User talk:SylviaBoBilvia

Linking to Pink Floyd

Oops, truncated my edit summary. But a bunch of links is precisely what we don't need - so long as we link the first mention of something, that's enough. We don't need to beat the reader over the head with ten more links to the same article. Welcome to Wikipedia, though! --McGeddon (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Yo Sylvia, just stopping by to thank you for adding so many fantastic images to rock articles recently – did you take them all yourself?! Skomorokh 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear, I hope you'll keep it up (and get some of Them Crooked Vultures)! Mahalo, Skomorokh 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McLeod

Thanks so much for the picture of Brendan McLeod! The article looks much better! -Thereen (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Garrett

Hi there. I've reverted your addition of this photo once again. The photo license at flickr stipulates non-commercial use, which Wikipedia cannot accept. The photo will be deleted from Commons. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Laurie Garette photo

Hey Rkitko, I changed the license on that photo over to the Attribution-Share Alike CC. Forgot to earlier. Sorry about that, I'm going to go ahead and reupload it.

SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, didn't realize you were the copyright holder. You might want to also check the other recent addition... Juan Enriquez. That license also stipulated non-commercial. If you just edit the photo description to include {{flickrreviewer}}, it'll prompt the bot to recheck the image license at flickr. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm working for the copyright holder, so I can change them with his permission. I've gone and fixed the Juan Enriquez CC as well. I'm fairly new here, so I'm just learning the ropes, and I can't figure out why some of the photos that I added to the Shanghai and the China wikipedia articles got removed. Would you know how to check?

Thanks SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the one from China, thinking it was also non-commercial. Another user removed the one from the Shanghai article: here. You just have to go to the article and then click on "history" at the top of the article. You'll see your edit and then any edit after it. As an aside, I think the editor who removed the photo from Shanghai was correct in his/her rationale. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image attribution

Nice images.

Unfortunately, the attribution for the image belongs on the page of the image, not in the captions for the article pages where they appear. That may not be giving you the exposure you are looking for if that is part of your goal in contributing images. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Holla if you need help. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In the way of "so you won't be surprised when they start screaming at you", your inline attributions will cause problems. As an example, a highly respected person here had no end of fun simply because he put part of his name in the filenames. Even that much caused a huge amount of grief from people claiming he was claiming ... eh, who knows, ownership?

As one likening, imagine that someone added a paragraph to an article, and then "signed off" with " (by Pheely McButtes)". Well, that's explicitly forbidden - you give your text/work/help to the project freely, and without attribution. (I'd love it if could remember where that policy/guideline is stated - just ask at the helpdesk) Same thing when you contribute your pictures. (Which I see people have duly appreciated) Believe me when I say your contributions will be valued by those who can appreciate them best, and 'reputation' will follow, without having to be demanded. Shenme (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(responding from your last message on my talk) It's not a douche thing to add the name of the photographer to the caption. It's just a style issue. In some publications it is expected or required in the caption, while others might put the attribution in the appendix. Wikipedia puts the attribution for the image with the image itself - and images do get a page all to themselves. There are folks on Wikipedia who treat this issue like you must contribute everything in selfless devotion to Wikipedia - if you think of it just as a style issue, it's easier to not get wrapped up in philosophy of the project.

I click through to see images when I think they are well done. Lots of readers do. The attribution and reputation for photography will happen, it's just not immediate.

If you run into a lot of static about whether your image is good or bad, just place it on the talk page. Let the other people involved in writing that article know that the image is available. Someone else may decide, now, next week, or never, that your picture has some use. (for instance, I removed an image from China, it was a nice image, but didn't belong where you put it.) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Stop replacing better photos

Look, adding photos to articles that don't have them is one thing, but could you please stop replacing clear photos of artists with "artsy" pictures of artists that make it difficult to see what the artist actually looks like. If you want to pimp out your photos, I'll let others argue with you over that. But leave other good, clear photos in their place. Greg Salter (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Ditto

Your photo is so much better than its predecessor! Thank you for updating the page, and proving that commons photos can be beautiful. H0n0r (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]