User talk:Clarkcj12/Archive 1

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

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hello, Clarkcj12!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Weird tags on migrated file

File:CYRILLIC LETTER DZHE.png looks like it has some stray fields: {{Ns has subpages}}, {{Red}}, and {{Tlx}}. Are they mis-entered items from the migration process, or a bug in CommmonsHelper? DMacks (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Clark! I must ask what is the purpose of the category Category:Taken with Canon Digital IXUS 970 IS? I noticed that you added my photo File:Ältasjön, gångväg.jpg to that category. There is only 30 files in that category although there should be hundreds of photos on commons taken with that camera. /Esquilo (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Reviewer

If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-

Hi Clarkcj12, thanks for your application to be an image reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can review all kind of image licenses on Commons. Please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. Backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding them to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

You can also add {{User reviewer}} or {{User trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons!--Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS after revieving pisasa

Hi, as I saw you have just reviewed files added from Picasa: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] but you did not fix a OTRS ticket. Will you finnish it, please? Or OTRS is unnecessary after revieving pisasa license? Jacek555 (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

check

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SS501_jung_min.jpg --1.227.196.123 12:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Clarkcj12, one of the two lines is enough. Otherwise it will unnecessarily slow down page-loading and may interfere. Thank you. I wish you a happy new year. Regards -- RE rillke questions? 13:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Marmota marmota latirostris files from Picasa web

Hi. Would you review files downloaded from picasa: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], please? I have not been sure if I had to sign them with OTRS template at all. Should I remove that templates just now, or after revieving? Or maybe if a file derives from Picasa, I should not use OTRS template? In the other notification, I was asking OTRS team to finnish a OTRS procedure after your revieving, but I have received a answer that they do not need to check a file if it was reviewed by you. So now itis unclear for me...Jacek555 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OK.Thank you Jacek555 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you check it please: [14]? Jacek555 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! This file's name is wrong. It should be File:Çankaya University Preparatory School.JPG. How can do this? Thanks :)--Reality006 (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in commenting on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Capela do Porto.jpg. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Co-operative Logos

They were taken from The Co-operative Group's [15] official Flickr page - importantly rights for the logos were reserved so.... Stevo1000 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5

Hi,
We cannot upload CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 licensed images (for example: File:Tcdd2Network2011.gif) to commons, can we? --Infestor (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:JulieSpira.jpg

Hi, is there any more information you need regarding the copyright of [16]? Thanks Fifteendegreesbelow (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Resent with whole conversation. Fifteendegreesbelow (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done This issue has been resolved. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ticket

For 'Amanda purple boasmall1.jpg' Please confirm sending an message to writer's email showed on hers official webpage (Stormy Glenn). +PrinceWilly 17:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about me. I'm crazy. Thank you for editing there. +PrinceWilly 01:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Issue has been resolved. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

The author of the photo, Michael Shannon of Glen Doherty Memorial Foundation, has replied back to my email in its entirety and cc-ed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to confirm that the photo is released under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Have you received the confirmation? The subject line is "OTRS for File:Glen_Anthony_Doherty.jpg on Wikimedia Common" Thank you! :-) — Hasdi Bravo14:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On behalf of the Glen Doherty Memorial Foundation we have released the below mentioned photo to the public under CC-BY-SA-3.0 license and have reviewed the license.
 
If you have any question please let us know.
 
Thanks
Michael
 
Michael Shannon
michael at glendohertyfoundation.org
www.glendohertyfoundation.org
✓ Done This has been resolved by OTRS Ticket number 2012101910007121. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You added OTRS permission to this image, but it was uploaded to both Wikipedia and Commons with different sources and licences indicated. What is the correct source and licence? Currently, both sources and all licences appear on the file information page, but all of them can't be correct unless the user has multiple accounts. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for letting me know, I have fixed it. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure that it's correct? The file appeared on Wikipedia before it was uploaded to Commons, but you listed the Commons source (i.e. the more recent source) as the correct one. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am sure that it is correct, as the license stated in the OTRS ticket, states that they release the image under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Also I did correct two tiny things since then. To make it more accurate. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I just wanted to be extra careful in case something was overlooked. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Logic race.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

Moogsi (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions about ticket:2012112810003035

If you could comment at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:GB_2.jpg_and_File:GB_19.jpg. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:77 Monza Spyder.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!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Image version confusion of File:Pandit Ram Kishore Shukla and Motilal Vora inaugurating a beam bridge on river son in Madhya Pradesh in 1986.JPG

Good morning, please guide regarding my upload of recent cropped version of File:Pandit Ram Kishore Shukla and Motilal Vora inaugurating a beam bridge on river son in Madhya Pradesh in 1986.JPG, in order to omit scanning errors at top right corner but still it is noticeable at right top corner, how is this ???? Please guide how to have the recent cropped file in use. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sks1950 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure I follow you. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Plan Catedrala ortodoxaTM.svg.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 6 March 2013 (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:


Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:World lgbt adoption.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!

