User talk:P. S. Burton

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


New version of File[edit]

hi, thank you very much to his boots that made the changes made by caarl95,, could chiedrle to upload new versions of these files? :)

--95.245.76.109 09:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, please note that the user who wrote to you above is a very well known vandal (this is his last reincarnation), banned indefinitely for violation of copyright and abuse of multiple accounts. I noticed also that you reverted some of my rollbacks of his edits (see here, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] [11]). I made those rollbacks according to COM:PRP since the overwritten versions could violate copyright laws, so, please, consider the idea of reverting your reverts wherever is necessary (that is wherever there is the slightest possibility that the version of the vandal is copyrighted), thank you.--Caarl 95 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I am certain that they all qualify under PD-Art|PD-100 or PD-Art|PD-1923. I do not think it is a good idea to blanket revert like you do. We lose a lot of good material that way.–P. S. Burton (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm a sysop on it.wiki and there he was banned for having written completely invented informations. Here on commons I saw many sysops mass-deleting his uploads or proposing them for deletion, this is the reason why I applied the precautionary principle. I wrote especially because I wanted to inform you that the user who made those uploads is completely unreliable. Stop. If you are sure that those uploads are ok, it's fine for me. Regards.--Caarl 95 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Sidney Webb.jpg[edit]

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

Jcb (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)