User talk:Storye book/Archive 5

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

File:Moses Humberstone.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for cropping the picture. I tried to use it with Wikidata Crop but it kept saying that the item did not exist even though it did exist. ミラP 20:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the category on the original file. I simply downloaded the full-sized image and cropped it using my usual cropping tool. Please would you kindly add the new image to the Wikidata? I don't know how to do that. Than we can remove the cropping template from the original image file. Thanks. Storye book (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done To add an image to a Wikidata item, press "add statement", type "image" in property, click "image", type the image name without the "File:" prefix, find that image, press the enter key, and you're ready to go. ミラP 03:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! But my goodness, the wikidata editing process is byzantine, isn't it. I'll make a note of your explanation and will use it gratefully. Thanks again. Storye book (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Copyright status: File:John Crossley.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:John Crossley.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 VRT 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 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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It was just a format error (two missing braces). It already had full information including licence. Storye book (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:017675-W.E. Harker Ltd Grainger Street Newcastle upon Tyne Unknown 1967.jpg

[edit]
File:017675-W.E. Harker Ltd Grainger Street Newcastle upon Tyne Unknown 1967.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on deletion nomination page. Storye book (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:022218-Masons' Hall Grainger Street Central Newcastle Upon Tyne 1971.jpg

[edit]
File:022218-Masons' Hall Grainger Street Central Newcastle Upon Tyne 1971.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on deletion nomination page. Storye book (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Copyright status: File:060856-Grainger Street Newcastle upon Tyne Ermel Trevor 1995.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:060856-Grainger Street Newcastle upon Tyne Ermel Trevor 1995.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 VRT 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 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.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : A1Cafel.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one can be deleted. Storye book (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Copyright status: File:Burley Grange watercolour.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Burley Grange watercolour.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 VRT 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 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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (It was a copy and paste error - oops). Storye book (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda Annetta Walker

[edit]

Hello. I'm afraid many, if not all of the works in Category:Hilda Annetta Walker are unsuitable for Commons. If Walker died in 1960—only 60 years ago—her works are still copyrighted in their country of origin for another decade. Some images published before 1925, or otherwise satisfying US public domain rationale, might be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia (use PD-US-expired-abroad). Alternately, a select few works of note might be uploaded locally in limited circumstances provided non-free content criteria is satisfied. It looks like you've put a good deal of effort into uploading works by Walker, and in crafting the article on Walker, but I don't see how they can be kept on Commons, at least not under the incorrect PD-old-70-1923 rationale. You can inquire with specific questions at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and advice. I shall deal with it in the manner you suggest within the next few days, all being well. I shall have to do a few checks first to establish exactly where each image stands, copyright-wise. I should add that there are some images in the category which were not created by Hilda Walker, so the tag that you have placed on the category does not apply to those. Storye book (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Some of the images have now been moved to English Wikipedia here. Some images are OK to stay on Commons. I now just need to check the job for errors, and mark some of the Commons files for deletion as appropriate. Thank you for your patience with this. Storye book (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: As far as I am aware, the task is now completed. Thank you, Animalparty for your advice. Storye book (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Copyright status: File:1904-07-12 front Barons Pond Acton.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:1904-07-12 front Barons Pond Acton.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 VRT 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 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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 18:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Storye book (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Naturalists' Union (Q60524039)

[edit]

Hi, Storye book, having created the Category:Yorkshire Naturalists' Union, I noticed you created Category:Yorkshire Naturalists Union. I'll leave it up to you which version you think is better. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have now moved the contents from "my" category to your new one. Your punctuation is far superior! Storye book (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: taking a loot at wikidata sometimes does miracles. :-) Lotje (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Storye book (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops!

[edit]

Sorry about that. I was sorting the category and it got caught in the wrong place. Thanks for noticing! --Cart (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Keep up the good work! Storye book (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving my license

[edit]

I follow the way the Upload Wizard does it.

This advice on the location of the license in permission is spurious, I have never experienced accidental deletion of a license by the int:license-header section, far from it. In this particular case you uploaded the artwork in question just over a year and a half ago , without using the Artwork template, and giving no credit to artist, and then capped it of with an insufficient licence (no 1923). In other words uploading with less than the bare minimum of what was ideally required, then pontificating to me that your reversion is a tidy up!!

