This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The image has a CC0 license,. Sorry for the confusion, I upload it with a java button and I didn't realize that the license didn't upload correctly.--Lmalena (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you bot
...but especially bot's creator for making bot. Even someone that's been around Commons as long as I have makes the mistake of no license from time to time. Thanks for catching it, bot, because I wouldn't have! Lewis Collard! (talk). 17:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi did you figure this out? I find the whole site a little confusing.... Ran into the same problem. Tried to delete the uploads and start fresh, but site won't allow. Ling300MW (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The bot has tagged the one image I've uploaded to Commons for deletion. The image is in the public domain, and I've provided the link to the relevant site stating as much, but the upload process is confusing to me, and I don't understand how to add the copyright tags or which one to use. Blackmissionary (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Both pictures are licensed under german government publications, I am not able to remove the "delete-warning".
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This image is in the public domain according to German copyright law because it is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German authority or court (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).
Information is correct! Both pictures are published in an official information paper by a German Military Administration and free under citated § 5 Abs.1 UrhG . Sandbaer (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Adding license to File:Loreto chapel Fribourg illustration.jpg
Hi, the tagged File:Loreto chapel Fribourg illustration.jpg is a copy of File:Battles of the nineteenth century (1901) (14760555201).jpg which was uploaded on Commons 2015. Obviously, the license is correct.
In the copy file, I replaced the Information-Template with the Artwork-Template, which seems more appropriate. In the tagged copy, I added the author, the source and the license from the original file. And I added the template RetouchedPicture with a link to the original file. So, I think there isn't any problem now. Can I deleat the nolicense-tag? -- Matutinho09:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber, thanks for the identification of the artist: Holland Tringham. Great. I wasn't able to read the subscription.
But I remouved the template Extracted from with RetouchedPicture and added the image (thumb). I remouved, because the image is not really extracted, which means in the German translation Ausschnitt (cropped, a detail). It is what the template RetouchedPicture says: retouched (retouchiert, retouché). Or will this template cause problems with categorization? Matutinho09:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Bot is send warning messages about my uploads which have the subst:OP template
Hi
I'm uploading some files for UNEP which they are sending a permissions email for, I've added the subst:OP template to show that the OTRS permission is being sent (its actually already been sent). However the bot is sending me warning messages, I think this is probably incorrect and would be confusing for people who are less experienced. Should the bot not send messages if subst:OP is present?
@John Cummings My initial thought would be no, the bot shouldn't ignore files with {{Permission pending}}. That template itself states Please make sure the file includes a license at the time of upload; this template is not a substitute for a license. Without a license template, we have no justification for why the file should be on Commons. Most licenses also require some additional links/text alongside the licensed work: without the license template providing that information, our use of the file is technically in violation of the license. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi AntiCompositeNumber ok, I understand your perspective, if that is correct then the guidance on OTRS should be ammended to say 'always include a license' or similar. The current situation is you follow the OTRS rules and then a bot tells you the files will get deleted, which isn't particularly helpful. John Cummings (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I have reports that images do not conform to the license. only one "{" was missing. If he could first see whether parts of the building block are missing and do it correctly. only then send the message out? --Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Woelle ffm The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license used on those files requires that certain information, including a link to the license, be included with the files. When the template is not displayed due to a syntax error, our use of the file is technically a violation of the license. This is why AntiCompositeBot tags files that do not display a valid license template, even when a attempt has been made to describe a license. You may remove the bot's tag once the problem has been fixed, I see you have fixed the files and have removed the tags. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
need help
The drawing File:Storchenfamilie von Lilienthal.jpg was created by Otto Lilienthal and published 1889.
