User talk:Sodakan/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Galleries and categories
Hi, could you, when you create a gallery page, add a category at the bottom? It helps people to find your page. Thank you. Deadstar 13:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the cats - I was meaning to go back and clean that up when I got done with the uploads I was doing (got a big backlog). Videmus Omnia 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- No worries & the images are great! :) Deadstar 12:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
OTRS confirming
Have you got an OTRS ticket number? We need to verify that Image:Spike TV Nicole.jpg permission was received, and for that we need an OTRS ticket number. -- Drini 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I got a massive GFDL permission dump of several dozen images from Flickr user Anime Nut that I'm still uploading, including that one. I should be done in a couple of hours and will forward the permission to OTRS in one request, if you can hang on that long. Thanks... Videmus Omnia 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- alright, can you tell HIM to email us as well? at permissions@wikimedia.org -- Drini 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be forwarding his e-mail, and I'll cc him when I send it. If you check my upload log, you'll see that I'm familiar with OTRS procedures, thanks. Can I ask what caused the concern? Videmus Omnia 21:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- alright, can you tell HIM to email us as well? at permissions@wikimedia.org -- Drini 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories
Hi. Could you please add relevent categories to images when you upload them? (Lots recently seem to belong in Category:Porn actresses or some sub-category thereof.) Thank you. -- Infrogmation 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'll be working on that this weekend - sorry, was trying to get them uploaded before I could get them organized. (Had a big backlog from successful permission requests.) Videmus Omnia 15:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tyler Faith 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 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. |
--Tognopop 08:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Flickr upload bot
There are some database problems, causing out-of-date data to be returned. I have temporarily removed some checks and it should work now. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Porn Star
The Porn Star | ||
I, hereby award you this Porn Star for outstanding contributions to Pornography articles on Wikipedia, and to other projects of Wikimedia via Wikimedia Commons. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC) |
Image deletion warning | Image:Keeani Lei 6.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. |
Tognopop 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Insignia of the Russian Federation
Your reverts of insignia of the Russian Federation like vandalism. Commons wikimedia is a freely licensed media file repository. All insignia of the Russia is free acording russian civil code law and sources no needed. Please stop revert this images. Articles about insignia, without insignia - it is nonsense.--79.178.17.42 14:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Those images are not produced by the Russian government, Roitr, but by a commercial website. They're going to be flagged for deletion whenever you upload them. Videmus Omnia 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Encyclopedia of Uniform Insignia obviously did not design the insignia in the first place, otherwise it would be a pretty poor encyclopedia. As the images are faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works, UniformInsignia.net do not own the copyright on the images; per en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., the copyright remains with the original designer. As the rank insignia being discussed are the work of the Russian Government, and these images are a faithful reproduction of these two-dimensional works, the copyright status remains unchanged - and as Russian Law puts the originals into the public domain, so remain the copies. In addition, just because commercial sites have images of the rank insigna on them, it does not mean that the images uploaded here were taken from there - they could have both had a common source, or they may have been independently created. Stannered 19:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- All these pictures not from sites ( http://www.uniforminsignia.net or others) - is my own work and is made by a photoshop by myself and it is lawful.
Acording russian civil code law state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, military symbols and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations.--79.178.17.42 14:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is the same behavior that got you banned from en Wikipedia. These images are not your work, and are not works of the Russian government. Videmus Omnia 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- To all commercial sites showing these pictures have no rights licensed them, as they are free according to the Russian laws. All these images is my work and it is lawful. You can see all these images first time uploaded by Roitr (me). Until this time there were other pictures from other sources. And still I wish to tell almost all military insignia images on wiki are taken from commercial sources, not produced by states governments. Erase them and erase all articles about word ranks insignia from wiki.
--79.178.17.42 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
All these insignia you can see also http://military-uniform.narod.ru/army/ra_1994-2005/210-1997/index.htm - officialy site about russian uniform and insignia, all federal laws about ranks and uniforms. http://www.uniforminsignia.net and wiki taked ranks insignia from this site.
