User talk:Vensatry/Archive 2

File tagging File:Vidya at HAK screening.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Vidya at HAK screening.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:Vidya at HAK screening.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Revent^talk 19:29, 7 October 2016 (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!

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Malala Yousafzai.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment there is already a valued image in the scope here Olivier LPB (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oops, I did make a search here. Will go for MVR. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Is it me, or it looks a little bit oversaturated? If it is the case, it is easy to fix. Yann (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Malala Yousafzai par Claude Truong-Ngoc novembre 2013.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope)
2. Malala Yousafzai 2015.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Malala Yousafzai par Claude Truong-Ngoc novembre 2013.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Malala Yousafzai 2015.jpg: Promoted. <--

--DeFacto (talk). 20:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi! Could you review this image from Bollywood Hungama? [[1]] has been used in an FAC which is about to be promoted. I would appreciate your gesture. Thanks.Krish! (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit sceptical about this one. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

IIFA images at Bollywood Hungama

Do you really think they are free to use here? Because BH's permission given to use on using their images does not apply to photographs of non-Indian events. And no IIFA event has ever happened in India. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

But where have I said that? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Kajol.jpg

May I know why you marked File:Kajol.jpg as missing permission? --Sreejith K (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think the author has really "agreed" to release the image under the given license. Also, looking at the uploader's en.wiki contributions it seems very unlikely that this is their own work. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The uploader's last edit in Wikipedia was nearly 4 years back. I am not optimistic that he will respond. The image was uploaded as {{Own}} work and he does not have a history of copyright violations. If I were you, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Just saying. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Rima Kallingal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Could you please add the geolocation? Yann (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Best in scope. Do portraits need geolocations? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek: Yes, I think so. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    • What's the reason for that, given that a person's position is not fixed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
      • If the picture is taken in a public venue, it is useful. Not required for a studio shot or a private place. We require geolocation for animals even if they move. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Do we need geocoding for studio shots? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
        • No, but this is not a studio shot. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
          • @Yann: Okay, thanks for adding it. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Mani Ratnam premiere.jpg

File:Mani Ratnam premiere.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!

Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiyaan Vikram Raavan.jpg

File:Chiyaan Vikram Raavan.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!

Kailash29792 (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Shubra Aiyappa (cropped).jpg

File:Shubra Aiyappa (cropped).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!

Fangusu (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Shubra Aiyappa.jpg

File:Shubra Aiyappa.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!

Fangusu (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mouni Roy.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best and useful. Santamarcanda (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Where's the personality warning? ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - I've changed the status to "discussed", pending the answer to Moheen's question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment And after removing watermarks, there are some unusual spots that do not look good, IMO. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Note my questions about the legitimacy of removing watermarks above. Do we know for sure that the source of the photo is OK with the watermark being removed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Ikan Kekek: The site doesn't specify anything about removal of watermarks. The commons has plenty of images uploaded from the site with few of them edited to remove watermarks. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I guess the question is whether a site not mentioning anything is sufficient, or if they need to give express permission to remove the watermark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Don't think I have an answer. Looping in SpacemanSpiff and Sreejithk2000. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Small but OK. Yann (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - I still don't feel my concerns about the legal issues involved with removing watermarks without express permission from the watermarker have been adequately addressed. If doing so doesn't in fact expose anyone to a possible lawsuit, or if such a possibility is very remote, text warning of that possibility ought to be changed accordingly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support That's really the best image in scope and obviously in commons and it is very used. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Talk to Kong of Lasers 03:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Shabana Azmi.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Nayantara Sahgal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Seems best in scope to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Edappadi K Palaniswami taking oath.png

The permission for this file is in the item description of the video. If you click 'see more', you will see the following: License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

--RaviC (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Brinda Karat.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sheena Iyengar.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - Please look at how scopes are structured in other nominations. "Category" shouldn't be visible in the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment I fixed the scope formatting, but the image is not in use on any Wikimedia project. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• You're putting the cart before the horse. The point of VI is to select images that are most suitable to be used in articles on the web - not only Wiki articles but blogs and so forth. Sure, it's nice when a photo is already used, but the point is, once it's a VI, it's supposedly (if Commons search ever starts working again consistently) easier for authors to find the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't remember where/who, but at some point it was communicated to me explicitly that VIC noms should be in use on Wikimedia projects as a way to indicate that they are valued (i.e. VIC as saying which images the community at large may think are the best in scope, not just what two people at a VIC nom think). I've limited experience here, so that may not be a widely held standard -- I don't know. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Picte (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Image from Bollywoodhungama

Can a image from news article be used from Bollywoodhungama if yes then which link to be given on Description page. Ashwini Gadade (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ashwini Gadade: Can you be more specific about the article that you're talking about? The license does not hold good for images hosted outside "parties and events". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Vensatry I had uploaded following image named File:Samantha Akkineni with husband Naga Chaitanya.jpg The articke name is Samantha Prabhu surprises fans with adorablee wedding trailor Naga Chaitanya Akkineni. Please look for this article. Ashwini Gadade (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwini Gadade (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Ashwini Gadade (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ashwini Gadade: I'm afraid, the image in question is not a "valid" one. Also, please be informed that usage of multiple accounts is not allowed here. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

File:AnuHasanFC1.png

File:AnuHasanFC1.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Kathleen Hanna.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment We need to lose the watermark. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Erasing signature --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Best in scope. I assume there is no copyright issue in removing the signature? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• I suppose it otherwise the image should be erased.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment No licensing issues with the signature (CC BY 2.0). Doesn't appear to be flicker washing or other licensing issues. Best in Scope. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I striked my last comment because of a case I just came upon saying it regarded CC-BY 2.0. It can be found Legal issues with the removal of watermarks. It still is best in scope I don't doubt that the license is accurate. I'm still willing to pass this because my opinion is it appears that case delt with cc-by NC licenses. I'd like another opinion. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I got another opinion here. I'll support it. It is best in scope. If anyone disagrees I'm open to it. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hmmmm...That was as clear as mud. Certainly best in scope, but it does seem like removing a watermark might be risky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it's clear as mud. But I would want more guidance on how to interpret the DMCA on CC licensed images before I would say watermarks can't be removed on properly licensed images with proper attribution on commons. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not very complicated. There is an incompatibility between watermark and commons licenses. Either the interress accepts that the watermark is removed and the image is conserved, in case he does not want it the image must be erased. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Maya Krishna Rao.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:32, 13 September 2018 (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:Sawai-2014-Sucheta Bhide Chapekar.jpg

—LX (talk, contribs) 23:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Mumtaz (Actress)

The reasons for deleting the image of Mumtaz, once again, are unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.58.158.34 (talk • contribs)

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) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)