should things come to a head now? From what is infront of me what I see is an attempt to get Russavia perma-banned at en:Wiki by baiting him into snapping back, however the other end of the rope you are offering Russavia is wrapped around your own neck. I have no idea of what has passed between you two at enwiki, whatever it is it is clouding your judgement and there is no need to import such grievances and grudges to Commons. Please consider this a friendly warning to someone in danger of stumbling over a cliff in pursuit of his quarry.--KTo288 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I do take offense to being called a troll and was inclined to remove this section entirely. Instead, I will try to clarify. I had never come across Russavia in any way shape or form prior to the past few days. I had never come across Polandball prior to these past few days. I happen to find humor in some of the Polandball jokes and the fact that it has come to a head now is a complete coincidence. I started the discussion the minute I discovered the comics. I rarely, if ever, post or read Jimbo Wales' talk page, but have been called a troll by Russavia on multiple occasions for taking part in the discussion related to Polandball there. I am certainly not a troll and while I have done more to improve Wikipedia, I have done much to improve Commons as well. While taking part in the Polandball discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page, I mentioned that most of the images did not seem to comply with COM:SCOPE. I intended to leave it at that, but Russavia left a rather unsatisfactory explanation above which prodded me to start the discussion at the Village Pump. Upon initiating discussion, I was more than surprised to find that Russavia, a bureaucrat, was so unfamiliar with policy. His statement at 5:40 on March 7 was ridiculous. I don't know if it's a sister project cultural difference, but any Wikipedian claiming that understanding of policies was their sole domain would be tarred and feathered. His interpretation of COM:SCOPE was so inclusionist that the policy might as well not exist. Finally, here's the part that angers me. How can you think it appropriate to call me a troll, even not knowing what I have described above, when my interpretation of COM:SCOPE is supported by many editors including User:Rd232, a commons administrator. It is clear that I took the actions I did, because I am hoping to align commons with its policies. As I've stated there, if commons does not wish to do this, why doesn't COM:SCOPE get changed? Personally, I'd like to see it used as a repository of all free images, as Russavia thinks it is. If someone wants to use commons to upload their family photos, let them. But until that point, images on commons should comply with policy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Whether or not you intended to troll Russavia, you have become a fellow traveller of those who do, and your actions had the same effect as if it was your original intention. From what I've read of your contributions to Wikipedia humanities helpdesk you genuinely do seem to want to be helpful, if it is truly your intention to be helpful to Commons, perhaps its time for you to step back a bit from this specific issue, be less strident in insisting that your understanding of Commons scope is the correct one and perhaps try to understand why others have come to conclusions that differs from yours. As far as I can see as many have rejected your interpretation of scope as have endorsed it, including at least one admin other than Russavia.
- The best way I can explain things is by analogy to Napoleonic jurdistictions and Common law jurdistictions, Napoleonic codes have laws that are black and white, either something breaks the law or it does not with all eventualities catered for. In Common law jurdistictions there are guiding principles and judgement is made on a case by case basis with precedent informing subsequent decisions, and that when cirumstances demand, a throwing out of precedent and the creation of new ones from scratch. You see our scope policy as being an example of the Napoleonic system, there is a clear line that a file falls either side of and if falls to the wrong side it should be deleted. However by custom we are closer to a common law one, with copyright being the core guiding principle; there is a field of grey with only copyvios and otherwise illegal files being inherently contrary to scope, and even what constitutes an illegal image undergoes and have undergone changes over time. Each admin has their own understanding of scope and acts accordingly and even when that judgement differs from our own we have learned to respect consensus on individual images and classes of images, and yes this does give the impression that we are making things up as we are going along, but so far things seems to have worked without creating an unbearable morass of rules and sub rules and instructions and directions on how to interpret those rules.
- I personally fall into the inclusionist camp, for me Commons is there as a source of stock files to serve the educational needs of everone now and in the future. With regards your example of family and personal photos we hold plenty of both,look up fashion or life in such and such a decade or year-to paraphrase what I've said on the scope talk page- would any archivist or historian say no to a couple of thousand family portraits from say 1853, how about 1913, 1953? From a social history context there is an argument for family and personal photos being educational, but that said I would not advocate the tearing up of scope and say Commons is open to everyone who has an image they want hosted, we do not want to Commons and wikimedia resources to be abused by people who wish to use us as a free image hosting service, or by a company as an advertising platform-often there is a quid pro quo- we get a free image that we can use and they will have their file on the web, at other times whats called for is a speedy delete re scope. The dividing line comes through the sorting and categorisation process, for me the prime nuts and bolts work of Commons, that makes one file useful and another not.--KTo288 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Maria Barbella.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.
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.