- Um, no. That site apparently stole them from the commercial website as well. Videmus Omnia 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- This site the official and recognized appendices of a site of the Ministry of Defence of Russia. Look closely, that pictures on a commercial site a little differ from military-uniform. My pictures too differ from both as I have a little changed their photoshop.Commercial site apparently stole them from the official site,not official site apparently stole them from the commercial!!!
- I'm not discussing this with you any more. This constant arguing, use of sockpuppets, and citations of bogus Russian sources got you banned from en Wikipedia. If you continue to upload these images, they'll be deleted. I'm well aware of the articles and images that you edit, and I'll keep them watchlisted. Now please get off my talk page, thank you. Videmus Omnia 17:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- All my citations not from bogus sources. That who blocked me, simply refused to recognize true and to recognize self-mistakes. You do as well are afraid to recognize your mistakes. You can continue erase my pictures and I them shall load them 100 times. It is ridiculous that foreigners and even ignorant Russian, prove to me something about Russia and the Russian things. Instead of to recognize self-mistakes - block me and erase. For diffident it is a good output from such situations. Bye and it is a pity, that we have not found the compromise and war will be will proceed. I did not refuse dialogue and you have do it. In general, this information on wiki is not necessary to me personally, as I know many other sources about insignia and I can take the information from these sites. But other users will see clause about personally will and not find them in article and it is bad. At me to you last question. I can add pictures with military-uniform.narod.ru, instead uniforminsignia.net, as they on yours do not contradict to the law or they also will be removed.
- This site the official and recognized appendices of a site of the Ministry of Defence of Russia. Look closely, that pictures on a commercial site a little differ from military-uniform. My pictures too differ from both as I have a little changed their photoshop.Commercial site apparently stole them from the official site,not official site apparently stole them from the commercial!!!
--88.153.240.98 17:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Can you confirm the information at Image:Kelly Madison 7.JPG? I was wondering why it would be emailed to you and uploaded by User:Stanmar. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I originally uploaded it to en Wikipedia, looks like he moved it over here. Videmus Omnia 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
delete pict
Speedy Deletion
Speedy deletion tag should only be used in obvious cases. In the case of rank insignias you nominated this is not the case. I have removed the tag as a commons admin. You are welcome to seek COM:DEL. Because you have a "trusted user" template on your userpage I assume you know how commons work so I wont bore you off with the details. -- Cat ちぃ? 19:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is it common practice here at Commons for administrators to remove speedy deletion tags from their own images? Videmus Omnia 22:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I do not even recall uploading them. I guess those were the images I uploaded using a bot...
- I call it "too close to call" for speedy.
- -- Cat ちぃ? 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, can you explain this removal of a 'no source' tag? Videmus Omnia 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Images ineligible of copyright are not expected to have a source. Weather images truly are ineligible of copyright or not is not for you or me to decide. Please use COM:DEL as it exists for this purpose. -- Cat ちぃ? 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- And why is the image ineligible for copyright? It has no license tag that states such. Also, I ask that you please stop removing tags from images that you yourself uploaded. Videmus Omnia 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have bulk reverted your speedy noms with giving little consideration to who the uploader was. A good number of the images were not uploaded by me. A good number was wikipedian made svgs not available anywhere else on the web that I can see. There are also a good number you haven't nominated.
- Image:GR-Army-OR2a.gif and others are too simple of a design to be eligible for copyright or at the very least are too close to call. That's my stance as the closing admin. Please do not add a different speedy tag right after I closed it as a non-speedy.
- The proper median in addressing an issue with this scale has always been COM:DEL. Fundamentally this isn't all that different from FOTW deletion discussion. Commons is familiar with problematic licensing steaming from license tags that became obsolete for various reasons.
