User talk:Slowking4/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Copyright status: File:-August Kleinzahler 045549.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:-August Kleinzahler 045549.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Green Giant (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Rob casper 5109.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rob casper 5109.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Green Giant (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:John y cole 5068.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:John y cole 5068.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Green Giant (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

August Kleinnzahler

No. Didn't make it to the event where August Kleinnzahler was reading. Regards Nv8200p (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Elisavietta Ritchie 5235.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Elisavietta Ritchie 5235.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Green Giant (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Abby beckel 155649.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Abby beckel 155649.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ju Ta 20:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Sarah browning 165708.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Sarah browning 165708.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ju Ta 21:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Licenses

Please add licenses to ALL of your uploaded files, or else they will be deleted again. I realise there is something wrong with your talk page that means you don't get the correct messages but that may be down to the fact that you need to archive some of the earlier messages. Green Giant (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pages using Photograph template with incorrect parameter

Hi Slowking4. 90 of the files in this maintenance category were uploaded by you. Could you please make an attempt to fix the parameter/syntax errors? --Leyo 17:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

why thank you, i was looking for a work list, having cleaned up over 1000. until wizard, and commonist are fixed to allow photo template upload, these errors will continue to occur. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In which sense is a spelling error related to the upload wizard or commonist? --Leyo 18:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

i upload image, step 1, using upload wizard or communist with an information template, and scraped metadata from the institution, then step 2, i manually edit the template changing to photograph, or artwork template. i may make syntax errors. example: [1] i have done this 10,000 times. thanks for cleaning up one; over at m:File metadata cleanup drive, there is a backlog of one million; i did 1000. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed >> 10.000 erroneous file description pages. --Leyo 20:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I fixed all files in that category a few hours ago. But now, there are again some. Could you please take care yourself? Thank you. --Leyo 21:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Steve Cushman026032.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Steve Cushman026032.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Judith Harris 5579.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Judith Harris 5579.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Judith Harris 026035.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Judith Harris 026035.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Jennifer Atkinson 5550.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Jennifer Atkinson 5550.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Jennifer Atkinson 026026.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Jennifer Atkinson 026026.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Eric pankey 5602.JPG

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Eric pankey 5602.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Gregory Wolfe 5548.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gregory Wolfe 5548.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Rod Jellema 026041.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rod Jellema 026041.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Eric pankey026042.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Eric pankey026042.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Eric pankey 5602.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Eric pankey 5602.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Diane smith bolton 095640.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Diane smith bolton 095640.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Elisavietta Ritchie 5235.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Elisavietta Ritchie 5235.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Diane smith bolton 5252.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Diane smith bolton 5252.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Iota poetry 5263.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Iota poetry 5263.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Elisavietta Ritchie 095621.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Elisavietta Ritchie 095621.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Merrill Leffler 5242.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Merrill Leffler 5242.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Miles david moore 095618.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Miles david moore 095618.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Elisavietta Ritchie 5240.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Elisavietta Ritchie 5240.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Merrill Leffler 095636.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Merrill Leffler 095636.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

sorry user:Yann, you understand your notification is not functional. do i have seven days? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 18:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please correct this as soon as possible. The notifications do not work because you have too many of them... You should archive your talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for not speedy deleting these files as you did before. please fix your semi-automated script using Lua. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Ethelbert miller 5617.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ethelbert miller 5617.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ju Ta 20:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page is a mess!

Thanks for uploading all those MacArthur Foundation pix. en:Peter Pronovost thanx you (I assume) for his pic.

Now how do I download/upload the videos, which are included in the cc-by license? For a workaround, see en:Steve Coleman. Might be better than .wlm?

Smallbones (some new garbage somebody put here) 01:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

well, here is the help page Help:Converting_video; [2]. not very helpful, leading to meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Video_tutorials Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 04:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm interested in the downloading part. There doesn't seem to be any button to download them. Once downloaded, I just put them into the Miro Video Converter to convert and then upload to Commons. Smallbones (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

oh ok. yeah you noticed that youtube is a broadcasting, not sharing site. i havn't done this yet. here are some how to's; don't know how good they are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-q9mETKltY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqvD3r4hkxI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fo_wgeEduk Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 14:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Center Market 12292v.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Center Market 12292v.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Joshua Weiner 216401.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Joshua Weiner 216401.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Ju Ta 08:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

An update on the File metadata cleanup drive

Hello Slowking4,

I wanted to thank you for offering to help with the File metadata cleanup drive on Commons. We now have numbers to measure the amount of Commons files missing machine-readable information. Most of the files here have a license template, but there still about 500,000 remaining files (out of 24 million) missing an {{Information}} template, and that's where your help would be invaluable.

We're currently trying to find groups of files whose description pages are alike, so that we can use bots to automatically take that information and put it into an information template. If you still want to help, it would be great if you could look at the list of files and see if you can find such groups. You can also use the no_information tool to limit the results by uploader, or the first characters of the file name; this can help identify batch uploads.

Once you find groups of files with information in the same order or format, you can add a section to the bot requests page, so that a bot can go through them and fix them all automatically (or you can do it yourself if you have a bot, or with VisualFileChange).

