Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Mandraketennis!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Roanne opM.pdf

edit
 
File:Roanne opM.pdf 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!

Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

edit

Copyright status: File:Roanne opM.pdf

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

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

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

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

And also:

Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Yann, this is Mandraketennis. I don't know either what license is allowed and what not, more importantly i don't know where to look for extracting this info since i uploaded all the files (i didn't check it, i assume you enlisted all the upload i did. On second thought i think you missed 4-6 of those).
All the so-called "helping" links provided in this page are about the difference between different kind of licenses, how the licenses can vary from country to country and in one place there's a box to insert the specific kind of license so as to sort out among, and i quote, "thousands of licenses". I like the level of governmental russian technocrati this is definitely going to end up to, but clearly i'm not part of wikipedian logistic and licenses squad.

Here's the rationale behind all the links enlisted above. They are uploaded WITH the source, which is mentioned not once but twice for every single upload. Also, being the files uploaded all native pdf, that is without an internal link to the website which is the source, and no hypertext to refer to, what is left is to look for the website specs about what country is from and who is the holder. And i'm not doing it. What i do is to offer you the same source, the same website, which was used multiple time by the same wikipedians editors who are now contesting these files of mine saying i need to provide a valid license. So here's some sample of the same source they were linking to for this last October: http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/352/mds.pdf http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/352/qs.pdf at the bottom of this wikipage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Rolex_Paris_Masters_%E2%80%93_Singles The same goes for http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/568/mds.pdf and http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/568/qs.pdf in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_St._Petersburg_Open_%E2%80%93_Singles Tbe same for http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/568/mdd.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_St._Petersburg_Open_%E2%80%93_Doubles So it goes also for http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/337/mds.pdf http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/337/qs.pdf in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Erste_Bank_Open_%E2%80%93_Singles Also http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/337/mdd.pdf in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Erste_Bank_Open_%E2%80%93_Doubles (remember, always look for the bottom of the page) http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/7485/mds.pdf and http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/7485/qs.pdf are at the bottom of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_European_Open_%E2%80%93_Singles Whilst this http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/7485/mdd.pdf is in this wikipage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_European_Open_%E2%80%93_Doubles This http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/438/mds.pdf and this http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/438/qs.pdf are in this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Kremlin_Cup_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles , remember all the links are coming from the same source, the exact same source whose license is contested above.

Moreover http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/404/mds.pdf and this http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/404/qs.pdf are here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_BNP_Paribas_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles and this http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2021/404/mdd.pdf is in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_BNP_Paribas_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Doubles.

All these links represent scarcely a third of links used every months by wikipedians editors of the tennis section, subsection of sport, since at least 10 years. If you think my links need some license, since i used the same exact source commonly used as stated in the multiple examples above, then Wikipedia is in deep trouble, potentially since years, and you should equally request licenses from all these editors, going in some cases even 15 years back. So, you can either put all those links into "request: deletion" subsection of uploading section, or assume that the "i don't know, i find it on internet" option offered on the copyright section, third page of the wizard upload, is there for a reason, and that reason is the user cannot provide such licenses information and thus take it in good faith, or you need to cancel that option from that section for good. No third way out. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandraketennis (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

edit

العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | 简体中文 | +/−


Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, File:Order of Play- Monday.pdf, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

--EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply