User talk:Rklawton

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

goodbye rk lawton[edit]

you win..not because what you say is the truth, but because my sanity is being driven from me by you, you are a internet stalker and I feel unsafe to be an editor or anything on wikicommons or wikipedia anymore.

why don't you go throw a party now???, yes, youv'e won!..you got to emotionaly beat up a 5 ft 3 inches tall, 125 lbs woman! I am sure you are pleased...you "big man administrator". goodbye, sorry you wouldnt even give me a break i was trying to be friends with you till you took a personal vendetta against me, oh and the kennedy photo was in the Sun times, not the other paper, that was a typo! that was my mistake, again!!!--kathy-treks-on (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the LA Times. My librarian friend, on the other hand, spend the afternoon going through all her resources and found no indication that Throne existed as a photographer/reporter for *any* periodical. Given your long history of "mistakes" - maybe, it's best you not "contribute." Rklawton (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories vs Galleries[edit]

Hi! I noticed you de-categorising images and creating galleries instead. Categories and galleries are not either/or things; the two can co-exist, so there is no need to remove images from a category just because you have created a gallery. JeremyA 03:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the cities are ideal for galleries but, even once a gallery has been created, there is no need to remove images from categories. From the commons FAQ:
When should I use a gallery or category?
Files should always be added to descriptive categories, since if they are only added to galleries, they can be easily removed from them and thus "lost". Categories are useful as undescriminatory large "containers" of images on a topic. Galleries (on article pages) are useful as showcasing the best, most illustrative, informative and interesting images of a category. They are also useful for presenting material in a logical order, something categories have a limited ability to do. For example, compare Tennis to Category:Tennis. Information on gallery pages can be presented in a heirarchical manner, such as Pronunciation of Dutch municipality names and United States.
-- JeremyA 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


I hadn't thought much about images getting lost. On the other hand, maybe that's a good thing if it helps clear out the dreck. Keep in mind that with a category, one need only delete the category to "lose" an image. With a link and a gallery, one needs to kill the link on one page and delete the gallery entry on another - so I think getting lost might be harder with articles. I agree that galleries and articles aren't mutually exclusive. However, I think some categories look very sloppy and therefore unprofessional. See also First steps:
Other people need to find your file in order to use it to illustrate articles in other Wikimedia projects. So it is crucial to add your media files to specific gallery articles on Commons and/or adding it to a specific category otherwise your valuable media files won’t get used that much. Adding images and other kinds of media files to galleries is prefered over categories as they can keep more information and look more polished to an outsider. Rklawton 03:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, an admin is unlikely to delete a category that still has images in it (and even so, rather strangely, a category does not need a page to still exist--try putting images in a nonexistent category to see what I mean), but that is beside the point. For most of the cities in illinois there are so few pictures for each city that it doesn't really matter, but for subject areas where we have a lot of photographs I regard the categories as a 'catch-all', whereas the galleries are a showcase for the best (or most replresentative) images from a category (or from multiple categories). JeremyA 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Rklawton 12:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Open coffin.jpg[edit]

I reverted your edit because the image is not linkd on any gallery page (your personal gallery does not count). All images should be in at least one category and/or gallery page by topic, always. You linked from the image to a gallery, but not the other way...

Btw: I just discovered that the image is redundant to Image:Open casket 3 by windchime.jpg (and should be tagged as such and deleted in due time) - maybe that caused the confusion? The latter image is in that gallery.

Also, IMHO, galleries are often, but not always better than categories. There have been no ends of debates about it, and I personally feel the distinction should be abolished - but that needs to be coded into the software. In the mean time, i consider it a matter of personal preference. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I find articles useful and categories fast. When I find a terminal category, I take the time to create an article out of it. The coffin image in question is not in my personal gallery. The image is in the Commons Coffin article. I think the three views of the same coffin are useful in providing 3-D perspective. I've been adding illustrations to various articles, so take care before tagging images for deletion. Rklawton 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not your gallery - it's at User:Chris 73/Free Gallery 004 - Image:Open coffin.jpg is not used anywhere else - the picture in Coffin is Image:Open casket 3 by windchime.jpg, which is actually the same picture under a different name.
I reverted because your edit effectively orphaned the image - removing an image from all categories without putting it into a gallery is generally not acceptable. Seeing now that it is a dupelicate, orphaning is ok, but it should be tagged as such.
I hope you see the misunderstanding. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 20:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

please wont u stop editing the Lincoln "death" photo page untill we resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction?[edit]

