User talk:Spiritia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Gologan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gologan.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Author of two CC-BY-SA-2.5 photos?

Hi - I got your message regarding the two photos Image:Denbigh stadium east stand 16 May 07.JPG and Image:Denbigh south stand 16 may 07.JPG. I am the author of these photographs but would like you to credit me as the author if you use them outside of Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the license I used is the right one, but it seemed to be. If you are using the images in Wikipedia then I think it would be fine if you provide a link to my userpage. If you can help me to add the author information to the image page then I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Zorro77 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, inside or outside of Wikipedia everybody obliged to credit you; that's why I needed the information. Since Commons is a sister project run by the Wikimedia Foundation, it is "inside" :-)
I added the attribution parameter to both pictures here.
Look at an example how I proceed in analogous cases of locally uploaded files, which - being uploaded under free license - are capable for use in Commons.
In case you didnt know, the main difference between uploading on Commons and local upload is in the copyright status: Commons is only for images which are free throughout the world:
  • GFDL
  • Public domain, for instance pictures, whose author died at least 70 years ago] or NASA / US GOV pictures etc
  • and the two free, out of six Creative Commons licenses: CC-BY and CC-BY-SA , in their respective versions.
Locally are to be uploaded images which fall under the fair use assumption, which, however, is treated differently in the different national legislations. So, pictures licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.5. are okay with Commons, and I can directly upload them there, and as much as I am concerned, you can rely on full attribution. :-) Regards, Spiritia 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images listed for deletion

Здравей и благодаря за чудесните снимки! Струва ми се, че си оставила старата снимка за изтриване на правилно място, въпреки че може да се отнесе и към speedy deletion, защото не е свободна и не се ползва в никакви статии. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ох, ако знаеш точната страница на speedy deletion на изображения, моля те, дай ми линк, аз доста търсих, но така и не намерих (в Комънс например си ги знам и нямам проблеми, но тук ми е една малка джунгла :-) ) А напоследък често ми се случва да излавям копивио в българската, привнесено от тук или обратно, та ми се налага... Благодаря за хубавите думи за снимката, ако се сещаш други несвободни снимки на сгради в София казвай да ходя да ги повтарям и да пускам свободни. Можеш да прегледаш и качените от мен снимки от цяла България и да ползваш за статиите тук. Старая е и цели категории да отварям и пълня, за удобство. Аз сравнително рядко добавям снимки тук (най-много интеруикита), преко сили ми е, и разчитам на хора като теб и Cameltrader, които поддържат статиите на английски за България. Поздрави, --Spiritia 17:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Grigor Dimitrov

A tag has been placed on Grigor Dimitrov requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JASpencer (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (New) Lexington, Ohio

As I was reading the article on New Lexington, Ohio, I saw that there was a Bulgarian article on the village — apparently because of Januarius MacGahan. However, to my non-Bulgarian-understanding eyes, the Bulgarian article seems to think that MacGahan was born in New Lexington, rather than in Lexington, Ohio, his actual birthplace. Could you please fix this? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Portuguese People.PNG

Thanks Spiritia! I am completely ignorant on copyright issues, even if I try to understand them. I'll see what I can do. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advisor.js

re

[edit] Re: Image:Barber cross.jpg

There's nothing in the enwiki description that isn't on the Commons. However, I completed the transfer for two reasons: it's obviously a US Navy photo; and two, because the uploader is one of our most clueful editors and is quite knowledgeable about copyright. east.718 at 08:03, April 25, 2008

[edit] Image:Gelo.jpg

Hello. The license here was {{PD-self}}, and Skara-Bira (talk · contribs) was the uploader, which is what the license on Commons says. Davi (talk · contribs) isn't mentioned anywhere in the logs for that picture. Does this link work for you? It should show that there were two versions uploaded, both by Skara-Bira. I'm rather confused ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. Much appreciated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lapidarium

Hi! Is there any reason you took an article about a museum and made it into a new topic? Usual practice for this is to create a disambig page, not overwrite the content entirely. It also appears that Lapidarium is more commonly used referring to the museum by that name. Do you plan to move the museum article somewhere so it doesn't violate GFDL? Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See what you did to fix it, thanks TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am relieved to understand everything is resolved. I only object calling my action violation of GFDL, as all contributions of all editors before me are accessible through the page history and it's well seen who is responsible for what. You don't keep all vandalism because of the fear not to trespass the license, do you :-)
The Lapidarium, Prague is only a part of the National Museum (Prague) [1], and it is not even mentioned in the article of the museum itself. Do you know why? I suppose, because there are lapidaria in quite a lot of archaeological and historical museums around the world, maybe even in every of these.
Only in Bulgaria we have more than 20 collections of this sort. That someone has decided to call it "The Lapidarium" and heavily promote it over internet does not mean that the generic title should be given to their enterprise. I think that generic titles should be reserved to the generic definitions. My reason to change the content was that I do not see the specific independent significance of this very part of museum, and I thought that we better not please it with inadequate priority.
Anyway, hope that everybody is happy now. I will have in mind this approach for further edits, and apply it where appropriate. Cheers, →Spiritia 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I agree, central discussion is a good thing. It was my understanding re: the GFDL that content could not be simply over-written, but I may be wrong in that respect. I think Lapidarium, Prague may end up merged into National Museum (Prague) if I can't find some reliable sources that establish notability. English-language sources are pretty thin on the ground. Wish I were still in Prague because that would make information gathering easier. I think the issue with the definition v. the museum is that the former is not in wide use in English, despite its latin origins. I need to dig a bit into that. Thanks for keeping me in the loop and have a nice day! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)