Commons:Help desk/Archive/2019/08

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

File:The three rollback buttons.png new version

Dear users of Wikimedia commons, I got puzzled by my upload, File:The three rollback buttons.png. It was an screenshot I took to inform wikipedia administrators about the rollback buttons I see. When that was resolved, I asked renaming and the file took it's current name. Today, I took a screenshot of the screenshot and tried to upload it, so there would be saw only the rollback buttons and not the entire screenshot. The new file indeed were seeing the 3 rollback buttons. When I uploaded, the only thing that changed was the pixels, the new file was nowhere. I have the new file on my computer, what to do? Thanks, Enivak (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Enivak: Please see COM:FAQ#PURGE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I do reloaded the page many times, I opened it now (hours after the upload), still nothing. Enivak (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Enivak: Is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/The_three_rollback_buttons.png right? Have you tried a different browser and computer, in order? Have you restarted your browser and computer, in order?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Now i am with a different computer, and it appeared the correct version. I will check what happens with my other computer. Thank you very much for the help! Enivak (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Enivak: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs and template "Disclaimer"

For some reason the template isn't working correctly. When I go to Russian, it shows English. When I go to a some strange language which I don't know, it shows Russian template. What's wrong with Template:Disclaimer? ParticipantOfTheEncyclopedia (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed

Fixed. ParticipantOfTheEncyclopedia (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Rotate pic/file please

Please rotate this recently added file so that it is not upside down - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupton_family#/media/File:Francis_Lupton's_home_-_Newton_Green_Hall_Estate_-_prior_to_his_1847_marriage.jpg

It is on the Lupton family page on wikipedia

Thanks 175.33.248.139 07:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Rotate requested, bot will handle it soon.
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. MKFI (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

I made a page about author "Maria Richardsson" and uploades a picture I have taken of her, with belongs to me. I have also let her use it for press etc and on whatever pages she wants to use it on. Now some "Patrick Rogel" has reported me for copyright violation and I get some nasty text from you saying I can be banned if I persist. It is my picture and my copyright. /Gussimonpe aka Petronella Simonsbacka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gussimonpe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 1 August 2019‎ (UTC)

Hey Gussimonpe. As you can hopefully understand, we generally can't simply take someone's word for it when they claim to be a particular photographer. That's as much to protect the rights of photographers as anything else. Beyond that, the meta data on the image indicates that it was taken from Facebook, which is usually a pretty big red flag.
If you would like, you can send an email verifying your identity to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This can be evaluated privately by one of our email response team volunteer who can then confirm here on Commons that you are who you say you are. GMGtalk 14:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again! Yes I can understand that, but it is still my own copyright so there is no violation. I have sent an e-mail. Thank you for helping me. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.78.118.212 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Book cover copyright rules for posting on Wikipedia

I work for a book publishing company and we created and own the rights to a book-cover. I would like to create a Wikipedia page and display a picture of that cover. To comply with Wikipedia's rules, do I have to do anything special? When I tried to create the page I got a notice saying that the image I used was flagged and I believe it said I did not prove that I had the rights to it and or gave it the wrong attribution, like 2.5cc instead of 4.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaLewis24! (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey JoshuaLewis24!. In order to upload the image here to Wikimedia Commons (the media repository that projects like Wikipedia pull from), the content needs to be released under a free license. If the company wishes to do this, they can follow the instructions at COM:CONSENT. You can also upload a low-resolution version locally at the English Wikipeida, but to do so there need to be a published article specifically about the book. Unfortunately, the article you had placed in your sandbox there was both blatantly promotional as well as copied from elsewhere online. This is not allowed. Furthermore, since you are being paid for your contributions, you should review the English Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest and be careful to abide by them, which includes disclosing your relationship with your employer. GMGtalk 14:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Ru.wiki request

Will someone add File:Maciej Wołonczewski (cropped).jpg to ru:Валанчюс, Мотеюс. Apparently my shared IP is currently hard blocked on ru.wiki. GMGtalk 15:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

uploading photos

have my photos been uploaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giudymariapia (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2019‎ (UTC)

Hey Giudymariapia. You can find a list of your uploads here. Since you seem to be fairly new to Commons, you may want to consider taking our tutorial at Commons:First steps. GMGtalk 16:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Assistance uploading a mp3 file of a historic recording

I'm looking to upload a mp3 file of a historic marching song; I wrote the Wikipedia article [1] for the piece, and would like to provide readers with an audio file of said march. The song was written in 1917, and the specific recording I want to upload was produced in 1918, and as such is in the public domain. Any help would be more than welcome, ping me if interested. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

NSPOSIXErrorDomain:100

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Flag_of_Norway.svg/18px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png is not accessible at the moment using Safari 12.1.2 on macOS 10.14.6, it returns an NSPOSIXErrorDomain:100 error. The file is accessible using Chrome or Firefox, and similar files like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Flag_of_Norway.svg/27px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png are accessible in Safari as well. Maybe the server configuration has a problem?--Micge (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Micge: I am not sure about technical issues. You may want to raise your problem at COM:VPT, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I just took your advice: Commons:Village_pump/Technical#NSPOSIXErrorDomain:100--Micge (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Need a royalty-free photo of Oscar Carlos Rivera

I need a royalty-free photo of Oscar Carlos Rivera. Can you please e-mail it to me at ajabbar102@gmail.com. Thanks.

Abdul Jabbar — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 107.199.202.214 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@107.199.202.214: All media files on Wikimedia Commons are free to use for any purposes. You can try to search for the photo you need by using our search function at the upper-right corner, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:台中市公車883-U897路.jpg

Take a moment to look again at File:台中市公車883-U897路.jpg. There's something wrong. The uploader User:Hddgf015108 wrote in the date is "11 July 2016, 22:21:57", and User:Solomon203 added the "2016 photographs of Taichung" category at this edit. I'm a bit confused about that. If the EXIF data is wrong, why add Category:2016 photographs of Taichung? To me, it's obviously taking pictures during the daylight, and not nightime.--Kai3952 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kai3952:  InfoFile flagged as no permission as was previously published on Facebook廣九直通車 (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

How to update the outdated information of a certain page?

Can anyone help to update the information ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxineblinx (talk • contribs) 03:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Maxineblinx: It seems that you are referring to w:DJI (company), which is not related to Wikimedia Commons. Please feel free to update such information, after reading English Wikipedia's local policies clearly and thoroughly. Consider reading w:Wikipedia:Tutorial as a start, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Photo license

Hello, I'd love to know where to send a license for a photo I uploaded? Thanks!185.3.144.47 08:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, could you provide a link to the uploaded image please? It would be easier to give specific advice with a specific link. Generally speaking: if you are the copyright owner and the photo has not been published previously, you don't have to send a license separately - license information given during the file upload is usually sufficient. If you are not the copyright owner or if the photo has been previously published without an explicit free license statement, you should verify the license permission via mail to Commons' OTRS team. You'll find detailed information about this verification process and the various licensing situations at Commons:OTRS. GermanJoe (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Information request

Hi, I have received a message, I don't understand what it is and what have I to do. This is the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IlCommenda#Notification_about_possible_deletion Can someone help me ? Thanks.--IlCommenda (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@IlCommenda: Concerning seven of your files, we need "Proper author/date/country of creation information" and correct license tags; please provide them on the file description pages and note what you did at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by IlCommenda.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Explicit images and videos

How to search porn images and videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koketso Phage (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Koketso Phage: Please be noted that Wikimedia Commons is not an amateur porn site, and please immediately stop your inappropriate edits. They may be considered as vandalism, and persisting in making such edits may cause your Commons account to be blocked, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

I am trying to create a page with information of a dominican golfer, with an article written by me, Raul Miranda, a dominican journalist and the system is not letting me post because it thinks I dont have the rights. Even a picture i myself did it says that it may be illegal or something like that, all that after I check the box that says that I took the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulermi (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Raulermi: Thank you. What article and picture are you talking about?廣九直通車 (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Raulermi: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a smaller (<50KB or <5MP) jpg photo as a new user while leaving the summary intact. The photo you tried to upload is smaller, and you wrote it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a smaller photo, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you took the photo yourself, please upload the full-size original of it, including EXIF metadata. If you did not take the photo, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such works on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. If you change the summary or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading a signature

Hi there! Because I see some wikipedia pages include images of a person's signature, I wanted to ask how it's possible to upload one (I believe they have to be in svg format right?) and if there're any conditions when uploading an image of a signature. Thanks in advance Rain Forest (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Jmabel If you don't mind me further asking, is it uploaded the same way normal images are uploaded on commons? Rain Forest (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rain Forest: Exactly. And virtually all signatures should be {{PD-ineligible}}. - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

How do I upload images of art that I own, inherited from the deceased artist, and have copyright on?

I am the granddaughter of Byron Randall, West Coast artist. I wrote the Wikipedia entry on him and I edit that entry often as over 200 of his artworks have been acquired by 23 museums this year and I need to keep updating the entry. I inherited from him a lot of his art, and was then additionally gifted more art by his daughter my mother. I have taken a lot of digital photos of it. I have had problems with you in the past in attempting to upload these photos. You have now deleted my earlier efforts to share images to Wikimedia Commons.

My questions and request for help from you:

Do I need to prove to you that I own the images and the art? If so, how do I do this? What do I need to do to add to the digital gallery of Byron Randall art images in Wikimedia Commons?

Laura Chrisman/ Rootbeerlc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootbeerlc (talk • contribs) 02:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Rootbeerlc: We don't care who owns the physical artworks, just who owns the copyright. Are you saying that you are the heir to his intellectual property rights or are you saying something else? Because, for example, you indicated File:Byron Randall, Woody Guthrie 10.jpg as "own work" which I presume we can both agree is certainly not the case. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I see you already have OTRS permission for some of this. Was the private correspondence with the OTRS team general enough to cover you uploading further images? If not, you probably need to resume discussion with them. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Metadata

Hi, I've recently uploaded screenshots (such as this) via a mobile device however there's no Metadata included, I added Metadata to the image above with https://www.thexifer.net/ however there's nothing showing still....,

So is there anyway I can add metadata to the image so when you scroll down you get the box with camera model etc etc etc,

Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: It appears none of the metadata you added was sufficient to show there. :(   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Jeff G, Just uploaded an actual picture and it does need show the metadata, So I guess it doesn't for screenshots as I'm obviously not using the camera .... I just assumed it'd still show mobile make, model, date and time although come to think about it when I upload screenshots from the PC the laptop make etc etc all don't show however time and date do, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 August 2019‎ (UTC)
There are many different ways to embed metadata in PNG files, at least some of which are unsupported by the Mediawiki software. Metadata embedded in iTXt and EXIF embedded in XMP should be supported. This file appears to use zTXt compressed APP1 chunks, if my reading of the verbose exiftool output is correct. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi LX, Unfortunately I've not understood a word of that but many thanks anyway :),
I only really wanted a time and date included but it's all in the description so sure it won't make much difference it being missing from the below table,
Thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 16:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Basically, PNG metadata is much less standardized than JPEG metadata, and it looks like Commons doesn't understand the particular way of storing metadata that the service you used happens to prefer. I don't have any information on which tools work better, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Ahhh I'm with you now :), Meh no worries, Many thanks for replying anyway :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

REMOVE PHOTO

Someone posted a photo of me, I need it to be removed. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.6.20.221 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

108.6.20.221 - Do you have a link ?, Failing that no is the blunt answer, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 20:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
If it was an invasion of privacy, and you don't what to accidentally bring prominence to it by complaining publicly here, you can try emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, who may be able to help you out. But of course you are going to have to say what image it is, and the basis on which the was an invasion of privacy; the rules for that are different in different countries. For example, in the U.S., if you are out in public, pretty much anyone can take your picture; in France it is much tighter. - Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

How to remove an unauthorized picture

How do you remove a picture ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt365-1 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 August 2019‎ (UTC)

Matt365-1: Which picture, and unauthorized in what way? In most jurisdictions, there is no authorization needed to take a photo of someone or something in a public place or to publish such a photo (as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's copyright). If you provide more specifics, more specifics instructions can be provided, but in general, see Commons:Deletion policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The file Matt365-1 wants to be deleted is deleted. Privacy concerns. Natuur12 (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Building under construction

Hello, I raised the question already at the German language helpdesk, but would like to make sure: is such series of photos (tbc !) covered by panorama freedom (Poland/EU)?

Photographer location: terrace (3rd floor) of a (private) fitness club. Wistula (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wistula: This should be OK, as they are photographs of buildings taken from the exterior, so they should be FOP per COM:FOP Poland. Not to mention that these buildings are under construction, so that their designer may even don't have the copyright. Anyways, I think all of them are safe, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Wistula (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this file a valid speedy deletion

Hi there,

I'm normally on en-wiki, so I didn't want to drop a speedy after just one readthrough of the commons' variants.

Is this photo a case of GA3? It's some encyclopedic text rather than anything that makes sense as a photo.

As a side note (potentially reason for a conventional deletion discussion - I don't know your BLP setup), it states the individual has bipolar disorder, and as a photo it can't source that extremely personal statement.

Cheers,

Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: In my opinion, I think this file is more likely eligible for regular deletion for out of scope, as per COM:OOS, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear and 廣九直通車: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jason Shimberg (author).pdf.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Voted.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users/2018 June 13 12:00

File:Mixtilinear Circle definition.png was renamed to File:Mixtilinear Incircle definition.png. So we should edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:2D8:E221:4B61:0:0:217B:B0A5 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@2001:2D8:E221:4B61:0:0:217B:B0A5: Thank you. Actually, when a file is renamed, a redirect to its original file name is created by the file mover. There is no need to edit the original link, and the redirect will lead you to the renamed file.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: when a file is renamed, a redirect to its original file name is created by the file mover. However someone broke this redirect and upload new file under this name. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:2D8:309:F73F:0:0:3B47:50B1 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Bad flickr list

I should remember this but what is the link to the list of bad flickr accounts? Gbawden (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind found it at Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users Gbawden (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you always delete my pictures?

Guys, i´m trying like crazy to upload a picture of my very dear friend Giovanni Arvaneh to get his wikipedia site complete. but i understand that you wont accept pictures, another photographer did! ok! so i did a picture of him last week in budapest and it always gets deleted. i go f****** crazy! please stop this!


And please dont delete the picture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj10405 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Cancellazione Pagina Nazionale Italiana Poeti

Buongiorno a tutti sono uno dei fautori della Nazionale Italiana Poeti, poco tempo fa avevo provato a inserire la suddetta Nazionale su Wikipedia ma sono stato cancellato. Io credo che ci siano tutti i presupposti per inserirla sul vostro portale perchè è una prerogativa prettamente Italiana, perché ha il patrocinio del CONI - Regione Lazio e delle più alte cariche Istituzionali, tra cui il Presidente della Repubblica. Tutto ciò con lettere di conferma. Ritengo indispensabile rivedere la cosa da parte vostra soprattutto perché ci sono cose che non posso mancare su Wikipedia, soprattutto una Nazionale Italiana con tanto di autorizzazioni Legali e patrocini. Chiedo di riesaminare la cosa essendo tra l'altro la Nazionale Italiana Poeti una onlus senza fini di lucro. Anticipatamente ringrazio e rimango a disposizione per qualsiasi ulteriore chiarimento. Cordiali saluti. link: https://www.facebook.com/n.italiana.poet — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Music (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

How can I update my picture?

The picture of me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Patrick is old. I have a newer picture taken by a professional photographer. I also have a letter from the photographer granting me full usage and rights of transfer of ownership. What steps do I need to take to update my photograph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpatric (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jrpatric: Hi, and welcome. Please have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such works on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
And please do not overwrite the old picture. Upload the new one with a new name, and ask to have the article in en-wiki changed to use the new photo. (I would say "change the article…" but you shouldn't be editing an article about yourself: use the talk/discussion page of the article.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

logo watermark & phrase in text

If a photo is mine & original, but apply logo watermark & phrase in text - acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MandyShea (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "apply logo watermark & phrase in text". Ruslik (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@MandyShea: If there is some other language in which you can ask your question more clearly, please feel free: what you wrote is very ambiguous. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've clicked "publish" after drafting a biographical article but it hasn't appeared... have I missed a step?

Also, how do I disclose my relationship to my subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredyannantuono (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. You're asking this at Wikimedia Commons where we don't have articles. This is the media repository for all Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects. Your request looks like you were asking about en:Draft:Deborah Hanan at the English Wikipedia though. Draft articles are not automatically put into the live article space after publishing, but require review from experienced editors. This is to ensure the notability and significance of the subject and the general suitability for an encyclopedia. You may place a text string {{subst:submit| Fredyannantuono}} at the top of your draft article in order to request a review. As to disclosing your relationship to the subject, you can just write a brief explanation at your Wikipedia user page: User:Fredyannantuono. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information. De728631 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Nutzung des Bildes File:Philomachus pugnax -Diergaarde Blijdorp-8b.jpg

Hallo, keine Ahnung, ob ich hier richtig bin? Ich lese gerade Juli Zehs Roman „Unterleuten“. Auf dem Titelbild ist die Datei File:Philomachus pugnax -Diergaarde Blijdorp-8b.jpg zu sehen (ein Ausschnitt, gespiegelt und bearbeitet). Im Copyright des Buches stehen nur die Agenturen, die am Umschlag gearbeitet haben. Ist das in Ordnung? ISBN 9783442715732 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erbsenesche (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone help me fix the template?

I just created Template:Taipei World Trade Center-year. It seems to be corrupt when I was using the template. To the "2018 at Taipei World Trade Center" category for example, 2018 is still a red link. When I click on it, it doesn't take me to Category:2018 at Taipei World Trade Center. But what is puzzling is that the "Taipei 101 year" template is normal. So far, I haven't found out why yet. Can someone help me fix Template:Taipei World Trade Center-year?--Kai3952 (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The template works fine. I do not understand what you mean by "2018 is still a red link". Ruslik (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why the template is working fine, but what I said is true. It happened at the time when I just started using the template after I created.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't read login word

I cant read the login code...need to request another. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.205.223.99 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@108.205.223.99: Please use Special:UserLogin to login. If you have further question, please feel free to ask me, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Need to upload Puneri Paltan New logo on wikipedia page

Hi sir, I am working in an advertising company named Ting works LLP. Puneri Paltan is our client for website development and advertising. The new logo of Puneri Paltan is created by us and now we have to update it on Wikipedia page of Puneri Paltan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puneri_Paltan). We uploaded the image on Wikipedia but getting the warning as This media may be deleted. Thanks for uploading File:Puneri Paltan Logo.png. 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. Puneri Paltan logo is also published on their Website https://www.puneripaltan.com/ So, may I know where I need to mention Copywrite tag and which copywriter tag need to add.

Thanks, Dipika Kore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipika Kore (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dipika Kore: Hi, and welcome. Please post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such works on your website or social media presence or send the works and permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading Photo is not possible

i want to upload a photo to Ida Kiefer, but its denied. I have all the right, must be a bug. Pls help. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.222.26.171 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You cannot upload photos without a Wikimedia user account. If you do have an account, please log in to write here and be a bit more specific about your upload issues. We would need to know about the tool you used and the error message you got. Maybe there are also copyright problems, but without some more information we can't help you. De728631 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
You cannot upload anything unless you are registered and logged in, which you are not. But after an extensive search, I'm guessing you may be Ismija22 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) who tried to upload a number of files. If so, the filter you encountered prevents low-resolution uploads from newly registered users using the particular upload form that you used. The reason for this is that those overwhelmingly turn out to be copyright violations. If you did indeed personally create these photos, the expectation is that you should be able to provide full-resolution versions rather than the 1200×1800 and 828×1227 pixel miniature versions that you tried to upload. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Dilemma - possible to add content to transtion of article or should I first edit the source document?

