User talk:MarmadukePercy

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 (direct access). 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 without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: 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?)

Sz-iwbot 04:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello MarmadukePercy!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:LevettsFarm.JPG is uncategorized since 25 November 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:114-Leavitt St. sign, in Hingham, Plymouth Co., MA.jpg is uncategorized since 24 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:HinghamBellTower.jpeg is uncategorized since 24 January 2009. BotMultichillT 05:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:Ellsworth Huntington Mill Spring California 1911.jpg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:H L Mencken Carl Van Vechten.jpg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:Hooker and Company Frederic Edwin Church.jpeg was uncategorized on 19 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry about that. Will attempt to categorize what I've added.MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unknowing of the OTRS stuff here and have rarely seen images managed this way nor have I uploaded or worked with that method of licensing here. The one thing that is a constant here is that images needing OTRS confirmation often get backlogged and it seems to be used more as a suggestion for the administration and other "trusted users" to stop wasting time and abusing responsibility and to do some of the tedious work that their popularity enabled them to do....

This is what I would have done had I encountered the problems you have. I would have downloaded images from the Flickr gallery but uploaded them the same way that used to be successful and without resistance from the systems which are in place here. Since you (or "If you") do have the permission that is required, any person challenging the existence of these images here would possibly also be able to complete the process which possibly would circumvent the backlog problem.

Your problem with these images seems to be software triggered and your lack of problems with previous uploads has to do with not triggering software problems.

And yes, the Creative Commons licenses are somewhat confusing and as a real person uploader, there might be moments when even when you "get it", you didn't briefly. That problem becomes so much more complex when the other licenses get added into the database. The Creative Commons licenses are actually kind of simple when compared to the license (and re-legislated licenses) soup which existed before them. That photographer could ease things by being consistent with the license here and there.

Also, some of the bots (software) working here are their own gradient of intelligence and dependability and often the quality of their output is more of a mirroring of the intelligence of the operator and sometimes of the author. A doctor or a construction company should have some big problems if they remove the wrong organ (in the case of a doctor) or demolish the wrong building (a construction company). Here, so far, there does not seem to be a mechanism to prevent that and even the users that demand/prefer/want to be taken seriously have histories that are contrary to this. But I rant. I miss the days that were not so long ago for me where the environment was that the people not take themselves so seriously but their work/product/output and accomplishments were what was being measured. Especially when compared to their access and enabling.

Sigh. I owe you some rant time. -- carol (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SamuelLincolnHouse.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

-Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2009 (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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:NewNorthChurch.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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Lupo 12:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have given the photographer's e-mail address. I don't see that published on Flickr, so I presume you did have e-mail contact with him. If you have an e-mail in which he agrees to a plain CC-BY-SA license (without the NC part used on Flickr), please forward that whole e-mail exchange to OTRS. Thank you. Lupo 12:27, 29 January 2009 (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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:SamuelLincolnHouse1.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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Lupo 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Lupo 14:01, 29 January 2009 (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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:SamuelLincolnHouseSign.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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Lupo 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be nice if the email, once received, doesn't end up in OTRS pending forever. -- carol (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just forward the e-mails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Mention exactly which file this agreement applies to. If it's just for these three images, point them out: File:NewNorthChurch.jpg, File:SamuelLincolnHouse1.jpg, File:SamuelLincolnHouseSign.jpg. If there are others, point them out, too. If the {{OTRS pending}} tag is not replaced by an OTRS person in due course, contact one of the OTRS people directly. Lupo 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see there was also File:SamuelLincolnHouse.jpg, which someone already deleted. I've restored it now and also marked it as {{OTRS pending}}. BTW, an even simpler way is to get the Flickr photographer to change the license on Flickr to plain CC-BY-SA. If he does that, notify me and I'll tag the files as having passed our Flickr review process. If the license on Flickr is changed to CC-BY-SA, there's no need to go through OTRS. Lupo 20:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see that there are a lot more of these images... really, he easiest is if you get Timothy to change the license at Flickr to plain CC-BY-SA. Otherwise, forward the e-mail permission to OTRS and list all these images. Lupo 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a show which was supposed to be the history of Pixar and some of the problems I saw there seem to overlap some of the problems I see lately in other movies. Instead of being distracted by these thoughts, I thought I would put them here.

