User talk:Beyond My Ken

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Beyond My Ken!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Contents

Something to Sing About Cagney.jpg[edit]

I think we should replace this with a self created screenshot from the pd movie without the ugly corbis letters, the watermark is inappropriate in Wikipedia I think. Also on a self created screenshot no one can claim some strange copyright maybe do tue image modificatin or restauration or whatsever, see the image description on corbis. I started to download the movie. --Martin H. (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

:/ the quality of the movie is much to bad, even with all efforts its not possible to come to a same quality level. Also I cant find that frame in the beginning scene, it must be from a different version of the movie, created outside the movie or computer generated (or from a later scene of course). --Martin H. (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
So I think you're saying that this is probably a publicity still and not a screenshot -- in which case I should upload it on en.wikipedia under fair use and it should be deleted here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, the watermark (which I didn't notice when uploading it) makes the image inappropriate for en.wikipedia, so I'm replacing it with a screen grab, albeit not of the same quality of the publicity picture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In this close up quite ok. Also File:Something to Sing About Cagney Daw.jpg, good moment, tried to capture that scene too :) --Martin H. (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately the copy at Internet Archive is very dark, so many shots were next to impossible to clean up sufficiently to use. At this point, I have no plan to upload any more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Zvonareva.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Zvonareva.jpg, 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:Zvonareva.jpg]]).

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.

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!

I have tagged this file either because it has no source whatsoever, or because the given source does not give enough information about its author or its date, making the copyright status of the file incertain. In any case, please don't ignore this message, contact me instead if you have more information or if you want to discuss the issue. Eusebius (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


File:Vertigo trailer Stewart 1 crop.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vertigo trailer Stewart 1 crop.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

File:South American plates.png[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 10:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(Not answering the bot, just in case anyone's reading this.) Yes, it looks like I forgot to transfer the PD tag from the original, but other folks have chimed in to do that - my thanks to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't you use CommonsHelper to import files from other projects? --Eusebius (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not from another project, it's an adaptation of a Commons file. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Gramercy Park interior W gate.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 02:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, added license. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Copyright status: File:Streetfight_Stralingrad01_crop.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Streetfight_Stralingrad01_crop.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

shizhao (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The image is derived from File:Streetfight_Stralingrad01.jpg, and I have copied over the license information from that image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


File:PershingVictoryMemorialKC crop.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:PershingVictoryMemorialKC crop.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Rockfang (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated License[edit]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:PHAROS2006 crop.jpg, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the image correctly? If you are not able to do this, the image will be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 00:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

License changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Atlantic Theatre Company Linda Gross Theatre.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake; fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Sohmer Piano Building Flatiron District.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Locations[edit]

Excellent. You nudged some of my locations up the block or across the street, and replaced one where I plain misidentified the target and thus the viewpoint. I like my edit comment to say something like "adjust location" for the former case and "replace location" for the latter. Anyway now when I see a particularly good and informative picture. . . . Sigh, why is it so often a photographer who used a much older and less capable camera than mine? Because good pictures are not about the power of the hardware inside the box; they're about the power of the mind behind it. Sigh. . . . Anyway now when it's your pic I'll have the comfort of knowing someone is checking up on my geotags. Maybe soon you'll be a participating in Commons talk:Geocoding and tagging other peoples' pictures when you find particularly useful ones in the course of your category sorting. Summertime, however is bicycling season so tomorrow's a shutterbug day, not much a darkroom day. Have fun! Jim.henderson (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your geotag on my "Bellevue Hospital old building" image was very helpful, because when I went to correct it, I realized that the photo was actually of a different building than I thought it was, so I hopped on my bike and rode up there to take a look, and determined that it was actually the old Psychiatric Hospital building, now being used as a homeless shelter. I probably wouldn't have made that correction if not for your geotag, so keep it up! I'll try to do some of my older shots as I have the time. (I wouldn't want to do someone else's photo until I was comfortable with the process using my own.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Common Ground The Christopher 202 West 24th St.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Added license accidentally left off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


File:Charging Bull.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Charging Bull.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Rockfang (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File:280 East 22nd St.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Marked for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

met towers[edit]

I named that category according to Emporis.com. Xnatedawgx (talk)

File:Solon Borglum Inspiration and Aspiration.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 03:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Added license accidentally left off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

File:German-American Shooting Society.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 04:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Author?[edit]

No, I am the author of the image. You are simply an editor. There is a distinct and clear difference. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not as far as the Wikimedia wikis, including the Commons, are concerned - in this instance "author" is a term of art. If you were the sole author of the image, you could request deletion, but, in Wikipedia policies, we are both authors of the image -- although not, of course, of the underlying object.

As I said, if you didn't want your images to be available to be altered, you should not have uploaded them. And, please, you've already got yourself blocked on en.wiki, there's no need to do it here by continuing with these silly deletion requests. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The tags are not for you to remove. If they are not duplicates, then let the admins more familiar with the policy here decide. Also, Wikipedia is not a collection dump, your edited version is an unused copy, nothing added to it. There is no reason to keep it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You've now put three different deletion templates on this image, a clear indication that your interest is not in upholding Commons policies, but in deleting this image for your own personal reasons. I'll be happy to leave any relevant template added by anyone else on the image, but any template that you add will be removed, since it constitutes harrassment and is not a legitimate nomination.

You cannot carry your gripe from having your opinions questioned on en.wiki over to here, any uninvolved editor who reads the relevant discussion there (here (very long), here and here) will see that your actions are retaliatory, and not motivated by legitimate concerns. You must get over the idea that once you have uploaded your images to Commons, you still retain complete control of them, as if you had never released them. The relevant license is abundantly clear about what can be done with your images; it is not revokable, and the image you keep on attempting to delete (File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak altered.png) is well within those rights.

Please stop this disruptive behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside of whatever paranoia you may have, Commons is not an image dump. You did not know how to remove the background of the image, you merely cropped it, which another version exists of it cropped with the background removed. I do not know you find retribution and persecution in everything, but you need to stop making everything so personal, it is just weird. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And I took the time to find this for you from the license, "In addition to the right of licensors to request removal of their name from a work when used in a derivative or collective they don't like, copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US except in very limited circumstances) grant creators 'moral rights' which may provide some redress if a derivative work represents a “derogatory treatment' of the licensor's work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to 'derogatory treatment' of their work; 'derogatory treatment' is typically defined as 'distortion or mutilation' of the work or treatment that is 'prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author.' Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) do not affect any moral rights licensors may have. This means that if you have moral rights as an original author of a work, you may be able to take action against a creator who is using your work in a way you find objectionable." Also, the license is only retroactively irrevocable. No license under United States law is irrevocable, and a court will not find it amusing you dictating what a court may and may not do. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Coat_of_arms_of_Theodore_Roosevelt_by_Alexander_Liptak_altered.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Coat_of_arms_of_Theodore_Roosevelt_by_Alexander_Liptak_altered.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

