User talk:Floydian

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, TheXen!
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)‎ | +/−

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, Floydian!

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) 10:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ontario shields[edit]

Why did you overwrite the shield with this edit [1] ? There are two styles of shields used in ON, and the crown-style is used for junctions. Just curious, please revert. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Where was the consensus to enact such a move? Now King's Highway 7 doesn't have both versions of shield graphic on here. Please revert. The copyright tag for your version is wrong.That's the tag for the old version Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I will fix the tag, but you are wrong. The previous shield hasn't been in use in well over a decade, and they have been slowly been getting removed and replaced with the current shield. I will be converting all of the pngs to svg versions for clarity. As for your PS, the only other editor involved with the Canadian and Ontario roads is working with me when they are available, so I would count that as a unanimous consensus. - Floydian (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This style is still in use on the freeways of the province, right? Things are a little different on Commons, and even if the shield style is not currently in use, like say File:M-28 cutout.svg, it was still freely made available. The correct solution is to upload them under a different name, and any templates over at the English Wikipedia that need updating should be updated to call the other naming scheme. The jct template on en.wiki knows that for {{jct|state=MI|M|28}} to call the current shield on the black square blank, aka File:M-28.svg, and for {{jct|state=MI|M-old|28}} to call the cutout variation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Btw, you might check out Commons:File renaming on getting the Ontario #.svg trailblazers renamed to ON #.svg before you upload the SVG versions of the reassurance markers. Seriously, I love the new version, just you shouldn't be wiping out the trailblazers with the reassurance makers. Both are freely available, and both should remain freely available afterwards. More than the English Wikipedia use this site as a repository of media files. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I had just been doing it the old fashioned way (downloading the olds, overwriting, uploading the olds as Ontario_X_jct.svg). For the sake of crediting the original author(s) however, you're right in that I should get them moved.
They are still used, though just as an outline with a number (as with county shields), on freeway gantries. Elsewhere, this photo best represents their fate.[2] - Floydian (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but I just wouldn't want to see the trailblazer graphics removed completely. Get them moved to another naming scheme, then upload away. I've been busy here this morning creating the missing cutout graphics for Category:Historical Michigan state trunk line highway shields so that when I get back to editing some of the long decommissioned trunklines in MI, I can use my M-old type instead of M to get the cutouts. Many of the old highways at w:Former Michigan spur routes were gone before Michigan switched to the square blanks in the 1970s, so the cutouts should be shown as the only correct reassurance marker they ever had. Otherwise, that sort of stuff and photos is all I ever come to Commons for.
As a further suggestion, maybe you might want to get two categories going for the shield graphics, reassurance and trailblazer? Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Since you overwrote the shields, you need to correct the copyright license on all of them now. They all show the old license which is incorrect. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since they are crown images older than 50 years (1955), are they not public domain still? I'm guessing I have to change it from ineligible for copyright to expired copyright? - Floydian (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is important that the correct tag be used. You'll also need to give a source for the first publication of the shields to support the 1955 claim. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, this isn't a featured article so I will be using the self-published Cameron Bevers source, since it's way too much of a pain to find historic facts in the online archives. - Floydian (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Um, that's still not an acceptable source though. I don't know what the rules are on Commons, but it would probably be better to get the government source, say the appropriate MUTCD for Canada from that time frame, since Mr. Beavers isn't the source proving when it was first published. The MTO or another government agency would be the source for publication. See, the reason for the SPS rules is that anyone can pay to have a domain name registered and a website hosted. That anyone can then say anything he or she wants to say, true or false. Once again, I don't mean to discredit Mr. Beavers, but he's paying to publish his own content, independent of his role as government employee. If you're not willing to do the proper research to find the proper source(s), honestly, you don't belong editing on Wikipedia or its sister projects, period. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be honest it seems like you're spending your time here following me around and discouraging whatever activity I happen to be doing. I'm willing to do proper research when something is researchable, but the government archives are a PAIN. If I can't use Mr. Bevers, than I must use the 1956 Ontario Road map, which is published by the MTO, but provides little besides a dated example of the shield from 1956.[3] - Floydian (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I've been busy doing other things. In the last week, I've expanded several articles. Two of them are now listed as Good Articles, Michigan's assessment ratings continue to improve as the articles rated at Start-class are improved to at least C- or B-class. One article has been nominated at DYK. Last month an article I wrote was promoted to Feature Article. If by suggesting that you do the right thing around here to be a valuable contributor to the whole of Wikipedia, and the perception of roads editors in general is discouraging to you, then that's your problem and not mine. I've had to spend time making contacts at MDOT, and my own money to get scanned copies of the old MSHD/MDOT official road maps back to the 1930s or books for research. I know that government archives can be a request, but the payoff in credibility and reliability is worth it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I've been trying to contact many of the regional governments and the provincial government for information on roads up here. They either ignore me or tell me that its spread about in various offices and unavailable. My schedule makes it hectic to get to the physical government archives within government hours. However, I've just ordered a book made the the MTO that is a 100 year history of Ontario roads. Hopefully that will serve many articles, and possibly provide a source for the date of the shield. - Floydian (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Trust me, I know just how much of a pain it is. Back in 2008, I made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to MDOT for documentation to verify the historical timeline for M-28. Back then, the only source for the historical timeline of highways in Michigan that I had was Chris Bessert's [Michigan Highways] website. Like the sister site he did for Ontario, or the Cameron Beavers' website, it is a SPS. I made a simple FOIA request to MDOT asking for the documentation of jurisdictional transfers, trunkline extensions, realignments and the like that Chris Bessert details on his website. I gave them the link to the article and detailed the 11 or 12 specific events I wanted to document. The FOIA officer at MDOT e-mailed me back for clarification, saying in his estimate the request could incur charges of around US$1000. See, even though FOIA requires the information to be freely provided (free as in freedom), the government agencies charge for the physical copying of documents, and they can charge reasonable research fees to comb the archives. In back-and-forth e-mails with the FOIA officer, I found out that the Library of Michigan in Lansing, down the street from the State Capitol, has an archive of old MSHD and MDOT maps. They have the facilities to scan the maps to CD for a nominal fee. In the end, I was able to get most of the old maps they have (we missed some that I'll request at a later date) for a less than a tenth of the projected FOIA request cost, and most of those map scans I have weren't useful to the M-28 (and M-35) FACs I did in 2008. I've been able to use them for most of my articles, switching Bessert references over to the actual map references over time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Some of your highway images[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some of your highway images 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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