I needed to edit the title as I do agree I was in the wrong and you are right, everyone has the right to edit pages on wiki in general, however I am still saddened by this as I am a family friend of the surviving John B. Bachelder family members , I live only 2 miles from where the photographer, the man who too the death photo, is buried , you seemingly missed the fact that it was the Bachelder family themselves who reported that John retouched the photo of Lincoln in his beard area itself, so that he would look more "himself"...I WOULD ask of you to read THE BOOK done with the co-operation of the Bachelder family itself regarding the authentic history of the photograph..it is not a hoax, nor a fake, it was taken in a hurry by Bachelder , as a reference photo only...for a future painting he collaborated on with another artist of the period, Alonzo Chappel.

please check me out on this, you will see my honesty..sorry about our previous squabbles...I will be more considerate of you, and your feelings in the future, I admit to my stupid stubbornness and what more can I say. BEST REGARDS...REALLY, lets try and find the truth together?, I believe you to be in earnest as I am, you are not a Troll as I wrongly stated on your regular user page, just determined as Cathytreks, thats me...i'll ammend my ways and words there too if they let me back into the fold, somebody named kungfu..something has banned me for being a troll, infinately and the sad fact is I never trolled at alland was only trying to present a new truth to the world based upon the resaerch of others....I will not edit your edit here, please consider this as a sign and a olive branch, now that I have been brought low...and humbled. (Cathytreks 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC))


Hi Cathy. Please read wiki policies again. You are violating two of them. First, there are no private web pages here. Second, as far as your report that the family has stated the photo has been retouched, it sounds like you want to present your own research in this matter, and that's another violation of wiki policy. All information in wikipedia must be verifiable. Rklawton 16:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


I am just about half past give a crap with your fun and games mister!

You want the info gathered by Ostendorf????

Just go to the Concord Historical Society in Concord N.H. and ask to see the Bachelder collection, you will see I am telling the truth and btw, this is NOT original research, it was already done by Ostendorf and others to verify the genuineness of the Lincoln death photograph! (Cathytreks 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Sorry for the downeast saying up top, but the Concord Historical Society will help anyone with research, I would like you to have all materials possible so you too will really see the truth of the Lincoln death photograph. (Cathytreks 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

I get hundreds of Google hits for the "Concord Historical Society." It would seem that "Concord" is a popular name for historical societies. Could you provide a specific link and contact information for the one that you have been working with? Rklawton 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: I scanned the Lincoln Photograph and other documents and quoted from them directly from the John B Bachelder material that is available for researchers that were once held at the now closed Concord Historical Society in New Hampshire, also I met with his descendant family members in Nottingham N.H. when I lived in the area, Lincoln as you know is a favourite study of mine and I take your words as an insult to the many hours of research, yes, independent as it was, into the mystery photograph of Lincoln in death, I scanned the photo a blow up of the original in the possession of the family which is of course different than the look of it in the book.

First off I am not a liar Sir, though I understand the scepticism, and those who are now trying to make it out to be a hoax, one that was perpetrated by the late Lincoln historian Ostendorf, and now some say by me of all people!, Sir I must stand by my Lincoln research and one day hopefully my research shall be proven to be the truth, RK. then someone can post in wiki it was me who brought the truth out at long last about Lincoln, I can only pray so.

As for the other photographs I have already addressed those matters on your wikipedia page and am no liar, It is just a laughable coincidental that my late great Uncle had the same name of some obscure actor from a silly scifi show, which is NOT my favourite show, heck not even close, Yes of course I do like to make edits on things I see as needing corrections on a large variety of topics and have tried to do so sir, IN THE LAST 2 YEARS... MOST RESPECTFULLY AFTER YOU BANNED ME for months...So I chilled out and have remained a good wiki editor ever since, it is my hope to remain on as a good editor and please just watch and see, the proof is in the pudding as they say? respectfully I say these things with truth and caring, Sir.--Cathytreks (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not take a current photo of Bachelder's grave and upload it to Wikipedia? The winter-time ambiance would add a neat effect to the image, the image would round out his article, and I'll move it to Commons myself on your behalf. As it's only two miles down the road, it shouldn't be too much of a bother, and you'll certainly earn my appreciation. On a professional note, I'd recommend you take several images from various angles just to give you a selection of images from which to choose the best. Also, please upload the highest resolution possible. If it's nice enough, I might even recommend it as a "featured image". Rklawton (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