- -- Cat ちぃ? 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to go through the COM:DEL deletion process for images with obvious problems, like missing sources. That's why we have a speedy deletion process. Unless you can give a reason why your images should not need sources, I plan to tag the ones that have no sources with 'nsd'. Any objections? Videmus Omnia 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- How many images on Category:PD ineligible have a source? Do not tag them with a speedy deletion template. Your only option is COM:DEL or dropping the matter. Let consensus decide. -- Cat ちぃ? 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The images are not PD-ineligible - they have no license that states such, nor any source by which this can be verified. I plan on tagging them as no source, please do not abuse your admin tools by involving them in a dispute, let an uninvolved admin decide, please. Videmus Omnia 00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- An uninvolved admin (me) has already decided. These are not speedyable. Such a disagreement among admins would be evidence enough that such a delete would be controversial. I won't hesitate to undelete controversial deletions until issue is discussed and resolved through COM:DEL. Weather images are PD-ineligible or not is not for you or me to decide. Let community decide via COM:DEL. -- Cat ちぃ? 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly how are you "uninvolved" when you are removing tags from images that you uploaded yourself? Videmus Omnia 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I mass reverted you and User:Butseriouslyfolks alike, User:Butseriouslyfolks prior to you. The uploads are too close to call. If you do tag them, I will be forced to revert you and block you for disruption. Do not "dog fight" with me to avoid a discussion. If they are "obvious copyvios" com:del will agree with that assessment. I will not make the nominations myself since I do not seek a deletion. -- Cat ちぃ? 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're threatening to block me for tagging your uploads? And how are images with no source "too close to call" for tagging as "no source"? Videmus Omnia 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I mass reverted you and User:Butseriouslyfolks alike, User:Butseriouslyfolks prior to you. The uploads are too close to call. If you do tag them, I will be forced to revert you and block you for disruption. Do not "dog fight" with me to avoid a discussion. If they are "obvious copyvios" com:del will agree with that assessment. I will not make the nominations myself since I do not seek a deletion. -- Cat ちぃ? 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly how are you "uninvolved" when you are removing tags from images that you uploaded yourself? Videmus Omnia 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- An uninvolved admin (me) has already decided. These are not speedyable. Such a disagreement among admins would be evidence enough that such a delete would be controversial. I won't hesitate to undelete controversial deletions until issue is discussed and resolved through COM:DEL. Weather images are PD-ineligible or not is not for you or me to decide. Let community decide via COM:DEL. -- Cat ちぃ? 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The images are not PD-ineligible - they have no license that states such, nor any source by which this can be verified. I plan on tagging them as no source, please do not abuse your admin tools by involving them in a dispute, let an uninvolved admin decide, please. Videmus Omnia 00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- How many images on Category:PD ineligible have a source? Do not tag them with a speedy deletion template. Your only option is COM:DEL or dropping the matter. Let consensus decide. -- Cat ちぃ? 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to go through the COM:DEL deletion process for images with obvious problems, like missing sources. That's why we have a speedy deletion process. Unless you can give a reason why your images should not need sources, I plan to tag the ones that have no sources with 'nsd'. Any objections? Videmus Omnia 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- And why is the image ineligible for copyright? It has no license tag that states such. Also, I ask that you please stop removing tags from images that you yourself uploaded. Videmus Omnia 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Read what I wrote above, PD-ineligible images are not required to have a source. The purpose of speedy deletion tags is not to find convenient ways to avoid COM:DEL to get an image you dislike deleted. It was a mere friendly reminder. I do not threaten, I take action. If the intention is testing my patience, I would recommend against it. -- Cat ちぃ? 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I'm asking that you provide some kind of source to show that the images you are tagging are PD-ineligible. There's no need to go through the COM:DEL process if we can resolve it ourselves. Many rank insignia are copyrighted by the government that produces them, in addition to the claimed derivative work copyright by uniforminsignia.net. Why won't you provide sources or valid licenses for the images which you uploaded? Please work with me and provide some kind of explanation why you feel the images you took from a commercial website are PD-ineligible. Videmus Omnia 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- There was a valid license that was altered after the images were uploaded. These were not uploaded with a false license at the time. Therefore they need to go through COM:DEL for that reason alone. The images do have a temporarily-valid license which I can mass alter the licensing with a few clicks on my bot to convert them to {{PD-ineligible}} which would serve to no purpose given you want to take the issue to deletion either way.
- I am explaining you how we process such issues (dealing with images stemming from a formerly valid license) on commons. I ask you to follow it. This was observed in dealing with FOTW images (they were leeched from FOTW site and were never a copyright violation). Same thing was observed in dealing with PD-Soviet images (they were officially in the public domain until the Russian law was altered).
- The images will not get deleted through covert means or through revert waring and etc. I will delete the images myself if the consensus ends up being a delete at COM:DEL. Deletion is no big deal.
