Wikimedia Commons

User talk:Slowking4/Archive 3

< User talk:Slowking4
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Jeff G. in topic Template:Autotranslate
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 9

Tip: Categorizing images

Latest comment: 12 years ago174 comments1 person in discussion
Extended content

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Slowking4!
 
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

 

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
CategorizationBot (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Jamiluddin Aali.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Slowking4, Thank you for your suggestion 'migrate to en:wikipedia with non free screenshot' in connection with 'Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jamiluddin Aali.jpg'. As suggested by you, the file has been removed from Commons. Can you help in tracing it in the en:wikipedia. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for updating me with the information. It is really wonderful to note that the image is restored. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2011

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Slowking4,
 
Hope that so day somewhere on earth we shall meet in the same friendly manner in which we have interacted online for Wiki Projects. I am very pleased with your overly friendly and welcoming attitude.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Occidental Avenue South (Seattle, Washington).jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just so you don't get blind-sided: another admin has chosen to consider the discussion finished and delete. If you want to move the image to en-wiki, I have no problem with that, but I don't see any article that it's used in. (Please continue any response on the Deletion requests page, to keep the conversation in one place; this is just a summary of something I already said there.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

excellent, it's written: [1], however they don't like the image name, and are reducing from 140kb to ~40kb. Slowking4 (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Wearing-full-equipment-RG-208-AA-158-L-009.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Wearing-full-equipment-RG-208-AA-158-L-009.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

source is national archives and records administration - box RG 208 AA 158; folder L; 9th photo in the folder. Slowking4 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Please provide a deeplink to this file to NARA. As it is now, it is not sufficient. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
sorry, i scanned it at the national archives scanathon. dominic can attest to this, and i am in the photos of the event, there is not deeplink, but they will be adding one, by linking to this upload. Slowking4 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:RG-208-AA-158-A-009.tif

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:RG-208-AA-158-A-009.tif, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

High Contrast (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

source is National Archives. Slowking4 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
See my comment above. --High Contrast (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Soup-bathtub-guernsey-islandsRG-208-AA-158-I-003.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Soup-bathtub-guernsey-islandsRG-208-AA-158-I-003.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

High Contrast (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:RG-208-AA-158-J-001.tif

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:RG-208-AA-158-J-001.tif, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

High Contrast (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:RG-208-AA-158-L-005.tif

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:RG-208-AA-158-L-005.tif, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

High Contrast (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Modern-dragon-RG-208-AA-158-L-005.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Modern-dragon-RG-208-AA-158-L-005.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

High Contrast (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

this one happens to have the U.S. Army Signal Corps watermark in the image. Slowking4 (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Channel-islands-RG-208-AA-158-J-001.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Channel-islands-RG-208-AA-158-J-001.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

High Contrast (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

folder L; 9th photo in the folder. Slowking4 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Please provide a deeplink to this file to NARA. As it is now, it is not sufficient. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
sorry, i scanned it at the national archives scanathon. dominic can attest to this, and i am in the photos of the event, there is not deeplink, but they will be adding one, by linking to this upload. Slowking4 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You must provide deeplinks to NARA for all files you have uploaded. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

no, i do not and i will contest. the proper licenses are provided to each image. Commons:Essential information: "Specifically, besides the license tag, you should make sure that other people have enough information to verify the licensing claims by providing adequate source and creator data." this information was provided. it is preferred but not required to have an online source. since i am one of the ten or so people who have participated in scanathons at the NARA, i am a credible witness to the fact that i scanned the photo there. do you have any evidence that i did not? Slowking4 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Here on Commons you have to provide valid evidence that some image is really free. It is not some other people's task. Please read COM:L and deacivate emotions - stick to the facts.
And: no edit wars, please.
Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
i have presented all the evidence associated with the scanned images that are with each item. i do have the scans of the backs of the photos with the mimeographed photo description, that i have entered. where it is stamped Army Signal Corps i have tagged it; where it is stamped Office of War Information i have tagged it. you started mass challenging my source descriptions, why? i have clearly indicated Commons:L#Works_by_the_US_Government; the proforma documentation by that government is unsurprising; it is unclear to me what proof you would accept. i would submit that you have not assumed good faith in this matter. do not speedy delete these images, since they are disputed, rather take them to deletion requests. Slowking4 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
You scanned those files? Do you have the original photgraphs, or from where could you scan them? --High Contrast (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
i scanned the original photographs in the National Archives and Records Administration. the digital copy is on my hard drive. here is my picture of dominic in the scanner room with my flatbed scanner in the foreground.  . here is the blog of the archivist of the united states, [2] who used my photo, and you will see me in dominic's photo below. Slowking4 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you work for NARA? --High Contrast (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
lol, no, will work for nara chocolates. Slowking4 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
How did you come to NARA photographs then? --High Contrast (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
NARA hosted a highly popular scanathon FYI: [3] - Slowking and about 10 other Wikimedians participated. These images are all from the NARA archives and this is the FIRST time the image has ever been scanned. Very cool :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can use the NARA research rooms, come and scan anytime. :) In this case, we held an organized scan-a-thon, but it need not be organized. Aude (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I have added additional source information to all the images that were mentioned above (and I deleted all those templates in the meantime), see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. And I really do think that the unfriendly discussion above could have been avoided if you—High Contrast—contacted Slowking before spamming his talk page with all those unwelcoming templates. Sometimes it is preferred to treat a user like a human and simply ask him instead of putting warnings with a semiautomatic script, you know. odder (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

thank-you for intervening. i would say that regrettably, the tag first ask questions later, seems to be a widespread pattern of behavior, not confined to this editor. how many historic images are deleted, because the uploader is not trusted, and it's delete rather than fix license. we need a systemic culture change. Slowking4 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be good to add Category:NARA ExtravaSCANza to the photos you scanned and uploaded from the event -- gives a further hint of the source, and also identifies all the photos which were scanned there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
ok, done; i thought "NARA-cooperation" was sufficient. Slowking4 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you odder for playing the good shepherd. Anyway, I am glad to see that this copyright issue has come to a good end. --High Contrast (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
you have failed to address your improper use of speedy, where a source was given. another admin should not have to intervene. why would anyone want to schlep over to NARA, spend a day scanning, overcome the broken upload tagging process, to be treated like this? why would any institution want to partner with commons, when its material is subject to the whims of doubting thomas's. Slowking4 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to move File:Linguascope.jpg to en:Wikipedia and suitably modify its description

