User talk:Paul venter
Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
| |
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) |
Yann 17:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:David Kramer00.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:David Kramer00.jpg. This image 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).
Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Davepape 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello
thanks for your uploads
Unfortunetaly, when you uploaded pic in reference, you forgot license and by this way this one runs risk of deletion. Could you tag it with a valid license as your other pics.
friendly Oxam Hartog 21:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Hamerkop_Kloof00.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Hamerkop_Kloof00.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. cohesion 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright | Image:David Kramer00.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
|
GeorgHH 08:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Rex Martienssen00.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Rex Martienssen00.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. GeorgHH 08:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright | Image:Philip Tobias00.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
Hi, Can you add in some information about who this is and perhaps add it in a category? Thanks Deadstar 11:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
|
GeorgHH 09:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright | Image:Philip Tobias.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
|
GeorgHH 09:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Drostdy Tulbagh01.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Drostdy Tulbagh01.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. GeorgHH 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Can you add in information about Arthur Elliott, and perhaps put it in a category too so that people can find it? Thanks. Deadstar 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Okiep01.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Okiep01.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. GeorgHH 11:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Image-Barbara Jeppe00.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
Image deletion warning | Image:Cathy_O'Dowd02.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
howcheng {chat} 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Arthur_Elliott00.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. |
grendel|khan 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Abe_Bailey00.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 image, 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. |
MichaelMaggs 17:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Leslie_Ward01.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 image, 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. |
Botev 11:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
[edit]
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.BotMultichillT (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Judith Mason11.jpg is uncategorized since 11 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Charles Darwin 1871.jpg is uncategorized since 15 January 2009. BotMultichillT 06:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Barney Barnato00.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:EuropeanNairobiSchool2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Ferdinand Bernhard Vietz04.jpg was uncategorized on 9 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Ferdinand Bernhard Vietz06.jpg was uncategorized on 9 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Fred Rowntree03.jpg was uncategorized on 10 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Fred Rowntree00.jpg was uncategorized on 10 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Fred Rowntree07.jpg was uncategorized on 10 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Andries Stockenström00.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. |
--Dcoetzee (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
File tagging File:Judith Mason10.jpg
[edit]This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Judith Mason10.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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you. |
Missvain (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
File tagging File:Judith Mason11.jpg
[edit]This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Judith Mason11.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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you. |
Missvain (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
File tagging File:Betsy Foxman00.jpg
[edit]This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Betsy Foxman00.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:Betsy Foxman00.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
russavia (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
File tagging File:Betsy Foxman00.jpg
[edit]This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Betsy Foxman00.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:Betsy Foxman00.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Dominic (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
File:Noemi Zirpoli00.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. |
FASTILY (TALK) 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
File renaming
[edit]- see Commons:File renaming
- template 'rename|Apodytes dimidiata02|5'
TUSC token 65943d2ca7676539528c540684adf554
[edit]I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Odontoptera carrenoi MHNT global.jpg
[edit]Your intervention in this image could be interpreted as vandalism, I think not. I rather think that you are not familiar uses of Commons. Be more careful in the future. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are decidedly not informed of the functioning. The category you want to reintroduce is already contained in the category of species name. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Glad you picked it up....Paul venter (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Edward Julius Detmold56.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Edward Julius Detmold56.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. |
—LX (talk, contribs) 14:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove deletion requests
[edit]
—LX (talk, contribs) 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The tag invited me to remove the template once I had corrected the information. Is it possible you used the wrong template. Please carry on any discussion on the image's talk page or at its deletion page, but not my talk page. Cheers Paul venter (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, {{Delete}} does not invite you to remove it. It clearly states: Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed. The deletion nomination has not been closed, so you should not remove the tag as you did here. Your removal of the problem tag has no relevance to the image or the deletion discussion, which is why I'm discussing it here. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- My eyes must be deceiving me - this tag placed by you clearly states "Appeal: If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page and remove this tag.". Please use the correct tag rather than pontificating. Ciao Paul venter (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are different rules for different tags. I initially used {{Copyvio}}. This was the correct tag to begin with, but when you removed it, I used {{Delete}} instead, which is the correct tag in that situation. You shouldn't remove {{Delete}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I love your logic - you say {{Copyvio}} was the correct tag initially, but when I acted in accordance with its requirements, the "correct" tag became {{Delete}}. Really!!
