Open main menu

Frequently asked questions:

Q1. Didn't so-and-so who made this stamp die recently, so isn't it still copyrighted? Nominated for deletion!
A1. Dude, read the FULL template of PD-RU-exempt. Doesn't matter who the artist is, Russian stamps (and those of several other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States) are ineligible for copyright when used in whole and uncropped.

Q2. How come when I did a reverse image search of the file you uploaded I got nothing, but you said it wasn't your own work?
A2. First make sure your browser isn't filtering out all non-English results. Second, some websites like the archive catalog of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation don't tend to show up in top Google results no matter how good a match the query is. (Try using bing or Yandex)

Q3. Where do you find all those Правда, Известия, Краснофлотец, and Североморский лётчик archives from WWII?
A3. Lots of places, sadly there's not just one resource where I can search for everything in a nice and organized way. In addition to the local library, I also look through the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation's digital history catalog, online auctions, museum blogs, etc...

Q4. I'm confused...Why did you upload a photo WITH a speedydelete tag?
A4. So it can be put in the "undelete by year" category and be restored after the copyright expires. I may not be editing Wikipedia in 2060, so it's nice to have some files pre-filled out for the minute their copyright expires. See this discussion.


Contents

quality originals to some of the newspaper clippingsEdit

Hi Planespotter,
I do appreciate your activity and I'd be happy to help find those original photos, but Commons' policies (for cases where the fact of publication determines copyright status) allow us to license photos exactly in the size / resolution they were published. For better quality copies, one have to look for a new rationale why they might be PD. Sealle (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sealle: Really? Because resolution and quality of of newspaper an other publication scans vary from source to source - for example, one can find a very low resolution scan of a newspaper clipping with little detail visible and a scan of the same issue preserved in much better detail and in much better resolution. And because public domain newspaper clippings are inherently old, we can be certain that there is some fading and quality depreciation - not to mention the fact that printed newspaper clippings are inherently less quality than the original film negatives. In fact, I did not save the highest resolution zoom-ins of newspaper clippings to my Pinterst because taking screenshots and then piecing them together takes a long time. I have never seen any policy about images needing to be uploaded to Commons in the same quality and size as they were published pre-1946 - I can't see why the better quality versions would not be under the same license as the newspaper scans, since they are the same image after all, just different versions. I've never heard of a case where one resolution of an image was public domain and another resolution/quality/version of was still copyrighted. Public domain is "no rights reserved", so doesn't it mean "all versions ok"? I've spent a lot of time reading over American and Russian copyright law as well as Commons policy, and I really doubt that is the case.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Surely, you may choose the best copy of those whose publication in a certain period of time is proved. For any other similar work, with no evidence of PD, provisions of the Article 1266 of the Russian Civil Code (неприкосновенность произведения) would apply. Sealle (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sealle: Better quality versions (such as less grainy film negatives) or better resolution than a given publication are not violations of Article 1266 - which only applies when a work is protected by copyright. A violation of 1266 would be to photoshop in medals on a copyrighted photo or derivatives of a copyrighted work like that. 1266 does not apply to works in the public domain.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it applies when a work is protected by copyright. And yes, every work is protected by copyright, until proven otherwise. The publication of cropped / aggravated / resized / decolorized version doesn't make the original one PD. Sealle (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sealle:If one version of an image is published, (however small or grainy it may be on the paper), when the copyright expires on the published clipping, the original, good-quality version also reaches expiration. They are considered the same work and the same photograph, with copyright held be the same person or heir. They cannot possibly be considered different works (with different publication and expiration dates) simply because they were published in different qualities over time. These ideas are quite contrary to Commons policy - things weren't published in high-quality decades ago because publishing and printing capabilities are nothing like they are today. I'll ask Yann (who knows a lot about copyright) about this. Either way, I would certainly like to find the originals of the photos - at least so I can save them to my Pinterest board.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: What do you think about this? I've never heard of anything like this before.; I have NEVER heard of such resolution and quality constraints before. I have never heard of a case where a low-resolution grainy version of a photo from a newspaper clipping reached copyright expiration, but the better-quality film negative of the photo that the newspaper used in the clipping was still protected by copyright. One would think that the publication of a slightly cropped/reduced size/grained (because it was on paper) item would mean that the published newspaper-clipping version and the original photo version would have the same expiration date.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I would like to note that Sealle's opinion is certainly not standard practice nor a consensus here on Commons.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Фото.jpgEdit

 
File:Фото.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Панн (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:СССР-11185 Ан-10.jpgEdit

 
File:СССР-11185 Ан-10.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Mariya Kislyak.jpgEdit

 
File:Mariya Kislyak.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Venzz (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Mariya Smirnova.pngEdit

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 日本語 | Русский | Slovenščina | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Mariya Smirnova.png, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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!

