User talk:Brianjd
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
Yann (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Please sign your postings
[edit]![Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributions](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Signature_button.png)
--SignBot (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Please sign your postings
[edit]![Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributions](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Signature_button.png)
--SignBot (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Welcome
[edit]Thank you for your recent contributions to Commons. I see you have been involved in aspects of the project for years. To what do we owe your recent interest in deletion nominations? Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: A couple of files I would have liked to see/show other people have been deleted. One because it depicted a minor, apparently without a guardian’s consent, and the other because it was a good-faith request by the uploader soon after the upload. Both appear to have been deleted through the proper process, and I would expect the community to continue to support their deletion, so I don’t expect to get them back.
- After that, I started collecting selected files that had been nominated for deletion (but only when their copyright status was not in dispute). At some point (not sure exactly when), I decided to log in again and start participating in those deletion discussions. I think the two main reasons were:
- To write some comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penile nerve block dorsal.jpg. The file apparently shows a child’s genitals; I don’t think it’s child abuse material (as it appears to have a legitimate purpose), so I haven’t escalated the issue, but I wanted to demonstrate I was acting in good faith and draw some attention to the nomination. By the way, the nomination has been open for 12 days and there are no comments that support keeping the file, so I think it’s about time an admin acts on it.
- To post this undeletion request: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-05#File:Nude woman at Burning man 2009 3.jpg. I was shocked when the file was actually deleted, and the discussion in this undeletion request seems to back that up.
- Brianjd (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- One of those files I wanted to see but won’t get back is File:Vulva clitoris and labia.jpg. This file’s uploader uploaded another image at around the same time. The uploader nominated both images for deletion at around the same time, around two days later. Yet this image was deleted and File:Breast with large areolas.jpg was not. Both deletion requests were closed without a single comment. I’ll probably never know why. But I nominated the latter image for deletion again to try to form a consensus one way or the other. Brianjd (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- The other file was File:Two little girls.jpg. I wanted to see it because the deletion discussion was interesting. Brianjd (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Please sign your postings
[edit]![Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributions](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Signature_button.png)
--SignBot (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Please sign your postings
[edit]![Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributions](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Signature_button.png)
--SignBot (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
DRs
[edit]Hi. I saw your question about a DR. I have not examined the case. The truth is some DRs are not being treated very well, probably due to the large numbers of them. (I contribute to that. :) Look, I returned here almost about a year after self-imposed exile -basicly due to admin behaviour. Indeed I had no intentions to enter any discussions nor make talks (this is the first one I am initiating) at this "second trial" (let's see how strong is human patience). At another DR I just saw the closing person makes a reference to an "alleged lack of scope" while no-one questioned the scope there. Whatever. Patience... --E4024 (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: I look at many pages. I cannot remember what question you are referring to.
- I think everyone agrees DRs are not treated well. There is a huge backlog. Brianjd (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you need help with DRs? I want to contribute. Rumblerumble33 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Rumblerumble33: I have no special role here; I am just another volunteer. But yes, the community needs help with DRs. Some are months old. So if you have the time, go ahead and contribute. I don’t have the time now, so I won’t be on Commons much. Brianjd (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
This page speaks for itself.
The user is persistently reverting my edits and insulting me, even though I actually agreed with their deletion request! Either we have a huge translation problem or they’re a vandal (I suspect the former).
Given the existing communication issues, I didn’t want to post at any of the well-known forums and attract more attention. Brianjd (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please follow the steps at Commons:Dispute resolution. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Autopatrol given
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Commons_Autopatrolled.svg/50px-Commons_Autopatrolled.svg.png)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Hi pal
[edit]Brianjd thanks for you advises and my back to Commons was a little bit tasky due to i face some immediate proposal challenge.Tbiw (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Tbiw: Your userpage says you are a native English speaker. I am also a native English speaker. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you really a native English speaker? Brianjd (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Typographical errors due to Android corrections. Sorry, I just thanking you for trying you best to advice me on being to forward to request vote on prospal. And also trying to say my back to Commons was a bit difficult due i didn't remember how it is been done just like new man and does i know that i can still remember are still intact.Tbiw (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
I uploaded the CC0 files with the wrong license
[edit]I uploaded the files with the wrong license. - Rumblerumble33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumblerumble33 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Identical comment posted to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked man on the beach.jpg; discuss there. Brianjd (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
COM:AN
[edit]
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Gtk-dialog-info.svg/50px-Gtk-dialog-info.svg.png)
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
deletion discussions
[edit]hello Brianjd the picture سوسن السيد.jpeg is my own work. the person in the picture knows that i will use it in different ways and she is not affected by the picture so please keep the picture so that the article still good. thank you for reading this and thank you for your patience Ismail2212 (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- For the benefit of other readers, this section relates to Commons:Deletion requests/File:سوسن السيد.jpg, regarding the file File:سوسن السيد.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ismail2212: The deletion discussion is still open; please post relevant comments there. And make sure you use the correct filename; the extension is “jpg”, not “jpeg”. Brianjd (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Thanks for all your help!