First....I Thank you in advance for your confidence in my photography I shall be happy to go to Nottingham N.H. when I return there in a few weeks and take pictures as you suggested from Bachelders grave, after I will visit his descendants and get with luck scans of several key documents that will at very long last put me back in high esteem with you Sir, maybe for the first time ever., sincerely and truthfully yours, Cathie --Cathytreks (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday you said you'd be home in a week. Rklawton (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! (as already answered elsewhere)...That is actually none of your concern however since you are curious? Sometimes plans change with the Job and they need me here a few more weeks, I am a contract employee and am not on salary any more... all thanks to the destruction of the U.S. economy by George Walker Bush and his wacko Republican friends. Respectfully yours, Cathie --Cathytreks (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

my Uncles Daughter[edit]

I am not going to beg you for a thing again, here is the unnessisary fact that you "need" to know of the situation, Sir.

That was his "Daughter" of sorts actually, Sorry he had a "stepchild" he adopted from Mexico and took care of, who later moved to the U.S. I did not know it was nessisary or there was a need to air all of my familys "laundry" or private acts of kindness, such as his, just for you... or wiki, Sir. best regards.--Cathytreks (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Rklawton (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

F.Y.I.? Sorry I gather you need all details: my "step cousin" Maria? She is older than I, and she knows much of what his work pertained to, but I WAS HIS FAVOURTE NIECE, and as such he left his house to her, and to me as a budding sometime photographer and so on, I got his work, and photos and primitive 16 mm film equipment, and also some great memories of a great man!

I have lost nothing, Sir, RK? please!?, aren't you the least bit ashamed now of such wrongful slights against me, no one cant trip me up on the truth, Sir. -Cathytreks (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RK Sir?, Please remember this quote from President Kennedy: "A man does what he must — in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers, and pressures — and that is the basis of all human morality." True regards to you, from another very moral human being. --Cathytreks (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sedona, Arizona[edit]

I'm sorry. I was following the instructions in Commons:FAQ, which says, "Files should always be added to descriptive categories." Maybe you should update the FAQ to match the current policy. --bjh21 10:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm pretty sure the author meant "don't just upload photos and leave them there. DO something with them." Placing articles in categories is really the first step to getting them noticed and used. I use categories as my "todo" list - as in - sort images into appropriate articles. Thanks for the heads up re: the FAQ. It's certainly not clear. Rklawton 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

strange edit of yours[edit]

This edit [1] looks like you deleted others peoples comments from the deletion request page... well, in fact, you did. I hope it was not intentional. Please restore the comments. Thasnk you -- Duesentrieb(?!) 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks [2] like you had an edit box for the deletion requests open for more than five hours, and then hit save, and overruled the resulting edit conflict (or the software failed to notice). Or you unwittingly edited an old revision instead of current, thus reverting all changes made since - that seems a bit more likely.

Please do try to fix it - if you are not using MSIE on Mac, your browser should be able to handle very long pages. If it doesn't, the worst that can happen is that the page is cut off. That's easy to detect. If it happens, just scream for help on the pump or on IRC :) -- Duesentrieb(?!) 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh! OK, I'll give it a shot. I was worried I'd do more harm than good. I'm using IE on XP. Five hours - that actually does sound like me. Rklawton 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks like some of these edits were archived. I'm navigating unfamiliar territory, but I think I've got it figured out. I've run out of time this arvo, but I'll give it a shot tonight. Rklawton 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Finished! And thanks for bringing this to my attention. Rklawton 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is even worse now! Yor edits were already reverted. No need to fix. I fixed now your "fix" ;-) --ALE! 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, they already where? Aw man... it just sucks when stuff like that isn't noticed imediately :/ Hard to get it right -- Duesentrieb(?!) 18:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that. I checked each edit very carefully and made no assumptions. I noticed each of the archived notes had been fixed, so I didn't touch those. I carefully read through the non-archived edits before making changes. Maybe the same problem happened again. That is, maybe my edit session overwrote another edit session. I don't have this problem when I edit in Wikipedia, but maybe this software is a little different. Thoughts? Rklawton 19:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Hi, Rklawton: It has spent to me several times that you erase me the categories that I put to the images. I add the images to compile all the images about theme. If you erase the category, the category remains incomplete... The article is a good tool to generate specific gallerys, but to compile all the images are the categories (according to the software, becasus the software is who work to generate the galleries).

