User talk:Geo Swan

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

Contents

TUSC token 70dfd90b6e52c9080a8e30c0dd592336[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 70dfd90b6e52c9080a8e30c0dd592336 Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

File:A Pumpkin Spice Latte from Second Cup.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

🎂CAKE🎂 13:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Second Cup Coffee Mckenzie Towne High Street Calgary Alberta Canada Chai Tea Latte.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Second Cup Coffee Mckenzie Towne High Street Calgary Alberta Canada Chai Tea Latte.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

🎂CAKE🎂 13:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be more careful with flickr images[edit]

You really ought to slow down and be more careful when you're mass-uploading images from flickr. The results of your current strategy are a lot of poorly categorized and formatted images. I've just tagged almost a dozen files you uploaded that were exact duplicates of existing images. In one case, you've uploaded the same image three times. You also just threw generic categories on hundreds of images at once, without checking what the image was of. I understand that there's a lot of BPL images that you're trying to work through, but you are creating ten times as much work for editors like me who have to clean up. (I am more or less the only active editor on Commons who knows the old Boston Elevated Railway stations, so it's basically up to me to do it.)

Please consider following these suggestions: If you cannot identify the subject of the image enough to properly categorize it (down to the proper station or building category, if it exists), do not upload it. If you have not checked for duplicates first, do not upload it. If you do not have the time to remove the default formatting and properly format the description template, do not upload it. I can teach you how to do any of these if you're not sure how to.

It's better to have 20 images that are properly identified, formatted, and categorized than 2,000 images that aren't useful to the end user. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Queen East and CNR overpass[edit]

Thanks for the Cats. I will include them in future uploads. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

One of booledozer's[edit]

File:2015 Pan Am Village Jan 2015.jpg was uploaded recently from Flickr. I thought you might want to clean it up. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks [1] ✓ Done Geo Swan (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:This postcard shows a radial car that has just crossed the Canal bridge heading for Hamilton. The earliest postmark found for this card is June 25, 1912.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:This postcard shows a radial car that has just crossed the Canal bridge heading for Hamilton. The earliest postmark found for this card is June 25, 1912.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. 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) 13:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

about an admin removing talk page discussion[edit]

talk page permanent link.