[edit]You’re a great admin! Rumblerumble33 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Pinging
[edit]Hi, Brianjd. About this change you made: I think pings work only if you save a timestamp in the same edit. The template documentation says "you must link to another user's page and sign in the same edit in order to effectively mention, notify, or ping them." --Auntof6 (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. This means that other users have been doing it wrong too - I just copied them. I guess it also means I don't need all those {{Noping}}'s on my user page. Brianjd (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Deletions
[edit]Hi, You don't need to nominate for speedy deletion a file which is already on a regular DR. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Yann Commons:Village pump#Backlog of deletion requests seems to suggest that obvious candidates for speedy deletion should be tagged as such (at least for copyright violations), even if already covered by a regular deletion request. Brianjd (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Such tagging has occurred in other cases, like Child prodigy River Mason Eromosele honored by Harlem Fashion Week 2022.jpg (also mentioned in a section below). Brianjd (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Thanks for your support
[edit]Thanks for your support and good character at Commons talk:Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections 2021. I advocate for fair elections and due process, but in these fast online wiki processes, so much can go wrong. I am unable to fix many problems considering the time that I have available, but I do find it productive respond to problems by documenting rules which hopefully will prevent recurrence of the same issue.
Thanks for the apology. Online spaces can be difficult, and even when people do no wrong, sometimes an apology offered is the fastest and least painful way for everyone to regroup, halt an inefficient conversation, make things better, and move forward. I really appreciate your compromise in support of the best democratic process I am able to wrangle here. Thanks, and if you have ideas for more election rules, you are welcome to add them to Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections or ping me to draft something at your request. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Permission from minors to use their likeness
[edit]Apologies in the delay in responding (I'm not overly active on the Commons), in fact I was going to reply to your comments on the deletion request earlier today, and what would you know the discussion was closed... At any rate, I remain indifferent about the deletion due to the poor quality of the image (it wasn't my best in that series), but there is another issue at hand and that is whether we should include images of minors without the consent of their parents. Any advice from WMF legal should definitely be followed, but without considering that, I'm inclined that is territory we should stay away from as it would greatly hinder our ability to cover certain things of educational merit (take for example a photographer takes a picture of a publicly accessible facility and a little kid happens to be in the picture...). As far as consent from a minor vs. their parents is concerned, the laws of the United States (where that picture was taken) allows minors to enter into contracts, but they are voidable by the minor. Bear in mind that I am not an attorney, but I believe that consent of this nature would legally be considered a verbal contract, so the minor could theoretically come along "void" that consent, in the same way a minor who is a contributor to Wikimedia projects could theoretically come along and "void" their license to reuse encyclopedia content they contributed to Wikipedia, or definitions they contributed to Wiktionary. Consensus is firmly against barring minors from adminship on the English Wikipedia, let alone contributing in general, so the idea that it is problematic to take a picture of a teenager with their permission knowing that the picture will be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons for inclusion in Wikipedia and possible use by others but not problematic to accept content created by teenagers whose consent to license such content under a copyleft license could be voided at any time doesn't make sense to me (especially considering WMF founder Jimbo Wales has criticized Conservapedia's license to reuse content due to its reversibility). But again, these are questions better answered by WMF legal. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Happy Holidays in general. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy Christmas and new year holidays
[edit]![]() |
Merry Christmas and new year, Brianjd |
Hi Brianjd, Have a sweet and |
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
MY photos
[edit]Why do you have a problem with MY photos that I took years ago? Those are mine and nobody's else. I remember when I took them. What you and Justlettersandnumbers are doing is just mobbing me. I don't understand what you are about. DFoidl (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DFoidl I don’t think this rises to the level of incivility, but please don’t fork the discussion. Keep the comments on the other pages that already have discussions. I replied at User talk:Krd#File:Sayaguesa Lippeaue5.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Child pornography suspicions
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/System-search.svg/25px-System-search.svg.png)