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Slowking4, I recall your wise move in transferring Jamiluddin_Aali file to the English Wikipedia. Sometime back I saw only the logo of Linguascope uploaded on the English Wikipedia which did not give clarity of the website. So I uploaded a screenshot of the title page. I agree that some improper PD description is posted but this was done by previous uploader and not me. Since the file is suitably used in an en:wp article, I request you to transfer Linguascope Screenshot to the English Wikipedia instead of Commons where it is currently nominated for speedy deletion. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC).

ok, i am staying away from english wikipedia for now. if you care to do it yourself, the upload wizard to english wikipedia is here [4]. keep in mind you must also create an article about your screen shot. word to the wise: select the right place to fight the battle.
also, as we see from the history of Jamiluddin_Aali before, it got deleted: the deletionists will pursue images once they appear on their radar screen, in the spirit of vindictiveness. and as demonstrated above, look pretty bad doing it.
a fall back strategy is to upload to flickr [5], and bide time patiently. Slowking4 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate articles on Azerbaijani embassy in Washington on en:wiki

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there,

I landed in the Diplomatic missions in Washington, D.C. category at the en:wiki and noticed what appear to be duplicate articles for the Azerbaijani embassy:

  1. Embassy of Azerbaijan, Washington, D.C., which has existed since at least July 2010 according to the page history
  2. Embassy of Azerbaijan in Washington, D.C., which you created in May 2011

I thought I'd recommend a merge to interested parties and have added maintenance templates to the articles, recommending the second be merged into the first. Any thoughts? I recommend using the section at the target article's talk page to localize discussion. I see you're on an involuntary wikibreak there so will also watch this talk page. Thanks, Northumbrian (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out, sorry about confusion about embassy names. Slowking4 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh no problem, I went to the International Relations wikiproject page to see if there was guidance on embassy names. There is, but it looks like it's completely ignored and anyway the project doesn't seem very active.
I'll see if there's any discussion about or objectives to the proposed merge; if there isn't any after a week, I'll go ahead and do it myself. Northumbrian (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-Thon and Meetup!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Who should come? You should. Really.
She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

Sarah (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Help with District of Columbia GLAM page

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, Slowking4, if you're not grounded still for too much time on the computer, I started a page for GLAM DC. Needs some help! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/US/Connect Djembayz (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

it's only been a month, they're friendlier over at source. Slowking4 (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

MLK Memorial and African-American Artworks deletion requests

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Slowking4, Thanks for your kind note on my user page, and I apologize for not responding sooner -- but I've been traveling and leave to go overseas tomorrow for another 2 weeks. I won't be able to do much regarding photos until I return, but I'm a little frustrated that I have to "relearn" the rules I thought I knew about photos: that photos taken from official U.S. government websites and brochures were allowed under public domain. (I always assumed -- mistakenly, I now learn -- that it was up to the U.S. government to work out copyright permission before it added the images to official government websites, and then we would rely on the government's work.) Anyway, guess things are much more complicated and restricted than I had thought! I'll keep trying to learn.... NearTheZoo (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

i share your frustration. unfortunately the rules change around here all the time, but the tag spam - bad attitude of the admins does not. the fact that they are more punctilious here than the wide expanse of the web, and the splitting of hairs between public domain and fair use will be an ongoing problem. people tend to take refuge in flickr. keep the faith. Slowking4 (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sculpture Maillol Jardin des Tuileries (deletion request)

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Slowking4,Thank you for your message, your kind appreciation of my picture and all the information. I have not really had many occurrences of problems with FoP until now. I will be more cautious in the future. I have a question. I discovered Google Project Art yesterday and am still in awe. I wonder if people here in Wikimedia Commons have already uploaded every single painting available? Or if not if I could do it? Are there questions of copyright in doing so? I read the "Terms of use" and it was not clear to me if Wikimedia Commons could use freely the reproduction of paintings. And last but not least where do you think I should post these questions? Dinkum (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

oh this? http://www.googleartproject.com/c/faq: "The high resolution imagery of artworks featured on the art project site are owned by the museums, and these images may be subject to copyright laws around the world. The Street View imagery is owned by Google. All of the imagery on this site is provided for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the art project site, in the manner permitted by Google’s Terms of Service." Slowking4 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

File:306-NT-933-G-5.tif

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Slowking4,

you described the file File:306-NT-933-G-5.tif with

English: Le Tremblement du Terre au Chile. Une des rues de Talea, apres le premieres seceusses au tremblement du terre qui a sommes on le sait ravages en grande partle Talea

My French is worser than my English. Can you add a English description of the image?, "Talea" is (for me) unknown in Chile, did you mean "Talca"?. Thanks in advance. --Createaccount 12:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

mine isn't much better, i will have to dig thru the archives to reread the caption on the back. it was nytimes paris bureau. Slowking4 (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Talca is correct, next time i will up the resolution of the mimeographs. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It has started!

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:Documents in the Smithsonian Institution Archives Hopefully more to come. I'm thinking we can also do transcribing at the edit-a-thon. Sarah (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please remove image

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Allison_Kupietzky.JPG Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, done. i would note for the record that there is another photographer's photo of you at wikimania; and previous photos of you at your editathon. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 23:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Winston-Churchill-McVe035.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File:Winston-Churchill-McVe035.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Note that this is a US photo. If still copyrighted, the copyright expires 95 years after publication, not 70 years after the death of the photographer, so I have changed your undeletion category. I'm not sure if the photo is copyrighted at all, though, but that is really a matter for an undeletion discussion, and should be synced for all different versions of the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Public Domain, not renewed. i did not categorize. if you're not sure, start the undeletion. two wrongs don't make a right.
this is a signal case, when confronted with a "not sure" deletion, rather than start a deletion appeal, it's delete all the others to conform to the "not sure". how many deletion votes for US copyright are from non-US editors who just don't understand the US legalistic heritage copyright rules;
when confronted with clear and convincing evidence that a copyright was not renewed, it's delete the evidence. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Thanks for helping me figure out how to insert the images into the Museum of the Peaceful Arts article. I'll look into putting the lecture poster on Wikisource for transcription; what a great idea!

