User talk:VAwebteam

User:VAwebteam is an official representative of the Victoria and Albert Museum. All uploads of V&A material by this user are cleared by OTRS ticket ID 1332999.

{{PermissionOTRS}}

User:VAwebteam is an accredited agent of the Victoria and Albert Museum per OTRS

Text in this notice copied from below on this page.

Victoria and Albert Museum images

For all images from the V&A website that you upload to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you are hereby authorized to place {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1332999}}
on the image description pages. This indicates that an agent from the V&A Museum has indeed confirmed the terms of the image licensing.
Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, VAwebteam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me at User talk:Ruakh (my talk page), or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

—Ruakh_TALK 14:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Bill Brandt do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

May I ask you if you are involved in the Victoria and Albert museum? If so, could you please review WP:COI? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dirk

As you can probably tell I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments they have been useful. I was a little surprised you felt the link I added to the Bill Brandt entry was not seen as helpful to visitors to this page and was used as promotion by the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A). I hope you'll see the link goes through to pages of further information and images about this photographer that I thought would be of further interest to those reading about Bill Brandt.

I'm a member of the V&A webteam and we hope to add other links, references, pictures and content to Wikipedia pages relating to the objects in the museum and research carried out by our curators. I hope this is not contrary to the Wikipedia spirit as we wish to share the information available on our site. Would it be acceptable to copy content from the V&A site onto Wikipedia, where there are gaps, as we are very happy to give permission for this?

The V&A is not a commercial organisation and it is purely our intention to share images and content available on the museum's site.

I hope this explains things. VAwebteam 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry I did not get back to you earlier. Your linkadditions are a problem, per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and per conflict of interest. Even if a site is not commercial, wikipedia is not a linkfarm (if there is one library, more will follow etc.), and you do get site-traffic when someone clicks the link. So please do not add the links yourself, but discuss them on the talkpages and let the links be added by uninvolved editors. Or otherwise, please add content to wikipedia articles (where you can use your link as a reference .. though still, please keep a neutral point of view). I have opened a case on this on WP:COIN (here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful you do not end up like the European Library, which added too many of their own links & then got classed as a "spammer" here, resulting in the removal of ALL links to them (despite my protests). Even perfectly legitimate & relevant links added by you are likely to cause trouble. You should realize that because everybody can add links, many commercial spammers do, and countermeasures are necessarily harsh. Several perfectly legitimate sites have had all links removed. Don't assume being a well known museum means it is ok. Johnbod 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper references and citation templates

Hello, members of the Victoria and Albert Museum webteam … I stumbled across your predicament at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum, and thought that I should contribute my 2¢ worth in the spirit of WP:DBTN.

When adding links to your website, please use a {{cite web}} template placed between <ref> … </ref> brackets so that it will appear in the References section at the end of the article … if the article does not already have such a section, or if your new citation does no appear there, then you may have to add the following (before the External Links, as per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions):

==References==
<references/>

You must also be editing the article and not just a section of the article in order to see your changes when you click "Show preview," otherwise the References section is not displayed … I remember that it took me a while to figure that out when I was still a nugget.

See WP:FOOT and WP:CITE for more information, and familiarize yourselves with WP:PG in order to avoid a future faux pas … as User:Johnbod already cautioned you, the Senior Partners could have a WP:BOT remove all of your links in less time than that it would take to explain how it is accomplished.

BTW, I'm looking at a souvenir that I purchased in your gift shop during my 1983 honeymoon trip "even as we speak" … the ex-spousal unit may be just a distant and infrequent memory now, but that whimsical trinket has been a daily reminder of my first visit to London for nearly a quarter of a century. :-)

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the COI/N discussion!

Please go to WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum at your earliest convenience and participate in the discussion ... your silence has become a topic for conversation!

There is also debate about where your links belong, in References or External links ... since Fig leaf had been used as an example, I also decided to use it as an example of a proper citation/reference for your benefit, and ended up doing some Major Surgery on the article, which I documented on its Talk page ... here is what I added for VAM, and you can use this as a template:

 {{cite web
  |url= http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/sculpture/stories/david/index.html
  |title= David's Fig Leaf
  |publisher= [[Victoria and Albert Museum]]
  |accessdate= 2007-05-29 }}

This generates: "David's Fig Leaf". Victoria and Albert Museum. Retrieved 2007-05-29.

After further consideration, since your pages don't have authors, dates, or any of the other information that would provide values for the optional fields, then these should be the only fields that you need to use:

|title= — should be the same as the <TITLE> field in the HTML source code for the referenced page
|publisher= [[Victoria and Albert Museum]] — should always be identical to this
|accessdate= — should be the date that you add the template and verify that the link is correct

I recommend the use of ISO 8601 date/time format so that the MediaWiki software can automagically link it to the appropriate date-related articles, … "29th of March, 2007" and "05/29/07" not good ways to enter the date ... I have seen Some Other Editors add dates formatted like that, and I always change them to ISO 8601 format!

My personal opinion is that if you can find an appropriate place to add a ref, then do it that way, otherwise putting it in External links is OK … IMHO, the other editor used the wrong location for their example, so I moved it to where I thought it made more sense, i.e., following the sentence, "During the Hellenistic period, the Renaissance and other periods, nudity was a common feature in art.^[1]" —68.239.79.82 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to referencing

Click on "show" to open contents.

Touching base

Content vs links

I would just add, what may not have been clear from the discussions above & on the other page, that adding content to articles, as opposed to links, is much less likely to cause problems, and is generally preferable. There may be licensing issues - you can't just plonk down V&A content & say 'I'm from the V&A, so its ok'. I'm no expert on the procedures we have, but I'm sure others can help. But in general, under WP:COI you do not have a COI issue adding information on say Bill Brandt to his article in the way that you do if you add a link to your site - assuming the info is not all about the V&A collection etc. Also info re temporary exhibitions is best avoided, and you need to follow the general wiki-policies. We cover many V&A areas very weakly indeed, and there are thousands of articles where V&A content, suitably, edited, adapted and credited, would be very useful. But of course this takes far longer than just adding a link. Johnbod 13:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If there is useful content in the linked item, it is better to add that useful content to the article and then use the link as a reference for it. The V&A would certainly count as a reliable source to verify content as long as it is written from a neutral point of view without straying from the content of the reference into personal speculation or interpretation. Tyrenius 14:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created User:VAwebteam/COIN archive for you

Hello, VAwebteam … since it will soon disappear from the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page during the next backup/purge of inactive issues, I have made an archive copy of the recent discussion regarding your account, just in case you need to refer to it in the future … I have also taken the liberty of creating an initial User page for you (so your username will no longer be redlinked), with convenience links for contacting Some Other Editors who have offered their assistance, and links to a few subpages that I have created in order to help you get started as a responsible contributor to Wikipedia … Happy Editing! —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

Two examples of proper Wiki-etiquette

Suggestions

Some thoughts: 1) There is no equivalent of Category:Collection of the British Museum for articles on specific objects - I see Tipu's Tiger, the Three Graces and the Ardabil Carpet have articles, and no doubt there are others.

2) Applied arts are not my area, but I think ceramics, especially non-uk, metalwork, textiles, and Asian art are all areas where WP is not strong - Indian art coverage is certainly very weak.

3) Because of a peculiarity in American copyright law, WP is extremely well-off for photos of 2-dimensional works of art over a 100 years old, which are treated as not-copyrightable, but not for photos of 3-dimensional works, where photos remain copyrightable. So many articles on 3-D areas are unillustrated, and links to good photos on the V&A site are much more acceptable than they would be for paintings etc.

4) The main V&A article is very incomplete on the collections. Some areas are well covered, others have only 1 line.

Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 June 2007

Indeed ... that's exactly the kind of thing that motivated me to suggest that we should help VAwebteam become an autonomous, responsible contributor (their collection of images must be Totally Awesome) ... something to add to the "project" To Do list (or create another one) would be a list of articles that would benefit from images uploaded from the V&A website ... why don't you create a sandbox with a starter list, and maybe find one or two in their existing articles ... no need to upload and insert them yourself; just provide URLs for the pages where they can be found (like http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/british_galls/audio_talk_art/three_graces/index.html and http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/object_stories/ardabil/index.html for the carpet.) —72.75.70.147 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wrought iron is, like virtually all metalwork articles I've seen, an art-history-free zone. Category:Genres of Indian art is very short of articles & most of them are very poor. Indian sculpture is barely present. Category:Chinese porcelain is certainly better, but still full of stubs. Finding the gaps in WP's coverage of applied art is not the problem, so I don't think I need to overload them with great lists. But if they aren't used to the categories, that is the best way to search an area - it's easy to pick up how to use them. I suspect they (he/she) has enough lined up for the present! Johnbod 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum

Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk · contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:

Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.

Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi ... I see you're working on the To Do list ... in your edits, you should always leave an Edit summary (that little text window above the Save page button), even when it's a minor cosmetic edit ... see my Contribs for an example, and compare with yours (click User conributions in the toolbox menu underneath the search dialog box on the left of the screen. :-) —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 15:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, have added them since getting your tip.VAwebteam 13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Sorry, I'm not in a position to contribute to this because of other commitments. However, I would make the point that it is always preferable to add article content and use the external link as a reference with an inline citation per the "Guide to referencing" above on this page. Tyrenius 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message for VAwebteam

Thank you for your note to me. I've replied on my talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done several, & the rest are probably ok. Johnbod 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help. VAwebteam 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful image

The Ardabil Carpet image you uploaded significantly enhances the article, great addition. — Athaenara ✉ 12:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Grasshopper, you are doing Quite Well! :-) ... I have been observing your activities from the shadows, but not actively participating ... you have truly become a Responsible Contributor. —72.75.96.83 (talk · contribs) 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh shucks. I've had good guidance, just hope I don't let you down! Thank you! VAwebteam 14:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chocolatepot.jpg

You have listed this image as both public domain and copyrighted. This is not possible. Please clarify the status of this image before someone gets it deleted. Rmhermen 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning about deletion. I'd really appreciate some advice on this. I put this image down as being in the public domain because the artist died over 100 years ago and anyone could walk into the V&A and take a picture of this object and use it on wikipedia. However, this image was taken by the V&A's photostudio and if someone wanted to use it for a commercial publication or similar they would need to contact the V&A's picture library regarding permission for usage BUT for the purposes of illustrating wikipedia articles and anyone wanting to use it in their research etc it's ok to use it and the V&A's director has given his permission to do so. The image was taken from the V&A website so could be added to wikipedia by any member of the public, but as I work on the V&A's website I know a little bit about the history of the images and thought it best to add the copyright symbol. Does this make sense? By contributing these images to wikipedia the V&A is assuming good faith from wikipedia's users. Perhaps I could drop the copyright symbol and add a note in the summary for people to contact the picture library if they want better quality images for commercial usage? VAwebteam 08:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I have removed the copyright symbols from the images this applies to and hope this means they won't be deleted. VAwebteam 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working around prejudice

You've had a brusque introduction to Wikipedia, I see, but I hope you and the V&A team aren't put off by the resentment so confidently expressed here of educated, informed opinion. The way to get information you know to be correct and enlightening into Wikipedia articles is through ventriloquism: find a published statement from a "reputable source" (this, too, can bring problems when "reputable" is judged by a high-school senior in Idaho), work it into the article, and note your source in a footnote. Even professional commonplaces are read as "Original Research" by officious Wikipedians who've never had any contact with the field. If you get into a tangle with the trogs, call on me.

Photos you load to Wikipedia need to be your own, not official V&A photos, for which there are always copyright issues. Anything you can shoot from the English furniture or the Jones Collection (golly, or the Wallace Collection!) may serve to build an article upon: Ince and Mayhew David Roentgen etc etc. Be in touch. --Wetman 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yvessaintlaurent.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yvessaintlaurent.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jeanmuir.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeanmuir.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image additions

Hi, and thank you for your image additions. However, you must know that wikipedia does not accept copyrighted photos where freely licensed images could be created. I have noticed that you have uploaded several images under a fair use rationale, but this is not acceptable where the photos are replaceable--this includes images of objects currently on display in your museum. If you would like to add these photos to the articles, they must be licensed under a free license that allows commercial use and modification by any party. I am going to be flagging your previously uploaded photos as replaceable fair use, and they will be deleted within a week if you do not alter the license. You are of course welcome to only upload low-resolution images under a free license and include a link to a higher-resolution, copyrighted image. Calliopejen1 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read WP:NONFREE for a primer on our non-free content policies. Calliopejen1 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have flagged Image:Chafingdish.jpg, Image:Copper snuffbox.jpg, Image:Mazer.jpg, Image:Chocolatepot.jpg, Image:Chrismatory.jpg, Image:Ceremonialmace.jpg, Image:Stsebastian.jpg, and Image:Lustreware.jpg as replaceable fair use. Calliopejen1 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grasshopper ... if the images have a copyright problem, then just have a link to the Victoria and Albert Museum page that contains the image ... either a cited reference or an external link will do ... this editor (Calliopejen1, apparently knowledgeable in the area of Fashion design) has not seen the history of your COI intervention a few months ago, so rather than confront this copyright thing directly, its best to just circumvent the problem with links instead of images. <Heavy Sigh!> Happy Editing! —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you should go through whatever hoops you need to do to document the V&A permission to use a low res version for WP purposes, but they have to be aware that anything on WP is effectively available for anyone to use under the GNwhatever license. So links are certainly easiest. Johnbod 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on being late to respond to this issue. I've been talking to colleagues at the V&A about the use of the V&A's images. They are still very keen for them to be used on wikipedia but not happy about them being commercially available (hence the nonfree copyright tag). The V&A is very keen to share their images for non-commercial use as you will see from the Search the Collections section on their site. There are a few restrictions on using these images laid out on Use of Standard Web Images, is there a copyright tag in wikipedia that applies? Obviously these images were taken in a photo studio and any photographs taken in the galleries (permissable under a free license) would be taken through glass and therefore inferior quality.

