User talk:Academia45

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Academia45!

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) 16:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:The BL King’s Topographical Collection- "The South East View of Beaumaris Castle, in the Isle of Anglesey. ".jpg

Copyright status: File:The BL King’s Topographical Collection- "The South East View of Beaumaris Castle, in the Isle of Anglesey. ".jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:The BL King’s Topographical Collection- "The South East View of Beaumaris Castle, in the Isle of Anglesey. ".jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:The BL King’s Topographical Collection- "The North View of Beaumaris Castle, in the Isle of Anglesey. ".jpg

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 20:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this file was uploaded from the Wikipedia Flickr tool, so it has already verified the copyright automatically. When I search for files to upload from Flickr to Wikipedia, I always select for Commercial use with the search filters. Here's the link : https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/50264100881/

Personally, I won't use this picture for a page as it didn't fit well with the Beaumaris Castle page. Feel free to delete if you want no worries. Academia45 (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Kidwelly Castle full aerial view with borders.jpg

File:Kidwelly Castle full aerial view with borders.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!

Sionk (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this file was initially uploaded from the Flickr tool available on Wikipedia. There was a problem with the borders so I simply modified the picture by removing the borders on paint and reuploaded it on Wikipedia. I think I've simply forgotten to add the Flickr initially link to this work. The same picture is already on Wikipedia from my upload from Flickr and was approved by the Wikipedia flick tool. Here's the link : https://www.flickr.com/photos/192165503@N07/50995792353/

Here's the link to the original file : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kidwelly_castle_aerial_view.jpg Academia45 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Map of Viroconium Cornoviorum.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Map of Viroconium Cornoviorum.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I've seen it afterwards, therefore I removed the picture from the Virconium page right after. No worries, I was not quite sure at the beginning. Academia45 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Westbury Castle, Wales, Mostyn family.jpg

File:Westbury Castle, Wales, Mostyn family.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.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: No CC notice visible in the WalesOnline article. Photo appears to be taken by the estate agents selling the property. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/welsh-homes/inside-stunning-castle-for-sale-14216657 Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Dogfennydd (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I think you are right that it was copyrighted in the end, I didn't know at the time when I uploaded it and forgot about it. From memory, the image was taken from a historic castles page. Would have been great to see the link I used from the original image so I could not make the same mistake in the future. Academia45 (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Advertisement, Mrs. Yale's home on the Yale Islands, St-Eustache, of Canada.png

Thanks for uploading File:Advertisement, Mrs. Yale's home on the Yale Islands, St-Eustache, of Canada.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the file because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the file, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the file itself. Please update the file description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the help desk or me at my talkpage. Thank you.

---

 

--Asclepias (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi ! I've updated the link from the website. I've put the first link : https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/p/domaine_public/ because it talked about the copyright policies of their website, stating that the documents are from the public domain and can be used in Wikipedia articles or for books or websites. It wasn't clear to me on their website what is a copyrighted and what is not. I could be wrong, that's the only info I've found so I've put it as the source link to better understand. Academia45 (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded the picture as I am working on creating a page related to it. Academia45 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for having quickly added the source link. However, unfortunately, this file seems problematic.

• The Commons description page is tagged with the license CC BY 4.0. That seems contradictory with public domain and an indication that something is not quite right in that description page.
• The policies of the BAnQ websites are at this page and more specifically at this page, which lists the different tags used to indicate the various possible copyright status and licenses of items on the websites. (Possible CC licenses listed include CC BY-SA, CC BY-ND, CC BY-NC-ND, but not CC BY.) The status or license attributed to a particular item is indicated in the notice on the specific description page of the item.
• The status indicated by BAnQ for the source item of the present upload is "Protégé par droit d'auteur" (protected by copyright). (On the page of the item, click on "i" ("information") to see the copyright notice). The status indicated for this item is not public domain and it is not licensed.
• The page at the link you labeled "copyright link" is not the copyright policies of the website. It does not mean that everything on that website is in the public domain. It means that some items on that website are in the public domain and that page is one tool to help users search for such items. When you click on a section of the page, e.g. "Revues et journaux", it takes you to a version of the search form already formatted with the particular filter "Domaine public au Canada" (public domain in Canada). That search filter searches and displays items that are tagged with the corresponding tag "Domaine public au Canada". See for example the tag for an item from 1819 (click on "i" ("information") to see the "Domaine public au Canada" tag). The source item for the present upload is not accessed with this filter because it is not tagged as public domain.
• It sometimes happens that BAnQ notices can be mistaken or unhelpful about the copyright status of some items. Cases have been found. It is possible to contradict or complete a BAnQ notice when there is a solid rationale to prove otherwise. That may or may not be the case for the present upload. To keep the file a precise rationale would have to be provided with applicable Commons templates (maybe PD-Canada-anon?, but probably not PD-US). If not, the file would have to be deleted.

