User talk:G S Palmer

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, G S Palmer!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prolibytherium.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Mr Fink (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a framed version of this print that may be a print or possibly an original print.. Do you happen to have a contact I can check with. If so please email me at jasonpierce1969@gmail.com Any reply or help would be greatly appreciated.. Thanks for your time.. 47.202.98.178 18:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Kaluli.jpg

[edit]
العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Kaluli.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Kaluli.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: I have provided a link to the website's copyright information page. G S Palmer (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi G.S. Palmer, I had looked at the source-website. However, I cannot follow your reasoning. It says "The photos, maps and text displayed on the Joshua Project website are a mixture of non-copyrighted and copyrighted material." This is a rather useless information. Also, the credit "anonymous" is rather useless, as even Anonymous holds the copyright over his/her works. Sure, it's not a blatant copyvio, but the copyright status doesn't seem to be clear. If the image is of value for our projects, you might try to contact Joshua Project and ask them for clarification or a permission. --Túrelio (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: sounds like a lot of work. I think I'll just admit I made a mistake and let it be deleted. G S Palmer (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your prefer that way. However, sending 1 email shouldn't be too much work. (Some example requests: w:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider more complete Attribution

[edit]

Hi G S Palmer. Thanks for uploading File:Trigonopterus baliensis 35687.jpg, File:Trigonopterus batukarensis 35688.jpg, and other Trigonopterus images from Riedel et al. 2014. This is just a friendly reminder to please include more complete attribution in the future, as required by CC-licenses and discussed at Commons:Attribution. For instance, the text in "Source" field should ideally read: Riedel A, Tänzler R, Balke M, Rahmadi C, Suhardjono YR (2014) Ninety-eight new species of Trigonopterus weevils from Sundaland and the Lesser Sunda Islands. ZooKeys 467: 1-162. doi:10.3897/zookeys.467.8206, which provides the title and authors of the Work and a DOI link, equivalent to a url. Similarly, Author field should read: "Alexander Riedel, Rene Tänzler, Michael Balke, Cahyo Rahmadi, Yayuk R. Suhardjono", rather than simply "Riedel" (even assuming Riedel himself is sole copyright holder, adding first name or even initial would give more complete attribution). If you use UploadWizard for batch uploads, the complete source and authors can be entered once and appended to all uploads. Assuming last name alone is sufficient for attribution, I still feel it is professional courtesy to list the first and last name(s), in the interest of giving credit where credit is due. For ZooKey articles I sometimes even hyperlink the author field to the Article info page to direct interested users to the full institutional info of the authors. I realize these extra steps take a bit more time, but I feel they foster and maintain the intellectual integrity of CC-license and attribution; in a world increasingly based on sharing and re-sharing digital images, unambiguous definition of source is important. Cheers, and many thanks for all you do to make free content more accessible. -Animalparty (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: that will make a bit more work, but I will make sure to do so from now on. G S Palmer (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Animalparty: is this a bit better? G S Palmer (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! -Animalparty (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Female child with polymelia.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Ups and Downs () 01:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]