The previous time you did it there were aeven more shortcomings than that! Broichmore (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have experienced the accidental removal of a licence by editors who see fit to put the categories in alphabetical order. One of them did it repeatedly, was blocked, and is now back again. I was just being careful. I have no objection to the artwork template, and I also understand that it is OK not to use it. I have no wish to pick a fight with the alphabetical-order-obsessed editor, but I think there is no harm in letting other editors know that if they see categories being put into alphabetical order then it's worth checking that the licence is still there. We are all here to improve WP, including both of us. So peace and love. Storye book (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Memorial Queensbury

[edit]

Hi Sb, Your giving the impression that Milnes had a direct hand in this engraving. It's a wood engraving not a litho. Where is the proof that Eli, even supplied a sketch, the ILN would have given him credit for that, but didn't.

This ILN graphic is certainly not a technical drawing, fit for a mason to work from. Eli might have designed the monument and obviously made plans for it, but that's disconnected from a rough general view, which is what the ILN drawing is. An engraving (1/6th of page size) made from a sketch of the erected monument, which was their MO. I'm sorry I doubt that you can claim more than that. Broichmore (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest. The artistic origins and intentions of this monument and its news articles are an interesting subject. Your link only works indirectly for me, so for my own reference I'll put my own link here: Illustrated London News 18 July 1863, p.13 (orig.69).
I agree that the image is not a technical drawing, and Milnes would certainly have supplied those. However he would also have supplied a layman's view of the intended design for the customer, and architects certainly provided view-type sketches to show their intentions for the sculptors' use - but these were never quite like the result, because you can't entirely plan a sculpture on a flat piece of paper. A sculpture grows as you work it. The best architects for this set of sculptors were people like Brodrick and Corson for secular work, and they made a point of giving the sculptors as much leeway as possible, in order to get the best out of them. So I believe that what we have here is a speculative engraving, created in advance of the work.
There are several indications of the changes which occurred in advance of the sculptural work. One is that the ultimate details of the figures changed here and there. The figure on the right, "Fine Art" is holding what ought to be a palette (but is it a plate?), and is leaning on a bust of Prince Albert. However, in the engraving her hair is visible, whereas in the finished work she is wearing a fairly bulky head-wrap or scarf. See image 21 and image 16. The figure on the left of the engraving is Industry. In the engraving she has a close hairdo with a ringlet on one side, whereas in the finished work she has big hair with an obvious star at the front. See image 7. The author of the engraving is highly skilled and clearly an accomplished artist, and they were producing an image containing important symbolic figures. I think it is unlikely that they would have been lazy or careless about those points.
An important artistic aspect is that an architect can only instruct the sculptors so far; he/she has to allow them a lot of leeway because everybody does faces differently, and also a sculpture has to work from all angles, and any adjustment at one point may require balancing adjustments all around. Also a sculptor will have developed their own style, and there is no point in dictating a different style. It so happens that these figures are by Charles Mawer. He was an imitator par excellence, and he could have copied the engraving's rather wraith-like and feminine shapes and drapey attitudes, but he didn't. His young-female faces are as always - a smooth and saint-like version of Victorian ideal beauty (that's how we know it's not Catherine Mawer (who did the opposite), and not William Ingle who didn't do people). His figures are really rather Junoesque too. I can't believe that that very skilled engraver would misrepresent Charles' solid figures and get the hairdos so wrong.
As for the ILN not saying who did the engraving - well they probably didn't know because their information is second hand. They got a lot of it directly, and in places word-for-word, from the Building News, Leeds Intelligencer and Leeds Mercury of May 1863, printed two months before the ILN article. Those publications would have got the architectural details directly from the architect, as was normal practice. Time after time you see C19 journalists at church consecrations copying out the architect's own information word-for-word before attending the beanfeast, where they copy down the first speeches but tail off after a few libations. If only architects and engineers would provide that stuff now and if only the journos would reproduce it at length and so faithfully.
I'll check through those previous publications to see whether they reproduced the same engraving and credited it. You never know. You are right that I don't yet have the type of authorial evidence for the engraving that you are looking for. I am responding to usual practice for that era, and to usual architect-sculptor relationships. Storye book (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is interesting. The thing is, the ILN had a large wood cut engraving office and this would have been given to a junior apprentice for sculpting. The size of the block is the reason the palette looks like a plate. They obviously did it from a sketch, from one of their many part time contributors. Possibly Eli, but if they did I feel they would have most certainly given him attribution. They bent over backwards to give out attribution.
For technical reasons, they would have cut their own block. These people were (cutting edge) state of the art in comparison to other printers of their time. Considering how fast they worked, they didn't need to worry about using blocks from other sources. Cutting all their own block maintained the even look of the paper. Prof of that is there are no non-sequitur parts of any page.
As for accuracy, I can show you absolute howlers. Their engravings were constrained by the quality of the sketch, I have many examples of sketches that were used. Very often there was a two stage process, where one staff member would re-draw the image for another to sculpt.
If you want to write an article I can e-mail you the ILN text, no problem.
With the best will in the world, I really think the best you can say here, is, as you say elsewhere: Albert Memorial fountain, Queensbury, West Yorkshire, England. Designed by Eli Milnes (1830-1899) of Bradford. Completed by May 1863. Stone carving by Mawer & Ingle. Unless you can find this particular image from an earlier source, even then the ILN would have copied it. Broichmore (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, but if they made mistakes with the figures, the engraver would certainly have made mistakes with the crocketing, capitals and so on. But they didn't. That bit was William Ingle's job, and his work matches the drawing. That type of decoration is more traditional on the face of it, and less controversial than a standing figure. Ingle did mess around and include little jokes or things to make you smile, but they were always too much hidden to show up on a drawing like that. It would have been much easier for the engraver to cut corners with the (from a distance) repetitive decoration than with the symbolic attributes of the figures of Fine Art and Industry. So I don't buy it that it's an illustration of the finished piece. If they didn't want to pay someone to go out from London to Queensbury, or Bradford to Queensbury, and sketch from life, then it would have been so easy to ask for Milnes' original drawing to be sent for copying.
Thank you for discovering Joseph Frederic Weedon - a great help. There are loads more of his pictures out there, to be added to Commons. I have added the category "Bigamists" to Commons in his honour. Storye book (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Copyright status: File:George Eward Lynch Cotton, Bishop of Calcutta.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:George Eward Lynch Cotton, Bishop of Calcutta.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 VRT 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 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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 23:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One brace was missing (typo), otherwise it was all there. Storye book (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Copyright status: File:Olantigh (1).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Olantigh (1).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 VRT 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 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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (copy and past error). Storye book (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hornby Visitor Centre Margate 2743166 debf2e21.jpg