If you erase the image category when the image is included in the articles, when people look for a topic, they will have to consult in two places, instead of one...

It would be grateful for much to you that you were not erasing the categories in the images. Regards, --Pristigaster 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to compile images according to a theme, please use articles. Articles are more helpful because they contain more information about each image. Rklawton 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For topics that need information and selection of images, I agree completely that the articles are the solution. But to generate simple galleries, without extra-information or selected images, the categories is the way (the wikisoftware is like that; and I prefer that the software works, and not me works like software, but manually je je). To catalogue all the images of a concrete topic (without information, only the basic and the images), the categories are essential, because the wiksoftware works this way (and not work in the articles). This is the importance to label both images and articles.

When I finish to tag the images, there will come the moment to prepare articles.The first one will be, probably, about the differentiation of three almost identical species of fishes (see Category:Crossocheilus_siamensis; The problem is that there are no sufficient images, for the time...).

Ah. Excuse me for my poor english... Greetings, --Pristigaster 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with you 100%. The point I wish to make is this: the images you have categorized exist already in their own articles - just as you propose!

Yes, but my proposal is create only one place to compile all the images about a species, or a zoo, for example. Not two or more. I think: the categories, to compile all; the articles, to use the best images for every concrete topic. Because if you erase the category to the images include in articles, the people who wants to find all the images about topic, will have to look for them at least in two places simultaneously: the category, and the article. Think this: for someone species, Ten articles might do, or more. Example: Symphysodon aequifasciata, the discus fish: articles for: wild forms according to the river and zone of origin, because there are many; article for the artifical forms; reproduction; breeder; etc... The proposal is put categories to all. Do you agree with me? Gretings, --Pristigaster 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a nice proposal, but it isn't consistent with the Commons project where articles are the preferred method to display pictures and categories are used for navigation. Rklawton 12:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rklawton, I hope you don't mind my minor edit to your user page. It seems you came across the same problem I had - using the standard category link syntax on a user page acts just like on any other Wikipedia page - the link's text disappears from where you want it and your user page becomes a part of the category (as seen at the footer of the page). Your solution works (using the full http://commons... URL) but there was a "|" (pipe) at the end of two of the links and that caused a "bad link error". I recently discovered that adding a colon at the beginning of category link (for example: [[:Category:Some category]] actually has the effect I think you're looking for (showing the link text and NOT making the page part of the category) and it's more concise. --George3 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please consider your tone in the Image:Childhood Obesity.JPG debate[edit]