Also, I've been reading on various discussion pages about the use of images to illustrate an article. I used an image of the Ardabil carpet to illustrate the article of the same name....does this fit under the nonfree license as the V&A owns this carpet and it's one of a kind? Any advice gratefully received. I know copyright is a complete minefield having dealt with it on the V&A's website for many years. VAwebteam 10:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an area Far Beyond my expertise ... sorry I can't be more helpful. —72.75.74.236 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy!

Hello, Grasshopper ... just thought I'd mention that I took a look over your shoulder, and I see that you've been quite the busy little beaver ... my own edits have been mostly of the "rvv" kind lately ... I tried using a few of my deletion warning protocols with the {{warn-editor}} and {{warn-article}} templates that I created a few months ago, but I don't seem to be in the mood for new pages patrol in this phase of my mood swings, although I have returned to checking my watchlist several times each day (especially if there's nothing good to watch on the old "boob tube") ... Happy Editing! —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 03:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bening image

Just to let you know, I removed the copyright sign on the nice V&A image here, & changed the licensing on the picture itself to "pd-old". I think I have mentioned before (oh yes - just above) that 2-dimensional images where the creator is dead for over 100 years are public domain in the US, and I believe Germany, which are where WP's servers are located. So UK copyright law just does not apply to WP - hence our excellent collection of older images. The 2d/3d rule is because US law does not recognise the photographer of a 2D object as using enough skill to obtain their own copyright (it is of course the photo not the miniature which has copyright under UK law). It doesn't matter what license is used by the uploader, anyone can validly change it as I did. The licence you used said it was a 3-D object btw, which the miniature clearly isn't (a photo of the whole book, if there is one, would be). Carpets are a bit tricky - either 2d or 3d could be argued. Equally anyone can upload a 2d image from the V&a website & claim a PD license regardless of copyright claims on the site, as I expect you are aware. So really, once it is on the website, it is available for PD use anywhere, if it meets the 2d & age conditions. But of course these are low-res images. Johnbod 13:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

Hi. I see you are making good progress, and have been working positively with the wikipedia community in order to enhance our nice encyclopedia.

Since (and also before) our first encounters there have been several similar cases with 'archives' performing link additions only, and that still is a reason for concern. I have now tried to collect an essay on this subject pertaining why this is of concern, and, in the end, try to come with some solutions. I think the way your situation was handled is a good example for this (I do link to the separate pages discussing your work in the essay).

I was wondering if you could have a look through the document. I hope you can give some recommendations (on the talkpage), or even change some things here and there (feel really free to edit the document!). It is now still in my sandbox (here), but as soon as I am satisfied with it, and can think of an appropriate name, I will move it to Wikipedia namespace (next to the other essays). Hope you can find some time to have a look. Thanks already. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL

Please note that material released under GFDL has specific restrictions. The GFDL licence must be reproduced along with material used under it. If the licence is not reproduced, then the person using the material cannot claim it is used under GFDL and it reverts to a normal copyright situation, i.e. a breach of copyright, which can be pursued as usual. As the GFDL contains a lot of text, publishers may well prefer to not take the GFDL option, but simply to contract for use of material in the normal way. This is the experience of certain photographers who have uploaded material to wikipedia under GFDL. Furthermore, some of them upload and license a low res image (a max dimension of maybe 600 or 1000 pixels), suitable for wiki's purposes, but no use for quality print purposes.

