User talk:Scotch Mist/Archive01

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Scotch Mist!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please give images good descriptions

---

I noticed you've uploaded File:Cieszyn Building VI.jpg and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error.
Please give some thought to writing a good description of uploaded images. This ensures that they can be used. It also helps those that review and improve categories do a better job, which also ensures that images will get used in novel and interesting ways. Thanks, and happy editing!

Americophile 13:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Rotations

Hi. Consider rotating the photos to their right angle before uploading. This will save a lot of time and processing power... Wpedzich (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the images uploaded had been previously rotated but were seemingly returned to their original aspect on upload.--SM1 (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry - I did not follow up on the thread located here... the fact that the images were rotated by the uploaders previous to uploading, but still appear improperly placed - baffles me. I am not a technical person and probably will post a question to someone who is more tech-savvy. The same applies to rotation requests that sit unanswered for some time - let me take care of this in the nearest time. Wpedzich (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Old photos from Poland

Hi, thanks for uploading old photos of people from Poland, I'll write you some information about licensing, because their current description is wrong. For example this image:

• You are not an author, you only scanned it, I presume. Author is "J Boretti". More precisely it's "T Boretti" - Teofil Boretti
• Licensing is wrong - it's not under Creative Commons license. Teofil Boretti died in 1910, so his photos are in public domain - and it's fine.

But we still need to check authors of rest of the photos. I'll try to do that in near future. Cheers from Poland. Yarl ✉ 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yarl - thank you for your feedback and your correction on Boretti's first name! Am still in the process of adding descriptions to other photos uploaded and will endeavor to double-check the names of photographers.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the Wikimedia licensing, but the photos uploaded are photos of family members that have been passed down to myself - Waclaw Bulczynski was my Great Grandfather - so while you are correct in assessing that I scanned the photographs, I also have ownership of original photographs which I believe were commissioned by my ancestors who presumably paid for them along with any pertinent copyrights prevailing at the time. Admittedly I am not familiar with what copyright laws regarding studio photographs did prevail in Poland at the time, and as you indicated most, if not all, of the photos could be considered to be public domain anyway given the dates. However, I would like to be sure that I am following the correct procedures and would appreciate any further advice you can give me on this matter (including any changes I need to make to photos already posted). Regards from Scotland.

Request for Rotation reverts

Hi, Scotch Mist, I noticed your 1 and 2 reverts. Do I get it right here that these kind of files are not supposed to be rotated? BTW, By looking to your Userpage, I was wondering if this is the Tadeusz Grodyński your are talking about? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scotch Mist, maybe the expression watermark is not the correct one, but as far as I know, it is not desirable to add text to images like in the case of the "BRAK PROLONGATY GROBU" added. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lotje - thank you for your interest and comments - the text that you referred to as a 'digital watermark' is actually a label that was placed on the tomb itself so is an integral part of the photograph and not something that was added later. With regard to the reverses of photographs with portrait aspects I have intentionally retained the reverses with the same aspects, even where printed text appears in landscape aspect, as written notes (often barely legible) are usually in portrait mode. Also, maintaining the same aspect makes the reverse of the photograph more readily viewable in a gallery alongside the photograph itself.

Thanks you for your kind explanation. Any idea what "BRAK PROLONGATY GROBU" means? We could add it to the discription of the file, in order to avoid any further confusion. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the Tadeusz Grodyński you have referenced, to-date I have found no records directly linking his ancestors to mine, but at the time my great grandfather Andrzej, who was an appeal court judge, changed his name from Kusionowicz to Grodyński, Wilhelm, the father of Tadeusz, was also practicing as an appeal court judge so I suspect that if indeed there was no birth link (I am still researching!:) that there was at least a 'social link'.

Wishing you success with your research. If I come across something that I think might be of any help, I will for sure let you know. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Lotje - thank you again for your comments - you have raised a very interesting question about the meaning of "BRAK PROLONGATY GROBU" - from what I can understand the translation 'Grave without grace' effectively means that the cemetery authority/administration will not continue to maintain the grave unless new fees are paid which in effect provides a reason to sell access to the grave site for further burials resulting in more revenues for the cemetery. Apparently this is not uncommon practice in Poland where graves may be 'sold off' after a 20-30 year period should relatives not have come forward with payment in the meantime. The problem is that when no relatives live nearby then evidence of previous burials on the site may be lost altogether (the new owners of the grave site can seemingly remove previous headstone inscriptions and replace them with the burial details of those more recently interred), even if those originally buried at the site were important people within the local community at the time. I personally discovered this practice when searching for the grave of my great grandfather Andrzej at the Cieszyn Communal Cemetery where fortunately an inscription at the foot of the original obelisk pedestal remained, although out of site to passers-by. (With my fathers's family being exiled to Siberia during WWII and then after fighting along with the British forces - as described in his book 'The Grodyński Brigade' - settling in the UK, when my great grandmother died in 1964 there was no relative around to pay the new fees and although I am a direct descendant I was never contacted.) With regard to Alfons's grave, fortunately Edgar Matter discovered the situation in time to act, and not only paid the new fees but restored the magnificent white angel over the site that my father had mentioned in his book (photos of the restored angel can also be viewed at Cieszyn Communal Cemetery). I believe it is important in maintaining Poland's history that this practice be brought to an end, and given that more and more people are researching their Polish ancestors it should be possible to find ways to cover continuing cemetery maintenance costs, but not living in Poland I am not sure where to start with mounting such a campaign!:)

I would make a start in adding this information to the file description. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

DONE!

Good. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A relative of the Matter family

--Chris Pluta (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Christopher Pluta (son of Sylwia Matter-Pluta and George Pluta) and I live in Poland. I'm looking for relatives of the Matter family behind the Polish borders. I heard that you were once in Rudno and talked with my family. I would love to talk with relatives living abroad Polish. Can I contact with you by e-mail and talk about family?

PS. You've got great historical website :)

Greetings from Poland :) Chris Pluta

Hi Chris - thank you for your interest and kind words about the Scotch Mist site on Wikimedia. I have attempted to email you but it appears that you do not have an email address entered in your User preferences - once you set this up we should be able to communicate directly and I can respond personally to any questions you have regarding our common ancestors. Best wishes from Scotland!:)

Hi :) Now my e-mail is available. :)

File:A Grodynski 1939-05-17 (1).jpg

File:A Grodynski 1939-05-17 (1).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.

 

Cancre (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cancre - I attempted unsuccessfully to contact you by email as I had little opportunity to comment on this image being marked for deletion before it was actually deleted (within one day instead of a week which I understand to be normal practice). Rather than simply wait until 2022 for this file to be undeleted I wish the following comments to be considered in the meantime:

1. To my knowledge it is not certain that the photographer was Jozef Kuczynski as I understand that other photographers practised from, and under the name of, his studio (which I believe was not uncommon practise at the time). [Perhaps the 'creator' could be amended as per the reverse of the photograph?]
2. Understand the principle of the current seventy year copyright policy now applicable in Poland but do not know what the policy was at the time this family photograph was commissioned and whether that policy is superceded in all aspects today.
3. The photograph itself is an original family photograph that was taken over seventy years ago so I would have thought it should be possible to exhibit this freely (ie for no commercial gain) so that family members, and others, can view it readily. [Perhaps there is a recommended procedure to follow in this regard, or an alternative procedure that would allow the photograph to be viewed in countries without a seventy year restriction?]

Thank you for your consideration of the above comments on which I look forward to receiving your views.

Hello. I'm not a sysop on Commons, so I didn't delete this file. I just marked this file as a possible copyright violation, because as far as I know it was in fact a copyright violation - and apparently one of Commons sysop had the same opinion. I suppose you should ask him to give you the explication of his decision.

The general rule is that when the copyright status is uncertain it's better to delete the file. If we are not sure who made this photo, we don't know when he or she died. So there is no proof that the file is in public domain and we should delete it.