File:McSorley's Old Ale House.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 03:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Cooper Station Post Office.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 04:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Damn, I am sloppy today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Tiago_Ludke_crop.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Tiago_Ludke_crop.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Santosga (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File:HL23 by Neal Denari.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion as a duplicate (mispelling of the architect's name in the title) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:The Edge in Williamsburg with Seastreak ferry.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 04:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:William_Houstoun[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:William_Houstoun has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Orpheum Theatre.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 03:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Shooting_Charging_Bull.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Shooting_Charging_Bull.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk link in Author field[edit]

Hi Beyond My Ken, Regarding File:Merchant's House Museum entrance.jpg and possibly others, I'd like to ask to not put the (talk)-link in the Author field. External applications and re-users of Commons' content use this field for attribution. Attribution like "Photo by Beyond My Ken (talk)" seems weird outside of Commons, especially when not linked ;-). Knowing a lot of stuff is automated I guess you didn't do this intensionally but as a result of ~~~. Instead just type your nickname or use the "Own work"-upload form which does this automatically. –Krinkletalk 10:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't realize it was a problem, since all my personal uploads are marked in this way. I changed from 4 tildes to 3 tildes to avoid all the other stuff that comes with the standard signature. The "Own-work" upload form was a pain the last time I tried it, but I'll give it a try again on my next upload. Is there not a shortcut that will insert my name without anything else? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:BMK[edit]

{{BMK}} has been moved to User:Beyond My Ken/BMK, you can use it with {{User:Beyond My Ken/BMK}}. I dont know the intended use, but from what the template looks like it would be better however, if you use author=[[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] and add the user category manually to your uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't done that. The template was temporary, until I finish add my images to the category & fixing my author name as per the above request, then I was going to have it deleted (I've been substituting it, rather than transcluding it). With a couple of hundred images to categorize & author names to fix, I was trying to cut down on the amount of typing I had to do on each one. Any chance you could see your way clear to moving it back for a couple of days, until I finish the job? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, don't worry about it. Since I'm cutting-and-pasting the text anyway, I only have to type in the new, longer name at the beginning of a session or when I, for some reason, lose the text from the clipboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It wouldnt be a problem to do some replacements with AWB if you give the exact phrases to replace. --Martin H. (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I've always stayed away from semi-automatic tools, for various reasons, but I'm reconsidering that stance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well[edit]

Really it just saves us work but mostly folk don't notice :). If you feel rollback would be useful feel free to let me know. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Sturmabteilung.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Sturmabteilung.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Kam Solusar (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:29th_Street_(Manhattan)[edit]

Did you find any rests of the former fur industry around here? Greetings from a German furrier, thank you. --Kürschner (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of "File:Carved faces at the doorway of 211 West 21st Street, Manhattan, New York City, New York - 20101214.jpg"[edit]

Hi. I renamed "File:Carved faces at the doorway of 211 West 21st Street, Manhattan, New York City, New York - 20101214.jpg" as it is better to indicate the exact location of the subject of the photograph and the date. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. The name is long and unwieldly and carries too much information. I suggest you don't make such judgment calls in the future, overiding the wishes of the uploader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


File:Siad-Barre sz200.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Siad-Barre sz200.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Angr 22:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't blank pages[edit]

Hi Beyond My Ken,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed you blanked Category:Lee Harris on Commons. If you meant for the page to be deleted, blanking the page is not the right way to do this. A simple real-world comparison to illustrate: You removed the entire text of a page from a thick folder, but the then empty, useless page itself remained in the folder.

Please use {{speedy| type reason here }} and add it on top of the page you would like to have deleted; This way it will be placed on a special list that administrators check regularly for deletion. Without this it might take a long time before it's noticed.

For redirects use #REDIRECT[[Target]] or {{category redirect|Targetcategoryname}}. For more information please read Blanking. Thanks again. –Krinkletalk 01:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't blank the page, I removed from it an incorrect category that I had added erroneously. The category had no categories in it when I got to it, and it's back in that state now, as I don't know the proper categories for the one image that is there (which is of a different Lee Harris than the one I was working on.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:134 East 22nd Street.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Calvary House.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

File:NIST Gaithersburg admin bldg.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:NIST Gaithersburg admin bldg.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Túrelio (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that does indeed look like a copyrighted image. In my defense, the page I took it off of was a U.S. government page with no copyright notice connected to the images on it, which is why I thought it was available for upload. The page cited in the speedy deletion notice does indeed indicate that it is copyrighted by the photographer, so I have no beef with it being SD'ed. My error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

File:SAGoring.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:SAGoring.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

92.227.125.174 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Total bullshit, and quite possibly a bad-faith nomination. Admins should keep a close look on this IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn, as there may be validity to this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Pete's Tavern from north.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

File:1270-1280 Broadway Wilson Building.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Stab-in-the-back_cartoon_1924.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Stab-in-the-back_cartoon_1924.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Widerborst (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Stab-in-the-back_postcard.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Stab-in-the-back_postcard.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Widerborst (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Sage_House_ornamentation_over_side_entrance.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Sage_House_ornamentation_over_side_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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

- Darwin Ahoy! 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Salford Lowry 3560.JPG‎ et al[edit]

Salford Lowry 3560.JPG

I don't agree with adding the l.s.lowry cat to these files- they say nothing about the great man. He never painted them unlike Stockport Viaduct, and the Lowry has onlyu a limited amount of his work on display. I suggest a revert. But thanks for looking and the thought. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Saibo (Δ) 00:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Detalle_de_la_estatua_el_Cid_(Parque_de_Balboa).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Detalle_de_la_estatua_el_Cid_(Parque_de_Balboa).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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Grcampbell (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anandamide.jpg[edit]

Would you mind revisiting the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anandamide.jpg? Your keep recommendation was premised on there being nothing in the nomination about the chemical structure being incorrect, but there is in fact a chemistry error in the image. Thank you. Ed (Edgar181) 12:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the new information, and the pointer. I've switched my !vote based on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

File:8-34 Greene Street.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 21:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

License accidentally left off. Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Garment_Worker.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Garment_Worker.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Kelly (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I regret that this photo of a public artwork is not allowed on commons, per COM:FOP#United States, but it potentially can be uploaded and used as fair use on English Wikipedia. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Public_art/Image_guide) Cheers. Aude (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Utterly stupid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 9b70c0c4719c4bfee4c0c93ea6a389e3[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Sculpture_19_Gramercy_Park.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Sculpture_19_Gramercy_Park.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Missvain (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again Wikimedia Commons' usefulness as an image repository is lessened by blind bureaucracy. Way to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Technics_1200_MK2,_Technics_1210_MK2_&_Pioneer_DJM-500_crop.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Technics_1200_MK2,_Technics_1210_MK2_&_Pioneer_DJM-500_crop.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jenkinslane (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Columbia College Ludington Building 1104 South Wabash Avenue.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 21:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:KeithRomaFP2.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:KeithRomaFP2.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Stalingrad_battle_for_the_factory.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Stalingrad_battle_for_the_factory.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

sугсго 18:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Lee Strasberg.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Lee Strasberg.jpg, 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:Lee Strasberg.jpg]]).

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.

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!

(talk) 18:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Lee Strasberg crop.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Lee Strasberg crop.jpg, 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:Lee Strasberg crop.jpg]]).

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.

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!

(talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged both for speedy deletion as copyright violations. Image is a Los Angeles Times photograph from 1978. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Beyond My Ken!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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) 10:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir Winston Churchill Square (Manhattan)[edit]

Sir Winston Churchill Square (Manhattan) is in subcat: Category:Churchill Squares. Man vyi (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ibsinger.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ibsinger.jpg, 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:Ibsinger.jpg]]).

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.

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!

Martin H. (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Source provided (file not uploaded by me). Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Ibsinger.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Ibsinger.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not 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 OTRS-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:Ibsinger.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Martin H. (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Village pump[edit]

FYI, you should have been notified of this Commons:Village_pump#Category_loops. --99of9 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Pine Street"[edit]

Edit of yours reverted. This is part of a map of downtown Seattle, and has nothing to do with Philadelphia. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the publisher is located on Pine Street in Philly, which threw me. Thanks for the fix. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:232 N. 2nd Street from south.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:MplsMTMstatue crop.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:MplsMTMstatue crop.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

RJaguar3 (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

File:The Ghost Ship 1943 Finn the Mute.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


File:The Ghost Ship 1943 Stone and Bowns.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

License tag of both fixed (changed from deprecated "public domain" to "pd-because|copyright of film was not renewed"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:370 West 35th Street entrance.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 02:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, oversight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

mural[edit]

Most people say "thank-you", but ok.... I uploaded it as a derivative. No worries. Happy trails. – JBarta (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? Most people say "thank you" when you fool around with their images when they're still working on them? Interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:MiMA[edit]

Yup. Good going. I mean, they aren't lovely, but you did better than I expected with the poor photos I provided. Even though I'll pass a couple blocks away, a couple hours from now, I don't intend to seek better because it's just not a particularly attractive a target. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Upper Susquehanna Cultural Center Milford.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 17:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:SkanConcert2.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:SkanConcert2.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not 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 OTRS-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:SkanConcert2.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Image was originally uploaded on en.wikipedia by en:User:Phmalo, who has not edited since 2007. The Wikipedia page says that the image came from the Skaneateles Festival page at [1], and has a tag saying that "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted," however the page cited has no such license I can find, and simply has a 2012 copyright notice. (The page cited is a press release page, hwoever.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Non renewal license[edit]

If you're going to upload US works without renewal, please use the {{PD-US-no renewal}} instead of {{PD-because}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you tell me which file you're referring to? I transferred a bunch of images from en.wiki in the last week or so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
File:The Ghost Ship 1943 Finn the Mute.jpg, File:The Ghost Ship 1943 Stone and Bowns.jpg, any where else you've put {{pd-because|copyright of film was not renewed}}?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw that from your contrib list. Thanks for the info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
To answer your question, I can't recall any others, but I'll take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaur specimen categories[edit]

Why are you removing the categories for specific dinosaur specimens (and casts of them), thereby overcluttering their parent categories? If you have no good reason, I would appreciate if you reverted your edits. AMNH 5027 and similar are specimen numbers, so they do have meaning. If you want the name to be more specific, we could rename it "Tyrannosaurus AMNH 5027" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want me to reply you must stop re-editing your comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You should reply regardless, this is a serious matter. FunkMonk (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been 'trying' to replay, but you keep edit-conflicting with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It is rather irrelevant now, isn't it? Please address the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop typing.

This is not a catalog for specialists who know what "AMNH 5027" means, it's a repository of images and media files for the general public, so category names must be understandble to them. If these categories are to be recreated, they need to be labelled in such a manner -- perhaps "Tyrannosaurus rex (AMNH specimen 5027)" or the equivalent for the triceratops category.

Now, are you saying that all the images in these two categories were of the same specimen? If so, why where they from different museums? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, the images are of fossils and casts of them, and we could rename the categories if specimen numbers are too hard to comprehend. See other specimen categories at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fossil_Tyrannosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Specimen numbers are not "hard to comprehend" - you simply did not present any information that they were specimen numbers. General public -- remember? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those are incomprehensible as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It's always good to do a little research before deleting stuff just because you don't get it. So let's get to the point and rename the categories and revert your edits. FunkMonk (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts. Also, a Google search on "AMNH 5027" could had saved us the trouble, the first result is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and a little more thoughtfulness on your part at naming the categories you create would have prevented it from happening in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Old Time Swimming Photograph.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Old Time Swimming Photograph.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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.

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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The original uploaded dated the photo from 1915, and the subject matter makes it clear that it was made prior to 1923, which makes it PD in the US, regardless of where it specifically came from. I'll try to track it down, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Not suprisingly, considering that it looks very much like a scanned family/person snapshot, I found no source for it in a Google search. However, given its look, content, time period etc., I see very little chance that this a coyrighted or otherwise restricted photograph, and it would be a shame to lose it over a techicality, or because we can't get in touch with the uploader, who hasn't been active on en.wiki for about a year. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't quibble about terminology. It's quite clear from the format of the image that it's a snapshot and was never "published" in any real sense before it was uploaded here. That still makes it pre-1923 ("publication" being therefore the date of creation) and PD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
At the very least, allow me to open a deletion discussion instead of speedy deleting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

File:1884JohnHarvardDanielChesterFrench crop.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:1884JohnHarvardDanielChesterFrench crop.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:1884JohnHarvardDanielChesterFrench.jpg, which this was cropped from, turned out to be a copyright violation taken from Farrell Grehan/Corbis, so this will have to go as well. LX (talk, contribs) 11:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I agree with the deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Rose Rotana Tower Under Construction on 12 May 2007 Pict 4 crop.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Rose Rotana Tower Under Construction on 12 May 2007 Pict 4 crop.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

84user (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:20 West 56th Street.jpg[edit]

People close to me have a history with this building. I was curious why you chose to photograph it and why you chose to include it in the Wiki Commons. Do you know anything about the history of significance of the building? Most sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a picture of it because I was in the area, and it looked interesting. I tried to find out more about it, but it's not listed in the references I have. If I come up with anything more about it, I'll let you know. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Graham Greene (writer).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Graham Greene (writer).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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

HaeB (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Plate Nolan Ryan.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Plate Nolan Ryan.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:HOF Weaver Earl plaque.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:HOF Weaver Earl plaque.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:HOF Carter Gary plaque.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:HOF Carter Gary plaque.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:HOF Perry Gaylord plaque.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:HOF Perry Gaylord plaque.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:HOF Rizzuto Phil plaque.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:HOF Rizzuto Phil plaque.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:HOF Musial Stan plaque.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:HOF Musial Stan plaque.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Copywriters[edit]

Bob Newhart's worked as an advertising copywriter for the Fred Niles Film company. Please see the English Wikipedia article. Utcursch (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So did others. Please see Category:Copywriters. I see you've undid many of my edits -- please read the English Wikipedia articles; all these people worked as copywriters at some point, and many of them (e.g Indra Sinha were chiefly known as copywriters before they became authors. Utcursch (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Evolution and Geological Planet Formation[edit]

Dear Beyond My Ken,

I am the copyright-owner of this book, therefore I am allowed to make it available to the scientifc community for free.

Please also read the talk with VSmith, who checked this out already. No deletion!