I don't think that people care about if a movie is hand-drawn, computer rendered, puppets or real people. It is a combination of a good story told well, knowing who will be in your audience and every person working on it working together and acknowledging each others strengths and flaws.

The verbal telling of the Pixar story, (I have reason to mistrust the faces I saw there and no reason not to mistrust) did not exactly say this, but it seemed as if there were a lot of technicians involved without much background in story-telling. Their first movie (Toy Story) was really good in spite of this however. And due to one of my jobs, I had to see A Bugs Life perhaps 6 and maybe even 8 or 9 times and I liked it. After seeing a movie a few times, it is difficult to not become a critic and it was that first little story of the chess game which I started to become critical of. To me, that the chess board was so lush and the players faces were so flat -- while I loved the lush of the chess board, toning that down would have made the picture easier to look at.

That history also said that Disney shut down their 2d stuff because they thought that people were interested in seeing computer generated animations. It is one dimensional thinking? How can such one dimensional thinkers even know when they see a good dramatic outline or not?

Since then it has been my pleasure to watch Cowboy Bebop, a half an hour series that was imported from Japan. I think the frames were hand drawn and I watched several episodes at first just due to the beauty of the images in it. As I started to comprehend the story, I was as impressed with that. Gorgeous stuff; I still feel my eyes filling with tears for the beauty of this animation. That being said, another animation I really enjoyed which was computer rendered but kind of comically so (or not rendered very well or quite crudely) Lucy, Daughter of the Devil -- the episodes I liked of that show (and I did not like all of them) it didn't matter if they had been rendered or drawn, what was good about it was the funny of the stories.

Hancock is a recent movie that I have to sit back and ask "Who the hell is managing these things?" The first half of this movie was completely awesome and funnier than most, the downside of being an immortal super-hero. Somewhere in the middle it was completely lost -- the story started to appear as if it had not been planned and if it had, it had not been planned by any person with even a slight interest in making stories for theatrical enjoyment. And that claim is being made by a person who had once considered to be employed in that industry and all I did was a little extra work beyond what had been required in high school -- high school! Subject matter for ages 14-18 year olds; not even anything like college or managing a branch of the industry. I will watch the first half of Hancock again for certain. But the second half is too painful to see and makes me seriously question who the hell is managing things: approving the story, scheduling the actors and the technicians, funding it and what made them think they could manage? Me and my sad little self-boosted high school experience seem like an expert in comparison.

And one more thing. The person I met from Mozilla (who resembled the character in the Pixar movie) who I had never heard of before was unable to explain to me some of the basic stuff about actually living in this area that she had lived in and I had recently moved to -- so perhaps this person was an invention of the publishing company who hosted the meeting. None of that has anything to do with it being a good movie. The film cells could have been hand drawn or computer rendered and it would have been a good movie.

Do you have any idea what reason such one dimensional thinkers are running those big companies? I doubt that the goal was to make a person with a background like me look like a freaking genius comparatively.... -- carol (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, like I said I am a complete techno-klutz, and know nothing about how any of the behind-the-scenes technology works. But like you, I feel like I can recognize a decent plot and decent characters, and I certainly know if something grabs me or not. Tron, for instance, was a noble effort, I suppose, but it was a pretty crappy movie. The plot was lame, and the characters even more so. Even the inimitable Jeff Bridges couldn't save that one. So just as you say, one can have all the greatest gizmos and gimgracks in the world, but if it's lacking plot and heart and soul, then what good is it?

I was interested in the animation you mentioned which I'd never heard of. Just for myself, I've found the Japanese stuff far more compelling lately than most all the American animation. I think particularly of "Tokyo Godfathers." Did you see that one? I just loved that film. Also, of course, there was "Spirited Away," a bit more mainstream, but very impressive in the illustration department. Miyazaki can always be counted on for some good illustration, although I wasn't as much a fan of "Howl's Moving Castle."

Are you still working in the tech area then? And was the documentary on Pixar the one that aired recently on Turner Classic Movies? MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have this theory that every large pile of money has an equal amount of lies surrounding it. I also awoke today with the thought that the Pixar history (yes, via Turner Broadcasting) had been filled with lies -- the kind of lies that the always perfect and always socially astute "corporate face" like to tell. And being sorry that I reacted as I did to this yesterday.