This is just FYI. Obviously, you should not comment there at this point! --Abd (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Abd, I believe we are all accountable to one another. In particular, when User:Fastily was entrusted with administrator authority I believe that did not lift him to an unaccountable status.
Several months ago Fastily told me something about how he felt free to ignore communications from me because he had concluded I had a grudge against him over an "imagined slight". That was complete nonsense, as I believe that that every single time I have left a comment for him I voiced a specific policy based concern. I saw that you counseled Fastily to try to ignore that comments came from me, and to try and read them as if there was a valid policy based core to them, that was worth paying attention to. That was excellent advice. I do try to draft comments to him that are policy based, that contain my best advice, that are worth paying attention to, no matter how much of my time he has squandered through his on-going refusal to be held accountable.
I've wondered whether he does, at some level, recognize that I am raising valid points. I've wondered whether the core of his problem with me is that he thinks something like: "That so-and-so Geo Swan! It is as if he is insisting I explicitly acknowledge I made a mistake! Why can't he trust that I am intelligent enough to get his point, without looking for me to say I got his point?"
I do look for him to start explicitly acknowledging his mistakes -- but only because he keeps making the same mistakes over and over and over again. Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Geo. My suggestion. You used the word "terrible." Strike it! Really. Look, I know exactly how you are thinking. I warned an administrator on en.wiki. He blew me off, and predicted I'd be banned in short order. Well, I was banned, long story, but not before he was desysopped over his interactions with me. I had given him good advice.
As to my own ban, I didn't care. One abusive administrator can drive away many possibly productive users, so I considered the cost to be low. I'm not personally that important and I can still help users as a banned editor! I often have. Successfully. I have not appealed the Wikipedia community ban because it helps me avoid dealing with that community, which I consider too-often-toxic. Many good people. A few who are full of hatred and other toxins. And the good people mostly do nothing about it, so the good people are responsible for the toxicity. I did what I could while I was there. It was popular with some, but, I found, ultimately unpopular with the Arbitration Committee, which has a high level of mistrust for those the members consider "outsiders."
Here, what Fastily is doing is dangerous, and, it's not impossible, it could lead to desysopping here. However, that is not where I go with it. My goal is to preserve and support valuable users, which very certainly includes him. Had I not read your comments as being worthy of attention, I would not have intervened, though there is also how he was treating naive users. I might have still commented about that, except I didn't notice it, in particular. Your comments and his reaction are what I noticed.
My general position is that by not warning users (and especially administrators) of problematic behavior, we enable it and ultimately lead the user down the rosy path to ruin -- besides the damage that accumulates in the mean time. Wikis don't go back and fix these things, usually.
In my first arbitration on Wikipedia, the Committee only admonished me about one thing: not escalating quickly. I thought that really funny, because I was not quick, because I attempted to engage the administrator's friends, to encourage them to warn him. That took time. What I was warning about was not controversial, in fact, the violations of policy were blatant and clear. The case was actually open and shut. And still they would not warn their friend. They thought I was "grandstanding" because I mentioned that the future was watching. The future is always watching!
Now, back to Fastily. He has not responded to my last comment.[2] He has no obligation to respond. I will assume he read it. This is of the nature of a warning, and was so titled. That is all carefully considered. This is a (mild) escalation from your warnings. It is a bit more visible if the matter becomes important. I've suggested to Fastily that he may ignore comments that make him feel uncomfortable. That is greatly superior to his blanking of them, unless they are true vandalism.
He has now asked you not to edit his user talk page. That's questionable, since he's an active administrator. I prefer to give him some time to reflect before confronting this. Eventually, we may bring this up for him. If he responds unsatisfactorily, we can consult the administrative community, let me put it that way. Let's assume that Fastily is intelligent, when not run by his reactivity. He will reform his behavior, if that is necessary.
What he should know is that his talk page is watched. Every wiki action may be watched, but that one is relatively routine. His response so far, to me, has been civil. He explained himself, and that revealed a great deal; among other things, it confirms what you wrote above. My approach is not to condemn him and certainly not to harass him; we see other users making that grevious error: they think an admin is "wrong" so they badger him and demand response and repeatedly post. We are not going to do that. You will respect his request not to edit his user talk page. Instead of doing that, if you have a concern, you will engage other users. The generic way to do that is on a noticeboard; if you file a noticeboard request where, ordinarily, it would be superior to ping the admin himself, you will simply note that restriction, and so you will be seeking assistance in an alternate way. You may also ping me, or any other user not banned from his talk page.
There is always a way to do what is ultimately legitimate. If we drop our own reactivity, i.e., the idea that there is something Wrong with this administrator, we will find the way, it's predictable.
But, I can imagine: "If there is nothing wrong with him, why are we even concerned?" We are concerned because we see something is missing, the presence of which would make a difference, and we are standing for that. This is how I've been trained. It works. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. From everything I have read ARBCOM's decisions can be strange and counter-intuitive. Geo Swan (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
They can. It's a setup in the structure. There have been arbitrators who realized the problem, but who were unable to do anything about it. This happens when communities develop as Wikipedia developed, they can get stuck in what seemed to work at the beginning, that becomes difficult to change later. I can tell stories....
Now, back to our topic here. First of all, the deletion by Fastily was completely proper, it was a basic speedy deletion based on a no-license template placed on the file. You correctly warned (gently) the user about his incivility on user talk:Fastily. However, you then suggested going to an undeletion request, without having investigated the facts. I assume that Fastily would have responded to a polite request from the same user, especially with an apology (as he did make with a ping to Fastily.) But the response would probably have been to inform the user of the deletion reason. It was very simple, this was standard Commons process. A user who does this kind of work had placed a tag on the file indicating license was missing, and the uploading user was notified. In fact, that uploading user does not have email enabled, and has not edited anywhere since March 27, while the file was tagged on March 30. If a file is tagged for missing license, and the tag is not removed within, I think 7 days, the file is deleted. It is almost-bot. It isn't done by bot because the admin will presumably look to see that the license field doesn't have a license. You pointed to the deletion log for Fastily. That will show what he's doing. If you don't realize the situation with missing-license tags and how Commons must handle that, you might think he's a crazy deletionist.
