User talk:Storye book/Archive 6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moving the license

[edit]

Moving the licence to the permissions slot is nonsense. I have never seen it wiped accidently. I do it the way that that the uploaded designed after consensus, Get him to change his ways then. I need that, because I put cats in order in order of originator, owner creator, publisher, crap art ones, and finally importances. Which is obvuously not alphabetical. Who is this imbecile.? ̴̴̴̴̴̴ Broichmore (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This "imbecile", as you call him, has a mental condition, as he has explained on his userpage in the past. As I understand it, and according to what he has said, there are times when he is not well. At those times he does a great deal of fast editing on WP, does not heed prompts or warnings about his hasty errors, and he gets temporarily blocked. I do not track him, so I don't know what his situation is at the moment. He has not disrupted any of my uploads recently, but I know that it will happen again. It is not my place to publish his name in this context, for obvious reasons. Administrators know his situation, and they have the matter in hand.
I am not asking you to move licences to the permissions slot at any time. However, as far as I know, there is no WP rule which prevents me from moving licences (for my own uploads only) to the permission slot, if it prevents future disruption. The loss of a licence attracts bots or certain editors, who threaten speedy deletion. I have uploaded over 17,000 images to Commons so far, and I am not going to be able to watch them forever. It makes sense for me to move "my" upload-licences to permissions if it will prevent that sort of disruption to my uploads. Whatever other victims of that editor's errors do about it is up to them.
I am not interested in how you, yourself, choose to order categories on images pages, because you do not accidentally delete licences, so please do not take this personally. Storye book (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Copyright status: File:Seascape off the Isle of Wight by Albert Julius Olsson.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Seascape off the Isle of Wight by Albert Julius Olsson.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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 19:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bot misfired. The file format just had two misplaced brackets, no other problems. Storye book (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albert_Julius_Olsson

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Albert Julius Olsson has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Robby (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at its entry, and added a bad-name tag to the category page. Storye book (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this discussion has now been resolved. Storye book (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giulielma Lister (3).jpg

[edit]

Hi, I stumbled across File:Giulielma Lister (3).jpg but I am unclear on the justification for it being in the public domain. You have stated that it was by an unknown author but the author died 70 years ago; did you meant to use an anonymous PD tag? The date is given as circa 1900 but I can't see any reference to that in the image source (though I may have missed something). Also, you have stated that the image was first published before 1926, but again I can't find any reference to it. Do you have some additional information about the file that wasn't included on the page? Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you care to look at a 1930 photograph of Giulielma Lister you will see that the above photo (Giulielma Lister (3).jpg) must have been taken long before 1930, and certainly before 1926, because in the above photo her hair is not greying and her skin is not wrinkled. I have adjusted the date of the photo from circa 1900 to before 1926 because that fact is quite clear.
  • I have not said that the author died 70 years ago; we don't know who the author is.
  • Regarding the date of publication - there is no reason to suppose that the photo was not published close to the date of photography. Evidence of date of publication has never been requested of me yet, although I have uploaded nearly 20,000 images to Commons. There are millions of images on Commons with the {{PD-old-70-expired}} licence, and most of them do not show evidence of date of publication. I have added a {{PD-UK-unknown}} licence because you seem to feel the need for it, but I don't believe that it is needed or appropriate. It is equally valid, and I have just added it to keep the peace. Storye book (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Your original upload included a PD template with the term, "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer." Hence, you are claiming (maybe unintentionally) that the photographer died at least 70 years ago. If you have no knowledge of when the photographer died then the PD licence is invalid. If you have uploaded around 20,000 images with a large portion either claiming the author died a certain number of years ago, or that the image was published before 1926 when you have no evidence for either claim, then we have a very serious problem. Can you please confirm if my understanding of your statement is correct? I will need to bring this to the attention of the community to discuss how to resolve the problem. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are overreacting, my friend. I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about the millions of PD images already on Wikipedia. Of course I have not done that with 20,000 images, but using the PD licence for an unknown author is a common occurrence throughout Commons. If you see this as a problem, you are going to have to delete 90 percent of the images which are already on Commons. Good luck! If it's going to ease your mind, I'll remove the old PD licence. Storye book (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


COM:AN/U

[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#PD licence tagging by User:Storye book. Per the discussion above, given the scale of the problem and that you don't appear to recognise using incorrect licences as a problem, I think this needs to be considered at a community level..

From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion was resolved and closed. Storye book (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Harry Ferry near Bakewell by B.W. Evans.jpg

[edit]
Pay attention to copyright
File:King Harry Ferry near Bakewell by B.W. Evans.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.)

  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Contrary to the information at Invaluable.com, which is the source for this image, I believe that the author of this painting is the other Bernard Evans (died 2014), whose works are not out of copyright. Therefore, please delete this one. I am checking carefully, but I don't believe that there will be any more by the Bernard Evans who died in 2014. Thank you. User:Storye book Storye book
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Johnj1995.

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 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above is an inappropriate tag to put on my talk page, since it was I who nominated the deletion - it even says that on the tag. It should have been just deleted, as requested by me. Storye book (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heinz baked beans can 003.jpg

[edit]
File:Heinz baked beans can 003.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at the entry link supplied. Storye book (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding note about Giant puppets

[edit]

Thanks for adding the note on the page of Category:Giant puppets. I added the "see also" to help people to find the right category for that other type of giants. It is very unfortunate that there is no Wikipedia page about Giant puppets. Wouter (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I thought the same about the missing Giant puppet article on en.WP, so I wrote one myself: w:Giant puppet. Sadly, because the other type of giant in your category link is not a puppet, I was not able to include that type in the new article. If you look in the External links section at the bottom of the Giant puppet article, you will see some wonderful Youtube links, showing some very fine giant puppets - a modern miracle, almost. Enjoy. Storye book (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My compliments for the extensive WP article! I connected the category to the article via Wikidata. Wouter (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emerging Mummy - cropped (1a).jpg

[edit]
File:Emerging Mummy - cropped (1a).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

—Granger (talk  · contribs) 10:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the entry page. Storye book (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Armouries Museum logo.png

[edit]
Pay attention to copyright
File:Royal Armouries Museum logo.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Yeeno (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did that happen? - it was already in the right place on en.Wikipedia as a .jpg file. So I have asked Yeeno to look at it, to see what happened. Storye book (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Copyright status: File:Charles Kingsley Meek (1a).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Charles Kingsley Meek (1a).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.

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 01:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and thank you for contributing! I've noticed that File:Advertisement for Imperial Leather soap, 1946 B (1).JPG's information box and licenses contradict each other. Information box claims the date is 1946, and so it can't be in the public domain for being published before 1927. The author is unknown, but it's claimed that they died 70 years ago. There's a significant chance the author is still alive. Please review the licensing and correct it as necessary. Thank you! -- Aimarekin (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks. All correct now. Storye book (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Adams cartographer (1).jpeg

[edit]
File:John Adams cartographer (1).jpeg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Docuracy (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have been tagged for deletion, when the portrait was merely attributed to the wrong sitter - and it's also a bigger and better version than the similar one on the correct sitter's page. I have corrected the filepage fully, and replied. Storye book (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Copyright status: File:Thomas Vallance footballer (1).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Thomas Vallance footballer (1).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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was just one missing brace. Storye book (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phil Joslin footballer(2).jpg

[edit]
Pay attention to copyright
File:Phil Joslin footballer(2).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page. Storye book (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Storye_book/Archive_6&oldid=676728323"