User talk:Wikiwatcher2

English: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Wikiwatcher2!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}} For more information read the full deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--Legobot^Operator_talk 04:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Main_shot.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Main_shot.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. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have some trouble with providing the required information on this image. You have claimed that it is in the public domain because "its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923." However, Jolson does not appear to be 37 years old or younger in the photograph. Some of the other edits you have made suggest to me that you may be trying to include the image in the Commons media database as a non-free image with reference to fair use provisions. Please read Commons:Licensing#Material under the fair use clause is not allowed on the Commons. There are plenty of free images of Jolson available in Category:Al Jolson. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove problem tags

---

Hi! It has come to my attention that you have removed a warning which says that the page doesn't have enough information about the source of the image and/or doesn't have information about the license conditions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this information is still missing and I have put back the warning(s). You may either add the required information or, if you think that required information is given, put the image up for a deletion request so that it won't automatically be deleted. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not do this again. I've deleted the image since it's now been a week and you've failed to add a verifiable source. Instead you've opted to remove the problem tag twice and adding what looks like a fair use rationale, which, as I've already explained, is not accepted at Commons. If you continue to ignore instructions, remove problem tags, or upload non-free content, you may be blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In response:

• I did not realize that the tag posted was not to be removed. I've reviewed similar tags that you just posted and see nothing about that restriction, especially after the correction cited was attempted to be made as in this case. What "instructions" were you referring to that were "ignored?" In any case, if a user does attempt to correct a problem, are they supposed to leave the tag, which would wrongly inform others that the correction has not been made? Why aren't the rules posted clearly about how you're supposed to treat tags? Especially with many hundreds of different tags used.
• If the tag was removed, as you say, then it was because I changed the image information as requested, even if the change was still not acceptable. For this image, I recall changing the copyright tag to pre-1978 as it had no known copyright. I also thought I appended the source information to include more detail.
• I also refer to the wiki citation where the likelihood of this kind of publicity still photo being copyrighted is negligable.
• In reponse to your comment, "If you continue to ignore instructions, remove problem tags, or upload non-free content, you may be blocked," I feel this statement is unjustified and overboard for the above reasons.
• Note that I am not requesting that you put the image back in the Commons if the most recent changes were still not sufficient. But I'd like a response to the other points which I stated from memory, since I don't have the image record. It think it's ridiculous to threaten to block someone for trying to improve the Commons when they try their best to follow the rules and act logically. Wikiwatcher2 (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The instructions I'm referring to are in the first message under this heading, where I noted that you removed the problem tag without adding any source information. All images need a verifiable source, and removing a problem tag noting that a verifiable source is missing without adding a verifiable source may be regarded as disruptive. I'm glad that you've now chosen to discuss the matter instead of repeatedly reverting the addition of the problem tag.

The first time you removed the problem tag, you first set the previously unset date parameter of the {{Information}} template to "pre 1923" (quite clearly not true) and then removed the {{Information}} template altogether, removing the description ("photo of Al Jolson"), source ("unknown source", which is not a verifiable source), date ("pre 1923"), author ("unknown author"), permission ("none required") and other versions ("no similar image of this quality known"), leaving nothing but the {{PD-US}} template on the image description page. You did not add source information (in fact, you removed what little information you had provided), yet you removed the tag that stated that the source information was incomplete.

The second time you removed the problem tag, you added the following to the image description page

|Article=photo of Al Jolson

|Description=promotional photograph of Al Jolson

|Source=movie studio image - Warner Brothers

|Portion=complete

|Low_resolution=Yes|Purpose=promotional photo produced by studio

|Replaceability=no other free portrait image of this quality available

|Other information=As a typical studio still photo this was most likely produced without a copyright notice. It is also being used by IMDB without any copyright notice. There are no other similar free images at Wiki Commons.

These look like parameters to en:Template:Non-free use rationale. As I've explained, material under the fair use clause is not allowed on the Commons, so "article", "portion", "low resolution", and "replaceability" are irrelevant to Commons. "Movie studio image - Warner Brothers" is not a verifiable source. {{No source since}} states that "the author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status." Commons:Licensing#License information further expands on the level of detail required.