Here is Fastily's deletion log for April 8.[3]. 419 deletion log entries in one day. What, is he mad?
Perhaps. That's a complicated question, eh? Look at that log. He started out with 14 undeletions in 1 minute, at 05:16. He is either using a semi-automated tool or is faster than I've ever been able to be in tests for repetitive editing (I've investigated the limits and 14 per minute is high. Bursts of ten per minute is not difficult.) Key: the edits must be repetitive and they must be set up in some way. These undeletions were accumulated from OTRS. No decision to make with them. He also has delegated followup to a bot, FastilyClone. This is what FastilyClone did immediately with one of the undeletions: [4]. It removed a speedy deletion tag that had been placed there for missing permission.
Then Fastily started to handle tagged files. The first deletions were for copyvio -- probably missing permissions, from files where it is believed that permission is needed. I count 33 deletions like this at 5:21. Fastily is way up there in edit rate. The only decision being made here is telling a semiautomated editor to "delete every page with a standing copyvio tag meeting certain conditions." I notice that it's been three days since these deletions, and none of these pages have been undeleted. Later, we can look at the link and see what has reappeared. But this must be understood.
These are all files with a tag that informs anyone looking at the page that it is going to be deleted, and copyvio files are deleted on sight, and I'm not sure about details. The files we are concerned with were not deleted for copyvio
At 5:25 he starts on No permission, no license, or no source files. These have all been tagged for seven days. Normally, the users will have been notified of the tagging, as happened with the three files here. He deletes 282 files, then he deletes the categories he has been working from. Those categories are created by the tags, automatically. We could almost say that no human has looked at the files, after the tagging. He does not have time to see much, if he is paying any attention at all. the file deletions end at 5:29, so total elapsed time is no more than five minutes. That is over fifty files per minute.
Now, this must be understood. The vast majority of these deletions are harmless at worst. Notice the deletion reason: 05:25, 8 April 2015 Fastily deleted page File:Alice in Arm-Chair.jpg (No license since 30 March 2015: you may re-upload the file, but please include a license tag) (global usage; delinker log). They all say that, except that some say "permission" and some say "source" instead of "license."
That deletion reason is then shown when CommonsDelinker removes the links from a Wikipedia article. To fix this, just upload the file again with the necessary information! Yes, you could ask the administrator to undelete, but if you have uploaded the file, which takes more total labor? And if you don't know what to put in the field, you ask.
But users frequently don't understand the process. Further, if you do upload the file again, and it's deleted again, you can take some flak. It shouldn't happen, a file that has been deleted with that reason should not create a reason to sanction the user, unless the user has simply reuploaded with no effort to deal with the deletion reason.
There are flaws and missing support for users in the Commons process, but the problem is not an administrator like Fastily, who was just following policy and procedure here.
The administrative pages can be murder, sometimes. A user can go there and end up blocked. You sent this user to COM:REFUND without knowing the circumstances. Next time, do your homework! The Undeletion page can bring on a lot of hostile attention, sometimes. I'm wary of going there. I will, but only when I have all my ducks in a row, and I have a stonewalling deleting admin, and no way around it (i.e., someone else to ask). This is what the user put there: a claim that the files were "incorrectly deleted." In fact, they were deleted correctly, and any file in that condition would be deleted, it is totally routine. You had not paid attention to the deletion reason, which was not copyright violation, it was purely formal. So the user argued that the file was indeed PD. As it was.
Notice that Yann actually restored the files, and added the PD-old tag -- as the user could have added -- then redeleted when he realized another problem: they were poorer resolution scans than other files that already existed.
Now, Yann could have simply left the files in place, he didn't do that. That could have saved the user from needing to change the filename on en.wiki. Commons does not always consider that. However, as can be seen from the discussion, someone should delete all the duplicate files anyway. There is a bot which goes around cross-wiki that can rename files. But this gets beyond my pay grade.
I think the user is okay, he's just got a bit of egg on his face, it will come out in the wash. He wanted to improve the project, rescue the files that he thought were improperly deleted. If you look at his user page, you'll see that he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Commons. That's not unusual at all, Commons can, indeed, be arcane and difficult. But this part of it is routine and not difficult. Especially if users are supported and guided.
So this part I want to commend: attempting to guide the user. When we do that, we will make mistakes, I understand that. I make lots of them. The problem was largely in a quick assumption that Fastily had erred. What LX told you, you could have seen for yourself. (Great that you thanked LX, by the way.)
I am still learning my way around Commons. The main thing I've identified here, to work on, is routine incivility, tolerated. I think it's possible to develop some consensus on this. The biggest issue, I think, is that most think of it an an intractable problem, they are in despair over doing anything about it. It's not intractable, and it won't go away by itself. The generic wiki problem is that people think that if there is some behavior that harms the community, the thing to do is block the user. It's understandable, but totally naive. I have seen the results of failure to enforce civility policy, and the results of it being enforced in a naive way, and of it being enforced in a supportive way. Supportive enforcement reduces loss of users from toxic environment, and reduces loss of users banned for being uncivil, because incivility breeds incivility. I've been short-blocked for incivility. I thanked the administrator. Why not? Don't I want the environment to be civil? Did it matter if I was actually uncivil or not? Why would it matter? Only in an environment that is toxic would it matter, where any alleged offense is taken as a proof of bad character. Clean block log? This must be a good user! Make him an admin! User with a long block log jaywalks? Throw the book at him! Bad User! Can't Learn!
No, incivility offenses can indicate passion and caring. So warn and guide. Don't punish.
But I came to Commons in February to assist a Wikiversity user whose files were being decimated. My first task was to get him to simmer down and shut up, because his very natural reactions were making it all worse, and he was headed for a block. I believe that nearly all of his files were legitimate, but handling this may actually take some policy/guideline changes, so I'm working on that. (And the results may help hundreds or thousands of users, I do not have narrow horizons.) He will also need to go through OTRS for some files .... and he's disappeared. He's almost eighty, he just stopped responding abruptly to email. I hope he's okay.... I dug up his university phone number -- he is still a professor -- and called. No response yet. --Abd (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Tallships in Toronto harbour, just before dusk, 2013 06 20 -g.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Tallships in Toronto harbour, just before dusk, 2013 06 20 -g.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