Uncommon fritillary (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What do they mean "Baptized"?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

And why is it that churches specialize in these signs (the yellow brick road sign is from a Catholic school)? Since 1830 is a synogue.

No, I'm not ready. If K's voting/screening software works, I'll be fine though. BTW, you've been nominated as a screener. The major hassle I'm guessing will be to communicate to others "yes, this really is a crisis!" which I think I can only say 10 times and then will forget about it. There is something else. Wikipedians love to communicate in excruciating detail. We need to talk to newbies in KISS-talk. I'll probably be more comfortable with the newbies. Smallbones (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Indigenous Languages

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Good day, I saw your plan for a proposal project for a mobile app for field recording and upload and thought you might be interested in the creation of Wikimedia Indigenous Languages, an international body for the coordination for the development of indigenous languages through the use of Wikimedia projects. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks very much, i'm just working with User talk:Djembayz; she's doing all the heavy lifting. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing Wikipedia Takes DC

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

It is always a special treat to have such a dedicated Wikipedian like yourself on any team. You bring expertise on so much to every event. Thank you for coming to Wikipedia Takes DC, helping to explain [wikilovesmonuments.usa Wiki Loves Monuments] and how to take the best photos, and for doing the scavenger hunt despite adverse weather. You really are a true Wikipedia Leader.Lisa N Marrs (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Albert bierstadt.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Albert bierstadt.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Clark-mills.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Clark-mills.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Erastusdowpalmer.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Erastusdowpalmer.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:F-o-c-darley.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:F-o-c-darley.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Harriet hosmer.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Harriet hosmer.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Samuelfinleybreesemorse.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Samuelfinleybreesemorse.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Thomas Ball.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Thomas Ball.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:William page.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:William page.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

how tag spamming my talk page will get otrs to verify the email, is beyond me. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 12:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Larry Bell (artist).jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File:Larry Bell (artist).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

VernoWhitney (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Albert bierstadt.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
File:Albert bierstadt.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

INeverCry 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

the kind OTRS folks reminded me of PD-art: "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain" which i had forgotten about. Bridgeman baby. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ русский ∙ slovenčina ∙ српски (ћирилица) ∙ srpski (latinica) ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear Slowking4,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
  
Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 08:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of Waikiki Beach and Honolulu, Hawaii, Highsmith.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
File:Aerial view of Waikiki Beach and Honolulu, Hawaii, Highsmith.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Froztbyte (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

kept per Commons:File types lossless versus lossy, but wow, now vipsscaler may cause a rethink, when tiffs are supported. [6]. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

File:James F. Dobbins.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

 
A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:James F. Dobbins.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial ( ), No derivative works ( ), or All Rights Reserved ( ), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as   (CC BY),     (CC BY-SA),   (CC0) and   (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Public art in Washinton

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Got a few on Saturday. Please read the description on my favorite: File:Horses representing congress.JPG Smallbones (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

well SIRIS says "The eight vessels are a variation of the Greek Rhyton, a drinking horn adorned with a chimera." [7]. the point being since they have no base you have to drink it all before setting down. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:A-fellows-story.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
 
File:A-fellows-story.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting response from Maggie, which I've also posted at the deletion discussion. Quoth she "The logos are under free license, but there are trademark issues at hand. :) Use of the marks must conform to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy in accordance with our Terms of Use. The WMF is generally very liberal in permitting use of the trademarks by community members, but I'll run it past them just to be sure. Presuming that they are okay with it, trademarks (ours or anyone else's) should be properly labeled to caution reusers that there are restrictions beyond the creative commons license which apply, as explained at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_casebook#Trademarks." She has asked what your intentions were when creating the image - was it just created for Sarah Stierch or was it for wider distribution --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
well, i thought a link was enough, but i'd be happy to add a RegTM tag on it. in accordance with the polandball comics, this is mainly for internal use (who else would get the inside joke). the logo is a quick and easy way to refer to foundation. i could replace it with a circle, but it wouldn't be quite the same. it's hard for me to imagine that someone would want to sell t-shirts with this, but stranger things have happened. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As you said elsewhere, the whole text is quite confusing. I thought you could only use the image under fair use, hence your art couldn't be on commons, but I *think* Maggie is saying something different.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
well, they are kinda trying to have their "free" cake and "NC" eat it too. this is a common theme now with institutions using means other than copyright to control content: TM, terms of use, NC, ND on public domain works, etc. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Sir Henry Rider Haggard.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File:Sir Henry Rider Haggard.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fram (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Miss Maud Younger-12-16-20.tif

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Miss Maud Younger-12-16-20.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 21:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


COM:AN/U

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

 
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Slowking4. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Fram (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Sir Henry Rider Haggard.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey mate, I just deleted File:Sir Henry Rider Haggard.png. I know you're better than this, so don't let others get the best of you! Let me know if there's anything I can do. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 06:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

good, go to [8] and delete for the same reason. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
this pernicious "prove to me it's PD" actively harms the project. there are thousands of images with the wrong license. or same image two institutions with comflicting licenses. [9] (this will break hundreds of articles) where is the process to fix them? i don't believe in a process of hounding people, and then perusing their work to delete, ignoring other images with the same problems in the same article. far better to put a caution on it and move to the obvious ones. i will try to ignore the "the malignant assiduity", but i'm sure the trolling will continue. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Rubens-peale006.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File:Rubens-peale006.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

 — billinghurst sDrewth 13:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't hijack a category...

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the way you hijacked "Charles Wright" and turned it from a category about the architect by that name into one about the poet by that name. It's extremely rude to do that without, at the very least, moving the original contents of the category to another one, such as "Charles Wright (architect)", which I just did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

oops, sorry about that. i didn't know it existed, then was surprised it was for one work of a non-notable architect. thanks for fixing that. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 23:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

VOA batch upload

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have zero batch upload skills myself, but I just pinged another user who may be able to help! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks, me too, but this seems like an easy low hanging fruit. (easy enough to say, lol). Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I've filed a BRFA at Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot 9. Feedback is welcome.Smallman12q (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
i see bot is done, now to propagate into wikipedia. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On top of the world

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Defy censorship, now with a confirmed OTRS ticket

Too bad i didn't have a good photo of it to upload!