- -- Cat ちぃ? 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- You have a "trusted user" template on your userpage, please act like one. -- Cat ちぃ? 02:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- <sigh> - Could you please answer the very simple question - "Why do you believe these images are not eligible for copyright?" You are an administrator, please act like one. Thanks. Videmus Omnia 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship just like flags - or so I claim. Contesting this is the job of COM:DEL. -- Cat ちぃ? 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to wait for the outcome of the above case before nominating, so we're not making similar arguments in two different places. In the meantime, would you please try to start cleaning up the sources and license tags on those images? Since you didn't show where they came from, it's impossible for me to determine the correct license. Videmus Omnia 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship just like flags - or so I claim. Contesting this is the job of COM:DEL. -- Cat ちぃ? 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- <sigh> - Could you please answer the very simple question - "Why do you believe these images are not eligible for copyright?" You are an administrator, please act like one. Thanks. Videmus Omnia 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I'm asking that you provide some kind of source to show that the images you are tagging are PD-ineligible. There's no need to go through the COM:DEL process if we can resolve it ourselves. Many rank insignia are copyrighted by the government that produces them, in addition to the claimed derivative work copyright by uniforminsignia.net. Why won't you provide sources or valid licenses for the images which you uploaded? Please work with me and provide some kind of explanation why you feel the images you took from a commercial website are PD-ineligible. Videmus Omnia 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Images ineligible of copyright are not expected to have a source. Weather images truly are ineligible of copyright or not is not for you or me to decide. Please use COM:DEL as it exists for this purpose. -- Cat ちぃ? 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, can you explain this removal of a 'no source' tag? Videmus Omnia 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that would be the most productive approach, I agree.
- As for my uploads. I had forgotten about them completely. I would have categorised them better had I recalled uploading them. Its been so long and they had been completely out of my mind. Now that I look over them, I do recall having a computer problem and loosing the site I was leeching them from. This was over 2 years ago. I think that was why the uploads are only for the army and not other branches. Back then all flag images and rank insignias were "fine". They may be from the website mentioned. If you do not mind, I'd like to leave the images as is until they undergo a discussion. I'd like to preform any alteration based on the discussion so as to avoid redundancy.
- My personal gut feeling on how COM:DEL would result: These images would probably be treated just like how flag images were treated during the FOTW debate. Stealing free images (talking generaly) is perfectly fine legally and is not problematic policy-wise. Mind that not every copyright claim is always valid. However, we had gone the extra mile in being nice during the FOTW discussion after complaints from some of the FOTW people. Non-stolen better alternatives were created and FOTW copies were deleted even though there was no reason whatsoever to do so. Overall, all flag images from FOTW site were deleted but only after svg versions were created. We can observe the same thing with rank insignias. I have no objection to that. This can not be achieved through speedy deletion of rank insignias.
- What I think you are doing: I know what you are trying to do is simply protect wikipedia/wikimedia from copyright related lawsuits and etc. Which I respect and admire, but often resolving a problem or possible problem involves extensive discussion. I feel this is one of them.
- -- Cat ちぃ? 03:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- reset
Copied from COM:AN:
According to German copyright law, "laws, regulations, decrees and official announcements and decisions and officially drafted guidelines to decisions [do] not enjoy copyright protection." The military insignia would fall under decrees, and therefore everything is {{PD-GermanGov}}.