197.164.47.11 17:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

File:ISN 00696 military commission -- Appointing Authority stays hearings until further notice--other commissions litigation can proceed.pdf[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:ISN 00696 military commission -- Appointing Authority stays hearings until further notice--other commissions litigation can proceed.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Bird's-eye view[edit]

Hallo, hi noted you reverted a lot of changes in categorization i've done. I though that that category was a little confusing, being too much similar to some of its mother cateogries (like aerial photographs, or high angle shots/views from above). Being this term used principally for paints, drawings and so on i removed some files from them tentatively. If you have some better ideas on organize files please let's discuss. Regards. --Ciaurlec (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly i have to thank you for citing me the discussion page: i'm used to control on disussion pages of the categories, but you have to agree that it's quite difficult for someone who doesn't partecipate to it to recover such discussion. I arrived on that category because i'm interested on cartography, and on aerial photographs, intending "all the files shooted vertically", (and so useful for cartographic purposes). "Bird's-eye view" (it:Prospettiva aerea) it's a common term used in architechtural drawing, and in the old maps, well before shooting. It's interesting to discover how german and dutch languages uses it in the same way even for photographies, even if theese aren't shot by an airplane; it's even funny to discover too how a "worm's-eye view" existed! Probably the two proposals mades by Jim henderson, point the sense of that discussion. I agree with the second one, being suitable for me the fact of considering it as a part of the wider category Category:Wiews, who does'n treat only about photography (shots, photographic effects, or film techniques), but more about perspective. Another fact is probably to separate files related to drawings, maps and so on by the photos. Possibly categories as Category:Bird's-eye views of Burgerweeshuis (Amsterdam)‎ and Category:Bird's-eye views of animals‎ should be have some different paths, having in common only the angle of perspective. --Ciaurlec (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Nakasuk Elementary School, Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

