Closeapple

English: Welcome to the Commons, Closeapple!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

CAP images

I saw your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:CAPCP.jpg, thought I would comment here rather than there. I at first had the same thoughts regarding claimed ownership, but because CAP works at public domain, wouldn't a photograph of said object be newly licensable, and thus, releasable by the photographer? It is a very minor thing to be sure, since the end result is everything is still in the public domain, but I thought I would pick your brain on this. However, I hadn't considered the novelty patch issue...hmm. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Huntster#Civil Air Patrol images. --Closeapple (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points, and I had forgotten about PD-art. I'll bring up these issues with the uploader. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 7b779e54f634549b3605d032f20e733e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Tree of Life close up.jpg

File:Tree of Life close up.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!

--Powers (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Tree of Life (Disney)

Category discussion notification

Category:Tree of Life (Disney) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Powers (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Abetomb03_(December_2005).jpg

File:Abetomb03_(December_2005).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!

Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I never imagined that this would be a useful picture until I read what you wrote. Thanks for providing the detailed keep rationale; I've asked for the request to be speedy closed as a keep. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Port Charlotte High School

Thank you. I was going to do this, but it looks like you beat me to it. :) PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:John Burroughs School Prom Invitation

Hi. I would like to re-upload File:2009ControversialInvitation2.jpg, but am afraid you might delete it again. The illustration was taken from a news article (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=473342) and is fairly necessary to...well...illustrate a significant event in the school's history. It is not "my" prom invitation, but was of historical interest. No one has claimed ownership of the image. In fact, that was part of the controversy. How do you recommend I site it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druid135 (talk • contribs) 2010-08-18T17:32:52 (UTC)

Since it's about John Burroughs School, I assume you're using it to illustrate the English Wikipedia article. English Wikipedia happens to allow "fair use" images (see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content, also known as en:WP:FAIRUSE). In short: go over to English Wikipedia, upload the image there (instead of Commons), then in the description over there, add a copyright tag (en:Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free) and a fair use rationale (en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline) to explain why it is needed. The uploaded image will exist on English Wikipedia but nowhere else. (Also consider whether you really need the page with the woman on it; that page itself contains no original content, just an exact duplicate of The Seven Deadly Sins: LUST by Marta Dahlig (blackeri on deviantART) of Poland, who published it in 2005, 4 years before the invitation. You may be able to just say in the article that the invitation included this work and describe it, rather than show an image.) Also, you already have one of the pages uploaded on English Wikipedia as en:File:BurroughsPromInvitation.jpg and in the article. --Closeapple (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:New Jersey in the 21st century

Hi, I noticed that you moved two of my pictures of 20th century Summit NJ school buildings to a Union County schools subcategory. Very good. And also to the NJ in 21st Century subcat. Hmm, the reason for this is less obvious. Will all my several hundred pix of New Jersey, and most of the NJ pictures from other photographers, be moved to the century subcategory? Jim.henderson (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it appears that the combination of "21st century" category on 20th century buildings looks strange; the 21st century and (lack of) 20th century categories have separate reasons:

• I didn't add any 20th century building categories because I simply didn't know the history of the buildings; they should go in (multiple) subcategories of Category:20th century architecture if someone knows which.
• The Category:New Jersey in the 21st century is probably borderline: often I tend to add things to the date categories for when the photographs were taken, particularly if there is any chance that later someone could look back at them to see how "things used to be". Some other editors tend to shy away from adding those categories unless they demonstrate something more closely tied to that time (e.g. events). Normally there is a category like Category:2010 in New Jersey, which makes it easy. However, when I was tagging the pictures of schools in Summit, that category didn't exist yet. To make it more complex: on a few of those pictures, I couldn't tell what the real date was, because some of them had a description date that matched the upload date but not the JPEG's timestamp: usually that indicates the real year is the one in the JPEG info, and the uploader forgot to change the description date from the default; but in the case of the Summit photos, an author actually explicitly noted in his description that the picture was from 2010, and yet the JPEG info said it was 2008 or something. With that, I decided some of those Summit school photos might have bad JPEG dates rather than bad description dates; therefore, I didn't bother creating Category:2010 in New Jersey or Category:New Jersey in the 2010s; instead I just dropped them into Category:New Jersey in the 21st century.

So, in summary: all editors who know the architecture normally categorize into architecture-by-date categories; all editors who know the date and place of an event normally categorize into year-in-place or month-in-place categories; and some editors (like me) also categorize other photos/works into year-in-place or month-in-place categories based on when the original image was done if it shows things that might change about the same subject in the future. (Also, I'm going to go create Category:2010 in New Jersey now, just because it ought to exist regardless of whether these Summit photographs specifically are in there.) It's worth noting that I use HotCat, so I tend to see whether specific category names exist rather quickly while I'm typing them and just skip them if they don't; I created Category:Schools in Union County, New Jersey because it was starting to look like there would still be a lot of those right in a row, even though I'd given up on the 2008 vs. 2010 thing by then. --Closeapple (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm, does this imply that the Commons geographical categories that have mostly 21st century photos, which are just about all of the city, province and other place cats, should have a 21st century subcat and put most of their pictures in there? I think the current thread in Commons:Village_pump#About_the_By_year.2C_month_and.2For_country_categories is relevant, and most of these pictures are more or less timeless; that is the date doesn't much matter and most of the placecats should not have a 21st century subcat at all. Most of our building pix are of 20th century structures, and most of them too shouldn't be in a century cat. Where the date of such a structure has historical or other significance, it should be more tightly nailed down and where not, should be ignored in making categories.

