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)

Dealing with URAA[edit]

Hi, I see you have run into URAA issues with some otherwise-useful images. I've started a new policy that might help in such cases, at Commons:Hosting of content released to the public domain globally. Could you have a look, and also add your thoughts to the talk page? I hope you will support it! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sysop[edit]

Have you ever considered becoming a sysop for Commons? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

:( I guess that's a "no". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry! I have been thinking about it. It is a big responsibility. Geo Swan (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cockit[edit]

Please, could you participate in the discussion at Category talk:Cockit of USCG Defender class boat where the solution is blocked by your dissent? Do you insist on the opinion that "cockit" should be not fixed to "cockpits"? --ŠJů (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Geo Swan (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:The Algosar upbound at Detroit.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:The Algosar upbound at Detroit.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 contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Waitress and patrons at 'Hooters'.jpg / Category:Tights in stage performance[edit]

I added an rather extensive category description to Category:Tights in stage performance. Will do the same for the remaining. Although English is not my mother tang. As far as I am aware all three points often apply to the "plain old waitress" when it comes to Hooters. Including dancing. Besides, is there any category for men's legwear ?

File:Loading a bicycle on Swift.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Loading a bicycle on Swift.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)‎ | +/−

Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:An interesting demolition, 2013 07 07 -a.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:An interesting demolition, 2013 07 07 -a.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Stefan4 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:An interesting demolition, 2013 07 07 -a.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:An interesting demolition, 2013 07 07 -a.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Denniss (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I wrote to the flickr uploader, who said that the {{flickrreview}} robot, and User:Denniss, couldn't find the image due to some routine maintenance they had done. They apologized and said they had moved it back. I'll see if that worked. Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Files from booledozer[edit]

I have uploaded the following from booledozer at Flickr:
File:Wilson TTC 10294029264.jpg, File:Wilson TTC 10294001314.jpg, File:Wilson TTC 10293947346.jpg, File:Wilson TTC 10293853114.jpg, File:Spadina TTC YUS 10293410873.jpg, File:Spadina TTC walkway 10293260155.jpg, File:Spadina TTC YUS 10293282036.jpg and File:Spadina TTC 10293767856.jpg. Please update the information at Flickr for me. Note that the pictures you annotated as "Inside Downsview TTC" were actually taken at Wilson station.
I have selected only the better quality images and those which might help to illustrate the subject matter. George - I thank you again. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting me know. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • WRT File:Spadina TTC walkway 10293260155.jpg -- how long would you say this walkway is? The plans for the LRT station at Mount Dennis have the LRT platform separated from the 15 bay busbay by a walkway 230 or 250 metres long. I don't know, that seems like a pretty long walk -- several minutes. I would like the TTC make sure internal walks like that were all less than 1 minute. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is booledozer your acount at Flickr? Just asking because your image is a dupe of a booledozer image. Don't know which one to keep. --Denniss (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, I logged that with OTRS in 2012. I only upload my best images to the commons. Since 2012 I started to try to upload all my images to flickr, kind of like a b-roll.
At some point I started to add a link to the OTRS ticket to each image I uploaded from flickr. Once I have uploaded the image to flickr, it is easier to let flickrreview handle the details, than it is to upload it directly, as I can upload a 600px version, and let flickrreview upload the full resolution version.
I regret wasting people's time on those occasions I don't manage my images well, and upload duplicates. Sorry.
On my wishlist for flickrreview is for it to check the base URL of each image, and see if any existing images use that image. If it did this first, it could prevent the uploading of duplicates.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I placed a {{duplicate}} on the earlier image, where I would normally do that with the later image, but its title claimed it was the Samuel Risley. It is not the Samuel Risley, which has a long low quarter-deck and a huge crane for buoy tending. Geo Swan (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

{{File:RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -- Case 1-04-cv-01166-RJL Document 103 Filed 04-19-07.pdf}}[edit]

{{File:RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS -- Case 1-04-cv-01166-RJL Document 103 Filed 04-19-07.pdf}} And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Crop of Daniel Menard, in a group shot, while in Afghanistan in December 2009.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Crop of Daniel Menard, in a group shot, while in Afghanistan in December 2009.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)‎ | +/−

§FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Scarborough / Birchmount[edit]

Did you catch this [1] of Birchmount Loop, among the others you recently uploaded from Birch Cliff News? A smaller version is also shown on [2] another page that you have used. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did see it. It is a lovely image. But unlike some of the other images, I didn't think there were enough clues as to its date. I am too young to remember ever riding on them, but the TTC continued to use the Peter Witt cars well into the 1950s. The TTC used Witt cars on Yonge, up until the opening of the Yonge subway.
You are right. The car and fashion could be 50s. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
So, I thought it could be an image that did not qualify for {{PD-Canada}}. Geo Swan (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:(cabin) 'where the Muirs taught...', Toronto region, circa 1840.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:(cabin) 'where the Muirs taught...', Toronto region, circa 1840.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 contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Konigsberg Protector RWS on M1126.jpg[edit]

