User talk:Renamed user 2b3g54jkl2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Renamed user 2b3g54jkl2!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newone - Times City 25-10-11.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!

Conbo (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siprage-panorama.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!

Conbo (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toàn cảnh phường Đồng Quốc Bình.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!

Sealle (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Bộ tư lệnh Hải quân.JPG

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bộ tư lệnh Hải quân.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) 13:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

License migration

[edit]

Hi! I noticed that files like this are not changed from "chuyển đổi=relicense" to "migration=relicense". I was sure that it worked before. Have you noticed any changes? --MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a random file vi:Tập tin:Bennuoc05.JPG and if I try to move it then FileImporter changes the code correctly. Do you edit the file during the transfer or do you let FileImporter change stuff and then edit file on Commons after import if needed? --MGA73 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MGA73 Yes, recently I've been making edits at the importing step (such as adding category/description/date/...) instead of after import. But the first file was imported quite some time ago and I don't think I did that back then. Aside from that, I haven't seen any probable cause of the problem. Buiquangtu (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this test, the translation worked fine and I edited the file during the transfer. Buiquangtu (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats strange... Personally I prefer not to edit during transfer because the edit summary is "(2 automatic changes to templates have been made)" and "Tag: Modified by FileImporter" which is not fully correct when users do manual edits. --MGA73 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I add additional summaries (like "add category/description") to the automatic one. Buiquangtu (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tl:Phamminhhoangse

[edit]

Những hình đó đã bị MGA73 xóa hết rồi. Mình nhìn tên thì thấy ảnh các chính khách Việt Nam, chắc không sử dụng giấy phép 4.0 được. Conbo (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Congratulations, dear license reviewer

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

Hi Buiquangtu, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review and files from other sources. You can enable the LicenseReview gadget from Preferences.

Important: You should not review your own uploads, nor those of anyone closely related to you!

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.freenode.net. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! --(`・ω・´) (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Chào bạn, liệu bạn có thể review giúp mấy bức hình sau đây:

Tất cả các hình trên đều được phát hành dưới Giấy phép Creative Commons Ghi công 2.5 Chung, được đánh dấu trong bài.

Merci d'avance! --Urara Haru 麗春 02:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lệ Xuân Hi Lệ Xuân. I added a WayBack Machine link to the photos in case the website changes its license. Auf wiedersehen! sB talk 02:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, tks. --Urara Haru 麗春 05:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Benilde Hall.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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOP in Vietnam

[edit]

Hi! I have been looking at Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:FoP-Vietnam and I think the discussion is confusing.

Article 25.1 have a lot of cases of use of published works in which permission and payment of royalties or remunerations are not required. The relevant for FOP is "h" that says:

"h/ Photographing or televising of plastic art, architectural, photographic, applied-art works displayed at public places for the purpose of presenting images of these works;"

In 25.2 there is this requirement:

"2. Organizations and individuals that use works defined in Clause 1 of this Article may neither affect the normal utilization of these works nor prejudice the rights of the authors or copyright holders; and shall indicate the authors' names, and sources and origins of these works."

I see this as "You have to mention the creator if it is known who that is."

So why are the other parts being discussed? And why are there discussion about non-comercial usage?

Is there anything in the Vietnamese text that says something else than the English text? --MGA73 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73 Hi. I thought (possibly wrongly) that permission and payment of royalties are not required only in non-commercial uses. sB talk 18:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think there are special rules for personal use (25.1.j) but I think that all that is relevant is h in this case. And I see no limitations in h about what kind of use that is allowed. --MGA73 (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B, I added some info to prove that this image belongs to public domain in the U.S. Please have a look and tell me if you still have any concern. Băng Tỏa (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review, please! Bắc Ẩm Cuồng Đao (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centre Pompidou 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!

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  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:Tuong Dong Phong.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:Tuong Dong Phong.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

shizhao (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Truongnhac.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) 04:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]