[edit]
File:Hornby Visitor Centre Margate 2743166 debf2e21.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 10:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Storye book (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Demolition of All Saints - geograph-3824154-by-Dave-Kelly.jpg

[edit]
File:Demolition of All Saints - geograph-3824154-by-Dave-Kelly.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!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

bjh21 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Yes, delete. This is a duplicate. Storye book (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


ID of some of your images

[edit]
  • Stachys palustris, not Stachys officinalis
    Stachys palustris, not Stachys officinalis
  • dito
    dito
  • dito
    dito
  • Cirsium arvense, not Centaurea nigra
    Cirsium arvense, not Centaurea nigra
  • Cirsium arvense
    Cirsium arvense
  • Cirsium arvense (illustration)
    Cirsium arvense (illustration)
  • Centaurea nigra (illustration)
    Centaurea nigra (illustration)
  • Centaurea nigra
    Centaurea nigra
  • Lathyrus pratensis, not Lotus corniculatus
    Lathyrus pratensis, not Lotus corniculatus
  • Lotus corniculatus
    Lotus corniculatus
  • Lotus corniculatus (illustration)
    Lotus corniculatus (illustration)
  • Lathyrus pratensis
    Lathyrus pratensis
  • Lathyrus pratensis (illustration)
    Lathyrus pratensis (illustration)
  • possibly some kind of chamomile, but not a Leucanthemum species
    possibly some kind of chamomile, but not a Leucanthemum species
  • the grass is Dactylis glomerata, not Festuca rubra
    the grass is Dactylis glomerata, not Festuca rubra
  • Achillea millefolium agg., not Filipendula ulmaria
    Achillea millefolium agg., not Filipendula ulmaria
  • probably something from the Apiaceae family, such as Anthriscus sylvestris; not a buttercup
    probably something from the Apiaceae family, such as Anthriscus sylvestris; not a buttercup

Hello Storye book/Archive 5, I just corrected the IDs of some of your plant images (see above). I added some images for comparison for some of the plants. If you need further explanation, please just ask me here or on my talk page. I am also going to correct en:Acaster South Ings accordingly. With best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Robert Flogaus-Faust. Thank you so much for your very helpful work on this. It is much appreciated - and your work on the Acaster South Ings article too. Storye book (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Storye_book/Archive_5&oldid=589848194"