User talk:Adeletron 3030/Archive 7

You want to delete three pictures of mine

Hello, I don't know why you want to delete three pictures of mine, I've already sent the emails for declaring that there is no copyright violation and others members approved the pictures I've made with my phone. As I can see, you like to delete pictures even without getting more informations. I ask you to pay more attention. Thank you. --Fliv (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Fliv--Fliv (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you answer, while you continue to tag and delete my pictures? Please stop! Fliv (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fliv I’ve explained the reasons for tagging with each request. I’vs been responding to your messages in your talk page and in the deletion discussions because you’re more likely to see them there. My suggestion is to actually engage in the discussions instead of leaving messages in user talk pages. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Kashmir Avengers.png logo

I don't understand why there is a copyright violation on my work? Antonygrizmen1 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Antonygrizmen1 The logo image appears to come from https://www.facebook.com/TheKashmirAvengersFC/. If it's the official logo of a team, the copyright belongs to the team. If you're representing the team and editing the Wikipedia page, you should make that clear. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

well thanks for your time I appriciate your work but I don't know where to do that i mean that's true I represent the team and i'm new here so please can you guide me how to do that, how to make thing clear and right

Thanks. Antonygrizmen1 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Antonygrizmen1 You can follow the directions at COM:VRT/CONSENT to show that you own the rights to the logo. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks i've sent the email can you please remove the violation mark now ? Antonygrizmen1 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the photo

Hi Ytoyoda,

Thank you for your kind reminder! I have undone the editing of adding the photo. I apologize that I did not find out the copyright details of the photo. Wish you have a great day!

Julie 27.33.90.186 00:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Golf ball and toy.jpg

Yours sincerely, Lord Belbury (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Gobernador Jorge Arturo Dip Calderon.jpg

Hola! Vi que has marcado la imagen File:Gobernador Jorge Arturo Dip Calderon.jpg para ser borrada por no tener licencia libre. Sin embargo los lineamientos del Gobierno de Chile establecen que el contenido de sus plataformas "deberá ser publicado para licencia creative commons de atribución", conforme a la ordenanza 112/14 del ministerio de la secretaría general de gobierno de la república de Chile. Te dejo el link, está en la página 2, letra f. http://web.archive.org/web/20191102045715/http://2010-2014.gob.cl/media/2011/01/Instructivo_Lineamientos_Comunicacionales_Web.pdf

¿como puedo agregar esa licencia al archivo de imagen File:Gobernador Jorge Arturo Dip Calderon.jpg, para evitar que lo eliminen?

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Manning cropped.jpg

And also:

• File:Manning on the sidelines.jpg

Yours sincerely, Missvain (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:西武10000系電車 ニューレッドアロー スタジアムエクスプレス-2.jpg

Copyright status: File:西武10000系電車 ニューレッドアロー スタジアムエクスプレス-2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:西武10000系電車 ニューレッドアロー スタジアムエクスプレス-2.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

All permissions are given

All the license which i gave on the photos and images are valid and has met one of these criteria or all if not most of the criteria making them public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onengsevia (talk • contribs) 20:48, January 31, 2022 (UTC)

@Onengsevia: In that case, please provide URLs where other users can verify the license information. If that’s not possible, please follow the directions at COM:VRT and submit evidence for the license provided. Thank you! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Could you please remove the false claims you input on the pages i uploaded? I gave a proper license info panel and i really don't want to waste time going back and forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onengsevia (talk • contribs) 20:51, January 31, 2022 (UTC)

@Onengsevia: I’m happy to remove the “no permission” template once you provide a link where the license information can be verified. You could also convert the “speedy delete” (it’s not that speedy, don’t worry) into a full discussion — you’ll see the button for doing that on the deletion tag. Or like I wrote above, you could go through COM:VRT. Feel free to do any of these three. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I can use all these files

All the official insignia files of organizations are not protected by copyright in Ethiopia due to their legal nature of decree of official texts, and i can use the other photos for educational uses under Ethiopian law so please just remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onengsevia (talk • contribs) 20:48, January 31, 2022 (UTC)

@Onengsevia: Okay cool, but you can’t upload a file to Commons if it’s restricted to educational uses. It has to allow all uses (including commercial use) and modifications. Since there seems to be a misunderstanding on licensing, I’m restoring the tags to the images until more information is provided. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay delete all the educational use images, but all the insignias of government organizations are public domain in Ethiopia and the world because they are of legal nature: that i Ethiopian law and i would appreciate if you help me out and remove all the deleted requests from those pages Onengsevia (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Onengsevia I don't think there's a deletion tag on a government insignia at the moment. If your images are tagged, that means you're asked to provide more information. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for adding categories to my file