It's possible that at the moment I'm pedalling by a school, some future prize winning dancer, doctor or diplomat is inside and learning how to construct dependent clauses or add fractions, and future biographers will want to know whether I snapped the shutter before, during or after her years there, but if we don't have better information or more time on our hands than those hypothetical scholars, we can leave it to them. So, unless they depict or are relevant to a particular riot or footrace or hurricane or celebrity wedding or other notable event, I don't see a reason for categories to say anything about the dates of most of these contemporary pictures of modern scenes. Oh, and yes, I'm watching this page. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Df

Template:Df 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 template, 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. 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!

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Missvain

It's about bedtime for me, but I'll try to get back to you tomorrow. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Missvain

You're partially right; however, your understanding is clouded by the Arsenal HS example, from which I didn't mean to remove the high schools category. Sorry for causing the confusion. Without a doubt, some of these are useful categories, such as the brick buildings in Indianapolis category; however, most of them are simply too specific and disorganised. For example, Category:Former fire stations in Indianapolis was created for a single image, but it's only part of Category:Fire stations in Indianapolis (which had no images or subcategories except for the "former" subcategory), and we don't even have a Category:Former fire stations in the United States. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Gymnasiums_(schools)_in_Germany

Gymnasiums (schools) in Germany has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

80.187.106.58 16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Auburn High School permissions

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Auburn High volleyball 2007 October.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Auburn High volleyball 2007 October.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Auburn High at 2005 state swimming meet.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Auburn High at 2005 state swimming meet.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Auburn High 2007 golf team.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Auburn High 2007 golf team.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Auburn high aerial GIS image.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Auburn high aerial GIS image.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about no-permission tags on the Auburn High School images. File:Auburn High at 2005 state swimming meet.jpg and File:Auburn High volleyball 2007 October.JPG have especially specific attribution requirement that are highly unlikely to have been added capriciously; this is why I transferred them to Commons. Likewise, File:Auburn high aerial GIS image.jpg has a fairly detailed provenance and specific description of permission: "The above image was created by the City of Auburn. James C. Buston, III, acting in his capacity as Director of Information Technology for the City of Auburn, granted the rights of free use of this image on July 26, 2007." There is almost nothing on Commons with permission as explicit as these photos, save the ones with OTRS tickets. en:Special:Contributions/Lissoy shows that the uploader appears to have a very good understanding of sourcing and licensing vs. fair use. If these 3 can't stay without OTRS, what can? Or did a copyright holder complain? --Closeapple (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I stated at w:User talk:Lissoy#Auburn high school sources, it's as much of a legal issue as anything. Unless I'm badly mistaken, in order for the conditions regarding a copyright to be legally valid, there needs to be something in writing. As such, it's not as much of a do we trust this user? issue as much as in order for what this user says to hold weight, the author needs to go through the process. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Wouldn't that mean that the vast majority of media on Commons published after 1923 should be deleted within 7 days because we don't actually have their OTRS affirmations that someone was the real author, got permission, or hand-inspected the original for copyright notices? Not that people shouldn't tag media if they have doubts, of course. --Closeapple (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No. First off, there are exceptions like {{PD-1989}} or {{PD-1978}}. But aside from those, if there is something on a website stating that the work is free, then it's still in writing; thus we have the {{License review}} process. Or, if the user uploads their own image via a Wikimedia project, and states it is a free license, then they have typed it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Radar météo canadiens.png

Hi,

I've seen that you have added Category:Broadcast coverage maps and Category:Radio stations in Canada to that file. The first one I can see a weak relation but for the second, a radar is not broadcasting any information like radio or television, so I don't see the point in putting that category. Could you explain to me?

Pierre cb (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops! You are correct, of course. My error: I saw the identifiers and thought that those were Radiométéo/Weatheradio Canada radio station transmitters with call signs at radar offices, rather than the actual radars themselves with ICAO codes. (I'm in the U.S., where the NOAA Weather Radio stations all have callsigns.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Illinoiscapitol1 front view.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Illinoiscapitol1 front view.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:Illinoiscapitol1 front view.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

2000s license plates and stickers

Thanks for creating the category for license plates in the 2000s, but how can you verify the current ones are from then as they do not have a date on the plates? When creating the parent category, I intended it for plates that have a year on it(excluding stickers since that does not determine the actual year of the plate when first put in use). Please stop adding ones with stickers that have a date! Xnatedawgx (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for creating categories for license plates, but please do not add plates with stickers under the categories for license plates by year as I previously explained. Xnatedawgx (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was convinced to make Category:2000s license plates because of File:BELIZE, BELIZE CITY -2000's STICK ON LETTERING AND NUMBERS - Flickr - woody1778a.jpg, which says "2000's" right in the filename. I don't see why someone would remove the category from it when the uploader says explicitly that it is from the 2000s without a more precise year. As for the plates with stickers: I can see why a distinction should be made between the plate year and the sticker year. However: If the first issue date is not known, how would one categorize these multi-year plates without having knowledge of every design change? Even some web pages by license plate researchers say that they can't tell quite when some new series started. I suppose they could be done by decade instead, but then you still have the problem of license plates that straddle a decade (or a millennium, like the Illinois blue-top design that went from circa 1985 to 2004). If we don't give it some year or decade, then every Illinois passenger plate from 1979 will have no agreeable date unless the plate has only one sticker for exactly the first year the plate design was first issued (1979, 1984?/1985?, 2004 for Illinois). --Closeapple (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