Kind regards Geomensch

Where is the discussion with Vsmith? I believe you have to go to Commons:OTRS and establish your legitimacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 048c94dd19fb8d9911a2c00b2eebae55[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token 824998e46f160829ed9491e90a283974[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

John Dodgson Barrow[edit]

You're absolutely right, and if I had seen your commonscat in the external links I would not have changed it.
Thank you for your glorious pictures. I stumbled across Skaneateles while trying to find a work by Carl Conrads in the cemetery. What a beautiful village! BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's very nice up there, I wouldn't mind at all going back someday. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

File:Lombardi's Pizza.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming Summer Vermont trip[edit]

If you get a chance, could you get a shot of St. Albans (Amtrak station), or at least pass the word along to someone who can? I want to remove the New England Central Railway/former Central Vermont Railroad headquarters building from the infobox. I only posted the image there because it's nearby the station. ----DanTD (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be an a pretty tight schedule while I'm up there, so I can't promise anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Per Commons:OVERCAT Cathy Richards (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thesde are not overcats. PLease stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
bah si. Ce n'est pas compliqué à vérifier pourtant Benchaum (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts[edit]

Good day. I do not understand the reason for your reverting two of my edits, [2] and [3]. Could you please explain? Thanks you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, given the choice of putting pictures of people in "Brooklyn, New York City" or "People from Brooklyn", the latter makes more sense, since the subjects of the images are not places in Brooklyn, but people in Brooklyn. "People from Brooklyn" is not the very best match: we should probably also have a "People in Brooklyn" cat as well. Until we do, though, where I put them is the best place for them to be (besides the fact that it's a rather reasonable assumption that at least 2 of the 3 people presented are actually from Brooklyn). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your desire to put images in more precise categories, but disagree that this particular attempt was the proper way to do so. Note File:Band_Member_at_West_Indian_Day_Parade_2009.JPG depicts an event that happened in Brooklyn - there is no indication the person shown is from there, since it is a "West Indian Day Parade" I imagine the person might possibly be from the West Indies. "People from Brooklyn" seems to clearly be a category for individual people who are from Brooklyn, and is not related to where the photograph is taken. If you think a "People in Brooklyn" category would be useful, go ahead and create it. (Perhaps something like "Events in Brooklyn" might be appropriate for photos like this as well?) Note in this example you also removed category "2009 in New York City" without explanation. I'm not comfortable with your edit here, and you seem not to be comfortable with mine - I hope we can work out a solution we both think is ok. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


File tagging File:MBI BuckBuck crop.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:MBI BuckBuck crop.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Novaseminary (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Both images have clear permission. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There deoes not appear to be OTRS permission on any of them. If there is, please update the images. Novaseminary (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There does not need to be OTRS permission on a photo claimed to be the work of the uploader. Please know the policy and stop mistagging images, it appears you've been doing this for a while, and it's disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
According to the label, this file (File:MBI_BuckBuck.jpg) was "Uploaded to MBI Student network and released into PD on 27 September 2006". The uploader does not claim to be the photographer. We need proof that it was released to the PD, don't we? Novaseminary (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Stop what you are doing right now, or I'll bring your disruptive editing to the attention of an admin. Don't post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Former buildings in New York City[edit]

Why did you remove this category from the Tammany Hall category? Hamblin (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think I got confused. I've restored it. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I am proposing a deletion or redirect of “Category:Demolished buildings in New York City” to “Category:Former buildings in New York City”, on the ground of redundancy. Hamblin (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
OK. I can't see how a building can get to be "former" without having been "demolished", so I supposed that makes sense. I would say that the resulting category should be "Former", since it requires nothing except evidence that the building no longer exists, whereas "demolished" required evidence that the building was... well... demolished. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for your input. Hamblin (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Rose Rotana Tower Under Construction on 12 May 2007 Pict 4 crop.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Rose Rotana Tower Under Construction on 12 May 2007 Pict 4 crop.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

84.61.176.189 13:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Church of the Immaculate Conception and Clergy Houses[edit]

Hi Beyond My Ken, you asked Why? It is quite simple: None of the media in Category:Church of the Immaculate Conception and Clergy Houses shows any work by Clayton and Bell, hence it is not helpful to put this into the category of Category:Clayton and Bell. Categories of stained glass manufacturers are expected to hold pictures of stained glass windows created by the respective firm or other materials related to that firm. But the mere connection that a church has some stained glass windows by a particular firm is no justification to move the church's category into the firm's category. Whenever images of these stained glass windows of that church created by that firm get uploaded, they can and should be added to the firm's category. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with that rationale. Since it's documented that the church does have windows by them, and they are mentioned in the description. People coming to the cat will see that there are no images of the windows, which will, one would hope, provoke them to find images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You have already documented in the description that some of the stained glass windows are from Clayton and Bell. This is helpful and helps to find possible manufacturers of stained glass pictures of that church. But the category system does not serve to create work lists including those sites where we do not have any images yet. Instead, work lists are to be put into the articles, like here where this particular church is still missing. The church as sub-category is pretty misleading as we would find images of a church sorted under Clayton and Bell which have no relationship to it. This would also create an overcategorization in the moment when a stained glass window of that church is added and put into the correct category of Clayton and Bell. If we would instead follow your approach, we could next make categories of villages sub-categories of a manufacturer or artist because somewhere in that village a church is to be found which has hopefully a stained glass window of that firm in the hope that someone is going to photograph it. All this violates the principle that categories should reflect hierarchies of concepts. The category system supports the creator/work relation but there is no such relation between Clayton & Bell and the church. There is one between Clayton & Bell and the individual stained glass windows they have created. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the move from Race Street Friends Meetinghouse[edit]

I'm wondering if this was discussed anywhere. In many ways it's probably pretty minor, but I wouldn't want to see "Friends" taken out of the name of every Friends meetinghouse. If it means anything, I don't think there is an official name for the building. The "meeting" (congregation) is named the Central Philadelphia Monthly Meeting, but I'm pretty sure theere is no official name for the meetinghouse (the building - which is quite different). You might think that "meetinghouse" makes "Friends" redundant, but that is not the case as Mennonites, Brethern, and others prefer "Meetinghouse" to "church". And historically - which is important for many of these buildings - there were many Methodist and Presbyterian meetinghouses in the Philly area. So just checking, and please don't change other "Friends meetinghouses" just to "meetinghouse" without a discussion. Smallbones (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I hesitated before the move, but was pushed to make it when I looked at a photo I have of part of the sign on Chery Street outside the meetinghouse, where they, themselves, refer to it as the "Race Street Meetinghouse". Of course, this is a general problem with churches, where different denominations can use the same name within the same locality. Sometimes this is solved by putting the denomination name into parentheses, such "St. Luke's (Episcopal) Church" or "St. Luke's Church (Episcopal)" (I'm making these names up). Sometimes the churches themselves are helpful and include the denomination within the formal name.

