Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Graywalls!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Water Dumping.jpg

edit
 
File:Water Dumping.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!

MrAureliusR (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

File:Water dumping fraud.jpg

edit
 
File:Water dumping fraud.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!

MrAureliusR (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

 
File:Outside In IDU Health Services during business hours .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!

llywrch (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

File:A2004-002-3630-steel-bridge-18901.jpg

edit

Pay attention to licensing
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:A2004-002-3630-steel-bridge-18901.jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

العربية  Deutsch  English  español  français  日本語  മലയാളം  polski  português  slovenščina  svenska  Tiếng Việt  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−

--EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

File:LarryDean.jpg

edit

Yeah, I just took off the speedy deletion template there, I'm still leaving it nominated for a deletion discussion. We do effectively have two statements from the management company at this point: "this photo is copyrighted" in 2022 and "this photo is CC-BY" in 2023. The second may turn out to be valid and override the first, they could have neglected to go back and update their website.

I am pessimistic, though, I expect it's just somebody lower in the company being told to improve a bunch of Wikipedia articles, and overreaching themselves without really thinking about what it means to tick the "CC-BY" box on a photo upload. Belbury (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Simply creating a Wiki account with a matching name is not an adequate indication of authority to execute; but usually a sufficient suspicion of promotional editing. I am concerned the company management is not told that they can not give a conditional permission to use the photo for Wikipedia purposes only and I'm guessing there's a decent chance they'd shy away from contributing the photo if they're told in order for their photo to qualify for contribution, they'd have to irrevocably surrender control of the photo to CC-BY-SA and throw their own terms out the door. Graywalls (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply