User talk:Pasicles

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Pasicles!

-- 19:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:All out of horse burgers - Tesco supermarket - 8 February 2013.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:All out of horse burgers - Tesco supermarket - 8 February 2013.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

File:The Flying Dutchman by Charles Temple Dix.jpg[edit]

Hallo, here is the painting in large (2000px) from this source. Your other Charles Temple Dix - painting is verry blurry in the second version. greetings --Botaurus (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the sothebys link. Yeah I know that other Charles Temple Dix picture (here) is blurry in the second version - but there was apparently some sort of hidden digital watermark in the first one and I thought it prudent to replace it, even though the replacement is poorer quality. Pasicles (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I can‘t see a watermark. Or you mean the Exif-data? --Botaurus (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The long and pompous EXIF data of the original image states: "This image is protected with a secure invisible digital watermark that allows the Public Catalogue Foundation to identify unauthorized use of the image." It all sounds pretty stupid to me - it's only an 800x520 pixel image afterall. There's no overt indication on the BBC's website that their paintings might be protected in this way. But since a "secure invisible digital watermark" might I suppose be under copyright, I thought I'd better use the blurry alternative. Pasicles (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:All out of horse burgers - Tesco supermarket - 8 February 2013.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:All out of horse burgers - Tesco supermarket - 8 February 2013.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


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

russavia (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Pendeen House - geograph.org.uk - 3378191 cropped.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | 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 | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Pendeen House - geograph.org.uk - 3378191 cropped.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. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. 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) 11:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I accidentally deleted the geograph license template. Fixed. Pasicles (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Frances.jpg[edit]

Please don't overwrite existing images with cropped versions. Full-size images may still be useful so you should always upload a cropped image as a new file. Regards, De728631 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Curious, I've never seen this one before. You're right of course, but I've seen lots and lots of cropping of images going on commons without anyone ever reverting like this. It's such a shame the "derivative file" tool on Commons:Upload, is no longer available - that used to make life a lot easier when uploading alternative versions. Just out of interest - what if I wanted to lighten an image or some other minor adjustment, would I have to upload a new file then? Pasicles (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Frances.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)