User talk:Graywalls

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

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Water Dumping.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!

MrAureliusR (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Water dumping fraud.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!

MrAureliusR (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Outside In IDU Health Services during business hours .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!

llywrch (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to licensing
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

File:A2004-002-3630-steel-bridge-18901.jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file discussion page.

العربية  Deutsch  English  español  français  日本語  മലയാളം  polski  português  slovenščina  svenska  Tiếng Việt  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−

--EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:LarryDean.jpg

[edit]

Yeah, I just took off the speedy deletion template there, I'm still leaving it nominated for a deletion discussion. We do effectively have two statements from the management company at this point: "this photo is copyrighted" in 2022 and "this photo is CC-BY" in 2023. The second may turn out to be valid and override the first, they could have neglected to go back and update their website.

I am pessimistic, though, I expect it's just somebody lower in the company being told to improve a bunch of Wikipedia articles, and overreaching themselves without really thinking about what it means to tick the "CC-BY" box on a photo upload. Belbury (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply creating a Wiki account with a matching name is not an adequate indication of authority to execute; but usually a sufficient suspicion of promotional editing. I am concerned the company management is not told that they can not give a conditional permission to use the photo for Wikipedia purposes only and I'm guessing there's a decent chance they'd shy away from contributing the photo if they're told in order for their photo to qualify for contribution, they'd have to irrevocably surrender control of the photo to CC-BY-SA and throw their own terms out the door. Graywalls (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war

[edit]

Deutsch  English  français  italiano  magyar  português  sicilianu  русский  日本語  +/−


You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users’ contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.

--Yann (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

[edit]

العربية  বাংলা  čeština  словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ  dansk  Deutsch  English  español  suomi  français  עברית  magyar  Bahasa Indonesia  italiano  日本語  македонски  norsk bokmål  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  русский  sicilianu  slovenščina  svenska  Tok Pisin  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−


float 
You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.

Do not remove information from categories. --Yann (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: , it was not intended as vandalism. Graywalls (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May be it wasn't intended, but repeated removals of information is vandalism, specially when RAN told you not to do it. Yann (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: , it was in a single series. I'm not familiar with everything here and it hasn't happened after RAN and I've been in communication (that is beyond edit summaries) Graywalls (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from. Personally I would start with are the people for whom the category is created notable? If they have a Wikidata item perhaps start nominating that for deletion if its non notable. If that is successful we could then look at the content in a category. Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden: , ok following your advise, I did just that. Nominated entries about user's extended family members that are just ordinary people. Graywalls (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]