And also:

Crop of image sourced to a file since deleted as copyvio BevinKacon (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: That image that they were cropped from was on the website mil.ru, which releases photos under a permitted creative commons license. How can there be a copyright violation?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Link @ http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/history/more.htm?id=11609470@cmsArticle and the website says "© Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0"--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You need to get the deleted sourced images restored, by either contacting the deleting admin, or filling COM:UNDEL. Once, it's restored, you can revert me, or also have them restored if 7 days have passed.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@BevinKacon: The source of the images is clearly indicated. I will ask the deleting admin, but since the source of the three photos is very clear, there is no reason to continue pursuing deleting them. It is very clear that they are under an acceptable license and it is clear that they are cropped from the image on the website as stated in the source section.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: as deleting admin. If confident of deletion reason, please speedy delete, otherwise restore source images and convert to DR, else revert my tags. Thank you.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: @BevinKacon: I have already started an undeletion request. Until either of you produce a shred of evidence that any of the photos are copyright violations, don't try to delete them. The photo they were cropped from certainly should not have been deleted in the first place - much less without discussion! Considering Jcb wrongly deleted the full photo in the first place without so much as a discussion, he should NOT be deleting the other ones or deleting anything else without discussion.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

WarningEdit

Do not remove problem tags from your own uploads. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb: Are you going the acknowledge the problem in applying those problem tags in the first place, or are you just going to pretend that those tags were acceptable?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You can convert into a regular DR if you wish, removing the tag again is unacceptable and will not be accepted. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: I don't know what you think you are doing, up unilaterally deleting photos with clearly indicated permitted licences is not acceptable on Commons. Visit the URL, and read the "© Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0" at the bottom of the page. The no-source tag is absoutely bogus, there is a URL linking to the page with the image that states the licence, what the heck do you want exactly, a screenshot of the webpage too?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
In this whole story, you are the only one who (even repeatedly) is violating our policies. You are long enough around here to know better. Jcb (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: It is OBVIOUS that the photo was not taken in 2017 - all the people in the photo were long dead! I had every right to fix that! You both need to stop rushing to delete stuff - take a breath, view the url, and read the licence description. And try to come up with a better rationale.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You had the right to fix that and you are perfectly aware that this was not the reason for the revert and that the revert was justified. If you do something good and something disruptive within the same edit, it will be reverted anyway. Jcb (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You should be providing evidence that the image is not under the stated licence in the first place. The whole "the-license-is-bogus-because-I-say-so" is not a valid rationale when there is a link to the photo on an official military website with an note about all content being under a specific licence saying "© Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0". The source section is clearly filled out with a direct URL. There was some publicity (albeit, not in Dutch) when the mil.ru website began releasing stuff under the compatible licence. Please provide evidence to think the photo is not under the stated licence, and if you cannot, please undelete the full one and remove the fake problem tags.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: read the "© Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0" text while you are at it.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I closed these DRs. Could you please fix the date and the author? {{Mil.ru}} is the license, it should not be used as the author. Author should the most likely or {{Unknown}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Polina Gelman.pngEdit

 
File:Polina Gelman.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Abzeronow (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Yevdokia Bershanskaya.pngEdit

 
File:Yevdokia Bershanskaya.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Abzeronow (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Smirnova (cropped).pngEdit

 
File:Smirnova (cropped).png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Abzeronow (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

FYIEdit

[1] Sealle (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Evelina Mambetova.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Evelina Mambetova.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: did you see her comment on the photo on instagram stating she released the photo?!?!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Лушников Владимир Александрович: you do understand that the copyrighted portion in the montage qualifies as de minimis, right?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. If the source is to be deleted as non-free, it's derivatives must follow it's fate. Anyways, admins are to decide. Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Лушников Владимир Александрович: If the source is non-free, but a derivative work of it is modified to the point that the copyrighted portion is de minimis in such derivative work, then it is ok. There is a significant amount of precedent to support this.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Evelina Mambetova.jpgEdit

 
File:Evelina Mambetova.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ruff tuff cream puff: Dude! I have already discussed this with another user. Read her reply to the last comment on the instagram page for gods sake. She specifically states that she releases the photo under such licence. And if that is too difficult for you to figuroe out, look at the screenshot of her statement from the comments section in the file history! Do a little checking before you nominate for deletion.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove warningsEdit

العربية | Català | Deutsch | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | Українська | +/−


 
Hello. This is a reminder for you to not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page without addressing the issues you received these warnings for. Please read Commons:Licensing if you have received these warnings for copyright issues. Note that removing warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the talk page's history. You are welcome to archive your talk page. You can have this done automatically for you - simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for more details).

--Sealle (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sealle: I thought I was allowed to removed warnings from closed discussions on my talk page - escpecially when such warnings were made incorrectly by certain people who (not naming names) have a bad habit of ignoring all statements of "this is under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license" on external websites - or worse, see such statements and continue to pursure their deletion!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remain calm and collegialEdit

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | Українська | +/−


 
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

[2] --Sealle (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Mariya Oktyabrskaya.jpgEdit

 
File:Mariya Oktyabrskaya.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.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.


Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Dogad75 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Budanova and Litvyak.jpgEdit

 
File:Budanova and Litvyak.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

fourthords | =Λ= | 19:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "PlanespotterA320".