Your comments are starting to skirt the edge of collegiality. Commons policy on this matter is clear. Produce a permission please, and stop with all the wikilawyering, and especially stop harassing people about their opinions in this matter, or you may find yourself unable to participate in the debate for a while. Commons is supposed to be a civil, friendly place and your contributions of late are not helping. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Presenting untrue information as fact, repeatedly, and in the face of solid references to the contrary is considered disruptive behaviour and grounds for blocking. Just so you know. Rklawton 05:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, even if that assertion were true, I've not been doing any of that so I've no concerns in that area, but on the other hand, you've been editing quite contentiously. You need to stop. I will of course put my block up for review, as I always do, if it comes to that. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
But there is contention - that's what discussion is all about. Some people contend one thing, other's contend another. There's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, you have repeatedly contended that publishing this image is a violation of U.S. law, and you have done so without any references. There is nothing untrue or inappropriate in my pointing this out. Note also that it's well established here that repeatedly posting untrue information in a discussion constitutes disruptive behavior. If you have a source that indicates publishing the image in question is illegal, then please produce it. I on the other hand, have produced a reference by an expert to the contrary. Pointing this out isn't contentious. It's appropriate. Note also that blocking someone with whom you have an active disagreement would fall under considerable scrutiny. If you feel I am acting inappropriately, your best course of action would be to work out with the offending party (me, in this case), and then take the matter up with a neutral administrator if you aren't satisfied with the results. You might also want to cite specific edits you deem especially inappropriate. Rklawton 06:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You have been carrying this to people's talk pages instead of keeping it confined to the deletion debate. That's inappropriate in general, unless there is some good reason for it. Further, I have cited samples of the specific edits by you that I consider inappropriate, in the appropriate place, the admin noticeboard. You're trying to frame this as disagreement between myself and yourself, which if extended, would then rule out every admin that is active here and said anything. That's wikilawyering. Don't do that, it doesn't fly well at Commons. Further, you're ignoring the practice here... that policy, when more restrictive than law, overrides law as a guide to what to do, we are conservative. Policy here is that we do not use personally identifiable images, I already gave the cite. If there are other images that have that issue, that is not a defense, as we are discussing one particular image. Those other images should be nominated as well. Internalise that Commons policy is this way, and move on, rather than continually referring to the law. As well, change your way of participating in the discussion, please. As I said, if you're blocked by me to stop your disruption, the block will go up for review. If I wasn't confident it would be sustained I would not be considering blocking you to get you to stop being disruptive. This is your last warning by me. ++Lar: t/c 06:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll see that I'm engaging any number of people in polite discussion. I am certainly free to take these discussions wherever I place, though the IfD closing admin has no obligation to follow any thread outside the IfD. Given these various discussions, it's clear I'm not framing a debate between you and me. I don't know you, and I only object to your statement as "fact" a certain U.S. Law which frankly doesn't exist. I've provided a highly credible reference, but you have continued to restate this invented law without providing references to the contrary. Ignoring references and inventing facts is disruptive to the IfD discussion because it may mislead other participants. And I'll have no difficulty providing a time line of our posts illustrating this point should the need arise. Rklawton 07:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Your discussion doesn't contain direct attacks, it's true, but the tone is nevertheless less than collegial. As for timelines, make sure you include how the last half dozen or so of my comments have referenced commons policy, not law, and the last half dozen of yours to me have completely failed to address that but continue to repeat your assertions about law. It's not, at the root, about law, it's about what we choose to do here. That image is not within our policies and you need to internalise that. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Is threatening to block editors using "tones" you don't like collegial? Threatening blocks for "tone" is rather serious business and disruptive to open discussions – and therefore antithetical to Commons' best interest. I don't take issue with your bringing up Commons policy. That's rather the entire point. I do object to your stating - and not retracting - as "fact" laws that simply don't exist - even after the problem has been brought to your attention. If you wish to make amends, I suggest striking out each edit you made to the effect that publishing this image is a violation of the law. Such is the custom here on Commons when editors uncover their mistakes. Next: others have commented that this "policy" isn't enforced and has no present means of verification. I have commented that this "policy" may expose Commons to legal risks should someone use an image in a way that prompts litigation from a model - on the basis that Commons holds its images can be "used anywhere" when strictly speaking, that just isn't true. Rklawton 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On censorship...[edit]

From your recent postings it seems that you're having a hard time disambiguating censorship from selection.

A friend of mine wrote this on the subject:

  • Selection is when you include appropriate things and exclude inappropriate things to the task at hand.
  • Censorship is when you exclude appropriate things because someone else pressured you.

If I'm building a collection of books about knitting, leaving out Madonna's _Sex_ isn't censorship. It might, however, be censorship to leave out a book about how to knit representations of genitalia. Such a decision might still just be selection if it was made because the book's techniques were inferior or unfollowable, or because it otherwise failed the normal criteria for knitting books, and not because of prudishness.

In the case here, no one has advocated that we categorically exclude images of obese children from our articles on the subject. People have, however, argued that using an identifiable image is unnecessary for our application(s) and that it may cause harm to the unwilling subject of the image. Avoiding such risks is good for Wikipedia and doesn't harm our ability to illustrate that article well. I've even argued that your image is unfairly 'loaded' with implications about the causes and nature of childhood obesity which may be creating a material slant to the article. i.e. we're better off with nothing at all even if we ignore the subjects welfare.

There is no similarity between censorship, even self-censorship, and our process.

