User talk:Danrok

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

QIC[edit]

Hi Danrok,

please check up Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Bl.C3.A5vandshuk3.jpg, the horizon is straight now IMO. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Move request declined[edit]

The image you requested to be re-named is part of a series of 4 images: Category:Wesley Chapel, Saint Helier. If you want these moved, all 4 should be moved, rather than only 1. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Sculpture town park.JPG[edit]

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

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


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

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Millennium Town Park 1.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Millennium Town Park 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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


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

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Stained glass windows in Jersey[edit]

Hello Dan!

Just a request (feel perfectly free to ignore if you're too busy/uninterested): would you fancy snapping the stained glass of the churches of Saint Clement and Grouville, being your neck of the woods? Just should you happen to be passing some time or other and be able to pop in... :-) Man vyi (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Be careful -- FOP does not cover stained glass in Jersey, so unless the windows are PD -- the artist has been dead since before 1942 (1943 as of the end of this month) -- they cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Man vyi - yes, I can do that, no problem.

James - I think the glass is likely to be old enough, and as far as I know copyright law in Jersey is the same as the UK law, so stained glass should be OK because they're works of artistic craftsmanship. See Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom and "In Hensher -v- Restawhile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making. Copinger and Skoane James suggests that original jewellery is another candidate."

Unless you've found something that contradicts this? Danrok (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! Yes, the provisions of the new Jersey law copy the UK law re FOP so although there's no case law yet, one would assume that a Jersey court would be unlikely to depart radically from UK court interpretation. In any case we're talking about Victorian windows here and even Bosdet's later works are in the public domain as he died in 1934. Personally I've been erring on the side of caution and haven't uploaded images I have of the modern windows at Saint Peter (although it's almost impossible to take a photo of the new Saint Helier chapel in the Town Church - File:Saint Helier chapel 2012 a.jpg - without including the new window...). Man vyi (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that the question is moot for this case, but I think the "artistic craftsmanship" question would rest on whether the images depicted by the glass were assembled from small pieces of glass, which would be OK, or were painted on the glass, which would not. Note also that quote is what an expert thinks might be included, not case law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The reference to stained glass as artistic craftsmanship comes from Lord Simon's opinion in the House of Lords case - judicial opinion, rather than mere expert opinion, I'd say. Man vyi (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
We're splitting hairs. The subject case was not about stained glass, so it is not directly applicable to the question. It is certainly expert opinion, stronger than if it were in a book, but weaker than if it were directly relevant to the case. As I said above, I suspect that the FOP question for stained glass would rest on whether it were assembled or painted. There is no reason that a painting on glass should be treated differently from a painting on canvas, wood, or a wall, all of which are clearly not covered by FOP in the UK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Those two churches are done. I'm also uploading photos for St Martin's parish church. Danrok (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Capitol del Estado de Indiana, Indianápolis, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-22, DD 05.jpg[edit]

Hello Danrok, I made some improvements to this QI candidate yesterday that you reviewed. What do you think about the current version? Poco a poco (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Looks good! The barrel distortion is fixed. I wonder how it came to be distorted? I have the same lens and it should produce nice straight lines. Danrok (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, the explation is easy, I applied to much correction Poco a poco (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

New version[edit]

Hi Danrok- I agree with your comment about the focus in File:La Boca (Buenos Aires, Argentina).jpg nominated for QI. I've cropped the image which I think has fixed the issue, but also created a slightly different feeling. The intent of the image is to highlight the street art/color of the buildings. Should I move to discuss? Thanks-- Godot13 (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Common Raven in Jersey.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Common Raven in Jersey.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Regarding deletion of File:Tropicana Litchi juice tetra pack.jpeg[edit]

Dear Danrok, Could you please elucidate the reason for deletion of a product which has watermark of the brand. How about these pictures? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levi%27s.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bud_and_Budvar.jpg and many other such images of products? --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The artwork on the packaging of your photo will be protected by copyright law, and forms the main part of the photo. If you think the others are copyright violations, I'd suggest marking them for deletion as well. Danrok (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Levis one, I have already marked for deletion. The Bud one looks like it should not have been transferred from Wikipedia. Copyrighted works can be uploaded to Wikipedia, for specific purposes, but not to Wikimedia Commons. Danrok (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There are many other photos on Commons which show case the products. My simple question is how do you show a product by hiding its label? And I must insist you to check more about this. If a take out a label and publish it then it's copyright? If I take a photo of a McDonald's restaurant which would definitely have its logo is not. My pictures http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indus Pride beer.jpeg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sula_wine.jpeg are not exclusively artwork but they have bottles which contain the logo of the brand. Will you mark all the photos of universities which would have the logo of the college for deletion. I'm just curious! I can't mark thousands of photos on Commons for deletion. But, I'm sure not every photo having a logo of a brand is not supposed to be deleted. What you'd say? --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a simple question, but the answer is not so simple. Copyright law varies from country to country.