This discussion is a continuation of Special:PermanentLink/706007805#Child pornography suspicions. Brianjd (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I don’t think due process was followed here, and normally I would respond by creating an undeletion request. But it would be a very brave or very stupid user who requested undeletion of a file that had been described as child pornography. So I am not so sure. I do want to have a wider discussion about the process (or lack of) for this sort of file. I have already outlined by concerns at the DRs, but received no response. Where should I go next? Brianjd (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe Commons talk:Deletion policy or Commons talk:Deletion requests? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for necroing but what are the wider discussions about the process for this sort of files you want? Trade (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Trade Actually, someone did nominate one of the files for undeletion. That discussion, together with prior discussions linked above, should make the issue clear. But, in short, we don’t really have a process. And we should have one for such a serious issue. Brianjd (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also, this section might have been dormant but the issue was very much alive, with a steady stream of other child porn allegations (at least one of which is the subject of a still-open DR). I had always intended to come back to it. Brianjd (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why such serious allegations are left to random unpaid editors to deal with and NOT law enforcement is beyond me Trade (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also, this section might have been dormant but the issue was very much alive, with a steady stream of other child porn allegations (at least one of which is the subject of a still-open DR). I had always intended to come back to it. Brianjd (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Trade Actually, someone did nominate one of the files for undeletion. That discussion, together with prior discussions linked above, should make the issue clear. But, in short, we don’t really have a process. And we should have one for such a serious issue. Brianjd (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The file was nominated by mistake as a copyvio from the site that is listed as a source with the VRT permission]. What do you want to discuss there? How is it possible to make mistakes or what? Анастасия Львоваru/en 12:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- (For context, this file was nominated for deletion as a copyvio despite having a VRT tag, Lvova removed the DR tag despite the DR remaining open, and I reverted that edit.) Brianjd (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Lvova I used this edit summary: The DR tag clearly states: ‘Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed.’
- I think that message is clear. Do not remove the tag until the nomination is closed. It was not closed, so you should not have removed the tag. Brianjd (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- yes yes no, but if you wish. Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Lvova Removing a DR tag when the DR is still open is not helpful. Closing the DR and then removing the DR tag might be helpful. Luckily, the instructions for closing deletion requests specifically allow a non-admin to do so, provided that the file is to be kept, the request is not controversial and they are not the nominator. So you don’t even need to ignore the rules, just close the request! Brianjd (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- yes yes no, but if you wish. Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
![]() |
Category:Deletion_requests_used_as_rename_requests 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! |
RZuo (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
File:Child prodigy River Mason Eromosele honored by Harlem Fashion Week 2022.jpg
[edit]I just wanted to tell you the image have been deleted as it was apparently taken from a social media account without permission Trade (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Trade I closed the DR. But I wonder about all those VRT tickets received for their other uploads. Brianjd (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Who was the uploader again? I completely forgot Trade (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi This statement isnt true. The image is owned by me and posted from my social medial account. As I am who uploaded it. TamikaWest (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @TamikaWest Did you send confirmation for this photo to VRT? Brianjd (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Trade This file has been undeleted per Special:PermanentLink/722430509#File:Child prodigy River Mason Eromosele honored by Harlem Fashion Week 2022.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Re:Cycling girl
[edit]For showing her outfit. --N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 12:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @N509FZ But if you are so worried about protecting her that you blurred her face (even though consent is not required and she was wearing a mask), then why did you think it was OK to take a photo of her? Brianjd (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well I was trying to photographs something else, such as buses, but sometimes interrupted by passer-bys. 以上。 N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 14:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @N509FZ I prefer to keep each discussion on one page. For everyone else: This discussion started at User talk:N509FZ#File:Cycling girl at Zuo'anmen (20211001163914).jpg. Brianjd (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Even though consent is not required, but uploaders' own habits should also be preserved. N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 14:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Category:Downblouse_in_sports 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! |
Trade (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Never rely on Twitter!