On another note, the block threatening above was completely unacceptable, as you were acting in good faith. O2 (息 • 吹) 03:43, 20 October 2007 (GMT)
US Rank insignias
Hi. You lost revert to your version some U.S. rank insignias:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US-Army-OF10.gif, Image:US-Army-OF9.gif, Image:US-Army-OF8.gif, Image:US-Army-OF7.gif, Image:US-Army-OF6.gif, Image:US-Army-OF5.gif, Image:US-Army-OF4.gif, Image:US-Army-OF3.gif, Image:US-Army-OF2.gif, Image:US-Army-OF1a.gif. Please revert them to your version. Thanks--88.153.111.59 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- You should know that the above IP is en:User:Roitr, a notorious long-term abuser and sockpuppeteer. He's repeatedly reverting a known free version of the insignia to a possible copyvio version from here. Videmus Omnia 15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- When images are replaced with "freer" alternatives, why should there be any reason for me to revert? I am deleting the semi-problematic older versions. -- Cat ちぃ? 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I'll ask you not to revert war with User:Roitr. Just page me and I will block him, revert him and delete the unnecessary versions for you like I have done with Image:US-Army-OF10.gif. -- Cat ちぃ? 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for working this. The Roitr socks and IPs have caused a lot of my frustration with the copyvio issues from uniforminsignia.net, though I think I've pretty much shut him down on the en Wikipedia, and I have been able to get nearly all the images from that site deleted there - there's a few left, but they should be gone soon. (This all began with an innocent attempt to clean up the deprecated Military-Insignia license template and replace it with valid licenses.) Roitr's typical tactic is to create a sock user account to upload the copyvio images - the sock account is normally quickly blocked, but then he uses dynamic IPs to remove speedy deletion tags from the copyvio images that were uploaded by the sock account. The fact that he's been shut down on en Wikipedia has led him to move here with his copyright violations.
- Hi, I'll ask you not to revert war with User:Roitr. Just page me and I will block him, revert him and delete the unnecessary versions for you like I have done with Image:US-Army-OF10.gif. -- Cat ちぃ? 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- When images are replaced with "freer" alternatives, why should there be any reason for me to revert? I am deleting the semi-problematic older versions. -- Cat ちぃ? 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- On a related subject, I think I'll open a larger COM:DEL request to deal with Commons images from this site in general. I wanted to ask your advice - should I contact the webmaster of uniforminsignia.net to ask their opinion of our usage of their images? Maybe they will give us permission to use them under a free license. (I specialize in getting permission to use images under free license.) If they don't agree to release under free license, they could at least contact the Foundation with their opinion on whether we are violating their copyrights, which should clarify the status of these images - what do you think? Videmus Omnia 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my, you came here over a lot of frustration from this user. It all makes more sense now. We have a lower tolerance to such nonsense here on commons than wikipedia so do not hesitate to point any nonsense from him either to me or someone else. Since I am now more familiar with the issue at hand, I can more easily deal with him I think. But bottom line is it wont be tolerated.
- If uniforminsignia.net can be convinced to let us use their images with a free license that would be an excellent option. Its free advertisement for them as well with attribution. You're more than welcome to try to take that avenue and have my full support. We would loose nothing for trying and both us and they would gain alot. You'd have to explain the usefulness of free licenses and how it helps them.
- It is best not to involve the foundation unnecessarily as they are a tangled bureaucracy at times. FOTW issue was resolved without involving the foundation with a wikipedian mediating between FOTW and Wikipedia. You can take on this task if you like.
- If a deal with uniforminsignia.net is not possible, we can try this option. I do not see the insignia problem as something too terribly complex as commons have dealt with much more complex issues in the past most notably {{PD-Soviet}}. Generally we try to avoid deletion of the images if free alternatives are possible. You and others claimed this is possible. So the bad bad versions can be overwritten just like how US millitary ranks were handled.