I am an experienced translator and copywriter and am trying to learn to translate articles, create articles and edit on Wikipedia. I have begun the English translation of an existing page in French on Wikipedia ( Alain Gachet - French geologist). Some content in the source document is incomplete and I would like to add more details to the English version than is cited in the orignal wiki page in French. I can provide references for the additions as there is more published material in English on the subject matter than in French. At this point, I am wondering if the additions need to made first in French and then I translate (though the references and notes my link to material published in English!) or should I go forward with the translation and add the supplementary information supported with the references and notes? Thanks for any advice you may be able to give so that I proceed appropriately and avoid any loss of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FK049043 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@FK049043: Hello, it seems that you are not aware that you are on Wikimedia Commons, which is another Wikimedia project focuses on free files. For any questions related to English and/or French Wikipedia articles, please direct them to w:WP:HD and/or w:fr:WP:Q, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@FK049043: Not the best place to have asked, but since I'm here and I'm an admin on en-wiki & have done a lot of translation:
  • If your French is good enough to edit in fr-wiki, and your additions are presumably uncontroversial, then the best thing to do is to edit fr-wiki first, then indicate the version with your additions as the basis for the translation.
  • If not, then the cleanest thing to do is to translate the French article as-is, then add your content in English and notify on the talk page in fr-wiki that there is material that they may want to pick up.
  • No rules against doing it other ways, but those are the best. Also, while translating, feel free to drop over-flowery language that is often found in fr-wiki, and to add explanatory phrases (cited if non-trivial) for things that would be common knowledge for a typical French-speaker but not for a typical English-speaker. - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

UN Certificate

Hello, File:UN Certificate to Kanyashree.jpg does not seem to an "own work". Is there any policy (like Nasa/US-government) that makes the file public domain? Or should we delete it? Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Thank you. In my humble opinion, per Template:PD-UN-doc, this file does't really satisfy any conditions of ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2. Perhaps you may want to file a deletion request?廣九直通車 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Titodutta and 廣九直通車: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:UN Certificate to Kanyashree.jpg and related Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Friendsamin.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Photos with copyrighted works, such as logos

I have a few questions regarding logos in images. If someone takes a picture with, say, an Atlanta Falcons logo in the background, is it now non-free? Similarly, if an NFL game was on the TV in the background, is the image as a whole non-free as well? Thanks Pbrks (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pbrks: Yes, unless the logo and TV image are DM.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
In most such cases, it should be possible to cover the logo with a heavy Gaussian blur, which would solve the problem. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info Jeff G. and Jmabel. Pbrks (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Pbrks (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading a photograph of my great grandfather from family album

I have a photo of my great grandfather which I would like to upload on Wikipedia. William James Dawson is a prominent author from the early 20 century having published over 40 books.

Please tell me what I need to make this photo acceptable to Wikipedia.

Thanks John Candy candyjify@icloud.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyjify (talk • contribs) 01:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Candyjify: The issues will entirely be about copyrights, not about his notability. So: who took the photo? When and in what country? Is it previously published and if so where? (Those are the crucial questions; depending on the answers to those, we'll probably have a few more questions.) - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of non authorized pictures of private property: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Baudenkm%C3%A4ler_in_Witten#/media/File:Witten-Bommern_Bodenborn_54.JPG

Als rechtmäßige Privateigentümer/Eigner der Liegenschaft am Bodenborn 54 untersagen wir hiermit die Publikation unerlaubten Bildmaterials dieses Objekts. Die auf Wikipedia von Ihnen veröffentlichten Aufnehmen (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Baudenkm%C3%A4ler_in_Witten#/media/File:Witten-Bommern_Bodenborn_54.JPG) wurden leider ohne unsere Genehmigung oder Zustimmung wiederrechtlich gemacht und veröffentlicht. Wir verlangen hiermit daher die sofortige Entfernung dieses Bildmaterials (sofern die Aufnehmen des Hauses am Bodenborn 54 umgehend entfernt werden, werden wir auf weitere/rechtliche Schritte verzichten). Mit freundlichen Grüßen — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.197.232.221 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't update

I'm trying to upload a newer version of this page [2] but it won't show up on the page. Why? Floathreenn (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

City seal

Hello,

I work for a small US city. We just updated our seal, so I wanted to replace the old one with the new one here on Wikipedia. Is there a way to do this without granting permission for anyone to use and modify, etc.? Obviously, that wasn't the case for our old seal either, but somehow it still made its way onto Wikipedia. Is the best solution here just to delete the seal altogether?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MEK11989 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2019‎ 17:10 (UTC)

  • @MEK11989: You certainly shouldn't be changing the old one on Commons, since it is still of historical relevance. Any upload should be under a new name.
  • Commons accepts only files that are licensed to allow derivatives. If you don't want to do that, please don't upload to Commons.
  • The English-language Wikipedia makes some allowances for non-free images. Note that this is entirely on the English-language Wikipedia, and does not involve Commons.
  • Since you don't name the city or indicate what file is involved, that's about all the advice I can give. - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kanhiyalal_Kapoor_1.jpg

HI This is regarding Pic used for creating profile of Kanhaiyalal Kapoor. We Legal hiers of Kanhaiyalal Kapoor own this pic and have copyrights and can be distributed. Is there any other thing required from my side that is pending review.

Let me know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kanhaiya_Lal_Kapoor

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kanhiyalal_Kapoor_1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumeetworld (talk • contribs)

  • @Sumeetworld: It does not matter that you are the legal heirs of the subject of the photo: copyright would belong to the photographer. If copyright persists on the photo, we need permission from the photographer, or the photographer's heirs or assigns.
    • If the copyright was signed over, etc., you will have to go through the process described at COM:OTRS to present the evidence of that.
    • This may take some time to sort out. Don't worry if the picture gets deleted now, it can be restored once this is all worked out.
  • You claimed 'own work', which is obviously not the case. Who took the photo?
  • The description should describe what is in the photo. "Profile Photo1" is not a useful description.
  • You say you are his "heirs". Accounts should each be used by only one person. If multiple people are using this account, please each set up an account of your own and leave this account in the hands of only one of you.
  • You say you are his "heirs". Have you read en:WP:COI? As his heirs, you certainly have a conflict of interest under the rules of the English-language Wikipedia. Have you stated that conflict of interest as required by en:WP:COI?
  • I know that is a lot, but you started in here by working on one of the hardest things to do in an appropriate manner for an encyclopedia: an article about something in which you are actually involved. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

subir fotos desde el ordenador

Tengo autorización de las fotografías que estoy subiendo proporcionada por los familiares de Enrique Arrate No entiendo porque me intentan sabotear sí además he detallado incluso las fuentes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staypoevega (talk • contribs)

  • @Staypoevega: No sufice decir que tenga autorización. Y no veo nada que indica fuentes y derechos. Por ejemplo, File:IKARO 747.jpg dice "Son del álbum de fotografías de la familia" y "{{ISBN|84-7821-349-X}}". No indica ninguna licencia.
  • Véase Commons:OTRS/es (me siento mucho que un gran parte ya queda no traducido desde el inglés). Necesitamos:
    1. prueba de que los derechos han sido transferidos.
    2. una licencia libre específica, que admite la reutilización, incluido (como mínimo) el uso comercial y la creación de obras derivadas.
- Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Photographier les Outre-mer

I have just uploaded a photo ? Where post the comment (caption) ? Thanks,

Anthropologieenligne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthropologieenligne (talk • contribs) 8 August 2019‎ 16:35 (UTC)

Copyright Check for Images from Government source (India)

Was browsing through the articles on Wikipedia of Members of the 17th Lok Sabha (India) and found that most of the articles were missing images.

Then I browsed the Lok Sabha website (where all images are available) and went through their copyright notice (http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Copyright.aspx?linkid=1) which said that: "The material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed."

Therefore, I believe the images are eligible to be uploaded. Request Help Desk to check if that is indeed the case (or guide me as to where I should put up my query) so that we can follow this matter to the logical conclusion.

In case eligible to be uploaded, I will be happy to add all images with proper titles on Wikimedia Commons and then add the images to the articles which are missing them on the English Wikipedia. Uploading on Commons will also allow other Wikipedia in Indic languages to use these images.

Thank you. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Avenue X at Cicero: That's a license that doesn't give permission for every purpose, including commercial use, so not sufficient for Commons. See Commons:Licensing. --ghouston (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What should its parent category be?

Should the "Vehicle rental" category be placed in Category:Automotive industry? Because Category:Bicycle rental and Category:Boat rental are placed in Vehicle rental.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kai3952: No, as "vehicle" here means transportation means, and is not about the cars we say about, i.e. "automobiles" in categories.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we change it to "Category:Service industries"?--Kai3952 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Brand ID Logo.png

--Dwtrapan (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC) I uploaded a file Brand ID Logo.png How do I not get this deleted?

@Dwtrapan: Please inform the company to send a permission statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org according to the instructions of OTRS. Please also give out a valid license. You may want to look at COM:L, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Josefa Murillo.jpg

Hello, can someone help me in regards to this file's status? I'm fairly certain it's from a public domain source (author died in the late 1800s) but I find the imagine online.

--Seguro64 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Seguro64: Thank you. Who is the author of the painting, and when did the author died?廣九直通車 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

s:en:File:Patents Act 1970 (India).pdf

I recently found s:en:File:Patents Act 1970 (India).pdf from English Wikisource. Is that file suitable for me to move to Commons?廣九直通車 (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

ERROR: The file you submitted was empty.
What does that means? Thank you.

I've never transferred a PDF with CommonsHelper, so I have no special insight into this. - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Upload modified Wiki Commons

Dear Help Desk, I wanted to ask if it is allowed to upload modified Wiki Commons content. As part of an assignment I had to translate a Wikibook page, including the corresponding pictures. I created the new pictures from scratch, but they look like the original ones, except that their colours and shapes are slightly different and the language used in the grafics is German instead of the original language. As the original pictures run under the Commons license, can I simply upload my "new" images and point out in the description of the images when uploading them that they were created following the example of the original images?

Thank you very much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎VFeebach (talk • contribs)

@VFeebach: It's permitted to make derived images from those released under Creative Commons licences. You should upload them under different filenames, obviously, and include the template {{Derived from}}. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting photo and account

Здравствуйте Как удалить фото и аккаунт в википедии? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Колготки советские (talk • contribs) 10 August 2019‎ 12:49 (UTC)

  • You can't really delete an account, you can just stop using it. If you'd like your account permanently blocked so that no one could possibly usurp it, I believe that can be arranged. We can even change the name so it would be less identified with you, but in your case it doesn't look like there is any identifying information in the account name.
  • In general, you can't delete a photo unless there is a specific, acceptable reason to delete it. When you uploaded, you granted an irrevocable license: that should be very clear from what is written on the upload forms. - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Use picture

Hello,

My question is whether I may use File:MCC-31231 Mozes toont de wetstafelen (1).tif for the front page of my thesis.

Kind Regards, Frans Hazeleger.

@FransHaze: Yes you may, it is explicitly public domain, but a credit "Foto: Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht, foto Ruben de Heer" would be polite. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Crop to a different destination?

Hi
Does anyone know the steps I would take to uploading a crop of an original work belonging to another user (previously uploaded on the Commons) to a different destination?
To give context, there is an image of two musicians titled by only one of them. I'm only trying to have a crop of the one for an English Wikipedia article I'm working on.
Thanks HeyitsBen(talk) 08:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@HeyitsBen: Please crop the image, then upload the image in CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, as required in the image. Please use {{Ef|Clairo, Pitchfork Stage 3.jpg}} for source, and put down Jwslubbock as the author. If possible, please also apply {{Image extracted|<Cropped file name>}} in File:Clairo,_Pitchfork_Stage_3.jpg, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@HeyitsBen: I'd use CropTool for this. Commons:CropTool explains how to use it. For this kind of job I'd suggest using a lossless crop, since the precise position of the edges doesn't matter. CropTool lets you choose the new filename to upload to, and when you upload under a new name it copies the description page from the original and adds {{Extracted from}}. I would usually edit the description to replace the source with a use of {{Derived from}}. It may also be necessary to fix up the description and categories. --bjh21 (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 Thank you. HeyitsBen(talk) 09:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

User following me around, and to know which files I edited

User:Solomon203 has been following my edits for a long time, but I don't know how to stop him. I warned him on his talk page twice to stop(see: special:diff/360800294 and special:diff/361282775). If he still following me around to files I've been editing, then what should I do?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Kai3952: I don't understand. Barely a month ago you complained when someone tried to give you auto-patrol status and now you are complaining that someone is patrolling your edits. - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: To "File:Lai love.jpg" for example, I edited at 14:28 (UTC), and User:Solomon203 has also edited the same file on the same day, his editing was at 14:35 (UTC). He can know which files I edited in 7 minutes, so I thought the only possibility is.....he is watching my contributions! If this is patrolling, why he has been hounding me and stalking me for 2 years? You say that I am complaining that someone is patrolling my edits. OK, but you tell me who will do this? If I have enough time, I will try to collect evidence specifically about how User:Solomon203 follows my edits.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      @Kai3952: That file was a duplicate of File:I love you my sweet love.jpg and has been deleted. Per COM:PATROL and COM:FR, we have 551 patrollers, 1,384 file movers, and 224 Administrators, all of whom can patrol your edits. In addition, your userpage has had 1,122 views in the past 60 days, your user talk page 1,226.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jeff G.: Take a look at Commons:Harassment#Hounding. Patrolling is different from hounding. If all of whom can patrol my edits, why is he only hounding me and stalking me for 2 years? For me, the real problem is that his edits showed up what I just edited whenever I edit something. Why can he always do the same thing with me, and even find mistake in my edits? I feel that he looks like he is monitoring my every edit. I don't believe that's a coincidence at all.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: : Solomon203 and you are both prolific contributors to Commons. This means that you're likely to end up working on the same files purely by chance. Indeed even if you were both choosing files to edit purely at random, there would be an expected 627 files that both of you have edited. I suspect, though, that you have similar interests, so it wouldn't be at all surprising if there were thousands of files that you'd both worked on.
While Commons:Harassment is only a half-finished draft, it and en:Wikipedia:Harassment both say that following another user's edits is not necessarily harassment. It's also a perfectly legitimate way of finding things that can be improved. If I find a mistake in one file I will often look at the uploader's contributions to see if they've made the same mistake elsewhere because this is an efficient way to correct lots of mistakes at once. You should consider what evidence you have of Solomon203's motives, and whether they've done anything that indicates that they're not simply trying to improve Commons.
I get the impression that English is not your best language, and Solomon203 only claims en-1. Is your Chinese good enough that you might do better communicating with them in Chinese? In any case, I would suggest that you add a Babel box to your user page indicating your linguistic abilities, since this will generally make it easier for other users to decide how to communicate with you. This is not just a matter of which language to use, but also how to use it: I will use much simpler English when writing for someone who claims en-1 than for someone who claims en-3.
Finally, to answer your actual question, Commons:Dispute resolution is Commons' minimal guide to handling this kind of thing. I think you're at the "Consider asking other users for advice" stage, and my advice is above. --bjh21 (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

My file was signaled as "possible copyright violation" unjustly.

Please give me detail instructions on how to replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachaxis (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 August 2019‎ (UTC)

@Coachaxis: Please click the "Convert to DR" button at File:Tmodis.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Ajout d'articles de presse, quel licence commons ?

Bonjour,

Je viens de créer un article Wikipedia concernant un Footbaleur. j'ai uploadé des articles de presse des années 20,30,40,50,60 et 70 ( journaux qui n’existent plus aujourd’hui), pour avoir des références sur mon nouveau article wikipedia.

un moderateur Wikipedia veux supprimer ces documents ajoutés!? il justifie comme quoi cela ne respecte pas les règles Wikipedia.

pouvez vous m'aider Merci

L'article Wikipedia concerne le Footballeur français ROGER CALMELS.


Cordialement

Icalmels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icalmels (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Right. You cannot upload copies of copyrighted material here just because you want to cite them. Cite accurately in Wikipedia about where they came from, but do not upload them here unless they are either public domain or free-licensed. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

wikicommons upload permission review request - Ronaldo Candido

I uploaded an image of a black belt MMA fighter UFC Champion Ronaldo Candido in wiki commons (file:RonaldoCandido.jpg) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RonaldoCandido.jpg . Permissions to wikicommons were sent via email§. Can you please confirm if the image can be cleared to be used on his profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot03 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pilot03: Thank you. If the profile is actually a Wikipedia article, please feel free to use it, as even if OTRS rejected the permission, the image would still be automatically removed from the article. Meanwhile I suggest using the image on other websites after OTRS gives out a clear permission regarding that file, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

ok thanks! I just don't want to get blocked. Pilot03 (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Pilot03

Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Registration

I have a question about registration to commons: on the page create account there is a field asking for my email address: will anyone be able to see it once i register? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.92.106 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 August 2019‎ (UTC)

Entering an email address is optional, and your email address will not be publicly visible. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
However, if you then choose to email another user, they will then be able to see your email address.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought that it was compulsory, but anyway I think I'd like to do that so I can to recover my password if I lose it. If I do that will administrators be able to see it if I don't email them?

As an administrator, I cannot see your password email address if you do not email me. There may be some few people with enough privileges to do that, I'm not sure: does anyone know, are email addresses encrypted in the database? - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
My password? Do you mean my email? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.180.20.158 (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe so. Pinging @Jmabel to be sure.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading from Android or the cloud

Hi, I would like to upload several thousands of photos from my Android (Huawei CLT-L29). I tried both the Commons and the CommonsLab app but both had too many nuisances.

Then I considered uploading the images to the cloud (Google Drive, OneDrive and my personal webspace https://www.bertux.xyz) but found no way to upload files from the cloud. I have several terabytes of web space but nearly no physical drive space as my Android is brimfull and my other device is a chromebook. To make things worse the chromebook is useless as inbetween: its file manager seems unable to handle more than just a few gigabyte of files, refusing to show more than some five hundred photos and randomly removing files when performance is lagging.

Batch upload from my Android is impossible as there are personal images scattered between those for Commons. Batch uploading to the cloud and selectively uploading from there to Commons would be okay however.

The ideal solution should:

  • show the pictures (2:1 aspect ratio) in full, even in multiple selection mode
  • allow selection from list and thumbnail as well as full screen photo.

These are the most important. Additional would-haves:

  • allow selection of folders (or even zip files)
  • offer help with categorizing and other technicalities.

Any suggestions to get it done either directly or via the cloud or my website? Or perhaps using some clever tricks? Thanks a lot! — bertux 21:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What is a photograph?

Please take a look at this one: "File:國立中興大學102校慶演唱會工作人員紀念合影 20131103.jpg". I am not sure if this is a photograph.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kai3952: Why are you not sure?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: I think the top part is a photograph. The bottom part (the blue text on a white background) isn't. Overall, though (and for categorisation purposes), it's a photograph. --bjh21 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Because he/she wrote in the image: "國立中興大學94周年度校慶演唱會工作人員紀念合影 102.11.03".--Kai3952 (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bjh21: Is there no problem if I do it(add the "Group photographs in Taiwan" category to the image)?--Kai3952 (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: I think that would be an entirely appropriate category. --bjh21 (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Picture of João Félix on the french wikipédia

Hello,

I found a picture of João Félix on the English wikipedia and I was wondering if I could use it on the french Wikipedia. If i'm not mistaken it's a creative commons so i'm free to use it but I prefer ask ^^

Thank you very much ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackdebola (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Best way to attain photo of video game cartridge / box art?

Hello,

I am rather new to Wikipedia and I would like to upload a photo to an article that greatly needs one. The article is the article for the 1994 Sega video game The Berenstain Bears' Camping Adventure. I own a copy of the original cartridge, and I took a picture of it and I would like to upload this to wikimedia commons to use on my article. After reading your list of tips, however, I decided I shouldn't because I don't own the artwork on the cartridge. How would you suggest I get a hold of a legally OK image, either of this cartridge or of the box art for this videogame? again, I am pretty new to wikipedia -- I figured i'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to copyright stuff like this.

Thanks! -Pigsticks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsticks (talk • contribs) 02:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsticks: Thank you. Such image is actually fair use, and Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use per COM:FU. However, English Wikipedia does allow such fair use. Please refer to w:WP:NFCC and w:WP:FU for more information, and please never upload such images to Commons, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Photograph of a publicly visible memorial plaque

What can I upload to Wikimedia Commons? suggests that I can only upload my photographs of art, statues and buildings over 150 years old. Can you confirm that this means that I may not upload my own photograph of a memorial plaque dated 1990 on private land visible from a public highway (in the UK)? AlanS1951 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlanS1951: Please see COM:FOP UK.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@AlanS1951: FOP-UK only applies to things "in" a public place rather than "visible from" a public place. However, the plaque may be below the threshold of originality depending on its content. If it's just explanatory text without any discernible creative input, it may be eligible here. You'd have to upload it so we can make a judgement. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I have now uploaded to File:Plaque_at_site_of_Chipley_Priory.jpg. AlanS1951 (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlanS1951: I've added some categories for you. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that not acquiring a copyright because it consists only of facts in the public domain and very simple and ancient designs. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Thank you for the useful categories. To say that all the facts recorded are "in the public domain", are we relying on the fact that the plaque has been publicly visible since 1990? AlanS1951 (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@AlanS1951: Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I meant that facts that are common knowledge (or readily ascertainable) do not have copyright. The length of time a creative work has been visible usualy has no bearing on copyright. It's the manner of representation that might attain copyright. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Thank you for your reply. Just to keep you updated, I didn't think that we could safely assume that all the facts recorded were common knowledge prior to publication on the plaque, or that they had been readily ascertainable elsewhere (as I didn't have time to attempt to check on Web and/or by visiting County Records Office), so I have contacted the Clopton Family Association to ask if they assert copyright on any of the information.
I am awaiting a considered response, but the initial response was “unless and until you hear otherwise, please act on the premise that the information recorded as it is in its entirety on the plaque - and therefore reproduced as it would be on any photograph - is held in full copyright by our association”. If this remains their position, I will explain your position and ask which specific portions of the information they believe to be original creative content that have acquired copyright.
In the meantime, I am reluctant to ask you to delete the file pending re-upload, as it took me quite a while to work out what to write at each stage of the upload process, but you may wish to do so anyway. AlanS1951 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlanS1951: Sorry, I have to disagree with them. Facts themselves cannot be subject to copyright, "common knowledge" or not. All these facts are, or could be, readily ascertainable from historical records of the church and elsewhere. Neither does organising facts in a particular way create any copyright. The only right that might be relevant is a en:wp:Database right when they are held in electronic form. Here they are not (although they may be elsewhere), but that does not arise since the Wikimedia servers are in the United States, whose law does not recognise database right. I would ignore them and hope they go away, they are either optimistic, badly advised or bluffing and I see no reason to delete this image as things stand at present. As for the other design elements of the plaque, they are either too simple to acquire copyright or are of such antiquity that they have never acquired copyright status, i.e. are public domain. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: I'm happy to accept your opinion, as I could use the file in a Wikipedia article, leaving you to deal with any flak from the Association! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanS1951 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I should point out that I'm no longer a lawyer any more than I am a real doctor! Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for file/figure deletion of Piskacek Figures v9b and Chapter 9aaTAD on Activation domain page

Please delete my own work from wiki.