Your fervent desire to preserve the aspects of this image which are completely unnecessary to our purposes and which pose a real risk of harm to an unwilling third party does not reflect well on your character. --Gmaxwell 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on my character. The concern over risk of harm is a matter of opinion and not of fact. The article is about childhood obesity, its causes and its treatments. The image illustrates an obese child and at least two of the listed causes (fast food and fast food marketing). These features makes it highly appropriate for the article. As far as selection goes, I would agree that it's not a very appropriate illustration for an article on icecreams... It may not be the best image possible for childhood obesity, either, but it is a good one for the reasons noted. And it appears to be the only one available. Excluding it in favor of no image would therefore constitute censorship. This, of course, leaves us with an option I have never opposed. Indeed, my first comment on the article's talk page, dated the 9th of September, suggests replacing this image with a more suitable one, and that position hasn't wavered. I have defended using the unpixilated version, but accepted the majority opinion against it as the pixilated version, though less attractive, still serves its illustrative purpose. Rklawton 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Derivative work of clown image[edit]

Image:Obi Clown KemoSabe.jpg Hello, I am en:user:Ronbo76 and was looking for an open source image of a clown that I could modify to carry a lightsaber. I like your image and created one attributing it to you. I hope you approve. Thanks, Ronbo76 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Curb, gutter, storm drain image[edit]

Image:Curb gutter storm drain.JPG I'm just wondering if you could provide the location of the gutter featured here; it's perfect for an article I just created at Wikipedia, and I'd like to include its location in the caption. If possible, it might be useful to future editors if you could edit the information into the image's page, too.

It's probably best if you reply at my Wikipedia talk page - I'll forget about this completely in about ten minutes and never check back, but I'm on Wikipedia every day. Cheers! PaladinWhite 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Complied and replied per your request. Rklawton 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you believe that Wikipedia didn't have an article on streetside gutters until two days ago when I created it? I was in the middle of cleaning up the disambiguation for "gutter" when I realized the glaring omission. Your image really makes the article look good. Thanks a bunch! PaladinWhite 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia had such an article last year but it got wiped out though disambiguation somehow. Rklawton 15:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sesame stage show[edit]

Wow, great stuff. I've added it to Sesame Street. By any chance did you take more photos of the show? -- Zanimum 16:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a hundred or so. Some individual performers/muppets as well as the fish and squid kites. I can't imagine where they'd be useful, though. Rklawton 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
They'd be useful on Wikipedia, based on the fact we don't have free images of most of the characters. Sure, these aren't the characters themselves, but they're relatively close. And other than Oscar the Grouch and Kermit (both of whom are in the Smithsonian) there's no free license images of any of the Sesame Street Muppets or Muppet Show Muppets.
They'd also be great on muppet.wikia.com -- it's also GFDL-licensed, and editable. I also contribute to that site, and we have 14000 pages, among them 89 different stage show characters. Many of them show the different versions of each character, based on the different year or purpose.
Would it be possible to get just a few pictures, even? And were there any Muppets other than those who appear on stage in the photo you uploaded? Any help would be greatly appreciated! -- Zanimum 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If I upload them to Commons, would they be accessible to these other wikis without having to download/upload them again? I'm three projects behind at the moment, but I think this is something I can get to over the weekend. Oh, and also note that while I'd upload these as CC Attribution ShareAlike 2.5, the characters themselves are trademarked and their use would be greatly restricted by their owners. You probably knew this, but I feel obliged to point these things out just in case. Rklawton 00:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No, they wouldn't be instantly accessible, but I'd just let Muppet Wiki know that the images were available to download, then reupload to that site. And you don't have to worry about the Muppet Wiki trying to wrongfully exploit the images; a bunch of Muppeteers and the like contribute to the site, so everybody makes sure they fully respect the companies copyrights and trademarks. -- Zanimum 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If you post the muppet wiki URL, I'll check it out and upload them there directly. Rklawton 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Action on Image:Crude UM logo legal for User pages.svg[edit]

Hi Rklawton. Basically you have 2 options: placing {{derivative}}, which is a speedy deletion criteria, or placing {{subst:npd}} ({{no permission}}), which I had done. The first action is possibly more descructive, as the image can possibly be deleted within a day or so by an admin sifting through the derivate category. The second action will tag the image into the category unknown, in which case the image can possibly deleted after seven (7) days. Please check the messages on the templates for more information about meaning and process. Cheers! Siebrand 10:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Rklawton 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

cc-by-2.0[edit]

You should read {{cc-by-2.0}}. Dantadd 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll bight. Why? Rklawton 04:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Fritillary Butterfly[edit]

User page[edit]

Semi prot - let someone know if you want that changed. Always happy to help - I really don't like attacks on users! --Herby talk thyme 12:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked a couple of the IPs too, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with that. I do most of my work on Wikipedia. As things slow down over winter, I might have a chance to upload more photos. We'll see. Rklawton 14:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Image:Bambiraptor_model.JPG[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Bambiraptor_model.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