I can't say I'd lose sleep if it went back to including "Friends", and maybe I should just do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK., we're back to "Race Street Friends Meetinghouse" both here and on en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:FedDC Philadelphia.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:FedDC Philadelphia.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

High Contrast (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a deletion discussion tag on it. In any case, US government material is PD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Staten Island Ferry boats[edit]

You created this category and transferred the ships. No problem at all, I am from Rotterdam, not a native speaker of the English language. But I have a question for these categories. I learned that we speak of ferries, you use ferry boats. Is this a difference between American and Bitish English or is there another argument? --Stunteltje (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

In American English we can refer to the boat itself as a "ferry" or a "ferry boat". The service (line) is usually referred to as "Ferry". Thus the Staten Island Ferry (service) owns a number of ferry boats. One could also say "The Staten Island Ferry owns a number of ferries", which would be grammatically correct, but slightly ambiguous: does the company own a number of boats or does it own a number of other ferry services? I changed the category from "Staten Island Ferries" to "Staten Island Ferry boats" to eliminate any ambiguity about whether the category was referring to multiples lines as opposed to multiple boats. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I don't know how British English works in this regard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast answer. A good solution - we did it for a number of other categories - is to create a category: Category:Ships of Company name, see e.g. Category:Holland America Line and Category:Ships by operator. But Category:Company name boats will work too. The only thing is that just personally I don't prefer boats where ships are involved, except for tugboats. That's all. As I mentioned, no problem. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I always thought that "ship" was reserved for vessels of a certain size, and that maritime vessels smaller than that were called "boat". Of course, this is not my area of expertise, so I have no idea where the breakpoint is between a "boat" and a "ship" -- still I'm not sure that the S.I. Ferry's vessels are big enough to qualify as "ships" Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, just as a general rule, I prefer that sub-categories use a form where the main category name precedes the sub-category distinguishing terms; that is I prefer "Staten Island Ferry boats" over "Boats of the Staten Island Ferry." I think this makes it easier for the uploader who is uncertain what the right category is for the image. When they type in "Staten Island F" they're given the choice between "Staten Island Ferry" and "Staten Island Ferry boats", but "Boats of the Staten Island Ferry" will not come up as a choice at all - they'd have to put the image in the "Staten Island Ferry" category and then look for sub-categories, a step many uploaders never get to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
As a general rule: You can put a boat on a ship, never a ship on a boat. You are referring to an old discussion, nobody can win. I myself have a barge, 24 meters of length, and she is definately a ship. Category:Stella Maris (ship, 1929) For Fishing vessels over 10 metres overall length, according the British Marine Management Organisation Statistics and Analysis Team we use Fishing ships. In this case "Staten Island Ferry boats" is much better than "Boats of the Staten Island Ferry". In general, the size of these ferries is the size of ships. But as ferry boats is the right term, you used a correct category name. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information re:boats and ships - as I said, it's not my area of expertise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
(Stalker pouncing late) To add to the fun, Lake freighters and other vessels that only operate in fresh water (or in salty inland waters, as Staten Island ferries do) are called boats, even if they are large enough to carry a small ship. And so are submarines. As as for the matter at hand, my thoughtful friend Ken has as usual got it right. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]

Admin Board discussion you may be involved in. Yada Yada Yada. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token: 147301f968c77748bcfffb408145a66c[edit]

I am now proud owner of a WMFLabs TUSC account!

File:George S Patton statue Ettelbruck 2007.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:George S Patton statue Ettelbruck 2007.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Neo-Federal_architecture_in_the_United_States[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Neo-Federal_architecture_in_the_United_States has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded on the discussion page (short version: no problem with deleting). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ben Zuain. st 1-43 one way.jpg[edit]

I know you said not NYC, the style of the signs looks correct, if the sign lower left could be Broadway with the legend "Canyon of the Heroes" at the bottom and look at this on Google Maps Building in NYC the building in the background looks like the one on the image. --Irate (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually the style is not correct. NYC uses green background, except for historic districts which have brown backgrounds, and "street" "avenue" or whatever is on the same level as the name, not below it. In addition NYC uses Helvetica, not whatever typeface is on the signs, and I know of no NYC street sign that has a picture on it. Further, the city's official GIS map (http://maps.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/) does not list a "Ben Zuian" street, nor does Google list it anywhere. Admittedly, the sign to the left does look like it might be "Broadway / Canyon of Heroes", but I cannot find any mention of "Ben Zuian" on the city Department of Transportation website. Given the extremeley thin evidence, the sign could well be a hoax, and I don't think it's a good idea to list it under any NYC cats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This seems to show a sign with a picture. --Irate (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I'm going to repost your message on the image talk page, let's keep the discussion in one place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a fake thou. If you look at the original fulsome edit by this 1 pic wonder editor.--Irate (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll move there. --Irate (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


Category:Philadelphia Contributorship[edit]

Hey, BMK. I think you misread the name of this institution, it's the en:Philadelphia Contributionship. I corrected it in the lede, but don't know how to do a redirect on Wiki Commons. -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch, I'll fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Flatbush Town Hall from front.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Flatbush Town Hall from front.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Didym (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Flatbush Town Hall from west.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Flatbush Town Hall from west.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Didym (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:London Terrace Towers south tower top.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:London Terrace Towers south tower top.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Didym (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done All three, license added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_paul.jpg[edit]

I noticed that the title of this picture is wrong. It's the St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Manhattan (as correctly seen in the description). Can you change the title? Best regards, Chris06 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Would like to buy an image from you.[edit]

Hello, I would like to buy the rights to use an image of yours to use commercially. I won't be able to give a credit on the work itself, so i figured the best thing would be to offer you some compensation. I have another iStock image I can use in place of your image in case you decline, but I would rather use yours! The image is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMeeting_House_Congregational_Church_Marlboro_Vermont.jpg

If you could email me for a further discussion I would very much appreciate it > collinsjus@gmail.com

Thank you in advance!

-Justin

I've responded via e-mail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#An_edit_war_over_.22original_research.22 JKadavoor Jee 09:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Please be aware of this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

File:20_yuan_note.jpg[edit]

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:20 yuan note.jpg

Català | Deutsch | English | فارسی | Русский | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:20 yuan note.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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.

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!

213.171.196.75 06:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually have no memory of this, but it was definitely not an original scan by me, since I've never had a 20 yuan note in my possession. I assume that I transferred it from en.wiki, but I'm at a loss to say why I didn't mark it as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Kerimov and Korolyov.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Kerimov and Korolyov.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 20:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on the deletion discussion page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Train car house Glen Haven Road.jpg[edit]

First of all, this is an astounding shot and I'd love to see the inside some day (good luck with that). I'm wondering if you know anything further about this "house." I can't find anything online about it, and aside from the removed PRR logo on the left there aren't any identifying marks that I can see. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything other than what I put into the photo info -- I couldn't find anything myself when I looked. I happened to pass by it a number of times when I was on vacation on Skaneateles Lake and thought it was worth a photo. You could try sending a letter to the address I listed (maybe addressed to "Owner of the great train car house") and see if they respond. If you learn anything, let me know! Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like the name of the family that lives there is "de Souza". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Burlington, Vermont categories[edit]

Hello. Please do not add categories to both parent and sub categories. Please see COM:OVERCAT for more information. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, rather then edit robotically by consulting rules, how about we think of what's best for the reader when they come to a category and are looking for something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
First, not sure why you think insults are helpful.