-- Asclepias (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ohh I see it now. I've got it wrong. On BanQ, I can see now the copyrights by clicking the "i" button like you said, I didn't know it was there. When I'm uploading files, I see the US copyrights, not the Canada ones. If I am correct, as it is not obvious from Wikipedia's upload template, to be able to file for Canada Public domain, I have to add this template { { PD-Canada } } in the "Enter a different license in wikitext format" section ? For the rationale thing, are you referring to the fair use exception, like for movie posters or buildings that have been demolished ?

For the file that I've uploaded, well, we need to delete it now, as I can see the copyright is wrong afterall, it says protected by copyright and the content is not 70 years old yet. My apology ! Despite being on Wikipedia for years now, I keep making mistakes, there is a lot to know, and across languages. Academia45 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• The policy of Commons requires that the files must be free, with a free license or in the public domain both in the United States and in the country of origin. Thus, to meet that policy, files with works originating from Canada must meet the conditions of one template that relates to Canada (such as PD-Canada or PD-Canada-anon, as the case may be) and they must meet also the conditions of one template that relates to the United States (such as PD-US-expired or PD-1996, as the case may be). The manner to include templates directly during the upload depends on what type of upload form you use for your upload. But anyway, you can change the templates after the upload if necessary.
• When I mentioned a rationale, no I did not mean a rationale for fair use, which is not allowed on Commons. I merely meant a rationale leading to a conclusion that a work is in the public domain and that it meets a condition required to use a public domain template on Commons, despite being labeled not free at the source. I was saying that in the context of the fact that notices at BAnQ (and at other archive sites) are sometimes in error, often in cases when notices are applied by the site to a group of works without distinguishing each work.
• There are cases where such sites tag a work free when it is probably not free. For example "File:Old Sainte-Croix Hospital, Drummondville, Canada.png" is a reproduction of a drawing which, based on the death date of the author, is not free, but it is mistakenly tagged public domain at BAnQ because it happens to be grouped with a collection of photographs that are free.
• There are cases where such sites tag a work not free when it is probably free.
• And there are cases where parts of an item may be free inside a larger item that may not be entirely free. For example, in the case of "File:Advertisement, Mrs. Yale's home on the Yale Islands, St-Eustache, of Canada.png", a case could be made that the advertisement might be in the public domain in Canada if it is an anonymous work published before 1970, thus meeting the conditions of the template PD-Canada-anon. However, even then, it would fail to meet the conditions of the template PD-1996 for the United States public domain, so it could be subject to deletion from Commons anyway for the reason of not being free in the United States.

-- Asclepias (talk)

There is the same picture here but published in 1996, p. C4 : https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/2181192?docsearchtext=

