User talk:FunkMonk/Archives/2015

Re:File:Adult and juvenile fossil rorqual skeletons from Cerro Ballena - Proc R Soc B 281 20133316 4 c.jpg

Hello, I hope the explanation is sufficiently satisfactory. Regards --PePeEfe (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Kersti Nebelsiek#Over-categorisation of fossils

I answered to your remark. Sorry for the time lapse, but most work I do on commons I do while telefonating. While doing this I am able to sort pictures but I am not able to write sentences, which always means that it is difficult to me to find the time to answer questions on commons. --Kersti (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted content

---

Hello FunkMonk/Archives/2015, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:20010219-001-01.jpg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

• use in any work, regardless of content
• creation of derivative works
• commercial use
• free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely, Alan ^(talk) 06:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what that image was. FunkMonk (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree

I agree about those fossil categories. Abyssal (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I see you've already fixed many of them, thanks! I don't think anyone will object, I think the guy who started making them did not have English as his first language. This new way, it is easier to categorise... FunkMonk (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What about suprageneric categories, like Category:Fossil Centrosaurinae. Would these be rennamed Category:Centrosaurine fossils? IJReid (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That would make sense. What do you say, Abyssal? FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I added a reply to the topic of fossil categories, I think it helps to justify the logical question. --PePeEfe (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks! What is the easiest way to move categories and the images in them? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Cat-alot or whatever in the gadgets section of your preferences. I've been doing a lot of moving, but I'm starting to have doubts about naming conventions. Are we wanting these named like "[Taxon] fossils", "Fossils of [Taxon]" or "[Vernaculartaxonname] fossils"? Abyssal (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean for taxa higher than genus? Where are vernacular names used? FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, basically. "Dinosaur fossils", "Mammal fossils" "Centrosaurine fossils" etc. I think even modern taxa are categorized by Linnaean names here, however, so I'm not sure how good of an idea it would be for us to go vernacular. Abyssal (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think scientific names should be used, that seems to be the norm anyway. In any case, very few people actually use these categories apart from us, I think we only need Kevmin to complete this discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Now we're at it, I think cats like "Artistic_restorations_of_Triceratops" should be renamed "Triceratops life restorations" or some such instead. First, "artistic restoration" can refer to restorations of skeletons as well, and it is probably easier to categorise with hotcat and similar when the genus name comes first in the cat name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So, shall we or shall we not use Category:Centrosaurine fossils over Category:Centrosaurinae fossils? I agree that "artistic restorations or" should be changed, but wouldn't it be better to use vernacular names like the above for suprageneric groups? IJReid (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Why? We use scientific names for the taxon categories themselves (or that's at least the norm). FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The practice for living-organism cats appears to be to use only taxonomic names for specimens per se, but to allow vernacular names in cultural and ‘stock photo‘ subcats. For example one might find things like “Paintings of ponies” and “Grey and white horses” somewhere under Equus. So I would stick to the Linnaean names for fossils, and also for scientific drawings & reconstructions, but I wouldn‘t mind vernacular names for artistic & pop-culture categories.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you give some specific examples? I'm not sure how many pop cultural references to "Centrosaurines" or other specific suprageneric taxa exist to categorize in the vernacular. Also, is there any possibility of starting a "CommonsProject Paleontology"? It would probably be better to have a public and accessible discussion of categorization schemes, kinds of images we need, assembling information on photographing fossils, legal and ethical aspects of taking pictures in museums, etc. Abyssal (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think for examples there are Category:Dinosaurs in art and its subcats. As for a Commons palaeoproject, would probably be nice, because the task of keeping track on these is a huge task in itself, now also with the "inaccuracy labels" and stuff... And then we could centralise discussions like this, instead of having them on various user talk pages. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've formally proposed the idea of "CommonsProjects" at the Village Pump. Abyssal (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Turns out that they already exist. Let's continue this conversation at the new Commons WikiProject Paleontology talk page.