Speaking of the substantive issue, the question of "what is helpful" is incredibly subjective when it comes to categorization as you can well imagine, and COM:OVERCAT is quite clear about the problems that do arise when people start categorizing images and categories everywhere they think it is helpful to do so. The rules don't exist merely frustrate you, and that is not my intention either. And please do not depopulate categories simply in order to over overcategorization. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Your status as an admin gives you no special privilege to edit war to restore to your preferred category structure. The structure I set up was perfectly fine, then you objected to it, so I change it so there were no parent/child overlap, and now you're editwarring to return to your preferred strcuture. That's not how it's done. Stop now, or I shall bring your behavior -- as an editor -- to the boards. We expect more of our admins that this kind of childish retribution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not doing anything as an admin. I am objecting to you trying to delete/redirect basic, fundamental categories that we have for almost all locations across the globe, and replacing it with an oddly/uniquely named and confusing category. I appreciate that you have worked hard (we all do), but these are not your categories, and this is a collaborative project. Where a category pertaining to a location has a sufficient number of files pertaining to buildings, we create a buildings subcategory, and in it we put all files related to buildings, while avoiding COM:OVERCAT. This is the pattern across the project. We don't create awkward categories, inconsistent with our overall category tree, because one person wants to avoid OVERCAT. You are seeking to make a significant change, so where there are objections please stop and discuss. I've initiated a CFD discussion. And please do not accuse people of being childish, simply because they disagree with your changes. And I am not even sure what your accusation of retribution means. That's not helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
If I am missing something, or perhaps you think I am misunderstanding what you are trying to achieve, please let me know. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I notice that you yourself created the "Buildings in Burlington, Vermont" subcategory, so I am a little confused as to why you object to it containing files and subcategories pertaining to buildings. If you haven't created it, someone else inevitably would have, and would undoubtedly have populated it with files/subcats pertaining to churches, historic buildings, houses, etc. Putting aside all of the project's normal practices for a moment, how is it simpler and cleaner to have some files/subcats arbitrarily in a buildings category, and others not? I apologize if I am missing something, but I am puzzled. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain once more.

Burlington, Vermont was a mess. I cleaned it up, added 75 images, and make a category structure that I thought was useful to the reader. You came along and cited OVERCAT, so I changed the structure, subtituting "see also"s for sub-cats, and created a new cat in which buildings that aren't in other categories can go. I therefore removed all the OVERCAT problems. With no general "Buildings" category (which, by the way, is not required), the main page of the category provides to the reader who's looking for building images a choice of the "Churches", "Education", "Historic buildings" and "Other buildings" categories. This is easy and convenient for the reader. The category structure you seem to want requires that the reader click through the general "Buildings" category to get to the same sub-cats. This is not as convenient for the user, about whom we should always be thinking. The "Other buildings" category 'is' an attempt to avoid OVERCAT, but not in the sense that you seem to think, it's simply a way, with the "see also"s to avoid any parent/child overlap which OVERCAT doesn't want.

I would appreciate it if you would restore the structure I set up and close the discussion on "Other buildings", which is a perfectrly legitimate catch-all category meant to clean things up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you need to give me the benefit of the doubt. I've done nothing wrong.

Please see my edit conflict comment above. A buildings category is not required, but had you not created one, someone else would have. Category consistency is an important principle here on the Commons, and we have buildings subcats for almost all place categories that are large enough to merit that kind of subcategorization. We do not create oddly named categories (the inclusion criteria for which are arbitrary and inconsistent with all similar categories), simply because one person wants the buildings categories to not include all files/subcats pertaining to buildings. Of course the reader will click through the general buildings category to get at files pertaining to buildings, just like (s)he does for place categories across the Commons project. Not sure why it for this one town it is suddenly inconvenient for Commons users to group buildings subcategories in the same way we do everywhere else, or how that would be confusing for the user. If you want to deviate from our normal practice, that's fine, but the onus is on you to achieve a consensus through a CFD. You could also nominate the Buildings category for deletion, but I suspect (as I said above) someone will inevitably recreate it at some point in the near future, as the main Burlington category has the usual amount of content where a buildings subcategory would normally be created.

I remain confused (and I don't mean that as an insult to you or your explanation). I'm trying to be helpful, and I do want to discuss this with you, but at the same time I'm not prepared to allow you to create unusual category structures absent a more fulsome discussion through CFD. In any event, if we can solve the issue ourselves in the meantime, I am open to suggestions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm real sorry you don't understand my clear and cogent explanation, but I don't have time to play with you anymore, this is interrupting my editing of the Burlington article. You just go about your business "improving" Commons, and being the best damn admin you are capable of being, OK?

Unless you plan on restoring the structure I put in place, and perhaps apologizing for taking up my time, I think this discussion is over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I am not sure why you seem to think insults and sarcasm are helpful. I am happy to discuss in good faith - let me know if you change your mind and want to do so too. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
And I'm not sure why you don't understand what "this discussion is over" means. Again, I suspect that you feel your status as an admin give you special privileges as an editor. It doesn't. Don't post here again - is that clear enough? Any additional posts will be deleted unread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Other_buildings_in_Burlington,_Vermont[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Other_buildings_in_Burlington,_Vermont has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token: 3363bd576ca45be8eddde67e03aa15e0[edit]

TUSC

No longer deminimis[edit]

Now that you've cropped out the copyvios for these images, are you going to be bold and get an administrator to delete the old version that still contains the copyvio?--GrapedApe (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

  • It has not been determined yet whether they are copyvios are not. Certainly your judgment isn't sufficient to establish that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • But you cropped them, which seems to me that in your opinion, they are copyvios. Otherwise, you wouldn't have cropped them. But, I guess that I have so much to learn from you.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You clearly did not read my comment on the deletion page. I cropped them because I thought they were quite probably not de minimus, because the markers were in the foreground and were therefore the most obvious subject of the photo, and cropping the marker out eliminated that problem, but, as I said in the comment you apparently didn't bother to read or didn't understand, if the deletion discussion determines that they are de minimus, then it's easy to revert back to the uncropped version. Nothing;s being done about any of the images tight now -- with the exception of those I removed the tags from which you never should have tagged in the first place -- and nothing is going to be done until the discussion is wrapped up, so there's absolutely no reason to delete the previous versions of the images I cropped at this moment, since there's plenty of time to do that once a decision has been made.

    Your apparent zeal to delete all of these images is unseemly and, in my opinion, nominating this entire group for deletion was ridiculous and unnecessary, since there was no clear and present danger. If the PAMHC was concerned (since they clearly know about the images) they could have issued a takedown order and the WMF would have complied. Such radical and absolutist attempts to purify Commons by deleting anything with the remotest chance of being a copyright violation is totally unnecessary and actively hurts the project, as well as showing extremely poor judgment on your part -- indeed, really, lack of judgment.

    Copyright is a difficult and convoluted subject area, not like a recipe to make a cake, you can't just say "mix well and then delete the image", since, almost always, copyright decisions issued by judges are about balancing competing rights. Your willingness to subject images of important historical buildings to possibly deletion because of a fucking historical marker somewhere in the picture is, as I said, egregiously poor judgment. You called me "rude" on your talk page, and you may be right, but rudeness doesn't harm the collection, but bad judgment such as you have shown can do a lot of harm.