Rcsprinter123 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


Copyright status: File:Streetcars in congested traffic in Kansas City.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Streetcars in congested traffic in Kansas City.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

Use of the PD template requires evidence that a photo was published before 1923 (not merely taken before 1923), and the book you have cited as the source for this photo was published in 2002. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:In 1916 an 'interurban' streetcar line ran from Kansas City to Lawrence Kansas.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:In 1916 an 'interurban' streetcar line ran from Kansas City to Lawrence Kansas.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

Use of the PD template requires evidence that a photo was published before 1923 (not merely taken before 1923), and the book you have cited as the source for this photo was published in 2002. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

File:In 1916 an 'interurban' streetcar line ran from Kansas City to Lawrence Kansas.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:In 1916 an 'interurban' streetcar line ran from Kansas City to Lawrence Kansas.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

JuTa 20:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Metrolinx not MetroLinx[edit]

"Metrolinx, an agency of the Government of Ontario under the Metrolinx Act, 2006, was created to improve the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area." See http://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/about_us_index.aspx There is no evidence presented and it is just wrong. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Questionable uploads from Flickr[edit]

You are correct in questioning the authorship of File:Mandy Moore's New Album - Live Performance (3590622457).jpg and File:Mandy Moore Sings "Love To Love Me Back" (3591431394).jpg, because they are watermarked. They are screenshots from http://soundcheck.walmart.com/Artists/mandy-moore/2009 which is © 2015 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. I have tagged them as copyright violations. Thanks for catching that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Mandy Moore's New Album - Live Performance (3590622457).jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Mandy Moore's New Album - Live Performance (3590622457).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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Mandy Moore Sings "Love To Love Me Back" (3591431394).jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Mandy Moore Sings "Love To Love Me Back" (3591431394).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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:USCGC Raymond Evans uses her stern-launching ramp to deploy her pursuit boat.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:USCGC Raymond Evans uses her stern-launching ramp to deploy her pursuit boat.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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

JuTa 21:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots[edit]


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Tugboat M. R. Kane pushes a barge, 2014 11 28 (1) (15900517631).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Tugboat M. R. Kane pushes a barge, 2014 11 28 (1) (15900517631).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

/St1995 09:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of upload removal[edit]

Dear Geo Swan:

The Wikimedia Foundation (“Wikimedia”) has taken down content that you posted at File:Baffin_Island_fjord_Nunavut.jpg due to Wikimedia’s receipt of a validly formulated notice that your posted content was infringing an existing copyright. When someone sends us a validly formulated notice of copyright infringement, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) Section (c)(1)(C) requires Wikimedia to take the content down, and to notify you that we have removed that content. This notice, by itself, does not mean that the party requesting that the content be taken down are suing you. The party requesting the take down might only be interested in removing the content from our site.

What Can You Do?

You are not obligated to take any action. However, if you feel that your content does not infringe upon any copyrights, you may contest the take down request by submitting a ‘counter notice’ to Wikimedia. Before doing so, you should understand your legal position, and you may wish to consult with an attorney. If you choose to submit a counter notice, the alleged copyright holder can either refuse to contest the counter notice or decide to file a lawsuit against you to restrain Wikimedia from re-posting the content. Please note that Wikimedia will not be a party to any legal action that arises from you sending a counter notice, and that Wikimedia is unable to provide you with legal advice.

