User talk:Rock drum/Archive 1

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

Template:Archive navigation

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, Rock drum!

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 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 07:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 00:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 02:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 02:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy[edit]

Hi Rock drum, Category:Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM) is a bit redundant to Category:Commons partnerships. Please think a bit about how you want to organize it before you add the category to a lot of pages. Multichill (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:GLAM-UK-2010-Akoopal-047.JPG[edit]

Hi Rockdrum, why did you ask for rotation of File:GLAM-UK-2010-Akoopal-047.JPG, the picture was already upright? Akoopal (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! It didn't look right for me - which is why I requested rotation. I'm not sure why. :-/ Regards, Rock drum (talkcontribs) 15:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rockdrum, I found out what is wrong now, the tools are now auto-rotating files, based on orientation tags, but sometimes they are not reset when rotated. Best to look at the full version what orientation it has, and if so just add {{rotate|0}}, that will reset the orientation tag. Akoopal (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:GLAMcamp Amsterdam - TMIG workshop flipchart 1.JPG[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


File:GLAMcamp Amsterdam - TMIG workshop flipchart 2.JPG[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Images from Herbert Art Gallery and Museum[edit]

Hi, nice to see category:Images from Herbert Art Gallery and Museum. I have done some formatting to File:Baker KenilworthCastle HAGAM.jpg. I have also replaced {{Herbert Art Gallery and Museum-license}} with {{Herbert Art Gallery and Museum-license}}: it is more convenient to separate license from source and faithful reproduction of 2D objects are considered Public Domain on Commons. The template also adds Category:Images from Herbert Art Gallery and Museum. Actually we should not have a Category:Watercolours from Herbert Art Gallery and Museum but rather a category, Watercolours in the Herbert Art Gallery that could also include photos that were not provided by the gallery. Source categories are mostly useful for maintenance and should therefore be mostly flat. Let me know if you have remarks. Cheers.--Zolo (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (fixed typo --Zolo (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC))

There are indeed subcategories in other source categories, but they normally serve some maintenance purpose (like helping to categorize images from very large donations). I see just two exceptions: Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek that is almost 5 years old and really needs some cleanup, and Category:Archivio Pietro Pensa that should also be reorganized to comply with Commons conventions (it does not even have a project page here). Subcats of source categories can be meaningful if they indicate something that make them different from other images from the same the source (e.g. Category:Images from Brooklyn Museum Flickr stream were not uploaded through the same process as other images from the same source and have subpar metadata). Is there anything special about watercolours that make them different from other images from Herbert Art Gallery ? If so, it should be stated in the category. Otherwise, the source of the image is of little concern to most end users and should interfere as little as possible with thematic categorization. If someone really needs to find watercolours from the Herbert Art Gallery, it should be rather straightforward to find them with catscan2 --Zolo (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Monmouth Regimental Museum - QRpedia 3.JPG[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 16:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


File:Monmouthpedia Day - MoU signing 7.JPG[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 20:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

GibraltarpediA[edit]

Hi there. Just wondering what's the purpose of the above named category you created? Is it for media which has been uploaded with the project in mind? If so, I know a few more that can be added. Thanks, --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 12:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed you've removed some images from this category and I'm still wondering what's the scope of the category. Grateful if you could please clarify. Cheers, --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 00:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I created the category with the purpose of it containing images of Gibraltarpedia projects (eg. QRpedia codes in Gibraltar). It might be worth creating Category:Media donated through Gibratarpedia or something similar though. Regards, Rock drum (talkcontribs) 14:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
OK that makes sense now. Cheers, --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 23:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikimania 2012 - Rock drum - Opening ceremony 2.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wikimania 2012 - Rock drum - Opening ceremony 2.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


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

99of9 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin withdrawal[edit]

A wise choice, one that confirms the good opinion your supporters have of you. Thank you for eliminating a difficult decision from whichever bureaucrat would have been faced with it. As it stood, your election, if it succeeded, would have created a very unfortunate precedent -- an Admin elected with literally no experience on 98% of what Admins do here.

If you spend a couple of months making thoughtful comments on a few hundred DRs, I would be happy to nominate you. Make no mistake -- that would not simply be make-work. Commons Admins make around 2,000 deletions each day and having reasonable comments from known colleagues allows us to work much faster and concentrate on the really hard decisions.