Another user added another drawings from the same publication of Lilienthal (File:LilienthalFliegekunst.png) I tried to use the same licence tag, but the bot did not detect it properly and assumed deletion of my upload. I wanted to upload another drawing from his old book ... I'm a newbee and has no glue what to do so that the bot is satisfied. --Dfedra (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
But similar problems occur with my new file "File:Lilienthal wäsche im Wind Fig55.png" although I used the same information as in the other pictures I took from the same book. This time I followed the instructions given by the bot how to give a license - but this makes no sense to me. Can you please have again a look at it.<br>
@Dfedra I've fixed the license on that file. You need to include the correct license when you upload the file. There should be a drop-down box in Special:Upload labelled "Licensing:", choose the template that best fits the situation from there. You can also type the template in manually, for works by Otto Lilienthal the best template is {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1896}}. You may find Special:UploadWizard easier to use. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Почему эта фотография и последующие номинированы на удаление из-за отсутствия лицензии. Однако, лицензия на них имеется, они взяты с официального сайта Президента России kremlin.ru и на них действует лицензия CC-BY 4.0. Это указано в шаблоне {{kremlin.ru}}.
Why this photo and the following ones were nominated for removal due to lack of a license. However, there is a license for them, they are taken from the official website of the President of Russia kremlin.ru and they are subject to a CC-BY 4.0 license. This is specified in the {{kremlin.ru}} template. AlexTref871 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you please tell me what's the problem with this picture? I made it myself with my photo camera at the seaside, same as other pictures from Caska village and beach that I took last summer. There is no special copyright needed here, isn't it? --Silverije21:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber I am yesterday encountered this problem and interested me, why is no more sufficient license tag source={{own}}, which has been set by the user Silverije or is it a bot error? --Vhorvat (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Vhorvat{{Own}} is a source, not a license. Without a clear statement releasing a file under a free license, it is fully protected by copyright law and can not be used by anyone (outside of exceptions like fair use). Such files would not serve Commons's goal of creating a collection of media that can be used by anyone, for any purpose, without having to ask the author for specific permission first. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I created a Template, {{BAS data}}, to make it easier to mark all the licence / attribute aspects of map images from data from the British Antarctic Survey. The licence is {{Cc-by-4.0}}, and I embedded this, the source and the attribution in the template. However AntiCompositeBot did not spot the licence and the files have been tagged for deletion.
The licence information is not in the raw data but is imported by the template, which will be why it was not spotted.
I could just add that licence to the code for each file, but it would be neater to have it all bundled up in {{BAS data}}. Is there a way to get the bots to recognise the licence within the template?
Hogweard (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
That's fine - thanks. After my initial panic, I added the 'deny=AntiCompositeBot' tag, as the bot page suggested, to the template. That stopped the bot being triggered by other maps I uploaded with the same template. Hogweard (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Everyone help this bot try to deleted my picture that was under free license cc0
The picture name was anopheles minimus 1 jpg. PeaceAndGood (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I have uploaded an image Ghazala.jpg. I have got message that license information was invalid. I have clearly mentioned in the description that the file in in public domain and link of website is provided from where it was uploaded. Please check
Mukhtiaraliunar (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Mukhtiaraliunar
Kid Rock Bad Reputation album cover
The file literally is under "fair use" and if you look at the copyright status of other album covers you'd see that when I uploaded the album cover last March it was obvious that it was under fair use Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I received a warning. I complied with the request but got one again. Did i make a mistake? The file is Coa Hungary Family Krizsán (1666).svg
I don't understand the rights the picture is completely free.