Would it work then for the PD-1996 you are talking about ? @Asclepias Academia45 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The name of Template:PD-1996 refers to the fact that a work from outside the United States can be in the public domain in the United States if it was already in the public domain before 1996 in its country of origin. See point 3 in that template. One needs to calculate backwards from 1996 the necessary number of years. Yes, it can be complex. For example, a Canadian photograph taken in 1945, or earlier, entered the public domain in Canada 50 years after its creation. So, it was in the public domain in Canada in 1996. So, it meets the conditions of the template 1996 to be in the public domain in the United States. But a photograph created in 1946 or later does not. The oldest publication of a work is the one that matters. A more recent publication of the same work does not change the situation. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks, well explained ! Academia45 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You are obviously expert on copyrights. For the Ste-Croix image, it can be deleted too if it was copyrighted too despite being shown as public domain, I can do without it for another article, there is already a few old ste-croix hospital photos on the commons, but they are are not as pretty in my opinion. Academia45 (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it will probably have to be deleted. Anyway, that drawing is of the "new" Sainte-Croix hospital, being built in 1948. It is not the "old Sainte-Croix hospital", built in 1927. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay no problem. I was not looking for the old hospital anyway actually, I was looking for an old picture of the bigger hospital, and from memory there has been more than two buildings for the hospital in question. As I am working on a doctor's page that was a director at that place, I was looking for an older picture. Well, thanks for your patience ;) Academia45 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Old Sainte-Croix Hospital, Drummondville, Canada.png

File:Old Sainte-Croix Hospital, Drummondville, Canada.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!

Asclepias (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Good finding for deletion, as we talked about it and finally, the government's website were the ones who messed up with the copyrights by writing it was public domain when they had mixed copyrighted images with public ones, and then wrongly put the public domain tag for all of them. Didn't use the image for the wiki page I was working on anyway, I've found a better one already on the commons. Academia45 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

AI upscaling images?

Can I ask if you're using AI when restoring or colorising historical images for Commons? I'm very intrigued by File:Miles Yale, restored, father of Maj. George Henry Yale, first Mayor of Louiseville.jpg, which appears to be showing Yale wearing some kind of rimless glasses. Is that a possible consequence of software picking up on some defect in the original scan and mistakenly assuming it to be the edge of a pair of spectacles?

Commons has templates for marking images as {{Colorized}} and or {{AI upscaled}}, if you haven't encountered them - they can help other editors put images into context, and are especially useful for historical material. Belbury (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ohh thanks ! I was looking for that, because so many pictures were very bad quality with low resolutions. I will look at it and try to use the wikitools you are talking about. About Miles Yale, yes me too I was surprised with the glasses, and when I looked at the original image, I saw some lines on the side of his face for the glasses. It is not clear if he truly had glasses or not, but on all softwares I tried they added the glasses. Also if you zoom in or out, you can see the line of the glasses passing over his nose, there's a full horizontal roundish sort of frame passing over there, like the last image. Here's the link of the original picture that was low resolution and other images:

https://archive.org/details/yalegenealogyhis00byuyale/page/174/mode/2up?q=miles

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fur_merchant_Miles_Yale,_father_of_Maj._George_Henry_Yale,_Mayor_of_Louiseville.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chekhov_1903_ArM.jpg

Then zoom on his face to the maximum, and you will see the possible lines of the glasses on the side of his face and over his nose, especially the left side, then around his eyes. On my computer it is not obvious if these are rimless glasses or not, even after changing my screen brightness. I could be wrong or the software wrong, difficult to know. It is a strange case lol, and the glasses look a bit bigger on the new picture.

So now I would need to add {{ Colorized } and {{AI upscaled} when uploading images ? Or simply click the box that I've now seen named : This work is generated in an artificial intelligence tool ?. I didn't want to mess with the original copyrights from the book so, I've just put the initial book reference. Academia45 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting to see the original photograph! My guess would be that he wore glasses but took them off for the photo, leaving an indentation on the bridge of his nose. It could also be an unrelated scar, or just a scratch on the newspaper's photograph.

It looks like the ticking the "generated by AI" box would work here. It will prompt you to specify both the source of the image and the software you used to process it.

But absolute best practice would be to also upload the original, unaltered photo to Commons. The current policy at the English Wikipedia is to always use historical originals of photographs rather than restored versions, in articles - anybody seriously researching this kind of history would prefer to judge the original photograph or newsprint for themselves rather than take an AI's impressive (but speculative!) estimation of the details at face value. Belbury (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It is possible that he did that ! Which is why he srewed his own portrait lol. For the AI, I often use multiple softwares as they each have their own limitations. I will add them to the image info.