Smallbones (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

too bad. it's less censorship, than a fixity of ideology that will not admit the real nuance in the real world of laws. but it ends with the same result. "I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:AbdulJalil.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:AbdulJalil.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 20:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Emilio-mola.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Emilio-mola.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Emilio-mola.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

Polarlys (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

source was given, photographer unknown. wrongful prod. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smithsonian-panorama-detroit.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Bonjour, j'ai vu votre panorama qui était à recadrer. Je me suis rendu compte qu'il y avait un marquage numérique. J'ai donc téléchargé les photographies et recommencer l'assemblage. J'espère que cela vous conviendra. Cordialement. François de Dijon (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your panorama was to crop. I realized that there was a numerical marking. So I download the photos and start assembly. I hope this is satisfactory. Cordially. (machine translation)

tres bien, merci, c'est de trop pour mon "msoft photo editor". mais c'est une teinte bleue? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 01:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Bonjour, le programme que j'utilise habituellement pour réaliser mes "panoramas" ne sait pas prendre en compte les fichiers en mode "gris", j'avais dû les transformer, d'où le changement de teinte. J'ai recommencé l'assemblage en utilisant un autre programme qui acceptait les fichiers Tif "gris". J'espère que cela vous conviendra. Cordialement.François de Dijon (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately Licensed

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thank-you for your support for this proposal. I'm confused at your suggestion you would change your uploads to use it. To begin with, you can't remove licences from images that already have them (though you may add licences). But why would someone who supports the proposal decide to use GFDL as their sole licence? Please keep using CC BY-SA as you do. Colin (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

you're not entering into the spirit of unreasonableness. this muddies the water further: if i delete the cc-by and put on GFDL, which governs (are they equivalent)? only an experienced user would know to look at the history. the resistance to change would be funny if it weren't so sad. the free fanatics don't care about reasonableness; i'm becoming less reasonable day by day. why trust creative commons when we can wallow in the historical mess. most people will ignore and reuse without credit anyhow, regardless of which license is on it. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I try my best not to be an unreasonable person. At least with CC you give the reuser a chance to understand the licence as the linked page is plain English. With GFDL the reuser won't have a clue. And if you truly don't care what the re-user does, then CC-0 is a good choice and for that one at least you can remove your CC BY-SA and replace it with CC-0. Colin (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
to clarify, i would use the restrictive license out of spite: don't get mad, get even. it's important that there is a cost for a failure to be reasonable. this merely highlights the license manure that people refuse to be reasonable about. this is a cultural problem going forward: why be clear, when we can obfuscate with policy even more than the law. let's hoist them on their own petard: the pinhead ideology that prevailed deserves to be gamed; why worry about "fair use" on english, when we can spread the NC fun here. i have a couple hundred images in infoboxes; let them all be GDFL 1.2 only. let us take the serious photography elsewhere; they don't deserve it. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Ku Klux Klan parade8.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Ku Klux Klan parade8.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 14:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Georgetown Car Barn, Washington, D.C.4t.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Georgetown Car Barn, Washington, D.C.4t.tif, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

Denniss (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Luthur roy.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Luthur roy.tif, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

High Contrast (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Lyn Lifshin5.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You cant revoke the original CC-by-sa licensing. In case you removed the tag {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} from any other file description page or replaced it with a more restrictive {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0}} or similar tagging, you have to add the cc-by-sa-3.0 back. --Martin H. (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks for noticing. i'm merely following through with my comment at RFC/Appropriately licensed. if you change back i won't contest, but i also won't revert myself. i take it File:Speaker at free pussy riot dc6806.JPG can stay GFDL 1.2 only. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Brian Bouldrey 9301.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Brian Bouldrey 9301.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Matthew Zingg 9711.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Matthew Zingg 9711.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 19:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:G.C. Waldrep 9170.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File:G.C. Waldrep 9170.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Q01-K93 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

File:G.C. Waldrep 9170.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
File:G.C. Waldrep 9170.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Q01-K93 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

well, i defer to subject requests as noted above in another case, so won't contest. however, this was a photo at a public event. author could easily have made his wishes known then, and i would have complied. speedied the other 2 images, which only had a comment not deletion request.
lack of photo will diminish page views. religious views need expansion in bio article. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:28723u.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:28723u.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Baruch bernard.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Baruch bernard.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 05:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Garden with fountain on estate of mrs em fowler.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Garden with fountain on estate of mrs em fowler.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Nick flynn 0334.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
 
File:Nick flynn 0334.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Nv8200p (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It is the Creative Commons license Attribution NonCommercial Unported 3.0 that caused me to nominate for deletion. I did not think this license was allowed on Commons, but the discussion you provided shows that maybe it is. I thought that the the images on Commons are available for any use, even commercial, but your licensing indicated to me that you are not allowing commercial use. I guess it is just commercial use under the creative commons license that is not OK, but commercial use is OK under the GFDL license? ~Regards Nv8200p (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:City point virginia view of transports.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:City point virginia view of transports.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 20:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

sorry, i don't understand. if you doubt the PD license; add the license you prefer.
ok, i fixed metadata, the LOC link to image was correct though. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Petersburg va interior of fort steadman.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Petersburg va interior of fort steadman.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 22:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

i don't understand, perhaps you could clarify your objection to this image. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:White house from te washington monument washington dc.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:White house from te washington monument washington dc.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 04:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Metadata improvement

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Slowking4, Thanks for the message. I am a relative newbie and not sure what improvements you made to Nina E. Allender metadata. Guess I need a little help. Maineshepp (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

File:CatherineDouglasDickson013.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File:CatherineDouglasDickson013.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

The Photographer (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Aerial view capitol with snow 41953a.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Aerial view capitol with snow 41953a.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


العربية | català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | eesti | français | magyar | Nederlands | polski | svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Slowking4,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
  

Copyright status: File:Activists emmeline pethink-lawrence alice paul 30393a.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Activists emmeline pethink-lawrence alice paul 30393a.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Monument to suffragettes 30678a.tif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Monument to suffragettes 30678a.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Carmen calatayud 9425.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Carmen calatayud 9425.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jarekt (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

other files from the same even are also missing licenses. --Jarekt (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Donna lewis cowan 9433.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Donna lewis cowan 9433.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie 9407.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie 9407.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