In 10 days, we've already managed to add information templates to over 10% of the 500,000 remaining files. I'm hoping you can help us keep this momentum and get through the rest so we can get rid of this backlog once and for all :)

Thank you, and I wish you happy end-of-year holidays if you celebrate them! Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Jonathan tucker 3051256.JPG

File:Jonathan tucker 3051256.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Lady Lotus (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Jonathan-Tucker004.JPG

File:Jonathan-Tucker004.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Lady Lotus (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Tucker 2221079.JPG

File:Tucker 2221079.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Lady Lotus (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Jonathan-Tucker001.JPG

File:Jonathan-Tucker001.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Lady Lotus (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Jonathan-Tucker003.JPG

File:Jonathan-Tucker003.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Lady Lotus (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

you might want to re-read Commons:Project scope; see also File:50p a pant (4746731770).jpg, delete that first. also, you missed a couple, here Category:Jonathan Tucker (poet). Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 23:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Miles moore1116458.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Miles moore1116458.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Diane smith bolton 1116480.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Diane smith bolton 1116480.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Gary Stein 1116456.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gary Stein 1116456.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Jacqueline Jules 1116462.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Jacqueline Jules 1116462.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Jon walsh 1116472.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Jon walsh 1116472.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Marilyn merritt 1116475.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marilyn merritt 1116475.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Stephen rogers 1116461.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Stephen rogers 1116461.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Martha sanchez lowery1116465.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Martha sanchez lowery1116465.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Martin Dickinson 1116446.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Martin Dickinson 1116446.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Diane smith bolton 1116481.JPG

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Diane smith bolton 1116481.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yann (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Jonathan-Tucker002.JPG

File:Jonathan-Tucker002.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Lady Lotus (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Code-pink-Qatari-embassy005.JPG

File:Code-pink-Qatari-embassy005.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Lady Lotus (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Jonathan_Tucker_(poet)

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

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

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

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Lady Lotus (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

you know, i think i will add this to the case study of why commons is morally broken. the hypocrisy is quite illuminating. there are less than ten people uploading photos of living writers. there shall be consequences for this kind of deletionism, that strikes directly against the educational mission of the commons. when the smithsonian asks me why we are uploading to flickr, i will tell them this is why. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 02:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a global uploading site for any image. It has to be in the scope of the Commons and I think that you have a misunderstanding of what the project scope is. Just because he is an "award winning" poet doesn't automatically make him notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. I don't nominate images for deletion out of spite, it serves me no benefit to do it, I do it because of the scope. You take this personally when you shouldn't, I'm just trying to educate you on the basis of why images are here. I want to know how me nominating them for deletion equals the commons as "morally broken". I think your reaction to this and other editors who have also nominated your images for deletion, isn't professional and just plain argumentative. This is a community and we try to work together. Lady Lotus (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

do not patronize me, child. have you actually read COM:EDUSE: "The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." a tautology "it's not educational", or argument from authority, is not an argument. what part of the image of the coach of the national champion youth slam team is not educational or informative? do you know how hard it is to get slam poets on stage at the National Book Festival? i take it this is information that you would prefer to remain ignorant about. the fact that you will not systematically apply the principle of scope, means you are unprincipled. there is a consensus that commons is morally broken, it is not just me. i am a professional; you are an amateur. if you find that argumentative, stay off my talk page. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How was I patronizing you and why call me a child? If you want me to put it bluntly, he is a nobody, he's not notable, he doesn't have an article, the images wouldn't have been used in any article, they served no purpose being here and the images were all too blurry to be used so they were deleted by an admin who agreed with me. You being a professional whatever has NOTHING to do with it. I've tried being nice and civil about this but since your feelings are hurt and you want to just throw a fit about it, then so be it. The SECOND he becomes notable enough for his own wikipedia page, then make a case. Lady Lotus (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

when you make random value judgements unsupported by principle or consensus, then you are proven unprincipled. commons is proven to be a random brutish place. i take it when you post here again, you were lying when you said i was argumentative; when you say professionalism has NOTHING to do with it, you were lying when you said i was unprofessional. so your credibility is nil; the credibility of admins who may happen to agree with you is nil. beware who you call not notable, for he may well make you notable with w:The Dunciad he writes about you. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 19:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

He isn't notable. General notability is having significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent from the subject. All of which, he does not have. That isn't my opinion, it's the fact that he doesn't meet general notability in the eyes of Wikipedia's guidelines. None of this is my opinion, only trying to go based off the policies that the Commons and Wikipedia go by. I wasn't lying when I said you were argumentative and unprofessional, throughout this entire discussion you have done nothing but personally attack me as an editor (which I now see is one of the reasons that you got blocked on Wikipedia), so yes, to me that is argumentative and not professional. Lady Lotus (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

don't patronize me again. you keep shifting the ground to notability, why? it is not the criteria here. merely restating your opinion over and over is not an argument. you need to state the clear educational criteria or show a consensus. also notability can change; i've taken photos of people who became notable afterwards; what makes you think i'm not right about his future notability? do you have any evidence that you know what you are talking about? this is not a personal attack: it is a general attack on your behavior, and the commons on which it flourishes. where is the ass-hole free zone? i deal with National Archives and Smithsonian Institution professionals, why should i put up with your self-contradictory hounding? thank you for the ad hominem about being blocked elsewhere. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 22:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

1. HOW am I patronizing you? 2. You keep saying "be careful saying he's not notable" when I only explained WHY isn't notable. 3. I said the SECOND he becomes notable, you have a case, you upload a picture of him and I'll put it to use myself. 4. Do you have any evidence that you know what you're talking about? 5. I don't really care that you deal with the National Archives or Smithsonian, why does that matter to me? Why does that matter in this discussion? 6. You mention the 50p pant picture which I agree that it makes no sense that it would be used in an article but in the first deletion discussion there was the argument that it might be later used for the sole purpose of illustrating social impact Shakira had and possible "pants throwing". That's a stretch but I get the argument. What is your argument of these images being used for any kind of illustration or educational purpose? "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". Realistically, what purpose do this photos serve? Lady Lotus (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