User Artoria2e5 rewrote 9aaTAD in to mocking term acid-9aaTAD, what is harmful parody because 9aaTAD opposes need of acid residues especially in representative of the acidic ADs as is the Gal4 (Activation domain page). The figure should not assist them to harm. moreover, they suppose the content of the figure (AD binding to KIX, Piskacek Figures v9b) as definition for activation domains, what is also completely wrong. User Artoria2e5 continue with mocking on Gal4 page too.

I request immediately withdraw of all my contribution (all my text and my figure), because of harmful modification, from now correctly called “Transcription domain” page (previously oddly named “Transactivating domain”)

Thank you very much, Martin Piskacek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piskacek (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Piskacek: Please see COM:DR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Piskacek: I suspect that if you link the files where you feel something inappropriate occurred, we can sort things out. Without that, we haven't a chance. The only thing I can see [User:Artoria2e5]] doing to any related image is adding a category. - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright for old postcards

hello

may I upload a scan of an illustration appearing on an old postcard (1915)?

Thanks, Shawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnpg (talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Shawnpg: What is the postcard's country of origin?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

Do I have to have a copyright to upload my work to Wikipedia Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estar8806 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Estar8806: Hi, and welcome. Yes, but you have it automatically for each work you created since 1978.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

fix

how to apply your information on Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasana claude (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gasana claude: Hi, and welcome. Please see en:Help:Pictures.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

New section

Page notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediational (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mediational: Hi, and welcome. Please be more specific.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

uploaded photo

I uploaded a jpg photo of a certificate "GAR Aide-de-camp" to the commons for the Grand Army of the Republic but I don't see it. When I tried re-loading it today, the message said it was a duplicate. Joe Vignos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimishillen (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nimishillen: Your file is actually here. You may check your uploads by using Special:ListFiles, and type in your user name. You can also check your uploads by accessing your user talk page, and there should be a link to all of your uploads at the left-hand corner, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of a movie frame

An author has published a frozen photogram of a documentary made in 1933, as a proof of an action nobody has notice before. Is it possible tu upload the picture in a Wikipedia page? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetrio E. Brisset (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Ruslik (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I made a digital photo of a frame of a 1933 documentary, whose productor died in 1936. I published it in a book and a scientific journal on internet. It illustrates an important action in the film, unnoticed to spectators due to its very short length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilarion1 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hilarion1: In what countries was the documentary produced and first published, and what years were those events?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
In Spain, event happens in 1933 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilarion1 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hilarion1: Thanks. Sorry, you may not upload it to Commons because it was still copyrighted in Spain on 1 January 1996 (59 years into the 80 year pma term at the time), so the URAA put it under copyright in the US for 95 years from publication, through 2028 per en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. If Spanish Wikipedia had an EDP which allowed local uploads regardless of US copyright, you could upload there.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilarion1 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2019 logo.png

Hi, I used this file and I added white background. Is this file under correct licence? --Patriccck (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Original autor is @BFlores (WMF): (ping) --Patriccck (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
And what about this file? It this file published under correct licence? --Patriccck (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The licenses are ok, but I don't think you would get your own copyright for adding a white background. Effectively this is what you get automatically when you export the SVG to a raster format without transparency. De728631 (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Junior high schools in Taiwan

Sometimes people misunderstand the use of the "Junior high schools in Taiwan" category. In fact, Taiwan generally uses junior high schools for middle schools rather than high schools. I discussed this with User:そらみみ two weeks ago(see here), I also remembered the discussion from last year at User talk:Russian Rocky(see here). What I want to ask is: What will we have to do in order to avoid misunderstanding?--Kai3952 (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

If "secondary school" is synonymous with "junior high school", then we should not put it in Category:High schools in Taiwan.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
"junior high school" and "middle school" are nearly synonyms in common American English usage. Both always include grades 7 & 8; a "middle school" may contain grade 6, a "junior high school" may include grade 9.
Sticking for the moment to American English usage: we consider only our high schools (either grades 9-12 or 10-12) to be "secondary schools".
Does that make it easier to map the Taiwan cases to this terminology? - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you talking about the American education system? In Taiwan, a junior high school for students grade 7 (age 12–13) through grade 9 (age 14–15); and senior high school, for students from grade 10 (age 15–16) to 12 (age 17–18). Is there no problem if I do it(add "High schools in Taiwan" on the bottom of "Junior high schools in Taiwan" category page)?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, I can only speak for the U.S. Here, at least, "high school" and "senior high school" are synonyms. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
So what about "junior high school"?--Kai3952 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. As I said above, more or less interchangeable with "middle school," except that it can often include grade 9 and almost never includes grade 6. What is unclear? - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

copyright issue

can i use a company's logo picture without asking them or is it a form of plagiarism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitpshah17 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Plagiarism" and "copyright violation" are two overlapping but different issues, and permission is relevant only to copyrights:
  1. "Plagiarism" means passing off someone else's work as your own. It is a moral question of intellectual honesty, not a legal matter.
  2. "Copyright violation" means using copyrighted material without permission. Copyright is a matter of law.
  3. Also, although you don't mention it, there is another relevant body of law: trademarks
So, to cover the possible cases in terms of company logos:
Consider a very simple logo (just text, typography, and maybe very simple geometric shapes). It cannot be copyrighted, though it may be trademarked.
  1. If you pass off the logo as your own work, or if you design a very similar logo based on this logo, arguably you would be plagiarizing.
  2. Also, if the logo is trademarked and you fail to acknowledge the trademark, you could be violating trademark law. On Commons, we handle that simply by applying the {{Trademark}} template.
  3. There is no copyright to violate.
Now consider a more complicated logo, which can be copyrighted; unless it is very old (e.g. a Proctor and Gamble logo from the 1800s) it almost certainly is copyrighted. For a copyrighted work:
  1. The plagiarism question is exactly the same as above.
  2. The trademark question is exactly the same as above.
  3. In addition, if you use it without the company's permission, you are violating their copyright.
- Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

NAME

HOW CAN I CONTACT A USER? THANKS, RICHARD — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCROSSROADS (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@RCROSSROADS: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons! The usual way to contact a user is to write on the user's talk page. Links to that appear in most places where the user's name appears (for instance, mine is at User talk:Bjh21 and is linked from my signature). The "Add topic" link at the top of the talk page will allow you to add a new message. Note that anything you write on a user's talk page is visible to everyone. If you want to get in touch with a user privately, you might find an "Email this user" link in the left sidebar on their talk page. This will only be there if they've allowed other users to contact them by email, though. --bjh21 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
For the "Email this user" link to show up, both the sender and the receiver must have provided an email address. It looks like RCROSSROADS hasn't done that. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploaded Picture needs to go on webpage

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, I just signed up today.

I already uploaded a picture of Toronto that I took from Toronto Island onto Wikipedia. Now I need to get that picture onto the Wikipedia page that sais Toronto. I thought I copied and paisted the picture on the Toronto Wikipedia page correctly but I still don't see the picture on the webpage. 

Here is the link I pasted:
A view of Toronto from Toronto Island
 can anyone give me some help? Thanks 

 Kind Regards 

 Travelmodel777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelmodel777 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Travelmodel777: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, and thank you for the picture! You didn't edit the page you thought you were editing. You successfully added the picture to c:Toronto, which is the gallery page here on Wikimedia Commons about Toronto. You'll notice it has lots of pictures but not many words. You probably wanted instead to add it to en:Toronto, which is the article about Toronto on English Wikipedia. --bjh21 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
PS: I've straightened your picture up a bit. I hope you don't mind. If you do mind, you can undo my change by going to File:A view of Toronto from Toronto Island.jpg and choosing "revert" in the "File history" section towards the bottom of the page. --bjh21 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Massive EXIF data removal or editing

How can I massively remove or edit EXIF data from a large number of documents? Both Windows or Linux solutions are good for me.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.166.142.217 (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

putting a photo into the public domain

Hi, how do I put a photo into the public domain? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow: The best way is to use {{cc-zero}}. This is available under "Use a different license" in the "Release rights" step of the Upload Wizard. Of course, you can only do this if you are the copyright holder of the photo to begin with. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading figures from scientific publications

Hi I am a member of a scientific collaboration, On behalf of the collaboration I have uploaded images to our experiment's wikipedia page. This involved uploading images from collaboration publications. I'm unsure about the requirements of the licensing, what would constitute "permission" for the use of the images?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArgonMan (talk • contribs) 23:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @ArgonMan: The simplest would be if you could make the grant of a free license visible in an online version of the publication that is under your control as copyright holder(s). Is that possible? If not, we can talk about other ways to address this. - Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding uploading

Пытаюсь загрузить фотографию, разрешение на использование мне предоставили, могу передать вам подтверждение. Повторно загрузить не удаётся. Как загрузить? Спасибо

Страница https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A2%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&oldid=66984543&diff=cur&diffonly=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ip190684 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Смотрите Commons:OTRS/ru. Ruslik (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sarna photo Teahouse advice leads to challenging question

At WP:Teahouse I was told (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Help_with_using_a_photo_from_Hebrew_Wiki_to_use_in_English_Wiki)

I don't know if you can link across the different language Wikipedias. I think if you right click to download it to your computer, and then upload it to commons with the upload wizard, and include in the permissions that it's a photo of a deceased person, you'll get a link that works. You could also include the link to the original file in the notes, and if there are any problems, someone in OTRS will help you straighten it out.

The Hebrew Wiki photo appears to be an old newspaper clipping photo (8K, pixilated), of someone who died in 1969; subject's age is middle-age, and Israeli law mentions something about 51 years.

Here's my dilemma: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard asks "Author(s) - The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc. (This field is required)"

The Hebrew wiki lacks that basic info.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Yechezkel_Sarna.jpg says (in English, below the Hebrew text) "This is a Fair use file." The Hebrew text on the "rights" tab's page specifically mentions (my translation) 'use in Wikipedia.'

WP:Teahouse instructed me to download and re-upload, and also to include "it's a photo of a deceased person."

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard says ask https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk if I need help.

Supplementary detail:

In looking for the name of who took the picture, I encounterd one screen with two circled orange "C"s: One was with a Hebrew sentence, one with a large letter "W" intertwined with it. From a basic self-translation, it looks like the picture is restricted to Wikipedia for regular use (ShiMush=use, HaGoon usually means normal or regular, but it has other meanings too). After saying "BeWikipedia" ("Be" prefix means in), it subsequently says what I read as 'about/in connection with' and then names the subject, (Rabbi) Yechezkel Sarna. Most suspiciously, despite the author declarations, next to the single Hebrew word MeKor (SOURCE) it has a question mark. I can't fill in the question as to who took the picture, so I can't follow the WP:Teahouse advice. A URL for a translation of the above-described file is https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&u=https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Yechezkel_Sarna.jpg My personal two cents is that this 8K (yes K, not Mb) file is from a newspaper, and from the appearance, meets the Israeli public domain laws. Also, for whatever it's worth, it appears that it exists in non-(Wiki)mirrors / online. The bottom says "Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 terms unless otherwise stated" but the Hebrew seems to be a possible, if not likely, "otherwise." Help? Pi314m (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pi314m: Sorry, but we don't allow Fair Use here on Commons. If you want to use the file on English Wikipedia, please read WP:F.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading

How do I upload a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikendgeria Girl 3 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Wikendgeria Girl 3: You follow the link that says Upload file (the first item under "Participate" in the menu on the left) and follow the instructions. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

why Wikipedia not publish my page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Inzin_(Company) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osbertgill (talk • contribs) 09:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Osbertgill: Essentially because it has no sources at all. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what has been written about the subject elsewhere, so you need to say what sources you used when writing the article. Similarly, a company should only have a Wikipedia article if the company is notable, which roughly means that it must have a significant amount written about it by reliable, independent sources. The page en:Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) explains how this works for companies. If you have further questions, you should ask them on the help desk or Teahouse of English Wikipedia. This help desk is really for help with Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia. --bjh21 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The OP was blocked on enwiki as a sock of spammer Deepkabir.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

upload stamp from Romania

Hi,

i would like to upload the stamp set Eve from this source. According to my interpretation of the rules of romania, stamps are in the public domain and therefore can be used here and uploaded. I should use this template, but i don't quite understand where in the upload proces and how i can use this template, so i would like some help. (by the way geerestein2 is my second account because i don't know the password for Geerestein)--Geerestein2 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Geerestein2: If you use the Upload Wizard, in the "Release rights", select "This file is not my own work", enter appropriate source and authorship information, select "Another reason not mentioned above", select "The license is described by the following wikitext" and enter {{PD-RO-exempt}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
it seemed to have worked, thanks!! --Geerestein2 (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Dachau: Time of closure ... ?

Your page on Dachau says it was closed in 1960, yet I was stationed at the 8th Transportation Battalion's Oberschleißheim Hubschrauber Flugplatz, 5 miles from both München and Dachau, from December of '60 to June of '62. I was the battalion's Public Information Office photographer, under Captain M. C. Avery. I was told that Dachau was where the Quartermaster Laundry and Military Stockade were. How is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.211.82.188 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@108.211.82.188: You have somehow ended up in the wrong place, I suggest asking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dachau_concentration_camp. --ghouston (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Southerly Clubs

Incidental question re
assistants etc

Or at least write to me & explain why you don't want to reply to the Southerly Clubs people. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Sorry, I agree with our official position that we need to hear directly from copyright holders about licensing of their works.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks. So people who are assistants of and/or on assignment for the Southerly Clubs can not any more go in under that OTRS (1 of those deleted images) like we've been doing since it was established? Everyone who takes a photo for SC at SC request & with SC cameras and only to assist SC must all write directly to permissions now? Wives & siblings & children of board members, other members of our organizations? Where do we draw the line? (And wouldn't it have been better to discuss this directly with the SC board by e-mail?) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Jcb as ticketholder, Admin, and OTRS Admin. N.B. This concerns {{Southerly Clubs}} and Ticket:2010092510008875.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: Yes, exactly. In principle every single photographer will have to send their permission. Copyright belongs to the photographer as a person, unless they agreed otherwise by means of a written contract. Jcb (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Would you please e-mail the Chairman at the address Jeff G. has and tell him exactly what the OTRS ticket says re: the scope of the permission there? He does not remember in detail & no longer has those old e-mails. It was many years ago. Whatever it is, it's been my impression that we've been trying to adhere as well as possible in good faith. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please only use the OTRS mail addresses, I am not handling permissions via my private mail. Jcb (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: I have 7 messages from them with headers, plus 2 attachments. How much do you want?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Everything that should be handled should be in the ticket. Jcb (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I have now e-mailed the Chairman's address also to @Jcb: . What I'm asking is not that we must rehash the recently deleted images; I get it. SC needs to have confirmed exactly what is covered by their OTRS so we can (continue to) adhere strictly. I've been told that some kind of promise or guarantee was invloved then that all donated images would be w/o copyright. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: Most was already there, you have 3 new articles 60-62.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Printing in the 40's

First, let me say thank-you for your response in advance.

I have 2 questions.

Fist: I have a wood block about 1 inch wide with a thin sheet of "lead" on it with a negative type image that was used in 1950 in my small town to apparently print year books with student pictures. Almost looks like a picture negative that was imprinted on this lead and then placed on the wood block. I was looking for how this was done and possibly pictures and explanations on the internet. I will be glad to provide you pictures of what I am explaining.

Second: My friend in Michigan has a number of old printing press's, letters, plates, etc. has no idea of value. I assume if he wanted to sell he would just list them on Etsy or ebay... is that correct?

If you can help I certainly would appreciate.

<redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.35.147.172 (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is the help desk for Wikimedia Commons. We can only provide answers for questions related to contributing to this media repository and, to some extent, other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, we are not a general forum for the kind of questions you asked. The photographic printing plates you described though, appear to be some sort of photogravure. So you might want to read that article Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

50,000 free commons artwork

So last year the Art Institute of Chicago put the 0 licence on over 50,000 items [3] <re[4]. Is there any way to tell if Commons has all these (I am sure we have soke perhaps many, but maybe not 50,000 or can somehow just get these easily? Is there a better place to ask this question? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There is Category:Art Institute of Chicago but it doesn't seem to have several thousands of images. I did a scan with PetScan to find any files with a CC-0 licensing in this category and its children, and it came up with 1,458 results. Most if of not all of these seem to be user-generated uploads though, and were not transferred from the AIC website. Come to think of it, this looks like one of the next big mass-upload projects for the bot crew. De728631 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I got permission to upload a picture of the impressionist, Jamie Costa, but...

I got explicit permission that I could upload a picture (this is the one Costa's co-manager/brother attached in an email: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4822304/mediaviewer/rm1359955712) of the impressionist Jamie Costa to here for his Wikipedia article, but none of his pictures, including this one, are under a particular license. Mr. Caleb Costa told me over a business email representing Jamie that I could, "Feel free to pull a picture from his [Jamie's] imdb..." I've tried to get back in touch with Mr. Caleb Costa, but he has yet to respond to my follow-up email regarding what particular license to file it under, so how do I upload the picture I linked under this permission instead of a specific license. If there's not a way, I'll just wait for a response email.
Stinkyjaden (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)-Stinkyjaden

@Stinkyjaden: Please have the photographer(s) license the photos on their websites or social media or send the photos and permissions via OTRS with carbon copies to you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

May someone delete this for me

The picture has served its purpose. I don't need it on here anymore.
Stinkyjaden (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)-Stinkyjaden

✓ Done De728631 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone on YouTube used my video here without attributing me

What do I do? The video is at https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZPw9dSV6y2c. My clip, which wasn’t attributed, is at File:Newton’s cradle slo mo.webm Nigos (t@lk • contributions • Uploads) 22:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nigos: You can report it to YouTube.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Making a category for John Chilembwe

Hi I think that it would be relevant tot have a category for John Chilembwe. (there's is one called Chilembwe uprising, but other picutures from this person are spreader over all kind of categories, also not all the pictures depict the uprising), But there are many rules and conventions i don't exactly understand, so can anybody help me? Also for te future is there a place on commons where you can ask for a request for a certain category? --Geerestein2 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Geerestein2: What categories would such a new category be in? How would you describe it? What pictures would be in it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I've got it started for you. You can add other categories explicitly, and/or improve wikidata:Q644659 so that it generates more categories automatically. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the start up!! i've added some pictures already into the category--Geerestein2 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Russian Translation Required

Recently when I come through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Абдель Фаттах аль-Бурхан.png, I found a Russian comment regarding that image:
Вероятно — это не аргумент. Пока не доказано обратное, Muhammad Nooh является правообладателем.
May anyone assist with translating this comment on that deletion page? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: "这可能不是一个论点。 除非另有证明，否则Muhammad Nooh是版权所有者。" or "This is probably not an argument. Unless proven otherwise, Muhammad Nooh is the copyright holder."   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!廣九直通車 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the difference between "blocked road" and "closed road"?