GFDL thus affords more protection than may be immediately apparent. The copyright still remains with the originator, who can put the normal copyright claim on the image upload page on wiki. The copyright holder is issuing a licence for use. The GFDL does allow for modification, in which case the originator and the modifier must both be credited. The modifier holds the copyright on the change they have effected (which they have also licensed under GFDL).

As you are aware by now, any image upload to wiki that specifies non-commercial use will be deleted. Also, as Johnbod has pointed out above, images can be uploaded to wiki under a fair use claim, and US law, which applies to the wiki servers, has not recognised any copyright for a photographer of a 2D image. Even when the 2D image itself is in copyright, fair use can be claimed and an image used.

Wikipedia seeks to limit fair use claims, and there are limitations imposed by the project, stricter than legal requirements, as to how and where such images may be used. It is thus highly preferable that images are ones released under GFDL.

I therefore urge you to seriously consider releasing appropriate images under GFDL. Reasonable protection still remains, as I have pointed out above. You are obviously aware of the reach of wikipedia to a worldwide audience. The advantage to the V&A of releasing images, as suggested, is that such items in its collection will gain considerable exposure. The image page text will show the origin of the image as being the V&A.

I should stress that TINLA and I don't represent the Foundation, but am speaking as an individual editor.

Tyrenius 21:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ceremonialmace.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ceremonialmace.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 10:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linnaeus Tripe

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Linnaeus Tripe, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/photo_focus/tripe/biography/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, Grasshopper ... you can't just go copying and reformatting pages from another site ... the bots are ever vigilant, as you can see by the above ... Happy Editing! —72.75.79.128 (talk · contribs) 09:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardmans

Great pic. I've removed the window because the article was too cluttereed. Can you please go back and cut down the caption, which mentions Hardmans twice and the V&A twice. That's fine for a museum catalogue, but not necessary in the context of the article.

Amandajm (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken some of the caption away. Please remove anything else you think not necessary. VAwebteam (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL releases

Some great images and a marvellous addition to the encyclopedia! I see you've added some very helpful text to the image pages. That would be the right place to put any further information, if you wish, maybe about where the specific example can be located in the museum for any readers who want to find the original. You are also welcome to link to the specific web page for the item on your site. I'm not aware of any other major museum contributing to wikipedia in this way before. You are certainly at the "cutting edge". Tyrenius (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For some great images! If anyone deserves this, I should think the V&A does! Tyrenius (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Victoria_and_Albert_Museum. Feel free to post there. Tyrenius (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

The usual repository for GFDL images is the "Commons" at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . This means that all the other language wikis can use them as well, whereas if they're just on the English wiki that isn't possible. GFDL images normally get transferred there anyway, so you might like to open an account at the Commons and upload directly. This is not obligatory though. Tyrenius (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - this would also have the advantage that they could be added to the Commons category there. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for what you are doing with V&A images on Wikipedia!! If you need help from someone outside, I have been working in fashion history, textile arts, Morris & Co., etc., and there are TONS of images that I wish we could use.

I am going to make a version of Image:Crewelwork.jpg without the white borders and put it in the Commons. If that's a problem, let me know and I'll delete it.- PKM (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to take off the borders of this image. Thank you for your message. VAwebteam (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did; the image is here: Image:Crewelwork Jacobean V+A.jpg. I've made a new subcategory for V&A Museum textiles in fond hope that more will appear. Thanks much. - PKM (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese art

Hi VAwebteam! It is very cool that you work for the Victoria and Albert Museum! I was wondering that if you could upload some images of Chinese art onto Wikipedia, especially I know that the museum has many high quality selections. Pictures of ceramic art (Chinese porcleain) would be fantastic! I would appreciate it if you could take time and upload some of them.--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above, I wonder if you are open for requests in general. If so, we could give this some wider publicity to other wiki editors. Tyrenius (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Rie

As a recent contributor to Lucie Rie, you might want to comment on a proposal to merge Lucy Rie at its discussion page. Truthanado (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Copper snuffbox.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Copper snuffbox.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC) --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this. It's a bit heavy-handed. To put this to rest and avoid future problems, I wonder if you could arrange for the V&A to contact the Foundation as at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us to affirm you are entitled to give GFDL permission for images. Alternatively, if it is stated on the V&A web site that the museum web team contribute to wikipedia as VAwebteam that would be just as good, and it could be linked to from your user page. Maybe it would make a nice feature on the museum site that objects from the collection are now being featured in wikipedia articles. Tyrenius (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May Morris

Is is possible for the V&A to release the embroidery design by May Morris here (or som,ething similar) for use in Wikipedia? We could also use a photograph of May Morris as an adult. Thanks so much. - PKM (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria and Albert Museum images

For all images from the V&A website that you upload to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you are hereby authorized to place {{PermissionOTRS|https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1332999}} on the image description pages. This indicates that an agent from the V&A Museum has indeed confirmed the terms of the image licensing. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ping

Hello again, Grasshopper ...

