User talk:Shizhao

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

File:Lindsay Lohan 2.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

翻译通知:Commons:Copyright tags/General public domain[edit]

嗨!Shizhao,

您收到此通知,是因为您作为一名中文、​简体中文和繁体中文的翻译者在Wikimedia Commons注册了。页面Commons:Copyright tags/General public domain已可供翻译。您可在此翻译:

这个页面有高重要度。


非常感谢您的帮助。像您一样的翻译者正在不断努力帮助Wikimedia Commons成为一个真正多语言的社区。

要取消订阅或更改您的翻译通知设置,请访问Special:TranslatorSignup

谢谢!

Wikimedia Commons翻译协调员‎, 04:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

8joKeaton[edit]

8joKeaton (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

You have recently tagged many of 8joKeaton's uploads for speedy deletion with {{No permission since}} on the basis that they show no evidence for permission. However all those I've looked at clearly do: they're own work photos, with a licence tag added by the uploader. This would be permissible.

There may be questions on some of them as to other copyright issues and whether they may need to be considered as derivative works. Possibly even deleted on that basis. But that would need to be addressed by a DR discussion on each, not a simple speedy deletion, and certainly not one on the false claim that there is no permission claimed.

Can you please explain what your thinking is here? Why you see them as not having permissions? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • But lack of EXIF data is emphatically not a reason for deletion. There is no policy supporting that, the specific question has been raised many times and rejected each time.
Do you have any other reason, one based on policy, for these deletions? And why did you go for an undiscussed speedy deletion over DR, and why did you give a false rationale of 'no permission' ? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reply? I'm concerned that you seem to be bulk-issuing lots of these speedy deletions, and on a false basis. See User talk:Ohmymathematician / File:Zac Harvey, solving Math problems.jpg. This clearly has a claim of authorship and a claimed licence added to it. Yet you have tagged it with {{No permission since}}. Now if you believe the licence or authorship to be false, then that's a reasonable question and you might file a COM:DR over it. But you can't just tag it as speedy deletion with no discussion!
Similarly File:2011年焦糖風通化夜市攤車創始店.jpg Now this is a file of an image that exists online elsewhere, and has two claimed dates for it, both years before upload here. Certainly suspicious. But it's not something that should ever be dealt with by a speedy deletion! For one very obvious thing (which should have been enough to stop you ever filing this!) the image here is 5x bigger than the supposed 'source' image. Yet you're claiming that it's a copyvio by being taken from there! No doubt you have some good reason as to why this is a copyvio despite that, but that's the sort of thing which needs a DR to go into it, not just a false claim of 'no licence'. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you kindly to clarify why you tagged File:Echo tabacco.jpg for missing permission? Permission from who? Thuresson (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Southern armyworm (Spodoptera eridania), eggs 2014-06-06-14.28.04 ZS PMax - USGS BIML.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Southern armyworm (Spodoptera eridania), eggs 2014-06-06-14.28.04 ZS PMax - USGS BIML.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Camper Strike.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 also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: derivative work of Counter Strike Logo
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Bedivere (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Red panda bot[edit]

Your bot has recently been uploading a substantial number of out of scope AI-generated images to Commons, e.g. most recently:

Are you manually approving these uploads? If so, why? (And can you please stop?) Omphalographer (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files like File:Crescent Lake in winter, Oregon - Flickr - Bonnie Moreland (free images).jpg are uploaded without a valid license tag. Perhaps the bot could add {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} if own work? --MGA73 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to need someone else to review it. shizhao (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw File:'Apodemus Sylvaticus Overrun NYC^' - Flickr - Dennis S. Hurd.jpg uploaded by your bot today. It has clear Flickr tags of ai-generated image, artificial intelligence, virtual photography, which your bot reiterates at Commons.
Are you manually reviewing these images? And is it your view that these AI images are useful Commons content, where they've been promoted to Flickr Explore by the Flickr algorithm? Belbury (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imagen review[edit]

Can you please review and approve these images?

Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 15:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]