Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Verbcatcher!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)



Motacilla (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

  The Basement Kitty Barnstar
Thank you for doing such good work on deletion nominations! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files of User:Paulharding150Edit

Deleting pictures. Hi, Please do not delete the photos I have uploaded, they all add value to the pages. All the photos are free of copyright / allowable.

Deletion requests/Files of User:Pino PrestiEdit

Buongiorno, posso comunicare in italiano? Grazie! --Pino Presti (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Molte foto sono state scattate dalla mia compagna Karin Hemp e altre da me personalmente. --Pino Presti (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Posso fornire l'elenco dettagliato. --Pino Presti (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Pino Presti, buongioro, parlo un poco d'Italiano, ma non sufficie por communication facile. È giusto scrivere in italiano, ma scrivo in Inglese.
If Karen Hemp took some of the photographs then she should be listed as the Author (Autore). Commons may need evidence that she has released these images with the stated licence. This can be done by her sending an email in an acceptable format to the ORTS system (see Commons:OTRS or Commons:OTRS/it).
I see that you have posted a response at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Pino Presti. That is the best place to discuss this, and I will comment further there. It is OK to write in Italian, but you may get a more rapid response if you write in English. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Karin Hemp died on July 28, 1998. --Pino Presti (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You know... I know the 1978 rule, I was just trying to communicate that there is some possibility, introducing the less expert user step by step to them. Because I believe in a more flexible approach, but apparently, this "DMV-style" reply is kinda preferred. So I also put my DMV-employer face now and I remind the reader that the wiki approach is about rules AND interaction with users, not just the first ones. If you know the rules very well, next time share with the user before the deletion procedures. If you can go file by file, next time go file by file before the deletion procedure, if you know the rules very well, next time add them also to the the very first edit of the deleltion request. You might think it is too much but remember that of you have time to remind that "ownership of the camera used is not relevant", you probably have the time to do all of that.

In the end doing the other way, informing before deletion, would have probably make everybody save time. We are wiki users and unless serious external issues (that I don't see) we are to help people since our first step. Commons does not win if you delete all images "with a doubt", it wins if you keep all the images that can be kept. So you have to try to act in that direction since the beginning, even without a stimulus that remind you so. I know that it is not a pleasure to be reminded, but it is useful. Like the camera ownership thing, I guess.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Also the "the best place to discuss" is never the deletion procedure. For Italian pictures it is the Italian village pump where we can reply in both languages, move them to itwiki before the deletion, rely on the support of it-N bilingual sysop, check OTRS procedures. You open the discussion there and at the end you take what's left for the deletion. That's more or less true for all the pictures with a useful content on which you can have some doubts.
If you like to start directly with the deletion, don't worry, there are plenty of unknown unused and low quality pictures stored here from 200x for which you can go directly to the Deletion process, of course, but these are clearly not one of them. Again, nothing personal, but I really hope that next time you do something like that you might hear a little voice on your shoulder that tell you not to take this shortcut. 75% of the time people ignore that, I so much hop you are in the other 25%... we need common sense or we'll never manage to process millions of files here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Alexmar983, the best place to discuss images that have been proposed for deletion is on the deletion request page, comments on other pages are likely to be overlooked. My user page is the place to discuss my actions and other issues that relate to me personally.
If I had thought that the copyright issues concerning these photographs needed clarification then I would have raised them at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions there can be in any language, as I have done with other images.
I came across these photographs through w:en:Shirley Bassey, where File:Shirley Bassey2.jpg looks like a copyright violation. I then looked at the other files uploaded by the same user and formed the opinion that the Author specified for every file was either clearly wrong or dubious.
Pino Presti is not a new user. He was made 400 edits to four Wikimedia projects since 2009.[1] It appears that he used the OTRS system in 2011 for File:1st Round - Cover photo.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Verbcatcher, as you can see here: was another user to use the OTRS system (I would not know how to do it). --Pino Presti (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I have to gear a lot of wikievents for September now and I cannot spend another 15 minutes to explain why this attitude is wrong. You got everything your way, have fun. Do good. Bye.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requestsEdit

More images to be deleted (potential nomination); you have selected few, randomly. I believe that you have missed many other images of the articles:

And much more images actually according to your criteria. It is not a "guess" that this or that photographer is still living or not, or this or that date might suggest something, or this or that "sign" is a graphic work and the net result is copyright violation. I will not discuss this; I have the full information. This is a concrete way of interpretation, pardon me. Who says that the uploader does not have a "permission". Any way, please take sometime and skim the above images to delete and more time to browse my uploaded images to delete the ones you "think" violate any copyright. Thank you and all the very best!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroforever (talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Neuroforever: I did not select these images I nominated randomly, although I stopped nominating them before I had assessed all of your uploads. I have made a note to revisit the images in Category:Tuanku Ja'afar Royal Gallery, most of which I suspect are not allowable here.
The copyright holder of photographs, and of photographs or scans of photographs, is assumed to be the original photographer, or their descendants if they have died. Sometimes the copyright has been transferred, perhaps a museum, but evidence would have to be produced to establish this. In the UK copyright protection lasts for 70 years from the death of the photographer and in Malaysia for 50 years, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory. The US copyright rules also need to met.
If the original photographer is unknown then you cannot have obtained permission from them. You may have had permission to take photographs at the Tuanku Ja'afar Royal Gallery, but they are unlikely to have given you permission to release these pictures under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license, and they may not hold the copyright. Commons needs evidence that the copyright holder has assigned the stated licence.
In many cases we have to make a guess (or an assessment of probability) about whether a photographer is still living, or if they have been dead for 50 or 70 years. Where there is significant doubt we must apply the precautionary principle. When the photograph was taken is useful evidence for this assessment.
Your reference to graphic works presumably refers to File:The sign of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, within University College London, Malet Palace.jpg. Your photograph of the banner is a derivative work to which two copyrights may apply, both of which must be satisfied: your copyright as the photographer and the copyright on the banner. For some photographs of this type the UK Freedom of panorama rule allows us to ignore the copyright of the pictured object, but this rule does not apply to "2D graphic works", which this appears to be.
I am not questioning your good faith in uploading these images, but your claim to authorship of images that are simple reproductions of other people's photographs does not comply with the rules here, and you have not given evidence that your are authorised to assign a license to these photographs. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