More images of yours

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here are 3more images of your that don't have a copyright tag: File:Sarah browning 9229.JPG, File:Sarah browning 9224.JPG and File:Sarah browning 9223.JPG. Thanks for dealing with them. Ww2censor (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Sarah browning 9223.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Sarah browning 9223.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Sarah browning 9224.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Sarah browning 9224.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Sarah browning 9229.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Sarah browning 9229.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Shara lessley 9447.JPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Shara lessley 9447.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

user:Ww2censor don't know why you say this image is unencyclopedic. she is a published poet. may not be notable now, but will be. the lighting at these readings is notoriously bad. would you say File:C k williams 0632.JPG is blurry? its the only free image out there. one of three, none as good as the many unlicensed. a blurry image does not preempt a sharp one, just as a fair use image does not preempt a free one. why don't you stop tag spamming, and say, upload some images of living people for use in articles? only need 50,000. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 19:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Whatever. A bad image is still a bad image no matter how difficult it was to take. would you say File:C k williams 0632.JPG is blurry? Well what do you think? Sorry to tell you but is really crap but you upload whatever you want. I'm now retired from photography, so will not be following your advise, besides I specialised in still life commercial photography not people where the client would not thanks you or pay you for a blurry photo. Goodbye. Ww2censor (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
i kinda agree, but you get what you pay for. there are no "bad" images, only bad missing images. it dosn't matter what i or you think. yes i will; do what ever you want.
commercial quality photography is out there, i.e. highsmith archive at library of congress, but there are only a handful of free stringers. not enough to make a dent in the wikimedia shortfall. there is an ideological fixation on "free" images, which don't happen to have been produced in the past 10 years. they would rather be blind, than build an encyclopedia. there is a spirit of criticizing others work, rather than collaborating. if WMUK or foundation would "award" some kit, maybe the quality would increase. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 22:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine 1a34545v.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File:Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine 1a34545v.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— Huntster (t @ c) 09:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine 1a34544v.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File:Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine 1a34544v.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— Huntster (t @ c) 09:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine. 1a34538v.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
File:Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine. 1a34538v.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

— Huntster (t @ c) 09:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine 1a34537v.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate — Huntster (t @ c) 09:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine 1a34541v.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Idw/layout — Huntster (t @ c) 09:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Civil Air Patrol Base, Bar Harbor, Maine 1a34540v.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Autotranslate — Huntster (t @ c) 09:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

what a charming validation of "deletion before collaboration". my metadata is better; normally the upload wizard bounces similar images, don't know why it failed for these. why not upload hi rez as lossless tiff, rather than converting to lossy jpeg? part of fsac set - 300 down 1300 to go. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 16:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Slowking, I'm sorry, I meant to post here before now...got sidetracked. These noms were in no way intended to offend, merely to remove duplicates. Remember, the metadata is less important than the files themselves...metadata can always be added or removed for a particular file. Why I don't upload as TIFFs? I only upload material that I feel would be useful in articles. Even after all this time, the MediaWiki software doesn't handle TIFFs well, sometimes resulting in thumbnails not being rendered (which is happening right now), which means they are useless in articles. Uploading them for archival purposes is fine, but it's not my thing. Also, the upload wizard only detects exact image matches, because it matches the MD5 hash for each file, so it would not have helped in this situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
i'm not offended, i sense we're working at cross purposes. the LOC - OWI has only a few aviation photos, which have only been randomly taken from the flickr feed, not systematicly. the metadata is just as important as the image. the web is full of images we can't use because there is no metadata. so deleting a photograph template for your information template with less information, with no discussion, is particullarly "un-collaborative". i would suggest that a 10mb jpg taken from the tiff is not really an improvement from the 300kb jpg. 300 kb is good enough for a digital thumbnail, and commercial print users will go to the link to the LOC 190 mb tiff anyway. i would like to see a redundant project or systematic effort, rather than redundant when it touches my limited watchlist. communication by templating, is dysfunctional. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 22:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the templating, but that's a function of the system used to nominate images. I have no control over it. And I really cannot comprehend your statement that a high resolution jpg offers no value or improvement over a low resolution jpg...that obviously untrue. You do realise that not everyone understands how to use TIFF files properly. Look at it from the perspective of someone only basically computer literate: people are simply more comfortable with jpgs as they are, for better or worse, the standard for images. As I specifically said, I have absolutely no problem with TIFF files being uploaded for archival purposes (and so those commercial re-users that want them can access them), but for the average user, jpg (or even png) offers more value than TIFF. Good luck with your fsac/OWI endeavour, by the way; it's a lot of images but its a worthy cause. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
you do control what you choose to nominate for deletion. this "redundant" is the new "ownership" of uploads. there is no systematic cleaning up of redundant images. since they aren't in use, there is no difference. but look at a 300kb image and 10mb image with width set to 300px. i can't "see" the difference. it's only for large monitors, projections, printed output where you will see it, and then they will use the tif. others software does not have the mediawiki grayout. and they will fix the resolution display one of these years. will you then go back and upload a higher jpg then? seems like a lot of make-work to me. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 00:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Duplicates are duplicates. I nominate any duplicate image of the same file type I find...I've requested deletion of several that *I* have unknowingly uploaded in the past. I agree with keeping duplicates of different file types, such as jpg and tiff as they offer different utility, and would not nominate such, but having duplicates of the same file type just makes no sense. Of course the images would look the same at minimal resolutions, but that argument actually favours the higher resolution image, since it offers a greater range of utility over the low resolution version. And no...an average user is not going to favour a tiff image. I have no idea what you're saying regarding the upload of an even larger jpg in the future...if a source has made the highest resolution available, it is not magically going to increase in resolution at some point in the future. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding? Regardless, I want the best mix of high resolution and utility, and if an even higher resolution became available, then of course I would want to upload it. Obviously we have different opinions and priorities, and we're not going to change the other's mind. Let's just focus on our specialities and improve this site's value...for both use in articles and for archival and high-end users. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Huh !? so you're saying the opaque upload code thinks different crops are different, but you think duplicates are duplicates. if you only find things on a capricious basis, then you are capricious. where is the systematic application of "duplicate". i suggest you are wasting your time, and now my time. now i am offended. do not interact with me. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 11:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate

Yours sincerely, JuTa 14:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 21:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Palmer

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Slowking4, you have put category Fort Knox, Ky. June 1942 in category Alfred T. Palmer. But any photographer that made images in Fort Knox in June 1942 is allowed to put images in category Fort Knox, Ky. June 1942. The category can not be claimed solely for Alfred Palmer, can it? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

well, doubt there are any others. (could rename it, there can be only one, kinda implying as subcategory; following Douglas Aircraft Plant example). when combing through FSA photos, there appears to be photo shoot dates with each photographer, that might be a good subcategory than a big catch-all "photographs by Palmer". i take it you like the metadata formatting on the feature photos. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 23:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused. You seem to be removing the "Photos by Al Palmer" category from many individual photos -- but these are photos he took, aren't they? -Pete F (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This is not the way to do it, Slowking4. It makes it confusing for everybody. Anyone who will run into that, ignorant of your work, and decides to improve the situation will revert it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
sorry about the confusion, thought i was tidying up. don't want to have a "women novelists" thing. thank you for the civility.
the situtation: Category:Photographs by Alfred T. Palmer has over 300 photos in it (this is unwieldy); it has a subcategory Category:Douglas Aircraft Plant in Long Beach, October 1942; should not have both on same item. could also rename Category:Photographs by Alfred T. Palmer at the Douglas Aircraft Plant in Long Beach, California, October 1942
i emulated this to create Category:North American Aviation, Inc., plant in Inglewood, Calif. 1942 Oct.‎ & Category:Fort Knox, Ky. June 1942‎ & Category:Langley Field, Va. 1942 May‎, i.e. his photos can be broken down by the photo shoot, time and place as base category. i tend to prefer a category for each event.
alternatively, you could have "Photographs by Alfred T. Palmer" + "Douglas Aircraft Plant" + "Long Beach, California" + "October 1942‎". this puts more categories on each item, but mixing and matching the two schema is confusing.
i am agnostic as to which schema to use, let me know and i will implement. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand your thinking -- thanks for breaking it down. I agree with your general take, but I do think it's essential that the category names explicitly state "by Arnold T. Palmer," so that other editors and potential reusers don't end up with the same confusion Jan and I had. I think your redlinked/proposed category name above makes sense -- and hopefully it's easy to use Cat-a-lot to rename the category! -Pete F (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
ok, done; next:
Category:Photographs by Alfred T. Palmer at the North American Aviation, Inc., plant in Inglewood, California, October ‎1942
Category:Photographs by Alfred T. Palmer at Fort Knox, Kentucky, June 1942‎ &
Category:Photographs by Alfred T. Palmer at Langley Field, Virginia, May‎ 1942 Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Category:Photographs by Alfred T. Palmer at Fort Knox, Ky. June 1942‎
Category:Photographs by Alfred T. Palmer at Langley Field, Va. 1942 May‎
Category:Photographs by Alfred T. Palmer at North American Aviation, Inc., plant in Inglewood, Calif. 1942 Oct.‎ Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Yann (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 20:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It's a highlight, if a furrier finds this. Thank you and danke from Germany.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fur_vest_project,_2nd_Word_War,_New_York
--Kürschner (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
there's may be a couple more in that batch, not out of fsa new york city yet. nice category. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 13:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hopeful, in anticipation, thank you once more! Too bad, we have no more trade journals, to public and write about this. We had similar projects during the war here, but not on private commitment. -- Kürschner (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
ok, found 3 more, we'll see if any more in the 1000 to go. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 15:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Just found them too, wonderful and funny - thank you, also for thinking of me! --21:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

File:A-fellows-story.png

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Autotranslate 172.56.6.124 16:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

try again with a deletion at DR. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 20:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Carmen Giménez Smith003.JPG

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate 91.66.152.113 10:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Acid test.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Ellin Beltz ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 18:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

you are just plain wrong about Copyright, Publication, and Works of Art. here's the abstract of a law presentation. here is the law review survey article [10] Nimmer: "the sine qua non of publication should be the acquisition by members of the public of a possessory interest in tangible copies of the work in question.” Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 23:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
"A work is considered “generally published” if the author authorized at least one copy of the work to be made available to the general public without regard to who would receive a copy and without restriction on further uses of the work. Works such as posters, buttons, newsletters, fundraising letters, and brochures that were widely distributed will likely be considered generally published." [11] Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 21:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 19:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Herman Ottomar Herzog

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I vaguely remember something about Herzog, but am still wondering what.

Smallbones ([[User talk:Smallbones|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 09:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Found it at Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices#Hermann_Herzog. I wonder how that page got on my watchlist? Yes, I was trolling you! Smallbones ([[User talk:Smallbones|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 10:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
sorry i didn't link, thought it would be top of mind, you commented there. who is this copyright troll? they're worse than a commons admin deleting "unpublished" files, i.e. Acid Test posters. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 12:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
btw: user:smallbones, i made a note at meta about FDC, with a link to the bequest announcement. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The FDC AG recommendation will be published within a week, until then I feel limited in what I can comment on. But I can say that at least 5 of your 6 suggestions were discussed, and some of that discussion may end up in the recommendation. Smallbones ([[User talk:Smallbones|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 13:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thank you, it's nice to be listened to. at wikiconferenceusa, pheobe ayers was talking about training, and i mentioned it, maybe we can grow a consensus about doing & funding more of it. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 14:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing source on new images

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Slowking4: I see you have uploaded a pile of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) images recently. Did you know that many of them ended up in "images without a source" because you missed putting the source information into the template? Please go back through these images and put the source on the source line (even if that means redundant information is in the template), otherwise it creates a pile of extra work for the admins to go back and clean through the problem. We already have nearly 60,000 images with no source, given your comittment to "no extra deletions", it would be great if you would run back through your uploads files and fix them! Cheers! Ellin Beltz ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

the sources are there, just not in the source field. apparently the commonist does not have a field to add a source by individual image. and the upload wizard is not working for multiples. in the past i added a pseudo-common source by batches of 20 images. but not for these. i can always clean-up the meta-data and change from information to photograph template later. i guess i'll do that now. maybe the GLAM mass uploader will be the solution. i would caution you against using "missing source" as a workflow for deletion. some can be found by a google image search, and some are scanned at the national archives without a deeplink, as you will see above. the fact that there is a backlog, is not a argument for anything. i've personally eliminated bigger ones than that, but no not my job or concern. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 15:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:John Ericsson National Memorial