Are you aware of en:Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace? Kind of mistake? --Markscheider (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Judges closure order, 2014-02 -- 1wb3dt.So.56.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:Judges closure order, 2014-02 -- 1wb3dt.So.56.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:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

Hi Geo Swan, AK here. I know this comes a little late since I have been unblocked since late December last year, but anyways my sincere apologies over my stubbornness and attacks against you during the deletion requests a few months back. I hope you can put the past behind (like I've done) and forgive me for my misdeeds. Cheers. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have written an essay about apologies -- w:User:Geo Swan/on apologies. In it I said I consider a candid and accurate description of what someone recognizes they did wrong as far more important than actual apology. Arctic Kangaroo's apology here is worthless, because they haven't shown that they understood what they did wrong. On User talk:Arctic Kangaroo I suggested the most important thing they did wrong was act as a gatekeeper at articles for creation, where they turned down hundreds of drafts of new articles -- without the competence and experience to do so meaningfully. I suggested AK apologize to those hundreds of newbies. Geo Swan (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Mail-cover-documents-p30-normal.gif[edit]

Please check this file you uploaded, does not seem to be the real page 30 --Denniss (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

File:The Old Mill Bridge over the Humber River in 2005 -a.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:The Old Mill Bridge over the Humber River in 2005 -a.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)‎ | +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 09:06, 10 March 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:New US Coast Guard recruits arrive at Sexton Hall, in 2011.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:New US Coast Guard recruits arrive at Sexton Hall, in 2011.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.

And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Construction excavations[edit]

Hi Geo Swan. See Category:Construction excavations. Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Geo Swan[edit]

Perhaps you should explain on your user page that booledozer and OldYorkGuy are also you. It is confusing to tag photos apparently taken by other people as your own. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In 2012 I started leaving a reference to this OTRS ticket OTRS ticket 2012092210003274 on all images uploaded from flickr and panoramio. It confirms that booledozer and OldYorkGuy are my ID at flickr and panoramio. I thought that would be sufficient. Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You can't read that without an OTRS password. It's hidden from regular editors and we don't know what it says. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Geo Swan (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Geo Swan. You have new messages at Hedwig in Washington's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Category:Curtis_M._Scaparrotti[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Curtis_M._Scaparrotti 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) 10:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Will in future let the discussion run to close Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Great! Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Toronto locations[edit]

If you are unsure about the location of another person's picture you are uploading - just ask me. I know Toronto very well and can usually work it out. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I also uploaded full size COTA versions of some of your recent uploads. If you need help with that I can find them for you, if they exist. They are not always scanned or available.

95 Berkley Street[edit]

95 Berkley Street with perspective adjusted.jpg
95 Berkeley Street, Toronto, 2013 08 17 -a.jpg


When we can't get far away from a building to take a photograph, the perspective makes the top appear narrower than the base and look as if it is toppling over. This can be adjusted with freely available software. I have not completely squared this building since that makes it look a little unreal.
Hope you like what I did. I think this restores the solid feel to the structure. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • That's interesting. What tools did you use?
Your retouched image looks fine, I would have no reservation using it to illustrate 95 Berkeley, other than I think the shots that show two facades are better, and they make clear the building is longer than it is wide.
It's nice you thought about my opinion. Technically, of course, once someone has put the image in the public domain, or licensed it under a free license, it wouldn't matter if they didn't like a retouched image.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey neighbour! This is a collaborative project.
You seem to enjoy creating a collection of mutiple images or panoramas, while I prefer to focus on getting a good picture to illustrate something specific on Wikipedia. I used GIMP for this, but there are other freeware programs that I also use depending on what is required. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If you are going to do an article about this building, do you want me to straighten up one of the other images? Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Haixun 01 2.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Haixun 01 2.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)‎ | +/−

Smooth_O (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Haixun 01 -c.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Haixun 01 -c.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)‎ | +/−

Smooth_O (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Bizan class JCG.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Bizan class JCG.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)‎ | +/−

Smooth_O (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

PD images[edit]