1. gosh, dear editor, i have one hundred times as many image uploads as you, i think i need to review project scope, i think i need to have a philosophical discussion with you, maybe if you YELLED LOUDER, and spoke slower, i would just understand your orders, maybe if you kept spamming my talk page, you could compel compliance; 2. you bring your english notability criteria where it does not belong, you seem very certain you can dictate that he will never be notable, you might want to address the matter of educational which is crystal clear; 3. looking forward to it, and no an admin will undelete these photos; 4. you first, i've got my credentials ready, see also next number, i have more barnstars than you, i've been to more wikimanias than you, i've been to more meetups than you; 5. you brought up the matter of professional conduct, i know what it is, i deal with professionals every day, you are not a professional, you do not know what a professional is; 6. the point is that you missed the earlier discussion and consensus of wide discretion of what educational is, that consensus trumps your personal opinion. the fact that Fae can bully into keeping his personal photos tends to undermine any attempt to curate educational photos. until you make a systemic curation effort, you are blowing smoke about the educational scope, it is merely i don't like it. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yea, that's what I thought. Figured you would just avoid the real question of the photos purpose and there you go again throwing out your useless personal "credentials". Continue to rant about you being "professional" while your photos get deleted. Bye now. PS - not notable :) Lady Lotus (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

just as i thought, another nobody from nowhere, with delusions of grandeur. you have not actually done anything with your life, have you? i answered your questions, when do you actually answer my questions? or is the burden of proof always on the other person? the burden is on you to consistently apply the criteria of educational. and here's the upshot, the real professionals will not touch commons with a 10 foot pole, they will never bring their photos here. this is becoming a walled garden, cul de sac, like wikinews, but you can feel free to delete whatever random photo you can concentrate on. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 15:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Dupont Circle fountain

Do you know what happened to this file? I uploaded a higher resolution jpg version here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your talk page

Your templates aren't loading correctly due to "Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." I would suggest just archiving your talk page to fix it. And please don't think this is me "bullying" you. Lady Lotus (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

your semi-automated script problems are your problem not mine. see also Commons:Lua. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 19:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Review

Hi Slowking4, could you please review your non Information template conform changes. Thank, --Arnd (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)s,

Miami International Book Fair

Thank you!!! --Roferbia (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

good lord

This place never ceases to amaze me. I remember now why I left this place for so long. I love it when people who have no clue about a city use old information and think they know better. I don't know how you've managed to stick around so long. You must have patience with a capital P. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Replacements on Marjory Collins files

Hi Slowking4,

Last October you did this replacement (along with similar ones on related files). It adds all kinds of parameters. However it adds both the author and permission field while they already exist. This causes the second parameter to override the first and causes the files to end up in the error category for duplicate arguments in templates. The permission one is especially problematic as the first one has the content and the second one is empty.

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Generic poke

Damn that's a long user page (lol). Anyhow, +1 for your comments on VP, thanks. (though you should use the shift key more, lol). Revent (talk)

yeah i would say: don't be censorious of the smithsonian, they're above average; they were for the diffusion of knowledge before your grandfather was born; be censorious of the broken culture here, which is becoming a ideological "free" walled garden, and don't template the regulars. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 18:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Smithsonian is awesome, the person I was replying to is just (IMO) a enwiki warrior who occasionally trolls here (whether he sees it that way or not). His comment came across (to me) as a rather 'I don't know much, but want to complain about Commons". Within the strictly read statements of the Smithsonian about copyright they are not 'wrong', just easily misread. They are not specifically claiming copyright in that particular image... his comment was not really helpful, as the point had already been made. Revent (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

i agree, but i don't know about easily misread. this is the standard boilerplate of archivists. they just present the evidence to the researcher; they will not make determinations. it is not their job to hold uploaders harmless from making a determination. harumphing "exceedingly grave error" in an abundance of caution is a mistake. rather a risk assessment should be done; there are very few zero risk items. how do we change the commons culture to adopt a nuanced view of licensing, i.e. in the URAA fiasco.

& we need to engage with institutions on ground. the archivists agree with us, it's a matter of changing culture at top. maybe we need an FAQ about institutional claims; people were complaining about SI terms in 2007 [3] . Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 18:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that is patently clear with the Smithsonian, since they say 'no known copyright restrictions' rather than making a definitive statement. Point being, evaluate the evidence, instead of accepting the statements of image archives at face value, and ignore (or mock) trolling. Revent (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, your talk page could do with some archiving, it's starting to break from too many template inclusions. Revent (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Let's Talk Diversity Campaign!

		The Learning & Evaluation Barnstar
		Hi Slowking4, we are happy to award you a Learning and Evaluation barnstar, for your efforts in contributing to the ongoing conversation on Let's Talk Diversity! We hope to see you around, sharing what you know on the Learning Pattern Library. I'll get in touch soon with some ideas as to where you can contribute. Cheers, María (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

SIA licensing

If File:Dr. Pepi Fabbiano.jpeg is "Source: Contributed by the subject of the photograph" and "Author: Pepi Fabbiano" then it is a personal picture, not from the Smithsonian Institution Archives. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

if a "personal picture" is saved, or even pledged to an archives, then it is an archival picture. do not edit war with me; it is disruptive. do not leave messages on my talk, for you are proven unreasonable. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 16:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough, if an OTRS from the archives covers that image too. The current description doe not attribute it to them. Note that a proper license is required in addition to that permissions tag, but the email will straighten that out. This is not an edit war - just getting it right. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

this SI license is based upon the generic "no known copyright restrictions exist" used for flickr transfers, such as this one: File:Mary Isabel McCracken (1866-1955).jpg. this archivist will not be returning for a while. maybe i should advise the Smithsonian Institution to transfer all their images to flickr, and then we will transfer images to commons only as needed in wikimedia, since commons has become a walled garden of rightness. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I used {{PD-USGov-SI}} for File:Dr. Denise Breitburg.jpeg which matches the source. That might be the appropriate licence for pictures of current emloyees with attribution to a photographer. The SIA tag also says "Please add additional copyright tags to this image" since it does not specify a license. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Student football fans at a game Woodrow Wilson High 8d33848v.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Student football fans at a game Woodrow Wilson High 8d33848v.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

re File:Student football fans at a game Woodrow Wilson High 8d33848v.jpg. Please archive your talk page. Revent (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

i do not understand: "PD-USGov-FSA" is a license, no? Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 21:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It was apparently a mistaken 'detection'... Jarekt places those tags with VFC on a regular basis. It's been removed. Revent (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of lincoln memorial 41952a.tif