[edit]Hi. Regarding your recent advice, just to make sure I understood correctly: Twitter is fine as a source, but linking to it directly is unreliable? TilmannR (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @TilmannR I would say:
- Twitter may or may not be fine as a source. In this case, what matters is that the post was created by the book’s author (I have not verified this; I took your word for it).
- Linking to Twitter or any other site is potentially unreliable. I was kind of joking about Twitter being unreliable, because of all the news since Musk’s takeover, but in fact I try to make sure all important external pages (Twitter or otherwise) are archived in the Wayback Machine or equivalent.
- Brianjd (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip Awad och Marina Norström gifter sig på en strand- 2014-07-08 19-55.jpg
[edit]Could i please get your input on this courtesy deletion request? Since i'm not an admin i am not really in a position to decline or grant it. Trade (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip Awad och Marina Norström gifter sig på en strand- 2014-07-08 19-55.jpg.
- @Trade: Remember that I am not an admin either. It seems like I was too late to respond to this. Anyway, I seem to be missing some important context here. What ‘targeted vandal-attack’ does the nomination refer to, and why is the request categorized as ‘Courtesy to depicted person’? Brianjd (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Someone kept uploading files accusing the subject of being a *** offender. 2A00:801:723:1FFE:406D:268B:7D91:BC08 claimed to be the depicted person hence the category. Trade (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Trade: That really should be documented somewhere that people can find it. Anyway, I am going to mark this section as resolved, since I think it is too late for me to do anything about it. Brianjd (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Someone kept uploading files accusing the subject of being a *** offender. 2A00:801:723:1FFE:406D:268B:7D91:BC08 claimed to be the depicted person hence the category. Trade (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
![]() |
Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_76-year-old_human_males 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! |
Josh (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
![]() |
Category:Nude_76-year-old_male_humans 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! |
A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
![]() |
Category:Nude_76-year-old_humans 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! |
Brainy J (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
Порно видео
[edit]🔞 2A00:1FA1:30:A937:0:5F:C94D:2E01 01:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
![Checkmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_check-constructive.svg.png)
![]() |
Category:Female_cameltoes_in_sports 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! |
104.166.244.202 02:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
File:Woman holding folded umbrella to her chest.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. |
Genericusername57 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Please, no more "Nofacebook"
[edit]See the reasons via Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#No_Twitter/YouTube/Facebook_Template. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Re
[edit]Hi. It's a problem of conflict of license. The customer claims to be the copyright holder because the new file it's an image of a pd-old photo in a paper frame. IMHO, that photo it's a derivated work and it's PD too, but customer think he's the copyright holder because the file becomes it a new photo. Ganímedes (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganímedes: I started this discussion at User talk:Ganímedes#Ticket:2024050110003253 — File:Portrait of John Craske.jpg, but you replied here with no context. That is very confusing.
- Here is my understanding:
- There is an old portrait from circa 1901, which is definitely in the public domain.
- There is a photo of the portrait from circa 1990; a crop of that photo to show only the portrait is definitely in the public domain.
- The original photo of the portrait is a separate work, which may or may not attract a new copyright.
- You agree that the original photo of the portrait is a separate work but think it does not attract a new copyright, and is therefore in the public domain.
- The uploader thinks that the original photo of the portrait is a separate work that does attract a new copyright, but the photographer has licensed that new copyright under a CC BY-SA license.
- Either way, the original photo of the portrait is a free work that is eligible for Wikimedia Commons.
- If that is true, then why was the original photo of the portrait deleted? Brianjd (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, in esWP it's normal to answer in the other's discussion for courtesy. If you started a discussion with me I must think you know what are we talking about. About last point, because the deleted photo it's not the original, but the one with frame (actually is not exactly a frame, but an old and broken sheet of paper where the photo was pasted). The "original" it's this one: File:Portrait of John Craske (cropped).jpg--Ganímedes (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looking again, I see a problem here: [1].. or maybe not. IMHO these people don't understand copyrights, DW and PD. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, in esWP it's normal to answer in the other's discussion for courtesy. If you started a discussion with me I must think you know what are we talking about. About last point, because the deleted photo it's not the original, but the one with frame (actually is not exactly a frame, but an old and broken sheet of paper where the photo was pasted). The "original" it's this one: File:Portrait of John Craske (cropped).jpg--Ganímedes (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)