File:DVP map.svg[edit]

The image doesn't show all of the interchange roads (Don Mills, Lawrence, York Mills). Will you be able to add those? I don't think it is urgent, but it might be good to have it ready for the FA review. Alaney2k (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've been uploading versions as I do it. Eventually it will show the parkland vs built up areas as well. Hopefully I can finish it by the weekend. - Floydian (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for File:DVP map.svg[edit]

I don't know your plans for the route map. Certainly it would be good to add some road names? Your summary noted land use as a future development. I suggest you label some of the areas marked that are reference in the map. I think Crother's Woods, Forks of the Don and Milne Hollow would be helpful to readers. What do you think? Alaney2k (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a map at this site. Alaney2k (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, that and perhaps Riverdale Park and the Evergreen Brickworks? - Floydian (talk)

You might be interested to find out[edit]

that the an attack image you removed from user:OsamaK user page was discussed in length here. There are quite a few policies on English wikipedia that prohibit such images at user page. At least 2 of attack images I know of were removed there. Sadly commons is a different story. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the idea of removing an image that clearly singles out a group or culture for the purposes of defaming them of their right to existence doesn't seem to sit well with the community, who either cry censorship or "but what about this? Are you going to get rid of this too?". It's rediculous that level-headed minds can't prevail and say "No, this isn't censorship, unnecessary is what it is." - Floydian (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

jpeg vs. png[edit]

Hi! I have just deleted a duplicate jpeg file of yours. In the DR you wrote: "jpegs are supposedly better than png." Well, that is only true if your digital camera saves the files as jpg on the chip and you upload it unmodified to commons. Because in that scenario you don't gain anything saving the file as png as all the artifacts and losses are already in the image. png will just have a larger file size and no benefit. png is only better if you take pictures with your camera in the raw mode or if you do some post processing. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 08:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not true. All of my cameras take uncompressed jpg photographs if I set them to do so (the raw mode in my camera still produces a jpg). The problem is not with the regular size of the image, it's with the thumbnail produced here. Jpg thumbnails don't handle gradients well, so errors become more pronounced. Compare (granted the png has been cropped slightly, they were produced from the same base jpg):
401 Traffic Cam.png
401 Traffic Cam.jpg
Note in the jpeg, that around the camera atop the pole is distortion, and that the sky is proliferated with horizontal lines. On some monitors, a large distorted gradient will appear alongside the pole. The png does not have these problems because it handles resizing better. - Floydian (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is true ;) but I think you didn't get my point. I do agree that png are lossles and I also agree that the gradient looks better in the jpg thumbnail (that is probably due to compression in creating the thumbnail by wikimedia). I just said, that if you don't do any changes with the image coming from the camera you might as well (except for the thumbnail gradients) upload jepgs because you won't loose anthing. So I am not against you point in you uploading png's. It was just a notice why people say that jpeg are 'better' for photos (which is of course only partially true). cheers, Amada44  talk to me 08:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Highway 17 Manitoba border.png[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Highway 17 Manitoba border.png 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)‎ | +/−

Flickr user uploaded this image under "No Derivative Works" license (by-nd), which is not valid on Commons. deerstop. 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated License[edit]

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


Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:Hwy 17B Garden River sign.png, 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 01:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