    I am not monitoring the PAMHC discussion, because it offends me that you opened it in the first place. Please don't post here again, it will be deleted unread. I have nothing more to say to you, and don't really care to hear what you say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:20 Clarke Street Burlington Vermont.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:20 Clarke Street Burlington Vermont.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Thanks for the catch, I'll take a look at others uploaded at about the same time to see if I missed any others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
All the other files in my Burlington upload seem to be properly licensed, but please let me know if you run across anything I missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Beyond My Ken. You have new messages at Category talk:Buildings of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign#Campus category.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

File:Cattle Bank Champaign Illinois 4259.jpg[edit]

Is it a bank or a former bank? Why does it have a Cattle Bank sign on the building? --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a former bank. The "Cattle Bank" sign is still there because it's an historic landmark, and they generally like to leave landmarks in the state they were in. Both it and the building next door are the Champaign County Historical Museum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:U.S. Post Office Independent Media Center Urbana Illinois from west.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:U.S. Post Office Independent Media Center Urbana Illinois from west.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Added license to this and a couple of others I missed in this batch of uploads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Denton House; New Hyde Park, New York[edit]

Why do I get the feeling you were specifically looking for images of Denton House, in New Hyde Park, New York? ----DanTD (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get what you mean. The Denton House article was on my watchlist, so when you added your photo to it, I stepped in and made a cropped version that would display better in the infobox. Is there a problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Not for me, it wasn't. As I stated in the description, I tried to take more, but the management of the restaurant got on my case about it. Which is too bad, because there are quite a few historical markers and other interesting features inside. ----DanTD (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

File:AlanTuring-Bletchley.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:AlanTuring-Bletchley.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

George Ho (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama for public sculpture in the UK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Allemagne 6pf Saar 26081934.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Allemagne 6pf Saar 26081934.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 22:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Briefmark Reichsparteitag 1936.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Briefmark Reichsparteitag 1936.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 21:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Cigarette laminar flow.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Cigarette laminar flow.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 12:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:Please stop removing the principals of architectural firms[edit]

See Commons:Village pump#Avoid becoming your own grand-parent. Cathy Richards (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed several of these. BMK, either you fix these yourselves, or a bot is going to do it for you -- the bot's choices may not be to your liking. Having a cat as both parent and child of another cat is a clear violation of policy, see Commons:Categories#Category_structure_in_Wikimedia_Commons:

"There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly)."

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I see nothing on that page to indicate it's a policy, so I therefore conclude that it's a guideline. If I am incorrect in this, please point me to where it says, explicitly, that it is a policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You ask "why?" Well, the most practical reason not to do this, as I noted above, is that a bot is going to undo it for you. Since there are two ways to go if you have A>B>A (either A>B or B>A), you may not like the one the bot picks. Do you really want to be edit warring with a bot?
Second, it's consistent with all other categories in Commons. There are only 18 categories which have this fault. If you really want to change the way that we do categories, then do it by starting a discussion at VP or at Commons talk:Categories. Trying to change the established way of doing things at the local level is just disruptive.
Third, it can be confusing -- you're working your way down through a complex tree and you don't realize that you've been there before.
Fourth, there's no good reason for it. A category that has Partner>Firm>Partner will have the Partner listed twice on the Firm page -- your argument that he has to be listed both in the parents and in the subs doesn't make sense. The trees for architectural firms are, or at least should be, arranged as Firm>Partner.
You are, of course, correct that the cited page is not labeled as policy. It is a help page and is, at the very least, normative, and should not be violated without good reason. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
There's every good reason to, because it helps the reader find what they want to find, and increases the chances of serendipitous discoveries. People don't "work their way down through a complex tree" more than a couple of levels, and, in any case, the non-policy (which is being enforced as if it was policy) is attempting to ignore the realities of human relationships and make everything into a straight-line hierarchy.

Architect A has a career and designs buildings on his own, as, seperately, does architect B, so they each have a category. Now they form a partnership, one in which (like McKim, Mead & White) it's not always clear who is doing what for any particular building. So, the new firm of A & B gets a category. Cat:A and Cat:B are subcats of Cat:A & B by dint of the principals of the firm being A & B, but Cat:A & B is a sub-cat of bot Cat:B and Cat:B because they created the firm. That's the way it works in the real world, it's called "cross-categorization" and it's a perfectly reasonable and useful way of categorizing things. It helps people get to where they're going, and extends their search into new areas. Only on Commons, apparently, is this kind of real-world categorization eschewed, which is a damn shame because it makes it harder for the user, not easier.

It's a perfectly ridiculous and harmful guideline which is being forced on people who understand the value of cross-categorizing, by bots and by the actions of editors and admins such as yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point that having the cat appear twice is silly -- just as your new addition of a "see also" is silly. How does it do any good to have the name of the partnership appear twice on the page? It just clutters up the page. The "see also" is particularly so because the two entries are only three lines apart.

As for the policy question, it's not formal policy because no one imagined that anyone would ever care. It is clearly normative. We have over 3 million categories on Commons and fewer than twenty of them have the cat style you advocate. If nothing else, that speaks to the issue -- categorization must be consistent and, as I said above, if you want to change the way we do things, then do it at the global level, not by making changes to a few files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that an admin would think that helping our users to find what they might be looking for is "silly". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Clutter makes things harder for users, not easier. Doing things differently from all others makes it harder for users, not easier. What you are doing is not making it easier for anyone. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting opinion, but, unfortunately, it's not true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I had the good luck to miss most of this discussion, but I am much against looping categories, having got lost in such loops in past years. Yes, a neat hierarchical approach does not entirely reflect the complexities of partnerships and other worldly human relations. Too bad but in such cases I'd rather pick parent and child cats arbitrarily, force the world to conform, and use See Alsos, hatnotes, and prose explanations to clarify relations and other questions that a straight hierarchy cannot handle unaided. comment posted 21:57, 14 December 2013‎ by Jim.henderson
Jim, you are, without a doubt, the Commons editor I respect the most, but I guess we'll have to disagree about this particular issue. However, I would like to point out that when I gave up trying to make the category structure more representative of real life by using cross-categorization (which is really a more accurate description that "loops") and resorted to using "See also" as a way to point out to the reader that there were other, related, categories to look in (as you recommend as an alternative), I got told (see above) that this was "silly", that it was creating "clutter", and was not making things more helpful to the reader. That, obviously, is total bunk, and it concerns me that an admin would hold such opinions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Aww; so much mutual respect; it makes me tear over. I like to would add our friend DanTD who wrangles rail cats in our little corner and far away and, like you, often creates categories that I wish I had thought to do. Our styles differ somewhat. For example, his added notes are few and small, and you add more and larger ones than I do. Sometimes I see this and think, that's not good style; even when the words are mine copied from the article, they are too many for this purpose. But c'mon; it's just a difference in taste. So yes, to some small degree I agree with our industrious Admin (Jameslwoodward) about the hatnotes, inline links and prose descriptions, but no, I do not at all agree that this is something worth bitching about. We're all pulling on the same sled by our own tethers and the vectors will sum more or less correctly if we pull in approximately the same direction. Have he and I won the battle of the straight categories? I like to think we're all winners if we line up a little more precisely and remember not to snap at each other. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

File:0 Verdun - Cemetery Douaumont (1) jpg[edit]

Dear Beyond My Ken,

I need your support again to help me to keep the image:0 Verdun - Cemetery Douaumont (1) jpg in Commons.