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

was a history-less redirect to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:James Earle Fraser. If you must have it back, it's almost too easy to recreate... -FASTILY 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

the problem with deletion instead of a redirect, is that it breaks all the links in the file histories. how would anyone know about the other category? it certainly looks bad, wouldn't you agree? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 19:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
ok, added history to talk {{kept|2012-06-15|Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:James Earle Fraser}}
apparently, neither the nominator, the closing admin, nor you added the history as proscribed by the deletion process. sore losers, pure incompetence. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 00:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt ([[User talk:Jarekt|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 11:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Template:Copyheart

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI --Jarekt ([[User talk:Jarekt|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 15:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 04:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

this is pretty hilarious. "script error" is an improper deletion reason. why don't you follow the DR process were there can be a discussion about copyheart? is it because you prefer summary admin action, rather than consensus? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually it was hilarious. Jarekt rewrote part of the date template and the software has an undocumented feature that screw everything up. Why I am disturbing you: Do you want info about every single )of your) file(s) that only had the copyheart tag? Or are you in the process of adding another license? I don't want to flood your talk page with more crap than necessary. I am actually sorry about the license, I kinda liked it, since I used beerware, coffeeware, and cardware a lot. Let me know how you want to proceed. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
the hilarous part is communicating in templates, even templates that don't apply; if you like the license, fight for it, or was that rather the like that wants to say goodbye?
the next step is yours: let the mass deletions begin, [12]. you are only going through the motions. i note that GDFL had an Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed, that would be another option for you. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate

Yours sincerely, JuTa 10:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Winston-Churchill-McVe035.JPG

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Magnolia677 ([[User talk:Magnolia677|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 21:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate

Yours sincerely, JuTa 11:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Hannah Halpern 5172477.JPG

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate JuTa 21:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Donn Dughi

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Aloha! Currently I am working myself through your uploads in Category:Photographs by Donn Dughi. It would be wonderful if you could check your uploads next time you dump 197 files without readable source / description here. Maybe you could help fixing the mess? While I am at it: Adding the photograph template seemed a good idea. Makes the whole thing a little nicer. Best regards, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

oh, that old thing. only part way through there. ok, i can clean up, may be a week before i can swing by. will be using gwtoolset, which will solve this "information template cruft" problem. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 08:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
That old thing is from this year. But if you could please, it is a little tedious by hand. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
pfft, eight months is a long time; not tedious at all, i've tackled backlogs 100 times the size by hand. when they fix the upload wizard, commonist to allow photo template, this will be history. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
ok done, can i go back to my task list now? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 02:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:Hannah Halpern 5172477.JPG

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there. No you did fine. I questioned the admin converting the speedy to a dr. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 20:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Hayes 2014 hi-res-download 1.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Secondarywaltz ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Gentry 2014 hi-res-download 3.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Secondarywaltz ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Eberhardt 2014 hi-res-download 3.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Secondarywaltz ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Coleman 2014 hi-res-download 1.JPG

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Secondarywaltz ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bond 2014 hi-res-download 1.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Secondarywaltz ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bassett 2014 hi-res-download 3.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Secondarywaltz ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bonauto 2014 hi-res-download 3 1.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Secondarywaltz ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bechdel 2014 hi-res-download 2 2.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Secondarywaltz ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

you need to stop right now, or i will make an example out of you at DRV. macarthur foundation clearly released these as CC-BY-4.0. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 04:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Here http://www.macfound.org/creative-commons/ MacArthur Fellows Images and Video states: "With respect to use of photographs and videos maintained on this website pertaining to the MacArthur Fellows by the media, the applicable Creative Commons License will be Attribution: CC- BY. This permits non- commercial and commercial use by media as long as there is attribution." http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ You are correct I have misinterpreted the license for the content, which is restricted, rather than images. Secondarywaltz ([[User talk:Secondarywaltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 04:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thank you for the reconsideration, i will finish uploading these. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 11:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks!

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I see there may have been a momentary kerfluffle, but thanks for noticing the few MacArthur uploads I made yesterday and running with the ball.

I went to upload an image of Robin Fleming this morning, and before my coffee, it failed two or three times before I figured out that it was complaining that we already had an image by that name! *LOL* Made my day. I'm stubbing out articles on the MacArthur winners on ENWIKI, and you've just made my life easier-- very much appreciated! --Joe Decker ([[User talk:Joe Decker|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, you beat me to the punch on a few this year, so i had to go use commonist. plenty of work to do to add the infobox with pic on wikipedia. i seem to recall they were NC before, wonder when they changed? (apparently after Jun 27 this year [13]) and they went to CC-BY-4.0 - user:mindspillage will be pleased. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right, I doubt I'd ever looked at the Foundation page for an image until yesterday.... Cheers, --Joe Decker ([[User talk:Joe Decker|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 18:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 03:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good morning, Slowking4. Thanks for noticing the tool add-information, and thx for you attention. Your user page is very very interesting, you know? bye :) --Lalupa ([[User talk:Lalupa|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 07:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your msg

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, you wrote me: "hi, love the work. however, it would be more accessable with some machine readable metadata such as an information template. i will be going through, adding these templates using this tool [3]. If you have questions, or comments please let me know.". I am afraid I do not understand what you are asking me. As far as I understand, you are telling me you would like to add the pictures' template to the pictures of mine I uploaded before this template (which is the one I am using now) was adopted for all images. If I understood correctly, I cannot see any reasons why you should not be allowed to improve WikiCommons. Love. --User:G.dallorto ([[User talk:G.dallorto|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Yann ([[User talk:Yann|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 06:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 15:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 21:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 03:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it would be nice if you could try to apply the licenses directly during upload. This would save time an trouble for you an other people who don't have to check and mark them. Thx. --JuTa 03:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
it would be nice if you could fix upload wizard to allow the hybrid licenses. passive-aggressive pseudo-policy. shouldn't have to use commonist for less than ten uploads. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 03:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Just use the standard upload page [14], and not the wizard. cheers. --JuTa 03:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
nice try, if you look at the license drop down menu, GDFL 1.2 only is not on the menu; and no custom license input. as i said it requires commonist to do on upload, or 2 step process. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 03:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
But that should work anytime. --JuTa 04:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
nein: "unbekannt (ich weiß nicht genau)" Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 22:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Einfach die gewünschten Lizenz-Bausteine in das Textfeld wo auch {{Information ... steht eintragen, z.B. unter "Permission". --JuTa 22:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
actually, i tried that before, and you tag-spammed me nevertheless [15]. when people ask me what i mean by "deletion before collaboration" i point to your behavior. i would suggest that your sub-optimal work flow is wasting your time. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Adrienne mayor 3390.JPG