Bye,
Madboy74 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hallo Bot, ich weiß nicht, ob ich hier jemanden ansprechen kann, und das sogar auf Deutsch. Ich habe in den letzten 15 Jahren Hunderte, wenn nicht gar schon Tausende Bilder hochgeladen – meist von guter Qualität und/oder historischem Wert – und sollte namentlich bekannt sein. Dass ich nun einmal durch irgendein Missgeschick die Lizenz nicht eingetragen hatte, ist ein Fehler, der nicht vorkommen sollte. Allerdings hätte ich in Anbetracht meiner langjährigen Mitarbeit erwartet, auf freundlichere Art darauf hingewiesen zu werden. Aber wenn Ihr meint, gleich löschen zu müssen, tut, was Ihr nicht unterlassen könnt. Gruß -- Spurzem (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a monument accessible to the public on a public square in Village in Switzerland which therefor needs the copyright Art. 27 which it has.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Jessie Reed, White World Photo, 1935.jpg
Dear Robot, you are wrong. I have noticed the source. The source is Gallica, the French National digital Library. The BNF has determined that this file is in the public domain in France. Clearly labelled as {{PD-BNF}}. The BNF has determined that this file is in the public domain in France. Regards --L'Ange au Sourire (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Images in German Wiki Deutsche Rechtschreibung
I uploaded some scans in Deutsche Rechtschreibung and got a notification about unclear licenses. I uploaded three files: an excerpt of Luther bible. This comes from a facsimile print in my possession. It should be free, because the Luther bible itself is free and the facsimile is just a copy. The other two are similar, both are scans from facsimile prints of very old books. --Arianndi (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
FDNY 1
Your bot is broken. I tool the photo and it is claiming a copyright violation that I am removing. --Don (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I went onto the new Balhuticaris wiki page, and noticed there were no images. So I decided to go to the paper on Balhuticaris Voltae, and checked the copyright before adding the images onto the page. I then noticed sometime after that the bot flagged these images because 'no copyright tag was decided'. Of course, the issue is I couldn't find the copyright tag itself (plus this is my first time uploading images, so I may have done something wrong). The copyright tag is stated below.
'This article is available under the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND license and permits non-commercial use of the work as published, without adaptation or alteration provided the work is fully attributed.'
Since these images are not being used for commercial use, this means I do not need to seek permission from the copyright holders, Alejandro Izquierdo-López and Jean-Bernard Caron, to use these images for non-commercial use (i.e. on the Balhuticaris wiki page). It'll be fantastic if these images could have the 'speedy deletion' tag removed, and possibly the addition of the 'CC-BY-NC-ND' copyright license on the bot to make sure further incidents like this don't happen.
Have you ever read Commons:Licensing? This clearly writes like this. The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: "Non-commercial, educational, personal, or editorial use only." Read "Summary of Creative Commons licenses on Wikimedia Commons" in that page. This clearly shows that licenses like "CC BY-NC" or "CC BY-NC-ND" are not allowed on Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Pope Paul VI Travels.svg
Hello, I am writing to you because you inserted information about the lack of license about the photo with map of apostolic journeys of Paul VI. I don't know if you noticed but I corrected and added the template with the license and another user corrected the page. Now this template about the lack can I remove myself or leave I have you ? Greetings Kamil.ryy (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Does removing the alert prevent automatic deletion?
I received the alert after uploading File:IPCC AR6 WG3 SPM-50 Mitigation Options.png though it contains the Template:IPCC licence tag, which I created myself based on the legal notice. Probably the bot did not recognize it as a licence tag. Now I have added License template tag and Copyrighted-Layout to the IPCC template and removed the alert. Is the automatic deletion after one week stopped by this? Will there be a re-validation? Can I trigger a re-validation myself? And can anyone have a look whether the IPCC template is correctly formatted? It's my first one. Hedgehoque (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The file is still there, 14 days after removing the alert. However, I still do not know whether a re-validation has taken place. Hedgehoque (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Image has no copyright
Hi, my image I've uploaded of a Finnish Arado Ar 196 has been flagged for incomplete license. Its from the private collection of Michael Birch, the son of Norman Basil Stafford Birch - who was a photographer and took this image in Finland in 1944, but never published it. I really don't know how to work all the licenses or how this comes under public domain - but all I know is this image comes from a private collection with permission and has no copyright status. How do I fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxLousada (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello dear Wikipedia
Photo doesn't have any copyright
What I uploaded for flex wheeler page
Images of dreamstime.com are free and don't have any copyright Hre2kcm77 (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Read the structured data
Hi. My file got flagged for deletion even though it has a license specified in the structured data.