Dear George,

Did you know that if you place an image into the public domain, you could lose the right to be attributed for an image you took? That is why I personally prefer a cc by or cc by sa license because at least I get some attribution. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern.
I used to use a gfdl or a cc license, but my friend Sherurcij was putting his images into the public domain. I remembered somebody who said something about how the person who lost interest in being recognized could accomplish more than if they insisted on being credited.
Maybe I was influenced by False Geber -- I wrote a pair of essays where I called him "the very first sockpuppet". If I count all the images I have uploaded to flickr I have placed over 10,000 images in the public domain. There may be some images, someday, that I chose to release under a more restrictive free license than PD.
The real risk of using a PD license is something I read about on comp.risks several decades ago. An author who had written some seminal papers in some field -- back when that field was young, described being accused of plagiarism. Electronic tools that detected plagiarism were at fault.
He had applied for a job somewhere, that required him to submit samples of his work. He had supplied electronic copies of these seminal papers. The tool his potential employers used to detect if he was a plagiarist checked his paper against other papers from his field -- papers that had been published in electronic form. But his seminal papers dated back to before any of the papers were published in electronic form. His work was so important later writers had quoted passages from it. When the plagiarism detecting tool encountered those passage in his original papers, they found that it included passages that were duplicates of passages from papers in its database. When he was rejected as a plagiarist no one thought to check the papers he was said to have plagiarized, or they would have seen that the passage in questions were in fact quotes from his own original papers.
So, images I placed in the public domain may be used to accuse me of plagiarism someday. I find that wire services routinely place public domain images in their library, and then claim to own the IP rights to those images.
I am not one of those people who google themselves. But when I came under criticism by some of WMF contributors who post criticisms of other WMF contributors at the wikipedia review and similar sites. In doing so I came across some of my images, that were attributed to me, or to both me and the WMF. Sadly, I also came across lots of images, attributed to me, that I had merely uploaded to the commons r45edffrom somewhere else, where some good faith third party had mistakenly thought I owned the IP rights.
Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well at least you know what you are doing. Sometimes I do a google search under my username here and find images that I marked but which I don't own the copyright to. Sometimes people give attribution to me when I only just marked an image but anyone who investigates the photo further on wiki or commons can see that I don't own the rights to it. PS: This is the only photo which I uploaded from my flickr account to Commons since its a rare object. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I CC0 all my few thousand pictures on grounds that any restriction on use will require thought on the part of the user and, since credit is unimportant to me, this wastes thought that could better be applied to more useful questions. Several times per year I am pleasantly surprised, however, to find some website attributing a pic to me anyway. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad name for "Coffee Time" categories[edit]

Category:Coffeertime at the corner of Parliament and Richmond and Category:Coffeetime at the corner of Princess Street and The Esplanade. have problematic names and obvious spelling errors. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no emotional attachment to these names. Did you have alternate names in mind?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
These could just be eliminated since a separate category for every individual coffee shop in Toronto, each containing only a minimal number of files, is not required. The ones of the building on Parliament Street do not show a coffee shop. The structure of that category tree was also incomplete. I have extended it so that there is now a parent Category:Coffee Time and I added Category:Timothy's World Coffee to cover that chain too. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
WMF projects lack good mechanisms for organizing non-article context, like images.
Categories suck, for a lot of reasons. But, right now, they are all we have, so I use them with some reluctance.
With regard to the images of the former coffeetime -- I know that, over on flickr, which also lacks good mechanisms for sorting, I have multiple before images, from the 20 plus years that building did operate as a coffeetime.
You wrote: "These could just be eliminated since a separate category for every individual coffee shop in Toronto, each containing only a minimal number of files, is not required."
If our uploaders were all employees, not volunteers, we could be forced to use a standard name for every image, names that encoded what the image was about, where it was taken, when it was taken, and a serial number, to distinguish it from similar images taken at the same time and place. This would be terrible on a human factors level, as viewers would expect that iconic images should have iconic names. But it would have the advantage that a lot of the organizing would be incorporated into the name.
In fact a great many images, probably more than half, have idiosyncratic names. Many uploaders just re-use the original, idiosyncratic, personal name, the picture-taker took. While categories may not always have the best name, they are almost always better named than images -- and so they are more useful for content organizing.
I've disagreed with some contributors over how to categorize our content, when they seem to think our organizing of images should follow the classification models librarians use, or the classification models taxonomists use. Those models are two-dimensional. Taxonomy has been a highly successful classification scheme, but it is exceptional, and unlike images, because of the way genetic inheritance works.
You follow my talk page, so you have probably seen me urge people to read my essay w:User:Geo Swan/nothing is obvious. Have you read it? What I find, in discussions of how things should be organized, that, at base, a lot of people's arguments rest on a base of "it's obvious". Is it obvious that categories that contain just a single element are a bad thing? I don't think so. If it helps people find the content they want, it is a good thing.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. WRT your original concern over the names Category:Coffeertime at the corner of Parliament and Richmond and Category:Coffeetime at the corner of Princess Street and The Esplanade. -- would that concern be addressed if the categories were named, instead, Category:Coffee Time at the corner of Parliament and Richmond and Category:Coffee Time at the corner of Princess Street and The Esplanade? Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Do whatever you want. We all make mistakes, and I have made another one here. You obviously have problems that I can't help you with. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have been flattered that you thought my uploads were worth looking at. Thanks. On the other hand I am afraid that some of your comments can be interpreted as lapsing from common politeness. We are all volunteers here. You don't have to read my essay on obviousness. You don't have to finish reading my reply to you. Your use of the phrase that I "have problems that I can't help you with" -- it could be interpreted as a mean-spirited comment on my mental health.
As we are all volunteers here, none of us is obliged to help anyone with financial advice, dating advice, mental health advice, or any other advice not directly related the project related issues. On the other hand, when people seek advice on non-project related issues, some level of helpfully intended comments, on user talk pages, is okay.
Unsolicited comments like yours above? Probably not OK. If you genuinely think another contributor has a non-project related problem -- but they didn't ask for help with it, and you have no interest in helping them -- why not just keep that opinion to yourself?
You are a very valuable contributor here, and if only you curbed this tendency, you would be an even more valuable contributor. Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe the following is in response to this request I left on User talk:Secondarywaltz. I wouldn't do this on a usual fora. On my talk page I have a little more leeway, and I am going to refactor this reply, so I can reply to it one point at a time. Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer
  1. You never respond to anybody with a straight answer when a long rambling rant can be used.
  2. You think it is appropriate to overload Commons with hundreds of poor images of your neighbourhood, many taken from your rooftop.
  3. How many pictures do we need of Starbucks at the corner of Front and Frederick?
  4. You upload inferior versions of historic photographs when the originals are available and you also insist in not uploaded the highest quality from Flickr.
  5. You admit not understanding Categories in general and cannot consistently use the same format when you have created the entire tree yourself.
  6. Incorrect spelling or descriptions are frequent in your uploads. These could be seen as problems.
Ya happy now George? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. I suggest that "rant" is a very emotionally charged term, a potentially insulting term, one which should be reserved for passages where one could expect pretty universal agreement it is a rant.
  2. This week Urban Toronto, or one of the similar local online magazines, published a list of about a dozen good places where the public can capture images of Toronto's skyline. The roof of my building is also a good place to capture images of Toronto's skyline -- one not open to the public. It is my intention to only upload images that someone would be find of genuine educational value, because they are of historic value, geographic value, or artistic value. I believe capturing images of the stages of the construction of the L Tower, from the same viewpoints, are of educational value, even if comparing two from a two different dates look similar, they are interesting as part of a sequence -- a sequence that can be assembled into a collage.
  3. I am sure you have read my comments on the Statue of Liberty before. There are no commons policies that authorize capping the number of images of a topic.