I don't know why you decide to add categories to files that aren't your own, but you're doing a good job, as you did with File:Unconsciousness Flower Memorial Library.jpg. You really did your research on the statue to the point where you put the maker of the statue without it even stating it on the file. Just letting you know that I noticed it and recognized it, and thanks. Edit: Turns out you did the same with File:Roswell P. Flower Statue.jpg and most of the rest of my files too. Are you like my mentor on commons if those exist on here? Either that or you have some connection to the library, or you're just bored out of your mind so you look at all the new files and try and find suitable categories for them. Whichever one it doesn't matter, thanks, --Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 14:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint I came across your images is, I do a regular search for Flickr images, since they're often incorrectly licensed and I like to do categorizing at the same time. Thanks for noticing! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Baylor_Lady_Bears_basketball_players

Baylor Lady Bears basketball players has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

IagoQnsi (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Moving files from ja.wiki

Hi! I noticed that you move files from ja.wiki to Commons. That is awesome!!! I might be able to help add an information template with my bot if you tell me which files you would like to move. For example name of uploader or a category on ja.wiki. And if you do not mind to add the template yourself thats fine too. The files in Category:Unidentified subjects in Japan should be ready to move and if you see any files you like to move please feel free to do so. --MGA73 (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@MGA73 Thanks, that’s good to know. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Odakyu 8000 2007-10-25.JPG

Copyright status: File:Odakyu 8000 2007-10-25.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Odakyu 8000 2007-10-25.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Portaroumm

Greetings. The user Portaroumm, whom you warned in December of last year due to multiple copyright infringements, has re-uploaded several copyrighted photographs taken from various locations such as Facebook, Flickr and Google Streetview. Can you please check the situation, and if you consider that it is necessary, start a blocking process against the user? Thank you very much in advance, -- Ajpvalente (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I've found the source from the last Portaroumm image that remained unidentified, it was taken from Flickr. Thank you very much and best regards, -- Ajpvalente (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Mona supercup.jpg

Dear Adeletron 3030 I saw that you have submitted a request for removal of my photo I would like to explain to you that I think this is unjustified, because I know the photographer Hasan Mrad through an acquaintance and he has given me verbal permission to upload the photo as my own work. Bibnieuws 15:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bibnieuws If you have permission from the photographer, please follow the steps described at COM:VRT so that permission is documented and can be verified by other users. Thanks! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Files

Hi, I noticed that you put some files that I uploaded for deletion.

• File:Salem Assli and his parents.jpg
• File:Dan Inosanto and Salem Assli.jpg
• File:Salem Assli at training.gif

These photos are taken from the official website of Salem Assli who distributes content under the license CC BY-SA 4.0, which is indicated in the footer of the website https://salemassli.com/.

• File:Salem Assli and Nick Cavallino.webp - This photo was downloaded from here https://worldofmartialarts.pro/archives/5178. According to the photo caption, this photo is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124Sanroque (talk • contribs) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@124Sanroque Thanks for letting me know. I've removed the "no permissions" tag. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No update on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VScode_fanboy&oldid=prev&diff=644970719

Notice: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VScode_fanboy&oldid=prev&diff=644970719

Work that has been done: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Videonow_player_SpongeBob_Exclusive_Edition.webp&diff=645312073&oldid=645267405 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VScode fanboy (talk • contribs) 13:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@VScode fanboy Thanks, though it doesn't look like the image is originally from Fandom. It's likely an old eBay sale item? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned that the Exif data of the image did say it is from Ebay.

Processed By eBay with ImageMagick, z1.1.0. ||B2

On a google Lens search one Ebay's deep link was present. The link you posted doesn't work, please provide the URL of the search record that google ::provided - that attributed it to Ebay - not the Google search.

What do we do in this case, I'm all in for deleting it. VScode fanboy (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Added Permissions

I included more permissions in two of my images that you nominated for deletion, including the URL that they came from, and the correct licensing for them. If there's anything else, just tell me. Tyman9348 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've had trouble uploading images before in the past, And I'm still trying to basically learn how to do it right. Tyman9348 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tyman9348 Hi, sorry I'm late responding. I appreciate you adding the source URL, though I don't think any of the images you uploaded are correctly licensed. The Flickr image is marked "All rights reserved", Instagram photos are copyrighted unless otherwise noted, and there's nothing on the Barr Visuals website that indicates a free license. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Why was an image deleted?

I got a message saying an image had been deleted.