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Sufiji ([[User talk:Sufiji|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 21:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 19:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What on earth? Speak English if you can, Ju, or at least say something in some language.--Elvey ([[User talk:Elvey|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 00:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
See 2 paragraphs below. He should ust clean up his talk page a bit. --JuTa 07:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
and see my response. the fact that your semi-automatic script is a memory hog, and your unthinking application of that script is an attention hog, is not my problem; it is your problem. my talk page would be just fine, if you never came here. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 12:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I would never come here if you allways would upload images with license templates. --JuTa 18:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
i would upload with licenses if the upload wizard would let me. and as we see above, i change them within the seven days, whether you notice or not. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 19:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not directly after the upload as you know its a problem? --JuTa 20:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
why not change the policy to speedy deletion, rather than seven day prod? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
(This paragraph?) Knock it off,Ju. The upload tools reek and you know it. Slowking4 can't fix them. You can. Should you? Well, would that solve the problem? Yes, I think it would, and many more problems. The choice is yours: create more strife, or alleviate it. Do you want more of it in your life, or less? --Elvey ([[User talk:Elvey|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 01:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
let me stick up for JuTa for a moment. he's fallen for the seductive power of the script. he's plugging holes in the dike; activity moment to moment, rather than looking at the big picture. there's a horde of admins doing the same. this template order giving to the workers, is merely an annoyance, but not a corrupt practice. the fact that bots can do it better, doesn't matter, we all do sub-optimal work; but at least he's not speedy deleting proded license-less photos, or keeping "all rights reserved" photos or socking to vote stack a deletion. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. A good perspective to take in.--Elvey ([[User talk:Elvey|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 07:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slowking4#Appropriately_Licensed refers to a proposal I'm not familiar with. I guess that's what this is about... Link? (or summary)--Elvey ([[User talk:Elvey|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 20:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
yes, colin had a proposal at Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. see also Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fir0002/credits typical commons hypocrisy: once upon a time, we had pro photographers use hybrid licenses, (a stealth NC), since GFDL 1.2 only is so ridiculous. but the community decided that it was "equivalent" to CC, but it won't be on the license list on wizard or old form, only commonist upon upload. so now i use this on my work, with a two step process, much to the amusement of my wiki colleagues. i'm also cleaning up metadata that has been broken since 2005, since the admins will only hound current uploaders, they will not fix anything. it's quite a culture clash. i disagree with Lila that commons is curated; it is a gated community, curation requires a curator code of ethics. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 21:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so the goal is not to change the wizard, but to have commons not allow stealth NC licensing. Does that RfC still need closing? I guess I can if no admin will.--Elvey ([[User talk:Elvey|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 00:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
the goal was to simplify, and do away with legacy licenses not suitable to images. RFC closed fail, the consensus was to keep the mess of NC + GFDL 1.2; but "discourage use" (passive aggressive) i.e. lost cause. it's an ideology of "freedom" regardless of reasonableness. i don't have a problem with NC per se (or SA), but the hypocricy of disallowing; deleting NC files while keeping NC + GFDL is quite funny
now, we have a meta proposal for super-admin to fix image transfers, lol. m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review. no indication of reasonable review process. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Coke being pushed into a quenching car1a35416v.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate Kopiersperre ([[User talk:Kopiersperre|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 13:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

i see your autotranslate tool is broken, maybe you should fix it, before using again. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 13:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You should just clean up or archive your talk page, its simply too long (too many transclusions of templates), then it will work. --JuTa 08:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
seems like a code problem to me. was the Commons:Lua supposed to fix it? i think my talk page is a fine illustration of "deletion before collaboration". wouldn't want to change a thing. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 12:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Like any editor, JuTa is responsible for whatever he posts, whether it's tool- assisted or not. --Elvey ([[User talk:Elvey|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 07:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
So fix it.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 19:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/137678231

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Slowking4. Something went wrong. Could you please fix it? --Leyo 06:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks, i'm finding that this visualfilechange "solution" is not de-bugged. the "metadata drive" will limp along until it is. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 12:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Adrienne mayor 3390.JPG

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 
but do you recall?

Hi, There is already a DR going on for this image, so there is no need for a speedy. Also I don't think it qualify as speedy. Regards, Yann ([[User talk:Yann|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 22:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adrienne mayor 3390.JPG.
PS: You should archive your talk page, it is very heavy, and it creates problems with templates. Regards, Yann ([[User talk:Yann|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 23:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
no this is a speedy, per photos of identifiable people, and courtesy deletion. but i take it courtesy deletion is non-existant for you? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 23:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, JuTa 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Bancroft library images.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Just for your information, those image you're sourcing second-hand from the LoC are available at higher resolutions directly from the archive, for example: [16]. jnkyrdsprkl ([[User talk:Junkyardsparkle|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 03:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Errors introduced by using VisualFileChange

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Slowking4. It seems that your edits using VisualFileChange broke the syntax of several files:

OgreBot 2 was unable to fix the syntax in these cases. Could you please do it? --Leyo 11:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, this edit is wrong: the photo was uploaded here on Commons by User:G.dallorto but as stated it was taken by Eugenio45 and uploaded on itwiki. G.dallorto has just moved it on Commons. --Jaqen ([[User talk:Jaqen|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 10:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
feel free to undo; and move PD-art license down. i see user:Mattes fixed it 4 days ago. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 15:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slowking4/Archive_3&oldid=273604886"
Return to the user page of "Slowking4/Archive 3".