Just stumbled across an old thread between us from last May on a previous IP talk page, and I thought to myself, "Self, you haven't thought of VAwebteam since before Xmas!" ... for a while I amused myself by making templates, like {{Oldprodfull}} and {{Anon-sig}} ... I've been a "casual" editor the past few weeks (I guess the post-birthday depression hasn't worn off yet. :-)

{{subst:Anon-sig}} → Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) _{03:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Isokonpenguin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Isokonpenguin.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nv8200p talk 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Bracketclock.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Bracketclock.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chetvorno^TALK 07:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, after I put this warning tag on I read above (User:howcheng 28 February 2008) that the copyright questions about your V&A images have apparently been resolved through OTRS. Thank you so much for all the great images. If you could just put your OTRS tag on this bracket clock image, the copyright problem should be cleared up. By the way, this is a really beautiful image, a perfect illustration for the Bracket clock article. Thanks again. Cheers, --Chetvorno^TALK 07:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ty 09:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping track

Hi VA: I hope you don't mind if I answer your question to Johnbod. This counter [1] reveals the traffic statistics, tabulated monthly, of a Wikipedia article. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see somebody else has already answered your question! I had just left a reply at User_talk:Johnbod#Page_visitors. Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Artists' Association

I read that the V&A has a catalogue of the Allied Artists' Association (founded 1908). See: Frank_Rutter#Allied Artists' Association (AAA). I'm really looking for a photo of Frank Rutter, which I can't find anywhere, but anything relating to him or the AAA would be helpful, even a catalogue cover, or a group photo, if it exists. I've done a search of the V&A site, but can't find the AAA. Thanks. Ty 05:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxhall Gardens

Hi. The URL you inserted in the external links of this article was incorrect. I've corrected it. Is it possible you;re linking to an intranet URL which is inaccessible to the rest of us? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that, yes that is our internal connection...shall make sure I check my cutting and pasting in future!!VAwebteam (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I'm very glad you're adding content to wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VAwebteam (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons versus Wikipedia, for image upload

I see you're uploading images to wikipedia, under GFDL licensing. (Thank you soooo much! Can I have your job, please? You can have mine: it's a very good job...)

Have you considered uploading the images to the Commons instead of wikipedia? The benefit of so-doing is that they'll be available to all language editions of Wikipedia instantly ... whereas images loaded to the English wikipedia are available only to the English wikipedia. thanks --13:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)

The V&A would be happy to upload to the Commons area if OTRS copyright still applies. Could you tell me how I go about doing this and if I can batch upload all of the images I've added to wikipedia already? Thanks VAwebteam (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the OTRS question here; I'm fairly sure OTRS is cross-wiki, but best to be certain.

As for bulk uploads - I'm not too sure what tools are on offer. I found this, which may be of interest but requires a software install on your PC, which might be difficult if you;re doing this from work. There is also Commons:Tools#Upload_media which has a listing of such things, including a link to a human staffed process for image uploads ... they're bound to be able to assist, I'd think. I hope this is enough to get you started.

I think for me the priority is to get you to a point where you're uploading to the commons. Moving all that you've uploaded to date is a lower priority, and will happen slowly of its own accord if you do nothing, as people discover the images and want to use them on other language wikis. I wouldn't want you to see the commons thing as an imposition; your time is probably much better spent adding more images & links, than housekeeping image storage locations. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OTRS applies on all Wikimedia wikis. Cbrown1023 talk 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Tagishsimon. There is a guide at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. I have used the tool at Tips #1, which is on this page. You have to validate your user name, before it will work, but that is fairly simple. We can probably though get help to do this, either someone with a bot or a team of volunteers working with the images.

Ty 04:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Vase (Wedgwood)

You've uploaded this article with a source of a V&A book. Did you copy and paste the text from the book? If so, please explain this in the edit summary and on the talk page, and put your OTRS tag on the talk page to certify it, just as you would an image.

If you do this, I take it the V&A owns the copyright, or has copyright clearance from the author to act accordingly.