    The {{information}} template for the last five images I uploaded explain why I think they are of educational value. I was on a photo excursion with a friend of mine who had recently bought a beautiful camera -- more beautiful than mine. But she didn't know how to adjust the amount of light used in her images. I took, and uploaded, five similar images each using a different amount of light so people could see how their camera settings can be used. I believe this satisfies the educational value requirement for all our images.

  4. You are skilled in finding images within the TPL and COTA archives. I have congratulated you on acquiring this skill before. I'll congratulate you again. Congratulations! I use lots of sources for free images. It is true, if I find a source for a free image that contains enough information to confirm it IS a free image I don't generally try to use archive-fu to confirm the original image from the archive is of the same quality. I am sorry if this annoys you, but I don't believe there is an obligation for me to do so.
  5. Hello? When did I ever "admit not understanding Categories in general"? I hope you can understand how easily a person could interpret what seems to them like a wild mischaracterization as an insult?

    I have written criticisms of the weaknesses of the Category feature. You are free to disagree with my comments. But please don't write that I misunderstand the Category system if you haven't seen fit to discuss why you disagree with me.

    I have confirmed that I agree that consistency is important, many times. On the other hand, I have been contributing to the wikimedia commons for years -- almost a decade. I refuse to apologize for any instance where I tried to organize content one way, and no longer remembered that schema, months or years later, when I uploaded related content. I believe my record will show that if I discover I have been inconsistent I will try to bring that into consistency. I believe my record will show that if someone draws an inconsistency I am responsible for to my attention I will try my best to bring that into consistency. Is it possible that some of the instances where you think I have been inconsistent could be instances where you and I disagree on how content should be organized?