Filing a Counter Notice

If you choose to submit a counter notice, you must send a letter asking Wikimedia to restore your content to legal@wikimedia.org, or to our service processor at the following address: Wikimedia Foundation, c/o CT Corporation System, 818 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California, 90017. The letter must comply with DMCA standards, set out in Section (g)(3)(A-D), and must contain the following:

  • A link to where the content was before we took it down and a description of the material that was removed;
  • A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you have a good faith belief that the content was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
  • Your name, address, and phone number;
  • If your address is in the United States, a statement that says “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district where my address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; alternatively, if your address is outside the United States, a statement that says “I agree to accept service of process in any jurisdiction where the Wikimedia Foundation can be found, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; and finally,
  • Your physical or electronic signature.

Pursuant to the DMCA, Wikimedia must inform the alleged copyright holder that you sent us a counter notice, and give the alleged copyright holder a copy of the counter notice. The alleged copyright holder will then have fourteen (14) business days to file a lawsuit against you to restrain Wikimedia from reposting the content. If Wikimedia does not receive proper notification that the alleged copyright holder has initiated such a lawsuit against you, we will repost your content within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days.

Miscellaneous

As a matter of policy and under appropriate circumstances, Wikimedia will block the accounts of repeat infringers as provided by Section 512(i)(1)(A) of the DMCA.

If you would like to learn more about Wikimedia’s policies, please refer to the Wikimedia Terms of Use, available at Terms of use, and the Wikimedia Legal Policies, available at m:Legal/Legal_Policies. More information on DMCA compliance may also be found at:


Wikimedia appreciates your support. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this notice.


Sincerely, Jalexander--WMF 23:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Hi Geo Swan, I saw your note on my talk page and have copied the information template below. I'm not 100% sure if we should include the template itself in all of the posts but I'll talk that over as an option with the team. What your note did point out to me however is what we should DEFINETLY have as a link in the post is a link to the actual takedown letter we got that resulted in the notice. That takedown almost always has information about both the file and the people claiming ownership and you have a right to see that. We already post links to it on the Village Pump and the DMCA Noticeboard but for some reason it wasn't linked here and that's an oversight. You can find it on foundation wiki at DMCA_Baffin_Island_fjord and the linked file on that page. Jalexander--WMF 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
{{Information
|Description=Baffin Island fjord Nunavut
|Source=[http://www.flickr.com/photos/readmuchmor/5430190695/ Baffin Island fjord Nunavut]
|Date=2011-02-09 06:25
|Author=[http://www.flickr.com/people/57442335@N02 Chris Toombes] from Canada
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

Copyright status: File:The Wire Issue33v17.pdf[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:The Wire Issue33v17.pdf. 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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. 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) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File:The Wire Issue27v14.pdf[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:The Wire Issue27v14.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

92.213.15.188 17:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Amtrak Cascades train from Seattle WA to Vancouver BC.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Amtrak Cascades train from Seattle WA to Vancouver BC.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Edmund_P._Giambastiani_Jr.[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Edmund_P._Giambastiani_Jr. 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!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Gbawden (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Road-rail vehicles cat update[edit]

Regarding your message to me back in late April 2015, you should know that I've removed the last five images incorrectly categories as Category:Road-rail vehicles. I hope none of them are falsely given this category again, and I wonder how they could've been categorized this way in the first place. ----DanTD (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:141215 U ISN324 GOVERNMENTS UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY PUBLIC.pdf[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:141215 U ISN324 GOVERNMENTS UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY PUBLIC.pdf. 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 OTRS 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 speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Hmmm. All six have the license tag {{PD-USGov-Military}} on them. Could you please explain, in more detail, the nature of your licensing concern? All six were prepared by US Government staff, for Periodic Review Boards. The officials who sit on these boards are also Federal employees. That makes this material PD, from its creation. Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Please fix the wrong brackets inside information template and remove nld tags. Please use proper headers on description page. See my change to this file. --Denniss (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)