Kwamikagami (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi,
You put an OTRS autorisation for this file (and many others). How come? I mean, this kazakhstani coin was produced in 2001 and unless i'm mistaken the author, were it the etcher or the central bank of Kazakhstan, still is the legitimate copyright owner for his work. The fact that someone took a picture of the coin doesn't deprive the author of the coin of it's copyright. Think for instance of a modern painting: someone releasing a picture under a free licence is not legally correct since (s)he's not the copyright holder. Yours, (:Julien:) (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It is correct as such its isn't copyrighted due the copyright laws there. Please rad the listing for it at COM:CUR. It though is a copyright image as such it was taken from a website that had a copyright license of the image. So in my optionit is a correct llicense. If it was a regular user it would be under PD due to the copyright laws, but the website that the image is located holds the copyright. Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
And about that painting technically a user could if that country has a COM:FOP, but it would still be a good idea if they did ask the copyright holder before they did it. As such COM:FOP is a difficult law to understand at times. Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

On 14 December 2013, I uploaded photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Columnar_Basalt_Giants_Causeway_Northern_Ireland.jpg from a French website. The source webpage has a web link for its CC-BY-SA licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.fr) which is "Creative Commons Attribution - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 3.0 non transposé (CC BY-SA 3.0)" which I believe is the French language translation of the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)" licence. I used the English language version of this licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en) when I uploaded the image using the Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard. (Wikimedia Commons should automatically show the French translation of this English language licence to users who have French as their user profile language setting). I then requested licence review. I see that when you did the licence review on 15 December 2013, you changed the licence to "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 France (CC-BY-SA-2.0-FR)" which corresponds to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/fr/deed-en, which I believe is the wrong licence. I suggest that the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en licence should be restored using the "cc-by-sa-3.0" template tag. I do not think it would be appropriate for me as the uploader of the file to unilaterally change the licence after your review. Therefore, would you restore the correct licence and also arrange for any additional review, please? GeoWriter (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@GeoWriter: Thank you for sending me this message. I understand what you mean but the license of the image is correct it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0-Fr Which is the French version of the license. The reason why I did that is because that is what it is licensed under as on the website. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. I disagree with you about the correctness of the licence. If you are saying that the photo is currently licensed on its source website (http://www.geodiversite.net) as CC-BY-SA-3.0-FR then I don't understand why you think this is the case. Did you assume that the "fr" in the licence URL of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.fr changes an Unported licence to an FR licence? The photo is not currently licensed on its source website under CC-BY-SA-3.0-FR. It is currently licensed under a French language translation of CC-BY-SA-3.0-Unported (shown by clicking on the CC-BY-SA web link on the photo source page). I believe that CC-BY-SA-FR and the French version of CC-BY-SA-Unported are not the same licence. I believe they are separate licences with different conditions. Unported does not include some France-specific conditions of the FR licence. Moving on to considering what the licence was in December, I suggest that it is unlikely that the CC-BY-SA licence for this photo has ever been different from the all the other photos on the website that have a CC-BY-SA licence. I suspect that the CC-BY-SA web link used by the geodiversite.net website to display the relevant licence from the Creative Commons website is likely to be controlled as a parameter at website level. I've uploaded 33 other photos from the same website before and after this photo, which have been reviewed by several Wikimedia Commons licence reviewers. All the photos had and still have a CC-BY-SA Unported licence from a web URL ending with /deed.fr (for Unported), not, as you imply, a URL ending with /fr/deed-en (for FR). I think you made a mistake in your review in December. Where do we go from here? GeoWriter (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@GeoWriter: I see the mistake, thank you for explaining it to me. I will make the correction. Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. GeoWriter (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Own work by original uploader

Hello. Please take care to remove this template when uploading images which weren't created by the original uploader at the local project (c.f., File:Lu Zhishen.jpg). I believe the tool gives instructions to that effect. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you (correctly) reviewed this image as being hosted under a cc licence at flickr. The problem is that it was simply uploaded to flickr under such a licence by a random person, while it is very probably in fact a Reuters image.

I think commons will need to keep an eye on this tactic, seeing that "stolen" images get policed on commons, people may start to upload them to flickr under fake licences and then upload them to commons later, claiming a free licence because their image now happens to be on flickr. regards, --Dbachmann (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Baldissero d'Alba-Stemma.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!

Stefan4 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Bass Pro Shops entrance.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!

Hop on Bananas (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Tango-Package-x-eneric.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Tango-select-by-color.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention to copyright
File:Athens Montage 2.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  العربية  asturianu  azərbaycanca  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  Bahasa Indonesia  italiano  日本語  한국어  Lëtzebuergesch  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  Bahasa Melayu  Malti  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  தமிழ்  тоҷикӣ  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−

Fut.Perf. 12:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Athens Montage 2.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!

Jcb (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Clarkcj12, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  हिन्दी hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Sir Edwin Wijeyeratne.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:Sir Edwin Wijeyeratne.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Obi2canibe (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Encino40.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!

Hiddenhauser (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)

In other languages (translate this)

Deutsch  English  español  français  hrvatski  italiano  português  português do Brasil  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  日本語  +/−

Please use SVG
Please use SVG
Thank you for uploading some images! Did you know that Wikimedia Commons recommends the SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format for certain types of images? Scalable Vector Graphics are designed to look appropriate at any scale, and SVG images are easier to modify and translate, helping Wikimedia to distribute knowledge to all of the world. A lot of modern programs support SVG export. If you encountered problems or have questions, don't hesitate to ask me, a member of the Graphic Lab, or the Graphics village pump. Uploading images in SVG format isn't mandatory, but it would help. (To avoid any misunderstandings, please don't just put raster images into an SVG container as embedded raster.) Thanks, and happy editing!

Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Conn Tpk.gif

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Conn Tpk.gif, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Conn Tpk.gif]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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!

Castillo blanco (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Valakas 02.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!

Gbawden (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Paradise trees.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!

P 1 9 9   13:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

File:TNA Brand.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!

P 1 9 9   20:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)