MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext

message: Could the text:
:View [ deletion log]?
Be added to near the "view deleted edits" section? As a non-admin, it's very frustrating to try to find the deletion history of an image that has a red link and going to Special:Upload. GracenotesT § 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there should be a message at the bottom linking to the log already if you follow a link to a deleted image.  It'd be a lot clearer if this page wasn't such a mess. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: o_O ... I personally think that it would be better located at the top, unless we want to move the "view deleted edits" item down. It seems to make a bit more sense to do that. GracenotesT § 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the view and restore on top, people who click redlink images usually want to see a log probably, not upload. Anyway, I changed it so both are at the top. - cohesion 20:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you; it works. GracenotesT § 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "View deleted edits" even as a non-admin on the upload form is a bug. I filed a bug report ages ago about it. Not a high priority to get fixed, as non-admins can't see Special:Undelete anyway. ^demon[omg plz] 14:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to deletion log

message: Please remove the quotation marks from Images that you just "found somewhere".  I see no rational for their inclusion.  Thank you.  Reywas92Talk 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for finding that :) - cohesion 01:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation 

message: Just to let you know, the word "licenced" is misspelled.  This is on the line that says "An explanation of why you believe the file is so licenced." An administrator or anyone with sufficient privileges should correct it to "licensed".  You may use a spell checker to see for yourself. --Alex rosenberg35 18:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thank you. --BigDT 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling 

message: Enclose this message with  ... , so that it can be referred to using CSS. Thanks – 86.133.139.4 10:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —METS501 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request 

message: Does anybody actually read this thing?  It's the worst case of interface fruit salad I've ever seen on Wikipedia! --Carnildo (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose you have any concrete suggestions for improvement? Superm401 - Talk 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can figure out what it's trying to say, I will. --Carnildo (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My God! 

message: I've got a new version of the upload header at User:Carnildo/Sandbox-upload.  Advantages of this version include:
# No fruit salad, so there's a chance people will actually read it.
# Step-by-step directions, so there's a chance people will understand it.
# Positive statements rather than warnings and threats, so there's a chance people will pay attention to it.
--Carnildo (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that it's shorter, with less random colors and possibly distracting logos (this may be what you mean by fruit salad).  However, I think it should have at least one warning that images may be deleted.  Also, it should address non-free use rationales more directly, suggest uploading to Commons, and ask for a link to online content. Superm401 - Talk 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the sort of thing that led to the mess we have now.  I'm not trying to come up with a comprehensive document covering all possible image-uploading situations (I tried that once; gave up after fifty or so pages when I still hadn't adequately distinguished between free and non-free images), but a set of basic instructions on how to upload an image. --Carnildo (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that 95% of the world isn't going to read a word of it.  If you make the one (and only) important thing stand out - don't upload random stuff you found on some random website - then we probably go up from 5% to 50% reading and comprehending that particular concept. The old one was way too much probably didn't help.  The one thing that you need to get from reading that form is that under penalty of fire and brimstone, don't upload random stuff from the internet.  Anything else they get from it is bonus. --B (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One fruit-salad box is too much.  If we're going to have a screaming red box, we might as well not have any of the rest of it, because nobody's ever going to read it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is going to read a word of it right now.  The one and only important message to communicate is that Wikipedia, unlike myspace, blogspot, whatever other websites this user hangs out at, is not somewhere that you can upload photos that you find on any random place on the internet.  Make that one message stand out and it gets read.  Give them lots of stuff in normal type and none of it gets read.  Someone using this form is not going to understand that they shouldn't upload copyvio images.  Having four colored boxes doesn't help either - that ensures that none get read.  But having the one most important message that if you don't read anything else you read this emphasized is about the only way to get the point across. --B (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Black text on blue background is defintety not going to be read. It's just another online upload form that people don't read.Geni 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Geni; users are much more likely to pay attention to contrasting templates than to the plain blue and black.  Not "fruit salad" at all - but that would be better than now.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: Is there a simple method to get from the Special:Upload to a preset tag with the detailed Non-free use rationale?  I know this sounds like a question for the help desk (and it is if the answer is yes), but it seemed to me that the only method to add the detailed rationale was to copy/paste it from the non free rationale guideline.  Am I missing something or is this a deliberate choice among upload options presented by the wizard? Protonk (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed fair use rationale 

message: I know of a leading female scientist in the University system, she has won several awards. She is also one of the leading women scientists in the field of Climate Change. I would to be able to organize data and hard evidence\ facts, to legally create a Wiki page.
Would appreciate some feedback! :D
Does anyone have any Idea how I go about this?
Chili287 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Wikipedia:Starting an article.  In the future, questions like this should go to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we create our own pages? 

message: Hi, after a discussion with another user, I have realised that specifying that a link to the webpage the image was taken from may be a good idea. This user was merely saying that the images were from Flickr, rather than linking to the page from which they were taken. Would anyone have an objection to this being included? Does anyone have an idea about how this could be done? J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me to ask for more specificity in the source parts of upload forms. Did you have a particular upload form/page in mind? Or did you mean all of the upload pages? For a table of all the upload pages and their talk pages see the top of Wikipedia talk:Upload. You might want to ask at the main discussion page, or one of the other talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specify that an URL is useful? 

message: Hello. Had a few suggestions for the basic en.wiki upload form (Special:Upload). First of all, please remove the new preview feature (or move it to the bottom of the page). Its extraordinarily annoying for it to push the rest of the page down. As an uploader, I should take the time to make sure the image is correct before uploading it, and this preview feature promotes ignorance in my opinion. Second, can we copy what Commons does and make it so the form is partially filled out?

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? Does anybody watch this page? Who has permissions to edit the coding? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try  as any admin can edit this page. ΔT The only constant 15:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured it was something that required edits to mediawiki and not just the wikicode.... but may as well give it a shot to bring in some attention. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   Try starting a discussion at WP:VPT, both to gather ideas on how to do any of this (it seems Commons uses some major Javascript) and to see if consensus actually supports it. Anomie⚔ 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  En wikipedia basic upload form 

message: Please replace  with . The "Image" namespace is now called the "File" namespace, and we use only https on Wikimedia wikis nowadays. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 03:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 21 March 2019 

message: Please change  to  because the GFDL has been depreciated as an accepted image license.HouseBlastertalk 02:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 16:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 1 January 2023