And don't forget that it is not allowed to upload on Commons files only for no-commercial uses! 'Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. [...] Wikimedia Commons only accepts media: that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. Cancre (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancestors

Thank you for your kind comment and for the award of a 'Special Barnstar'. In recent times I have had the opportunity to conduct some research of my own family and although I live in Scotland I have traveled to Poland and visited many places where my ancestors lived and worked as well as local cemeteries. In addition to photos of graves of ancestors I have also taken photos of graves of persons I believe to be associated with my ancestors and other interesting graves to help further the research of others, as well as myself. It is gratifying to learn that although I have not yet had time to fully describe each of these photos, including the names of those referenced, that this information is still proving helpful to others such as yourself. (Comment posted at talk page of Msikora227 (talk): --SM1 (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

Photos descriptions update

Hi. I've got one important notice to all photos described as Count Stefan Tyszkiewicz. There are not Stanislaw Tyszkiewicz but my uncle (brother of my grandfather) mjr Zenon Offenkowski. Please, correct descriptions. The wrong description is even the cause of wrong photography of Count Stanislaw Tyszkiewicz Wiki profile. Zenon Offenkowski and Count Stefan Tyszkiewicz were great people and shouldn’t be mixed. Regards

Thank you for providing this information upon which I have acted to change references from Count Stefan Tyszkiewicz to Major Zenon Offenkowski. Both of these men were friends of my grandparents during WWII, and in London after the war, but most of the photos left to me did not clearly identify names of people in photos. Should you have photos taken during the War, or afterwards, of Major Offenkowski, his wife Nika, or other family members, comrades or friends, then I would invite you to post them appropriately at the Scotch Mist pages or on your own page for others to reference and perhaps learn from any accompanying information that you can provide. BR (Comment posted at talk page of Jmarcjan (talk): --SM1 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC))

File:Eagles Nests Trail 13.jpg

Hello ScotchMist! It is an excellent composition and I think it is also technical better. This evening I will give more details --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Hello ScotchMist! I have been looking to your photos nominated on 21, 22 and 23 December. Your compositions are good but I don't understand the why you use ISO250 or more and f-value 10 or 11. The light conditions are good so I think ISO 100 or 200 is more than enough. I also think that for your photos f-value 4 to 5 is more than enough. I am used to Lightroom and Photoshop so I don't know your software RawTherapee 4.2.1375. However I think the higher the ISO-value, the more noise-reduction and sharpening is necessary. BTW: If your photo is declined you might ask for a discussion and several other people will say something about it. Greetings --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my photos and for your thoughtful advice. Admittedly during my last summer holiday I struggled with my camera (Nikon D3200) as at times it appeared to have a mind of its own! Over the course of two weeks I took nearly 2,000 photos as we moved from town to town in central Europe, with a mixture of family shots and scenic views interspersed with some live 'action shots'. Both in 'Auto' and 'Landscape' modes, as well as when 'flash' initiated, my camera appears to favour high ISO settings, and although I have attempted to adjust the camera settings to counter this it appears I still have work to do! Thanks again and best wishes for the festive period! ('Mail' not functional so comment posted at talk page of Michielverbeek (talk): --SM1 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Lublin 18.jpg

Please show Halavar that you have add categories and sharpened the photo by writing  Done --Michielverbeek (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates#Removal_of_declined_nominations.2C_using_an_incomplete_summary. --A.Savin 15:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed Sanok_23.jpg; deleted by Masur

The reason provided for removing this photo was "because: Screenshot of non-free content: poster", but this was not a 'computer screenshot' but a photograph of a board at the entrance to a Sanok park containing a promotional poster for the park. One would think that those who designed the poster (and who presumably hold any copyright) with the object of advertising the park and placed it on a board in a public space did so to promote the park and that therefore any rights of 'copyright' have not only been effectively waived but have clearly been intended to be waived (although admittedly I could be corrected on this if the Polish text, at the bottom of the poster and of which I am uncertain of the implications as I do not speak Polish, confirmed otherwise).

Thank you for consideration of this request to re-instate Sanok 23.jpg. --SM1 (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A photo of a poster is a derivative work equal to scanning it or any other form of reproduction. And unless it can be extempted under the freedom of panorama it is a fully copyrighted work, where these rights are retained by the original author(s). The intentions of original author(s) are irrelevant here, as the realising one's copyrights cannot be based on intentions (that's why here on Commons we use license templates, for example)- Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Masur (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply but for future reference can you please explain why would a photograph including such a poster displayed by the side of the road at the entrance to a public park not be exempt under Polish FOP? --SM1 (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Polish FoP applies only to works that are permanently exhibited and provided that the propagation is not for the same use. Therefore a picture of a scultprure is fine, but a picture of a picture not really (the same use). And here additionally we had a temporary installation. Masur (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Kaunas Landmarks 20.jpg

File:Kaunas Landmarks 20.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!

Túrelio (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 20.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 20.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 20.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, who is the painter? When did he/she die? --Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 22.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 22.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 22.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, who is the sculptor? When did he/she die? --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 18.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 18.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.

 

Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, who is the painter? When did he/she die? --Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 16.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 16.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 16.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, who created the relief? When did he/she die? --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Kaunas Landmarks 25.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kaunas Landmarks 25.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Kaunas Landmarks 25.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, who created the statue to the left? When did he/she die? --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Kaunas Landmarks 26.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kaunas Landmarks 26.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Kaunas Landmarks 26.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, work seems to be from year 2012, whereby it's still copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Kaunas Landmarks 27.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kaunas Landmarks 27.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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Kaunas Landmarks 27.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, work seems to be from year 2012, whereby it's still copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2019 (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:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 01.jpg

And also:

• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 02.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 03.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 04.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 05.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 06.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 07.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 08.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 09.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 10.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 11.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 12.jpg
• File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 13.jpg

Yours sincerely,   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jeff G, “Commercial use of reproductions of works of architecture or sculpture in public places is not allowed when ….” but to my knowledge there is no commercial use, or intended commercial use, associated with the images posted by Scotch Mist under CCA-4 and referenced above. Of course should any of the creators of the original works photographed in public spaces indicate (or have indicated) that they wish to have associated images removed from Wikimedia (or not uploaded to Wikimedia) then their wishes should naturally be complied with, but in the meantime it would seem appropriate to leave decisions in these matters to ‘local adminstrators’ who may have direct contact with the creators as well as a more intimate understanding of whether such ‘public works’ should be accessible through Wikimedia and thereby extend appreciation of the talents of local artists and the diversity of ‘public art’ presented throughout Lithuania. Please consider removing the delete tags on these images – thank you …--SM1 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Scotch Mist: Authorization for commercial use is required for the works underlying dws such as these photos, please see COM:L for details.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Further to my earlier comments please consider the fact that files have apparently existed in this 'category' for more than six years which suggests that the sculptor has not complained about the 'free publicity' of the work via Wikimedia, so before all the content, including images posted by others are deleted, it would be appreciated if a 'local administrator' could be consulted for their interpretation of current Lithuanian copyright regulations and that in the meantime these images be 'un-tagged'. Thank you for your earnest consideration of this request --SM1 (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Furthermore, Gediminas Jokūbonis (1927–2006), Lithuanian sculptor [1], was still alive when photos of this work (~1980) were publicized here on wikimedia and photos of this sculpture are widely accessible through many respected internet platforms such as tripadvisor, shutterstock and wikipedia itself. Apart from the images referenced not being 'reproductions for commercial use', in images ... 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 11, 12, 13 'the work is not the main subject' while the sculpture itself is clearly 'made to be located permanently in public place' [Freedom of panorama]. Will the inclusion of the name of the sculptor satisfy your requirement for removal of the the deletion tags on these images and perhaps the other images listed? Thank you for your advice ... --SM1 (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood. COM:L requires that files hosted here be available for any use, specifically including commercial use.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thank you for this clarification - I guess what you are saying is that while I have posted images of my photos on the basis that they be freely available to others for their use (whether commercial or otherwise), there may still be restrictions applicable with regards to the sculpture itself. However, if this is the case, then should Lithuanian copyright exceptions not apply, as proposed above, namely when the sculpture is not the 'main subject' of the image and\or when the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place'? Thanks again --SM1 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You may make {{Vk}} or {{Vd}} posts at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Vilnius.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

File copyright status

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the project, one or more of your recent 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 provenance 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. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:13, 26 April 2019 (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:Kaunas Landmarks 25.jpg

And also:

• File:Kaunas Landmarks 26.jpg
• File:Kaunas Landmarks 27.jpg

Yours sincerely, Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2019 (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:Art Nouveau Riga 22.jpg

Yours sincerely, kyykaarme (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2019 (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:Riga Landmarks 73.jpg

And also:

• File:Riga Landmarks 74.jpg

Yours sincerely, kyykaarme (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Jerzy Grodyński (SF).jpg

Nie wiem na jakiej podstawie twierdzisz że załadowane przez Ciebie zdjęcie ma lepszą jakość, kiedy moja pierwotna wersja jest większej rozdzielności. Poza tym w barwie czarno-białej, a nie sepii niepotrzebnej. Załaduję swoje zdjęcie raz jeszcze. Lowdown (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The image of Jerzy (my grandfather's cousin) I have uploaded appears to be better quality (if you look at Jerzy's jacket you can see the check of the material) but should you prefer that the original image be the default view please revert. Kind regards. --SM1 (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Auschwitz I-18.jpg

File:Auschwitz I-18.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!