I am not sure what is the difference between "Category:Blocked roads" and "Category:Closed roads", but I suspect that when these categories are used, they are used to refer to the roads where vehicles cannot pass.--Kai3952 (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The difference is pretty subtle, but (as a non-native speaker), I'd say that closed roads carries connotations of (typically public) roads that have been officially closed off to traffic (especially motorised traffic) with signs and often some type of fence or barrier designed for the purpose, while blocked roads carries connotations of roads with accidental or deliberate obstacles (boulders, trees, vehicles). For example, a road could be blocked by a landslide and then closed by authorities to prevent vehicles from entering a dangerous dead end. As another example, a land owner might block a private road using boulders to prevent or discourage unauthorised access, but that doesn't really constitute a road closure. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
To me "blocked" would be temporary. With "closed" the intent would be permanent. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Roads can be temporarily closed due to accidents, events, etc. What LX wrote is how I understand it too. --ghouston (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
And what is that, specifically (I believe it can be stated briefly and much moire clearly)?
  1. Closed = ? (in 3-4 words)
  2. Blocked = ? (in 3-4 words).
Respectfully & still confusedly yours, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing:
  1. Closed = Traffic officially prohibited permanently.
  2. Blocked = Unofficially impassible temporarily.
Of course, roads may be temporarily closed by officials for: the season; the Grand Prix; filming of a car commercial or a movie; a parade; school pickups or dropoffs during certain hours on school days; a police investigation; etc.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarity. Good to see you in action. Now if you'd reply to your e-mail I'd be almost perfectly happy.
@LX and Jeff G.: I'm sorry that I have a question again. I randomly picked a photo: File:Bradley Covered Bridge Center Street Lyndonville VT April 2019.jpg. "ROAD CLOSED" shown on the sign in the photo. This makes me confused about what "blocked road" is and is not.--Kai3952 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: Ok, in this case the road was blocked by flooding, and then officials came and placed the "ROAD CLOSED" sign and cones.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually I am confused about the term "ROAD CLOSED" is written on the sign. That is to say, I don't understand why it is "ROAD CLOSED" instead of "ROAD BLOCKED"?--Kai3952 (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A "ROAD BLOCKED" sign would be informational; this road is blocked. A "ROAD CLOSED" sign is a declaration; this road is not open to traffic. The officials don't want you on this road, so they put up the rod closed sign. The fact that it is blocked is the reason it's closed, but the sign isn't saying that you won't be able to get through, it's saying that you shouldn't go there, even if you can.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: This would be a perfect example of the difference: a road is blocked when a tree falls over during a storm--something blocks you from driving over it. A road is closed when the local government deliberately shuts it down, puts up signs, suggests alternate routes, and does road maintenance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

As Ghouston remarked above: I don't think closed has to be permanent, just deliberate. Blocked would refer more to something that happened by accident. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Natural settings vs captive birds

In uploading bird photos to Wikipedia, I sometimes encounter pages containing bird photos taken in zoos, and such photos might of better quality than my photos.

My question concerns whether photos taken in a natural setting are be preferred over those taken of captive birds?

An example can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_hornbill

where I have included gallery photos taken in Borneo.

Grateful for a response.

<redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyCastro (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi TonyCastro. Regardless of the setting, we are happy to receive any such photos unless the quality is really bad. In general this means that we would like to see original high-resolution images rather than downscaled versions. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@TonyCastro: : Here on Wikimedia Commons, we're generally in favour of having more pictures. If your pictures are good enough to be useful, and not hugely repetitious of ones we already have, then we want them. Whether it's appropriate to include them in a gallery on English Wikipedia is a slightly different matter. We have over a hundred pictures of rhinoceros hornbills on Commons but only ten are used on their article in English Wikipedia. If you want guidance on which pictures to use in Wikipedia articles you might do better to ask at en:Wikipedia:Help desk. --bjh21 (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Trying to upload a picture to my own IMDB

Hey there!

I'm trying to upload a picture of myself that I took myself. However, I can't seem to figure it out. I keep getting messages about the picture not being "approved" but I own the picture and represent all the content within.

Any help is appreciated,

Matt Danner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty Danner (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Matty Danner: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload smaller (<50KB or <5MP) jpg photos as a new user while leaving the summaries intact. Each jpg photo you tried to upload is smaller, and you said it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads smaller photos, they are copyright violations taken from the web. If you took the photos yourself, please upload the full-size originals of them, including EXIF metadata. If you did not take the photos, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept them, and have the photographer(s) license them on their websites or social media or send the photos and permissions via OTRS with carbon copies to you. If you change the summaries or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

How to change e-mail associated to my user name & image I uploaded?

How to change e-mail associated to my user name & image I uploaded? SparkleStripe (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@SparkleStripe: Please click in Special:ChangeEmail, and follow the procedures given by that page, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

why I cannot upload the logo file into the post?

I tried many times to upload the logo file into the post invain! Please give me the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuyenCAT (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@QuyenCAT: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload png and smaller (<50KB or <5MP) jpg logos as a new user while leaving the summary intact. Such uploads of png logos are not allowed at all. You said each is your own work. Usually when someone uploads a logo, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it, including EXIF metadata, but it may be judged too complex to be under TOO in the country of origin, so you may need to publish the new logo and your permission for it on your website or social media or send them via OTRS. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version, too. If you change the summary or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

pregunta

quierodescargar un audio en mp3 para una investigacion en wikipedia hacerca del law fare en temas juridicos no medeja.

--Kitoko investigador (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Por supuesto, quiero descargar un audio en mp3 para una investigación en wikipedia acerca del law fare [???] en temas juridicos no me deja. Pero, ¿exactamente que trataste de hacer, con cual herramiento, y que pasó? - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

ask for a check

I,ve uploaded this [[File:Painting_by_Jean_van_de_Kerckhove.jpg|image]] and I'm convinced it is in the public domain because its source indicates this (see button +objectgegevens under at the page). My question is: did i upload the file correctly, can i use the description of the source (or is this copyrighted). And where can i add the information about the book its coming from (L'enfant de Bruges) Kind regards, --Geerestein2 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Geerestein2: File:Painting by Jean van de Kerckhove.jpg was basically correct, but I added a public domain rationale for the United States as that is required here at Commons (the files are hosted in the US). I also edited the credit line from the Rijksmuseum's website as a matter of courtesy. The description of the source is trivial though, so you can easily use it here without problems. As to the book, the full text can also be found at Archive.org, and the British Museum has some background information on the writer and the book's subject Frédéric van de Kerckhove. De728631 (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

How to post pictures in Wikipedia in my account

How to post pictures in Wikipedia in my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Saifonce (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello King Saifonce, you can add a string of code to your user page like [[File:This is where the file name is | thumb | Add a description here.]] Then click "Publish changes" and that's it. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Acceptable? Coat of Arms from Merged Fraternity from 1920 Yearbook.

I wish to upload the Coat of Arms from Sigma Tau Pi fraternity (which merged with Alpha Epsilon Pi in 1947). The image that I want to use is from https://archives.upenn.edu/digitized-resources/docs-pubs/the-record/record-1920 , the 1920 yearbook for the University of Pennsylvania (which had its Alpha chapter). Given that the fraternity only existed from 1917 to 1947, I am not sure that many other sources are available from prior to 1923.Naraht (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Image on Korean Wikipedia

I've found this image on the Korean Wikipedia which appears to have an appropriate licence for Commons. It's been a while since I've transferred anything here though, and I'm a bit reluctant to do anything on a foreign language Wiki which I can't read. Any advice? PC78 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@PC78: My advice is not to transfer w:ko:파일:안봉순.JPG to Commons. The file seems to be a photograph of another photograph (indeed, a derivative work) However, we do not know when is the original image is taken. Therefore it is better for it left on Korean Wikipedia, until somebody fixed the copyright issue, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for taking a look. PC78 (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

how do I add a link to a webpage with more information on an image?

how do I add a link to a webpage with more information on an image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heptadecagon star 17 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Heptadecagon star 17. Most images at Commons have a code template called {{Information}} or similar types of wiki code that produce the file information you see below the preview on a file's page. To add a link to a website to a file page, you need to click the "edit" tab on top of the file page, and look at the code editor. There should be a string |description= somewhere with a description text following the = sign. At the end of the old description you may now add another bit of text like: For more information, see [https//www.somewebsite.com Some Useful Website]. After that you just save the page ("Publish changes"). De728631 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
But if you are going to add a link within a language-specific template like {{En}} or {{Fr}}, make sure to use the explicit "1=" syntax. E.g.
{{Information | description={{en|... something with a URL}} ... }}
won't work right, you need
{{Information | description={{en|1=... something with a URL}} ... }}
- Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: "something with a URL" is not quite specific enough, "something with a URL containing an equal sign" is better (the problem is the equal sign).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I suppose that's true, but the "1=" is never harmful. - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Image taken down

I posted an image that was given to me by the Lake Carroll Association to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Carroll_(Illinois)

It has been since taken down as a copyright violation.

I am a new user, and I will admit being very confused as to how to get all the necessary "blessings" to use the image.

I tried to contact the person who took it down, but frankly each link took me to a page that re-directed me to another page. Again, very confusing.

Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueticoCanoeing (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @QueticoCanoeing: I assume this is about File:Aerial View of Lake Carroll.jpg. Two issues there:
    1. No free license at all was indicated. We require that all images here offer a license that allows anyone to reuse the image, including commercially and including derivatives. Probably the tightest license allowed is {{Cc-by-sa 4.0}}. We need at least that.
    2. Only the holder of the copyright can grant such a license, and it cannot be granted orally. I take it from your posting that the photographer and copyright-holder is Donna Beyer. (If not, then that is another thing we are going to have to sort out, but what follows applies to the copyright-holder whoever it is. If copyright is held by an organization, it refers to an authorized representative of that organization.)
      • The simplest way to grant a license is that if the photo is posted on a site or page clearly under control of the copyright-holder, they can indicate the license there. Once that is done, you can make an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests. This should result in restoring the image quickly.
      • The other (typically slower) way is to go through the process described at COM:OTRS where the copyright-holder sends email granting a specific license. Make sure if you go that route that the email specifically indicates the license (I recommend cc-by-sa 4.0 as giving up the fewest rights), is specific to File:Aerial View of Lake Carroll.jpg, and indicates any attribution that is required for the photo. This will be slower, but once the process is complete the image will be restored. - Jmabel ! talk 15:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Problem with cropped version

Two days ago, File:Carl Craig.jpg was replaced with a cropped version. It causes a problem in some Wikipedias such as de:Carl Craig, is:Carl Craig, and zh:Techno, where his face looks vertically longer than it actually is. Could someone restore the old version of the image? 220.106.167.172 16:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
This is most probably a cache issue. Please clear the cache of your browser, and load the page again. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That said, this rather extreme crop of a perfectly good photo uploaded by someone else should have been uploaded under a different file name. - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Upload Wizard vs. Flickr2Commons

On 19 August, I used Special:UploadWizard's "Share Images from Flickr" to upload an album of photos. Everything went swimmingly. "FlickreviewR 2" reviewed the license and all seemed fine. Then, on 21 August, I noticed a number of the images were being superseded as inferior duplicates. Although, I initially balked because I thought they were exact duplicates and I had put more effort into my descriptions and file names, I soon realized the new versions were of higher resolution. The second uploader told me they were using Flickr2Commons. So, my question is, does Upload Wizard not grab the highest resolution version available, and if so, why not? Is Flickr2Commons actually the preferred tool? For reference, the album is located at Category:Demonstration against extradition bill, 18 August 2019. Also, I noticed it only happened to images with P##### notation, not IMG#####. (My versions all had the phrase "Hong Kong protest" in front of the original Flickr file names. So, as I write this, a second theory is emerging. Is it possible Flickr hadn't fully rendered the P#### files (because they are super large)? So maybe it's not a problem with our software, just that I grabbed the images too quickly. Any insight is appreciated. (NB A few random other files have been added which are unrelated) Thanks. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Files like File:Hong Kong protests - P1055556.jpg, it's 5184 x 3888 on your upload, but the original size is 8294 x 6221. I suppose it's a bug or limitation in Upload Wizard: I can't see anything on Phabricator so we probably need to create a new issue there for it. --ghouston (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
However, there's a weird thing. The metadata says the photo was taken with a Panasonic DC-GH5, which is a 20 megapixel camera, and 5184 x 3888 would be the correct resolution, like other files in Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5. Looking a the full size images, the quality of the 8294 x 6221 version is pretty bad and it looks like it has been scaled up, so it may be a problem on the Flickr side. --ghouston (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the Flickr user uploaded the photo, it was copied to Commons, and then they uploaded it again at the scaled-up resolution? Strange thing to do though. --ghouston (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, thanks for you thoughts and insights. I guess, for now, I'll just wait and see if it happens again. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading Photos from Deceased Relative

I want to upload some historical photos taken by grandmother, who has since passed on. I am unsure how to word for copyright reasons, I own the pictures, they were left to me, but they are not my own work. I usually use the Upload wizard, but I am not sure how to fill out the copyright information section, any help would be appreciated -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monument 2019

Why are my images showing up on wiki loves monuments 2018, when i am clearly trying to enter the competition for wiki loves monuments 2019. I am trying to ensure im uploading to the competition properly. When i use the interactive map of Ireland, Dublin and upload an image, it ends up in with wiki loves monuments 2018, but when i upload through upload wizard i think it ends up in 2019. Can you Check this please?? Thanks

Could you please check this. My file in 2019 is Skerries Railway Station.jpg 

                                my file in 2018   is     County Dublin - Townparks Church - 20190615195832.jpg (file) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjobaker (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


Ok. Im Not sure im being crystal clear. I'll try again. I have spent the last few months photographing monuments around Dublin, Ireland. Specifically for the wiki loves monuments 2019 competition. I would now wish to begin the uploading process. I am fully aware that you can only upload the image once.

In the Ireland category, This competition I believe begins today 25th August 2019 and ends on September 30th 2019.

Im not sure how i should upload these images.

I tried using the interactive map, where i simply found the appropriate red or green marker and used the upload link and attached the image to be uploaded. This is very easy and simply done. The problem I have is verifying that it is now in the competition because when I check my contributions or uploads from my page, it specifies that this image i uploaded is for wiki loves monuments 2018. wlm 18-9-01. 2018??? Also when I search images in wlm 2018, my images are there. This would suggest to me that these new images i uploaded are not going to be used for wiki loves monuments 2019.

I tried an alternative method of uploading the images through the upload wizard on the wiki loves monuments 2019 commons page. and this was the skerries railway. jpg. and when i inspect this within my upload or contributions page, it outlines that it is for wlm 2019. in which informed me that this one is eligible. it also appears in a wiki loves monuments 2019 uploaded images pages in section Ireland. And it is also the only image there????? 1 image


I have a lot of images to upload and the prefared method would be through the interactive upload. Can you re-assure me that both methods are ok, or will i have to upload through the wizard method?????


Thanks

jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjobaker (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smirkybec: Apparently the interactive upload map tool has not yet been updated for the 2019 campaign. De728631 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jonjobaker, Smirkybec, and De728631: I created https://github.com/hatnote/monumental/issues/32 for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jonjobaker: I have moved them to the correct category - sorry about that! @De728631: I have raised the issue on the mailing list, and hopefully it will be fixed soon. Thanks Smirkybec (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


Thanks Smirybec. That' s Grand so Can I continue to upload using the interactive map for now so I can get back out and take more photos??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjobaker (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jonjobaker: Yes, keep going, I'm going to monitor the 2018 category to makes sure any new images that end up there get moved to the 2019 category. Happy photo hunting! Smirkybec (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smirkybec and Jonjobaker: Map should now use 2019 template, sorry for inconvenience. Yarl 💭  23:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks everyone. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Namloyak

This category should be used for files, not for articles. I don't understand why someone came here to write an article about Namloyak.--Kai3952 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Kai3952. I restored the page to the previous version prior to the user who tried to copy/paste an encyclopedia article there. GMGtalk 16:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Need license tag help

I uploaded to Wikimedia about a week ago, File:HRtoHoe.jpg. Or get there via https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HRtoHoe.jpg. It's vital to get this upload approved, as it would probably be impossible otherwise, for anyone to locate the exact text. I covered that in "Other information." The problem is getting a license tag that works. I have no idea if this former small-circulation non-profit newsletter was ever given a business license. I doubt it! Maybe, another tag would work better, such as, the popular one used for magazines published between 1924 & 1963, that weren't copyrighted. I put too much info in the summary box, because I don't know what type of tag might work. Again, some statements given in the article "Paul Martin (illustrator)" are referenced, but impossible for those themselves, to be verified w/o this upload. I could be the only one who has the original two sheets, which I placed together and then photographed and uploaded to my computer. Thks. JimPercy (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • A business license had nothing to do with the matter. The "license" in question is that, if the work is still in copyright, we need an appropriate license granted for others to re-use the photo, and only the copyright-holder can grant that. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You claim to have granted a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. You can only grant that license if (1) the work is still in copyright and (2) you own the copyright. I have no idea whether the work is still in copyright, but I'm pretty confident that even if it is, you don't own the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 21:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It may be valuable to have this on line somewhere, but it is certainly not "vital" that it be posted to this particular site if it cannot be posted under a license we permit.
  • If, as I understand it, the magazine pages reproduced here date from 2005, there is almost no chance that the text is not copyrighted. However, if the illustrations are older, then they may well be public domain. I suggest you think in terms of demonstrating that, and we can crop to just the illustrations, instead of the obviously copyrighted text. - Jmabel ! talk 21:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: My query is COMPLETELY about preserving the text. The two very dated images in the text are just incidental. This was roughly a seven page newsletter that was stapled together and mailed to locals. It's creator and editor passed in 2010. (I backed that up, by inserting an external link in the Description line.) The newsletter ceased to exist with his passing. I now understand it was near certainty copyrighted, and some unknown person/company now owns the copyright. Hence, the current license is wrong. Is there another tag that might work. Maybe that Wikipedia tag: non-free newspaper / fair use. The downsize there is that an imagine of text (ugh), would have to be in the actual article. It seems, unfortunately, I might have to delete this upload if I can't find an alternative. JimPercy (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Possibly there is some basis to host this on Wikipedia, but if it is copyrighted, not free-licensed, and we don't know who owns the rights, then it's out of the question for Commons.
But why does this need specifically to be hosted specifically in a Wikimedia Foundation project? It is exactly equally citable whether it is available online or not; if the issue is just preservation, it seems to me that you can post it on a "fair use" basis on a site that is less interested in its content being freely reusable. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes, it's about preservation, and backing up the quote excerpts in Ref. #16 at "Paul Martin (illustrator)." I might look into whether or not it can be uploaded to Wikipedia instead under the "fair use tag." (I think an icon of it would be required in the article, so that won't work though.) I reckon, an option would be uploading the image to another site on the WWW, though that would take me a bit to look into. JimPercy (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • See Commons:Licensing. Not everything belongs on Commons, even if it is of historical importance. Images on Commons must be either public domain (fallen out of copyright due to age or other factors) or free licensed (eg, a license like Creative Commons By granted by the copyright holder/creator). If you are not the creator/copyright-holder of something, you cannot grant a license for it. There are other places on the web to upload images that don't fall within Wikimedia Commons restrictions. For example, in addition to Commons I upload many images to Flickr (flickr.com); you might wish to take a look at the free accounts there or somewhere similar. Files uploaded here that cannot demonstrate free license will be deleted. Hope this helps. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: Okay, I tried Flickr. I upload the image to there instead, and then inserted its URL into the end of Ref. #16 at the WP article: "Paul Martin (illustrator)." It worked, BUT, I can't figure out how to see the image at Flickr, after signing on to my account. I think the system is blocking the upload from appearing, until a review process or a certain number of days has passed. I might put off attaching a "speedy deletion tag" onto my upload to Commons (with wrong tag), until sure of things. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Trouble with Category for Discussion

Two months ago, I nominated two categories for discussion (Category:Samuel Mulledy and Category:William Feiner). I have since withdrawn my nomination. I am not sure how to remove their CfD template now, and remove them from the CfD log. Could someone please assist? [[User:Ergo Sum|'''<span style="color:#0645AD">Ergo Sum</span>''']] (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I closed the two discussions. --ghouston (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: Your signature appears broken. On Special:Preferences, please check "Treat signature as wikitext (without an automatic link)", and Save.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

О загрузке фотографий на тематический конкурс

Добрый день, попытался загрузить свои фотографии на конкурсы "Двери" и "Одинокое дерево", казалось, все делал по правилам, но не вижу своих работ среди конкурсных фотографий. Здесь по ссылке мои загрузки, на конкурсы загрузил верхние(последние) пять работ:https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD&ilshowall=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Николай Васильевич Белавин (talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 August 2019‎ (UTC)

About uploading photos to a thematic contest Good afternoon, I tried to upload my photos to the Doors and Lonely Tree competitions, it seemed that I was doing everything according to the rules, but I did not see my works among the competitive photos. Here is the link of my downloads, I downloaded the top (last) five works for competitions:Special:Listfiles/Николай Васильевич Белавин
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Николай Васильевич Белавин: Пожалуйста, следуйте шагу 5 в Commons:Photo challenge/ru.
Please follow step 5 at Commons:Photo challenge.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Page deletion

How do I permanently delete a page that was created my me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelrose211 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC) (UTC)

@Mabelrose211: Hi,
You can't delete a page or a file yourself. You can request deletion under certain criteria. What's the page? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