File:Highway 17 Michipicoten, 1959.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 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Highway_17_Michipicoten,_1959.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Highway_17_Michipicoten,_1959.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)‎ | +/−

Yuval Y § Chat § 20:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please use your eyes and examine the file before letting your trigger finger get the better of you. Photos produced by the government in Canada are copyright for 50 years, which means this one lost copyright at the end of 2009. If you looked, you'd have noticed I merely mispelt the permissions template. - Floydian (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:User_Floydian.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:User_Floydian.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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

– Adrignola talk 00:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Floydian. You have new messages at Fetchcomms's talk page.
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 | +/−

fetchcomms 05:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove problem tags[edit]

Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Svenska | +/−


Nuvola apps important.svg Hi! It has come to my attention that you have removed a warning which says that a file doesn't have enough information about the source or license conditions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this information is still missing and I have restored the tag. You may either add the required information or, if you think that required information is already given, put the image up for a deletion request so that it won't automatically be deleted. Thank you.

– Adrignola talk 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm only removing it where its not necessary. I am discussing this with the user who did the tagging. - Floydian (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Further, please provide ANY policy (one which has gained consensus and is not merely proposed) which backs up the deletion of images created by someone other than the uploader solely on the basis of a lack of an OTRS ticket. I am reverting you. - Floydian (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Bayview Finch looking east, 1960.png[edit]

Hello. Just to give you a heads up - this is an example of an image that ran a pretty high risk of being deleted because you didn't provide any author information. As a post Jan 1 1949 image, it only becomes public domain 50 years after the death of the author (or, if created for a corporation, 50 years after creation). The site you provided didn't have any background info. I was able to dig around the City of Toronto Archives site and find the image, and the necessary details, but I am not sure others would have taken that extra step. You would have run the same risk had you uploaded it locally at Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Its on the border. If the photo was indeed taken by North York Township (ie an employee took it while on paid duty), than the photo is owned by the township and falls under a crown copyright term of 50 years (which is the case with all materials produced by any government in Canada). Some of these old images are hard for me to trace back in the archive, but almost all of them come from there. Thanks for adding the information though! Cheers, Floydian (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Crown copyright doesn't apply to municipalities, but nonetheless the same 50 year period would apply under s. 10 of the Act. The problem is not whether the image was taken on behalf of North York or not (it's pretty safe to assume that images at the City of Toronto Archives attributed to city departments or former constituent municipalities were taken on behalf of the municipality), but the usual lack of information when an image is attributed to a third party site instead of directly to the COTA site. If you can't find the image at the Archives site, you can imagine how difficult it would be for a Commons admin from the Netherlands (with limited or no knowledge of Toronto) to do so when trying to verify copyright status. At this point, I'm just pestering you, so I'll stop. :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Understood. I'll try to ensure that I include the fonds/box number at the very least from now on. Cheers, Floydian (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:35 near Cameron Lake.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:35 near Cameron Lake.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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rd232 (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Stub removal drive.png[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Stub removal drive.png 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)‎ | +/−

Asclepias (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:400 holiday highway.png[edit]

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses File:400 holiday highway.png has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid.

Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.


Deutsch | English | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | norsk bokmål | português | português do Brasil | slovenščina | svenska | русский | +/−

Asclepias (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed these two. They should have been on en. with a FUR. - Floydian (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2012 (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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

File:Bayview Finch looking east, 1960.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bayview Finch looking east, 1960.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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 04:12, 18 May 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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Gardiner Shield.svg[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Gardiner Shield.svg. 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.

JuTa 22:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

a heads-up[edit]

We haven't always agreed. I think we may generally agree about the issues you raised at Commons_talk:URAA-restored_copyrights, and I have taken the liberty of leaving you a heads-up about my recent comments there. Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow! You raised some amazing points; I can only hope it has some effect on those who believe we have to be more catholic than the pope. I can understand the issue with incorrect licencing, but if we lay it out to editors that the file is perfectly free in [insert country of origin here], but that there is a possibility of copyright issues if the image is used freely (esp. for commercial uses) in the United States. You're right though; we do disagree regarding notability, but in this case we're on the exact same page! Cheers :) - Floydian (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Burlington Skyway 1958.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Burlington Skyway 1958.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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Crown Copyright[edit]

Hi, I would like to get the Canadian Crown Copyright global PD declaration integrated into the proposed policy at Commons:Hosting of content released to the public domain globally. Could you have a look, and also add your thoughts to the talk page? I hope you will support it! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, it all looks good to me. Hopefully that ticket goes through soon and we can have a link to the statement. I've watchlisted the page for whenever the vote comes along to adopt it. - Floydian (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts educating people on this, Floydian, which I just came across in that ridiculous Burlington Skyway discussion. — Scott talk 14:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Bayview Finch looking east, 1960.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Bayview Finch looking east, 1960.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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)