- -- Cat ちぃ? 19:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- On a related subject, I think I'll open a larger COM:DEL request to deal with Commons images from this site in general. I wanted to ask your advice - should I contact the webmaster of uniforminsignia.net to ask their opinion of our usage of their images? Maybe they will give us permission to use them under a free license. (I specialize in getting permission to use images under free license.) If they don't agree to release under free license, they could at least contact the Foundation with their opinion on whether we are violating their copyrights, which should clarify the status of these images - what do you think? Videmus Omnia 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I owe you an apology for causing you further stress than this user. I look forward in resolving this insignia related problem on commons with you. I also prefer images with indisputable copyright status on commons just like you after all. -- Cat ちぃ? 19:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fultskaf (talk · contribs) is another sock. Like I said, busily uploading all the copyvio that was deleted at en Wikipedia. Videmus Omnia 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked. I am holding back on image deletions for a more permanent solution. He'd just reupload with another sock. Perhaps we should create free alternatives to those as well (or if you can get the free license thing off of uniforminsignia.net that would work too) -- Cat ちぃ? 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fultskaf (talk · contribs) is another sock. Like I said, busily uploading all the copyvio that was deleted at en Wikipedia. Videmus Omnia 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Keeani_Lei_6.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. |
75.57.252.243 08:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Image distortion
Okay, Image:Kalani headshot3t.jpg looks okay uploaded, but looks a bit distorted in the article. ?? Cricket02
- Many thanks once again...:) Cricket02 14:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Joe Trippi Picture
Where did you get the Trippi picture? I shot that image and own the copyright to it ... 64.142.103.194 08:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The details are on the image description page - please feel free to check with User:Riana, who handled the permission request at OTRS. Videmus Omnia 14:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Heads up - User talk:64.142.103.194, User_talk:Riana#OTRS and the image of Joe Trippi and [1]. Sorry about that. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 04:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Admin
Good idea! You certainly have enough work to satisfy people, I'm sure it'll go through very well. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 08:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Despite my apparent reputation for not liking en wp people who think they should be admins (:)) I'd support you too! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tim, not to nag (hehe) I've created this little thing. Please feel free to accept and transclude on Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes at your leisure. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- And I wouldn't nag either but it is on my watch list :) (you only have your sanity to loose - what the heck!0 --Herby talk thyme 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate the nomination - even if I'm not ultimately accepted, it's a tremendous compliment. I accepted and transcluded the nomination - thanks again! Videmus Omnia 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pleasure - I'm sure it will go well. Take care, ~ Riana ⁂ 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate the nomination - even if I'm not ultimately accepted, it's a tremendous compliment. I accepted and transcluded the nomination - thanks again! Videmus Omnia 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- And I wouldn't nag either but it is on my watch list :) (you only have your sanity to loose - what the heck!0 --Herby talk thyme 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tim, not to nag (hehe) I've created this little thing. Please feel free to accept and transclude on Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes at your leisure. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for supporting me in my successful RfA! Rocket000 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- BTY, congratulations yourself! Rocket000 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, Dear Administrator!
Sodakan, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.
Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.
Please also check or add your entry to Commons:List_of_administrators and the related lists by language and date it references...
I would give you the advice I gave the last person I promoted. Please heed the advice your opposers have given you. Also please check my work at adding you to the various lists. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats! Took the liberty here ;) Good luck with the shiny buttons. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 17:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Boring but "me too" and if I can help....--Herby talk thyme 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, all! I'm sure I'll be bugging you for advice. :) - Videmus Omnia 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Enjoy the extra buttons; I want to see those logs of yours be full of actions. :-p Maxim(talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, all! I'm sure I'll be bugging you for advice. :) - Videmus Omnia 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Boring but "me too" and if I can help....--Herby talk thyme 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, congrats! Woo-hoo! :-D Quadell (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
re OTRS
Hey - it's preferred that admins have put in a few months at a coalface proving themselves, so to speak, before applying for OTRS. I think I volunteered after about 2-3 months of en-adminship. From m:OTRS/volunteering (which is where you apply) - Generally, OTRS administrators must be familiar with you and your work on Wikimedia projects before accepting you as a volunteer and issuing you an account. Cheers! ~ Riana ⁂ 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
deletion talk?