Really? Isn’t it possible for the bot to insert the template it seems to want itself based on the structured data? The structured data contains the specific version os the license in question just as the template 🤷♂️ So9q (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi I added the image: Ferdinando Alessandri.png but the bot said the copyright was invalid, even though it wasn't because I got it from the official site. I wish you could take a look. Grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis1250Xx (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Captured russian T-90M 01.jpg
Hello. This file is tagged for deletion despite having a valid lisense - Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. The same problem with 02, 03 and 04-indexed files. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Dear AntiCompositeNumber, I think the categories "Permission received" and "Permission pending" should be created one or two days in advance only, but not a whole month. Can it be changed that way? --Krd08:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The reproduction or copying of this artistic work located in a public place is permitted under the copyright law of Egypt. The concept of freedom of panorama is implicitly covered by Article 171 of Egypt's Intellectual Property Law 82 of 2002, which states that the author of a work can not prevent the "reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts", if the work is displayed in a public place or is a work of architecture. See COM:CRT/Egypt#Freedom of panorama for more information.
it is a book cover of a book produced by an Egyptian state-owned company and should thus be in the public domain. Please remove the delete tag Ypedia1 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Native dancing minneapolis-crop.jpg
Hi. Your bot says File:Native dancing minneapolis-crop.jpg will be deleted because of its copyright status. The file gives you two pieces of information that solve this: the original, which is linked from Source, and the file from which it is cropped, linked from Other Versions. Please remove your deletion tag. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Maria met Kind, Meester van de Magdalenalegende, 1520, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Gent, 1957-AC
Hi, your bot has deleted many files which I have recently uploaded for the Museum of Fine Arts of Ghent. I gather that the problem earlier was that the metadata was insufficient. However I did this as a test for the Openrefine team using the new upload workflow which needed some tweaking and have since corrected the upload.
Your deletions have brought to my attention that (some people in) the Wikimedia community also takes into consideration the copyright status under US law and not only the country of origin. I understand this is why your bot has flagged many other of my uploads. Now, first of all this is news to me and has not been widely communicated to the community, even when I passed this in the WikiGLAM Telegram channel there is really no unanimity on this subject and copyright experts at my organisation are also not sure this is the way to go. In any case, can you direct me to the place where this policy is documented? Or if is still discussed, which channel they are discussed on? In the meantime, I will stop uploading works that might still be under US copyright but can you please leave the previous uploads done by me, my organisation and the wider Belgian heritage sector until this is settled because this stands to overturn a lot of goodwill for open access that we have built over the last years.
As written in the description, this file is a translation of File:Cathode_ray_tube_diagram-en.svg which also exists in deuch an Hungrarian. I am not responsible for the impossibility to copy paste information from an existing svg file to just put the same license and use the correct syntax to indicate similar images. Bech (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
File:DALL·E 2022-12-15 09.58.23 - pototrealistic dragon on a transparent background.png
The file File:DALL·E 2022-12-15 09.58.23 - pototrealistic dragon on a transparent background.png was tagged by the AntiCompositeBot. This file was created by the AI bot DALL-E 2. I followed the file
DALL-E 2 artificial intelligence digital image generated photo
I uploaded a OSM map of the Wite Brekken. I filled in the values, as required. I now get a message that I didn't. Is the problem in your code, or in your description? Mysha (talk) Mysha (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Still, not a clue. Is it so difficult to help AntiCompositeBot to tell the clueless what it is trying to say? Mysha (talk)