  6. With regard to spelling or grammar errors. We are all fallible. I am a prolific uploader. My uploads, and other contributions do contain errors, due to normal human fallibility. Is the frequency of spelling or grammar errors I make due to normal human fallibility outside the normal range of the rest of the commons contributors? I would be very surprised if it was. So, no, I don't agree that my normal human fallibility is any more of a problem than any other contributor's.
Am I happy? Well, frankly, no.
I am concerned that there are issues where you disagreed with me, and when those issues came up again you were not able to approach the subsequent discussions with a sufficiently open mind to the possibility I might voice valid points. Every time I enter a discussion I do my best to consider the possibility that the person I think I disagree with might after all be right, and that I might after all be wrong. It is an important aspect to truly collegial discussion and decision making. I really wish I could count on all my correspondents also doing their best to keep in mind the possibility I might raise points they might consider valid.
Your assertion that I "admitted not understanding Categories" -- how worried should I be that this assertion could be traced to a decision on your part to just skip over points I try to make? Geo Swan (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
  • No! You are wrong. I said above "Do whatever you want. We all make mistakes, and I have made another one here. You obviously have problems that I can't help you with". You chose to misinterpret my comments. I am just reassuring you that I do not feel that way and you do need to respond, but that would be contrary to Item 1 and your generally agressive attitude. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Frankly, your response, above, strikes me as an instance of revisionism. I believe uninvolved third parties would warn your comment looked like an ugly crack.
    • I dispute I have a "generally agressive attitude". I invite you to re-examine your own behaviour during our first interaction -- your comments in the AFD for Unwin Avenue. Your comments were not just agressive, you examined recent userspace subpages I was working on -- writing: "and Coming Soon from the same fabulous producer who brought you Unwin Avenue - get ready for the new sensational User:Geo Swan/Cherry Street (Toronto) and User:Geo Swan/Blue Jays Way. I just can't wait." This was not just aggressive, it was seriously distressing harrassment.
    • Are you familiar with Anatol Rappaport's work on the tit for tat algorithm? It is an algorithm for how to play prisoner's dilemma. According to that algorithm, when someone who has been defecting from the rules of pleasantness, civility and collegiality, starts to be polite again, the best strategy for both one's self and society, is to respond with pleasantness, civility and collegiality -- right up to the moment they defect.
    • I try to be more forgiving than tit for tat. IMO it makes sense to try to keep one's cool, even when you think the parties you are disagreeing with have crossed the line. If you think I have been rude to you, feel free to cite the specific passage, and, if I agree, I'll apologize. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • PLEASE NOTE Some of what I recently posted has been edited so that the order, context and meaning has been changed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't agree that refactoring your comments, so they were numbered, meaningfully altered their meaning. Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I wish you happiness Mr. Geo Swan. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:A streetcar at Hastings and Granville -a.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:A streetcar at Hastings and Granville -a.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.

And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Tricia Helfer TIFF -a.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Tricia Helfer TIFF -a.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)‎ | +/−

Lady Lotus (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Cherry picker on Eastern Avenue, 2014 03 25 (2).jpg[edit]

This image has no source. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

File:IRail on the Hiawatha Line.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:IRail on the Hiawatha Line.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)‎ | +/−

LGA talkedits 01:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Inside the Second Cup on 130th Avenue in Calgary -b.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Inside the Second Cup on 130th Avenue in Calgary -b.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)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Large cup from 'Second Cup'.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Large cup 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)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Formerly a plain, green Bell telephone switch box, 2013 09 04.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Formerly a plain, green Bell telephone switch box, 2013 09 04.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)‎ | +/−

Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Excavation SW corner of College and Spadina, 2014 04 06 (6).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Excavation SW corner of College and Spadina, 2014 04 06 (6).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)‎ | +/−

Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Fareeda Kuchi.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Fareeda Kuchi.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)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • For the record, although this image was deleted as a "COPYVIO":
  1. it was a poliicy compliant image at the time I uploaded it.
  2. legally, this image remains in the public domain, outside of Afghanistan. I think the WMF's lawyer was clear on this issue. We are now aware that outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued the Afghan equivalent of a US Presidential Executive Order, creating a domestic Afghan copyright law. But, for the signatories of international property rights agreements to recognize Afghanistan as a member of the nations that reciprocally honor the copyrights of one another's citizens, Afghanistan would have to:
    1. Have its legislature pass international property rights laws that contained wording that measured up to the criteria of the international property rights agreements;
    2. That law would have to guarantee equal respect for the copyrights of other nations;
    3. Afghanistan would have to actually honor that law -- they couldn't just pass it, and then let Afghan publications continue to use internationally protected images as if they were public domain.
It is WMF policy to treat the images created by citizens of nations like Afghanistan, that have taken a step towards joining Berne-world, as if they had fully joined Berne-world. But I think the WMF's lawywer was clear on this. WMF projects are free to impose any extra restrictions we choose on our images. However, that does not make it illegal to use these images. In particular, third parties who downloaded the images from WMF projects are legally free to keep using them, unless the Afghan legislature does act to bring Afghanistan fully into Berne-world.
I uploaded over one hundred images that were perfectly compliant with our policies, at the time I uploaded them. Unfortunately some of the contributors who nominated them for deletion, or who voiced opinions on them, or who deleted them, used wording that implied I was a copyright violator who had uploaded illegal images. I may link to this explanation anywhere I see formerly compliant Afghan images I uploaded referred to as copyright violation, or as illegal images. They are neither. They are merely images which once complied, but no longer comply, with a policy the WMF chose to implement which does not have any force in law. Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I have stated my personal opinion on this policy before, and I will do so again here, for the record. The policy of treating images as if they were protected, before a country actually enacts all the laws needed to join Berne-world strikes me as neo-colonial. It implies we think we are superior to those countries.
    • I think true respect for the sovereignty of those countries, and the autonomy of their citizens should have required us to wait until they expressed their determination to join the Berne-world through passing the required laws.
    • Almost everyone in Western nations believes in "progress". Small groups of luddites, survivalists, and fringe religious groups don't. But this general faith in "progress" is not shared in the countries that haven't signed on to Berne-world. Their latenesss in signing isn't due to their failing to understand what intellectual property is, and it isn't due to their being too stupid to know how to pass laws. I think the reason countries like Afghanistan haven't passed intellectual property laws is because those in a position to pass those laws didn't believe those laws were in their national interest
    • It is not just the Taliban -- many of the leaders who allied with the USA in overthrowing the Taliban do not believe in progress. For instance, they don't believe in the value of educating girls. The Taliban outlawed the creation or showing of movies. The outlawed the performance of singing, or dancing, or acting. They outlawed painting works of art. Why would they pass laws protecting the intellectual property rights of painters, composers or film-makers, when they wanted to suppress those kinds of cultural expression.
    • Okay, what about the post-Taliban era? Aren't there elements of Afghan society that are westernized, and welcome the trappings of Western culture, who would welcome joining Berne-world? Yes, there are. Do they have the political power to get those laws passed? Unclear. The USA is withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan, as have other Western nations. The politicians the west supported may be swept from power, once western aid slows to a trickle, and Afghanistan may swing back to a government that is close to being as conservative as the Taliban.
    • If Iraq war taught us anything it should have taught us a powerful nation can't force another nation's citizens to change their values and worldview over the barrel of a gun. That failed in Iraq, and I am afraid it will fail in Afghanistan.
    • I fear a blood-bath in Afghanistan, when western aid and western influence dries to a trickle.
    • If a swing in power brings in a government whose President rescinds the executive order Karzai decreed, creating a domestic intellectual copyright property law, I think we would then have return to recognizing that Afghanistan is a nation with no intellectual property protection. Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Red River Expedition map[edit]