I am accomplished enough in the tech world that it will be more interesting to watch the lies that are told by that perfect corporate face fail and fail and fail. Do you lie to yourself while you grab some money/value which is not yours and not pay the people who actually did the accomplishment enough to live where they work? If not, in theory, you should be safe.

Thank you for your recommendations. TiVO and Amazon recommendations suck. What a waste of perfectly good pixels and scanlines.... -- carol (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think you'll really enjoy Tokyo Godfathers. A really offbeat work with extraordinary graphics, and, in my opinion, much better than the same creator's later Paprika, which although it had some interesting graphics, wasn't nearly so involving on the plot and character level (at least to me). I also noted your comment about 'every large pile of money having an equal amount of lies surrounding it.' You sure have that right. Along those lines, you might be interested in my contribution to today's DYK. [1] If this New Yorker writer were alive today, he would relish the chance to reveal many of the lies in today's financial world, from Bernard Madoff on down.... Take care and enjoy your weekend! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using flickr to upload images, make sure they are licensed on Flickr as either 'Attribution Creative Commons' like this: [2] OR 'Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons' like this: [3]

Flickr images with a "Non-Commercial" or "No-Derivatives" restriction aren't allowed on Commons. You can always contact a flickr owner to see if he/she will change the license of an image to one of these 2 options. If not, OTRS is the only other option. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Regards,[reply]

Okay, many thanks for the advice! MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One important word of advice. Before you upload a flickr image which is NOT licensed as 'cc by 2.0' or 'cc by sa 2.0' (the 2 license options I mentioned above), first contact the flickr owner to get him/her to change the license before you upload it here on Commons. Only upload the image on Commons after the license has been changed. It will save you a lot of grief! I have always uploaded images this way and never had any rejected by flickr review because the Admin or flickr review bot can tell right away that the flickr image is licensed freely. Once the image is approved on Commons, only then do I use it in a Wikipedia article and notify the flickr owner of its use. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2009 (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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HinghamBellTower.jpeg. 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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Stifle (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:OldBuryingGroundHingham.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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Stifle (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (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 may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:FirstMeetingHouse.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). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Stifle (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the OTRS permission was valid only for exactly three images. If you want to keep the earlier uploads that are still CC-BY-NC-SA, I'd suggest switching all of them to plain CC-BY-SA-2.0 at Flickr, too. Or send a followup to OTRS explaining that Timothy's permission also applied to these earlier uploads. But frankly said, switching the licenses at Flickr to a truly free one is simpler.

By the way, many of these are great photos. I have enjoyed immensely watching them! Kudos to the photographer! Lupo 23:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Tim says that he has changed all the licenses now in his Hingham images -- the images I'm using, and some of which I've suggested that he photograph. This is an on-going collaboration, struck up through Flickr. So he and I will be working together for awhile to get his lovely images onto Wikipedia. I'm so glad you enjoyed them. I think he's a very gifted photographer who now happens to be doing social work. Many thanks for your help. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Valentine (the creator of all these lovely images), some of which he has photographed at my suggestion (this is a collaborative effort), has now changed all the licenses at Flickr to permit sharing, so I assume this will pass muster. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to put a link to the flickr image on each of the image pages here at Commons, then add the template {{Flickrreview}}. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you please stop posting Mr. Valentine's e-mail address on each upload? I doubt that he would like to receive tons of spam as the result of his generous release of these images... Lupo 23:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I did stop posting it on the last few images, after I realized my mistake. Thanks again for your help. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I affix that template even to images from the same photographer that have already been cleared by OTRS? (Some images the photographer took at my request and emailed to me, along with permission. He subsequently posted some of those to his Flickr page.) Thanks.MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, anything cleared by OTRS doesn't need any more work. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder why you upload images first to your flickr account and then to Commons. Why not directly uploading images here. Uploading them to Commons and giving flickr as the source only breaks the source chain to the original source, in fact your images are unsourced.

• File:Yankee Coast Coffin.jpg is a book cover. The Flicker user is not the author, the author is the book publisher. A correct source is Book name, publisher, year, ISBN, scanned by... or something like that. The book cover is not licensed under cc-by-sa by the copyright holder I assume, so whats the correct copyright status?
• File:Phillips Exeter view.jpg, this image is not published on flickr but comes from a library, a source information about the original source is missing...