TOO

Hi, Just wondering can the logo at https://www.montbleuresort.com/ be uploaded here ?, I don't know if the symbol thing up the top would prevent it or fail TOO?, Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 11:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Davey2010. Assuming you mean the logo in the top center, as this is a US company, and the US sets a fairly high bar for TOO, this should be perfectly fine to upload with Template:PD-textlogo. GMGtalk 14:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey User:GreenMeansGo, Ah okie dokie I'll upload it now, Many thanks for your help it's much appreciated :), Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

SVG Extractor

Hi, Could someone kindly extract and upload the logo from https://www.troplaughlin.com/ to File:Tropicana Laughlin logo.svg,
I've tried all SVG exporter/extractor chrome extensions and one misses the T off of the name and the other seems to upload a broken file (the upload now) ... so I wasn't sure if someone had a better way of extracting it?,
Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 11:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've had a go, but while my version looks fine in Inkscape and Firefox, the server-side renderings don't work. The SVG looks pretty simple, and the error page reports Error: 429, Too Many Requests, so maybe it's just that there's no capacity to thumbnail anything at the moment. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the current copyright tag on that file is wrong. --bjh21 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi bjh21, Well many thanks for trying :), The logo opens fine on Internet Explorer too so wasn't entirely sure if it was related to Wikimedia somehow,
The SVG exporter I use gives me this result so wasn't sure if this was an error on Trops part or the extensions part ? (I wasn't sure whether to contact them and see if they can send an SVG file to me so I can upload here?), Thanks again for trying anyway, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 12:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done - Many thanks Bjh21 and Begoon for your help in getting this pain in the backside file uploaded, I greatly appreciate you both helping me out, Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 13:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The only real issue with c/pasting it from the HTML source was that the viewBox/viewport dimensions needed to be set to avoid chopping parts off. Bjh had already worked around that by fitting the viewport to the artwork in Inkscape. I just tidied the code a bit. Your other issues seem to have just been transient thumbnailing hiccups - that's been fairly common recently. -- Begoon 13:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't understand a word of that , Then again I have 0 knowledge with this sort of thing, Only thing I do know is SVG is a much better format than jpg & png lol, Anyway thanks again much appreciated, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Heh... You don't usually need to understand the 'code' side of that, because your svg editing tool should do it for you when you set 'artboard'/'document size' in AI/Inkscape etc. If you want a better explanation of how it actually works then look at Tutorial - SVG Viewport and View Box. -- Begoon 01:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete image

Hi,

I just realized that the image I uploaded, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:El_orden_del_Tanaj.png , is probably a violation of copyright, since I just translated an English image to Spanish. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joncolombia (talk • contribs) 15:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Joncolombia. What is the original that this is based off of? GMGtalk 15:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
While it would be good to credit any sources, I don't think anything here rises to the level of being copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jmabel, it was from https://knowingscripture.com/articles/why-we-should-use-the-hebrew-order-of-the-old-testament — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joncolombia (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Fail to update SVG

Hello everyone, I want to update File:Map of China.svg, but it warned "This file contains HTML or script code that may be erroneously interpreted by a web browser." Even if I download the original file and upload it again, this error will occur. 　Buernia　Talk　 17:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Facebook picture

Hello

Can I upload this photo:


It is a photo of two public officials in public. I found the photo on facebook but on the politicians open facebook page. That is public domain i believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joellec7 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Joellec7. Unfortunately, being publicly available is not the same thing as being in the public domain. The former means that the public can access it, while the latter means essentially that the public owns it. Just as you may have access to music or movies that you have purchased, that means you own a copy of the media, but not the media itself.
The copyright for an image is nearly always held by the individual who took the photograph. If you can identify that person, you may be able to ask if they can release the image under a free license. Otherwise, I'm afraid we will probably not be able to use it here. GMGtalk 19:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a template for info of a book on its category page?

Do we use {{Wikidata infobox}} for this purpose too? Or {{Authority control}}? Or is there another specific one? Category:Chong sheng hai cao di si ji wei ti sheng wu qun ji qi di zhi yi yi is https://www.worldcat.org/title/chongsheng-hai-cao-di-si-ji-wei-ti-sheng-wu-qun-ji-qi-di-zhi-yi-yi/oclc/711513523 .--Roy17 (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: Seems to work just fine at Category:The Raven and Category:Moby Dick. GMGtalk 23:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see. The problem seems to be that the category you link to does not currently have a Wikidata item, or if it does have one, it is not linked to the category here. In order to make the infobox template work, you will have to create the item or link a pre-existing item to the category here. GMGtalk 23:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Valid SVG file is rejected due to namespace

Hello. When I try uploading following SVG image, Wikimedia Commons’ upload wizard says

“This SVG file contains an illegal namespace "http://purl.org/dc/terms/".”

and I cannot upload the image. But, according to W3C Markup Validator and W3C RDF Validator, this file is valid as SVG/XML with RDF/XML. How can I fix it? 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
	<!ENTITY rdf 'http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'>
	<!ENTITY xs 'http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'>
	<!ENTITY dct 'http://purl.org/dc/terms/'>
	<!ENTITY dcndl 'http://ndl.go.jp/dcndl/terms/'>
	<!ENTITY unit 'http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/'>
]>
<svg xml:lang="ja" version="1.1"
  width="801.5px" height="192.5px" viewBox="0 0 801.5 192.5"
  xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
  xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>
	<title>キューンミュージックのロゴ</title>

	<desc>
	キューンミュージック (Ki/oon Music) &lt;http://www.kioon.com/&gt;のロゴ画像
	</desc>

	<metadata>
	<rdf:RDF
	  xmlns:rdf="&rdf;"
	  xmlns:xs="&xs;"
	  xmlns:dct="&dct;"
	  xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
	  xmlns:qudt="http://qudt.org/schema/qudt/"
	>
		<rdf:Description rdf:about="">
			<dct:title>キューンミュージックのロゴ</dct:title>

			<dct:creator>
				<foaf:Person rdf:about="https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10484470">
					<foaf:name>B̅</foaf:name>
				</foaf:Person>
			</dct:creator>

			<dct:subject rdf:datatype="&dcndl;NIISubject">音楽</dct:subject>

			<dct:description>キューンミュージック (Ki/oon Music) &lt;http://www.kioon.com/&gt;のロゴ画像</dct:description>

			<dct:contributor>
				<foaf:Organization rdf:about="http://www.kioon.com/">
					<foaf:name>Ki/oon Music</foaf:name>
				</foaf:Organization>
			</dct:contributor>

			<dct:created rdf:datatype="&xs;date">2019-08-30</dct:created>
			<dct:modified rdf:datatype="&xs;date">2019-08-30</dct:modified>

			<dct:type rdf:datatype="&dct;DCMIType">StillImage</dct:type>

			<dct:extent>
				<qudt:QuantityValue>
					<qudt:numericValue rdf:datatype="&xs;double">3.5</qudt:numericValue>
					<qudt:unit rdf:resource="&unit;KiloBYTE"/>
				</qudt:QuantityValue>
			</dct:extent>
			<dct:format rdf:datatype="&dct;IMT">image/svg+xml</dct:format>

			<dct:source rdf:resource="https://www.kioon.com/images/logo.jpg"/>

			<dct:language rdf:datatype="&dct;ISO639-2">jpn</dct:language>

			<dct:license rdf:resource="http://www.wtfpl.net/about/"/>

			<dct:audience>一般</dct:audience>
		</rdf:Description>
	</rdf:RDF>
	</metadata>

	<g
	  fill="white"
	  stroke="black" stroke-width="1" stroke-miterlimit="5"
	  transform="scale(3.5)">
	<g>
		<title>文字“K”</title>
		<polygon
		  points="18.5,6.5 18.5,46.5 25.5,46.5 25.5,34.5 35.5,26.5 54,46.5 63,46.5 41.5,22.5 62,6.5 52,6.5 25.5,26 25.5,6.5"
		 />
	</g>
	<g>
		<title>文字“i”及び“/”</title>
		<rect
		  x="66.5" y="6.5" width="7" height="6"
		/>
		<polygon
		  points="66.5,15.5 66.5,49 108,6.5 103.5,6.5 73.5,37.5 73.5,15.5"
		/>
	</g>
	<g>
		<title>文字“o”</title>
		<path
		  fill-rule="evenodd"
		  d="M 115,21
		     a 12.5,10.5 180 1,0 0,21 a 12.5,10.5 180 1,0 0,-21
		     M 115,15
		     a 19.5,16.5 180 1,0 0,33 a 19.5,16.5 180 1,0 0,-33"
		/>
	</g>
	<g transform="translate(40.5,0)">
		<title>文字“o”</title>
		<path
		  fill-rule="evenodd"
		  d="M 115,21
		     a 12.5,10.5 180 1,0 0,21 a 12.5,10.5 180 1,0 0,-21
		     M 115,15
		     a 19.5,16.5 180 1,0 0,33 a 19.5,16.5 180 1,0 0,-33"
		/>
	</g>
	<g>
		<title>文字“n”</title>
		<path
		  d="M 176.5,15.5 L 176.5,46.5 L 183.5,46.5 L 183.5,26.5
		     C 183.5,24.5 187.5,20 194.5,20 C 201.5,20 204.5,25 204.5,27.5
		     L 204.5,46.5 L 210.5,46.5 L 210.5,26.5
		     C 210.5,19 202,14 195,14 C 190,14 183.5,17 183.5,18
		     L 183.5,15.5 z"
		/>
	</g>
	</g>
</svg>

Thanks. --CmplstofB (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly happened there but it seems to be similar to this bug report. De728631 (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Thank you. It's a shame to lose the metadata information, but I deleted the dct namespace and uploaded it. --CmplstofB (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Made mistake, how to undo

I've added a new version of an image by cropping out the signature, so now it looks squished. I thought it would merely create another file instead of it being a new version. It's used for some articles, and for one I'm making right now. How do I delete the version? Clicking "undo" won't do... Portughetti (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, found the solution. Felt so obvious now Portughetti (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

هل يمكنني ان ارفع صوره تابعه لي وانا مالك الصوره

هل استطيع ان ارفع ملف وسائط هي صوره وانا مالكها — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadelalamari (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fadelalamari: نعم بالتأكيد، لا يوجد ما يمنع ذلك. فقط إضغط على زر رفع الملفات و اتبع التعليمات. --Tarawneh (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

طلب رفع الملف في ويكيبيديا مصري

السلام عليكم، أرجو منكم يا إدارة ويكيميديا كومنز، السماح لي برفع الملف في ويكيبيديا مصري، وأنا أعاهد نفسي على حفظ قوانين ويكيميديا كومنز من أجل المصلحة العامة والشفافية، وتحسين الموسوعة المصرية المباركة، وفقكم الله لكل خير.

حمدي الشافعي، الرياض.--حمدى10 (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dyolf and Tarawneh: Can you please check this request? De728631 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@حمدى10: صديقي لا علاقة لمشروع كومنز هنا بما يحدث في ويكيبيديا المصرية. ذلك مشروع مستقل بالكامل و منفصل عنا هنا. لكن ربما يمكننا الحديث معهم وديا . هل يمكنك شرح الموضوع. --Tarawneh (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixing strings in MediaWiki:Licenses/fr

I tried to fix the page MediaWiki:Licenses/fr but I can only view source, not modify them (even when logged). There is a message when I view the source telling me to go to translatewiki but I cannot find the string there. Can someone help me ? Thank you ! Jona (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Only administrators can edit this page. You can request their help at Commons:Administrator noticeboard. Ruslik (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

craft heading t to the beaches of Oran, Algeria on 11/8/1942

Can you help me find a list of the young men on the landing craft heading to Oran on nov. 8, 1942 The very young man in the middle of the boat the very image o f my grandson. The picture haunts us

thank You Penni pmoltrer@yahoo.com. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:5B0:4FC4:8FF8:E1E3:E10B:5CD:19CD (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Where can we find that picture?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably this one. I don't think though that there were individual lists for the "passengers" of each landing craft. It would be helpful though to know the military unit on platoon level. De728631 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:海峽中線.jpg

Image is sourced to the news website, which says at the bottom of the page: "版權所有 不得轉載 © 2019 The Liberty Times. All Rights Reserved". I think there is no permission from the Liberty Times. I have told User:葉又嘉 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:海峽中線.jpg: "we need a proof via OTRS, that you had the right to upload this image." I have spent a lot of time communicating with him, but until now he still insists on his position. I'm afraid we've arrived at a deadlock, because he think that he got the permission from 民航局, as written in the image “民航局提供” field. In fact, the Liberty Times is a news/media site publishing trending news in Taiwan. If he said "民航局" refers to this: https://www.caa.gov.tw/ ,then this source he currently provides is clearly copyrighted. What I want to ask is: If I didn't do anything wrong, why I have been censured by User:葉又嘉?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Assuming the last sentence (the only thing here that asks a question) is the thrust of your posting, please clarify what exactly you mean here by "censured". Clearly an individual didn't pass a formal resolution of censure, so what exactly did he do? - Jmabel ! talk
    • The word "censured" is more serious than "blamed".--Kai3952 (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
      Possibly. Nonetheless, as Jmabel says, if you want an answer to your question you will need to tell how and where you think you were censured. All I see here (via the admittedly flawed means of Google Translate) is some legitimate disagreement about whether an image on a news Web site that is credited to the Civil Aviation Authority falls within the scope of {{PD-ROC-exempt}}. --bjh21 (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

how to add a source if you used an app to alter an original photo

I altered a original photo of mine to add extra graphics using a photo app I paid for how do I add the app as part of the source as I paid for the app and have permission to use its graphics and filters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APsrt (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@APsrt: I think prose in the source field of {{Information}} would be fine, like {{Own}}. Additional graphics added using FooApp. I would also suggest using the {{Retouched picture}} template. If you're adding text, it would be helpful if you could separately upload versions without text so that people can make versions translated into other languages. More generally, uploading original photos helps to show that you haven't just copied the edited ones from the Internet somewhere. --bjh21 (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Add Head Shot to My Wiki Page

I would like to upload my head shot to my Wiki Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert W. McKnight (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I presume this is about en:Robert W. McKnight
Typically the photographer would own the copyright to the headshot. If it's a selfie, you can just upload it as your own work and provide an appropriate license, but I realize that's unlikely. Otherwise:
  • The simplest thing, if possible, is for the photographer to use a site or page that is obviously under their control to indicate the free license that is offered.
  • Failing that, you'll need to have the photographer (or other rights-holder) go through the process outlined at COM:OTRS. If the rights were already assigned to you or someone else, rather than being retained by the photographer, then the main thing the OTRS people are going to need to see is the document that signs over the rights. - 03:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading publicly available coat of arms belonging to public institutions

The coat of arms of King's College London was recently deleted off of commons for violating its originality policy, however, this principle has not been applied to other similar institutional coats of arms. Would it not be warranted to re-upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcquiescentContribution (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • What is an example of something you consider to be a similar case, which has not been deleted?
  • Keep in mind: the blazon as such is not normally copyrighted: it is the rendering of the blazon that is typically at issue. - Jmabel ! talk 00:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Is file upload working?

I selected 30 photos to upload with Vicuna Uploader - only #5 was uploaded. I tried again, and none were uploaded. Is file upload working? Bubba73 (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I Upload My Blog Content In Wikimedia Through The Help Of Post URL

Dear Team

I am new on this platform and I don't know very much about the rule regulation of this platform.

I have a blog ( Todayfirstevent ) with good quality of content like love quotes, entertainment, blog.

I would like to share my blog content to all Wikimedia subscriber through URL.

Please suggest what will be the procedure to add my blog content directly on the platform for all subscriber.

Thanks

Rajesh Deepak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshblogging (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Creative Commons is a repository for free media. We don't share blog posts and hotlinking does not work here either. If you would like to share images that you created yourself and that have an educational scope, you are welcome to upload them here under a free licence. Otherwise I think, Commons is not what you are looking for. De728631 (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Henriette Henriot c1900.jpg

La photo qui figure sur votre site n'est pas celle d'Henriette Henriot, mais celle de sa fille Jane Henriot née en 1878 et morte le 8 mars 1900 dans l'incendie de la Comédie Française. Je m'intéresse depuis 40 ans aux actrices française et je connais donc leur histoire. Henriette Henriot de son vrai nom Marie Alphonsine Henriette GROSSIN (née le 14 novembre 1857 - morte le 17 mars 1944 à 87 ans, était la mère de Jane Henriot, et dans sa jeunesse a beaucoup posé pour le peintre Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Merci de rectifier en conséquence votre légende erronée. Salutations - Danièle Balmer — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.94.248.54 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The photo on your site is not that of Henriette Henriot, but that of her daughter Jane Henriot born in 1878 and died March 8, 1900 in the fire of the Comédie Française. I have been interested for 40 years in French actresses and I know their story. Henriette Henriot of her real name Marie Alphonsine Henriette GROSSIN (born November 14, 1857 - died March 17, 1944 at age 87, was the mother of Jane Henriot, and in her youth asked a lot for the painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir. correct accordingly your erroneous legend Greetings - Daniele Balmer
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour et bienvenue. J'ai corrigé le nom du fichier en File:Jane Henriot c1900.jpg et changé la description pour vous.
Hi, and welcome. I corrected the filename to File:Jane Henriot c1900.jpg and changed the description for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Licence not available when upload image

Hello. I am trying to add an image under the following licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode - but I cannot seem to find that option when I go to upload the image. Can anyone help please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNESM (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@TheNESM: Hi, and welcome. I'm sorry, but the license components -nc- (noncommercial) and -nd- (no derivatives) are not usable by themselves for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Dan Dockstader.jpg

I need help with the proper licensing of the file that I have uploaded. The file is that off the Majority Leader of the Wyoming State Senate and was obtained from the official government website, which says that it is subject to disclosure, so it is in the public domain. Website policy: https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/wy-ag/privacy

Original Source of File: https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislators/2019/S/1048

However, as a person new to this website, I am unfamiliar with the procedure as to tag my file as such to prevent a deletion. It would be nice to get help

--Declan Newton Raj (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Declan Newton Raj: Hi, and welcome. I'm sorry, but he linked page https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/wy-ag/privacy is "Copyright © 2013 State of Wyoming. All Rights Reserved." and the Wyoming State Legislature's website https://www.wyoleg.gov/ has no visible free license; therefore, without a specific free license, we cannot accept content from that website here on Wikimedia Commons because we do not accept Fair Use. If you just want to make Fair Use of it on English Wikipedia, please see en:WP:F.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

License to use materials from president.gov.by

Hi everyone.

I'd like to use some images from http://president.gov.by/ . The license note there http://president.gov.by/en/about-the-project/ looks pretty similar to CC-BY, I think:

Materials of the portal can be reproduced in mass outlets or Internet servers without restrictions on the amount of material and the time of publication. The only condition is that any reproduction of materials should contain a reference to the original source. No prior consent from the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus is required to use the materials of the portal.


Are those images free enough? :) Can I upload them to Commons? Or there's something to do at first?

Aestrum (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks similar to a CC-by license, and seems to fit free for reuse by Wikimedia Commons. Should we create a new copyright tag for these? We don't seem to have a fitting one yet per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Belarus. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I've added a Template:President.gov.by . Could you review? -- Aestrum (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks ok to me, but I'm more familiar with US copyrights. Could someone more familiar with copyrights in central/eastern Europe take a look? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Reproduction as mentioned at the website does not include the making of derivatives and commercial use. This is more like a non-commercial and no-derivatives type of Creative Commons licence which we do not accept. Also, Template:President.gov.by is wrong since that website does definitely not use a CC-by-4.0 licence. These CC licences have explicit legal terms and conditions which you can't just apply whereever something looks "similar". De728631 (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I'm just going by the English translation given above - does the site say anything else? Quote, "The only condition is that any reproduction of materials should contain a reference to the original source." - I read that as saying there are no other restrictions. I see nothing in the above text prohibiting commercial use, derivatives, nor any other restrictions other than attribution to source. Is there any other forum we should alert to get informed people to look at this? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you guys. De728631, if we rely on w:Everything which is not forbidden is allowed - there are no restrictions you mentioned on the president.gov.by. Probably we should use some custom CC-alike type of license? Can we create one here on Commons? -- Aestrum (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Belarusian copyrights law by default allow only quoting. Term usage (использоваться) should be clearly defined. Actually such ambiguous terms of use are typical for ex-USSR. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright, let's wait until the law is changed then, and a CC license banner appears in the footer of the official site ;) Thanks for the conversation. Please remove the Template:President.gov.by. --Aestrum (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I deleted template.
By the word, very similar situation was with http://kremlin.ru in past. Site changed license to CC-BY-4.0.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this Pancoast tumor at the brachial plexus (thorax outlet)?

Diagram or overlay available? Is this Pancoast tumor in 47 yr-old female smoker at the brachial plexus? the thoracic outlet? causing nerve compression effecting the right upper extremity ? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.116.24.183 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What tumor?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have tried uploading photos to Wiki Photo Upload Commons and I do not understand why they were taken down exactly

I tried to provide the accurate information and copyright tags/attribution but was rejected on some and not on some other occasions. It seems like I do not understand how the system of copyright of images works and was wondering if someone could give me insight...