File:Aerial view of lincoln memorial 41952a.tif 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Mippzon (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Username_policy

It seems you voted in wrong side. In fact, the policy allows institutions to edit if the account is verified. Earlier, it doesn't. J e e 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

no, this "i'm blocking you because of your name, don't take it personally." would be hilarious, if it did not have real world consequences. the pettifoggery merely obscures not illuminates. show me the policy of admin conduct to welcome institutional editors. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 03:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, as a long term colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Center Market, Washington, D.C. 5a39034v.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Center Market, Washington, D.C. 5a39034v.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT 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 deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

I removed {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old}} or similar templates from the files whose authors who died less then 70 years ago. Now the files have no license and unless it is fixed will be deleted in a week. If you know of other reason why those files are in public domain please feel free to add a new license template and alert me and I will remove {{No license}} tag. If you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Jarekt - there are 28 files in Category:Photographs by Theodor Horydczak out of 14323 at the Library of Congress; i have created the custom license Template:PD-Horydczak for this special case. i will be going to the Library of Congress on Monday. would you like me to make a pdf copy of his log book or catalog record, which would establish who he was working for, for each negative? transcribing this evidence might take some time. you could alternatively mass delete the works. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

apparantly, the Library of Congress response is:

"U.S. federal government buildings and facilities. - Any client would be almost certainly the U.S. government, who is unable to copyright works.

Architects. Example: Louis Justement, architect. His name appears at the beginning of the title; he is the client. His firm or a successor would own any rights.

PEPCO. Pepco is the client. NOTE: This company is still in operation, and would hold any existing copyright.

Things to note: the Horydczak collection has been available online for over 20 years, with no rights claims asserted in that time."

so we are to infer by the first words in the description who commissioned the work. not very satisfactory. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiConference USA

Hi, Slowking4! Thanks so much for taking photos at WikiConference USA! However, I am the subject one of the photographs (File:Megan Wacha 090712.jpg) and ask that you please remove this image. Thank you! Megs (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up on tiff images

Just to follow up on the thread on glamtools-l, the issue you mentioned with black and white tiff files from library of congress not thumbnailing properly, should be fixed now. MediaWiki keeps old thumbnails, so some files may need to be ?action=purge 'd to see the affects. I'm running a script to purge the cache on all black and white Library of congress tiffs, so all those should work in future (Script should be done in about 2 hours. Currently on File:Untitled_8d24931a.tif). Bawolff (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bawolff - thanks for the follow-up. yes, this perennial problem seems fixed, good work. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

¡Gracias por el regalo!

Thank you.I did not know the video so I really appreciate it. Greetings from Spain, Lourdes (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

good idea

talk:Diannaa

hmmm not a bad idea.

Thank you btw very much for the barnstar, that was a nice to get considering. If you care to e mail me (WPPilot@hotmail.com) I would be more then happy to explain, in detail but I need to keep my business private and away from Wikipedia. Its a shame I could not restrict the use of my pics to projects other then EN but my photos are on thousands and thousands of pages. That's not my fault ;) In the end I doubt that the site is going to allow me to withdraw these and I think I am just going to withdraw the request for now. With regard to the functionary, at least I have documented the facts. Perhaps someone will notice. --WPPilot (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Syntax errors

Slowking4, can you help me with syntax errors in the following files. I think they are all yours. I fixed some but I am having hard time with figuring out of what information is what.

--Jarekt (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

why, thank you for the error list. apparently the bots and mass change tool does not work in changing metadata f rom information to photograph template. this should be the last of the bunch. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Rachel Louise Snyder 0912.JPG

File:Rachel Louise Snyder 0912.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Rachel Louise Snyder 0913.JPG

File:Rachel Louise Snyder 0913.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

File:TIMOTHY BARRETT 1.JPG

File:TIMOTHY BARRETT 1.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

106.68.123.120 14:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

wow tweeting photographers [4] as an historical note. the macarthur foundation changed their terms to CC-BY 4.0 in 2014, and many of the previous years photos have metadata with boilerplate terms attached. however, as the tweet confirms, they are works for hire. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Norton

Hi. Sorry if this has been asked before, but what is "Richard Arthur Norton's revenge"? — Jeff G. ツ 06:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

it's a follow on to "Richard Farmborough's revenge". needless drama here. [5] not that english has a monopoly on power tripping. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. — Jeff G. ツ 01:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Sibyl e, moses 7606.JPG

File:Sibyl e, moses 7606.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Steinsplitter (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Template include size is exceeded

Hi Slowking4 , Your user page has the template include size exceeded. Which means that templates will be displayed incorrectly. You are welcome to archive your talk page. You can have this done automatically for you - simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for more details). Best regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Monkey selfie 8073750.JPG

Yours sincerely, 124.148.244.99 10:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(-:

While that may be the reality, or near reality. It is not a reality that I like, and I will continue to challenge non-consideration of the sister wikis. Why change my belligerence now. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Files nominated for deletion

You are using low resolution files from flickr, use the high resolution tiffs from the Library of Congress instead. signed:donan.raven 13:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

cropped images are not duplicate of uncropped; see also Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates, they may be redundant. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you a lot..