OK, I've corrected the year in the description, but so far the only difference I see, is that I think I would have written the actual description first and the English translation for foreigners after. How can I see what you changed? Mysha (talk)
Well, from still not having a clue about the problem, I've now created the next lake map: Swarte Brekken. Swarte Brekken (I don't know how not to include it, either.) I have now copied the link used for the license from the first one: Wite Brekken Wite Brekken (I see the first one now has no hyphen, but the second one does; should either be modified?) It seems fairly unlikely that this copyright notice was a problem the first time, as the only way to obtain it was by copying it from the first map. But them again, I asked what problem you had; not what problem I had. What problems remain? Mysha (talk)
(Oh, help. There were probably better ways to not clobber the next user than < br >-s. Mysha (talk))
File:Muster.jpg
I'm not sure where to request “File:Muster.jpg” image restoration. About the situation: Unfortunately, I really unintentionally, out of carelessness / mistake made a contradictory statement about the license. With six other, similar graphics of mine, I paid more attention. They were uploaded without complaint. Therefore my request: to restore the image “File:Muster.jpg” under the Creative Commons license "Attribution 3.0 not ported". Then I insert it into the article “Ordnungsprinzip (Kunst)”. - Ich weiß nicht genau, wo ich die Wiederherstellung des Bildes "File:Muster.jpg" beantragen soll. Zur Situation: Leider habe ich wirklich ungewollt, aus Unachtsamkeit / Versehen eine widersprüchliche Angabe zur Lizenz gemacht. Bei sechs weiteren, ähnlichen Grafiken von mir habe ich besser aufgepasst. Sie wurden ohne Beanstandung hochgeladen. Deshalb meine Bitte: das Bild "File:Muster.jpg" unter der Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Namensnennung 3.0 nicht portiert“ wieder herzustellen. Dann füge ich es in den Artikel „Ordnungsprinzip (Kunst)“ ein. - Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Friederike FriedeWie (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Ábrányi Emil (composer), Tolnai Világlapja, 1911 részlet.jpg
AntiCompositeBot tagged this public domain image for deletion. File:Ábrányi Emil (composer), Tolnai Világlapja, 1911 részlet.jpg. Fixed the bug, the license template description was missing a bracketed element. I deleted the warning description (as the text in it allowed), but the images still do not appear correctly in the corresponding Wikipedia entries. What could be the reason? Bizottmány (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Please help. I cut out a piece of the image that was uploaded by others, but free licensed. It was because of an article this detail is the best, not the whole picture. I read a lot on Wiki about licenses, rights and "fair use", but I couldn't find a description of my case (if it is there somewhere but I didn't notice it is my fault) (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timb%C3%A1l) What I need to write exactly and where to make my procedure correct. Thanks DeHonester (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This bot marks pages that are uploaded with released rights as having insufficient copyright information.
I have the last version of Firefox that works with Windows XP - and have no intention to change to a later version of Windows. I thus since a few days ago get "Your browser is not compatible with UploadWizard or has JavaScript turned off, so we are showing you a simple upload form. (View compatibility requirements.)". I upload a file, mark the alternative "This file is my own work and I agree to the WMF Patent License" and upload the file. A moment later My image is marked with:
This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. If you have created this file yourself, or the file is in the public domain, you can edit the file description page to license it under one of the allowed licenses. If you did not create it and it is not in the public domain, you must ask the copyright holder for permission to release it under one of the allowed licenses, and the written permission must be sent to our permission archive.
Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added on 13 April 2023.
So either this bot is defunct or the primitive version of UploadWizard is defunct!