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhlsens (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nhlsens: Hi, and welcome. File:McGill-Dentistry-English-horizontal-HIGH-RES.jpg was deleted as being a copyrighted logo that you did not design which was complex (over COM:TOO Canada). What gave you the right to license it (and the other logos you uploaded) here? Please follow COM:FS and review COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status of a comic cover picture from a CC BY video by editor

Hi,

I've imported a picture of a comic cover taken from a CC BY video by the comic editor.

I'd like to make sure that it's CC BY too (Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Comic_and_action_figures doesn't talk about free license videos) before I upload more pictures from that video and others from the same editor's channel. The RedBurn (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Does author of video care about Commons:Derivative works? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: I'm not sure I understand the thrust of your question. It doesn't matter what they care about, it matters what license they offer. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Did they have permission to include this cover into their work? If not, derivative works rule applies. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, so I guess the editor has the right to include the cover since they hold the copyright, which makes it OK to upload it to under CC BY, thanks!. The RedBurn (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Updating my company's photos

Hello, I've updated the existing page of my company on wikipedia, because it had really old photos that are not the reality right now, but now the photos have been targeted has infringing the copyrights. We've paid for the photos we have all the right to use them wherever we want, I can't get help anywhere here at wikicommons, can someone let me know how I say that the photos belong to the company I work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catarina Pádua (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Catarina Pádua: Please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept the photos, and have the photographer(s) license them on their websites or social media or send the photos and permissions via OTRS with carbon copies to you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

USAF unit photo

I have a photo of a Tropic Moon 1 A1E and the unit's officers and airmen taken (I think) by an air force photographer and distributed to all of the unit personnel (of which I was one). It was taken in Thailand during the Vietnam war that I think would be of use on the Operation Shed Light page. Is it ok to upload it? This is my first time trying to contribute to a page in Wikipedia. Thanks, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasteininger (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to correctly challenge/dispute licensing information

Hi, I was randomly browsing the wikipedia:First West Credit Union and wikipedia:Steinbach Credit Union Wikipedia pages and noticed the declared license on the logos was public domain, which is incorrect. I've noticed this in a fairly large number of Wikpedia images. So, I tried looking up how to notify the uploader and edit the caption via separate tag templates, but it didn't work. The information I found on Wikipedia wasn't instructive on usage. Can you clarify?

For clarity, I every indication that the uploader uploaded these logos in good faith, but perhaps not wanting to have their images auto-tagged by a Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia bot, coded them as public domain.

Can you assist?

Thanks, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with these logos. The threshold of originality is in fact fairly high in Canada where the logos come from. So it is alright to declare them too simple for copyright. De728631 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
But he declared them to be public domain, which is incorrect. They should be declared to be non-free fair use rationales, no? I had a bunch of images I uploaded with non-free fair use rationales deleted in 2007. What gives? Dmehus (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
No. Artistic works like these are only subject to copyright if they're original. If they're unoriginal, they're not subject to copyright, and when a work isn't subject to copyright, we say it's in the public domain. Now, you might disagree about whether these logos would qualify as "original" in Canada, but it's certainly possible for a Canadian logo to be unoriginal. Commons' page about this (with examples) is at Commons:Threshold of originality. --bjh21 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, public domain for these logos is totally correct. Only images that are not public domain and do not come with a free licence would need a fair use rationale if uploaded at some Wikipedias. This is because the very purpose of the fair use rationale at Wikipedia is to use a work that would otherwise not be available. And even then there are very strict rules for what is actually accepted under fair use at the English Wikipedia. E.g. the image in question must not have a free equivalent (living people could easily be photographed by someone who grants a free licence for such a photo). You may want to read Wikipedia:Non-free content for individual requirements of fair use, but the rule of thumb is: If it's freely available by copyright or licence, then there is no need for fair use. De728631 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Photo of a Book Cover

Can I take a photo of a book cover and upload it to a page in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLee19 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@BLee19: Only if it's simple enough to fall under the threshold of originality. Otherwise, you will need the publisher's permission. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Or if for some other reason it is in the public domain. For example, adding simple typography to a public domain image does not rise to the level of creating a copyrightable object. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Article deleted twice Due to "advertising"

I recently made a Wikipedia page about a business in my city called Orchid Interiors & Landscape, while the article was in the sandbox, it got deleted due to "advertising", I made another article and tried to make it more encyclopedic, I looked up for similar interior design firms and their Wikipedia page, I followed a similar layout to ensure that its not perceived as advertising or promoting but to my surprise it was deleted again,can someine please give an explanation to what might be perceived as advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed.essam2 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Mohammed.essam2. It seems you've made your way to Wikimedia Commons, which is the media repository used by our sister projects such as Wikipedia, rather than asking your question on Wikipedia proper. You might try asking at the English Wikipedia Help Desk, to see if an administrator will review the deleted content and offer feedback. Or you may ask one of the deleting administrators, en:User:RHaworth or en:User:Justlettersandnumbers. GMG talk 12:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to get pictures for the wikipedia article of Richard Braine

I have the images I got from his own website, I have them downloaded and I was about to upload them but apparently I cannot because I am not the creator? Is there anyway around this so I can get an image? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnculturedOzBoz (talk • contribs) 11:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey UnculturedOzBoz. Unfortunately, if you did not create the images, but merely retrieved them from a website, then you do not hold the copyright to them, and cannot release them under a free license as is required for media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If you can find some official contact information, you might reach out to Braine or one of his representatives, and see if they will release an image freely according to the instructions at COM:CONSENT. If they agree to do so, then the image may be uploaded here and used on Wikipedia. GMG talk 12:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Which license tag/s should be removed

Hello. I made this upload to Commons some time back: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sanger_to_H-O.jpg. I also am the owner of these two sheets. They have passed down the family line (as stated in the "Source" line). I inserted THREE different license tags, because I don't know which one might work. I'd like to know which tag would work, and which tag/s should be deleted. This upload is historical in a way, since the addressee of one was fairly famous in her time. It's important for this upload to remain, as it helps prove a credit in the WP article "Paul Martin (illustrator)." That's stated in "Other Information" of the above link. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Jim. I'm guessing this would be Template:PD-US-no notice. A letter is normally lengthy enough to qualify as a creative work under copyright, as far as I am aware. Works by Sanger will not fall into the public domain in the US wholesale until 2036, 70 years after her death in 1966. GMG talk 17:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Okay, so it would be better to delete those three tags, and insert the one you mentioned. I reckon the first two tags (in File:Sanger_to...) only apply to text in brief, and not a full blown letter. I'll wait a bit before making changeover, just in case another editor replies. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries Jim. When you're talking about text too simple for copyright, you're usually talking about short phrases. For example, the Nike company slogan "Just Do It" is trademarked, but it's too short and simple to qualify for copyright protection.
If your image included something else other than a 100% reproduction of the letter (for example, a digital scan of the Mona Lisa vs. a picture of your Uncle with the Mona Lisa), then we would need a tag to cover the two dimensional work (the Mona Lisa) and everything else in the picture (your uncle, the surrounding room, the angle and lighting, etc). But since your image is basically just a 100% faithful reproduction, the only copyright we're really concerned about is the original work. In other words, anyone who scans the same work is going to end up with an image that is basically identical to yours, so there isn't enough creativity involved to create a separate copyright. That means we only need one tag for the original textual work and we're good to go.
Hopefully this helps clarify more than it confuses the issue. GMG talk 18:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure they are out of copyright. Published works by Sanger will leave copyright 95 years after publication, unless they were delayed past 1977. In this case, they don't seem to be published works; private letters may not be published without permission of the author, even by the recipient. Thus they wouldn't be PD in the US until 2036.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: That complicates matters. The original 1931/32 letter pair were owned by its recipient, artist Paul Martin, who passed in 1932. His wife thought enough to save them, otherwise, they would have been lost to history. They were passed down the family line, and uploaded by myself. It helps back up an important credit of the artist. The sender just happened to be Sanger, which seems to mean she owns the copyright till the distant future. I suppose an alternative could be to upload them to another site. I'd rather apply a better tag, than the current one affixed. I'm confused by your wording "Published works by Sanger." The letter pair were NON-published, until my upload. After all, only about 4 people ever saw them, until my upload. (A possible alternative tag: {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. JimPercy (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm? I could've sworn that the MS:P at the bottom was a distribution for a public manuscript, like an open letter. But now that I'm looking for where I got that notion, it seems I'm probably wrong on that, and I'm just too used to military style memo writing. Curious Prosfilaes, why would this be 95 years instead of 70 years for unpublished works with a known author? GMG talk 12:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I was apparently not very clear there; for unpublished works, it is copyright for 70 years from the death of the author, 2036. Any free license is possible if the permission of Sanger's heirs is given. I know this is a pain, given that your family has preserved this for decades, but copyright is separate from the ownership of the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: So if 70 years had passed since her death, the correct & only tag needed would be {{PD-old-70}}. I will try making this upload to Flickr instead, when get the chance. Right, re copyright/ownership. JimPercy (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Media upload

I'm preparing media for upload and am not too familiar with the existing megapixel guidelines. What would be Wikipedia best recommendation for the dimension (width x length) and resolution (pixel per inch)? Same question for thumbnails. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bysance (talk • contribs) 06:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bysance: Thank you for your question. It will be recommended if your images is in the ratio of 4:3, though this is not mandatory. Regarding thumbnails, there is no need to upload separate thumbnails, as they can be generated automatically by our system, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bysance: Please see COM:HR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Awesomenauts - Screenshot 18.jpg

Hello! I have added this into an article. But it says (on the history, see here, authors: Wikimedia Staff): "OTRS permission was added by a non-OTRS member". Is copyright info of the screenshot correct? ParticipantOfTheEncyclopedia (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A user had added the template {{OTRS}} to the file page which may only be handled by certain authorised volunteers from our email team. This is why an automated note was generated during that edit. I have now asked the OTRS crew to look into this case, and it might be that the file needs to be deleted in the end. On the other hand it is also likely that the licence will be confirmed, so let's just wait how this develops. De728631 (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright and Photo Uploads

Hi, I'm new here and am having a problem. I am focused on books and authors. Before I make a significant change, I reach out to the author to verify info and to ask for a book cover photo or author headshot, which they provide. When I upload, I always get permission first. But I can't figure out how to add the permission. So, I get flagged and then go through the process of having the rights holder email OTRS. How do i upload the release along with the picture? thanks --Aceceejay (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Aceceejay. When a permission for the image(s) has been sent by the copyright holder, please add a text string {{subst:OP}} to the file page in question. This will mark the file as being in the OTRS queue. Once the copyright holder's message has been processed and accepted, a member of our email team will then approve the file for an indefinite stay at Commons. De728631 (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But where do I add the {{subst:OP}} ? --Aceceejay (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to edit the file page of the photo you uploaded. This code is usually added to the |permission= parameter of the summary box, like |permission = {{subst:OP}}. De728631 (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
NOTE that the {{subst:OP}} step comes (potentially immediately) after permission is sent to OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't play the video.

To whom it may concern,

First off, I'm not computer/phone friendly. But I've had this one for almost 2 yrs. Working on it I learned a lot, and not just technology either. Maps r a wonderful tool. Only thing is, the assigned house # is not correct. And the photo is of next door, not mine — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:1001:B021:2021:FD77:E8AF:5AC8:D39 (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading pictures

Hi 👋 Hope you are doing good . I want to know How can I upload picture or route for tourists guidance Recently I did editing in an article and shared knowledge about newly opened motorway 🛣 in swat valley I took pics of the motorway 🛣 and I want to share with people but don’t know How can I upload — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 119.160.65.55 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@119.160.65.55: Thank you for your interest to contribute to Wikimedia Commons. In order to upload images, please create an account first by using Special:CreateAccount. Please also read COM:L and COM:PSS carefully. For further information, you may want to read COM:CB and COM:DW for further details, as some photos are not allowed on Commons even if they are self-made. Anyways, please feel free to ask me or other users if you have doubts, thank you!廣九直通車 (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Licence

How do i licence my files — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.rashiid1 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @A.rashiid1: Assuming you own the copyright on them, you can give them whatever license(s) you want. However, if you want the files to be on Commons, at least one license you offer needs to allow anyone to use the file, including commercial use, and needs to allow derivative works. Generally, the recommended license that conforms to these rules while reserving your right to be credited for your work is {{Cc-by-sa 4.0}}.
  • If that doesn't answer your question, please be more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Need help finding a free image.

I've written an article on en.wp, Swan Lake fire. The only image is one I took myself of smoke from the fire where I live some 80 miles distant. I'm sure there are free images out there but with the mishmash of local,state,and federal resources in play I can't seem to find anything which is provably free. I'm hoping someone with better image-fu can find something.

Thanks in advance, Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC).

@Beeblebrox: You may want to take a look at Category:Swan Lake (Alaska) where I put some images from Flickr. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: Awesome, thanks for that. Any of those is better than what I've currently got. However there is one small issue with that category. Unfortunately, there are a lot of repeated place names in Alaska, and the picture of the lake is not the same Swan Lake. The fire is on the Kenai Peninsula, while that lake is on Baranof Island, hundreds of miles to the south. This sort of thing happens a lot, there's something like 30 bodies of water named "Bear Lake" in Alaska and I'd guess near as many Swan Lakes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Oops. Thank you for pointing this out. So I moved the fire images to Category:Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska because the article mentions Sterling, AK. De728631 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Import request : Template:Flex columns

I would appreciate if someone with the necessary rights could import

Best, — Pajz (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It generally seems advantageous to retain the revision history. (Besides, an import can be performed in a matter of seconds, while the copy & paste method regularly means having to search for potentially copyright-relevant revisions and coming up with some plan to make sure that "my" edits still properly attribute the actual author(s).) I'm not sure what the big deal is with this request, to be honest. Best, — Pajz (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Pajz (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Photo upload strangeness

Yesterday I used Vicuna uploader to upload 30 photos. It acted strangely - much, much faster than usual. But then only one of the photos showed up on my list of uploads (#5) and none of them showed up on my watch list. I thought they weren't uploaded. I tried it again, none showed up. I tried again today - same thing. But I discovered that the photos are there - they are in the category. Is something strange going on with uploads? Bubba73 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bubba73. It looks like the correct place to report issues is here on GitHub. But I'm not sure that anyone is actively maintaining this tool. The last issue with the software was raised back in May, and it doesn't look like anyone ever responded to it. GMG talk 13:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Yarl.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if the problem was with Vicuna, because the photos were uploaded. The problem is that they didn't show up on my watch list or upload list. Bubba73 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I put in an issue report there, but Vicuna hasn't been updated in years. Bubba73 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I used Vicuna today to upload a set of two photos and it worked. Bubba73 (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:L'Amerique Aujourd'hui du 08.23.2019 Presentation.ogg

File source is not properly indicated: File:L'Amerique Aujourd'hui du 08.23.2019 Presentation.ogg

This is an interview that Dr. Gros did with Voice of America, VOA has given him permission to post it. I have no idea what I am doing wrong but I've done something wrong in regards to posting this. If someone can me the correct code to put in that would be great.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.gellman (talk • contribs) 16:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@David.gellman: Actually you mean that you recorded the interview when your radio is broadcasting that interview made by Voice of America?廣九直通車 (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: that is unparseable. Could you try rewording it differently? - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I mean, as the VOA also did international broadcasting, I suspect that File:L'Amerique Aujourd'hui du 08.23.2019 Presentation.ogg is recorded from one of the broadcasting of VOA.廣九直通車 (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

License question

Hello!

I stumbled by File:20121018 - PresentaciówikiOlot.pdf which made me wonder over the licensing a bit. On page 17 (and some more) the Wikipedia logo can be seen. When a Wikimedia owned logo is used in a file Template:Wikimedia trademark is to be used right? On page 32 the Google logo is used which means that the license for the Google logo has to be showed as well right? The license for the Google logo is Template:PD-textlogo and Template:trademarked. Now, should all thse three licenses be shown at the pdf file? As well as the pdf file’s licens. Or how should it be done? Grateful for answers!Jonteemil (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

And all the pictures. See for example page 25. How should they be dealt with license-wise?Jonteemil (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

File:The Irishman (2019 film) poster.jpg

I meant to upload this file directly to Wikipedia, but I messed up. Any suggestions? --Mazewaxie (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request based on image of a painting that is a forgery