..for adding so many templates to the unstructed files. One thing i'd like to mention is: could you please use {{int:filedesc}} instead of Licensing? Thanks, --Arnd (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

another hint: If possible you should also remove [[Category:Artworks missing infobox template]] and [[Category:Media missing infobox template]] when adding an information template. Thank you again for your contribution, --Arnd (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

i kinda don't touch others people's categories here; and the bot will come along and change licensing to filedesc. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no specific author for Alexander Winton portrait

This portrait is from a compendium, the authors are not listed.in the source. The book it came from was published in 1918, so it is obviously out of copyright. LaurentianShield (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Riess adam download 2.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Riess adam download 2.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is 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 VRT-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:Riess adam download 2.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Gunnex (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Jackson mary download 1.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Jackson mary download 1.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is 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 VRT-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:Jackson mary download 1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Gunnex (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

as we see from the twitter confirmation on this one [6]; [7] these are works for hire, contrary to the exif, but you can always email to confirm each item. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Jackson mary download 1.jpg

File:Jackson mary download 1.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Gunnex (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Snow washington dc 41915a.tif

File:Snow washington dc 41915a.tif 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Dear user:Slowking4, Please give me a call or email me through wiki or meetup. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Melissa Harris Perry'.png

Template:Autotranslate Veggies (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Melissa Harris Perry'.png

Template:Autotranslate Green Giant (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Barbara DeCesare6082974.JPG

Template:Autotranslate 137.200.32.6 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Barbara DeCesare 6082978.JPG

Template:Autotranslate 137.200.32.6 17:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Barbara DeCesare 6082978.JPG

Template:Autotranslate 137.200.32.6 17:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

SAAM

No worries - just happened to spot them as I was doing something else, and thought I'd fix 'em. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao ([[User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 17:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Yours sincerely, Ks ^{[在这里找到答案]} 12:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Machine-readable, well-formatted uploads

Hi Slowking4,

may you please take care, that your LoC congress are using the right templates, at least Template:LOC-image? This is not good for example.--Kopiersperre ([[User talk:Kopiersperre|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 12:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

not my upload, and that's what the flickr metadata looks like. here's one i did File:Aerial view of CIA headquarters, langley, virginia 14271a.tif you realize that there are 335,000 m:File_metadata_cleanup_drive to do? add-information. go for it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Revenge

Thanks for noting the unnecessary drama. I am still banned from new article creation. I created 400 biographies in my user space after the ban, then was banned from doing that. I now have a list of all the articles I want to create but cannot, see my user page. I won't be unblocked until I certify each of my first 7 years of edits, >30,000 edits, one by one in a CCI form, all have been buried deep into other people's rewritings and additions. It is a snipe hunt. It all started when I opposed someone at AFD and then they started looking at my edits to find 5 violations to trigger a CCI. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 14:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) - i should thank them, where would wikidata and wikisource get all the experienced editors, but from blocked people? it is a constant shift the burden on others, and veto others work, but "not enough time" to actually collaborate. you left off the "plargism study, where they found that 5% of all edits were copied and 2% of admins edits were copied; and rather than manage to reduce the percentage, it's demand perfection, and block people not admins.

the larger problem, they then bring their "adversive leadership" where-ever they go - to those other wikis, where they look out of place. some folks are writing in simple or other languages, where the "cultural buzzsaw" does not exist. and then we have to translate without tools. the extraordinary mass deletions to "RBI" are astonishing to the uninvolved. they are going to find it difficult to discipline in the future, as the active editors move to ip editing from phones, as discussed in the metrics meeting. no firm data on that but maybe they can roll out more filters. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Image suggestions

Hi Slowking4, I noticed you're helping out with User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata. Great! You might like the update I just did: I've improved the matching based on the data from Category:Artworks with known accession number. Multichill (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

yes thanks for the tool. not being content with the information template backlog, i skipped over to your wikidata backlog. it seems to depend on artwork template, which misses the information to artwork problem (i.e. when we fix those there will be more to come). i do not notice a bot picking up the image property on wikidata, so i am adding them manually. and now a 50k maintenance category. thanks !? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the information template backlog is and what the information to artwork problem is. Can you elaborate?

I noticed you had some uploads that linked to the right Wikidata item, but that item didn't have an image yet. I remember looking into that use case when I first wrote the bot, but didn't implement it.

Category:Artworks with known accession number is not a maintenance category, it's a tracker category like Category:Rijksmonumenten with known IDs. Because we have :Category:Artworks with known accession number now, it's possible to query the database to get the inventory numbers. For example File:Goyen_1640-45_Fishermen_hauling_a_Net.jpg now has the inventory number "NG6155" in the database and it will show up as a suggestion for d:Q26707772. Multichill (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

ok backlog tl;dr -

we have 280k files with no machine readable metadata.[8] &m:File_metadata_cleanup_drive/How_to_fix_metadata/nl

we have 10k artworks with no machine readable metadata. (subset) Category:Artworks missing infobox template

we have 1k artworks with information template Category:Template:artwork possible

to the extent your wikidata field is in artwork template but not information, this is an on-ramp problem for your metadata cleanup. in your example, JarektBot changed templates here [9], which i had not noticed before, i had been doing these by hand. i have been uploading images from National Gallery of Art, and wikidata does not appear to pickup the wikidata number on commons of the uploaded file, i had thought there was a bot on wikidata doing this. cheers Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I just have a bot convert information to artwork every once in a while when User:Multichill/Painting images no artwork template gets too long, see for example this edit. Multichill (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

yes, there are older uploads by certain editors to cleanup. when i do them by hand i do try to find a source url. see also the following file uploaded to commons in July File:Small Study for a Nude G-001658-20120817.jpg and now wikidata done by hand [10]. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Multichill hi, i see your bot is adding wikidata numbers, when other bots changed from information to artwork template, but the fields are not filled in i.e. [11] is there a way to get the bots to do this task, or a semi-automated script? i tried VisualFileChange.js but it did not work well. i do not see a category or list to "improve metadata". cheers Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 15:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My approach would be different: Make sure the data is on Wikidata and have Template:Tl retrieve this data. This way we only have to maintain the data only in one location: Wikidata. I'm about to do some initial steps with the Artwork template to make this possible. Multichill (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Multichill - ok, but i see for this example [12] there on wikidata, you have not filled in: Date; Medium; Dimensions; Credit line. too soon? it would save me a lot of hand work if the metadata was getting sucked into wikidata, and then broadcast, reliably. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's probably going to be added in the future. I haven't paid much attention to that sort of metadata because it wasn't really use somewhere else. If we're going to use it on Commons, it's an extra reason to start adding it.