Hello, Geo Swan! I notice at File:Map to accompany report of the Canadian Red River Expedition., 1858.png you seem to have uploaded a photo of the Red Deer River valley over the map, while keeping the original description & templates. I presume this was a mistake, but since it was a while ago, rather than revert I’d thought I‘d drop you a line first, in case it will be more convenient for you to download the photo from there so as to re-upload it under a new name, rather than having to retrieve the original. (The map seems rather indistinct, but doubtless has historical interest—and the Collections Canada website isn’t being coöperative.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the headsup. I reverted it. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Intersection of Rogers and Old Weston Roads, looking west, August 4, 1972 From Toronto Archives – Fonds 1526, File 72, Item 61.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Intersection of Rogers and Old Weston Roads, looking west, August 4, 1972 From Toronto Archives – Fonds 1526, File 72, Item 61.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)‎ | +/−

50.100.191.53 14:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I checked, nominator was correct, and I was mistaken. I thought all COTA images available online were free for re-use. I was wrong. This one wasn't. Maybe I misremebered that images uploaded to flickr were all available for re-use. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:After (3830069718).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:After (3830069718).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 14:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Canol Project, Refinery in Whitehorse, 1945.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:Canol Project, Refinery in Whitehorse, 1945.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 contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:FRCs Bernard C. Webber and Richard Etheridge moor together in in Miami for the first time.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:FRCs Bernard C. Webber and Richard Etheridge moor together in in Miami for the first time.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.

And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:US and Canadian Coast Guard sailors, on the bridge, 120814-G-NB914-035.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:US and Canadian Coast Guard sailors, on the bridge, 120814-G-NB914-035.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Marco Rubio and Cubans Special Residents at Guantanamo -b.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:Marco Rubio and Cubans Special Residents at Guantanamo -b.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.

And also:

No required license templates were detected on this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:Could you please explain...[edit]

Category:Actors (with subcategories) is for men, Category:Actresses is for women. Category:Actresses is not a subcategory of Category:Actors. Cathy Richards (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Health issues[edit]

Dear Mr. Swan,

I suffer from severe tinnitus in my left ear and mild depression but my doctor has stablilised me on some low doses of medication that is mostly covered by medicare. However, I am busy with my own work (which is good) and sometimes it feels as if many other users are not marking images on Commons. So, I am slowing down as I mention in a message here Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Downtown Hespeler (6622482049).jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Downtown Hespeler (6622482049).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 may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


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)‎ | +/−

Pierpao.lo (listening) 03:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I addressed Pierpao's concern by replacing the elements of the image that might be considered a copyright violation. The resulting image was, nevertheless, deleted as "out of scope", a judgment I disagree with, as the wikipedia article on Hespeler, Ontario has a section devoted to this specific development. I uploaded a copy of the image to en.wiki, and used it to illustrate that section, and requested the deleting admin to restore the commons version, as its use on en.wiki establishes the image is in scope. Geo Swan (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Rob Ford as Benito Mussolini in 2011 -a.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Rob Ford as Benito Mussolini in 2011 -a.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)‎ | +/−

Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Nathan Phillips Square (Toronto City Hall) (8916184110).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Nathan Phillips Square (Toronto City Hall) (8916184110).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)‎ | +/−

Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This captures something[edit]

This photo File:Panhandler, Yonge and Front, 2014 09 26.jpg captures the total indifference of those people, showing the backs of their legs. Thanks George, this is a special one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Cherry Street looking south, 1898.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:Cherry Street looking south, 1898.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Cherry Street looking north, 1898.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:Cherry Street looking north, 1898.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Coffin block in 1888 -- the future site of the distinctive Gooderham and Wortz HQ.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Coffin block in 1888 -- the future site of the distinctive Gooderham and Wortz HQ.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 14:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Parts of panoramas of intersections where there will be Eglinton Crosstown LRT stations, GPS embedded, taken 2013 04 25 (94).JPG (8681368921).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Parts of panoramas of intersections where there will be Eglinton Crosstown LRT stations, GPS embedded, taken 2013 04 25 (94).JPG (8681368921).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)‎ | +/−

Alan (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:MBTA construction[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to explain why I reverted your categorization change there. Although the MBTA is based in Boston, a significant portion (much of the commuter rail system, as well as the portions of the subway system in Brookline, Quincy, Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Malden, Revere, and soon Chelsea) are outside the city of Boston. Thus, it wouldn't be correct to assume that most of the images in that category are in Boston. (In fact, a handful aren't in Rhode Island, but that's the bare exception.) I've copied those that are in Boston into the proper category. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I also just nominated Category:Lincoln Powell Station for deletion; I think that name was a mistake in the original Archives description. The BERy had Lincoln Wharf Power Station in that location, but we don't appear to have nay images of it. Great job on the Archives photos, though - I've identified about 100 that'll be useful for the articles I work on. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I bow to your local knowledge.
I have only been to Boston once, and didn't have an opportunity to ride any of the lines. It is an interesting system. When I first started to read about it, about ten years ago, most people seemed ready to describe the Green Line as a subway line. Now most people seem ready to describe it as a light rail line.
Here in Toronto there is a lot of embarrassing, parochial, local boosterism. Politicians, and other commentators, like to describe Toronto as a "World class city", whatever that means. They also like to prescribe what policy steps Toronto should take to retain, or more firmly establish, its "World class city" status. I lived, for a few months, just outside of Philadelphia, and I was very surprised that no one I knew there knew how big Philadelphia was, or where it sat on the USA list of cities by population.
In the last year or so there has been a new burst of local pride, that Toronto's official population passed Chicago's official population. Embarrassing, as I believe this is merely an observer effect. I think official Chicago is surrounded by a bunch of Satellite municipalities, which would be indistinguishable from Chicago from a Satellite -- just as Toronto has its satellites. I suspect that Greater Chicago, the real Chicago, remains much larger than Greater Toronto, but that the boundaries of official Toronto contain a greater share of Greater Toronto than official Chicago does of Greater Toronto.
How large is Greater Boston? Does the boundary of Greater Boston really smudge indistinctly into Greater NYC, into an unbanized greater Boston to Washington urban corridor?
Official Toronto's population is about 2.5 million. Greater Toronto? I don't know, there is no real consensus on its boundaries. About 3.5 to 4 million maybe.
You probably know that, like Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Toronto retained a large network of streetcars. Like Boston and Philadelphia, Toronto decided to shop around for new vehicles to replace its aging fleet of PCC streetcars. I believe both Boston and Philadelphia only got a decade or so of use out the replacement vehicles. Our replacement vehicles were built in Canada, and are approaching their 40 year projected lifetime. I loved the old PCC streetcars. I have an affection for the replacements. Of all the vehicles designed to replace the PCCs they are the vehicle that look the most like the PCCs.
We maintain one old Peter Witt streetcar, and two PCC vehicles, which are sometimes used on ceremonial occasion, or chartered for parties, or movies that require a period feel. Personally, I would have preferred keeping a half dozen, or dozen PCCs. I don't think we are going to keep any of the CLRVs as heritage vehicles. Since they use 1970s electronics they will, apparently, be harder to keep supplied with ancient parts than the PCCs, with their entirely analog electronics. We keep a blacksmith whose job is to make replacement parts for the heritage vehicles. I guess the MBTA needs to do likewise.
There was a big ceremony when the first two low-floor Flexity Outlook vehicles entered fare service on August 31st. Thousands of people showed up just to ride the new vehicles that day. They are beautiful vehicles -- twice as long as the vehicles they replaced. I wonder if they will remain as popular when riders figure out that transit authorities plan to run the vehicles less often, because each vehicle holds more passengers?
I uploaded the Boston archive images using the flick2commons tool. So, they should really have a human double-check the categories for each one. I have gone through about 60 of the new images, so far.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Pi.1415926535, I see you have recategorized quite a few of recent Boston Archive uploads. That's great. That Flickr2commons upload tool looks like it lets the uploader set individual categories for specific images. But, either I am not using that feature properly, or it currently non-functional.
In general, I will bow to your local knowledge.
  • If the image is from prior to 1923, or the archives specifically states it is PD, I put a PD tag on it.
  • If the flickr image description lists a specific date I update our information templates date field.
  • If the flickr image description lists a department that created the image I update our information templates author field.
It is extra work, you don't need to follow my example -- just letting you know.
It is a big relief that someone else is looking at this categorization.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Huh, I'm surprised you've only been to Boston once. There was a Wikipedia event today at the archives you gathered all these images from, so I assumed you were there. I'll do my best to use local knowledge; I'm pretty knowledgeable about railroads and transit; less so with streets and buildings.
I'm not very skilled with flickr2commons myself; I find it easier to simply add categories etc after uploading. I may go back through at least the transit-related images and add additional categories, edit the descriptions, etc. Right now I'm just trying to make it so I can find the images again easily.
Greater Boston does indeed blend fairly smoothly into the surrounding areas. Boston itself is an oddity among cities - it's only really half the metro area. Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, Malden, and Medford occupy the mirror of Boston on the north side of the Charles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

