User talk:Davey2010/Archive 2015

Archives:

2011

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

File:Davey2010xmas.gif

File:Davey2010xmas.gif 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!

37.5.7.161 10:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Daily Mail (384147398).jpg

File:Daily Mail (384147398).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Note; this was an obvious case of Flickrwashing. Please note that if the Flickr user "licensing" images as CC (or whatever) doesn't own them, then the license is invalid, but won't be caught by a Flickr bot. Please take more care when uploading such images from Flickr. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Dmfeb07.png

File:Dmfeb07.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(See note above regarding Flickrwashing, thanks. Ubcule (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC))

Attribution altered on derived image- Restored to original author (File:ChloeUBX.jpg)

Hi,

I've altered the attribution for the image File:ChloeUBX.jpg, as it did not give sufficient credit to the original author. Note that the only copyrightable aspect of that file *was* the original image- the additional coloured text is almost certainly below the Threshold of originality. Hope this explains things- all the best, Ubcule (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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:

• File:XPD2.png

And also:

• File:Davey2010 2014.png
• File:Davey2010jan13cropped.gif

Yours sincerely, Ubcule (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for nominating or messing with a large number of your images at once in the posts made above. The reason is that I normally double-check a user's history when I spot an obvious problem like the Daily Mail ones above.

Those were the only ones that had anything major wrong with them, but I also nominated some unused personal images for deletion (since personal images are normally only held on Commons if they're actually in use) and moved some other ones (which *were* in use) into userspace via {{user page image}}.

Most of your other images were okay though, so as I said, apologies if it looked like I was messing about with them en masse, and thank you for your contributions! All the best, Ubcule (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ubcule - Thanks for getting rid of the Daily Mail crap - I wasn't aware it was a copyright violation (Lesson learnt there) :)

No worries I completely understand - Thanks for tidying everything up ,

Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the barnstar. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome :), Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Restoring File

• File:TN245 2013 Holden Commodore High Tech Police Car 1DXV 968.JPG

Hello,

I hope you are keeping well. The file that is above I understand that you reverted it back to the original version. I wanted to make some improvements because as you can look closer you can see some small dust spots from where i photographed from. I am being quite reluctant to have any dust spots on my photo to be removed because as you know I am quite reluctant on my photos being neat but being ok. I am thinking of reverting it back to my version but I would like to know why you wanted to do it. If in any case, my apologies and chat to you very soon :)

Nim -- Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted because you had also blurred the reg plate which personally I see no point in doing?,I have no problems with removing the spots as that's big improvement but just saw no point in blurring the plate?, Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

watermark issue

Hi Davey2010, are File:IMG 5606 - Flickr - Dave M Photography.jpg and File:IMG 5605 - Flickr - Dave M Photography.jpg originally your own work? If they are not, you should not remove the copyright watermark, as there are serious legal issues with such removal. --Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Túrelio - Nope they're not, Oh god I wasn't even aware of that, In that case could you just delete my versions as I honestly had no idea about that, Sorry... –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done fixed. Taivo (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:3988027 96af3850.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:3988027 96af3850.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 16:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for the message –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tates Travel

Thanks for that. Not sure how that happened. I had intended to remove Birmingham and Skipton, which appear to have no relevance to the image. Thanks again. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Skinsmoke, No worries - I apologize for the lack of an edit summary - It's been a long day! PGRIN (Pgrin), Anyway no worries we all make mistakes so no worries :), Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Davey2010, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant thanks Jianhui67 :) –Davey2010^Talk 14:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Main subject

As per COM:CAT, please stick to the "main subject" and "noteworthy features of the image" when categorising photos. The cars found incidentally in pictures of streets or buildings are not noteworthy.

For example, this file of the Port of Corfu illustrates its intended subject very well. However, I do not believe it to be very useful at illustrating Volkswagen Golf IV hatchback automobiles which the image is also categorised in because it contains a glimpse of the said vehicle. By the same token, one could also add categories for the trees, the sky, street lamps, the road, and houses. These also make up a small/minority part of the image. However, none of these items contained within the image would be particularly useful for someone searching for a photo of a road or a tree.

Considering that most images of locations in built-up areas taken near a road will contain vehicles as incidental subject matters, the systematic categorisation of these vehicles cause massive over-categorisation problems.

If it bothers you to have these cars as "unidentified" so to speak (because there is not a category to specify exactly what they are), then Commons is better served by using annotations on the image itself or by placing a note in the description. Clogging up categories with junk seems quite counterproductive. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi OSX - I've only been adding categorizing them here & there as I thought surely editors will come to these images and perhaps would wonder what the vehicles were ?, But now you've said that it would be like editors visiting this image and naming the trees... It'd just be stupid.... Yeah I clearly didn't think this one through! , Point taken I'll revert, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 03:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Remember, you can annotate the images if you like with the vehicles depicted, see Commons:Image annotations. Enjoy your weekend. OSX (talk • contributions)

No worries, Thanks for kindly explaining it, Thanks and you have a great weekend too :) –Davey2010^Talk 04:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)