Renata3 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

File descriptions

Hi! As for Special:Diff/417259785: please note that file description is generally about the image itself and what this particular image depicts, not about more or less indirectly associated subjecs such as country, universe etc. See also COM:NOT#Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book. and COM:OVERCAT. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2943:BAD2:FC3:863D 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

While removing the text and links that I have taken time to put together may appear to be following some Commons guidelines, a little background and inclusion of some pertinent links for those not familiar with the location in question I believe is not only instructive but adds interest to the image itself, especially for people from other countries. Of course some of this information can be found at different locations on Wikipedia pages but this requires more work and does not encourage further contributions of information specific to the photo, some of which I plan to add myself when I have time. It is much easier to delete information than it is to put it together and edit it in the first place, and when you do not even provide a talk page for discussion of your actions I think you should give users the benefit of the doubt in such instances and focus on areas where you can make a constructive contribution. Thank you --SM1 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

While we can't rule out that some reader finds any pile of indiscriminate information useful, then this information is still largely disorienting in relation to what this image actually depicts. Given image depicts a bridge, while the description extensively discusses something else. So it's rather hard to consider it constructive to keep such descriptions. Also, I don't think it's necessary to discuss every edit in advance, especially if my edit is rather straightforward and reason is given in edit summary. I advise you to look around a little and see how description field is generally used. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2943:BAD2:FC3:863D 08:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Am not sure how many images you have posted yourself as you do not even appear to have a Talk Page, but I have posted nearly 5,000 images over a period of nearly ten years and you are the first person who wishes to remove the information that I have taken time and effort to compile. In fact, besides comments from others who have welcomed such information, the only 'negative comment' I can recall is that I should provide further information specific to details of the image, which I have already done with many of the images I have posted (and as indicated I plan to do with the Viljandi images when I have more time) as other users have done who have already contributed further details on many of my images in the meantime. Appreciate you have a different perspective on this, but unless information is factually wrong please refrain from removing the contributions of others who have put a lot of work into raising interest in images displayed in Wikimedia Commons. Understand that your time may also be valuable so will not ask you to 'revert' the information on all of my images you have edited but will do this myself when I have time. Thank you --SM1 (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there's no need to become personal and we should stick to the issue, i.e. what description field is for. If other users haven't commented on nor removed similar descriptions then this may as well indicate that other users just don't pay much attention to descriptions, not that they necessarily approve this. The fact is that description field usually says only what's relevant to given image and what it depicts and your descriptions are disorienting in that aspect. As for your effort, to me it seems that instead of finding out what images actually depict, you chose to put little effort into it by copying some generic text from Wikipedia. Then you could start with simple desription like "Viljandi", until you can provide more detail, instead of substituting a proper description with an indiscriminate text copy. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2943:BAD2:FC3:863D 10:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There was no intent in my comments to "become personal" and I apologize if you have interpreted them in this manner but I have spent a lot of time looking at descriptions of others, especially more experienced users, in creating a description template to follow. Basic details such as location names are often contained in the Categories, but these do not convey background or historical information that may be of interest to others. Also including some pertinent Wiki (or web) links in descriptions makes it much easier for viewers to extend their interest as well as to find out more information about the subject for themselves. Admittedly only a few take the time to add further information to the descriptions themselves but some do and sometimes they add details that I would probably not have discovered myself. I think if you asked most users they would agree that some background information and associated links is better than no information or a simple place name. Please look at the 'bigger picture' ... --SM1 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As for over-categorization (COM:OVERCAT), which you also revert: since "Viljandi Castle" is a subcategory of (subcategories of) "Viljandi" then castle images shouldn't be placed directly in latter category. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2943:BAD2:FC3:863D 10:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally agree with your comment regarding subcategories, although generally also believe, as you presumably will have already gathered, that if in doubt I consider too much information preferable to too little!:) --SM1 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

File description generally seems to be treated similar to Wikipedia text in regard to background information. (Internal) links are added so that one can click and read about more or less loosely related subjects that one may also be interested in. Say, biography doesn't include general information on country where person lives, college that person attended etc. as it distracts a reader who is interested in particular subject, i.e. the person. Moreover, I'd expect that description of a bridge image foremost relates to given depiction (condition, scenery, highlighted details etc. on given image) and background information like thorough history of the bridge would be only linked. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C4BF:5052:F326:ABA1 07:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In a general sense I do not disagree with you and if the text accompanying an image was simply a copy of a complete Wikipedia entry then it would probably be more appropriate simply to include a single Wikipedia link accompanied with pertinent brief text. I also do not disagree that the focus of accompanying text should be on the direct subject of the image, and as I have previously explained, it is my intention to add to this when I have more time although I hope in the meantime that people with more local knowledge, perhaps such as yourself, will be encouraged to add this (to the more general background information I have created for multiple photos in an area which may be relatively unknown for many international viewers\readers). As indicated previously, some information is generally better than no information at all unless there is actually an intent to discourage interest beyond the local area. Please consider creating your own user talk page so others may openly communicate with you and think about adding information via photos and/or text that may be helpful to third parties, without either your background or local knowledge, rather than removing or deleting the work of others who are earnestly endeavoring to encourage greater interest in other countries and the interesting histories of those countries. Thanks --SM1 (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2020 (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!

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C4BF:5052:F326:ABA1 07:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Auschwitz I-05.jpg

File:Auschwitz I-05.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!

Buidhe (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Auschwitz I-35.jpg

File:Auschwitz I-35.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!

Buidhe (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2020 (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:Auschwitz I-07.jpg

Yours sincerely, Buidhe (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The following comment that I expressed a week ago on the referenced deletion page has not received a response and specific aspects of this comment may also be relevant to other of my Auschwitz photos you have recently nominated for deletion:

@Buidhe: There is probably a debate to be had around assertively* protecting copyright of pictures, posters and even models, that have been created to convey information or 'deeper stories' to the general public as common sense might suggest that the creators, if there was the opportunity to ask them (some regrettably may no longer be with us), would not withhold approval to have copies of their work freely circulated to a wider public audience (irrespective of guidelines {{FoP-Poland}}). That said, it seems to be extending the boundaries of such assertiveness to wish to propose deleting an image where the supposed 'object' (partial view) of an infringement is deliberately out of focus with the camera focus on the person viewing the model and their reflection on 'the story' highlighted by the reflection of another person in the background. Given the importance of continuing to tell the full story of Auschwitz I personally do not think any photos should be deleted here unless these have been requested by the author(s) or there are compelling reasons to believe that copyright is being deliberately abused. I believe neither of these reasons apply to File:Auschwitz I-07.jpg. --SM1 (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC) PS Distinctions between 'interior' and 'exterior' may seem clear in current contexts but do not necessarily reflect original settings or the intentions of the creator with regards to pictures, posters and models. This would generally suggest that discrimination of derivative images of such on this basis alone should be avoided unless deliberate commercial infringements of applicable local copyright regulations are suspected. --SM1 (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate your further advice ... --SM1 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello :)

Hi Scotch Mist! Thank you for your photos. I like them very much. Unfortunately some photos lack a bit of sharpness. Did you use a tripod?

Have a nice day! Tournasol7 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tournasol7: (talk) Thanks for your kind comment and feedback. Certainly you are correct that many of my photos could be sharper, and although I use a tripod from time-to-time, especially for action sports shots, I should use it more often, particularly where lighting is less than ideal. Unfortunately I am often on the move with my family when taking photos in new places that we visit which often does not allow time for tripod set-up, but will try to make more use of it in the future!:) --SM1 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Saint Mary column photo Kosice 46.jpg

Hello Scotch Mist,

regarding your featured picture nomination of the Saint Mary column (Kosice 46.jpg): I wonder if the colours and contrast could be improved by another post-processing. If you like, you could send me (a link to) the raw image file, I would try to develop it; maybe I can find an interesting variant (but I cannot guarantee that ;–). Best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC) @Aristeas: Thank you for reviewing this image and for your kind offer to look at post-processing - I am not able to provide a 'link' but could email you the raw image file if that would work (but appreciate there would be no guarantee of the end result:!)? Best regards --SM1 (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello SM1: Yes, it would be very nice if you could mail the raw image file to me: please use the address post@eikota.de. I just wonder if I can (using some experience and “tricks” from my own photos) find a colour balance etc. which would make your nice image even more attractive. I will report you about the findings (and the settings I have used). I just cannot guarantee that I will actually find a nice solution. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC) @Aristeas: Have emailed raw image file to address provided --SM1 (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Disorienting image descriptions

On your remark to respect the contributions of others and engage in discussion. Well, I already did explain this about year ago and I did engage in discussion, but not much was revealed on how such descriptions could be considered relevant to particular images. Principally, these descriptions still are indiscriminate text copies from Wikipedia, without describing the actual subject depicted and hence these descriptions still are disorienting to users. That said, I do respect your contributions, your photographs are definitely valuable. Photographs themselves being valueable on the other hand shouldn't prevent us from cleaning up descriptions that you just copied from Wikipedia (someone else's unattributed contribution) without checking the actual subject depicted. Please note that I also put effort into cleaning up images (checking descriptions, categories etc.) whereas you once again reverse even corrections to innaccurate categories.