I have JavaScript enabled (javascript.enabled=true) in my browser (though the UploadWizard says that i don't). The UploadWizard worked OK until a week ago. Episcophagus (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
But I have specified that it is my own work in the primitive uploading program I now have to use. For the fun of it I have today also tried it again (by changing the pictures slightly) and now they are red like here https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/CPU_Design#First_motherboard. Please make it an "Open book for an open world" like you say. Software need not to be changed all the time. Knoppson (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Knoppson: I cannot see any notion on author in File:CPU schematic 15.3.PNG. Please fill in the fields (I left some advice on that on your user page). If there is no information template on the file description, you can paste in the template with default parameters from the section "Användning" on the template's page: {{Information}}. I suppose you can do that on upload with Special:Upload, if that's what you use. –LPfi (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Richard de Mos
I created the file "File:Richard De Mos cropped.jpg" by modifying an existing image, which is most likely properly licensed. Now the robot has put a deletion warning at the newly created image. How to proceed? Which tag should I still add to the image that I have created (modification of an existing image)? Bob.v.R (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the this photo was removed from Commons. Obviously I did not choose the right license. I think I got confussed because the license choosing text has changed a little, since the last time I was in Commons. The photo is important for the article. It should be included. Perhaaps you can help me to choose the right license, so I tell you more about that photo.
That photo comes from a family source. It was taken in Venezuela 76 years ago, when Ramón Pérez Rodríguez was six years old. So far, the author is unknown, though we keep trying to find out who this person was.
Do I have any chance to include the photo? In that case, please indicate me how. I would appreciate it very much. isamares (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Isamares A summary of the copyright rules for Venezuela is available at COM:VENEZUELA. Photographs are protected for 60 years from when they were published, or 60 years from creation if they were not published within 60 years of creation. Based on what you have said, I think {{PD-Venezuela}} is the correct license. I have undeleted the file and updated the license accordingly. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
It´s a pleasure to have a civilized discussion entering to English Wikipedia. I usually work with Spanish Wikipedia and it can easily become chaos. Users manage tools as toys and in many cases disregard the texts´ connection of the articles with details as photos and names, among others. Thanks a lot for solving the problem. I appreciate very much your cooperation. isamares (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
This is tagged as having no licenses by the bot. I have put in the licenses, that it is under the GNU and CC 3.0 licenses, which were added to the original image. Someone told me in the help desk to do this. If anyone could help, it would be greatly appreciated. Memer15151 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
This is a cropped version (which I cropped myself) of this image. The original image is "CC BY-SA 2.0", as per the link. It's unclear to me what is missing. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I could see that the bot needed the template, but couldn't find anything suitable for 2.0, only 2.5 and higher. Much appreciated! Crum375 (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
What sort of evidence would you want? Mike Deegan and the picture of the hospital are displayed on the walls of Manchester Royal Infirmary, a publicly owned NHS hospital. Integrated care systems is a publication of NHS England, a government agency. Old age pensions is a government advert from 1912. Rathfelder (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
My picture summary is clearly marked as CC Attrib 4.0, which is one of the licenses permitted on Wikimedia, with the claim supported by the Meta-data of the picture, but the bot still tagged it. Any suggestions?
File:Spränghandgranat_07_bottenvy.jpg BP OMowe (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I provided the source of the picture and the licence as it exists in other similar publication. This is why I removed your warning. I understand you prefer to it automatically... User:Olevy17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, i upploded a photo of the film to dream which i reached out to the director who gave me permission to add it and use it here. I got a notification it could be deleted, how can i resolve the issue? Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
It was said "you can upload someone else works if the author granted permission for anyone to use, modify,copy and sell it" and thats what it was Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Done, please double-check that the dates for those images are correct. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Madonna_in_trono_con_il_Bambino_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
,_Tolnai_Világlapja,_1911_részlet.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Madonna_in_trono_con_il_Bambino_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
,_S._Floriano_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
_S._Giorgio_a_cavallo_combatte_il_drago_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
,_S._Girolamo_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
_S._Nicola_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
,_S._Paolo_apostolo_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
_S._Giovanni_Battista_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
_S._Pietro_in_veste_papale_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
,_Alzata_a_polittico_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
,_Daniele_profeta_-_Santa_Maria_-_Paluzza.jpg){kind=link}
,_Tolnai_Vil%C3%A1glapja,_1911_r%C3%A9szlet.jpg){kind=link}
,_Tolnai_Világlapja,_1911_részlet.jpg){kind=link}
,_Tolnai_Világlapja,_1911_részlet.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
