User talk:SMcCandlish

Archives Archive 1

Edits to "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands"

Hi! Just a minor comment about your recent edits to "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". I wonder if it is necessary to suggest to editors that they sign every {{move cat}} request within the template as this will add a lot of additional bloat to the page, particularly if editors' signatures are complex. Isn't it sufficient if editors just sign once at the bottom of a list of requests? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that is so, but only if someone really does sign every single one in a multi-category nomination. I was operating on the assumption that it would be more, not less, tidy to include the sig with the reason parameter. I think that is still the case unless one is doing a multiple nomination, in which case it would be more tidy to include it only in the last one. In all cases, it's more tidy to include it inside the template instead of outside of it. Not a big deal to me either way. Regardless, the third parameter should begin "|3=" or things are likely to break from time to time, especially when people do sign in the "reason" parameter, because many, many useres have "style=..." in their sigs, and any unescaped occurrence of "=" in a template parameter that is not explicitly names causes template breakage. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's not a biggie for me either. I suspect, though, that if you put in the instructions that editors should put their signatures inside the template, then a lot of them are going to sign all the templates. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked the wording to suggest not doing that for multi-noms. I guess the bot owner will make the final decision. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Paumier

Hi! I added some author info to File:Jeu de paume racquets and battoirs, 1772.jpg based on a book which inventories the plates (Schwab and Wren, OUP, 1984). According to Schwab and Wren, this plate appears in volume VIII. The volume numbering is confusing. Also, I'm curious: did you scan this from a volume yourself? Also, Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers#Planches gives the original date of publication for this volume as 1771. Perhaps the volume you used was produced a year later? Is it from a library? If you scanned it yourself, we should make that clear. If not, and its from the web, would you be able to figure out the url, where you found it? BTW, I believe the high contrast (B/W) images on Commons are originally from Gallica [1] (although this is not documented), and were probably made quite some time ago. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it may have been published differently at different times in different languages, using the same plates (thus the volume numbering issues). I'll defer to your judgement on those matters. While I do have and scan such things sometimes (see my semi-recent cat-themed uploads), this one I just found somewhere. I think it may have been an eBay auction for that page from the book. It is the best one I have. The ones I scan myself are much, much better! Anyway, I do not know who originally posted them online. There's some kind of reverse image search site that analyzes image content and tries to find similar images online, but I can't remember what it's called. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

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 marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 20:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Chinese Taipei Olympic Flag (bordered).svg

ResolvedDidn't see it in time to comment. Was kept anyway; the file exists for a reason, like the other bordered versions of mostly-white flag icons.

File:Chinese Taipei Olympic Flag (bordered).svg 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!

Metrónomo (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Publicity still

Template:Publicity still 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 template, 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. 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!

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Viverrids mosaic.jpg

File:Viverrids mosaic.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Hi SMcCandlish, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

---

Green Giant (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Thank you. I'll carefully re-review the regs (and pay more attention to language matters!). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear SMcCandlish,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Jim Rempe practice ball.jpg

File:Jim Rempe practice ball.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!

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:McCandlish, red, 1255x1255 square.png

Copyright status: File:McCandlish, red, 1255x1255 square.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:McCandlish, red, 1255x1255 square.png. 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.

--Killarnee (T•1•2) 13:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Killarnee: It would help you explained how to fix whatever the issue is. The auto message you have left doesn't make this clear. Commons has many user license templates, mine is correctly categorized, subst'd as required, quite clear in its terms, and links to a permalink of the full text of the actual license, which is even more clear and explicit; and the image page makes it clear this is my own work. The template you've left wrongly implies that only CC-By-SA or public-domain uploads are permitted, and that's not actually correct. There's no incompatibility between my license and Commons; it is much less restrictive than many licenses under which works are uploaded here (it restricts nothing at all but misrepresenting the design under a false name or claim of organizational or individual ownership).

If this is just some formatting nit-pick, like having to wrap some template like {{Self}} around mine, then please spell this out. This is the first foray I have made into uploading anything that isn't PD or under a license we already have a stock template for, and Commons documentation about user licenses is very thin, as far as I can determine.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You can of course use the license you want, but it must be a machine readable license. If the file does not have a machine-readable license, it is displayed in various error categories. You can also give a file multiple licenses, one machine-readable and one of your own. In addition, the problem was that the license was not in the "Licensing" section but in the summary. If you solve these two problems, everything will be fine. Regards, --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Killarnee: Thanks for getting back to me. Machine readable in what senses? Is there some documentation on this? I'm a competent template editor, so if there's a means of adjusting it with various code, I'm sure I can handle it. I can move the license to the other section of course, but I put it into the place that the upload form said to put it, namely "Permission", which appears to be part of "Summary". The "Licensing" section via that form only has options to insert pre-defined templates. So, if it's going to result in categorization as mis-licensing, the upload form needs to be changed to do the right thing. Where's the proper place to report this problem? I do not interact much with Commons on the community/administration side. (I know every nook and cranny of en.Wikipedia, but this sister project's internal layout is largely a cipher to me). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The permission section is there to insert a "proof" for the permission to publish the picture if you have not made the picture yourself. How it works with the license tags is shown here. I do not know the details about the creation of a license, it is best to ask in the village pump. --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try over there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:McCandlish, red, photorealistic, 1264x1264 square.png

Extended content

Copyright status: File:McCandlish, red, photorealistic, 1264x1264 square.png   This media may be deleted. Thanks for uploading File:McCandlish, red, photorealistic, 1264x1264 square.png. 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. --Killarnee (T•1•2) 13:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

File:McCandlish, red, 1255x1255 square.png

File:McCandlish, red, 1255x1255 square.png 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!

Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)