I did preserve links to your user gallery along with comment related to Polish history. But now I notice that next to Tallinn images this is rather misleading, too. Namely, Tallinn was never under Polish rule. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:64DB:42C6:CEA7:7247 14:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:64DB:42C6:CEA7:7247 Thank you for responding to my remark but you still have not done me the courtesy of providing me with your name or a valid user site. What you describe as "indiscriminate" is far from the case as I have taken time, and not a little effort, to summarise (often in my own words) different background Wikipedia text and include what I believe to be relevant Wikipedia links (which users\contributors are encouraged to do and which others who have viewed my photos on Wikimedia have requested for ease of discovering more background information to the photos). Appreciate you made the effort to retain the reference to my user gallery which is valid because the influence of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth extended throughout the Baltic countries, including Estonia. --SM:!) (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see you copied text from en:Estonia and en:Tallinn (current or former revision), you added some formatting, and then used exactly the same text as description for 100+ files depicting all sorts of different subjects. Whatever is the amount of effort to do it, this "background information" doesn't describe the subject depicted on images in question. I don't mind Wikipedia links per se in description, e.g. in location info name and link city and country. Other than that, I'm still pretty sure users are encouraged to use description field specifically to describe what the file shows, and not for indirect "background information" (as pointed out previously, this can be given in Wikipedia articles that are linked). This is per e.g. Commons:First steps/Quality and description#Good file descriptions) and per common practise derived from most file descriptions out there. These text copies are disorienting in regard to what the image actually shows. To be precise, Polish rule extended to southern Estonia (including Pärnu, Tartu and Viljandi that you also photographed), but not to northern Estonia (including Tallinn). To say that Polish influence (manifests in what?) had different extent is rather vague. Anonymous editing to my knowledge is valid. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2102:5D08:281B:6551 18:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2102:5D08:281B:6551 "A well written image description or gallery on the Commons will have plenty of links to the appropriate language Wikipedia." (Note about creating wikilinks.) Your edits have removed over thirty Wikilinks that others have found useful. Admittedly many of the images posted in Commons do not have extensive descriptions and relatively few posters spend the time to provide comparable background information but I have posted thousands of photos on Wikimedia with the intent of encouraging family, friends, and others to take an interest in the history and cultures of countries that they may not yet visited. Given that such information does no apparent harm, takes up relatively little space compared to the photos themselves, I find it difficult to comprehend why someone would not respect the views of the photographer\poster in this, and in fact would wish to reduce access to information about their own country that others may appreciate and find interesting? If you do not wish to read any information in the description why would it be "disorienting", especially when if not evident in the description there is generally one or more categories included that give more specific info like names of buildings. This brings me on to the point about "influence", which often extends beyond the stricter boundaries of territorial "rule", as can be evidenced in architecture, artwork, wider culture, etc, by including the reference to Poland it not only begs the question as to how far Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth rule extended (which you have answered in this instance) it also encourages Poles and those with Polish origins to to take a greater interest in that country as a whole. But, even if very few people read the descriptions or follow the links, as expressed earlier, what harm is it doing for more information to be made available about your country through my photographs? Finally, those who wish to do more than view content on Wikipedia or Wikimedia are encouraged to register as a 'user' with an identity that can form a focus for their activities and encourage constructive debate around them. Removing the work of others anonymously, and without involving other experienced 'users' before unilaterally making significant edits, is not a procedure I would recommend as personally, as mentioned earlier, I find it disrespectful and discouraging of making further contributions. --SM:!) (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

As already said, I don't mind Wikipedia links in descriptions per se. Most Wikipedia links that you added, at least in case of Estonian images that I've checked, however are part of text that is irrelevant to particular images. If text is redundant then obviously links in it are too. To put it differently, if user expects description to say what the image depicts (as this is the general practice here), and must go through sizeable text only to find out that the information simply isn't there, then this is disorienting and distracting and all in all wastes most readers' time. So I don't see how you come to conclusion that indiscriminate information "does no apparent harm". The aim to provide information that some users "may appreciate and find interesting" and to encourage "greater interest in that country as a whole" per se is understandable, but we need to find proper venue for this. This proper venue most likely is a relevant Wikipedia article that can be simply linked instead of copying its irrelevant parts. It may be worthwhile to draw your attention again to Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book. If you copy this sizable text then you already might as well copy entire Wikipedia articles into description field. So obviously a line must be drawn somewhere, and this line generally is where information about the depicted subject ends. This is most likely the reason why "few posters spend the time to provide comparable background information". I don't argue that influence may extend beyond borders, but as said it's a vague notion, and in this case it doesn't appear self-evident that (former) Polish influence extends to Tallinn. It's probably easier to argue that Polish influence extends to farther places like France or America, but then you probably want to be explicit about what this influence manifests in and what exactly is the relation to Polish history. If you specifically say that your gallery is about "Poland and countries that previously comprised the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" then reader who considers it relevant to particular image most likely also assumes that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth previously comprised Tallinn. In that regard text around gallery link is misleading. I don't think that I ever did give you a reason to become personal, about anonymous editing or other aspects of my contributions. I'm available for discussion and I don't think that I deserve to be patronized more than you or any other (registered) user about making more or less significant edits without being vouched by "other experienced users". 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C26:4F08:40A3:225A 08:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C26:4F08:40A3:225A Agree that Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book. The whole point of summarizing information and inserting links is to encourage people to read the much lengthier and much more detailed information contained in different Wikipedia pages. This, I believe, is consistent with the essential Wikipedia\Wikimedia ethos. If this is "disorienting", as claimed, why have hundreds of the images I have posted been reviewed by hundreds of different 'registered users' and promoted to QI without anyone proposing I simply remove all text and links from my descriptions and replace that information with a single non-linked place name (never-mind unilaterally taking such significant action)? I am not suggesting others don't prefer to read much briefer descriptions which are more directly pertinent to the particular image, and generally I will endeavour to add such detail later if I have not included it with the original post, but what others choose to read is their choice if information is provided, they have no immediate easy choice if it is not. There was no intention to be patronising and I apologise if my comments came across that way but I would encourage you to seek ways to make more constructive contributions rather than discourage others who have taken the time to prepare\post the images in the first place as well as to provide additional information (including a 'description') that may be helpful to third parties if regrettably not yourself. --SM:!) (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