==In starting the parent category, I only thought it would be for plates that were made with the date on it and not ones with a date added by a sticker. If there was a category for "stickers with dates" or "images with dates" that I could see that being used for the license plate stickers. Xnatedawgx (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Something like Category:License plates by sticker year and Category:License plates with 2011 stickers? --Closeapple (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Abetomb03 (December 2005).jpg

File:Abetomb03 (December 2005).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!

Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian Convention Images

Duplicate: see same comment posted at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Miscellaneous television photos from User:Evidian8

Boston public schools

Hello, I sure you have good reason to revert my changes related to Boston Public schools, but I still can not tell the difference between Category:Boston Public Schools and Category:Public schools in Boston. Both names sound the same to me like red shirts and shirts that are red. If we are going to keep both, we either have to rename one of them to differentiate them or provide much more detailed direction of how one decides if an image goes into one or the other category. Sorry if I made a mess. I will be uploading ~hundred images into Category:Historical photographs of public schools in Boston, and I was preparing for their categorization. --Jarekt (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I guess the plural word in "Boston Public Schools" makes this a bit confusing; BPS is a single public body. BPS is the school district and its school board (legislature) that operates the public schools of Boston. All Category:Public schools in Boston are part of BPS, but not every part of BPS is a specific public school: for example, there are school board members; administration buildings (that is, headquarters for the school district); school book depositories (warehouses for school material); school board meetings (which are sometimes newsworthy and may have photographs); school buses; teachers and staff, and possible labor union strikes. It is somewhat like the difference between a category named "Government of New York City" and a category named "City government buildings in New York City". Many school districts refer to themselves as a name with "Public Schools" on the end instead of "School District"; this is especially common in Massachusetts, but happens in other places as well. The category Historical photographs of public schools in Boston makes sense with the parent categories it has. (You may get some questions from people about what is "historical" and what is not, but that is a subject for a different discussion.) --Closeapple (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

May be we should rename Category:Boston Public Schools to Category:Boston Public Schools (school district), to make it more clear? --Jarekt (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that; it may be a good idea. I left it as it is mostly because the category already existed. There is also a minor problem (my own fault in this conversation), in that I'm not quite sure that "district" strictly applies to BPS specifically: in Massachusetts, it appears that responsibility for schools are by "town" or city, rather than separate district, and the town government somehow chooses the school boards. Maybe the more general Category:Boston Public Schools (school system) if disambiguation is needed? But "school district" is a good general categorical term for those units in general though, regardless of how they derive their authority. If it makes sense to have Category:Boston Public Schools (school district) instead of "school system", to not confuse non-native speakers any more than the circumstances already do, then that would be OK too, I think. --Closeapple (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I will move Category:Boston Public Schools to Category:Boston Public Schools (school district). Also I started uploading images to Category:Historical photographs of public schools in Boston (more coming) I would appreciate help with categorizing, geocodding and adding to articles. Do you know if there is a good place to post information about it in case there are some people interested enough to help out? --Jarekt (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Strangely, I don't see any places on Commons to discuss it. Maybe Category talk:Boston Public Schools itself (if anyone else is already watching it) or Category talk:Boston. A message on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston, mentioning that it's on Commons rather than English Wikipedia, might get some attention. --Closeapple (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Original Northwestern HS Hyattsville.jpg

File:Original Northwestern HS Hyattsville.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!

CT Cooper · talk 14:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Texas State Highways

Hi there. What's the thinking on Category:Texas State Highways? It seems like it's completely redundant to Category:State highways in Texas. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I put an explanation of what I'm moving around at Category talk:State highways in Texas, but the distinction (and Category:State highways in Texas) was already made when I showed up, and I've kept the distinction. I guess I didn't finish yet, and didn't put an explanation on the top category. I'm not from Texas, but from what I've seen on Wikipedia, it appears there are multiple types of state-level highways in Texas:

• the higher-level ones, that now have a number and the word "Texas" on them, and seem to use the abbreviation "SH" (State Highway) inside Texas and "TX" for obvious reasons outside Texas: Someone had these under the category Category:Texas State Highway, and English Wikipedia names as individually as "Texas State Highway" with a number, so I made that Category:Texas State Highways for consistency. (Someone had things under Category:Texas State Highway singular, but that made no sense.)
• the lower-level ones, that have the shape of Texas on their normal signs, and say "Farm Road" or "Ranch Road", and use the abbreviation "FM" or "RM": These are officially Farm to Market Roads. FM and RM are actually the same numbering system, but I guess west Texas uses RM. (Also, some of them are actually re-designated "Urban Road" legally for funding, but the name annoyed people so much that the state quickly returned to using FM signs on them, from what I can tell.)
• the short interconnectors, which have the names Loop, Spur, or Beltway: They have signs like Texas (State Highway) routes, but have had their own unrelated numbers since 1939: that is, Loop 12 is not necessarily anywhere near Texas State Highway 12.