- I don't expect to hear from you again. Paul venter (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your sarcasm is really quite uncalled for seeing as you've been consistently in the wrong so far. The file is indisputably a copyright violation (as has now been explained for you), so {{Copyvio}} was correct. You contested the speedy deletion, and the way to deal with a contested speedy deletion if one still thinks that deletion is warranted is to take it to Commons:Deletion requests. Files nominated for discussion there should be tagged with {{Delete}} until the discussion is closed, so that was the correct tag at that point. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are different rules for different tags. I initially used {{Copyvio}}. This was the correct tag to begin with, but when you removed it, I used {{Delete}} instead, which is the correct tag in that situation. You shouldn't remove {{Delete}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- My eyes must be deceiving me - this tag placed by you clearly states "Appeal: If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page and remove this tag.". Please use the correct tag rather than pontificating. Ciao Paul venter (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, {{Delete}} does not invite you to remove it. It clearly states: Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed. The deletion nomination has not been closed, so you should not remove the tag as you did here. Your removal of the problem tag has no relevance to the image or the deletion discussion, which is why I'm discussing it here. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have a quaint notion of sarcasm, and a tendency to ignore your own deficiencies while finding fault with others. Please drop this matter as I have very little desire to read your views on right and wrong. Paul venter (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Mary Buckland?
[edit]It seems there's some confusion going on. Mary Anning was a Brisith fossil collector. William Buckland was a British palaeontologist. I'm not sure who this Mary Buckland is, but you're categorising files into it erroneously. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, you seem to be confusion Mary Anning with Mary Buckland. They're not the same. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Mary Buckland was William Buckland's wife and a palaeontologist herself. That portrait was definitely of Mary Anning and not of Mary Buckland - well spotted and thank you! Paul venter (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]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. |
Dcoetzee (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Gauteng00.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
ALE! ¿…? 14:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violations
[edit]
Hello Paul venter.
You have uploaded one or more files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful. This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions. |
--Vera (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Embossing machine03.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Rkitko (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Despite my protests your hounding continues unabated. Paul venter (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your contributions are public and given the concerning nature of some on en.wikipedia, I took a look at the images you had uploaded. Such a review is not "hounding" or "stalking" as you have suggested elsewhere. You've already had several notifications of copyright violations and subsequent deletions and there are likely more in your recent contributions. You would be wise to follow the advice above and pay closer attention to copyright. Perhaps, when it doubt, don't upload and ask for advice before doing so. Rkitko (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- 'Hounding' and 'stalking' correctly describe your history and your crusade targeting my edits. You have no aspirations to being objective and do enjoy being provocative and smugly self-satisfied. I suppose by now I should know not to get upset with blithering idiots, but rather just to move on. Paul venter (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your contributions are public and given the concerning nature of some on en.wikipedia, I took a look at the images you had uploaded. Such a review is not "hounding" or "stalking" as you have suggested elsewhere. You've already had several notifications of copyright violations and subsequent deletions and there are likely more in your recent contributions. You would be wise to follow the advice above and pay closer attention to copyright. Perhaps, when it doubt, don't upload and ask for advice before doing so. Rkitko (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
File:David Hutchins00.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. |
Dereckson (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Review of your uploads
[edit]Hello,
Thank you for your research work and your contributions to South African forestry-related media. This is a very nice addition to Wikimedia Commons.
Following your question about the admissibility of a Google Maps map reproduction on the Undelete requests, I reviewed your files to check the licenses.
South African copyright law seems to take in consideration the media publish date for photographies (see the copyright law).
We really, strongly request each media on Wikimedia Commons is thoroughly documented, and two informations are required:
- the photographer name;
- the publish date.
The main issue is a work isn't anonymous only because there is no signature on the media. It's anonymous when the photographer published it without a name.
If you take images from books, we're in a more complicated situation. The worst but plausible scenario is a book includes photos never published before, gathered contacting families or private corporate collections of internal photos never released before. In this case, the photo's first publish date is the book publish date. And is so still copyrighted (in SA: 50 years after publication date / in US: 95 years after publication date for 1977, 70 years after the death of the author for 1978+).
When you have a picture published before 1923, please use the following tags: {{PD-South-Africa}} and {{PD-1923}}. This clearly shows it's in public domain both in source country and in US (the two legislation Wikimedia Commons follows).
When the image is published after 1923, you can refer to to the following table (it could be hard to follow the first times: US copyright law changed a lot. Fortunately, this synthesis table is marvelous and simplifies a lot our life) to get public domain status.
I'm at your disposal for any more question.
Oh, I also know you could be a little upset or angry of the Commons choices in very strict copyright compliance procedure. Our goal is to provide a free media repository for every educational or informational use (and not only to illustrate Wikipedia), so we want as most than possible to be able to say "this photo is really in public domain" (really != probably).
