User talk:Phrood~commonswiki
Image deletion warning | Image:Telemann-Seal.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 If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in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. |
(fixed an old request) --Deadstar 14:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering: does Image:Schnorr von Carolsfeld - Wallensteins Lager.jpg have anything to do with Albrecht von Waldstein, is is that picture totally unrelated to the Wallenstein of the Thirty Years War? It would help if you would add the appropriate categories. Thanks, JdH 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The website where you once downloaded the image is no longer on line. You missed to add the painter and the date of the painting and the place where it is kept. Paintings without any sources except an unvalid web adress are not really good for the prestige of wikipedia. May be you can add the missing data. Thanks, 213.172.121.153 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Droste-Hülshoff.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Droste-Hülshoff.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-3.0}} 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. Siebrand 09:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Jean_de_La_Bruyère.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Jean_de_La_Bruyère.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-3.0}} 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. Siebrand 09:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Rocket_comparison.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 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. |
Iamunknown 22:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Image Anna Akhmatova
[edit]You have expressed your doubts about the ownership of copyright.
- I have uploaded the picture from site [1]
- The site spefically indicates the owner of the copyright. Copyright ©. George Mitrevski. Auburn University. e-mail:mitrege@auburn.edu I used this e-mail to request the authorization. This is a respected University, not some kind of unknown entity and there is no doubt that they know what copyright is. I see not to beleave the information.
- The site presents only the uploaded picture so there cannot be any confusion about what the copyright refers to.
- I consider that the deletion tag should be removed.Afil 01:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Edward Gorey - The Eclectic Abecedarium.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Edward Gorey - The Eclectic Abecedarium.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. GeorgHH • talk 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Edward Gorey House 2.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Edward Gorey House 2.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. GeorgHH • talk 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Edward Gorey House.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Edward Gorey House.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. GeorgHH • talk 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Bach_Carl_Philipp_Emanuel_1.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Bach_Carl_Philipp_Emanuel_1.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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. OsamaK 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Bach_Carl_Philipp_Emanuel_1.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Bach_Carl_Philipp_Emanuel_1.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|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version 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. Tarawneh (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Georg Friedrich Händel 5.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. |
This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 10:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
mrs campion holding a hornbook.1661.from tuer's history of a hornbook... is probably a little boy...
[edit]I ,louis sayers ,french student of art since twenty years ,ask to watch better historic pictures like that one . for me ,pretended mrs is in fact a boy ,at the first seeing ,because the "begin" typical french faschion bonnet is wear without laces when it is a boy's bonnet and wear with laces when it is a girl 's bonnet . I invite you to read a good book :"l'enfant et la vie familliale sous l'ancien régime " by philippe aries or a good english studie about this french period of fashion :"art et archictecture in france" by anthony blunt .i wish you a good reading ."louis.sayers@wanadoo.fr"28-08-08...
Image deletion warning | Image:Lindner_-_Thumb_sucking.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. |
76.254.63.127 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
File deletion warning | File:Nogray_color_picker.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. |
OsamaK 09:54, 18 December 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 06:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Blutkreislauf.png is uncategorized since 13 March 2009. BotMultichillT 06:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Image:EPO sales.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
- Image:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed 2.svg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
File:Orgasm.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. |
Fernrohr (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Blackbody-sRGB: Wrong temperature scale?
[edit]Hi Phrood, there is a discussion in de:Farbtemperatur that the color graph used there, which is derived from yours, might be wrong. Given a linear 1000-16000 K scale, the white point appears around 5000 K, which contradicts the yellowish appearance of the Sun. Indeed, I would have expected the white point above 6000 K. I have tried to reproduce the graph using the CIE XYX color space and the XYZ-sRGB conversion matrix. As I expected, the white point is now about 6700 K, while yours turns white at 5300 K (the T labels in the derived graph in the german article appear to be inaccurate; therefore I have compared the color-changes rather than the temperatures). Furthermore, in several articles is mentioned that the Sun near the horizon on a clear morning/afternoon corresponds to about 5000 K and appears orange-yellowish rather than "neutral white" (which, in my opinion, is even hardly reached by the midday sun near the equator; I have been on the Canary Islands in June/July a few years ago. I estimated color hue the sunlight produces on a white surface like clouds or other white objects).
Then I tried to change the spectral weighting to quantal instead of energy units (i.e. number of photons per second rather than Watts) by dividing by lambda (large lambda requires more photons for the same energy), and now the color profile matches exactly yours (except for slightly different color saturation; but the white point is not at the same place). This rises the question whether you know if color vision sensitivity is determined by photon number flux rather than energy flux (the link you gave in the description is dead, unfortunately). Do you know more about this?--SiriusB (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Addition: I have uploaded two images to illustrate the problem (margins are now trimmed), but you can already see that yours matches the quantal-units version rather than the energy-units version.