At the bottom of the article, instead of "bibliography", it would be better to use the heading "References", and put the relevant info, including the page number(s) the material has come from and to wikilink "V&A Publications". Just use the code:

[[Victoria and Albert Museum|V&A]] Publications

You can put the ISBN at the end. If you simply write ISBN then a gap then the ISBN, it will automatically be turned into a link. Here's an example: ISBN 0719059720

If it's not copy and paste, but an original text, using the information in the book text as its basis, then it would be a good idea to indicate that too, so that someone doesn't think that it is a copyvio. Reference to the page(s) used as sources, + the V&A wikililnk and ISBN would still be good. Thanks and keep up the good work! The article looks very attractive and informative.

Ty 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this advice. I'll update the article next time I'm in the museum. VAwebteam (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now been merged with Portland vase. I'll add ISBN, etc info on future articles. VAwebteam (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:WarVA.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:WarVA.jpg, which you've sourced to V&A Museum. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that permission for educational and/or non-commercial use is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for message - I was just about to return to this page and add the OTRS permission - which I have just done. As you will see from further up this talk page the V&A has been granted permission to use the OTRS tag on all of the images added by this user name. VAwebteam (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. User:Howcheng's code is no longer valid — you need to use {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1332999}} now instead. Thanks for your uploads. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the OTRS ticket indicates just that. GFDL license - Alison ^❤ 09:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rembrandt

Aren't the two images a preparatory drawing above & the etching below (reversed composition)? Are both from the V&A? Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etching copper printer plate is above and print is below, both are V&A objects. VAwebteam (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks - a useful image! Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question...

Did you get my e-mail? Lupo 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs replacement

Hello...

The below message was added to Visual Arts Wikiproject and it was suggested you might be able to assist.

An image used in the Tin-glazed pottery article, specifically Image:Ajvdelft.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image to be uploaded would need to be an example of English Delftware. The image that started this request is used on that page and also in the section on English Delftware in the Tin-glazed pottery article. If you have an image that would fit into this subject matter, please upload it and drop me a note on my talk page and I will replace the image on the two pages. Thanks for the assistance. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the top of the page - why don't you look at the V&A site & see what they have, then ask for the specific image. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armada Jewel

Could you possibly release an image of the Armada Jewel to add to the gallery here: Portraiture_of_Elizabeth_I#Portrait_medallions_and_cameos? http://www.artfund.org/artwork/1007/enlarged/1/the-heneage-armada-jewel or something similar would be perfect. Thanks! - PKM (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punch bowls

Hi. Is there any chance you could upload these two images please? [3] and [4]. I want to make an article on punch bowls, and they would be great to illustrate it. Thanks Stronach (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:Richardcosway.jpg

Image:Richardcosway.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Arthur Wellesley1808, by Richard Cosway.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Arthur Wellesley1808, by Richard Cosway.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

Any chance of this one? I'm going to do a bio of Bustelli, which we don't have yet. Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving clothing images to commons

The sackback gown images are being moved to a new category Clothing in the V&A Museum in commons. Watch for bot notifications as these are processed. - PKM (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Backgown.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Sackback gown back view.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacquelemoyne.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Jacquelemoyne.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Botanicalillustration.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Botanical illustration of Lilium superbum.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Softpasteporcelain.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Softpasteporcelain.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bidrivanda.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Bidriware vases and wine decanter.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nother request

Can this [5] be given the licence all clear? Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - I get a big image ok. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Handel-Roubiliac.jpg

Hello. I sent a message to the email account of VAwebteam on July 24th. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another ping

Hey, Grasshopper … just wanted to let you know I'm still around … looks like you haven't been active for a while … Happy Editing! — 138.88.43.201 (talk · contribs) _{20:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Question to identify Flickr images

Hello, to whom it may concern. Since you're a representative of Victoria and Albert Museum, I'm seeking for your help to identify images from Flickr which are stored at VAM. I want the images to be usefully placed onto any pertinent articles or possibly new articles. Except two, the images from Flickr have not been uploaded yet from the set, but I've got the permission to upload any of them from the photographer. However, I don't know what their name of the objects would be. {{User|Johnbod]] recommended me to ask you directly, so here I am. Do you know what this is? And the set has about 50 pertinent images. Your help would be beneficial to Wikipedia. Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Favrile.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Favrile.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AJ Cham 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tag removed. Please see the top of this talk page and the top of the user page. Ty 03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Quilt

Please could V&A Webteam let us have a couple of images of this V&A object for the article about the Tristan Quilt? It would be very much appreciated. Mabalu (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Buttons?