By way of example, the [McDonald's Golden Arches.svg] logo is OK for the reasons stated on that page. Wordmark logos are OK. Most simplistic logos are OK. Unique and complex artwork is not OK, unless permission has been granted, copyright has expired, etc. It is also OK if the artwork appears incidentally, in a very minor way, and does not form the main subject of the photo. I'd suggest reading up on the subject to get a full understanding, Commons:Copyright rules. Danrok (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@Danok, a hint: do not feed the troll. --Túrelio (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Still haven't got my answer. Sorry for asking again, How about the pictures in the category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Beer_bottles (e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cisk_Lager_and_Beach.JPG)? It contain many pictures which have artwork? Aren't they under copyright? Dear @Túrelio, hope you did not mean it or indicated me as troll? --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
One reason things stay is that they just don't get noticed by anyone. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Permission not needed for PD images[edit]

Was this tagged in error? File:Rod Taylor - Birds.jpg is a PD image, and would not require permission.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No error. It has been tagged because the source provided (a link to ebay) does not provide any information which would establish whether or not the copyright of this image has expired. Danrok (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There was no copyright to expire as there was no notice or copyright. Note additional information with link to film still for supporting details. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

File:The Creator by Dejan Stojanovic.jpg[edit]

This is the answer related to your concern regarding this file. This is the exact language that clarifies the matter now on Flickr: The watercolor used for this cover page is William Blake's Ancient of Days, which is in the public domain and the author of this cover page approved its usage under the stated license. This is a minor modification of a fotograph of the original. [1]. Please visit the Flickr page too: [2]

On the other hand, these matters in general, and also related to other fotographs, have been pretty much clarified by the User:Magog the Ogre on this page: [3].

There is no problem with this or with any other file. Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

clarification[edit]

Hi, Two of my files (File:Sunsilk.jpg,File:Bru.jpg) had been deleted due to license problem. But there are files like File:Dove Acondicionador.jpg in commons. Can you clarify the difference between these files and the ones uploaded by me- that is how the 'dove' is not facing the licensing problem, whereas mine comes under copy right violation. I hope your explanation will guide me in uploading files further. --Booradleyp (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a question of complexity. The Dove bottle is fairly simple - the only element which might on its own be copyrightable is the logo, and even that isn't very complex. On the other hand, your uploads featured packaging with photos, which are definitely eligible for copyright. It's a grey area to be honest, because no one's entirely sure what qualifies as "simple" and what doesn't, but some things are clearly one side of the line or the other. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the Dove bottle looks OK because the pictorial logo is a simple geometric shape, the rest of it is just words. It's a grey area for sure, for example, coke-a-cola bottle shapes are protected by law, but aren't deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Danrok (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

South east of Jersey.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! South east of Jersey.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

File:Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Samsung Galaxy S4 in white.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Samsung Galaxy S4 in white.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Mono 00:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sure_(Cable_&_Wireless)[edit]

Cloudbound (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

File:GALAXY Note 8.0.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:GALAXY Note 8.0.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jeromesandilanico (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

File:GALAXY Note 8.0 rear.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:GALAXY Note 8.0 rear.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jeromesandilanico (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Samsung Galaxy Note 3 vs Galaxy S4 mini.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Samsung Galaxy Note 3 vs Galaxy S4 mini.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Voortrekkermonument vanaf Schanskop.jpg[edit]

Would appreciate if you can delete this photo - not good quality I think. JMK (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Danrok,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fascine[edit]

Keith D (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted content[edit]

Afrikaans | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | हिन्दी | magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | Nederlands | polski | português | svenska | +/−


Hello Danrok,

the following content you uploaded is not free and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Second mate certificate, UK and Ireland, year 1889.jpg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files which can be used for any purpose, including:

  • use in any work, regardless of content
  • creation of derivative works
  • commercial use
  • free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, darkweasel94 05:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Nokia Lumia 900 close-up.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Nokia Lumia 900 close-up.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Msaynevirta (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Blackberry Q10 handset.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Blackberry Q10 handset.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

–Totie (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Blackberry Q10 home screen.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Blackberry Q10 home screen.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

–Totie (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)