--SiriusB (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- SiriusB, I'm not sure that "Quantal" weighting is relevant, but possibly. The white point of sRGB is D6500, very close to the 6500K blackbody point, by definition, so your last image is probably more correct in the that sense; perhaps it should be closer to 6400 rather than 6700, per [2]. But your image looks much too colorful; did you omit the sRGB gamma compression? Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for mentioning the gamma correction, I had really missed that. Now the plots should look better. However, the "most white" point is, as I found out, at 6666.38 Kelvins; here both R and B are 1 and G as also maximal, but slightly below 1. Don't know what causes the difference. Maybe the slight differences between The CIE 1931 color space and its updates by Judd (1951) and Vos (1978) result in the higher white point. However, in Astrophysics, "white" is between 7500 and 10000 K. Maybe the difference from 6500 K results from the fact, that the D65 standard lamp does not have a Planck spectrum? Oops sorry, I forgot the sig (added now, the next morning).--SiriusB (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you share the code and data you're using? Maybe it's not good enough data; maybe you need finer wavelength increments, or extension to wavelengths a bit longer than 700? Should probably also extend it down to 500 K and show a deeper red. The "white" in astrophysics is not relevant here. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for mentioning the gamma correction, I had really missed that. Now the plots should look better. However, the "most white" point is, as I found out, at 6666.38 Kelvins; here both R and B are 1 and G as also maximal, but slightly below 1. Don't know what causes the difference. Maybe the slight differences between The CIE 1931 color space and its updates by Judd (1951) and Vos (1978) result in the higher white point. However, in Astrophysics, "white" is between 7500 and 10000 K. Maybe the difference from 6500 K results from the fact, that the D65 standard lamp does not have a Planck spectrum? Oops sorry, I forgot the sig (added now, the next morning).--SiriusB (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- The data are directly taken from [3], namely the Judd (1951) & Vos (1978) modification of the 2-deg XYX CMF. They all cover the whole relevant wavelength range (typically 380 to 800 nm). The Planck function implementation is well-tested and fits all relevant results (e.g. Wien peak, Stefan-Boltzmann law). The CMFs are with 5 nm resolution and interpolated as cubic splines in the logarithmic scale (more stable than in the linear scale). I have meanwhile checked also the old 1931 standard whichs yields a white point at 6534 K. Much closer, albeit not perfect. Maybe I should also test the 1-nm steps file as reference. I can also try to get the code into a human-readable form. It is a set of Fortran codes and probably too long to put here into Wikimedia. But maybe a minimum version stripped down to the essentialy may do. But I don't know what additional information it will provide since the crucial thing are the CIE-XYZ CMFs.--SiriusB (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Addition: I have tried now the 1-nm file, but the result is essentially the same: The whitest point RGB=(1,0.975,1) is still at 6534 K. But maybe a subsequent white balance correction for 6500 K may do.--SiriusB (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I've found the error source: The graph itself is correct (except for that there are different opinions whether one should use equal brightness, which would yield a dirty-grey appearance, or maximum intensity, as shown here). The source of error was propably the method of determining the correlated color temperature. I have alwayed used the point of maximum overall RGB levels as "white", in particular where R and B are both 1 and G also near 1. But the correct method seems to be to transform the x-y-z values into the u-v space, and to find the orthogonal intersection (the isothermal line) which hits the D65 white point (if this is used as white standard). I've retried with an easier but still probably accurate method and calculated the minimum sum of squares (u-ud65)^2+(v-vd65)^2 where (ud65,vd65)is the D65 point in u-v coordinates. The underlying assumption is that the u-v space is Euklidian. Whith this method and CODATA 2006 values for the Planck function I get 6504.23 K as nearest point to D65.--SiriusB (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
File:PoissonSS.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. |
Ricordisamoa (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Image:RandomSS.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. |
This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 15:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Albert Uderzo.jpg
[edit]This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Albert Uderzo.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. |
Lobo (howl?) 10:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Albert Uderzo.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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Lobo (howl?) 13:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Goebel Stamp 2004.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. |
Stefan4 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi!
You uploaded a new version of this file, but I don't think it's now User:Gabor's scan. Can you give it a source (to |source=
field of {{Artwork}})? Thanks! tacsipacsi (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Your account will be renamed
[edit]Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Phrood. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Phrood~commonswiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Renamed
[edit]This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)
04:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
File:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed 2.svg 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 17:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
File:Orlando di Lasso 2.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. |
Rettinghaus (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
File:Telemann4.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. |
Rettinghaus (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Telemann6.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. |
Rettinghaus (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Telemann5.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. |
Rettinghaus (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Giacomo Carissimi.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. |
132.230.239.215 11:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Permission to use figure in a book.
[edit]Hi, I am working with Prof. Steven LaValle to help obtain permissions for borrowing figures or pictures in his upcoming book Virtual Reality, to be published by Cambridge University Press. The book is online here:
We are hoping to include the picture of yours (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Mond-vergleich.svg) in this book (Chapter 6, Figure 6.4). Could we please have your permission for this? Thank you.
Please contact me at awarkoczewski@yahoo.com Sincerely,
Adam Warkoczewski — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.8.91.93 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Portrait of a musician possibly by Rembrandt 1.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. |
Meidosensei (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
File:Indexed palette.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. |
大诺史 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
File:Indexed palette-H.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. |
大诺史 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
File:Helium-Bohr.svg 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. |
189.27.80.118 00:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Image:RandomSS.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. |
--Ricordisamoa (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:Beethoven 2.jpg
[edit]This media was probably deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Beethoven 2.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file (
[[:File:Beethoven 2.jpg]] ).
If you created the content yourself, enter If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |
Taivo (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
FP Promotion
[edit]
The image File:Edwin Forbes - The Charge across the Burnside Bridge.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Edwin Forbes - The Charge across the Burnside Bridge.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page. |
/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Edmond Aman-Jean - Miss Ella Carmichaël.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. |
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 November 2022 (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. |