Hi there, I know you've got a huge to-do list, but I'm wondering if you've thought about the history of buttons at all? I'm a collector & am currently working on adding button-related info to as many relevant pages as possible. (Buttons are hugely under-represented on Wikipedia!) I know the V&A has some great buttons on their website because I've added several links to them on various articles. If any V&A button images could be uploaded to the wikis, that'd be great & could you please let me know if you do? Thanks very much! Sincerely, --TyrS (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

It would be great to see your return and further valuable additions. Re. external links, use this tool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch You can also find it by going to the Toolbox on the left of the page and clicking on "Special pages". The External Links tool is listed under "Redirecting special pages". There might be some other tools of interest also. Here is one search result for you: [6] You might need to try other URL permutations also. For mass tasks which can be automated, you can request bot assistance at Wikipedia:Bot_requests. Here's the equivalent EL search on Commons.[7] Ty 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent news! While you've been gone, WP:GLAM has been set up as a page of advice etc for the museum etc community, and the British Museum is shortly to have a volunteer "Wikipedian in residence" for a term - see WP:GLAM/BM. For the links, you can use Special:LinkSearch, which I must say I've never used myself; it has a Help page. This talk page section covers a similar request from another website about museums, & may be helpful. Let me, or the GLAM page, know if you have problems. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you both for your help. I'll give it a whirl! Have had a quick look at WP:GLAM - looks very comprehensive and have a feeling I shall be referring to it as I refresh my memory of all things Wikipedia. VAwebteam (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Cunliffeowen.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cunliffeowen.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Popehennessy.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Popehennessy.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Roystrong.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Roystrong.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Estevecoll.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Estevecoll.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Markjones.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Markjones.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image license

I removed the deletion template and added a {{GFDL}}(GNU Free Documentation License) tag.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bangles.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bangles.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Please see the top of this discussion page - I have permission to add all of the images I have contributed to Wikipedia. If you look at the history of this specific image (that was added in 2009), it appears to have been overwritten and then replaced and moved, perhaps copyright permission was lost in this process. I have tried to re-add the permission license today, but cannot take off your 'for deletion' message. VAwebteam (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorted now - see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Wrong_tag.3F Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting this out. Just to confirm - this isn't a joint account and I am the original user. I do not use Wikipedia very much so am a bit rusty. If there is anything else I need to add other than copyright permission on images please let me know. Thanks again. VAwebteam (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - noted. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fig leaf

Hi, and a big thank you for all your edits.

I have had a long fascination with Cast Courts (Victoria and Albert Museum) and I am the main editor of that article and many of the photographs were taken by me. Having been to the courts many times on and off, I have always been disappointed not to see the fig leaf that at one time would occasionally cover big Dave's embarrassment. Will it be there (on display that is) if I visit this summer? In any case, might we have a photograph of it for Wikimedia?

Thanks. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded an image of the figleaf and called it Figleafva.jpg‎. I will leave you to add it to whichever article you see fit. I thought the fig leaf was always on display but I seem to recall it not being very obviously displayed - David certainly isn't wearing it these days! VAwebteam (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent image, thanks very much! I have used the image in the fig leaf article. Whenever I have been to the museum the case that should contain the fig leaf has been empty (or not there at all) with a "temporarily removed" label or the like. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Help

Can you give a couple of examples? Answer at mine. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ardabil carpet.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ardabil carpet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Jasperware.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jasperware.jpg, which you've sourced to http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O148583/vase/ Copyright: © V&A Images. All Rights Reserved. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Saibo (Δ) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the OTRS ticket and code to the file page to show that this file is a valid upload. Mabalu (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you and sorry for not having more open eyes - too much work and too much copyvios. There should be permission statements on all the uploaded files... hmm. --Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Pendant.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pendant.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Romano.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Romano.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Evergreenva.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Evergreenva.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm sure you made this upload in good faith. I just suspect that the original play booklet is not yet out of copyright. Thank you for all your uploads! – Quadell ^(talk) 12:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and Salutations

To VAwebteam:

Hello!

Congratulations!

You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!

As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.

I have no idea!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are!

Or not.

All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!

– Athaenara jingles all the way 02:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Willis.jpg

The file File:Willis.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Museum collections

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Museum collections on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ham II (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]