QI to my understanding is about the assessment of a photograph not page content. I of course don't say description has to be one word and as said, I don't mind links per se. I only applied a quick fix that anyone is encouraged to amend with relevant information. In case of File:Tallinn Landmarks 102.jpg and a couple of other images you actually included relevant text describing the actual depicted subject. I kept this text, though after having removed it in the first place as unexpectedly it was appended to your usual sizeable and irrelevant text. It's not quite true that you simply offer an easy choice to read more information. If sizeable and irrelevant text is there then reader has to go through it in any case to be able to "choose" relevant information bits. In that way reader is distracted and can't really choose relevant information quickly. For this reason inclusion of indiscriminate information isn't a good thing in any publication really. E.g. the same applies to Wikipedia (see en:WP:INDISCRIMINATE) where different kind of information would be indiscriminate but nonetheless. As far as I can see you pretty much ignore "Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia" guideline and push use of Commons descriptions for unexpected purpose. I wouldn't say that this is necessarily consistent with "Wikimedia ethos". You say you "have taken the time to prepare\post" but in regard to descriptions at least, once again, you really copied text from Wikipedia, did minor formatting then used exactly the same text as description for 100+ files regardless what is actually depicted on particular images. With all due respect, I find it's hard to put less effort in descriptions. I also protest against reversion of corretions to inaccurate categories. In other places to you restore over-categorization (COM:OVERCAT). Namely files that are in a subcategory of "Architecture of Tallinn" shouldn't be placed in latter category additionally. Your edit comment "blanket removal of information" is also very much deceiving as actually I've explained in detail why my action was not simply a "blanket removal of information" and how it was in accord with Commons guidelines and actual practices. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B579:7C25:B60D:3E5 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B579:7C25:B60D:3E5 Thank you for adding new local categories to some of my images - I have attempted to retain or re-create these when restoring my original text (and again apologise should I have omitted any - I will check again). I also appreciate your efforts with some of the images to retain a portion of the text you consider appropriate. Having said this it is clear from your comments regarding QI that you have not nominated many, if any, of your own photos for QI, because if you had you would have known that descriptions and categories are an integral part of QI reviews and are regularly commented upon. Your remark regarding 'over-categorisation' is more difficult to address precisely because there still seem to be many conflicting opinions on this across Wikimedia - generally comments on my images when reviewed in forums such as QI are that I do not include enough categories and I have attempted to address this without having categories, or sub-categories, that fall under the same 'categorization umbrella'! We are all learning as Wikimedia expands its reach and across the world more users are registered, and of course many different views and disagreements arise and will continue to arise in the future, but, as others more experienced in posting images to Wikimedia than myself have advised me in the past I would repeat their words (as closely as I can recollect) "if there is disagreement photographers\authors should be given the benefit of any doubt as without them 'Wikimedia' can't continue to grow"! --SM:!) (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not well familiar with QI process indeed and I don't know in which cases and in what aspect exactly is description of interest in it. I assume in some cases details in description are needed to properly assess technical aspects of a photo. Leaving such considerations aside, interpretation that QI process approves something that clearly contradicts COM:NOT is still rather far-fetched. I don't know what difficulties you refer to regarding over-categorisation. Guidelines seem quite clear to me. There are some exceptions listed, but none of these are in question here. I understand to some degree it's reasonable to put more weight on author's opinion on actions taken regarding their work. This however shouldn't change the fact that, on Wikimedia projects in principle anyone can and should be able to modify other people's work, and probably even less it should be thought that author has full liberty to ignore project guidelines when it comes to their own work. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B579:7C25:B60D:3E5 17:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B579:7C25:B60D:3E5 To my knowledge, none of the thousands of images I have posted have been posted as part of a specified Wikimedia Project and no applicable guidelines that I am aware of are being ignored. --SM:!) (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked all your uploads, but at least in case of Estonian images that I've encountered, as said, you copy text from Wikipedia, which quite clearly doesn't comply with Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book, especially as this text is irrelevant to files in question. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:55C8:A1F8:1A16:1421 07:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B579:7C25:B60D:3E5 It is difficult for me to relate to someone who apparently contributes few, if any, photographs to Commons himself, yet spends time seeking to cut or remove the contributions of others. Even more perplexing is that someone from a beautiful country with a fascinating history such as Estonia, would prefer that references to his country and links to pertinent Wikipedia pages aimed at encouraging people from outside of his country to take more interest in it, be “undone”. It is frankly absurd to claim that a brief history of Estonia, with links to further information and key events in that history, is not relevant to a photograph of Estonia’s parliament building. It is also absurd to claim that text carefully constructed using some of the words from Wikipedia pages, and including selected links, with the aim of motivating others to learn more through directly accessing all the details of full Wikipedia pages is somehow not complying with Commons guidelines. It would have been much easier, and certainly less time consuming, for me to have simply followed your ‘edit’ and inserted the single word ‘Tallinn’ (without even a wikilink), in the descriptions of the 100+ photos I have uploaded of Tallinn to-date. In addition I have constructed a gallery of photos taken in Estonia (as I have done for other countries along with a selection of photos on my user home page) also with the objective of fostering further interest in your country. I admit I struggle to understand your personal motivation unless you wish to discourage people from outside of Estonia from learning more about your country, and perhaps visiting it in the future, or after visiting, from uploading photos to Commons as they may have to be removed because accompanying details considered relevant do not comply with the wishes of an individual who remains ‘anonymous’ and becomes “disoriented” when reading summary information about his own country. I have noted your opinion and will take that into account, along with any more constructive comments, when uploading further images. Unless your intent is to have me delete all of the photographs taken in Estonia that I have uploaded please respect my view as ‘Author’ – thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I see you choose to ignore the that fact above I already explained in depth what my motivation was when I tried to clean up these descriptions. My intent is to check and clean up description pages in accordance with common practice and guidelines, so that descriptions were accurate and useful. I'm not here to simply undo others' work. You misuse description fields to provide encyclopaedia text very indirectly related to depicted subject, instead of describing what the image shows. To clean this up is absurd only if you ignore project scope and the fact that this here is not Wikipedia. This not my personal problem, I did not write basic guidelines at Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book and Commons:First steps/Quality and description#Good file descriptions. I'm sure you meant well when you copied these descriptions, but this doesn't change the fact that as file descriptions these texts are off the mark. Your goal to encourage people to take general interest in Estonia and other places is appreciated, but please find proper venue for this, i.e. Wikipedia. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:50AD:8869:BDC3:B1CD 10:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Way Forward? Supplementing the text constructed by others (to accompany their photographs) with local knowledge pertinent to each photograph would be a much more constructive contribution to Commons (and appreciated by all) than simply removing words personally viewed as "disorienting" or "irrelevant"!

"Hm, you summed up using a false accusation (Special:Diff/556059389) and then quickly archive the discussion (Special:Diff/556056091). For future reference, and as already pointed out repeatedly, Wikipedia text in question is not disorienting and irrelevant to me personally, but it is so in context of particular Commons file pages and Commons guidelines. Also, there's no point contrasting text removal and writing proper (and more thorough) descriptions. As already said, I have nothing against the latter. I explained why it's constructive to start with removal of irrelevant text. It doesn't become less irrelevant if relevant part is appended to it." 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:FC90:20EF:C638:9FE9 12:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Disorienting image descriptions (follow up)

In response to your latest reverts like Special:Diff/564996539 and as a follow up to previous discussion here and here: I went forward with my cleanup work as previous discussion went stale and you really didn't provide any rationale that would justify such use of description field under existing guidelines, mostly imporantly COM:NOT#Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book.

Yet, you again revert without providing any relevant explanation. Contrarily, your edit summary "relevant text\links restored" is deceiving as in no way have you clarified how such text could be relevant. For example File:Tallinn Landmarks 33.jpg depicts a building. The subject, this building, has nothing to with the fact that Estonia borders Finland, Sweden, Russia and Latvia, not the fact that the country "has been inhabited since at least 9,000 BC", nor the fact that "Tallinn is located 80 kilometres (50 mi) south of Helsinki", nor anything else that your standard Wikipedia text copy says.

I noted that you value links and hence this time I kept Wikipedia links for both city and country.

As outlined above and in previous discussion, I have reason to consider your reverts only disruptive and I protest against it. If this continues then I probably need to report it to administrators' board. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:D5A:3D0D:2337:6B3E 17:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:D5A:3D0D:2337:6B3E ""A well written image description or gallery on the Commons will have plenty of links to the appropriate language Wikipedia." (Note about creating wikilinks.) Your edits have removed over thirty Wikilinks that others have found useful. Admittedly many of the images posted in Commons do not have extensive descriptions and relatively few posters spend the time to provide comparable background information but I have posted thousands of photos on Wikimedia with the intent of encouraging family, friends, and others to take an interest in the history and cultures of countries that they may not yet visited. Given that such information does no apparent harm, takes up relatively little space compared to the photos themselves, I find it difficult to comprehend why someone would not respect the views of the photographer\poster in this, and in fact would wish to reduce access to information about their own country that others may appreciate and find interesting? If you do not wish to read any information in the description why would it be "disorienting", especially when if not evident in the description there is generally one or more categories included that give more specific info like names of buildings. This brings me on to the point about "influence", which often extends beyond the stricter boundaries of territorial "rule", as can be evidenced in architecture, artwork, wider culture, etc, by including the reference to Poland it not only begs the question as to how far Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth rule extended (which you have answered in this instance) it also encourages Poles and those with Polish origins to to take a greater interest in that country as a whole. But, even if very few people read the descriptions or follow the links, as expressed earlier, what harm is it doing for more information to be made available about your country through my photographs? Finally, those who wish to do more than view content on Wikipedia or Wikimedia are encouraged to register as a 'user' with an identity that can form a focus for their activities and encourage constructive debate around them. Removing the work of others anonymously, and without involving other experienced 'users' before unilaterally making significant edits, is not a procedure I would recommend as personally, as mentioned earlier, I find it disrespectful and discouraging of making further contributions." --SM:!) (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid we already went through all that, and I answered to all of it in depth already. Emphasis in this quote on Wikipedia links should be on well written. In relevant description text add as many links as you like, I never argued that. Indiscriminate text on the other hand doesn't justify the links, and less so do links per se justify the text. Your descriptions relate to the subject only in a way that the subject is in given country and in given city. And I repeat, in edits like Special:Diff/564882031 I kept both relevant links, i.e. links to Wikipedia article on city and country.

Your say descriptions do no apparent harm? I already explained how this is simply not true, but alright, I try to put it differently: your're missing the context here, you edit description page for particular image with particular subject, not Wikipedia article on city or country. As such you make Commons users go through bulk of indiscriminate "description" text only to find out that description of particular image and its subject is actually missing. This wastes everyone's time and also impedes other users from providing meaningful and relevant description instead as they probably don't know what to do with existing text that doesn't fit in. So your "description" clearly is harmful and I consider it constructive to remove it, for a start at least.

As for Polish influence in Tallinn, as already said, this is vague, at best. You never responded how is this better than indicating that Polish influence is present in, say, every image of Paris or New York. The latter may be true in some way, probably even more than it's true for Tallinn, but really it isn't evident what you'd imply with this "influence", and your note is just confusing.

I consider your remark on anonymous editing as merely an argumentud ad hominem. As you can see I'm all available for discussion and I explain my edits thoroughly. In your case being registered doesn't stop you from reverting without discusssion and using deceiving edit summaries which is really disrespectful.