PCC TTC or are they TTC PCCs[edit]

Just to bring to you attention some inconsistency in the Category:PCC trams in Toronto. I thought you might not have noticed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Vaughan and Steve Munro[edit]

Great picture of Adam, and since it is better than anything else in Commons I have clipped it into an 8X10 format portrait for the infobox File:Adam Vaughn headshot 2014.jpg. There are no pictures of Steve Munro and so I clipped out a tiny piece from Spadina Avenue, when you were both out hunting the new streetcars on their debut File:Steve Munro hunts for a TTC Flexity Outlook.jpg. I was not sure how to license them since there are two different ones, so please fix up anything that may be incorrect. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

File:A guard office, Guantanamo.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:A guard office, Guantanamo.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)‎ | +/−

Buxtehude (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:USS Mitscher (DDG 57)[edit]

The category was not deleted. It was only redirected. There is still here. --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, that is sncorrect User talk:DenghiùComm. It was deleted, and I created a new redirect -- without any knowledge of the possibly valuable past revision history of the deleted category. Geo Swan (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:WWII Army Pack Dog.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:WWII Army Pack Dog.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)‎ | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Military working dog Cchyna in Iraq -a.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Military working dog Cchyna in Iraq -a.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)‎ | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Military working dog Cchyna in Iraq -b.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Military working dog Cchyna in Iraq -b.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)‎ | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Most android devices have built in wifi.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Most android devices have built in wifi.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)‎ | +/−

ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:I am about to select this android device's camera application.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:I am about to select this android device's camera application.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)‎ | +/−

ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Many android devices have webcams that face both to the front and to the back -a.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Many android devices have webcams that face both to the front and to the back -a.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)‎ | +/−

ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Paul M. Lewis (diplomat) 022514094210.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:Paul M. Lewis (diplomat) 022514094210.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) 03:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

DONE - You could have fixed that rather than wasting our time by tagging. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


Canadian Film Center[edit]

PS this is really long you should archive most of it. The Category Category:Paul Haggis has most of the images with no discernable photo? I can't see the images. Perhaps they should be deleted and reloaded as a better .jpg? there is not much there. I am also connecting it to the CFC and removing the duplicate images in the main Cat as I discussed before. WayneRay (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Never mind It was my browser not picking up any images for some reason, sorry. WayneRay (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I hate it when that happens. Geo Swan (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thanks for uploading the free-use licensed photo of Bruce Jessen, I've placed a few crops of just the individual, at Category:Bruce Jessen. Hope that's helpful, -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You may find this video file of interest[edit]

You may find this video file of interest:

File:McCain on Senate Intel Report on Interrogation Methods 12-9-14.ogv

-- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your formatting help, I'm not sure where but perhaps you could find a use for the file somewhere on other wiki pages? -- Cirt (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll do my best. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Pulsadu, Ísafjörður, Iceland.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Pulsadu, Ísafjörður, Iceland.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)‎ | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Second Cup at Jarvis and King[edit]

You'd proposed move:
It has been proposed to move Category:Second Cup at Jarvis and King to Category:Second Cup, Toronto, Jarvis and KIng
I wonder if this is correct - " K I n g "??? Isn't it a typo? Wieralee (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:AY Jackson's Radium Mine.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:AY Jackson's Radium Mine.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)‎ | +/−

Laurelrusswurm (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

File:AY Jackson's Radium Mine -b.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:AY Jackson's Radium Mine -b.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)‎ | +/−

Laurelrusswurm (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2014 (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 [3] ✓ 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.[4] 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.[5]. 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: [6]. 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=
}}