In deleting Image:Boyfriends work.jpg, Quadell (talk · contribs)'s edit summary said: "per consensus, details on the talk page". But you deleted that talk page: "Talkpage of non-existent file/gallery/category". Since there was no formal deletion deletion process for the image, do you think the talk page should be retained? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just throwing in my two cents, since the image was deleted first, I see no real reason to keep the talk page. If need be, an admin can always bring it up. The general rule of thumb on the wikis I am familiar with is to not keep talk pages if the main page is deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, Thor...I don't mind if someone undeletes the talk page, but the discussion was pretty noncontroversial...just a couple of users stating the image should be deleted, and Quadell, as the uploader, initially arguing for retention before changing his mind and deciding to delete the image. I didn't see any reason why anyone might want to keep that image talk page, but I could be wrong. Videmus Omnia 04:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Historical record. And that only if someone asks. We archive regular deletion discussions, and we don't archive speedies (nothing TOO archive)... prolly not a big deal. This image wasn't that important anyway really. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lar - yeah, so far as I know the image was not used anywhere and was only on the Commons for a matter of hours, really, The original uploader at en Wikipedia is apparently gone. Videmus Omnia 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Historical record. And that only if someone asks. We archive regular deletion discussions, and we don't archive speedies (nothing TOO archive)... prolly not a big deal. This image wasn't that important anyway really. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Once more, with feeling
Good answer.[2] Durova 14:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Durova. Videmus Omnia 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia
What on earth are you doing Videmus?. Why have you deleted your account? Are you active again in the military? I need to you to help out some OTRS ticketing from flickr permission I have recieved from several people Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
And whatever else
Stick around on Commons please :) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Dope_Stars_Inc_1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dope_Stars_Inc_1.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. Cecil 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Tyler_Faith_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 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. |
87.4.223.104 23:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Christine Zukowski.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Christine Zukowski.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 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Ashley Jenning 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ashley Jenning 1.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 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Alex Pantos 1.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Alex Pantos 1.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 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Info
Good to see you back around too - User talk:Fewater. As a project CU I confirm I feel that this block seems appropriate. Equally for info User talk:Skobel. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Herby! Videmus Omnia 15:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Removal of images from Soviet Era
Do you mind explaining why these are being removed? All are from official Soviet sources and long released into the public domain.--1mrg3105 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- See my answer below. Videmus Omnia 15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that rather then creating more work, it would have been a wiser move to first notify in the talk pages of the change in legislation, of which most editors would not have been aware, and then allow time to research copyright of specific images, or find replacements. The wholesale deletion due to change of legislation in Russia rather then malicious intent by editors to violate copyright seems a drastic and unwarranted action on your part. I would consider reverting--1mrg3105 01:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if the deletions caused you problems...the uploader of the images I deleted was a notorious copyright violator and hoaxer. In particular, he would claim that nearly every image he uploaded came from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia with absolutely no evidence that it had done so, Is there a particular image deletion that you had a problem with? I'd be happy to work with you on sourcing and possible restoration. Videmus Omnia 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that rather then creating more work, it would have been a wiser move to first notify in the talk pages of the change in legislation, of which most editors would not have been aware, and then allow time to research copyright of specific images, or find replacements. The wholesale deletion due to change of legislation in Russia rather then malicious intent by editors to violate copyright seems a drastic and unwarranted action on your part. I would consider reverting--1mrg3105 01:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain reason for deletion? Most likely image was made before 1937, so {{PD-old}} claim is valid. --EugeneZelenko 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Eugene - not sure if you were aware of this, but Russian copyright law changed on January 1st of this year. Barring special circumstances, they are not in the public domain in Russia until 70 years after the death of the creator. The {{PD-Russia}} tag is now invalid and needs to be deprecated or changed. Another issue with that image is that it was uploaded by a banned editor notorious for making false copyright claims. If you can replace the image with a properly-sourced one I'd be happy to help with that. Videmus Omnia 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Base on biography of en:Nikolai Skoblin, image could be PD-old (if it's anonymous work). --EugeneZelenko 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored that image, Eugene - thanks for researching it and contacting me. Videmus Omnia 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for help! --EugeneZelenko 15:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored that image, Eugene - thanks for researching it and contacting me. Videmus Omnia 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Base on biography of en:Nikolai Skoblin, image could be PD-old (if it's anonymous work). --EugeneZelenko 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright | Image:Chow Yun Fat.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.
|
Jackaranga 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
deprecated function in your monobook.js
Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.
This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.
To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Isabella Blow 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Isabella Blow 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. Herby talk thyme 10:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Resignation
Hi! I am very sad you resigned from your mob. I hope you will return soon. The best wishes, abf /talk to me/ 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Francesca_Dani_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 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. |
Lugusto • ※ 18:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Admin
Hi,
I see that you have a admin userbox on your userpage, but you are not a admin. Maybe it is better that you remove the box. It can confuse new users.
Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 17:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible he or she was before they ceased contributing in (iinm) 2007? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Oliver_North_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 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. |
66.31.42.26 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Keeani_Lei_6.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. |
66.151.148.225 00:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Oliver North 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 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!) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | Image:Felicia_Fox_6.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. |
193.172.72.152 13:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Fewater
File:AN Liana K 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. |
Note: User:Belgrano tagged this as speedy delete; I have changed it to a deletion discussion listing. --Infrogmation (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Billy_Goat_curse.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. |
173.9.226.29 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
File tagging File:Ambulance-Unity.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Ambulance-Unity.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:Ambulance-Unity.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
High Contrast (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Felicia_Fox_6.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. |
Adsondownsydneystoop (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
File:AN_Liana_K_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. |
-Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please participate in the discussion, thanks. --Leyo 12:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Sunny_Leone_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. |
94.236.129.240 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Bill_Rosendahl_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. |
161.149.63.186 03:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Drew_&_Jenny_@_the_Bash.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. |
Missvain (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Keeani_Lei_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 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. |
68.184.51.157 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
== This picture does not provide educational value for the section where it was located.
File:Keeani Lei 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 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. |
68.184.51.157 14:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
File:AN Alektra Blue 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. |
91.134.65.79 10:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
-- Gazebo (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
ArchiveBot
Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Demi Delia 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 gallery, 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. |
Nicoli Maege (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Inactive Image-reviewers
Hello Sodakan, there is a discussion about a request regarding your image-reviewer userright, which have never been used or not used recently. You can participate discussion in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Inactive_Image-reviewers. This is just a notification of discussion you may be involved. Best regards, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
FredWalsh (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:Melissa Wolf 10a.JPG
- File:Melissa Wolf 10b.JPG
- File:Melissa Wolf 2.JPG
- File:Melissa Wolf 3.JPG
- File:Melissa Wolf 4.JPG
- File:Melissa Wolf 5.JPG
- File:Melissa Wolf 6.JPG
- File:Melissa Wolf 7.JPG
- File:Melissa Wolf 8.JPG
- File:Melissa Wolf 9.JPG
Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
File tagging File:Dunbar Flinn.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Dunbar Flinn.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:Dunbar Flinn.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Fæ (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
File tagging File:Isabella Blow 2.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Isabella Blow 2.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:Isabella Blow 2.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Fæ (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
File tagging File:Sarah Ferguson 1.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Sarah Ferguson 1.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:Sarah Ferguson 1.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Fæ (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
File tagging File:Sativaroseprofile.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Sativaroseprofile.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:Sativaroseprofile.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Kelly (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Sharon Mitchell 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 gallery, 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. |
SamWinchester000 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Sharon Mitchell 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 gallery, 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. |
SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Tyler Faith 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. |
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Sandra Shine 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 gallery, 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. |
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Poppy Morgan 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. |
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
File:John Scalzi.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. |
Werónika (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
David A. Solomon 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 gallery, 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. |
Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
File:David A Solomon.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. |
Daphne Lantier 03:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
File:AN Jenna Haze 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. |
104.176.152.43 03:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
File tagging File:Yves Klein Blue 1.jpg
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Yves Klein Blue 1.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. |
Jotzet (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Unused self promotion converted or migrated from elsewhere. BevinKacon (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
File:Ykblogo.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. |
Achim (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, FredWalsh (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:Kelly Madison 2.JPG
- File:Kelly Madison 4.JPG
- File:Kelly Madison 6.JPG
- File:Kelly Madison 9.JPG
- File:Nude Kelly Madison 8.jpg
Yours sincerely, FredWalsh (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
File:Candy Manson 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. |
91.225.69.21 06:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Van Darkholme 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 gallery, 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. |
JopkeB (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm opening an undelete request for that image as (as far as I can tell) it was deleted without withou any debate and for a bogus reason. // Liftarn
Dennis Zine 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 gallery, 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. |
reppoptalk 00:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Janice Hahn 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 gallery, 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. |
reppoptalk 00:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
reppoptalk 00:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Maîtresse Françoise.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.)
|
User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Mussklprozz.
I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
File tagging File:Jeff crank family (cropped).jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Jeff crank family (cropped).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:Jeff crank family (cropped).jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
File tagging File:Jeff crank family.jpg
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Jeff crank family.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:Jeff crank family.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Jeff crank family.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. |
Danielle Howle 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 gallery, 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. |