Despite the formal decision on maintaining this photograph in Commons following the six positive votes of the 7 September 2011 (including yours), the user:Eleassar ask again the deletion.

Can I ask again your help to maintain this photograph as de minimis in Commons.

Thank you in advance and best regards.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding undoing revision of File:105 East Genesee Street Skaneateles.jpg‎[edit]

You undid revision 111681717 by me because source says "neoclassical") I reviewed the source document cited; on page 9 it states explicitly that 105 was built "in the Queen Anne style". I will go ahead and move 105 to the appropriate category.Nice photo, by the way.Upstatepolyglot (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, then. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:West 187th Street stairs from below.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:West 187th Street stairs from below.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done License added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Michael Alig, The Limelight, NY.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Michael Alig, The Limelight, NY.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Эlcobbola talk 22:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern movement in the United States[edit]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Modern movement in the United States: what you wrote seems to agree with my proposed change, but you begin your comment with "Keep", which would presumably mean to leave things as they are. - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

File:MplsMTMstatue.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:MplsMTMstatue.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

George Ho (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:1773 map of portsmouth showing the town and dock defences.JPG[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:1773 map of portsmouth showing the town and dock defences.JPG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

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.

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!

-- TLSuda (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Provided additional information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Young women at the beach.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Young women at the beach.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not my image,I just cropped it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Maurice DuBois.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Maurice DuBois.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done It was obvious what I intended, so you should have fixed it instead of tagging it. 23:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

File:NOAH - New Orleans Arcology Habitat - Ahearn Schopfer and Assocs crop.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:NOAH - New Orleans Arcology Habitat - Ahearn Schopfer and Assocs crop.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • (1) The object presented is a building, not an artwork or sculpture, so Freedom of Panorama is irrelevant. (2) It's also conceptual not real, and doesn't exist. (3) The image itself was released under CC BY SA 2.0. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Other_buildings_in_Champaign,_Illinois[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Other_buildings_in_Champaign,_Illinois has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Other_buildings_in_Urbana,_Illinois[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Other_buildings_in_Urbana,_Illinois has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Other_buildings_in_New_London,_Connecticut[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Other_buildings_in_New_London,_Connecticut has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Khachaturian11111.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Khachaturian11111.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Tekstman (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Stern college women.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Stern college women.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not 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 OTRS-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:Stern college women.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

TLSuda (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What in heavens name are you talking about? I transferred the file from en.wiki, where it was clearly marged as an original work by the uploader, licensed by him with cc-by-2.5 and GNU. The US has Freedom on Panorama for buildings. What's the problem? I've removed your tag, as this appears to me to be an error on your part. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This was no error, it was 100% intentional, and I've re-added the tag. If you aren't happy with it with this explanation, I'll happily nominate for deletion through normal methods. The original uploader says it is a work from the university itself. She claims to work for their Department of Communications and Public Affairs. Without evidence that the university released it, we don't have permission to use it. On her En.WP talk page, she assures that she works for them and the university told her what tags to place the image under. I'd like to en:WP:AGF but we have OTRS for this exact situation. I've tagged locally at En.WP too so hopefully she can get the message and send appropriate email permissions to OTRS. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation, I missed that background on en.wiki. By all means proceed, with my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I almost missed it to, if it weren't for the link to her talkpage in the description section. I noticed it when going through transfers so I could delete the ones on the En.WP side. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop changing the streets categories[edit]

Streets go under transport. They usually go under roads, which is under road transport, which is under transport, but the New York boroughs don't have all those levels. I'm putting them back. Please don't change them again without a discussion. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're under the impression that when a Commons user goes to Category:New York City looking for pictures of New York City streets, he or she is going to know that they should plow through Category:Transport in New York City to find them? Interesting thought, but, of course, completely wrong.

Don't bother to answer, you've shown yourself to be uninteresting to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Pershing Square[edit]

Is the restaurant not within the square itself? ----DanTD (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is, it's just not called "Pershing Square", as far as I'm aware. I can go by there today if that would be helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
AARGH!! It looks like they changed the name of the restaurant from "Central Cafe" to "Pershing Square Cafe" - my mistake, sorry. I'm not sure, however, that it needs its own category, and if it did, "(restaurant)" would be the best disambiguator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I did go by Pershing Square this afternoon and am glad to report that I'm not entirely crazy. The cafe under the Park Avenue Viaduct still has the "Central Cafe" neon sign prominently displayed in their main window, but a look at the posted menus verified that the name of the cafe has indeed been changed to "Pershing Square Cafe." I guess the big lit-up "Pershing Square" sign right above the cafe (which actually refers to the square itself and not the restaurant) was too obvious to ignore, so they changed the name - and why pay to take down the neon sign if you don't have to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I really wasn't trying to cover the restaurant itself. What should've done the last time I was in NYC was grab some pictures of the Park Avenue/42nd Street exit and entrance ramps being converted to bicycle parking lots. I almost considered going there as well, believe it or not. I turned it down, because for some reason I thought they were going to give me more food than I could handle. ----DanTD (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

File source is not properly indicated: File:1811 Maine map.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:1811 Maine map.jpg, 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:1811 Maine map.jpg]]).

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.

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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File was uploaded by another editor. I merely cleaned it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Catsort of Category:Churches in New London, Connecticut[edit]

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit there. Could you take a look at Category:Buildings in New London, Connecticut and tell me what's the point of not sorting the churches category under C, where it would normally be expected? There might be some underlying logic that I fail to see. --rimshottalk 16:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It made sense with the category structure I had set up, but I guess not so much since people have disassembled it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the quick reply. --rimshottalk 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Fort George Hill Tunnel[edit]

Hello sir,

Have you read my edit summary? I am going to copy it here in a more detailed form.

Now please explain me your answer. Vcohen (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The mistake is that the "Fort George Hill Tunnel" category should not be a subcategory of the "Dyckman Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line" category, since the tunnel is not part of the station. It should be a subcategory of the "IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line" category, since the tunnel *is* a part of that line. I have made that change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. Now we have another problem: all the images in Fort George Hill Tunnel still show that end of the station. I see two solutions: we should either insert all of them into Dyckman Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line), or create a new category called "Fort George Hill Tunnel portal", make it a subcategory of both and move all these images into it. Vcohen (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. If an image shows parts of things that should be in two categories, simply mark each image as being in both categories. The tunnel is not implicitly a part of the station, so the tunnel *category* should not be in the station category, but each individual image can be in both cats. (All the images may show the station, but it is conceivable to have a picture of the tunnel without the station, we just don't happen to have one.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There are too many files that have to be in both categories. Therefore I want to create a new category that will be in both of them and put the files in it. Why not? Do you think a tunnel portal cannot be part of a station? Vcohen (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)