User talk:CharlemagneJane

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

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Tommy Byars.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

ManFromNord (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:1952 Tommy Byars.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

ManFromNord (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted the permissions from each individual that provided the photos. Why are they not approved yet? I don't understand what I am supposed to do. Cjmodica (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What ticket number(s) did you get for your submission(s)?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no license. The pictures were personally taken in a public domain by lay persons and not professional photographers. This is so frustrating. Cjmodica (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please review en:public domain.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, C.Suthorn (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:1918 Pearl St Shop.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Taivo (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This file was already approved for Tommy Byars. I simply want to use it on his father's draft, Ray Byars, the original owner of the shop and photo. CharlemagneJane (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Approved by whom? What evidence do you have of that? Please participate in Commons:Deletion requests/File:1918 Pearl St Shop.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright status[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the project, one or more of your file uploads had missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status. Please note that Wikimedia Commons takes copyright rules and infringement very seriously. Files may only be uploaded and included if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our licensing policy, and if their source is clearly documented. Files that fail to meet those conditions may be deleted, and users who fail to meet them may be blocked. Please follow our first steps, if you haven't already. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the Village Pump copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe slow down a bit[edit]

Hi CharlemagneJane. Perhaps it might be a good idea to show down a bit a refrain from uploading any new files until the issues with the ones you've already uploaded have been resolved and you perhaps gain a better understanding of COM:L and some other things about image copyright. A number of the files you've uploaded have already been deleted and others are currently being discussed. Image copyright is a fairly complicated matter and it's quite easy for anyone to make mistakes; however, if it appears that you're making too many mistakes, then a Commons administrator might decide that some kind of action needs to be taken against your account. The files you're uploading won't affect whether the drafts you're currently working on are ultimately accepted as Wikipedia articles; so, maybe focus on the text content of the drafts for the time being and then worry about images later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I won't upload anymore pictures for now. I just don't understand why the 1927 pictures are in question and why they have been deleted and then restored after being approved a couple months ago. CharlemagneJane (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who approved these photos? You were asked this above by Jeff G. but never responded. Wikimedia Commons doesn't approve photos per se. Are you referring to someone other than a Commons user? As for photos taken in 1927, they are still under copyright protection for a few more days; photos taken in 1927 will become public domain on January 1, 2023 per COM:HIRTLE (assuming their author is known and they were first published prior to January 1, 1928). As for photos being deleted and restored, some of the files that were deleted were {{Temporarily undeleted}} because their deletion is being further discussed here. In other cases, a file might've been deleted but restored after its licensing was verified by COM:VRT. If you can give the names of the files that was restored, someone can probably figure out why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was Theroadislong but not sure. CharlemagneJane (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to refer to this acceptation of the creation of an article on Wikipedia through the process of articles for creation there. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlemagneJane. If what Asclepias mentioned above is what you mean by "already approved", then you seem to be mixing up some things up. Drafts approved by English Wikipedia Article's for Creation (AFC) reviewers generally only mean that the reviewer feels that the draft satisfies en:Wikipedia:Notability for an English Wikipedia article to created about the subject. AFC reviewers aren't really looking at and assessing the licensing of any images contained in the draft other than perhaps in a cursory way; their primary concern is assessing whether the subject of the draft meets relevant English Wikipedia notability guidelines and that it's something that's likely going to be quickly nominated for speedy deletion for Wikipedia notability related or other reasons. I can't say for sure that was the case with the Theroadislong, but that would be my guess. Image licensing assessment (particularly for images uploaded to Commons) often is done separately from the English Wikipedia AFC process, sometimes even years later, when someone notices something about the image or its license that seems questionable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it is all Greek to me so I'll leave it up to y'all to do what ever. I have not other statements to make regarding the pictures that are already uploaded. CharlemagneJane (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the legacy of the photo. The only other statement that I might add is that Ray Byars, the father of Tommy Byars, was a photographer as proven in his article. CharlemagneJane (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]