You can not create sources by uploading images to your flickr account, close this account and correct the sources. --Martin H. (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Initially I opened my Flickr account so as to resolve issues on bmp images that had to be converted, and I was told by Commons staffer User:Pieter Kuiper that that was the most efficient manner of doing so. With the latest images, I was trying to find a way to edit the image and I couldn't figure out a way to do that on Commons. From my long history of uploading images onto Commons, it is apparent that I am straightforward and always credit the source. The source for these images is the New York Public Library Digital Collection. I can certainly credit them. As I say, if you look at all my images, I am always very careful to credit the source. But if one wants to edit an image (crop it, etc.) how does one do that when one uploads to Commons? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above comment back here. Of course, or regretably, it is not possible to edit images on Commons directly, you have to do this on your computer or, if you want, you can use flickr as the source. But that not mades flickr the source, only a software you use. You may add "retouched by MarmadukePercy" to the source or author field. Commons hosts ~37,000 images from the nypl, so a lot of examples, File:Alexander Anderson.jpg is a good and simple example image. --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for letting me know. As you can probably tell, I'm not the most proficient person at technology. I will try to edit these images in the future on my computer. I knew that some images from the New York Public LIbrary were on Commons, but in the past I've had trouble locating some of them because they weren't tagged in a way I could find them. Is there a central repository on Commons for them and an easy way to find them? Many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most images from the New York Public Library are collected in Category:Images from the New York Public Library, User:Dcoetzee made a batch upload for this images. Searching in such a large category is impossible, so you should use the search. E.g. your upload File:Phillips Exeter view.jpg is from NYPL Image ID G91F006_015F, the permalink is on the NYPL website bottom right: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?G91F006_015F, thats a good source link. If you want to look if this image already is on Commons you may search for "G91F006" or "G91F006_015F" or some other terms like Philips Exeter Academ. I marked the images from Flickr with the harmles Template:Bsr, while editing them i added this images to my watchlist and will also try to correct the source or assist you if I see that you have any problems. --Martin H. (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all your help and explanation. Sorry to have created any confusion. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks :) File:Yankee Coast Coffin.jpg is left. The Creative Commons license from Flickr is incorrect, so I removed it. I cant find a reason for this beeing public domain, per COM:L#United States, the copyright records show results for the book, so without knowing what exactly is covered by the copyright record I can not determine the copyright status. Also the NYPL not says something about the copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, many thanks for helping walk me through this. I was wondering if I might try writing someone at Macmillan (assuming they still exist), and asking if I might reuse the image from the book cover? It's probably the only approach I know at this point, and as you say, the copyright status does appear unclear. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just one further question. Is it okay to use Flickr to crop and edit, as long as one attributes the source directly (instead of to Flickr), and if one makes the notation that the image has been modified? I want to do things correctly, and if it's better instead to do that function on my computer instead of Flickr, I'll do that. Thanks for letting me know. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is ok, you can also add your flickr as a secondary source and write this with e.g. "retouched by user... on flickr, ''[http://flickr.com/xyz name of the flickr image]''". I can imagine so many reasons to do this: the possibility to edit images there, maybe it is interesting or helpful for other reasons, you can compare images on Flickr in sets without having them uploaded here, you can tell a story, link to personal information, write personal opinions or add personal notes, simply promote your flickr account... and many more. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for letting me know. I found personally that it is particularly useful for these images like the postcard that need cropping and editing, especially for the technologically-challenged amongst us. :-) Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have over-uploaded image with full resolution, but as I have noticed you did some colour tweaking over small size image, please do the same with big resolution image if you think it is necessary. --Justass (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case if you ever will need to upload another image from mainememory.net or any other website that uses Zoomify technology (like [4]) please read Help:Zoomable_images#Zoomify, there is a nice tutorial how to get full size images --Justass (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daniel Coit Gilman1.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） ∙ +/−

--Jujutacular (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks for the crops and other fixes on the images I've uploaded.

the cropbot makes it easy. The image can appear in you Gallery again if you "Upload a new version of this file" i.e minor tweaking (ibid)