Now, just to drive us nuts, all three of these have normal rectangular signs on Interstate guide signs: see File:Texas guide sign SL SH FM.jpg for this sort of craziness. Also, to be more confusing, the English Wikipedia article is titled en:Texas state highways right now: it summarizes all the different types. (Then there are the usual issues across all states: U.S. Routes are just state highways with a uniform number, not national highways; and Interstates, though designed to be a national highway system from the start, are maintained by the states but are mostly still federally funded I think.) Also, any of these types can apparently have secondary "business routes" associated with them like other states. --Closeapple (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

After looking at some of the laws, it appears that farm/ranch to market roads are somehow funded with a combination of county and state funds. The numbers are unique across the entire state. I don't know if that changes anything though. --Closeapple (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! I'm not from Texas either, but practice for other states (compare Category:State highways in Arizona and Category:State highways in Michigan) is to place the highest level of purely state roads under "State highways in X" and anything else below. I think it would be best to mirror the categorization on en.wp (see en:Category:State highways in Texas):

• Merge everything from Category:Texas State Highways into Category:State highways in Texas. These are named consistently across Commons regardless of what the state "officially" calls them.
• Rename Category:Texas Farm Road to Category:Farm to Market Roads in Texas.

If there are any pictures of the spurs and loops we can just follow the naming scheme on en.wp. It's weird that Texas gets that specific, but that could just be a function of space. How's this sound to you? Mackensen (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that seems reasonable to me. --Closeapple (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Proud to Be Part of a Military Family artist.jpg

Yours sincerely Vera (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Proud to Be Part of a Military Family artist.jpg

File:Proud to Be Part of a Military Family artist.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Vera (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Alcatraz Island photos

I would have categorized my Alcatraz Island photos as being taken in San Francisco but I wasn't 100% sure Alcatraz Island was in the San Francisco limits. And thank you for categorizing them, I appreciate it. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. en:San Francisco#Geography says "Several islands—Alcatraz, Treasure Island and the adjacent Yerba Buena Island, and a small portion of Alameda Island, Red Rock Island, and Angel Island are part of the city." and File:Location map San Francisco.png shows Alcatraz inside the San Francisco County limits (which is the same thing as the city). By the way, it appears that your camera's date was off in almost all of those pictures. (It reported 2012-11-03 to 2012-11-05 but you uploaded them somewhere in the range of 2012-09-18 to 23.) Do you happen to know the correct dates? --Closeapple (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct, my digital camera had the incorrect date at the time and I didn't notice it until after the trip. I flew to San Francisco on September 4th and flew back on September 11th, no photos were taken on flight days. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. After a very fast random check, the earliest I found was "2012-11-02 15:32" for File:San Mateo House, San Mateo, California.JPG and the latest "2012-11-07 13:27:46" for File:Beginning of Golden Gate Bridge from The Presidio.JPG. Does that sound right? If you took pictures from September 5 to September 10, that would make it minus 2 months and plus 3 days. And are the clock times off also? (I might be able to modify the description dates pretty easily in 2 runs.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The clock was probably off too. Yes, the earliest photos were in San Mateo, California. The latest photos were taken of the Palace of Fine Arts I believe (which might have been the same day I was at The Presidio). --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Palace of Fine Arts seems to be about 32 minutes before the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm going to try to be clever and modify all your photos that are now in Category:September 2012 in California and Category:September 2012 in San Francisco so they have correct dates in the description; I'll remove the clock time. If they're not in those two categories, I don't know about them. Anything else that should be in there that I missed, or should I just go for it? (Meanwhile: It appears something is trashed the EXIF data in your Georgia photos and turned them into JPEG comments with no dates, so they're appearing with their upload date.) --Closeapple (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember now The Palace of Fine arts photos were definitely taken on a Monday as I was dissappointed that the adjoining museum was closed on Mondays. Just go for the California / San Francisco photos that I took which should also appear here [[1]]. I wouldn't know how to modify my EXIF on my photos. Time for a new digital camera? --Mjrmtg (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and make sure all the files in the gallery are in there before I do the run; it won't be tonight. In the meantime, on the Georgia ones: I've found a File:Azalea City Trail 10.jpg and File:VSU Centennial Hall 3.jpg have trashed EXIFs; File:University Honors Program (south face).JPG and many others have intact EXIF. Is there anything you did to the ones like the first two that you didn't do to the others? Maybe some were edited on the computer afterwards? --Closeapple (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't edited any of my photos. The most recent photo I've taken is File:Valdosta 2012 Christmas Parade 28.JPG. Which I've noticed the camera metadata looks much more complete than the ones you've been mentioning. Would having the incorrect date set up to something to the EXIF? Probably not, just a thought. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to explain how some have valid EXIF and some get pushed into JPEG Comments if you didn't modify it. Did you upgrade the firmware on the camera? Or maybe it has a bug and messes up the EXIF if there happened to be no date at all on the camera at the time? (By the way, I just ran a regex on a bunch of the Georgia photos to remove duplicate categories.) --Closeapple (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like modifying photos, like to keep them as is. I use the same method when transferring the photos from the camera, thought maybe that was it. I'm at a loss too. As you can tell I take a lot of photos. I didn't know it was possible to add a month/year category for a state. I've just always added a year category for the state and a month/year for the United States. Just - thanks for all your help :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Month in U.S. state categories are unusual. I've created them just because there are so many for those specific months in those specific states, probably because of the Wiki Loves Monuments thing. The only other ones I remember being so big that they deserve subcategories is Category:1973 in Illinois: there are a huge number of photos from the EPA's Documerica project there. From the looks of Category:1973 in the United States, 5 or 6 more states could use it too. --Closeapple (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I ran a check on all of the photos in User:Mjrmtg/Gallery#California: We got all of them into September 2012 categories already. I've just ran the "big date change" on your photos. I made regexes to match anything with a date of 2012-11-0[2-7] and Mjrmtg anywhere in the description, and change them to the corresponding September dates we discussed. Also, anything that mentioned Mjrmtg in the description had your name added if it wasn't there (I assume you wanted that, based on your other photos), and was added to Category:Pictures by Mjrmtg if it wasn't there; I think all the photos may have already had both of those, though, so it could be that nothing actually got changed for those. (VisualFileChange only lights up to show which files got any changes at all, not which changes happened and which didn't. It's all in the file histories, though, of course.) --Closeapple (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for everything you've done. I wish I knew how to do what you do on here. Since you are able to do things like add Category:Pictures by Mjrmtg to photos. I know I hadn't added that category to some of my earliest photos I uploaded so was wondering if you could run just that on everything that had Mjrmtg as a description. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've become addicted to VisualFileChange.js lately. It's probably a dangerous thing when used in the wrong hands for more than a few photos, as it lets the user change anything to anything across multiple photos. (I'm using it on more photos at once than I would expect a typical user to be comfortable with doing.) Using Cat-a-lot and HotCat is usually the best thing to do; but Cat-a-lot doesn't let the user whack 2 or 3 categories at once. Yes, I can add your category name to your images; it's probably just a matter of running the same thing I just did, only across your contribution list instead of categories, I think. I'll try and do that this evening. Do you want your name in the author line at the same time? --Closeapple (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It finally dawned on me why the EXIF on my earlier photos might be messed up. I have the program VuePrint and would use it to look at my photos after I uploaded them to my computer. Sometimes instead of renaming a photo to a logical name in Windows Explorer, I'd do a File - Save As - in VuePrint. Could this possibly corrupt the EXIF file? --Mjrmtg (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