In case you run out of images, on User:Multichill/Zandbak I'm working on a different way to get more suggestions and currently that's 700+ new suggestions. It works be looking for Template:Tl or Template:Tl and if the linked image has a Wikidata id. As you can see, images in creator templates like Creator:Jan van Eyck and Creator:Albrecht Dürer give some noise for which I haven't figured out how to filter it out, but that's easy to ignore by a human. Multichill (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks, happy to help sum of all paintings (although i may get distracted by WLM this month) - would you care to do sum of all book illustrations? there are a bunch at Commons:Biodiversity Heritage Library. Template:Information Art of Life needs a wikidata field of course. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We'd love your feedback on Pattypan uploader

Hi!

We are about to sum up our "Pattypan uploader" project (or, at least, its first stage). Yarl released the new version 0.3 a few weeks ago, and we are looking for user feedback. Thank you for being one of the main users and uploaders! Please let us know what works, what can be improved; any other suggestions or comment is very welcome. We are gathering comments in the form of online survey here - we'd be grateful for your feedback. Thank you very much! --Marta Malina Moraczewska ([[User talk:Marta Malina Moraczewska|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 11:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:WikiConference_USA

Template:Autotranslate Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States - Thank You!

Hi there! Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States. We're excited to see people uploading thousands of photos from all over the country! You and others have collectively uploaded 4,929 photos so far, all of which are viewable at Category:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States (sorted by state).

We encourage you to continue contributing through the rest of the month. Uploading your photos of monuments isn't the only way to contribute, however. If you're interested, we have compiled a list of auxiliary ways to contribute - which include improving Wikipedia's coverage of historic and cultural sites, as well as finding existing free photos that can be shared on the Commons. While these contributions don't count towards the contest, we are still keeping track of them and they are great ways to contribute to the spirit of the project.

If you are interesting in contributing to Wikipedia, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places is also great place to start. The WikiProject showcases the work that has been done so far in covering NRHP sites, and can also help you find articles that need improving.

If you're on Twitter, give us a follow @WLMUnitedStates for updates, news, and more.

If you have any questions between now or the end of the month, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Nightmare Before XMAS Live 20151031 222710.jpg

Template:Autotranslate Kopiersperre ([[User talk:Kopiersperre|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 16:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Nightmare Before XMAS Live 20151031 221723.jpg

Template:Autotranslate Kopiersperre ([[User talk:Kopiersperre|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 16:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate And also:

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

in fact, there is sufficient information to determine the proper license; it is just you do not do licenses, you delete. you could just as easily add the license using your visual file change, but you would rather waste your time, adding and removing adversive templates. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Castine Harbor and Town 075232.JPG

Please add a free licence of your choice for this photograph. PD-art and Licensed-PD-art are only for faithful copies of the original image but not for photographs showing picture frames and such. You may want to use a single template {{Licensed-PD |1=PD-old-100 |2=<your free licence>}} This applies also to File:Cho-looke, the Yosemite Fall 075238.JPG and your other recent uploads. Regards, De728631 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

ok but you're not gonna like the GDFL + NC Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As long as there is one commercial option (GFDL), I'm totally fine with this. De728631 ([[User talk:De728631|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 21:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

i wish i could care about the copyright status of antique frames, that no ones cares enough to document. it is an ideological point only. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate Ju Ta 02:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

source clearly indicated as own. if you want to dispute that then you need to go to DR. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate Ju Ta 04:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate Ju Ta 04:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:MacArthur Fellows

Before you get accused of scaling the Reichstag, I suggest (strongly) that you nominate these only in groups that you have specifically checked are actually 'from' the MacArthur Foundation... it seems quite likely there are images in here that are 'of' MacArthur Fellows, but not from that source, and a mass nomination of them all will create drama. Revent^talk 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

i uploaded them, that is where they are from. they all have the same rights statement. there are less than 1% from other sources including my camera, but it is easy to spot those, they are lesser quality.

i'm not scaling anything: decisions have consequences. the foundation changed their rights statement in 2014, the idea that you can email and tweak their statement is delusional. but yeah, wait a week = happy halloween, lol. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I was not really expressing an opinion, fyi, just commenting that if you nominated them 'all' regardless of the specific source that you were likely be to accused of pointy behavior. Revent^talk 11:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Revent- i get accused of a lot of things; i could care less. i was informing the admin that i know the common source, the commons category, and consequences happen. happily, the son of betacommand, who could not find the group on his own, could not wait. his modus is clear - surfing recent uploads, and deleting everything in sight. more opprobrium for him. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

So where was this decided? I just commented at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:MacArthur_Foundation_Images_of_Fellows but something was mentioned as you already commenting ... Where? I'll just mention that CC licenses are irrevocable. Smallbones ([[User talk:Smallbones|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 16:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Smallbones, well, i was waiting for user:fuzheado to call the MacArthur Foundation and have a chat, but apparently, after 2 years, someone cannot wait another week. bless his heart. so it goes. and i have the mass deletion spooled up waiting, until it got preempted - claim jumper. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Free Cultural Works

Just putting a few links here for possible future use. From the definition of "Free cultural work" at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

"This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose."

