User talk:Ianmacm

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

You may want to take a look at this. This isn't some kind of random speculation, either; it has been tested in court. You might be able to get away with it, but that's not what we're about. HTH, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(And by the way, I was referring to the general principle of photographs of toys being derivative works; but as it happens, at least one case I know of specifically involving Barbie has ended up in court; as far as I recall they got away with a fair use defense (and we don't allow fair use images here). It's worth nothing that Mattel actively pursue people posting photographs on the Web, too. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet))

It is well known that Mattel gets annoyed about parodies of Barbie, and several of these occasions are mentioned in the Wikipedia article. However, when taken literally the argument about any photograph of Barbie being a derivative work would make it almost impossible to illustrate the article adequately. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this situation? --Ianmacm (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Upload it under fair use at your local wiki. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:P2052781.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） ∙ +/−

84.62.204.7 13:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twitter 2012 logo.svg 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） ∙ +/−

Kelapstick (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Stuart-hall-IKO.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Stuart-hall-IKO.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

LGA _talk^edits 07:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't upload this, I only edited the colour balance. You will have to take it up with the original uploader User:Liftarn.--Ianmacm (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you read my reply and re-read my nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fingering close-up.jpg, please? I think you entirely missed the point of the nomination. --Conti|✉ 17:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Obvious troll.jpeg. 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.

-- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you have probably noticed, this is a derivative work of File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (cropped).jpg. Please feel free to make any necessary adjustments.--Ianmacm (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for fixing the image page! :) No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ianmacm, I have added the information template and categories to the image. If you could possibly add categories to your uploads in future that would be great -- Hotcat is available in your preferences, and is a great utility (our version is better than that on enwp) for such things. Cheers, russavia (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ianmacm, now that the drama on Commons is over, I thought I would send you a quick note to say that as much as I have zero tolerance for trolls, I lol'ed at your derivative of the Pricasso painting. And as much as I can attest to the fact that I was not involved in any trolling with that file and video (as I know you wouldn't be saying the artist was trolling), satire is great, and I have added the file to User:Russavia/userboxes/trolls. Nice one! russavia (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pity in all of this is that if Pricasso had done a self portrait and released all of the rights to it, it could have been used in an article about him without any real problems. The image and video will almost certainly never be shown on the English language Wikipedia, because of Jimbo's belief that it was intended to harass and troll him. Wikipedia is not 4chan or Encylopedia Dramatica, where fun and games are the order of the day. Pricasso's unusual painting technique is fine when he is hired for parties or events to paint subjects who are in on the joke, but if any living person (Jimbo or otherwise) strongly objected, it is unlikely that the image or video would be used in an encyclopedia article on en.wp, as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons would apply.--Ianmacm (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'd like to say that I think the usage does go a bit past what is funny, I'm not going to cause any fuss, especially with the two of you (Russ and Jim) being so evenly matched, but I don't like it. Don't like as in my opinion is meaningless by policy standards, but I just wanted to say, like, there are funnier things out there. There is a galaxy of comedy out there, plenty of universes of comedy (believe me I live in one of them far removed from this one). I think it would make me smile and take my hat off if you two (Ian and Russ) went and explored the world of comedy a bit further away from Jim, OR further from potty humour. OK, yes, I have made some very agreeable joke images with Jim, and I have no evidence whatsoever that Jim has any sense of humour about it at all, but I measure by what a reasonable person would think of it, and I'm not sure that a reasonable person would always have a sense of humour about these new works. I don't 'get' the Troll one for example. I do love it when people DO have the ability to laugh, with us, at themselves, but not everyone can. That said, do as you will, cause I don't know how much of what Jim does is acting and theatre for the crowds. I haven't ever 'seen inside him' very much, like I do with so many friends I have here. I guess my own rule of thumbs are 'if I wouldn't say it about myself, I shouldn't say it about someone else' and 'if you have to use potty humour, then you weren't funny in the first place' and same with 'if you have to tease someone, then it wasn't funny in the first place'. I look forward to seeing humour from you guys that is a bit further away from the current subjects.

OK, well, I said my peace and I am glad that I did. Now don't worry to listen to me, everyone knows I'm a bit sentimental and all that. Happy editing. Penyulap ☏ 14:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I enjoy Internet jokes and japes, I would not have agreed to a portrait of me by Pricasso appearing on Wikipedia. The issue of consent and personality rights should have been considered more carefully here. As the more sensible contributors to the deletion debate pointed out, if the sole purpose of the image/video is to show what a Pricasso portrait looks like, it is not necessary to upset or annoy a living person while doing it. When all of the fuss from this has died down, Pricasso might want to consider doing a self portrait, which is what several people suggested.--Ianmacm (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, if it was a portrait of me, I'd find it a bit funny, but not very much that's for sure. I would have killed the whole row stone cold dead by thanking the artist for their efforts and saying it's a lovely portrait and quite funny, and that would be the end of it. I've been painted by friends before, and treasure those artworks, but I don't think I'd be interested in a stranger's efforts unless I met and liked the person.

As for Jimmy's response, I have no idea if he was trying to blow it up into a drama and use it as a blowtorch or not, I can't figure him. I could understand blowing it up and then directing it at policy change, but that wasn't the direction he pointed it, I can't figure why. If he did that, it would take out that image along with a load of other similar images of other people in a snap. By trying to take out just his own image he outraged many people who hate two tiered rules, and gave Russavia what he wanted, a memorable exit rather than a slow progress of the hounding and bullying he was getting over there. (my assumptions, sorry if I am wrong guys, you know me, I just talk crap all day long). Penyulap ☏ 15:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen on his website, Pricasso mostly does private commissions, parties and live events. There is a *huge* difference between this and painting someone who did not ask/want to be painted, and then posting the results on the web where millions of people can see it, and from where it will be impossible to remove once posted. This is just common sense.--Ianmacm (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's a bit dramatic, there are a dozen ways to remove the image if you know how. I haven't seen the guy's website, I looked at the media services for the country and they cannot get enough of the guy. Did he paint the Queen of England ? I can't recall, I think he'd be a dramawhore to put food on the table and paint a few example works of actually popular people so people could judge his work. No point painting nobodies and then showing that to potential clients as they can't judge if he is any good. Any artist knows this. Penyulap ☏ 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg JKadavoor Jee 08:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would not recommend this so soon after the previous keep vote, as it would lead only to a rerun of the same arguments. Also, what matters here is Commons guidelines, which are usually interpreted as "OMG, deleting anything with a penis would cause civilisation to end". Jimbo's wishes have been noted, and the image is unlikely to turn up on the English language Wikipedia. If it did, it would likely be removed.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obvious troll.jpeg 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） ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billboard Death Certificate.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） ∙ +/−

Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Stanley O'Neal - Merrill EX-CEO on C-SPAN cropped.PNG

Yours sincerely --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the original uploader of this image. I cropped it, then tweaked the colour, brightness etc. The original version is here. Also, I'm not an expert on whether C-SPAN images are PD, and would have to be guided by other people on this.--Ianmacm (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Erich von Däniken 04.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Erich von Däniken 04.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

MiguelAlanCS (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the uploader of this image, I have simply edited the colour balance. The original version was uploaded in 2017 and I haven't investigated the license for this image.--Ianmacm (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]