User talk:LoveElectronicLiterature

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, LoveElectronicLiterature!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Jason Lanier.png

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Jason Lanier.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Lord Belbury (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

ahh, ok. This is from a zoom talk. I took the screenshot, and everyone agreed to be recorded. So I do believe this is in creative commons and is ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveElectronicLiterature (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Marble Springs 2.0 screenshot.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Marble Springs 2.0 screenshot.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Marble Springs display.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Marble Springs display.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Would this work:

I also wrote Marble Springs, and I give Creative Commons license to use this image from the work? I am Deena Larsen, and I wrote Marble Springs and I own the copyrights outright. Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no way from anyone to know who you are out in the real world simply based on what you've posted above. You can, however, have your copyright ownership verified by email by following the instructions given in the template above or in COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. There's a specific way such an email should be worded and you can find an example of this in COM:CONSENT. You can also try using the COM:RELGEN instead of email for verification purposes, but this might not work because your username isn't the same as your real name. You don't need to send a separate email for each applicable file, you can send one email to cover all of your uploads as long as you can verify that you're the copyright holder of the file in question. You should use an official email address if you have one to make it easier for a VRT member to verify your identity. Once you send a "consent email" to VRT, you'll receive a reply containing a VRT ticket number. This is number is sort of like a case number and you can use it for reference if you need to further discuss things with VRT. VRT members can only discuss specifics with those who email them, and they won't discuss any specifics with those persons on any Wikipedia or Commons pages. So, if you don't see a reply from VRT in your email inbox after some time has passed, check you email's spam folder. Anyone can ask general questions about VRT at COM:VRTN, but VRT members won't go into details and only give general responses. Once you've started the VRT process and received a ticket number, you can add the template {{Permission pending}} to each relevant file's page. That will let Commons administrator know that you've emailed VRT and are in the process of having things verified. From that point on VRT will take care of the rest. If the email you send in is OK, VRT will add {{Permission ticket}} to each file's page; if it's not, VRT will add {{Permission received}} to each file's page, and contact you via email to explain what else is needed. If, by chance, a file is deleted before the VRT process has been completed, don't worry since it can be restored once everything has been sorted out.

Now, this next part is related to editing on English Wikipedia. You can, if you want, ask VRT to verify your account so that it's known to others that you're indeed en:Deena Larsen. This isn't required, but some people chose to do so for the reasons given in en:WP:REALNAME because it makes it clear to others that you're you and not someone pretending to be you. This is a separate matter from Commons and has nothing to do with the file's you've uploaded. For reference, there can be a downside to this type of verification as explained in en:WP:REALWORLD which is why it's not optional. Regardless of whether you decided to get your identity verified for English Wikipedia purposes, you do now have a very strong en:WP:APPARENTCOI when it comes to editing or creating Wikipedia content about you yourself, your friends or other members in your particular field. You been advised about this before at en:User talk:LoveElectronicLiterature and you've posted that you don't think you have a en:WP:COI, but you actually kind of do. I suggest you carefully read through the information others have added to your English Wikipedia user talk page about this, and make sure to be as transparent as possible about any connection you may have related to the Wikipedia articles you've been editing. The more transparent you're about this type of thing, the less suspicious others are going to be and the less like you're going to find yourself running into problems. If you would like to discuss "COI" stuff further or have questions about it, you can do so or ask them at en:WP:COIN. Please understand that Wikipedia and Commons are collaborative project in which everyone is a volunteer; so, there are lots of users who are very suspicious of COI editing just based on principle and it can be rough going for those COI editors who aren't as transparent things as they possibly could be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you've already en:WP:DECLARECOI on your English Wikipedia user page; so, much of the second paragraph of my above post was probably not needed. Anyway, than you for doing that and this keep in mind en:WP:BLPSELF, en:WP:COIADVICE and en:WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement when editing Wikipedia. You might also want to use en:WP:EDITREQUESTs for any thing not considered to be a en:WP:MINOR edit at least for a little while just so that others see that you're trying to follow the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. Should I take further actions? I have verified my identity with the Volunteer Response Team. The edits that I have been making are all along the lines of:

Person X (wrote this article or work) and here is the citation Y. Or they have been to correct the SEE ALSO (Electronic literature) articles and to ensure that each person's article links back to the appropriate electronic literature pages. Would these further citations fall under the need to use en:WP:EDITREQUESTS?

I do not have any renumeration or other conflicts. I have been in the field for over 30 years, and this field is sorely underrepresented. I greatly appreciate your help in ensuring that Wikipedia accurately represents electronic literature writers. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Many people who have a COI probably don't see it as an issue, but usually it unintentionally creeps in unexpected ways. As long as your edits are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you'll probably be OK. However, if someone else starts to question them, you'd probably be better off following the guidance in en:WP:COIADVICE and en:WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. You should also probably avoid creating or editing any content about yourself (or your close associates) in any Wikipedia article, unless there's a serious problem that needs immediate addressing as explained in en:WP:BIOSELF. Even for simple edits like mentioned you mentioned above, it's probably better to make en:WP:EDITREQUESTS instead. AS for being an "expert" in you field, you might want to take a look at en:WP:EXPERT for some general guidance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Cole Community in Marble Springs.png

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Cole Community in Marble Springs.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:The Pines at Walden Pond screenshot.png

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:The Pines at Walden Pond screenshot.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Larseninterlink.gif

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Larseninterlink.gif, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What you need to understand about images such as this is that it isn't sufficient for the copyright holder to give you permission; the copyright holder pretty much has to give everyone in the world permission to download the image at anytime and use it for any purpose. If Eastgate systems is willing to do that, then great. If not, then the file probably can't be kept by Commons. You might want to take a look at this webpage to make sure you understand what it means to upload something to Commons under a Creative Commons license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a creative commons license for this image for any purpose is what I have permission for. This image is not the entire work, it is to explain how links and nodes work. This image can be used for any purpose without attribution. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you getting permission for any purpose isn't the same as everyone in the world getting permission for any purpose. If you're uploading someone else's copyrighted content, their COM:CONSENT needs to be verified. If you're uploading your own copyrighted content that partially includes someone else's copyrighted content (i.e. a derivative work), your consent and their consent needs to be verified. There's no reason not to believe that Eastgate didn't give you consent, but there's also no way to verify it. If you can get Eastgate to send VRT a consent email, then that should be sufficient in combination with a email from you verifying your consent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for warning people "Zombies, Runǃ"

	Zombies, Runǃ
	Thank you for the uploading of signs. Please know that people do appreciate your efforts. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)