Please read Commons:Licensing, and do note that Commons does not accept non-free images or images that are unlikely to be copyrighted. Commons only accepts images that are demonstrably free. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a few additional points and quotes that are worth mentioning:

• From the book "Jolson - the Legend Comes to Life, by Herbert Goldman (1988), p. 173, there is this paragraph:

"As a boy, Al had looked younger than his yeaers. After he reached thirty, the process reversed itself, and he tended to look older than he was ... By 1927, when he was forty-one, Jolson looked middle-aged. His hair was virtually gray by 1930..."

• If you look at the photo that was used to replace this one on the infobox, he looks around the same age as the one you removed. And this photo was taken in 1924 (verified by the Personal Life secton.) You said the one removed was "clearly" newer than that, but I'd like you to reevaluate your impression and maybe get a 2nd opinion. Thanks. Wikiwatcher2 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Like the copyright renewal status of the work, that would be speculation. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Movie_set_-_Singing_Kid_with_Sybil.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Movie_set_-_Singing_Kid_with_Sybil.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. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is given in the description. Since this, like the other photos, were taken by studio photographers, what other information do you require? I should point out that generally studio stills were not copyrighted so it's hard to give any more details. Wikiwatcher2 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You would need to cite a primary source demonstrating that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, as you have claimed. Again, the source is there so that others can verify that the copyright tag that you've placed on the image is true. "Warner Brothers studio still" is not sufficient information to do that. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to "specify who created the content" in any more detail. Therefore, I uploaded the image with a modified name to the article where it was being used under a fair use rationale. I hope this is a correct procedure in cases like this. If you decide to keep this image in the Commons, that's fine also.Wikiwatcher2 (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Mankiewicz_portrait.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mankiewicz_portrait.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. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)\

See other reponses.

Image Tagging Image:Orson_mankiewicz.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Orson_mankiewicz.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. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In a situation where one has a photo taken by a studio without a known copyright, like this one, should I assume from here on that they will not be acceptable? I wrote out as much detail about the known source as I know and I doubt anyone in the world would be able to provide more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwatcher2 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, if the copyright status of a work is not clear, then you should not upload it to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Lederer3.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lederer3.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. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Hecht Earlyportrait.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hecht Earlyportrait.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. dave pape (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:German - Jazz Singer.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:German - Jazz Singer.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.

Note that, as a German work, you need to provide evidence that this is PD in Germany. --dave pape (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Caricature.JPG

Please note that the sourcing and copyright-tagging on this image need some work. I assume the source is "Gene Markey, Literary lights; a book of caricatures, New York: A.A. Knopf, 1923", but I had to search through WorldCat to figure that out - you split the information up a bit, making it unclear. (A page number would be a good idea, too). But you also need to fix the copyright template, and give some sort of proof for it - what records have you checked, to verify that the copyright was not renewed? --dave pape (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Strasbourg plaque.jpg

---

I've found that Image:Strasbourg plaque.jpg has "images.google.com" in its description. The images uploaded on Wikimedia Commons should always have a free license, explicitly given by the copyright holder. If you have the permission, send it to our OTRS system or the image will be deleted! This is an automatic message by Filbot.--Filnik 20:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:German_-_Jazz_Singer.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:German_-_Jazz_Singer.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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

dave pape (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Strasbourg plaque.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 20:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Writing_Kane.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Writing_Kane.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. dave pape (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Writing Kane.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:Writing Kane.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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Mutter Erde (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Sydney-lumet_69.jpg

File:Sydney-lumet_69.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!

Peripitus (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Wikiwatcher2!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Lester Brown LOC.jpg is uncategorized since 1 March 2009. BotMultichillT 06:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Lester Brown LOC.jpg

File:Lester Brown LOC.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!

--Infrogmation (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Salk Institute opens.jpg

File:Salk Institute opens.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!

--Infrogmation (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:NYT_Salk.jpg

File:NYT_Salk.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.

 

Lupo 11:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Underworld_poster_1927.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Underworld_poster_1927.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.

feydey ^(talk) 12:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Religion_timeline_graph.jpg

File:Religion_timeline_graph.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!

Martin H. (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Angels cameo.jpg

File:Angels cameo.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!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Gutenberg press.jpg

File:Gutenberg press.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!

Martin H. (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Writing Kane.JPG

File:Writing Kane.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!

WFinch (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Portrait sitting.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Portrait sitting.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Portrait sitting.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Damiens.rf 17:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Religion timeline graph.jpg

File:Religion timeline graph.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!

JavonFromEarth (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)