The original photo is the link here that I've shown you, and had already been uploaded on the commons by me, which is why I've modified it because the thumbnail was really bad : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fur_merchant_Miles_Yale,_father_of_Maj._George_Henry_Yale,_Mayor_of_Louiseville.png

My question now is : are colorized photos prefered to black and white ones for wiki pages? Wikipedia seems to also make a difference between colorized and AI, while it is both the same process. And also, what about the paintings, per example a lot of historical figures didn't have portraits during the medieval age, but artists of later generations created new ones. Many wikipages have such portraits or paintings made by artists, and if one's think about it, using AI tool is basically the same concept of creating a painting or so about the individual in question. I hope I don't bother you with my questions. Academia45 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The original you link to there is actually available at a higher resolution in the Yale source listed! If I zoom right in and save that out as an image, it's three times the size of the version you uploaded. Perhaps you were taking a screenshot rather than saving the file? I've overwritten your version with the one I've just pulled, and I'll also use it to replace the AI glasses photo on en:George Henry Yale.

Wikipedia's view on colorisation and AI is at en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Editing images. Photos "should usually not" be colorised, and even then only by a recognised expert or the original photographer. Original historical photos should "always" be used in place of AI upscales.

And no, no bother at all answering questions, ask away if you have any more! Belbury (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh okay, just found what you talked about saving the file. Yes, mine was a screenshot of the original photo, that I had zoomed in. By clicking the right button on my mouse, I can open the whole original file in a new tab. Then I will crop it. Amazing. Didn't know we could do that with book pages! I'm reuploading it and we'll see the result. Academia45 (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Saw your black and white upload, thanks ! Academia45 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Monteith Hall, 218 East Ave. in Elyria, Ohio, Col. Nahum Ball Gates, son-in-law of Rev. John Monteith, c. 1940.png

Copyright status: File:Monteith Hall, 218 East Ave. in Elyria, Ohio, Col. Nahum Ball Gates, son-in-law of Rev. John Monteith, c. 1940.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Monteith Hall, 218 East Ave. in Elyria, Ohio, Col. Nahum Ball Gates, son-in-law of Rev. John Monteith, c. 1940.png. 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.

Eureka Lott 22:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the source aka the web link was included in the description, it is the first picture on the page. About the copyright, the source says it was taken around 1940, and the photographer is unknown, so it is an anonymous work. From what another editor on wikipedia told me, when it is an anonymous work, then we can start with the date the photograph was taken and add the +70 years of author's life, so 2024-70 = 1954, photo was taken around 1940 so we are fine for the copyrights. Is my logic wrong ? Academia45 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I will add the Lorain County Historical Society info of where it came from on the newspaper website, and add the name of the newspaper, etc. Academia45 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. The 70-year term begins at the death of the photographer, not the date the photo was taken. That's obviously difficult to determine when the photographer isn't known. Another important thing to keep in mind is that it's the date of initial publication that's important for copyright, not the date of creation. Please see Commons:Hirtle chart for more information. - Eureka Lott 23:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay okay I will read it. What can we do when we only have the date of creation ? even with paintings lets say of the 1700s, like we would then use the death of the author if we can find it + 70 years ? Sometimes it is pretty unclear what to do. And what if the author is a company, like a postcard company :S Academia45 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've just read what you've sent, and it says basically 120 years from creation when we don't know who the author is or when it was published, so I was wrong. The picture in question is Monteith Hall and it was built in 1835.

https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=143985 Academia45 (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Monteith Hall, 218 East Ave. in Elyria, Ohio, Col. Nahum Ball Gates, son-in-law of Rev. John Monteith, c. 1940.png

File:Monteith Hall, 218 East Ave. in Elyria, Ohio, Col. Nahum Ball Gates, son-in-law of Rev. John Monteith, c. 1940.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!

Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Abzeronow Yes the file was nominated for deletion, no problem it is the same one as the one before on my wall here. As discussed with @Eureka Lott, my logic was wrong about it and I made a mistake. Academia45 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2024 (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:Miles Yale, restored, father of Maj. George Henry Yale, first Mayor of Louiseville.jpg

Yours sincerely, Palemeditation (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Palemeditation. Yes sure we can delete this image, it was a copy of a previous one with AI tools, and in the end, it would not be used. no problem ! Academia45 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)