For blanked/destroyed EXIF data (such as File:Azalea City Trail 10.jpg)

If a program like VuePrint had EXIF reading but no EXIF writing support, I suppose the author of that program could have exported the values into a JPEG comment so at least they'd be preserved in some form. But it would have to be intentional on the part of the programmer: I don't believe the actual text names of the fields are stored in EXIF data; therefore, the fact that the names appear in text form indicates that something knew what each EXIF code meant. This announcement (from an unofficial website, but quoting the VuePrint author) says that "the CIFF, EXIF, and APP12 info are saved with new images" in VuePrint 7.3 or later; I would hope that would mean something more than EXIF values exported as text in a JPEG comment. Is it possible VuePrint earlier than 7.3 did this instead?

For EXIFs that showed a date 2 months later than actually made (such as File:Beginning of Golden Gate Bridge from The Presidio.JPG)

The only way I could see that happening is that something had the wrong date set. Scenario 1 would be that the camera had its date accidentally set 2 months ahead, and faithfully applied it to all the shots. Scenario 2 would be that the computer had its clock set 2 months ahead, and the editing/conversion software on the computer decided for some reason to set all three of "Date and time of digitizing", "Date and time of data generation", and "File change date and time" instead of leaving "Date and time of digitizing" (usually the camera/scan date) alone. Scenario 3 would be that both were screwy: The camera had no date set at all, and the computer software therefore decided to be helpful and fill in "Date and time of digitizing" along with the others because it didn't exist, but the computer had its clock set 2 months ahead. --Closeapple (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have VuePrint 8.0 Pro/32 Edition. I don't believe I've updated VuePrint in awhile, so there went that theory. I stopped using it to rename files when I thought it might not be preserving EXIF data. Thanks for the research on the subject. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Mjrmtg mass labeling

OK, ran the "big one". It checked every file for which you are the uploader. Summary of what it did:

• |author= lines with your username get changed to your username with real name showing, and Category:Pictures by Mjrmtg added.
• If Florida or Georgia is mentioned in the information, and a {{Location}}-style template exists, region:US-FL or region:US-GA is added to the location parameters.
• If no {{Location}}-style template exists, and the file isn't in Category:Location not applicable, {{Location possible}} is added before the license. (For a ton of files, this was the only edit. You can tell by the +22 in the edit change.)