So far I've tried to think that despite mixing up different purposes of Commons as Wikipedia you meant well when copying text from Wikipedia. However the more this goes on here, the more you show your inability to understand what file description is for and the more you try to excuse what clearly contradicts Commons guidelines, it's starting to feel that you really were and are just too lazy to identify actual subjects of your photographs (as you identify all as "Landmarks" and copy the same indiscriminate text to 100s of images). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:CCFC:14F4:B9C0:B1EA 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your recent edit summary quote "A well written image description..." makes barely any sense as a rationale. As I already said repeatedly, I didn't suggest that Wikipedia links themselves were an issue. The problem is with the text that includes these links. Text that you copied is remotely related to the depicted subject, but you may as well copy passages from any Wikipedia article to these file descriptions. For example, it doesn't really matter if you copy description for File:Tallinn Landmarks 57.jpg from en:Estonia or from en:Cheese sandwich as text would be equally disorienting and useless for describing the subject of give image. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:188D:32D:CEFF:2A97 19:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81DA:F780:188D:32D:CEFF:2A97 Clearly your opinion differs from mine but should you not wish to respect my opinion as the photographer and uploader then I would suggest, as I presume you live in Estonia, that you take your own photos of these subjects and upload them to Wikimedia Commons with the descriptions etc that you think appropriate then others can decide which images\descriptions they prefer to view\read. In the meantime it would be appreciated if you cease removing text that I have compiled with appropriate links and that others like to read\follow when they view my images. Thank you --SM:!) (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As already said, I do agree that within reason photographer's wishes should be respected. I don't think that I nor any other editor should respect clearly disorienting content, though. I also don't believe that "others like to read\follow" such disorienting descriptions, at least as long as they are familiar with content structure of Commons, and they realize that this here is Commons, not Wikipedia. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:188D:32D:CEFF:2A97 20:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81DA:F780:188D:32D:CEFF:2A97 So, as suggested, please upload your own photographs and descriptions instead of seeking to impose your own particular views (which apparently are not shared by thousands of people who have viewed the images\descriptions I have uploaded). Thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, please don't try to deceive by describing guidelines given in COM:NOT as my personal views. To say that these guidelines "are not shared by thousands of people" is obviously not true as actually general practice outline in these guidelines is followed on almost all description pages apart from those created by you. If these clearly disorienting descriptions weren't contested earlier then this rather suggested that there aren't enough editors or that some users just care less about descriptions than files.

To be honest, currently it seems you don't even want to your photos to be properly described and you want to waste other users' time by making them go through long indiscriminate text that contrary to expectation in no way describes the subject of given image. Instead, in a kind of petty manner, you choose to ignore evident and thoroughly explained concerns entirely and are only insterested in pushing the misguided idea that you are right to do whatever you want on description pages of your uploads. You should check Commons:Ownership of pages and files per which you shouldn't expect to have full control over content that you submit. All file pages are subject to editorial discretion (not limted to your discretion in case of files uploaded by you). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:40B1:A3B7:8E58:805F 08:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81DA:F780:188D:32D:CEFF:2A97 Your claim that you find my descriptions "disorienting" is very much your 'personal view' and its "deceiving" to suggest otherwise. It is also "deceiving" to state that I have said that the Wikimedia guidelines are not followed by others simply because I have stated that it appears that thousands of people who have viewed the images I have uploaded do not share your particular, and possibly unique, view. No one is compelled to read the descriptions that accompany Wikimedia images, this is a matter of choice, but if there are no descriptions at all, or only a single unlinked word such as "Tallinn" (as per your original 'edits'), then one has to look elsewhere to be guided to possible relevant information. Whether interest is historical, architectural, geographical, etc, Wikilinks make it relatively easy for others to access such information (should they wish), and some are encouraged to do this by reading summary background information in the description.

Wikipedia and Wikimedia were created with the aim of making information and images readily accessible via the internet to the general public worldwide but it seems you appear to have adopted the role of 'supreme judge' on image descriptions in a strict manner that appears contrary to that aim. This not only seems highly presumptuous but possibly aligns with those who wish to control knowledge and deny information to others. You apparently do not wish to spend time taking and uploading your own photographs as a registered Wikimedia user and your persistent deletion of descriptions that I have composed perhaps suggest that your true aim is to have me delete\remove all of the uploaded images from photographs that I have taken in Estonia. Certainly your unilateral actions and subjective comments to-date do not encourage a return to your beautiful and historic country with an aim to take\upload more photographs for others to appreciate and share! --SM:!) (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Regretfully your response indicates that you haven't read what Commons guidelines actually say, i.e. most importantly the guidelines on what image descriptions are for and what Commons is and is not in the first place. Otherwise you couldn't really say that my rationale based in these guidelines is an expression of my personal and unique view. As already pointed out above, it is fallacious to think that "thousands of people" share your view only because they haven't contested it. The latter may as well mean that they simply don't care, or they haven't noticed these descriptions, or they don't have the time capacity to deal with it. Neither does it mean that other people don't share views outlined in guidelines ("my view") only because they haven't contested your view. Should you manage to find file descriptions by other users who similarly copy irrelevant and indiscriminate text from Wikipedia then it would show they actually may share your view. But even if such users exist then your view would still contradict guidelines and general practice.

I repeat briefly: file description per guidelines is meant for describing the subject depicted on particular image, while your descriptions in their entirety fail to meet this purpose. Per COM:NOT, Wikipedia, unlike Commons, is mean for providing "background information" on all sorts of remotely related and unrelated subjects.

The issue in the first place is indiscriminate text copied from Wikipedia, not links in it. So there isn't much point to focus on links. Despite that, I repeat, I did preserve link to country and city as soon as you made it clear that you value links. I admit that these two links make it more clear where the depicted subject is and as such these links can be considered useful. No other link in your description helps reader "to be guided to possible relevant information" as the rest of the text (along with links) in your descriptions is always irrelevant (as illustrated by e.g. example given at the top of this discussion).

Of course no one is compelled to read the descriptions, but if one chooses to read a description then they should get what they expect the description to be, i.e. text describing the depicted subject, instead of being disoriented when going through long indiscriminate text that has got nothing to do with the depicted subject.

Generally you repeat claims which I've repelled already in previous responses which you ignore. Such behavior on your behalf is rather disrespectful towards discussion counterparts. I think what you say about me being "supreme judge" can be said more easily about yourself. Unlike you I don't think I've right to revert other people's work by ignoring Commons guidelines and evident concerns brought up in discussions. Neither is it constructive to "discuss" in form of ultimatums (a la others must let you do whatever you want, or otherwise you don't contribute new photos). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1174:136D:2956:EFDE 12:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

And now for images like File:Barclay de Tolly Mausoleum 38.jpg you restore paragraph about Tartu which is not even near given location. Not that it matters a lot really, as the same paragraph given for images like File:Tartu Landmarks 19.jpg is still enitirely irrelevant to the depcited subject. Reductio ad absurdum, you may as well amend the description of every image taken in Estonia with a few sentences about every city in Estonia, and a few paragraphs on every neighbouring country (Sweden, Finland etc.), or every other country in the European Union, or information about whatever remotely related (irrelevant) subject, as then "background information" is at least readily accessible. This again shows that descriptions which you copy from Wikipedia are obviously indiscriminate. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1174:136D:2956:EFDE 12:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1174:136D:2956:EFDE Far from being "indiscriminate" the references to Tartu are deliberate because it is the closest city to the Mausoleum and the intention behind the references, in addition to direct information\links, is to encourage visitors to Tartu to also visit the Mausoleum. However it appears my considered efforts to encourage tourists, and perhaps even some Estonians, to visit such 'landmarks' are not appreciated by yourself. However, as I am always open to 'constructive suggestions' I will consider your comment positively (in spite of the tone) and remove the references to Tartu on images of the Mausoleum. Please consider attempting to bring about the changes you desire by more constructive and engaging comments rather than through the strict imposition of your personal perspective on Wikimedia and Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, you consistently try to deceive by suggesting that Commons guidelines and general pracices, which are followed on almost on file pages apart from those created by you, are of "my personal views", and despite saying that you are open to constructive suggestions, you actually ignore pretty much all concerns backed by examples, extensive explanation and references to guidelines. This is not how on-wiki discussions are generally supposed to be held and as such it is disappointing. I'm sorry if this disappointment becomes gradually evident in my tone as well. Nonetheless I think I've been quite patient, and contrarily to your example, I've tried to respond to all your concerns (both legitimate and those which are irrelevant in context of Commons file pages).