Creative Commons https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks/ states very clearly the CC-BY licensed works are "Free Cultural Works"

"CC uses the definition of free cultural works at Freedom Defined to categorize the CC licenses. (Freedom Defined is an open organization of free culture advocates and researchers; the definition was developed by its community as a parallel to efforts such as the Free Software Definition, to have a standard for defining Free Culture.) Using that definition, material licensed under CC BY or BY-SA is a free cultural work."

and

Free Cultural Works means "Freedom to share copies of the work for any purpose. When you get a copy of a free cultural work, you can make and share as many copies as you want, wherever you want. This means you can put it on your blog or website, include it in books, share it on file-trading networks, sell it in stores, give it away on CDs–there is no limit on how many copies you can make or where you can copy them, and you can use them for any purpose, even commercially."

I've put the language from the License summary and the language from the license itself at the deletion request. Clearly anybody can use CC-BY licensed material and cannot impose additional restrictions.

What isn't clear about this?

Smallbones ([[User talk:Smallbones|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 18:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

hey, User:Smallbones you missed the deletion discussion. [13] and [14]. you could make mass local copies over on english. go talk to the deleting admin, User_talk:Josve05a#Khot_2016. doubt you will change any minds. they do not understand just how bad they are going to look. here is some more validation of the commons as deletion before collaboration - "screw MacArthur, they need to submit a rights statement subject to our review".

in 2014, when MacArthur changed their license page, they added the CC-BY paragraph, previously it was all NC; ND. [15] and [16] Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate Affected:

File:Ames ted download 1.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

i do not appreciate your cocked up mass deletions which will require rework by others to get the list right. are you acquainted with visualfilechange, or would you rather waste everyone's time?

when you said, "Please hold off for a week or so to see if they respond and how." - i guess you meant, "i am the deletionist; i will do the mass deletions around here; i will tell you their response in a deletion discussion." Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States – Results!

Template:User Wiki Loves Monuments 2016
Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2016}} to your userpage!

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States during the month of October! The United States contest saw over 1,700 people contribute over 11,000 great photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the United States and its territories. In addition to National Register of Historic Places sites, we welcomed uploads of sites designated by state- and local-level historical institutions and societies. Hundreds of these photos are already being used to illustrate Wikipedia articles!

We're excited to announce that our national judging process has concluded, and that we have selected the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States! We were amazed by all of the uploads, and regret having to narrow it down to just 10. That being said – congratulations to our national winners and their amazing shots! Our 10 winners will be sent to the international Wiki Loves Monuments jury, who will then select the winners of the international contest. If you're interested in seeing the winners of the other various national contests as they are announced, you may do so at Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 winners.

Finally, we have also created a feedback form for all participants in the United States to fill out. The survey is optional and anonymous, and only takes a minute or two – we hope to use the feedback to organize better events in the future!

Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, and we hope to see you again for future Commons photography events! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate Affected:

File:Prakash 2016 hi-res-download 4.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate Affected:

File:Whitehead colson download 3.jpg

And also:

hello friend Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If you could respond at Bechdel, I'd be most obliged.

I'm leaving internetland in the next few hours for several weeks. Thanks, --Joe Decker ([[User talk:Joe Decker|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 19:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate Affected:

File:Yang 2016 hi-res-download 6.jpg

And also:

hello friend Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate Affected:

File:Wikisource user group photo 201279.jpg

Yours sincerely Fæ ([[User talk:Fæ|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 21:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Recumbent Nude.jpg and others

Hi, if you change the information template, please make sure you don't remove the source field. This file entered the Images without source maintenance category because of your edit. Jcb ([[User talk:Jcb|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

dead artist is not a source, rather need to add author and own. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't add the uploader to the author field if it's obviously not own work by the uploader. Jcb ([[User talk:Jcb|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 00:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

please do not put a dead source, since the source is the uploader. this is artwork template, and the artist is different from the author. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. The author in this case is obviously the artist. This is not own work. Don't add this erroneous information another time. Jcb ([[User talk:Jcb|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 00:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

no you are mistaken. do not revert my work. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

What, was someone saying the uploader is the source? Seems to me, Commons:Source is saying no. "Source" means where the uploader got it. The author may indeed be dead, and may be the source as well, for example by the gift of a relative's snapshots. Author, source and uploader may be all the same, as in contributing my own photographs, but they also can be a chain of three (or two) links. Jim.henderson ([[User talk:Jim.henderson|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 14:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jim.henderson yes, when it is a snapshot with the frame included, then that is a safe guess. also since wikimedia switzerland uploaded a lot of these museum shots. Category:All media supported by Wikimedia CH it is not the artist who died in 1938. if you want to say "no source" go for it. i take it this admin would prefer this, so he could delete it as "no source given". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wish for your next edits

Hi Slowking4, to be international could you please use == {{int:license-header}} == instead of == Licensing == for your next edits? Thank you, --Arnd ([[User talk:Aschroet|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 13:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Al mutanabbi group3051278.JPG

Template:Autotranslate Ellin Beltz ([[User talk:Ellin Beltz|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 17:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks - Prakash

Thank you, i haven't a good explanation ... so i asked to remove. Regards --Assianir ([[User talk:Assianir|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 10:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Blurry tagging

Hi slowking,

I've tagged a few pictures from your #earth2trump photos as blurry, because they are blurry. I hope that you don't feel insulted. Cheers, Nikos Andronikos ([[User talk:Nikos Andronikos|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

yeah, just please don't delete - hard to be sharp in a smoky bar. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Dates