Hello If possible, look at it: [2] --►Cekli829 12:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Cardiff Central watertower with Mabinogion mural.jpgEdit

File:Cardiff Central watertower with Mabinogion mural.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 | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | 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)‎ | +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!Edit

  thanks Stapmoshun (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sain deleted filesEdit

Hi, and thanks for your work on Commons:Deletion requests/SAIN audio files. This morning I had a l'esprit de l'escalier moment, when I thought to myself that there must be an alternative solution to deletion. Nothing stops us from uploading to individual wikis which use the fair use licence, as all clips are under 30 seconds. Am I correct? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion --> here. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hand written notes by Hans Posse -- clarityEdit

Verdcatcher - I believe there may have been a semantics problem. These handwritten notes as labeled in my project were actually the handwritten notes of the Museum Curator. The original HANDWRITTEN NOTES of Hans Posse are held by the museum. Posse made the notes in 1909. They are German/English translations and clarification of Hans Posse which needed explanation. The Museum is supplying added handwritten notes to clarify the official government museum translation document. BARRY BARON (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@BARRY BARON: I was commenting on the copyright status of File:Handwritten notes german museum hans posse.pdf. The title suggests that this was handwritten by Hans Posse, in which case it is out of copyright. I now understand that this is a letter from an unidentified museum curator and includes a translation of Posse's words. The copyright of letters belongs to the writer of the letter, not the recipient or the owner of the physical letter. A copyright will apply to the translation of Posse's words, and the copyright of the introduction of the letter is owned by its author. You have put "Source: Own work, Author BARRY BARON", which is incorrect. It is not your own work (the mechanical task of scanning a document does not count). The author is the museum curator, and probably also Hans Posse. The date should be the date the letter was written, with circa or a range of dates as appropriate. However, in my view this file is likely to be deleted.
I urge you to respond at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BARRY BARON. Please state whether have inherited the copyright of Noel Baron's paintings (as opposed to the physical paintings). Only the copyright holder can license the use of photographs of the paintings. You or the copyright holder may be required to confirm the license using the Commons:OTRS system.
The main rules for Commens are described in Commons:Copyright rules. Every file on Commons must either be public domain or have been released with an acceptable licence by all its copyright holders. Any image of a painting by Noel Baron must be licensed by whoever holds the copyright of her artistic work, probably her heirs. Any letters must be licensed by whoever wrote them, and newspaper cuttings by the publisher of the newspaper. Photographs of Caravaggio's original painting are allowed because the painting is sufficiently old be be out of copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
PS, like most people here, I only want files to be deleted if they are copyright violations or have 'no educational value'. If we can establish that the copyright position is ok them I will do my best to help you get the correct declarations in the file. Or you could ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Darthvader2 uploadsEdit

Hi Verbcatcher, sorry for all the trouble. As I see that you are a user willing to collaborate, I would like to ask you for guidance on the case of the following images:

I can contact the owners of the images and ask them to send an email to Is there anything else I should do with the files while the email is being reviewed? Is there any way to definitively check that the email is actually sent by the owner of the image rights? I really want to clarify this situation, especially by being unfairly accused of creating a false Flickr account, something that seems to me a complete nonsense. Again, I appreciate your goodwill and hope you can help me solve this mess.--Darthvader2 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Darthvader2: please see Commons:OTRS. The email would need to establish two things, firstly that the sender is who they claim to be, and secondly that they are legally entitled to assign the licenses to the images.
I have not used this system myself, but I think the first condition is usually met by the email being sent from an email address that is clearly associated with the sender, something like or If their email acknowledges that they control the Flickr account then you are half way there.
Establishing that they own the copyright of these images may be more difficult. As I said on the deletion request page, the usual assumption is that the photographer owns the copyright, and the emails may be required to establish either that the photographer has released the photographs with the specified licence, or that they have transferred the copyright. The case of File:Marcelo Mindlin 2017.jpg is complicated by the almost-identical photo on an Ernst & Young website.[3]
It would probably be better to establish who the photographers are and get them to send an email to OTRS. Or, if they have an well-established Flickr account or a clearly-established business website, get them to post the images there with a suitable license. However, professional photographers are usually reluctant to release their work with a free license.
When you know that an email has been sent to OTRS you should follow the instructions at Template:OTRS pending. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I will contact the owners and ask them to send the email, hoping that this situation can be resolved.--Darthvader2 (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Verbcatcher".