What already exists? FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikiprojects on Commons. Abyssal (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, cool! We should have some bling there... FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials return a Tarbosaurus bataar skeleton to the government of Mongolia during a repatriation ceremony May 6, 2013, at a Manhattan hotel in New York 130506-H-ZZ999-005.jpg

File:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials return a Tarbosaurus bataar skeleton to the government of Mongolia during a repatriation ceremony May 6, 2013, at a Manhattan hotel in New York 130506-H-ZZ999-005.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!

Pgrobin (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

VAMP

The University of Alberta has a new online-only journal that publishes under CC-BY 4.0, Vertebrate Anatomy Morphology Phylogeny. It was formed recently (October 2014) and among the two articles published is one specifically on the postcranial skeleton of Vagaceratops. However, as the copyright page states, the articles are all under CC-BY 4.0, yet the specific article only mentions CC-BY-NC-ND license. Because of this conflict of licenses, will the images of Vagaceratops be uploadable or not? Just thought to bring this to your attention before I uploaded the 20 something files. IJReid (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Do they say "unless otherwise noted" or some such anywhere? This is perhaps something that could be brought up at the copyright page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting old revisions

With multiple images (File:Echinodon becklesii skull restoration.jpg, File:Heterodontosaurid skulls.jpg), old revisions include copyrighted material, which should be deleted. Can you delete these revisions, and also, is there some kind of tag for these images or how else do I notify admins about them? Thanks, IJReid (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know actually, but notify me, then I'll delete them. FunkMonk (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

US mural on building

Would this image be uploadable, as it is a mural on a publicly accessable building in the US. IJReid (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Only if it was paid for by a government institution. It makes no difference whether the painting is in a public place or not, 2D works are always copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dinosor-Konkani Vishwakosh.png

Hi, the Konkani Vishkawosh encyclopedia is available under CC-BY-SA 3.0, see here. I think we should create a template or page for that, to avoid confusion in the future. Jcb (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, they look very shady as they are now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I created {{Konkani Vishwakosh}}, so that at least everybody can see and verify that the licensing is fine. Jcb (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Hypothetical Deinocheirus.jpg

File:Hypothetical Deinocheirus.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Motopark (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dromaius novaehollandiae

Hello, could you explain why you reverted my edits? (here) According to Category:Dromaius novaehollandiae minor, Dromaius novaehollandiae ater is a synonym, as stated by the IOC taxonomy (from 4.1, I believe): "Epithet minor replaces ater which is a nomen novum for Dromaius novaehollandiae" (link). Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I explained in the edit summary (and as the source you cite states), ater refers to the mainland emu, therefore the name is a synonym of that animal, not of minor. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok, I understand your point of view now. It would be useful to put some text in these pages for people who might be confused and think D. n. ater is a synonym of D. n. minor. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, should be possible, anyhow, that case is historically very complex and confusing... Not sure if everyone accepts this synonymy yet. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Anningia

Hi, This user (Anningia (talk · contribs)) does not seem to do anything useful, but I don't know the subject, so I can't really say. Could you check please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a user formerly known as Regisaurus or some such, I had banned him already... FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

and that means you don't have to ban me again as you already know that I'm sorry for the vandalism--Anningia (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Image

Hello, I come to see why this is here? [1]. this image is brolyeuphyfusion9500 [2], and is not a Euskelosaurus this is a Glacialisaurus --Levi bernardo 00:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

or lufengosaurus as I've seen in a book this pic where it was labelled lufengosaurus but on most websites the same image labelled a glacialisaurus--Anningia (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You can nominate it for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Unnamed fossils