Hi Slowking4, what is meant by this date: [17]. --Arnd ([[User talk:Aschroet|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 17:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

low quality images

Hello. I noticed you recently uploaded a batch of images from A Woman of the Century, apparently taken from DJVU files, which may look decent as thumbnails but whose low resolution makes them not useful for much else (compare e.g. File:HARRIET MAXWELL CONVERSE.jpg to File:Harriet Maxwell Converse (full).png). I'm not familiar with VicuñaUploader, but if you can use it to upload higher quality versions of the same images, it would reduce the need for future uploads/replacements. Thanks for all that you do. Cheer, -Animalparty ([[User talk:Animalparty|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 21:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

the quality of the images is a function of the book scan at internet archive. it will take a sustained effort to check the book out at library of congress to get higher resolution. at least these do not have the moire effects of the ones replaced. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing it is a function of downloading as pdf, and/or converting to DJVU? I am able to get passable results by simply viewing full screen mode [18] and right-clicking a page to save and edit. This has been my go-to method for a while, especially for images that aren't already on Internet Archive Flickr stream, although it's probably not as quick or efficient for batch uploading. -Animalparty ([[User talk:Animalparty|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 00:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

i'm just taking a snip of the screen on a small screen. i could get more pixels on a large screen, but it would not be all that much better, at most x10. the book scanners in general do a lower resolution, enough to get the OCR text layer to work. with a flat bed we could get a x100 to x1000 resolution, but it will be more work. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

no - it is a difference of 736 pixel width using lossless crop toll versus 404 pixels using snip, which is a minor difference. a real flat bed scan could get 5000 pixels easy. i.e. File:Channel-islands-RG-208-AA-158-J-001.jpg Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User talk page length

Hi !

I see that this talk page is becoming quite long. Some old browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. You can do this automatically with MiszaBot, and to quickly use a standard setup for MiszaBot, simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page.

Thank you.

It is rather difficult to navigate & edit, weighing in at 1600 kB file size and 295 kB wikitext. — Jeff G. ツ 00:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

the size would be much lower, if the semi-automatic scripts were done in lua. i am well aware of the problems with talk page size. as far as i am concerned, i do all my collaboration off wiki; this talk page is broken, just as the adversive notifications are broken. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	int:wikilove-barnstar-goodhumor-title
	I like the humor here: Keep it up! J e e 13:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

NonCommercial

Licenses for non-commercial usage are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

except when it is PD-art or no known copyright, lol. is NC tantamount to SA ? you need to provide a link if you want to talk cases. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Licensing. --sasha (krassotkin) 16:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL. are you bucking to be an admin? why don't you nominate every hybrid licence with an NC on it? idealistic policy pages do not negate the hypocrisy. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your message about stipends

Hi. Thanks for your message. Are you saying that the Wikimedia Foundation is going to start paying contributors to the Commons for photographing living people? Seriously? When did this happen? How often will this be?

Also, you say that I "missed some book festivals you covered in past years." Which ones were you referring to?

Thanks. Nightscream ([[User talk:Nightscream|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 14:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually covered the subsequent Brooklyn Book Festivals, I just haven't uploaded my photos from them because I'm so backlogged. Ditto with the last few New York Comic Cons, from which I've only uploaded a small sample of my pics. Nightscream ([[User talk:Nightscream|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 14:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Civility matters

Be civil talking to others , please. The way you recently responded me was impolite and destructive. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

i call them as i see them. http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/ you want to act like an asshole, you might be called one. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

See the topic opened here regarding your behavioral issue. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"less than 300 edits"? Are you sure? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

well - xtool says [19] & [20] and global user contributions says [21] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein has 1000+ edits and the less than 300 edits you mentioned are the pages he created like, DRs, user pages, talk pages etc. Edits to user talk pages, and files are excluded. Regards. Wikicology ([[User talk:Wikicology|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 19:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Slowking4/block appeal

Template:Autotranslate - Revent^talk 11:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

thank you. i have moved that to meta. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Slowking4/DragonflySixtyseven

Template:Autotranslate FDMS 4 15:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

thank you that is a link to a tool so easily repeatable elsewhere. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted User:Slowking4/beetstra and User:Slowking4/DragonflySixtyseven. This has nothing to do with Commons, so please keep your issues about the English Wikipedia away outside Commons. I can add that it is for your own benefit. ;) Thanks, Yann ([[User talk:Yann|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 15:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

thank you - those were links to a tool, so the article to do list if off wiki. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 10:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, Could you please archive your talk page? It seems there is an issue with too many templates. Thanks, Yann ([[User talk:Yann|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 16:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

m:Grants:IdeaLab/images of living people

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you on this. It is probably moot by now. Thank you for thinking of me, but I will pass this time around. Best Regards Nv8200p ([[User talk:Nv8200pa|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 20:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Autotranslate

Template:Autotranslate Affected:

File:Paris, rue de parme on bastille day.png

And also:

Yours sincerely, — Racconish^☎ 09:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"Title"

Hello! I see a little problem here. The actual "title" of the portrait is unknown to us (as yet) and is likely to be in Swedish, in any case. "Gustav IV of Sweden" is the subject, but not, strictly speaking, the "title". If I knew a good way to adjust that, I would. Do you? --SergeWoodzing ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 07:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

feel free to change the title field. having the artwork template is important. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 09:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Photographing the Pentagon

Since you weren't in the original discussion, I think you missed a little of the context :-) I'm not talking about wikiphotography, if for no other reason than that I know it won't be of particularly impressive quality; I'm wanting a picture or two for my own collection, and anything that's not too bad will suffice. Thanks for the note! Nyttend ([[User talk:Nyttend|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 22:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

oops

I think the picture of Hulda Barker Loud is mis labelled as "File:MARY CUNNINGHAM LOGAN A woman of the century (page 484 crop).jpg" ... keep up the good work Victuallers ([[User talk:Victuallers|int:Talkpagelinktext]]) 22:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Victuallers good catch - if you find more of that absent mindedness, feel free to rename and move to right name. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

ip archiver

hi there, you realize you could just come to a meetup and ask me to archive, if you were serious. should not really use the work computer though. [23] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You were asked to archive, on this page, multiple times, by multiple people, in all seriousness, despite the difficulty of asking. You appear to have chosen to ignore those requests. — Jeff G. ツ 17:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

and you appear not to have read the tl;dr justification. it is not my problem that the incessant warning template talk page code is broken, nor is your bad attitude my problem. stay off of my talk page. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)