Hello, Can a deletion request be made in connection with an image of a painting which is not by the identified artist but which is a forgery, A user recently posted "File:‘Lamplight’ - William Henry Hunt - 1830.jpg"on the page for works by William Henry Hunt. I am a widely recognized authority on the artist, and I strongly believe the watercolor to be one of a number of forgeries which have been circulating in te art trade as works by Hunt. I attempted to avoid a battle by merely editing the file by adding the word attributed after the artist's name, thereby indicating the existence of a dispute, but my revision was reversed by the posting party. The image should more appropriately be deleted altogether, but I see no information as to whether Wikimedia Commons allows for deletions on the basis of questions of authenticity regarding artworks which are posted on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig W. Englund (talk • contribs) 11:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Craig W. Englund: I fail to see a reason to delete here. Have you published your doubts about authenticity in some journal or such that we can quote? (Otherwise, from Commons' point of view, you could be absolutely anybody who opened an account here; we have no way to trust an account as an authority.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: Of course, that could be said of almost anybody, including the poster of the file. But it is certainly not true of me. I have been the most prominent authority on the artist since at least 1986 -- google Craig Englund and "William Henry Hunt" to see dozens of online sources mentioning me in connection with the artist (including my published article on Constructed Naturalism from 1990). For the past 34 years, I have been the consultant to Christie's and Sotheby's, and other British auction houses, regarding the authenticity and provenance of Hunt watercolors, and Christie's has removed watercolors attributed to Hunt from their sales at least a half-dozen times based on my opinions. If you search Craig Englund on Sotheby's website, the first two results include acknowledgments of my assistance in cataloguing watercolors by Hunt. I curated the only American exhibition to date of Hunt watercolors (Huntington Library, Art Galleries, and Botanical Gardens, San Marino, California, 1990). I have publicly gone on record regarding the questionable attribution of the watercolor in question (Flicker, Graduate of Pomona in the album: NOT by Hunt - Paintings which have been misattributed to William Henry Hunt. If you need more references, I can go on and on. The sole authority cited by the poster for the file in question is its presence on Abbott abd Holder's website, a dealer which is hardly known for selling works by Hunt. On the other hand, Chris Beetles, Ltd. does specialize in the artist's work. If you go to their website, look under Hunt, William Henry, you will find that I am thanked for my assistance in cataloguing Light and Shade, an authentic candlelight subject by Hunt. The fake Hunt in question will not be included in the catalogue raisonné which I have finished researching after 42 years and, hopefully, will publish before another decade passes. By the wy=ay, I was initially asking if it were ever possible to challenge a posting based on the inauthenticity of the painting depicted, and I did not realize that it would be appropriate to make my case against the artwork in question in such a context. ask — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig W. Englund (talk • contribs) 21:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    I hope you understand that we have no way to know that this account is actually Craig W. Englund. (I'm strongly guessing it is, and that everything you are saying is true, and that this is very frustrating for you, but keep in mind that anyone could create a Wikimedia account with this name and trade on your reputation. And we have definitely had such things happen so we can't simply trust an assertion.) Please, instead of telling us to Google and that you "could go on and on": do you have a website or other public-facing web presence where you can make this statement in a manner verifiable as you so we have something citable?
    Conversely, User:Pigsonthewing: do you have some particular reason to doubt what User:Craig W. Englund is saying here? Unless I'm missing something, you have now twice reverted him without discussion on this.
    There is enormous need to tread carefully on the question of the authenticity of a work currently being offered for sale. There is a lot of potential here for interested parties to drive a price up or down by making such claims, which is why I'm very concerned to see something we can cite as coming from a known source.
    Separately: unless there is reason to think this is a modern forgery, it would still be in the public domain, so being a forgery would be reason to change a description, not to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: Thank you for pinging me; though I am surprised not to have been notified of this discussion by Craig W. Englund. It is rather disingenuous of him to say that "that [we have no way to trust an account as an authority] could be said of almost anybody, including the poster of the file" (that poster being me), since I claim no authority in this matter, and instead defer to its source, w:Abbott and Holder (my edit summary when I reverted him was "Per source"; the specific page is linked in the information template and (as, though currently the same, it changes monthly) archived at [5]), who are highly reputable art dealers, established for over 80 years. It is they who attribute the work to Hunt. Mr Englund is of course at liberty to contact them and to ask them to amend their attribution; or to report them to the relevant authorities if they fail to do so without good cause. I note that, unlike A&H, he makes no claim to have examined the work itself; nor does he say that he has already spoken to A&H. And yes, you are missing something: I have reverted only once, when - unlike Mr. Englund in his edit - I gave a reason for doing so in my edit summary. There is, of course, no valid reason to delete, even if the work is a forgery; see Category:Art forgery. Finally, I strongly advise Mr Englund to cease besmirching others (including me) on his talk page or elsewhere - it is highly hypocritical of him to dismiss A&H as a mere "retail dealer which is trying to sell the painting in question" while boasting of his work for retail auction houses and others whose business is to try to sell paintings; not least those who are A&H's commercial rivals - a clear CoI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: I completely understand what you are saying, but you might consider that there are a plethora of reasons why many do not think it wise to fully reveal background information online. I have no need or desire for a website of my own, and I have no easy way to prove that I am who I am -- someone who came across the art of William Henry Hunt in November 1976, at a time when the artist had been nearly forgotten, when nothing significant about his oeuvre had been published since the late 19th century, and when it was a challenge to find any images of his watercolors, especially in America. I had to spend hundreds (or more) hours paging through every auction catalogue which could possibly contain an entry for a Hunt watercolor, including spending summers going to Christie's archives at their main, King Street, London, branch, looking at every page of every sale catalogue of paintings, watercolors, and drawings back to 1830 -- the catalogues were not specific to medium, were virtually never illustrated, and almost never had any indexes until the 1950s, so we are talking about millions of searched pages -- to determine what watercolors ever existed. I've driven from Aberdeen in Scotland to Hastings on England's South Coast, going to most of the little museums which possess a Hunt in storage (they can't be left on display due to fading problems), and paying for specially commissioned photographs to have an archive of images. You really can't imagine my commitment to this artist. But after being significantly responsible for the resurrection of Hunt's reputation through 43 years of constant effort, the current state of knowledge on the artist, especially among the few persons who even care about his work or are even minimally aware of it, is being horribly corrupted due to the internet. About 70-85% of the images said to be by Hunt that appear on the several online auction services are either misattributed or out and out fakes. Any figurative watercolor or still life in Hunt's general manner (or not) is routinely said to be by Hunt by the auction houses, none of which truly have any in-house expertise on the vast majority of the artists they catalogue. This problem is certainly not unique to Hunt, but it wasn't so obvious in the past when small auction sales were not accessible to anyone through computers and bad paintings weren't available for comparison by laypersons trying to figure out who might have painted something even remotely similar to what they are considering. While I know that there is no easy solution to the problem of fakes/misattributions becoming the standard by which an artist is evaluated, the truth is that by allowing the unchallenged publication of an image, even when there should be good reason to suspect that there is a problem (e.g. when someone professing to have knowledge informs you of such), a disservice to public knowledge occurs. Wikimedia Commons has absolutely no basis for concluding that the image in question is by William Henry Hunt, and it makes no sense to have a default position that the poster's opinion is correct -- less reason than there could be for questioning that I am who I say I am (especially with such an obscure artist as Hunt, the price for which have in recent years fallen to triple digits -- very rarely more than 4, and when the painting in question is offered for sale as I type for £1,750). It might be different if this platform were truly neutral and allowed opposing opinions on attribution to be noted in connection with files.
    I realize that Wikimedia Commons is risk adverse and that no one in your position can be expected to spend much time to verify the grounds for deleting a file, but what can a concerned person do when there is no book or anything online which is accessible to settle a dispute. If anyone finds my rather significant presence online (especially some of the long essays I have written on Flickr, such as my review of last year's Hunt Exhibition, Country People, at the Courtauld Institute in London, to be an insufficient showing of expertise by someone who would never know about such writings if not the author, then I don't know what more I can fairly be expected to do. By the way, the image in question, along with a handful of similar watercolors that have popped up out of nowhere over the past 30 years, are almost certainly modern forgeries, so, under your rather novel conception of copyright law for images loosely based on images which are themselves out of copyright, this would be a basis for deleting this bad copy done in a style based on real watercolors by Hunt. And finally, just because someone identifies a painting as being authentic or a forgery as part of a published book, such is no more authoritative in this day and age than statements of opinion online regarding authenticity by someone who is a recognized authority on a little-known artist. This is especially true here, when the image in question has never been discussed in any book or article but has only been mentioned in the past 190 years in two relatively recent auction entries and on one retail dealer's current website.
    Unless you would be willing to provide an e-mail address to which I could send some scanned letters from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc., which only Craig Englund could possibly have, the only other way I can think of which would show that I am the person who is the greatest living authority on the artist is to add you as a friend on Flickr, which only I (A Graduate of Pomona) could do and which would give you access to more than 600 additional images that are hidden from the public -- but I would need to know your username or that of someone who has a Fkickr account and would be willing to take a glance on your behalf. I have already revealed more about myself than I should have, including my username, and all of this is quickly becoming more than this issue is worth to me.Craig W. Englund (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: I was not aware that links to outside sources were allowed on this site, and it would have been a lot easier for me to have provided direct links. Here is the link to the Country People album on Flickr.
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/25652671@N02/albums/72157684889837434 The essay appears at the top of the page and can be read by clicking on See More. But most of the detailed information about the specific watercolors in the exhibit and the ones discussed in the exhibition catalogue is set forth under the individual photos in the album. The field for the essay is very limited, but I will gladly send you an e-mail with a more easiy readible version if you want -- I don't expect you to go to great lengths to determine my credentials. I also sent you a friend request through Flickr, for what that is worth - but it does open up a huge number of private images should you care to look. I will send a few scanned images of letters, as previously mentioned, later today.
    Here is the link to my entry for the subject watercolor, which I posted on Flicker in 2011. https://www.flickr.com/photos/25652671@N02/6257295248/in/album-72157634670330505/ I have since seen superior photographs which further convinced me that it is not an authentic work by Hunt.
    I just saw Pigsonthewing's snarky response. I just want to say that I have NEVER received any compensation whatsoever for consulting with any dealer or auction house regarding Hunt watercolors. And it's not Abbott & Holder vs. Christie's, it's Abbot & Holder vs. me when it comes to credentials on this artist; my own expertise is greatly superior in this limited field. I know Abbott & Holder and have bought a few Hunt pencil sketches from them in recent years, but I do not know anyone from that firm personally. It's not my place to lecture any dealer about the authenticity of their goods, and Abbott and Holder didn't post the image of the fake Hunt on a site which many consider to be a reliable source for images -- a site which also has a far greater reach and public visibility than Abbott and Holder's own site. Can anyone seriously believe that someone viewing the subject image would investigate the source of the attribution or suspect that the attribution is highly disputed just because the poster makes reference to an art dealer? This is actually the first time that anyone has posted an image of one of the many watercolors floating around in the art trade which have been misattributed to Hunt, all of which diminish the reputation of the artist. I have nothing whatsoever against A&H, and I would suspect that the dealer would know of me due to my long association as a consultant for auction houses and other English watercolor dealers. [In the 1990s A&H actually allowed or encouraged another dealer that I knew well to take possession of and offer to me two authentic Hunts].
    But I am mainly curious why Mr. Mabbett is so keen on having this image of a mediocre watercolor on Wikimedia Commons. If anyone thinks the site needs Hunt watercolors of subject illuminated by candlelight, I would gladly post some superior examples of authentic Hunt watercolors of that type. By the way, I've been a lawyer for 39 years and don't need anyone's advice on defamation of property, copyright, or related subjects. And the world doesn't need someone who has no knowledge of William Henry Hunt posting an image of a fake watercolor on Wikimedia Commons.
    Finally, although I am not terribly familiar with posting/delation requirements on this site, I fail to see why I would be expected to join someone who clearly sees this as his turf just to enquire if it is even possible to have an image removed on the basis of authenticity.Craig W. Englund (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Craig W. Englund: On the "posting/deletion requirements" side: basically, Commons wants any images/sound/video of educational value (and that is pretty broadly defined) that is either in the public domain or appropriately free-licensed. Forgeries are not necessarily less interesting.
    • As for what we want for descriptions: usually an accurate, but not essay-length, description. For most images, description is uncontroversial. Here we have one that is apparently controversial, so the issue of reliable sources for the description arises. And it sounds like you would qualify as a reliable source, but it's tricky because you haven't extensively been written about, and so we are a little stuck here on something that is more difficult than usual. Most people with the level of expertise you are claiming here would have more of an online presence, which makes matters easier.
    • Convenience link to the "Not by Hunt" album.
    • (By the way, any Flickr invitation you sent, I didn't get. No problem, though.)
    • @Pigsonthewing: Andy, while this may not perfectly fit our normal process, common sense tells me that it is very likely that this person is exactly who he says he is, and that it would be appropriate at least to call out on the relevant file page that he believes the work to be a forgery. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Regarding your conflict of interest, I didn't say you had "received compensation", I said you were "boasting of his work for retail auction houses and others whose business is to try to sell paintings; not least those who are A&H's commercial rivals". As for "advice on defamation of property, copyright, or related subjects", I gave you none; I advised you strongly to cease besmirching others (including me) on your talk page or elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: Mr. Mabbett, I fail to see how your opinion on any matter concerning the visual arts is of any importance. You certainly have not responded in any substantive way to my extensive background; you obviously haven't bothered to even look at any of the identified and readily available evidence of such. For your information, for more than three decades, I have responded without any charge to the requests of anyone who solicited my opinion on any Hunt watercolor. I am not allied in any way with anyone that might happen to compete with Abbott & Holder in the London art trade. I would have gladly told Abbott & Holder what I knew about or thought of their painting if they had been wise enough to seek my comments on the work. And let's do talk about conflicts of interest. You have yet to explain why you are so concerned with such a modest work of art, let alone why someone with your background has been posting so many images of watercolors in Abbott & Holder's inventory. Might you have a financial stake in promoting these images and in linking them with direct references to a dealer's website? I have no financial interest in this matter but only seek to guard the reputation of William Henry Hunt from being sullied by images which are totally unrelated to his oeuvre, as he actually created in his own lifetime.Craig W. Englund (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
        • "you obviously haven't bothered to even look at any of the identified and readily available evidence of such" The problem with you making such claims, that are both unsubstantiated and false, is that it makes people less likely to believe the rest of what you say. Your alliance with commercial competitors to A&H is stated clearly, by you, on this page. You are now escalating your attempts to besmirch my character, while offering not a scintilla of evidence for your insinuations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment For what it's worth, it seems Abbott & Holder have removed the painting from "The List" as seen here: http://www.abbottandholder-thelist.co.uk/ It ought not be because it was sold because they stress nothing will be sold until the 19th of this month. And if I may, Mr. Englund, you are alleging the painting is a forgery in the sense that it is painted in Hunt's style and faking his signature or is it a forged copy of an actual work by Hunt? You also said, there wasn't much interest in Hunt's work for a long time before a resurgence. When do you think the forgeries were produced? --SVTCobra 01:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @SVTCobra: It's still on the Abbott & Holder site and is available for purchase. A & H puts out a new list every month, so a new group of watercolors, this month 20th century watercolors, went up on The List page yesterday or today. But the subject watercolor now appears under Other Available Stock: http://www.abbottandholder-thelist.co.uk/available-stock/. The prices for Hunt watercolors began to rise in the mid-1970s and became significantly greater starting in the late 1970s. There is no record of this watercolor appearing for sale at auction until 1984, at which time it appears to have sold to Abbott & Holder. That gallery was offering it for sale in 1985, and it was not seen on the art market again until it popped up at an auction earlier this year. I would imagine that it was painted in the early 1980s, but it is possible that some other artist painted it much earlier and that a forged Hunt signature was added when it became economically worthwhile to pass the work off as a Hunt. There are an incredible number of watercolors with clearly forged signatures, many of which are not even similar to Hunt's own signature. Craig W. Englund (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I presume you mean this and/or this auction. Same date, two sites; I presume it's the same sale. The former site offers this view of the back, which mentions "Selected Six" with a date of April 1985, and a handwritten "Dr. Brett". The price is much lower and the colors far less saturated. Is it the same piece or are we looking at two paintings of the same motif? (I saw in your albums, Hunt sometimes painted the same thing more than once - studies, I guess they are called.) On your "Not by Hunt" photo of "Lamplight" I noticed you indicated the first sale being by Sotheby's (which is a name even I have heard of) in 1984. Has the authenticity not been challenged for 35 years (well, 27 as you posted in 2011)? Your stated goal is to protect Hunt's name from being associated with a mediocre watercolor. It would seem to me, the more urgent issue would be to stop the sale. The forgery would only gain more provenance through another prominent sale. An innocent collector or museum could well spend money on a fake. I know it is not your place to lecture an auction house, but you seem to have had a good business relationship with A&H. Surely, the damage to their reputation would exceed the £1750, if they became known to have authenticated and sold a forgery. Wouldn't they want to know? You are concerned that Commons has a wider reach than an auction house, well it would certainly look bad for A&H if Commons labeled "Lamplight" a forgery per Craig W. Englund. --SVTCobra 07:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @SVTCobra: Both of the online bidding sites are tied in to the same auction at Dawson's Auctioneers in Maidenhead. There was only one watercolor, and it sold for £700 plus buyer's premium. Hunt occasionally made replicas, but only of his own paintings, which would preclude the possibility of him duplicating the watercolor in question. All auction houses and art dealers make mistakes regarding attributions, and it is not at all surprising that they made one with this lamplight painting. Often a cataloguer looks no further than the basic subject matter and the presence of a signature, real or forged, in arriving at an attribution. As I mentioned earlier, Christie's, over the years, was prepared to sell several watercolors as works by Hunt, and only revised their attributions after asking my opinion. The same has been true of Sotheby's and a few lesser known auction houses. The reality is that auction house staffs must try to determine who panted thousands of paintings a year. The consignor of a watercolor might have some information, but they usually are clueless. And no cataloguer could possibly have sufficient expertise on the universe of artists to always make correct attributions on their own. They therefore consult with their colleagues, outside experts, or with dealers who are known for selling works by certain artists or from particular schools/time periods. When attribution decisions have to be made in connection with artists that are little known by modern scholars and on whom little reference material exists, especially photographs for comparison purposes, the risk of misattributions greatly increases. And if it is known that a particular painting has been sold by a prominent dealer in the past as the work of a particular artist, an auction house risks alienating a future buyer or seller by changing that attribution [the majority of pieces are consigned for auction by dealers and very many sales go to "the trade]. Several years ago I told a major auction house that I did not believe that a watercolor which had bee sold a few years earlier by a dealer who I knew well was actually by Hunt. I provided many reasons for disagreeing with the attribution, and I still have no doubt that I was correct. The watercolor was ultimately catalogued as "attributed to William Henry Hunt." After the catalogue for the sale came out, I saw the dealer, who was very angry about the change in attribution, saying that it reflected poorly on his own expertise. He knew me too well and was smart enough to avoid alienating me, but he was livid about the auction house's downgrading of the attribution, especially since he helped them with attributions to watercolor artists all the time -- the front of his gallery faced the back door of the auction house. But questions of attributions should never hinge on considerations such as the existence of friendships, and someone with intellectual integrity who has a relationship with an auction house or art dealer should not support an attribution which is shown to be incorrect by someone with greater specific knowledge.
      With all that being said, and to turn to your concern that a dealer might sell a misattributed or fake work of art, the reality is that attribution battles are always losing propositions. In my younger years, I would often contact the seller of a work misattributed to Hunt -- many were not even close calls. Even if the seller knew me or, after hearing me out, agreed to change the attribution, there was little effect once the watercolor had ether appeared in a printed catalogue or had been shown online -- one of which situation was almost always the case or I wouldn't have been aware of the work in question. With printed catalogues, the best that could be done in an auction setting would be a salesroom announcement, which would not reach all those who had viewed the catalogue or would see a copy of that catalogue in the future. -- bad information seems to usually trump and outlive the truth. And even with internet postings, those by dealers would not be carried through time, following the artwork in question; and the existence of paintings received for auction would be immediately picked up by a number of auction reporting services with the early attributions not being subject to later corrections, So, unless someone asked my opinion early on, before there was any public knowledge of the watercolor that would become available for sale, even those who were willing to correct an attribution, were incapable of making a meaningful change. Of course, there were some in the art trade who would not give me the time of day. And, regardless of what one seller is willing to do, the questionable painting will ultimately find a buyer, even under a different attribution, or will be returned to a consignor. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a watercolor that was once in the hands of a major auctioneer who downgraded the attribution only to see it again a few years later in some small sale or dealer's catalogue, again with an attribution to Hunt. This is especially true if anyone had written Hunt's name on the back of the frame or when the watercolor bore a forged signature.
      The market for any but the biggest names in watercolor painting has fallen tremendously in recent years -- prices for Hunts are, in general, near the level they were back in the late 1970s. Both Sotheby's and Christie's have pretty much eliminated auctions dedicated to English watercolrs, sticking the Turners, Girtins, and Cozens that they come across into their Old Master drawing sales. There used to be three major watercolor sales a year at each of the major auction houses, plus several more per year among their smaller competitors. And prices decreased with a decrease of availability of the finest examples, which, in turn, made it even less likely that anyone with really solid paintings would be tempted to part with it. But the remaining dealers and auction houses still have to sell something, so they are accepting watercolors which are faded or have other problems which would have caused them to be weeded out from the market in happier times. The bottom line is that a lot of bad art is being seen online, largely through auction reporting services who post photos of any horrible watercolor that anyone sells under a particular name, making no attempted to sort out fakes, and publishing the low prices most paintings sell for (most don't sell at all), thereby giving a terribly inaccurate view of what good paintings by good artists would still be worth if anyone knew what to look for (and where to find paintings worth buying).
      If I were to bother to find someone to speak with at Abbott & Holder, a certain someone would get bent out of shape and, even if I convinced the dealer that my opinions are correct, the watercolor would just move to some other outlet for sale. You can also be sure that the dealer already has heard of my concerns, since that same someone has undoubtedly already told them. He is clearly not shy or unwilling to push his opinions, even when he admits that he has no personal knowledge on a subject. He also seems to have some relationship with the dealer, since he has repeatedly posted on Wikimedia Commons over the past few years images of works that the dealer has sold or is selling. I never dreamed that it would take so much effort to challenge a single image, and I am not inclined at this time to take on more battles outside of this platform.Craig W. Englund (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
      • How much longer is Mr. Englund to be allowed to impugn my intergrity - and, now, to invent, without offering a shred of evidence, "facts" about what I have done and who I have spoken to - before an administrator intervenes? I have already cautined him, more than once on this page, not to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved from the middle of an existing discussion