I guess virtually any of your picture not admissible on Commons will be OK on the English Wikipedia, under the fair use doctrine. If you wish, I will help you to transfer photos there and to prepare the fair use rationale there when we'll have finished to clean up stuff on Commons. --Dereckson (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Jonty rhodes02.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. |
JontyRhodes8 (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Prionum serratum00a.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. |
JuTa 23:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:John Gossweiler04.jpg
[edit]This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:John Gossweiler04.jpg. 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. |
No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]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. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, JuTa 03:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Eucalyptus paniculata04.jpg
[edit]This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Eucalyptus paniculata04.jpg. 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. |
Scoopfinder(d) 00:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Donation of images by Stefaan Dondeyne
[edit]Stefaan Dondeyne who is a Facebook friend has given permission to use all his images at https://www.flickr.com/photos/64245503@N07/sets/72157626999412350 . There are too many images for him to upload personally, so I would recommend that someone contact him and confirm his offer, and then arrange the upload. Paul venter (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Renaming
[edit]File:Albrecht Meyer03.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. |
Revent (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
File:Albrecht Meyer04.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. |
Revent (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]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. |
Affected:
And also:
File:Sfr-rountre-3.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. |
Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Sammy Marks02.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. |
Jcb (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the pictures
[edit]Hi Paul,
First of all, thank you for all your pictures. I just used your Fadogia homblei pics at af.wiki in gratitude. I'm trying to write some plant pages there and run into missing pictures quite regularly. (South Africa having soooo many plants, that is not surprising...) Anyway, I have started putting missing things into (hidden) categories. That might interest you.
Thanks again! Jcwf (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Gymnanthemum mespilifolium
[edit]Los cambios de este taxón han sido tomados de CatalogueofLife aqui con datos de april 2018]. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, --ghouston (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Abzeronow (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
File tagging File:William Edward Trevithick00.jpg
[edit]This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:William Edward Trevithick00.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:William Edward Trevithick00.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
File:William Edward Trevithick00.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
|
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Cadaba aphylla00.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
|
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Strychnos madagascariensis02.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
|
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Crassula perfoliata00.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.
|
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Cadaba aphylla00.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. |
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Disa uniflora00.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. |
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Aspalathus and Crotalaria illustrations from Flora of South Africa Marloth IMG 2181.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. |
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]COM:AN/U
[edit]
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Your comment on Pigsonthewing's talk page
[edit]You said:
- "How many times? As many as necessary to deal with their copyright-violating uploads. The issue is not who owns the copyright, but whether it has expired. Do you have anything to say on that matter?" This is not a "copyright-violating upload" - you have simply shown poor judgement by calling it such. Rudolf Marloth died on 15 May 1931 and by the 70 year criterion his work is out of copyright, so that the issue IS very much one of who owns the copyright. I am disappointed that you did not make the effort to verify this and chose to rather railroad the deletion. This is not in the interest of Wikimedia and you really should ask yourself whether you are suited to this job. cheers Paul venter (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
What you are missing here is that the duration of copyright is not based on the life of the licensee, but on the life of the creator. So, in this case, where the creator of the image, Ethel Mae Dixie, died on 11 October 1973, the image will have its South African copyright until 1/1/2024, fifty years after her death. It also has a US copyright under the URAA, but since it is a 1925 work, that will expire on 1/1/2021, 95 years after first publication.
Arguably, Marloth was not the licensee -- the publisher was -- and the book was a collective work. That would make the copyright on the whole work be measured by the death of the last of its authors -- Dixie -- so not just the illustrations, but also Marlot's text is still protected. However, since we are discussing an illustration here, that is moot.
I should also point out that the law in South Africa calls for a copyright to last for 50 years pma, not the 70 years you mention above. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I have set in motion an enquiry to determine once and for all the copyright status of the illustrations used in the work and will update as soon as possible. Paul venter (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please see https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/65674#/summary and let me know what you make of it..... Paul venter (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't open discussions in two places -- it wastes your time and mine.
- As I said on my talk page, "such sources are often wrong on copyright issues, particularly foreign ones. Since they do not list Dixie as the illustrator, they have not considered her copyright at all." Although he is the only named author, arguably the illustrations are at least as important as the text, so I doubt very much if a court would agree that the work is PD. Certainly her illustrations are not. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- "The Biodiversity Heritage Library is a consortium of natural history and botanical libraries" and I find it strange and rather disturbing that you label it as unreliable and 'foreign' -see here. It is a reputable organisation which has contributed significantly to the availability of scientific works. Perhaps I should take this issue to a broader panel. Paul venter (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please see "How do I determine if a work in the BHL is in the public domain?" and "Understanding Copyright Status" at the BHL page. They only assess the copyright status of a work in the United States which is solely based on the date of publication. "The BHL cannot and will not advise you or any other party about interpretation of your country’s copyright laws." Here at Commons, however, we also need to consider the copyright status in the country of origin. De728631 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- "The Biodiversity Heritage Library is a consortium of natural history and botanical libraries" and I find it strange and rather disturbing that you label it as unreliable and 'foreign' -see here. It is a reputable organisation which has contributed significantly to the availability of scientific works. Perhaps I should take this issue to a broader panel. Paul venter (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please see https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/65674#/summary and let me know what you make of it..... Paul venter (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It's this sort of nonsense which paralyses Wikimedia when some editors go the extra mile to complicate matters unnecessarily..... cheers Paul venter (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]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. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Fæ (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Marmite00.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. |