DaB. 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. --MichaelMaggs 17:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Car park ramps[edit]

Hi, I find one of your images is an interesting candidate for being the most valued image of a car park ramp on Commons. However, to really compete with the other candidate it has to fulfill the criteria one of which is valid geodata. I have tried to add geodata for a large car park close to a Busch Stadium. Could you verify that the geocode is correct and if not, correct it. Cheers, - Slaunger 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your geotag is almost correct. You can see the stadium in the center-right of the image amd a brick building center-left. The tag should therefore be placed in the building's southwest corner, not the northwest corner. I also have it posted and geotagged on Flickr. The Flickr version is higher resolution (and copyrighted). Rklawton 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spiral ramp[edit]

Image:Car park whirley-gig.JPG is a really awesome picture. I design carparking buildings and this shot is going on my office wall - it looks like structural design & art meets GTA IV! You wouldn't have it in larger resolution, wouldn't you? Ingolfson 06:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued image promotion[edit]

Car park whirley-gig.JPG
An image you created has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Car park ramps .

Congratz with your first VI! -- Slaunger 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you see any of my images in EN that might qualify but aren't in Commons yet, just drop me a note. Rklawton 02:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I will, although it is unlikely that I will find any, as I spend most of my Wikimedia time on Commons. I can only urge you to move images of your to Commons, such that they can be of benefit to all Wikimedia projects and not just EN, like this one. Cheers, -- Slaunger 05:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Image:Daspletosaurus_model.JPG[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Daspletosaurus_model.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Edmontosaurus model.JPG[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Edmontosaurus model.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Quetzalcoatlus model.JPG[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Quetzalcoatlus model.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Miniature railways[edit]

Your question is answered. See User talk:Gürbetaler Gürbetaler (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coonskin cap[edit]

  •  ;-) Yes, it is! (It's carneval in Rhineland, I'll take my coonskin cap now and walk up and down the mainroad...)--Kürschner
  • "A picture is worth a thousand words..." in any language.
and nothing can lie better then a picture (perception of a furrier)
  • and my wife just told me, I shall take the vacuum cleaner first. :-( --Kürschner (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


File:Sordes_model.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Sordes_model.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)‎ | +/−

FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


File tagging Image:Elmo and Bookaneers.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 Image:Elmo and Bookaneers.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 ([[:Image:Elmo and Bookaneers.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Polarlys (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2009 (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, Rklawton!

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.

BotMultichillT 00:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


File:Mr_Pisgah_west_view.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Mr_Pisgah_west_view.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)‎ | +/−

Rklawton (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

parafoils[edit]

Hi Rklawton. I'm looking for images of two specific parachutes - the Strato Cloud and the Delta Cloud. I would like to add these two wings to the gallery Paraglider because they are the ancestors of modern paragliders (according to that article). I noticed that you created the Parafoils category and you claim to be a skydiver on your user page, so maybe you are able to tell me if the files I'm looking for are in that category? --PiRK (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're both parafoils and should be included in the parafoils category. Rklawton (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Lenin's_Tomb.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Lenin's_Tomb.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)‎ | +/−

Fernrohr (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Komsomolskaya_Square.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Komsomolskaya_Square.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)‎ | +/−

Fernrohr (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Ryazan_drama_theater.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ryazan_drama_theater.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)‎ | +/−

Fernrohr (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lineman Rescue.JPG location[edit]

Happen to remember where File:Lineman Rescue.JPG was taken? Not that it matters that much, since the subject isn't necessarily a specific county or town. --Closeapple (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I also just created Category:2010 in Missouri, in case that helps you sort any more pictures. (I only put this message on your talk page instead of the file talk so you'd know someone had written to you. Feel free to move it.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll review my images some time and add the category accordingly. Rklawton (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Illinois_School_District_90[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Illinois_School_District_90 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 <articlefeedback-table-heading-page>, 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)‎ | +/−

Closeapple (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Benboyd1.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:Benboyd1.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:Benboyd1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Smooth_O (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I probably copied this image over from Wikipedia and did a bad job of it (I actually don't remember uploading this at all). At any rate, Ben originally uploaded this image himself a few years ago. Somewhere. Rklawton (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Zapruder C#390.jpg[edit]

I changed your speedy into a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:CE390.jpg, for reasons explained there. Please add additional comment there if you think appropriate. Thank you for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)