Hope that's what you wanted. I did not add pictures to User:Mjrmtg/Gallery even if Category:Pictures by Mjrmtg was added to the picture. --Closeapple (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect - thank you very much. --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Date

I turned on my camera this morning to take photos and the camera went to the startup menu and asked for today's date. My photos I uploaded today say the photos were taken May 1, 2013 (5/1/2013) instead of January 5, 2013 (1/5/2013). Any chance you can fix the ones I uploaded? They are the only ones in the category of Category:January 2013 in Georgia (U.S. state), thanks. Meanwhile I have to find the menu in the carmera where I can fix the date I entered. --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like McZusatz (talk · contribs) got to it before me. --Closeapple (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

He was able to change the date on the summary line, but not the date in the exif. I don't know how to change that. I did upload another file recently, so its not all the files in the Category:January 2013 in Georgia (U.S. state) that need changing, but most of them. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

726 K Street mural

Hi: i just uploaded an overview of the mural, but under the reddish frieze, there is some recently made artwork, unlikely to be in the public domain. Would you please have a look at File:Tower Records mural overview.jpg, and see if it needs cropped, or if a different license is more appropriate? My own "photography" is for the public domain in this case, and the mural (the subject, not the smaller artworks in the lower panes) is template:PD-US-no notice. Thanks. :) Zerofox (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no chance the art in the windows was before 1978, is there? If it was, that would make give it the same public domain status. (Even more unlikely: That it was published between 1978 and March 1989 under the new, more restrictive 1978 definition of "published" that requires copies of it to have been actually transferred to other people by the copyright holder. Pre-1978 "publication" include public display.) If it's not public domain, there are two ways to go about it: Blur the "copyrighted" parts and re-save the file, which will usually lose a very small amount of detail from doing a new JPEG encoding, but some programs can make that minimal; or do a "lossless crop" (which many programs can do) in which the exact JPEG data from the kept part is copied into the new JPEG, so nothing needs to be re-encoded. The third way would be to go find out who has the copyright to the window art and ask them for permission to allow perpetual copying — but that's more work than the others, of course. --Closeapple (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks for replying. I will look into borrowing a real camera. All the shots i took while carefully avoiding capturing the artwork at the bottom came out cruddy, and not worth publishing. The works at the bottom are by a series of artists and are all less than five years old. :/ Zerofox (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. If you'd like, I can do a lossless crop on this image for you. --Closeapple (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

yes, please. I am editing from a mobile phone, and it isn't easy to do from this device. Zerofox (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hope that helps. --Closeapple (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks. :) Zerofox (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are now a license reviewer

Hi, I've closed your request and granted you the reviewer user right. Before you start reviewing, make sure to read Commons:Flickr_files. Also remember COM:FOP & COM:Flickr washing. I recommend installing the review script into your .js file with importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); - it simplifies the choices and gives you thank you text to post with your Flickr account. You can add {{User reviewer}} to your user page as well. If you ever have questions, Commons:License review is pretty thorough on the process, you can ask me, or just wait for another editor to review a questionable image. Good luck!

Mono 23:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Als der Tod ...

I was taken this photos my own camera, i not worker of this movie, i got agreement to take photos from director, this is all. Silar 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment copied to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs (film). --Closeapple (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1980 Moscow Summer Olympics logo.png

I was thinking more that the author was still alive and isn't free in the source country. As for the TOO, I have no idea on what it is in Russia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete a category in these photos?

You deleted the category Phil Konstantin from all of these photos. Why? They were credited to me because I took them. Another user said they were appropriate because they showed the breadth of my work and contributions. There is also a page about me on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Konstantin - Phil Konstantin Philkon (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. No, I didn't delete them from all your photos; only from the ones that aren't about you specifically as a subject (like any subject). All the files you've contributed are still in Category:Files by User:Philkon; I added a "see also" at the top of Category:Phil Konstantin, since it seems clear to me that you openly allow your real name to be associated with your username. (Some users get touchy about that; they don't want their username associated with their real-life identities even if it can be guessed.) I also added Category:Phil Konstantin to some where you were also the subject of the image: File:10851PhilKonstantin.jpg and File:CherokeeIDCardsByPhilKonstantin.jpg for example. And then there are the self-portraits, which are also in both categories. I wouldn't want you to get the impression that they are being removed or minimized or something. I noticed that at least two of your photographs have been marked as Commons:Quality images. If you are particularly proud of some photos, you are also allowed to display your work on your user page, as you know. --Closeapple (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, Phil Philkon (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply on Watergate

Hi, Closeapple. I've replied to your question about Category:Watergate on my talk page. Gildir (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI...

Charles Street and Charles Lane in Manhattan are two different places. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they're a half block from each other and parallel, right? Charles Lane appears to go between 165 Charles Street and the identically-designed 176 Perry Street, which is why I added that set of buildings to it. --Closeapple (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(Not "identical" but very close to it.) Yes, you are correct, and I was wrong. I've restored "Charles Lane" to that category. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not from that area, so sorting stuff I stumbled on has taken some time. (Like whether the West Village is part of Greenwich Village, or just west of it, etc. Figured it out after a bunch of things clearly in the West Village have descriptions saying Greenwich Village.) --Closeapple (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Billboard photograph -- please clarify