Although we have not crossed paths before, so I can say this only from the comments by your supporters, you apparently are doing very good work for Commons. Whatever your choice on becoming an Admin, thank you for that and please keep it up. We need all the good work we can get. Regards, .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I came here to say almost exactly what Jim said. --99of9 (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I came here to say almost exactly what Jim said. I would add though that DRs are not the only route to demonstrating competence in Commons Admin fields. Patrolling new uploads, identifying which ones are problematic, and listing them for either speedy or DR, is another way to show you've got what it takes. Argualbally it's an even better way, because it means that you can spot problems yourself (while DR participation only shows that you're able to comment on things other people have spotted). You should read up on freedom of panorama, de minimis, and the Commons scope before you dive in. Feel free to stop on by my talk page or hit me up over IRC if you have any questions. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mere text is ineligible for copyright[edit]

Hi, I've just seen you marked as copyvio some images containing basically text. Mere text is not enough to meet threshold of originality, so images like these violate no copyright. Lobo (howl?) 22:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly backwards. Text beyond a few words is always subject to copyright unless it is exempt for being a government work or some other special reason. Since we deal mostly in images on Commons, we tend to forget that text -- "literary works" -- was the first subject of copyright.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 8.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You are right Jim, text is clearly eligible for copyright and it was a mistake pointing the opposite. But, in this case, whom copyright were violating the images? I thought it was just an information panel with no copyrightable ideas (hence the adjective mere, but I admit I didn't read carefully the text so I'm not sure about that beyond the name containing 'InfoBoard') and left such message not having in mind artistic works or alike. Do we have in Commons problems with information signs? Lobo (howl?) 18:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, information signs with more than a few words of text have a copyright. In the USA, of course, copyright requires a (c) notice if the sign was erected before 1989 (although after 1977 registration could substitute for notice), and all signs erected by the Federal Government are OK. FOP covers text in Brazil, Croatia, Germany, Mexico, North Korea, Poland, Portugal,Slovakia, and Spain. But, if none of those apply, then a sign is a problem for us. With that said, we have a very great many signs on Commons that violate the rules -- no one seems very interested in starting a huge mass Deletion Request. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 11:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

ArchiveBot[edit]

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File:PRISM - Snowden Interview - Laura Poitras.webm[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:PRISM - Snowden Interview - Laura Poitras.webm 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 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pristurus (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

File:PRISM - Snowden Interview - Laura Poitras.webm[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:PRISM - Snowden Interview - Laura Poitras.webm has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


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

Yann (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thank you for your contribution of File:PRISM - Snowden Interview - Laura Poitras.webm to Wikimedia Commons which made it to today's Media of the day, as noted at Template:Motd/2014-11#13. Thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia related to freedom of speech. -- Cirt (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Providence — a short film featuring Chelsea Manning's voice.webm[edit]

A bit of a strange set up with this one. In the information field of the video a free license release is indicated, but in the actual license field it says standard Youtube license. Any way you can contact them and get them to fix that contradiction and switch to the CC license rather than the standard one? INeverCry 07:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:10 Downing Street Garden.webm[edit]

Youtube says it is not under CC BY, where can I find the proof that the file is licensed under commons-compatible license? — Revi 07:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

-revi: The file is licensed under OGL, which is compatible with Commons. Rock drum (talkcontribs) 18:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Where did you get the information that file is under OGL? YouTube says it's "standard youtube license" which is incompatible. I don't know much about British-specific things, so I need more details to undelete and review them. — Revi 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
-revi: meta:OGL explains it better, but as this file is 1) released under "Crown Copyright" (it says as much at the end of the video), 2) is published by central government, and 3) does not meet any of the exemptions in the license, it is available under the Open Government License, which is compatible with CC-BY. Thanks, Rock drum (talkcontribs) 20:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see my request to the closing admin here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)== File:PM calls General Election April 2010.jpg == This media has been deleted. Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | français | italiano | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Tiếng Việt | +/−


Dialog-warning.svg

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:PM calls General Election April 2010.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY) or BY SA (CC BY-SA) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request. 1989 20:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

File:President Obama's 2015 State of the Union Address.webm[edit]

I think there is an issue regarding this video file—the State of the Union was, according to YouTube, 1 hour 1 minute long, and your video is just short of 10 minutes… (I'm converting the original 720p video to WebM right now, so this can be fixed.) odder (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

odder: Thanks for spotting this. Not sure how it happened... The whole file must have not been uploaded to the video converter tool. Thanks. Rock drum (talkcontribs) 19:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)