User talk:Baseball Bugs
|File:Facebook like thumb.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.
I see your post-closure comment here. Is it correct? Why did you delete the comment twenty minutes later?
Do you have a better version of File:Antenna tree.jpg?
Thank you for your submission of File:Antenna tree.jpg. While all submissions are useful, do you think you might be able to supply a better quality version of the same, or similar, content? In many cases, the largest and highest resolution possible is the most useful version to have available. (MediaWiki has automatic resizing functionality, so there is no need for multiple versions of the same image at different sizes, users can select any size and the software will generate and cache the needed resolution on the fly.)
If you can supply the same exact image as File:Antenna tree.jpg at a larger resolution (or media at a higher bitrate, etc.), please just upload it over the original, users will get the new higher quality version with no further effort on your part. If on the other hand, the content is only similar, it is best to select a new image name, as there may be uses already where some aspect of the existing media was key to the usage. In the latter case, if you can provide a crosslink reference to the new image in the older one and vice versa, that will be extremely helpful.
Again, thank you very much for your contribution, it is appreciated.
- Maybe you could rename it by appending its upload date to it? That would get around the potential for duplication. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I said that because filing a DCMA takedown involves swearing in a copyright case (thus federal law) that something was used without your permission when you know that it went there because you put it there; that's obviously perjury, which is a federal offense if committed in a setting where federal law applies. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably because nobody particularly cared about the images enough to file a counterclaim. You've still broken the law if you swear falsely under oath, regardless of whether you get caught. If I remember rightly, X's images were poor-quality coats of arms, which are substantially easier to replace than good-quality photos of sportsmen in action; as such, we had a lot less to lose and a lot less reason to file a counterclaim. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)