Hi, I see what you're saying, and in certain cases I removed the category when just the genus was identified; my mistake. In other cases, the dinosaur seems to be quite well named, e.g. Citipati osmolskae, why keeping the unnamed category for those? --Ruthven (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Because that particular specimen (the "Zamyn Khondt oviraptorid") is now considered to probably belong to a new genus (at least another species than C. osmolskae), see for example: https://books.google.dk/books?id=vtZFDb_iw40C&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Zamyn+Khondt++oviraptorid&source=bl&ots=FO75dG7imY&sig=llrOmjVrpAbkGi7a6esjA6rw8SQ&hl=da&sa=X&ei=qlo3VeCNEcr9aMGFgbgI&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Zamyn%20Khondt%20%20oviraptorid&f=false FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean "to a new species": from what I read the Zamyn Khondt specimen is still considered a Citipati. Then, you should specify that the serie of pictures of Citipati called Citipati osmolskae in the exhibition "Dinosaures. Tresors del desert de Gobi" ("Dinosaurs. Treasures of Gobi Desert") in CosmoCaixa (Barcelona) are the Zamyn Khondt specimen. It isn't clear from the description. --Ruthven (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is most likely a new genus as well, that was just the first source I found. Most sudies just call it the "unnamed Zamyn Khondt oviraptorid" (like here[3]) or refer to it by its specimen number GIN 100/42 (Google it), they don't refer to it as Citipati sp. or some such most of the time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate

File:Epidexipteryx hui holotype.jpg is duplicate file of File:Epidexipteryx hui slab.jpg. They are the exact same image, except one has been rotated so that the slab had the head upwards. One should be deleted, as I don't think there is the need for two identical images. Which do you think should be? IJReid (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, right, seems the Flickr bot didn't notice it... Your flipped version looks better, I'll merge them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Volumina Jurassica

The journal (in which descriptions on new taxa have been published) states here that it is CC-BY-SA 4.0. Would this apply to the specific articles, or not as some places I've seen that the journal is not truly open-access ([4])? IJReid (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good question, maybe they've changed it since? What do individual articles say? FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

They mention nothing [5]. IJReid (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a little more elaboration here: "But not truly open access since the journal claims to retain exclusive rights to distribute the papers. That seems like a quaint affectation now that the internet is here, but whatever – at least they let anyone download the PDF for free, which is primarily what I care about."[6] FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Post-megaceros RFD

Hi,

FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Musée national de Préhistoire 130727-07.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Megaloceros giganteus.

Plus, I've got a question : if models are art, why aren't skeleton models consider as art?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've already answered there. Cats of skeletons are not art, neither are 3D prints of scanned skeletons. No artistry is involved in the process of making them (just like when PD art is photographed). Furthermore, there is no indication that the examples you've provided are not just the actual remains of dead animals, which are obviously not copyrightable. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

But why is assembling a skeleton not art? and why is assembling a body is art? If 3D prints of scanned skeletons is not art, are other technics of reproduction of skeletons art or not? Is this skeleton File:Plesiosaurus in Japan.jpg real (it doesn't seem) or just a reproduction? Is there no artistry in this plesiosaurus? couldn't the posture, the lingthning and the background be consider as art ? (FYI, there is COM:FOP in Japan but not indoor).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're mixing different issues together, and they should be discussed seperately. One thing is taxidermy, one thing is models, and one thing is skeletons. Models are always art. Skeletons are not, unless they're completely modelled (sculpted parts of a mainly real skeleton would likely fall under de minimis). Taxidermy is more iffy, because some of it can be artistic, where you for example create fantasy creatures, and some of it is just mounting a skin. But let's keep the discussions at the DRs, so people can see it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted images

Two of the deleted images are already restored (Langstonia and Llallaavis), the only that is missed is the photograph of the Titanoboa vertebrae. I know now that I must be more careful with the licenses of the images...--Rextron (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to that photo? FunkMonk (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the photo, even in my contributions... the file was Titanoboa_vertebrae.jpg, maybe I must upload it again.--Rextron (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)--Rextron (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Found it, you can see file name sin old revisions of articles. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I really appreciate your help with this.--Rextron (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe

I put that category because I saw the image here.--Spinoziano (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Aw well, see my comment at the bottom of that article's talk page... FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Israeli flag burned by Neturei Karta.jpg

File:Israeli flag burned by Neturei Karta.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!