  •  
    • @Jmabel: On September 3 at 9:10 A.M.,I sent an e-mail intended for you to the e-mail address you provided. I made specific reference to you in the subject line. Today I received a response from a Mr. Neumann in photosubmissions which concerned the procedure for posting photographs on the site, a subject which was of no concern to me and not relevant to my e-mail. I wanted you to be aware of the existence of my e-mail, which took a large amount of time and which provided actual evidence of my expertise and of the suspect nature of the subject file. I do not know what more I could possibly do, and I am unwilling to further tolerate having my character and reputation in the visual art community impugned and damaged by Mr. Mabbett. I regret every having made my initial, very simple inquiry -- I will not be making any more efforts at keeping the contents of this site intellectually honest. Thank you for the information on how this site functions.Craig W. Englund (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Craig W. Englund: You asked for "an e-mail address to which [you] could send some scanned letters," not an email address to reach me. I am not one of the OTRS team who handle confidential correspondence.
      • Did your email clearly reference this discussion? If not, I'm sure the recipient could make neither head nor tail of it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jmabel: Why on Earth would you provide an e-mail address to have me send to a bunch of strangers to this discussion the evidence which you kept saying I had failed to provide? I have no clue how to make reference to a specific discussion, but I certainly expected that by clearly indicating that the e-mail was intended for you and by subsequently informing you of the exact date and time the e-mail wss sent, that you would be able to see it. It would be incredibly easy for me to forward the e-mail to any address you want -- I didn't spend >12 hours finding and explaining the proof that no one trusted to even exist only to send it into oblivion. How, exactly, did you think the sending of letters to the address you provided would serve any purpose if that e-mail address was not one to which you had access? It is absurd that I have to jump through hoop after hoop, yet the person who posted the file can somehow get away with simply attacking me, disparaging my qualifications as an authority who is in a position to make authenticity determinations without resort to outside sources (especially when no contrary, authoritative opinions, supported with evidence or logic, have ever been expressed). Mr. Mabbett merely states that he is relying on Abbott & Holder's bald assertion in an online sales catalogue to support the attribution; nowhere does Abbott & Holder or Mr. Mabbett provide one iota of evidence to support that simplistic assertion, give any information at all about who made the attribution, or provide that person's qualifications and basis for reaching their assertion of authorship. Talk about double standards! Well, I backed up all that I have been saying, including my own claim to having expertise on William Henry Hunt's work (a fact that has been widely accepted for over thirty years by the London art trade -- and never, until now, disputed), as well a detailed explanation as to why the subject watercolor cannot be by the artist. I sent what you seemed to be concerned with; I will re-send it if you actually care to see it.Craig W. Englund (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Craig W. Englund: Because I presumed that if you wanted to email me, you would go to my user page and click "email this user". I had no way to know you didn't know that, and you were asking about sending confidential correspondence. If you sent confidential correspondence to me it gets us nowhere, because I am not authorized to handle confidential correspondence for Commons.
        • For what it's worth: Abbott & Holder have a public web presence, so we know who they are and that they are in the appropriate profession, which makes it possible to cite what they say. From you, so far we have nothing so far but your assertions here and a pesudonymous Flickr account. While I am completely inclined to believe you, unfortunately Andy is not. Passing information to me will presumably do nothing to convince Andy. Passing it to the people whose role it is to handle confidential correspondence and deal with issues like validating whether someone really is who they say they are is much more to the point.
        • As for how you reference a discussion: on this page, in the table of contents, click on "Deletion request based on image of a painting that is a forgery". The resulting URL will bring someone to this discussion. I would recommend that you first click "permanent link" in the left nav, so that you get a specific state of this page, in case this discussion is archived before the OTRS people are done with the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 15:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
          • @Jmabel: This is going nowhere, and you are missing the forest for the trees. Process is great, but substance is far more important. If I should have been talking with someone else, you could have told me such from the outset. You obviously don't care to see actual evidence but are comfortable assuming expertise from the mere existence of a website to which you can refer. It is offensive for you to state that Wikimedia Commons has "nothing"from me, despite the many links and the detailed e-mail I provided. It would have taken far less of your time to do an extremely simple google search as I suggested or click on a link that I provided than to perpetuate an apparently pointless discussion. So the bottom line is that you don't care to even track down evidence which I already sent and am willing to re-send to another address. Do you really think that a litigation and appellate attorney with nearly 40 years of experience doesn't understand the niceties of evidence and proof? And I have never said anything about anything being confidential--I asked for an address to which I could send copies of letters, which constitute evidence of widespread acceptance of my status as an expert on the artist in question and which are not found on the internet. If Andy has to be convinced to delete his file (which clearly isn't going to happen, regardless of any evidence that exists and which Wikimedia has actually received, what purpose is served by the administrators of this site? I've had it with you and Wikimedia Commons -- what a waste of time from pseudo-academics who don't seem to act in good faith to actually educate the public but instead throw up obstacles and rely on process to avoid taking actions to prevent misinformation from being presented on your site. Thanks for nothing. All I really needed in response to my initial question was a simple yes or no, and perhaps a referral to someone who actually has authority to resolve the issue with which I was concerned. Live and learn.Craig W. Englund (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
            • @Craig W. Englund: Again: you convinced me, but continuing to try to convince me more thoroughly does not build a consensus. You are here on the help desk page. This is a page for questions about how to use Commons. I have been doing my best to provide answers to the questions you are asking and in fact going beyond that. A lot of what you have been presenting here is assertions about a particular image, not questions about how to use Commons.
            • As long as the file is in the public domain, it is not likely to be deleted, even if it is a forgery. It could be labeled as a forgery, but not deleted. Forgeries are not necessarily of less interest than legitimate works. You should know that: you have it posted (as a forgery) on your own Flickr account.
            • No, Andy does not necessarily need to be convinced, but enough other people would need to to constitute a consensus. No individual has the ability to resolve this unilaterally, but so far Andy has presented something citable and you have produced mostly your indignation, plus a pseudonymous Flickr account and an assertion that certain documentation exists offline but not anywhere it can be accessed even offline. Again: I still recommend that if there is no other way to make the documentation visible, reply to the person from OTRS who emailed you, explain in that email the context (basically, give them the URL of this discussion and ask them to read it), and they will probably weigh in here.
            • So while we are at it, and although you didn't ask: it might be useful to discuss this matter at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, although that is on the English-language Wikipedia, rather than Commons, and it would certainly be useful to add a cogent summary of your remarks at File talk:‘Lamplight’ - William Henry Hunt - 1830.jpg. In either of those cases, you should provide a URL to link to this discussion, and I strongly suggest that you use the "permanent link" form of that URL so that someone can still find it once the discussion is archived. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

  • Comment I think an admin can close this and allow for a deletion discussion for the file. This discussion does not belong here. We have on the one hand an image sourced from Abbott and Holder, a legitimate art seller, that this is a legitimate painting. This isn't a posting on eBay or some nonsense. This meets the burden under Commons:Project scope/Evidence. On the other hand, we have an anonymous source (regardless of what the user posts, we do not know whether he is that person or whether that person is qualified for anything based on this wall of texts) who contends that this is a forgery which implies that this gallery owner has no idea what its doing. If Mr. Englund, the user, has evidence that it is a forgery, then I suggest that he inform the art gallery first and show them his evidence so that they remove it from their list of available stock. If they do not, then he can be satisfied that someone else will be a sucker for this forgery and we will have a discussion where he can or will make his case. Otherwise, he is free to post his own "correct" art piece with his own evidence of how he contends he has the right piece. For now, what we have is an image that at least Abbott and Holder contends is a legitimate work of art and that will be more significant than a single individual who claims that it is not to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: You are advancing the same simplistic arguments as the poster of the file, which display no understanding of the role of experts in the London art market Having been accepted by the major London auction houses as the primary living expert on the art of William Henry Hunt -- no living person not employed by the auction houses other than myself has ever even been called upon to provide opinions on authenticity of works that are either by the artist or attributed to him -- as well as major dealers in Hunt's work (which Abbott and Holder is not) -- my opinions are far more authoritative than the mere identification of a painting by a dealer which occasionally offers for sale a work attributed to Hunt. Here are links to specific instances when Christie's and Sotheby's acknowledged their reliance on my assistance.

One major argument against this being a watercolor by Hunt is the fact that it has no provenance before 1984; it also has never been included in any public exhibition, while there were many 19th century exhibitions that included many of Hunt's works. No one has ever sold this painting with any information to support its authenticity, and it is obvious that the basis for the attribution is nothing more than it is a candlelight scene in watercolor and bears a [false] signature and a date that falls within the period during which Hunt painted candlelight scenes -- a period easily determined from readily available sources. It shares the same deficiencies as a group of similar candlelight scenes with false signatures that have popped up out of nowhere over the past few decades, to wit: the light depicted in these paintings is less dramatic, much more diffuse, than what Hunt used in his many authentic candlelight subjects. The colors used are too warm/golden. The painting method consists of long/broad areas of washes of color, not the stippling with the point of a brush which was employed by Hunt beginning in 1825, and the facial features are stroked in with lines of pigment, not built up with points of color as was typical of Hunt's work during this period. Hair is painted, not scraped away from darkened areas, as was so common with Hunt. The expressions have little character -- more accurately very insipid, and the models are clearly not the same as any of those actually painted by Hunt.

I agree with you on one point, this discussion should never have taken place here -- I only enquired if a file could be challenged on the basis of inauthenticity of the painting depicted. But I was questioned/challenged repeatedly, so I didn't present my arguments and evidence as I would have chosen if left to my own devices. But I am now asking those on Wikimedia Commons with more authority and responsibility to review this discussion and the other, actual evidence I submitted through a lengthy e-mail, so this discussion should not be closed/deleted until that review is complete.

May I ask what your position on this cite, your basis for interest in this matter, and your authority for requesting closure and deletion of a discussion to which you have not been a party? Craig W. Englund (talk)

  • I'd wish you quit with the heavy-handed responses and sly insinutations. It does not help your cause here. The point is that we could debate whether the painting is authentic or not here but the point of this Commons website is for hosting images and videos of importance, not for debates about what they are. In the end, we simply go by what other sources indicate. No one here has a clue about Hunt's paintings, no one here is an art expert, the only thing people know is about how the Commons website handles these kinds of issues (and even then, this is new as that's why there's no clear response). The problem here is the person who has the painting and who is selling it as a Hunt original. All you are accomplishing here is lengthy diatribes that solves little. Unless there is outside evidence that others support your scholarly research, it's a waste of time to simply debate this point here. I understand that this gallery could drop the painting and the owner could then move to another gallery at which point someone else could mistakenly upload it here. Someone could physically go to the gallery and take a point. Great, you've solved nothing other than we have another argument about the multiple images we have uploaded here. The problem isn't this website, it's the actual person with the physical piece. I point out that the image itself is used nowhere, not even on Hunt's page so this is largely moot on a practical level. If there is another reliable source that has what you consider the actual read painting, then point that out. If there are multiple versions, that will at least be a starting point but simply writing and rewriting that we must trust that you are correct does not help. It sets a terrible precedent that anyone can write walls of text calling your claimed original a forgery. And no one here know how Hunt painted candlelight scenes, and you just writing that "it's available from sources" is not doing anything but annoying others. If you are the scholar, then make the point in a straightforward and simple manner so that we laymen understand your evidence. Again, if you haven't shown the gallery this and they don't care (they do have a reputation at stake), I find it very difficult for me to care. But I suspect you'll response with more veiled insults and criticisms and expect that to be considered evidence of your righteousness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Could you please tell me how to formally oppose this request, if such is needed?  I have already indicated, above, a basis for keeping the discussion open and for it not to be deleted.  This is getting more out of hand when it seems that a file of very questionable usefulness could be retained, where the objections I have expressed as an expert on this subject could be swept away, and where a person with no apparent expertise on the art market or art scholarship can disparage my own background and qualifications in almost exactly the same manner as Mr. Mabbett in all his self-interest.  I hope this site isn't like eBay, where users used to get their friends to run up the prices on items they consigned. Or is this an instance of piling on of opinions on one side to prevail on the basis of numbers instead of merit of arguments?

@Ricky81682: As I noted, I was in the process of taking this issue up elsewhere, where actual images and other evidence can actually be presented and considered, when you revived this discussion by moving to close it. Seeing how incredibly little activity has taken place on this site and Wikipedia with respect to Hunt up until now, I'm not terribly worried that someone else is going to post the offending image regardless of how my objection is resolved. And, NO, there are no other versions of this watercolor, original, authentic replicas, fakes, or otherwise. I will consider your comments for what they are worth. Cracks about eBay don't exactly bolster your own concerns, btw.Craig W. Englund (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"Mr. Mabbett in all his self-interest" - I ask again: How much longer is Mr. Englund to be allowed to impugn my (and others') integrity before an administrator intervenes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: I'm not sure a deletion discussion would be useful, because (as I remarked above) it may be that the right outcome is to add a comment in the description saying that the image may be a forgery. Presumably we would delete only if it is not public domain. I honestly don't know what the copyright status would be in that case: if someone in the 20th Century forged an 18th-century work, and didn't acknowledge their own authorship, I suspect the copyright status would vary from country to country, and I know little about UK copyright law in this respect. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Craig W. Englund: While the Sothebys links cite "Craig Englund", I don't see that on the Christies links. Am I missing something, or is it not there?
  • Nothing formal, really, about opposing closure. It's pretty obvious that people have decided to continue discussing, so I think the proposal to close is moot.
  • Do please stop insulting Andy. It's out of line. @Pigsonthewing: as I'm sure you know, if you want disciplinary action over this, the place to take it up is COM:ANU, but if I were in your position dealing with someone who is basically an outsider here and does seem to be bringing some substantive information, I would probably just respond by asking them to stop impugning my integrity, without resorting to threats myself.
  • Also, please, further statements about being "the primary living expert on the art of William Henry Hunt" do nothing to bolster your case. If you can cite someone else calling you that, it means something. While I accept that you presumably are who you say you are, saying it yourself from an account that still cannot be definitively tied to any person in the offline world does nothing.
  • We could move the discussion to File talk:‘Lamplight’ - William Henry Hunt - 1830.jpg; at the moment that links here and says this is where it is being discussed. That might have been a better place to start the discussion, but it seems to me that for now it is here. It also looks from that page like User:JGHowes from the OTRS team is following up on that side, which is probably more important than anything said here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: My assistance is acknowledged by Christie's in the "lot essaY" of each catalogue entry, which comes up by clicking on that button near the bottom of each page. I apologize for showing my extreme frustration over the tone of some comments of others; I will try to stay calm and will refrain from making any further emotional responses. I never expected the level and quantity of dismissiveness, as I perceive it, when I posted on the help desk. I am glad that another administrator is reviewing this matter; I did follow your recommendation regarding the e-mail I sent earlier this week. Thank you.Craig W. Englund (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Closing

Craig W. Englund is a published author who has written about 19th c. artist William Henry Hunt (e.g., Constructed Naturalism in the Watercolors of William Henry Hunt‎, etc.). In his correspondence, some of which is contained in a detailed email sent to OTRS, Mr. Englund notes that this particular watercolor has never appeared in any compendium of Hunt's known works. The sole assertion for the watercolor's provenance comes from  London auction house ‎Abbott and Holder.‎

Because the work meets COM:SCOPE as to educational value and is in the public domain, there is no basis for deletion according to Commons policies. As a compromise, the wording of the file's description should be modified to state only those facts not in dispute, viz.,‎

"Attributed to William Henry Hunt O.W.S. (1790-1864) by Abbott and Holder when offered for sale in August 2019.‎ ‘Lamplight’. Watercolour. Signed and dated. 9.25x7.25 inches."

We cannot go further than that here. If this compromise is unsatisfactory, then ‎C‎ommons dispute resolution procedures will need to be undertaken.‎  JGHowes  talk 03:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that the work was also described as being by Hunt by Christie's, and by Sotheby's, as well as another dealer, and by Abbott & Holder previously:

  • (S) Christie's South Kensington, (P) £420 $580;
  • (S) Sotheby's, London, 21 Nov 1984, No. 136 (P) £650 $813; Abbott & Holder (London Dealer) ?;
  • April 1985, with Abbott & Holder, London. "Selected Six;
  • (S) Dawson's Actioneers [sic], Maidenhead, UK,, 25 May 2019, Lot 134 (P) £700*

according to, er, Craig W. Englund: [6]. If so, the the claim that "The sole assertion for the watercolor's provenance comes from London auction house ‎Abbott and Holder" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You have made snide and disparaging remarks from the outset of these discussions, all of which have been totally unjustified and inappropriate. I hereby request that you stop this course of conduct immediately, or I will escalate my objections to your conduct to a formal complaint.

    • I have never said that the only source of the false attribution to William Henry Hunt was Abbott & Holder. I have correctly stated that Abbott & Holder has been your only cited authority in support of your incorrect identification of the artist who painted the image you have posted. I have also stated that there is no provenance for this watercolor before it first popped up in 1984. Moreover, Hunt did not date the majority of his work but did often date watercolors which he exhibited at the annual Spring Exhibitions at the Society of Painters in Water-colours. There is no watercolor among the listings of Hunt's exhibited works which could possibly be consistent with the disputed watercolor. See John Witt, William Henry Hunt, London, Barrie & Jenkins, 1982, at p. 220 or Vol 12 of the Old Water-Colour Club journal, 1922. I have been through every catalogue in Christie's archives back to 1830 (I can and will provide evidence of such in the form of a sampling of photocopies I made of every entry for a work sold by William Hunt), all of the account books of Thomas Agnew & Sons, the dealer who sold the majority of Hunt watercolors in the 19th century and a prominent dealer in such works in the 20th century [I have notes of every entry for a work by Hunt in the ledgers], every known sale at Sotheby's [not a major auctioneer of art until the 20th century] and Foster's [the second most prominent auctioneer of Hunt's work in the 19th century]; many other dealer records, including those of Richard Haworth, a mjor dealer in Hunts in the first part of the 20th century; all published catalogues of exhibitions which have included any Hunt watercolors, every review in art periodicals of sales, exhibitions, and private collections which mention any Hunt watercolor, and all of the several published lists of works by Hunt sold at auction since even before the artist's death. There is NO mention of the disputed watercolor before 1984 in any source that I have found through 43 years of intensive research, which would be close to unbelievable for any work by Hunt which is authentic. What you state about sales since 1984 of the disputed work is "false," to use your terminology for inaccuracies. There is no record of any dealer other than Abbott & Holder ever selling this watercolor as being by Hunt. The three auction houses did nothing more than follow the false signature and date in their catalogue entries, without any actual discussion of authenticity. The 1984 Sotheby's sale was part of one of their routine, minor sales, not within one of their higher end sales which were more likely to have catalogues with actual discussions of the works of art offered. Christie's South Kensington in 1984 was the low end branch of the firm, which held high volume sales and issued sparse catalogues which were little more than mere lists, almost always without any photographs of any of the works offered. Both of the auctions in 1984 took place two years before the major auction houses began soliciting my opinions regarding the provenance and attributions of works that could be by Hunt. I had never even heard of Dawson's auction house in Maidenhead until the disputed watercolor turned up once again. But the critical point to be recognized is that inauthentic watercolors turn up with great frequency these days and are often only sold as being by artists such as Hunt due to forged signatures. Over just the past week, four new examples of watercolors which are unquestionably misattributed to Hunt turned up online in connection with auctions which most would presume to have some expertise on British art, and there are signatures which are obviously not Hunt's own on a large number, if not most of these misattributed works in contemporary sales. In fact, one online auction reporting service has a section devoted to supposed examples of Hunt's signature and all six shown are clearly false. Of the first fifty auction sales of so-called Hunts listed on that site, 28 are clearly not by the artist [24 bear false signatures], with two more being so faded that it is impossible to say if they are authentic -- the number of authentic works in this sampling is actually remarkably high for recent years.

While I have never said that Abbott & Holder was anything other than a reputable dealer of lower-end English watercolors (as they themselves state on their website), the firm does not have a reputation for any particular expertise on Hunt nor a history of being specialists when it comes to selling works by the artist. In addition to the obvious truth that almost all dealers and auction houses make occasional mistakes of attribution, Abbott and Holder acknowledge that they are not perfect in this respect -- they not only offer full refunds on watercolors which are returned due to misattributions but still offer a box of chocolates for each work returned on such grounds, as they have done for decades, i.e., if I must spell out the obvious, they, like all dealers, have made such mistakes in the past.

On very rare occasions even I have changed my mind on the authenticity of works attributed to Hunt. The disputed watercolor is a case in point. I had not doubted it, based on the small image in the 1984 Sotheby's catalogue, until I happeed to notice that it was said in that catalogue to be signed Wm. Hunt, just as several of the other inauthentic candlelight scenes attributed to Hunt and without any early provenance were appearing. Hun signed his watercolors "W. HUNT" by 1830 [yes, I have absolute proof of such, which I will provide if this dispute continues], so the existence of the wrong form of Hunt's signature excludes him as the painter of this watercolor.

You might have noticed that the resolution proposed by Mr. Howes, one which I am certainly willing to accept, is precisely how I tried to resolve this dispute from the outset, a resolution which you reverted. I fail to see how anyone has benefitted from this squabble and continue to be puzzled by your motivations. But, if you insist on defending a clear misattribution to William Henry Hunt, I am prepared to defend my own position in a more formal manner than I felt appropriate on a help desk. You surely also realize that there are any number of London dealers with at least as much expertise on Hunt watercolors as that of Abbott and Holder.Craig W. Englund (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

tl;dr, but there are a number of flasehoods in your post, ranging from "You have made snide and disparaging remarks from the outset" to "the resolution proposed by Mr. Howes... is precisely how I tried to resolve this dispute from the outset"; that latter easily disproved by this diff, which shows thw edit I reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The record is indeed quite clear and fully supports what I have said. I edited the artist identified in the file by adding "attributed" after the name, which is substantively the same as Mr. Howes resolution of adding "attributed to" before the name. And, in your first comment in this discussion, you started by making a snide comment about being surprised that I hadn't pinged or otherwise notified you of my edit [as if everyone coming on this site should be expected to know about such procedures and as if anyone should be surprised by such a failure]. You then try to throw the burden on me to contact Abbott and Holder when it is you who is relying on them as your sole support for the attribution you chose for your file, and you raise the possibility of contacting "the relevant authorities" if the dealer refused without "good cause" [undefined by you] to change an attribution you followed, a solution which does not even exist as a possibility but a comment implying that I am not being diligent or following proper procedures. You then argued, without any legitimate basis, that I was being hypocritical in identifying Abbott and Holder as a commercial art gallery when I had stated that I had provided assistance to other companies in the London art trade, and by then asserting that I had a conflict of interest, without any actual basis for accusing me of such. To follow that line of thinking, which is in no way a standard in the art community, would result in anyone offering an expert opinion to one business which sells art by a particular artist to be forever disqualified from ever expressing any opinions regarding works by or attributed to that artist that are offered by any other business -- that was and is absurd and constitutes a defamatory statement leveled against my integrity. You are continuing with your pattern of unjustifiably disparaging my integrity with your continued, unsupported assertions that I hae made and am making false statements when such assertions which are not supported by facts, logic, or the record. For one last time, I hereby demand that (1) you cease this course of conduct and (2) that you start complying with this site's guidelines for proper attitudes in making comments on the site.Craig W. Englund (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2019/08&oldid=367576788"