I transferred w:File:WMMS Rover billboard.jpg from Wikipedia to the Commons as it had been flagged for transfer by a bot. You Fastily deleted the resulting file -- File:Rover WMMS billboard.jpg. Why exactly? Are photos of outdoor billboards, which are essentially giant advertisements, really considered derivative works? How does this photograph differ from this scanned advertisement? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Billboards aren't special in the United States. (Some countries have freedom of panorama for outdoor works but the United States doesn't.) Billboards can be derivative of copyrighted works (such as a person's photograph or a logo), can have copyrightable creative originality in themselves, and can cause photographs or other copies to be derivative works of the billboard. I meant to nominate those for deletion discussion, but I was using a new tool, and it tagged them for speedy instead — some other users speedy them right off the bat anyway if they think they're copyrighted. The other advertisements are likely in the public domain because they're pre-1989 works: Works first published in the United States before 1989 mostly had to have a copyright notice on them to retain copyright ({{PD-US-1978-89}}); but works from March 1989 forward have copyrights whether a copyright notice is on the publication or not, like the rest of the world has done for much longer. Also, U.S. works before 1978 had to be registered with the Copyright Office, or they would lose copyright also. It's very rare for pre-1978 advertising to even have a copyright notice, let alone have been registered, so they're almost always {{PD-US-no notice}}{{PD-US-not renewed}}. (There are some subtle details involved also: Advertisements that appear in other publications are considered separate works; so if an ad appears in the newspaper before 1989, the ad is in the public domain even if the newspaper had a copyright notice. Conversely, if the ad had a copyright notice and the newspaper didn't, then the newspaper might have become public domain, but the ad didn't. If the whole publication is one work — like an advertising pamphlet from a radio station — then the copyright can appear anywhere obvious and still count.) Note that this, like all the other rules, applies to billboards also: a pre-1989 (make that pre-1978, and see below) U.S. billboard is probably public domain unless it contains an unauthorized copyrighted work. --Closeapple (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, one other subtlety I forgot to mention: In 1978, the rules changed for what "publication" meant. Before 1978, just about anything that showed up in public was published: if it was somewhere that someone could physically copy it somehow, it was publication. After 1978, "publication" requires that authorized copies actually be made and transferred to others, I believe; merely displaying a work in public doesn't count. Keep that in mind for billboards between 1978 and 1989. (It's not as important for paper advertising that was obviously intended to be given out by the thousands. Also, if you can prove that paper/photo copies of the billboard were transfered to other parties, that's still "publication" even if it happened after 1978.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

German military orders in Jersey

Thanks for the work organising German military orders in Jersey. Man vyi (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Commons' Scope is now OPEN

Hi. Earlier this year you contributed to a discussion of Commons' scope at Commons:Requests for comment/scope. I am hoping we can build on the very interesting discussion that happened there, and I would like to invite you to add your further thoughts to a broader review now underway at Review of Commons' Scope. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wegmans Logo

Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention! I fixed the image's S, and reuploaded it minutes ago. Also, I apologize for the mistake regarding my misuse of the CSD template. Though I've been on Wikipedia for about a couple of years now, Commons is an entirely new beast for me, and I'm still trying to learn the ropes. Please let me know if my corrected image is up to par! Signalizing (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The black SVG logo looks OK to me now at multiple resolutions. From looking at the Wegmans website, I wonder where else they even use the brown logo. --Closeapple (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories about presidents in the Oval Office

I think it's deciding between the lesser of two evils.
Does every random photo of a non-president in the Oval Office belong in the Oval Office file, or are they better divvied up by administration? I would say the latter.
I guess one could create categories of "Ronald Reagan's Oval Office," for example, in addition to "Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office." I, for one, find it off-putting to click on the latter and see him as a guest in the Nixon Oval Office. And then there is an ex-president like Jimmy Carter, who could have photos from his own administration along with every one since.
I think this may be the best compromise. -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Marcella Detroit

I uploaded her photo, as she is one of the two female vocalists who toured with Eric Clapton during a 1974 tour. I just noticed that you added her to the Category of male vocalists from the United States and corrected it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Taxi_licenses

Taxi licenses has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

ComboPress (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: NBC categories

I might have been mistaken, but I thought the TV shows had NBC as a category. We hope (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sputnik sound file

Please see File talk:Possible PDM signal labeled as Sputnik by NASA.ogg#Sputnik or not and comment there, if desired. - dcljr (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Bishops by diocese by country

You may find this category useful. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Commons:Deletion requests/File:BeefCutChuck.svg

Hi, Closeapple. There are several others like this. If they suffer from the same flaw, please go ahead and COM:MDR them if you like, provided there are superior alternatives. --Rrburke (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by serial copyright violator

Hello, I am concerned about the user LimosaCorel (talk · contribs), whom you spoke to a few months ago regarding copyright. He is still at it, and has been for quite some time, under names such as Lloydbaltazar (talk · contribs) and LoveforMary (talk · contribs). I have filed a report at the User Problems notice board, but there has been no response to that. So I am appealing to you for advice on my next step. I am from en.wiki and unfamiliar with the policies and procedures here at Commons. I am tempted to go on and flag every single contribution LimosaCorel has left as a copyright violation, because I sincerely doubt this user goes around making his own photographs at all, rather than stealing them from around the Internet. Well, it's possible he scans or rephotographs them. Anyway, looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance for your help. Elizium23 (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Gender-neutral actor subcategories

There has been discussions on the English Wikipedia, but not on commons. Categories "Actors" and "actresses" have been separated. Cathy Richards (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove tags without fixing the problem

Greetings: You removed a tag on File:Thepatronlogo.jpg, but you did not fix the problem that caused the tag to be generated. Please do not remove tags without fixing the problem that caused the tag to be placed on it. I don't understand why you responded when the uploader User_talk:Cont3213 didn't. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:9.000919 Pattaya streetscene5.jpg

File:9.000919 Pattaya streetscene5.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!

russavia (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:The_Hunger_Games_premiere_in_Los_Angeles

Category:The_Hunger_Games_premiere_in_Los_Angeles has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Screenshots from BBS: The Documentary

