|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
Actually the "project scope" warning related to the user page not the image. It is quite impossible to tailor every message placed on every user's page I'm afraid. Deletions will run into many hundreds on an average day on Commons.
The image however was clearly marked with a website address. As such the copyright is owned by that website. The only way the image would be hosted here would be via OTRS to ensure the licensing was valid (it protects the copyright holder). Equally the image would require the website removing from it really. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Zapper, I truly appreciate the substantial time and effort you put into researching/editing the Boca Airport Photo, educating me on Wiki/CC, and encouraging me to submit my imagery. I'm sorry that your time was apparently wasted. I've been reading and trying to understand whats going on, and I've decided that its not worth it. In addition to the hassle of my own submissions being deleted for infringement, I'm not permitted to mention my library of historical images, which (on my user page) I had offered to research and submit images for other articles from upon request. It was just deleted.
Its just not worth the bitey comments and such. Reading some of the user pages shows its quite clear that it will be a challenge to give something away without ongoing headaches. Making submissions is not worth the risk to my reputation. Despite the fact it was MY image, someone casually Googling me in connection with copyright violation will now find the unfounded accusation of infringement. I don't need that. The casual observer will see that I uploaded an image, it was found to be infringing, and it was deleted. How is this fair or ethical? If someone doesn't like or want the image, fine. Say so and delete it. Making a patently false accusation in a public forum is very distasteful. ... end of rant, and please don't think for a second it was directed at you. rc
- On a daily basis Commons deletes many images that are watermarked with a website. This watermark implies copyright ownership. As such we need to ensure that the licensing is valid for the benefit of the copyright holder - if anyone planned to rip-off a website then using the name of that website would be the likely way to do it.
- OTRS allows confirmation of ownership & the fact that the image is freely licensed. --Herby talk thyme 06:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You edited File:Brown rat distribution.png and removed Alberta from the distribution area of the brown rat. Could you provide a source for that? It's highly unlikely that the brown rat stopped at the political borders of Alberta, but spread to all areas surrounding Alberta. Either there _are_ brown rats in Alberta or you are right and there are none. But if you are right, the rest of the map needs improvement too. --Slomox (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
- [[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
- [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
BotMultichillT 05:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Rodprojico.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
File source is not properly indicated: File:Rat_naked.jpg
|This media was probably deleted.|
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Rat_naked.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file (
If you created the content yourself, enter
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
File:Red-blue_stripes.gif 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.