Af for Tartu, while it matters a little, it is not the closest city to the mausoleum. Several other cities (Valga, Tõrva etc.) are closer, as well as hundreds of other settlements that are closer. As said, it's possible to amend descriptions of every image taken in Estonia with information about every settlement in Estonia "to encourage tourists", or whatever, but per guidelines this is an obvious misuse of descriptions, and almost nobody (or nobody) else uses descriptions like that. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1174:136D:2956:EFDE 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If you seriously think that I don't get the guidelines right, then please do show where exactly and how I get it wrong, instead of casting accusations that are vague and incomprehensible. Previously I've referenced and cited COM:NOT#Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book, as well as Commons:First steps/Quality and description#Good file descriptions. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1174:136D:2956:EFDE 14:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1174:136D:2956:EFDE My apologies, I omitted the word 'large' between "closest" and "city" but the point I made is still relevant and not as abstruse as you would appear to suggest. Concluding I do things "indiscriminately" could not be further from the truth, as those who know me will attest, but you are of course entitled to your own view. There is little point in expressing the same arguments over and over (you insist on relying on your view of one aspect of the overall guidelines, and I do not dispute this aspect, but I also consider broader guidelines pertinent which clearly you do not) but perhaps some humility on both our parts could finally close this 'debate' amicably in respectfully agreeing to differ in our opinions!?! --SM:!) (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Where I wrote about you adding indiscriminate text (not more vaguely about "doing things indiscriminately"), I provided explicit examples (see commentary on "Tallinn Landmarks 33.jpg" above), and I also demonstrated how unlimited amount of similar text can be added to every description in similar manner and with the same rationale. As such I still have reason to believe that "indiscriminate text" assessment is accurate.

This really isn't about differing opinions. This is about what it says in guidelines in black and white and what is followed on virtually all other description pages on Commons. You haven't made an attempt (let alone repeat your arguments) to show that there is an actual problem with the interpreation of actual written guidelines, broader guidelines or any guidelines. You basically ask Commons guidelines to be ignored, and the problem of disorienting descriptions to be persistent, and I don't think that it's a fair thing to ask. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1174:136D:2956:EFDE 14:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1174:136D:2956:EFDE I accept the guidelines, including those which contain the comment in bold above and which you have substantially ignored, but unfortunately it is clear that "humility" is not in your vocabulary so I would now simply request that you cease adding comments, which I find disrespectful, to my Talk Page. Should you wish to continue this debate then simply notify me when you have established your own Talk Page and I will do my best to engage with you there. Thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Again you end a discussion with a blatant lie and then quickly archive the discussion. For future reference, I *did not* ignore your guideline quote "A well written image description or gallery on the Commons will have plenty of links to the appropriate language Wikipedia" in previous discussion. I explained to you, more than once, how this quote has no relevance to the issue of descriptions being disorienting, and that I have no problem with more thorough description and links in itself, which you in turn ignored. I don't think you really have a right to accuse me of being disrespectful or having no "humility" if you behave like that yourself. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:8447:309D:2260:D36E 06:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC) !?!

FP candidate “Eagles Nests Trail 34.jpg”

Hello Scotch Mist,

regarding your current FPC Eagles Nests Trail 34.jpg, I have tried a little improvement of brightness and colour balance (as suggested by King of Hearts). I have done this on the base of your first upload of the image and you can find the result here (TIF file). I have used a TIF file to avoid JPEG compression errors. If you like it, you could apply again the corrections you have made on the image (i.e. denoise the sky etc.), then create a JPG file and upload it again (and make a note about that on the FPC page). If you do not like my changes at all, no problem, I just wanted to try it, forget it. If you do like my changes partially, but not completely, just tell me what’s wrong, maybe I can do it better.

All the best and greetings, --Aristeas (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aristeas: Thank you for taking the time to work on and enhance the original image. As I had made a number of changes I have attempted to use the image you provided as a guide to adjusting the colour balance of the nominated image and I have now uploaded a new version (see comment). This may not replicate the quality of editing the TIFF file you provided but is consistent with other changes made previously. Hopefully this will work for 'King of Hearts', as well as others, and thanks again and best wishes! --SM:!) (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s fine! --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Aristeas: The "new version" I uploaded came close to replicating the colours of your file but also introduced artifacts and posterized the sky so I have now uploaded an 'intermediate version' but have lost some of the colour. Would it be asking too much for you to create another TIFF file as previous but from the image uploaded on 10 April, or does this image not have sufficient basic quality? Thanks for your help - I'm clearly still learning here! --SM:!) (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hello SM:!), I will try it ... --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Update: Comparing the version uploaded on 28 November 2016 (let’s call this the ‘original’) and the version uploaded on 10 April 2021, I see that some of the fine details in the less sharp areas, especially in the meadow in front of the church, have been lost, probably due to the successive editing and saving as JPEG file. This is why the first thing I do when editing a JPEG file is saving it as a TIFF file (with loseless compression), then I do all editing on this TIFF file and only finally save a copy of it as JPEG file for uploading.  ;–) (No offence: I am not criticizing you, I just try to explain my workflow.) This is also the reason why have I have based my colour correction on the ‘original’ version. But I will try to re-apply my colour changes to the 10 April 2021 version and upload it, no problem! Wait a minute ... --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Update: And here is the result. Fortuntaly I had saved the colour corrections etc. as an XMP file, so I could easily re-apply them to the 10 April file. Hope it helps, all the best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Aristeas: Excellent - have converted TIFF to JPEG file and uploaded to FP - thank you for your time and great work bringing out the natural colours of the castle and surrounds in this image! Best wishes!:) --SM:!) (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• You are welcome – I am glad that I could help you a bit! Often I have no time, that’s a pity, but when I have some time and see a beautiful image which could be improved further with my (limited!) skills, I am happy to help. Now I hope that our FPC fellows like the results ;–). All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations …

… to the featured Bobolice Castle photo – and my sincere condolence that the angel photo did not make it. I do not understand that – for me your photo of the angel is great, exactly with that special perspective and crop, it would make an excellent album cover or a poster for meditation or many more things; but, well, tastes differ. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aristeas: Thank you - certainly without your kind input neither of my nominations would have been successful! When I nominated these photos I was more confident that 'the angel' might be promoted, and must admit that I was rather disappointed, especially as the opposing comments appeared to be primarily concerned about the white background (clouds) from which the angel was 'emerging' and the fact that the bottom part of the statue, which for me was not of significant interest, was cropped. But as you said, tastes differ!:) With regard to Babolice Castle you seemed to find a near perfect balance of brightness and color enhancement that makes me think that if possible I should change the settings on my camera (Nikon D3200) to attempt to achieve this level of enhancement with all my photos, or alternatively set up a 'filter' in GIMP or RawTherapee (or other software) to routinely process them. Do you have any advice on either of these approaches or any general recommendations on brightness\colour adjustments? Appreciate you no doubt have many other demands on your time but any advice or suggestions you can provide when time allows would be much appreciated! --SM:!) (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hm, that’s difficult, sorry. When processing my own photos I treat each photo one by one, I do not use the “presets” and “power user settings” and all that stuff some people even pay extra money for. The downside is that I am really slow in processing photos, I develop and upload only a very smal fractions of the photos I take.

The only thing which I often use a base is the “Landscape” setting included in Adobe ACR and Lightroom; this is often a good starting point for me, and not only for landscape photos; but it’s a pity that this cannot be exported or so and therefore we cannot use it in RawTherapee or GIMP etc. Basically it does make the colours overall a bit warmer, but at the same time it creates vivid (plant) greens and (sky) blues; it increases the contrast of the midtones while making the brightest lights a bit darker (to prevent them from buring out) and the shadows a bit brighter. I do not know, sorry, if and how it is possible to create a profile or filter for RawTherapee or GIMP which does the same; but you could try to search the web or ask other users of RawTherapee/GIMP if there is something similar to the “Landscape” setting for RawTherapee/GIMP. (I have tried to use RawTherapee or Darktable instead of Adobe ACR/Lightroom, but the ease of use and the availability of that “Landscape” setting made my photos so much better or the editing so much easier that I switched back to Adobe.)

When editing the Bobolice photo (or the Saint Mary statue), I could not use this setting (it cannot be used on JPEG files, only on the various RAW file formats), but did something similar myself manually. I made the colours a bit warmer (and also, on the second colour balance axis, a bit more purple), adjusted white and black points according to the histgram, increased the contrast a little bit (to make the midtones more different), but at the same time made the lights darker and the shadows brighter. I did not increase saturation (often I even dial down saturation a bit), but I increased “dynamics” or “vividness” (this is called differently in different applications), a setting which increases the saturation only of the not-so-saturated colours. This is a typical approach when editing landscape or architecture photos. But the trick is to find out how much each of this adjustmens should be done for a photo; and finding out this “how much” is the problem ;–). I always do this for every photo on its own (therefore, I have to repeat me, I am slow ;–). But when doing this often you get kind of a feeling for it and it’s getting easier.