- Dogears (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you uploaded a new version of this file File:H L Mencken Carl Van Vechten.jpg, but in brightening it, you also reduced the size of the image substantially. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the smaller size. I redid the larger version, too, and have just uploaded it. Meant to do this last night but got distracted. Cheers.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're doing, but look at the new image you uploaded. It's significantly degraded. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed the poor quality, too; which is why I initially used the smaller version. Well, I'm sparingly using Photoshop Elements simply to brighten the image and saving it at the highest possible resolution. It may be that the original was a relatively low-rez jpg scan that wasn't noticable because of the darkness. I'll try a .tif or .raw conversion and see if that helps. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, because the quality of the photograph is becoming significantly impaired. At this point, the original looks as good. MarmadukePercy (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to the discussion page related to the file.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo was taken in 1957, then it was published after that and is not in PD in Japan per the licence (must be published before December 31st 1956)? feydey ^(talk) 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it was taken in 1957. If you'll check the history of the file, you'll see that that was added by an unidentified IP. The original has no date on it, and I believe it dates from before 1956. MarmadukePercy (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Information about your participation was put in original upload log. However I for clearness added information to description file.

--PawełMM (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change it back if you wish. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winston_Churchill_H_M_Bateman.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） ∙ +/−

113.73.126.239 14:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for your uploads, but could you please also categorize the file with the museum category? Like Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago? --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I had just started doing that when I get your message. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It's just so difficult to do that afterwards, and so easy to do while mass-uploading (or shortly after, as I also usually do these things). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you on that. Lately I've been moving around in so many different image banks that sometimes I have to remember which ones have their own categories, and which ones not. But I agree with you, it's much easier to do at the time. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you! --84.74.80.40 11:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

File:John_Prinsep's_contract_coinage_Calcutta_mint.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） ∙ +/−

RE rillke questions? 09:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MarmadukePercy. You have new messages at 208.81.184.4's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

File:Thaddeus_Goode_Holt_Peeler_House_Macon_Georgia_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.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） ∙ +/−

Ben.MQ (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment is incorrect, and is based on a misreading of the original Library of Congress entry. Please see the discussion on the deletion page. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I looked up her article and didn't see that see was a government officer so I thought it was tagged wrongly. I wasn't being careful enough. Sorry again.--Ben.MQ (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Interior Abingdon Church White Marsh Gloucester County Virginia by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Lymantria (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. It's there now. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Builders_of_Ships_George_Wesley_Bellows_1916.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） ∙ +/−

Fæ (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weehawken_Sequence_John_Marin.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） ∙ +/−

Teofilo (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the information on this is wrong. It isn't a "copy of a painting". It's a "painting" or a "photo of a painting" (but you hardly need to tell people that a photo is a photo.)

Most importantly, the church it represents doesn't appear to be St Mary's, and the date certainly isn't 1900. I can't access the details.

Amandajm (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to be uncivil. How does one tell a person very politely that all the information is wrong? I tried to see it at the source (the B-St-E history site) but could only access the picture without its details. I presume that you copied whatever information they provided. If so, it would be good to let them know that it is wrong. Amandajm (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been trying to dig some more info on your upload File:Title page of Herodotus' history of the Greek and Persian Wars 1502.jpg and make use of it for some articles like Aldine Press, Matteo Maria Boiardo and 1502. But it appears there is some error with the publishing date, which seems to be 1533. See: this and this. Any thoughts? Nice upload. Love old books. Regards --Codrin.B (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brush-EverardHouse.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.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

Missvain (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brush-EverardHouse.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） ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may well have worked this out by now, but a bunch of your uploads have {{Int:summary}} where they should have {{Int:filedesc}}. The former says (in English) "Edit summary:", the latter says "Summary". It's the latter that belongs in most file descriptions. - Jmabel ! talk 06:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vivian_Leigh_Laurence_Olivier_Hamlet.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） ∙ +/−

Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:D H Lawrence passport photograph.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

Rrburke (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of John Phillips.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） ∙ +/−

Infrogmation (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2012 (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） ∙ +/−

Prosfilaes (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2012 (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:Lady Frances Gresley 1924.jpg

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (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） ∙ +/−

Dcoetzee (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samuel Johnson by Joseph Nollekens 1777.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） ∙ +/−

moogsi (blah) 02:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is ready. Penyulap ☏ 10:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Posters covering a building near Lynchburg to advertise a Downie Bros. circus.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） ∙ +/−

Vera (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walker Evans, Posters covering a building to advertise a Downie Bros. circus, Lynchburg, South Carolina, 1936.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） ∙ +/−

Vera (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akira Kurosawa directing.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） ∙ +/−

Masur (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akira Kurosawa on the set.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） ∙ +/−

Masur (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]