Category:Screenshots from BBS: The Documentary has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Be..anyone (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues

Hello Closeapple. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File mover

Considering your high level of experience, I've added the filemover right to your account. INeverCry 04:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving

• Actually I had doubt whether it were "Georgia Institute" or "the Georgia Institute" but in other cases I had seen that i.e. "Harvard University" doesn't require "the" whereas "University of California" does. I thought it was like the former case, not the latter. Now that I know, I will proceed as you said.
• As for the description: this is Commons, not Wikipedia. I guess that the description should be a short summarizing of one row, not an incipit of a Wikipedia article; same for disambiguation pages. I guess that who seeks for James Thompson, engineer, is unlikely to confuse with a politician :-) I guess that you worried too much or are not confident in the ability of the reader to distinguish.
• It's not that strange. It has a logic. The blank is, unfortunately, a sort key (Newcastle sorts differently than New Castle, though in a printed atlas you wouldn't notice, for example). Outside of the English speaking world people expects to find items ordered alphabetically regardless of the blanks inside the names, because atlases, phone directories and so on follow such criteria. It's not your fault of course, but it's the way the ASCII code works.

BTW is fine for you if I follow the AP's stylebook for U.S. cities? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

HAER bridge images

Thank you for the pointer; I was unaware that the individual images weren't in the category as well. I've now added them to the category.

Since this category is for images by their source, it's not related to the bridge itself; this is a good example of the "glass spheres" situation at COM:OVERCAT, which notes that categories should reflect the subject without regard to the aspects of the images currently in the category. Same with "Black and white images of Illinois", which I removed in the same edit; neither "black and white images" nor "HAER images" is even remotely related to the bridge itself. Of course, if we had a lot of images of the bridge, enough that we needed a subcategory for just the HAER images, both would be reasonable for the subcategory, but that's obviously not the case here. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Davis Motel and Restaurant, U.S. Highway 36... Restaurant on premises... Newman, Illinois (87908).jpg

I love the idea of geotagging these old postcards, but you might want to double check the coords you added to this one... they don't seem to match the location you describe. Cheers! --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Junkyardsparkle: Oops! Typo. Try it now. --Closeapple (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That's more like it! --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Closeapple, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:American serial killers

The redirection is broken. Fix it, please. Thanks in advance :-) Wieralee (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wieralee: I'd like to; it's under discussion at Category talk:Murderers from the United States. --Closeapple (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Auburn-high-1929.jpg

File:Auburn-high-1929.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!

Jcb (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Auburn-Jule-Collins-Smith-Museum.jpg

File:Auburn-Jule-Collins-Smith-Museum.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!

Jcb (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

File:USAVector 022-01 Clinton and Trump cartoon illustration.svg

File:USAVector 022-01 Clinton and Trump cartoon illustration.svg 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!

B dash (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Proud to Be Part of a Military Family artist.jpg

File:Proud to Be Part of a Military Family 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!

Taivo (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

State Bank issue

Hi!

I answered you on the talk page but I don't know how to ping people. My thinking was was that only the State Bank is a NRHP. I don't know the NRHP number for a historic district there, and there isn't one that I could find. Kalbbes (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Radio of St. Louis, Missouri

I believe you are misusing Category:Radio of St. Louis, Missouri. I'm pretty certain it is not intended for radios manufactured in St. Louis, it is intended for radio broadcasting in St. Louis. Look at its parent categories. - Jmabel ! talk 08:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I made the category Category:Radio of St. Louis, Missouri (as well as its two subcategories) and set the parent categories because, when I was looking for radio stations, I also found a bunch of files that were about radio in St. Louis but not radio stations per se. Bell Products was in St. Louis and was a radio manufacturer. The Kennedy radios were made by a St. Louis company also. I think there are also 5 newspaper ads that aren't necessarily for radios from St. Louis manufacturers, but were in St. Louis newspapers. I suppose it should be in parent category Category:Economy of St. Louis, Missouri also, so I'll add that; though I don't think the class photos are necessarily the economy, because the other categories on their photos imply that they might have been trained for military purposes; but I guess that's still a commercial skill when they get out of the military. --Closeapple (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You really ought to split out a category about broadcasting from a category about a segment of the electronics industry. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Radio stations in St. Louis, Missouri be the main broadcasting category? (Although even there, before 1923 or so, the distinction between broadcasting, amateur, experimental, and commercial were quite blurry.) Category:Radio of St. Louis, Missouri wasn't intended to be about specifically broadcasting or specifically manufacturing industry; it's the overall subject. There happened to be enough files to warrant it, which is unusual for a specific city, but that's what I came across when I was trying to find radio stations. --Closeapple (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

File:NHSC Elijah Rock.ogg

File:NHSC Elijah Rock.ogg 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!

Mvolz (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Government_meetings

Government meetings has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

E4024 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

University and college yearbooks

University and college yearbooks has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

–IagoQnsi (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Osama Bin Laden marked deceased on FBI Ten Most Wanted List May 3 2011.jpg

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Television_stations_of_Detroit

Television stations of Detroit has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Gw2k 2004 logo.svg

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Licence review

Closeapple, can you review licence for three uploaded pictures, please (first, second, third)? Ma▀▄Ga 05:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Closeapple (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ma▀▄Ga 15:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)