I do not know if this could be somehow transferred to better settings for the camera. (My own camera settings are somewhat special, they are optimized to maximize the dynamic range available in the RAW file (in your case, this would be a NEF file): therefore the JPEG files created directly by my camera look rather weird, I only use them for fast preview usage and always process the RAW file instead.) Maybe you could tell your camera to record JPEG images with a bit warmer colours? This would be good for many landscape/architecture shots; don’t make that setting too strong; but a bit warmer would often be good.

Sorry that I cannot be more constructive or helpful. It’s just a difficult game. Best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aristeas: As always you have been very helpful and informative with your response and have given me useful directions for improving my photos in the future. Thanks again and all the best! --SM:!) (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Independent Lion Rampant Scotland Flag.png

File:Independent Lion Rampant Scotland Flag.png 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!

GPinkerton (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:British Universities Volleyball - Home Nations 1974 - Spike.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:British Universities Volleyball - Home Nations 1974 - Spike.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Masur (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Masur - have edited the file description in accordance with Source: stipulations so hopefully the deletion request can now be removed - thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Poland and Files:Kraków_History_1794-1939_06.jpg & Kraków_History_1794-1990_09.jpg - undeletions?

FoP in Poland applies to works that are permanently exhibited. Therefore posters, temporary exhibitions etc. aren't covered by FoP. Masur (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again Masur - had presumed these 'posters' erected on separate metal stands are effectively part of a "permanent" exhibition that encapsulates key times and events in Poland's history and that they continue to be on public display, but perhaps not necessarily at the same location(s). As an aside, it would appear regrettable if these informative images of interest to many (in addition to those fortunate visitors to Krakow) were no longer to be accessible via Wikimedia, but I could not find a source to credit for the original works but perhaps as I understand you live in Poland you could help with this? --SM:!) (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	✴ Happy Holidays, Scotch Mist ✴
	Merry Christmas and a happy new year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Frohe Weihnachten und ein gutes neues Jahr! Желаю вам счастливого Рождества и Нового года! --Aristeas (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2021 (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:Vilnius Landmarks 167.jpg

And also:

• File:Vilnius Landmarks 168.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:32, 6 June 2022 (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:Freedom Monument Latvia 08.jpg

And also:

• File:Freedom Monument Latvia 10.jpg
• File:Riga Landmarks 13.jpg
• File:Riga Landmarks 14.jpg

Yours sincerely, Xunks (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Such possible deletions due to seemingly rather obscure potential copyright infringements do not help to encourage more visitors to the beautiful and historic country of Latvia. However, from past experience it appears that Wikimedia rules encourage image deletions rather than preservation (as it is almost impossible in such situations to gain approval from whoever is deemed to hold the current copyrights without knowledge of names and contact details) so it is probably fruitless to attempt to oppose these deletions. A more equitable process would discourage simple deletions of the work of others without reference to the copyright holder who could then be contacted (via information provided by those proposing deletions) for approval by those taking the time to post images and provide relevant details. The fact that in a few years (70 years after what I now understand to be the date of the death of the 'architect') suggests that unless a complaint has actually been lodged by the copyright holder, or there is some evidence of illegal commercial abuse of the copyright, that the current limited process seems to be essentially a waste of everyone's time! SM:!) (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2022 (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:Tallinn Landmarks 25.jpg

Yours sincerely, — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

From previous deletion notifications it appears there is no point in "voicing my opinion" as the deletion will proceed no matter the number and strength of the arguments put forward. In other words this process is stacked in favour of those who would prefer to remove the works of others rather than find ways to positively engage with those holding legal title to the rights associated with the original works. --SM:!) (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Riga Landmarks 72.jpg

File:Riga Landmarks 72.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

From previous deletion notifications it appears there is no point in "voicing my opinion" as the deletion will proceed no matter the number and strength of the arguments put forward. In other words this process is stacked in favour of those who would prefer to remove the works of others rather than find ways to positively engage with those holding legal title to the rights associated with the original works. --SM:!) (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Prague Charles Bridge 2021 23.jpg

File:Prague Charles Bridge 2021 23.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!

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an author 'speedy deletion' so should not require any discussion! --SM:!) (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2022 (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:Vilnius Landmarks 103.jpg

And also:

• File:Vilnius Landmarks 36.jpg
• File:Vilnius Landmarks 37.jpg
• File:Vilnius Landmarks 38.jpg
• File:Vilnius Landmarks 39.jpg
• File:Vilnius Landmarks 40.jpg
• File:Vilnius Landmarks 90.jpg
• File:Vilnius Landmarks 91.jpg
• File:Vilnius Landmarks 92.jpg
• File:Vilnius Landmarks 93.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2023 (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:Riga Landmarks 41.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Riga Landmarks 23.jpg

File:Riga Landmarks 23.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) 17:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Tartu Landmarks 06.jpg

File:Tartu Landmarks 06.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!

KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Tartu Landmarks 07.jpg

File:Tartu Landmarks 07.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!

KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Tartu Landmarks 09.jpg

File:Tartu Landmarks 09.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!

KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This photograph of the Tartu City Government Building in Tartu Square is the primary subject of the photograph and should not be deleted due to the necessary inclusion in the foreground of an image of a statue lacking focus, light and contrast. Also, should you still consider it necessary to progress the deletion process in this instance, can you please provide the name and preferably contact details of the artist so permission for posting on Wikimedia Commons can be requested. Thank You! SM:!) (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC) SM:!) (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The burnden of finding that information is on the uploader.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It is relatively simple to delete the work of others that may have taken many hours to create (without any intention of infringing copyright). Technically the onus is legitimately on the photographer\poster to ensure compliance with copyright but for tourists visiting countries this is almost impossible unless the work has a plaque attached, preferably with contact details. Morally the onus is on those deleting the work of others to contact the artist\sculptor to confirm their wishes in respect of copyright enforcement as many artists, when contacted, actually welcome a larger appreciation of their work, especially in an essentially non-commercial environment such as Wikimedia Commons.

With regard to this specific photograph\image it is questionable whether it does infringe any copyright given it is not the main subject of the photograph which is the building and the fact that this building cannot be photographed from this perspective without inclusion of the sculpture as well as the fact the sculpture in the image lacks focus\detail.

Please address all of the points expressed above - thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't care how long it took you to make this, either prove it is a free work or say bye-bye to it. You do not deserve any special treatment exemption from copyright just because you used your precious time to make it. Morally and per rules the burden is on the uploader to prove their work is free.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, and regardless of your particular interpretation of what may be morally appropriate, you have still not addressed the point that I have repeated with regard to the application of non-FOP, which is the sculpture in question is NOT "the main subject" of the image presented so FOP does NOT apply in this instance. This is not a request for "special treatment" but is a request for fair and objective application of Wikimedia Copyright Rules (which do not provide for blanket deletions irrespective of the prominence in the image of the artwork concerned). For the third time, can you please address this point - thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand. Estonia has NO Freedom of Panorama, not just for statues but for buildings too.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps English is not your first language but if you re-read my reply it should become evident that I fully understand that "Estonia has NO Freedom of Panorama". That said, and understanding that buildings in Estonia may also be subject to 'non-FOP rules', in this case the building is in the shade and partially obscured by the fountain discussed so if this building image is to be deleted then it would appear you are declaring that nearly every photograph\image taken outside in towns and cities of Estonia must now be deleted from Wikimedia Commons unless they have been granted specific authority for posting from the copyright-holder. I would respectfully suggest that you consult with higher level W-C Administrators before proceeding further in this regard. Thank you for your full consideration of this reply and perhaps your future endeavours to help persuade the pertinent authority in Estonia of the many merits in adopting FOP. --SM:!) (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Source and authorship

Hi. The painting File:Olomouc 71.jpg is really your own work from July 2015 as you declared? If it's not, please correct date, author and license statements at the file page. If it's really our own work, please precise what exactly is depicted in the image. Thank You. ŠJů (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention - I have temporarily edited the image description while I seek appropriate details --SM:!) (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays

✴ Happy Holidays, Scotch Mist ✴ Merry Christmas and a happy new year! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Buon Natale e felice anno nuovo! Frohe Weihnachten und ein gutes neues Jahr! Aristeas (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2023 (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:Warsaw 2023 066.jpg

And also:

• File:Warsaw 2023 067.jpg
• File:Warsaw 2023 068.jpg
• File:Warsaw 2023 069.jpg
• File:Warsaw 2023 070.jpg
• File:Warsaw 2023 071.jpg

Yours sincerely, ~Cybularny ^Speak? 00:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Warsaw 2023 310.jpg

File:Warsaw 2023 310.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!

~Cybularny ^Speak? 00:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Malbork Castle 2023 118.jpg

Copyright status: File:Malbork Castle 2023 118.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Malbork Castle 2023 118.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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 18:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

License file deleted in error and now restored with warning notice removed --SM:!) (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Kraków History 1794-1939 05.jpg

File:Kraków History 1794-1939 05.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!

Mewa767 (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)