McGeddon (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Crocs

Hi FunkMonk - interesting point about African crocs - not something I'd known about before. But it leads to obvious questions about potentially misidentified images in Category:Crocodylus niloticus; how many are actually of C. suchus? At a preliminary reading of the references on the en:wiki page, I'd suggest that File:Bazoule sacred crocodiles MS 6703.JPG and related files are highly likely to be C. suchus on behavioural and human-association characters. Whether with sufficient certainty to move to Category:Crocodylus suchus, or just move to Category:Unidentified Crocodylus, I'm not sure, but I'd guess they shouldn't really stay in Category:Crocodylus niloticus. Also File:Crocodylus niloticus Distribution.png will need re-drawing to exclude any regions where only C. suchus occurs. Any ideas? - MPF (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a complicated issue (see also the chimpanzee example I mentioned on the TOW page), wild ones can probably be identified based on locations, but for Zoo animals, I think all we can do is to wait it out... If we're lucky, there might come some publication on the issue, the species was also just recently confirmed to be distinct. As for the map, we definitely need a new one, as noted on the talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! If the two species can be sorted by location (where wild), I'm happy to do the recategorising, but would like to see up-to-date maps first (though there's also mention of range overlap in Uganda at least on the en:wiki page, and historically they must also have overlapped in Egypt). Safe to move all the Gambia and Burkina Faso pics for starters? I've also moved all of the captive ones to a new subcategory Category:Crocodylus niloticus (captive) to get them out of the way of the natural ones. - MPF (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you can go along and move all the photos of wild specimens from where the nile crocodile is not thought to exist. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleting old revisions

Hi. A while ago I made File:Vulcanodon pes.png based on the only image I could find. The older two revisions should be deleted, because they were directly based off the image. The middle version was a quick freehand of the material to save the image from deletion, but it is quite off proportionally and I do not think it is worth keeping. The most recent version is also freehand, but is much more accurate, so I would like to keep it as the file. Could you delete the two or three old revisions? I just remembered about this when Jens mentioned nominating Vulcanodon for FA, and thought that the only image of skeletal material should not be deleted on copyvio grounds. IJReid (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Done! FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. IJReid (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

About Aegirocassis benmoulae.jpg

Hi ! I'm afraid we have a little misunderstanding about the scientific drawings generally. A scientific drawing, mine like all other's scientific illustrators, is necessarly inspired from the more recent drawings or schemes in many other sources : if not, we go to the fantastic worlds of the dragons and clangons. We can't reinvent the fossil or the reconstituted species, if not, we move away from what demanding the scientists... My redesigned Aegirocassis benmoulae belongs to me, newest artist, and the succesive future versions will belong later, to the next designers, inspired by my drawing. This isn't plagiarism while the new design is something else that a copy of the previous. Excuse my rocky english. Wishes, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

But did you take the photos? FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wondering if a file you deleted has been recreated

Looking at [7] I'm wondering if File:Race of Moroccans.JPG is just a recreation. It seems to share the same problems. Doug Weller (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No source in any case, so I've tagged it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Eobasileus.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Eobasileus.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.

And also:

• File:Gallinula pacifica.jpg

I removed {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old}} or similar templates from the files whose authors who died less then 70 years ago. Now the files have no license and unless it is fixed will be deleted in a week. If you know of other reason why those files are in public domain please feel free to add a new license template and alert me and I will remove {{No license}} tag. If you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Fatah-Nasser meeting.jpg

File:Fatah-Nasser meeting.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!

Kelly (talk) 18:32, 12 November 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:Force Awakens Changi Airport.jpg

And also:

• File:Force Awakens Stormtroopers.jpg

Yours sincerely, Themightyquill (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)