Editor's summary: Bot: Removing [[c:File:Money box from New Zealand.jpg]] , deleted by Túrelio (Copyright violation: Uploader cites a CC-BY-NC-ND license, and the site's terms of services says "all rights reserved": www.tepapa.govt.nz/about/collections/all-te-papa-websites/copyright-and-terms-use).

The specific image has the rights licence by-nc-nd/4.0 and a big button saying DOWNLOAD. https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/60278

And this page: https://mediasales.tepapa.govt.nz/cart/object/60278 states: Te Papa has thousands of high-resolution images available for download, free of charge, with reuse subject to copyright status.

So my understanding is that the image is availble for non-commercial reuse. Please explain your view.Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wainuiomartian Commons does not accept works with licenses that do not allow commercial uses or derivative works. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Information

Hi, I have a question. Maybe it is not a right place to ask, excuses in advance. I wonder is this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dalida_80's.png] photo legaly on wiki? It is copyrighted tho... ~~~~ Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 20:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hyagnis fistularius

Buenas Adeletron 3030, La imagen [1] es de dominio público y no debería haber problema con ello. La imagen fue tomada en 1914, es decir, ¡ hace más de 100 años !. Elías (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Esta también, no hay problemas debido a la licencia que es Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). Elías (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's a problem with it either. The Flickrreview bot will just review the Flickr license and tag the license as verified. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

oK. Elías (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

SS Lep by VLT

I added the good license to file File:"Vampire star" (SS Lep or 17 Lep) captured by the VLT.webp, can you retire the "missing permission". Pelligton (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I added the good license to file, can you retire the missing permission". Pelligton (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pelligton Where are you seeing that it has a Creative Commons license? I look at the site but couldn’t find it. Could you point me to the licensing information? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

In the orther image of the VLT, source on the paper relied at the image https://www.eso.org/public/switzerland-fr/images/eso1148a/ Pelligton (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Adeletron 3030 Pelligton (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pelligton I see it now, thanks. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Luis Scola by Brenda Staples Photography.jpg

Yours sincerely, QTHCCAN (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, the Flickr account is likely to do some Flickrwashing. QTHCCAN (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Minneapolis Collage 2022.png

Hello. Can you please delete this file: Minneapolis Collage 2022.png. Because both you and another user (not including me) have noted blatant copyright violations. Thanks! -- Danyess (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has already tagged it for speedy deletion, so it'll happen shortly. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:酸的表情.jpg

Yours sincerely, Lord Belbury (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Entirely sorry

I admit most of my photos are copyrighted, but only 2 or 3 are my own work. I was in a severe rush to finish my pages before my deadline, and didn’t have time to think about copyrighting. I’m very sorry for what I did.

My sincere condolences, MegaMack02 (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Happy editing in the future! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

File talk:Kit Connor with Maylis Briand.jpg

I left a message commenting on the deletion of the photo here. Could you read it, please? Theys York (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Cassidy Hutchinson, is sworn in, 2022-06-28.webp

did not notice the "AP" .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it wasn't that noticeable since it's a video title card. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

RE:File:Monument of Laurent Kabila.jpg

Hi. I want to ask you about the file I uploaded. I found the image in English Wikipedia, and it has a template of Public domain (en:File:Monument of Laurent Kabila.jpg). What should I do? In case it is my fault, I apologize. 2x2leax (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. It looks like the en-wiki uploader copied it from Flickr. You didn’t do anything wrong here, but you should be careful with images that don’t have very detailed source info, like this one. Thanks! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Lusail Iconic Stadium final render.jpg

File:Lusail Iconic Stadium final render.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!

JalenFolf (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Phil Joslin footballer(2).jpg

Please could you kindly explain why you deleted the above file without discussion? I do not make "blatantly false PD claims" - if you check my record you may find minor mistakes which I promptly correct, but you will find no illicit intentions. Phil Joslin played professional football until 1951 when he suffered a life-changing injury which prevented him from playing professional football thereafter. So we will not find pictures of him wearing professional strip on the field, taken after 1951. Therefore that picture was taken during or before 1951. 1951 is more than 70 years ago, which fits the licence and backup supplied. No individual photographer has been credited, and no-one - not even Getty Images - can copyright for themselves a picture that they did not take. Companies like Getty Images have to blanket-"copyright" all their web pages to be on the safe side, because they carry many genuinely in-copyright images. Therefore those which can be licensed for Commons by us can be used by us. So please let me know what is the problem. Have I made a typo error on the file (you have deleted it so I cannot check)? I can easily upload the image to en.wikipedia as a non-free file - it is small enough. I am happy to do that, but I need to check first what is wrong with the Commons file.

References

Thank you. Storye book (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Storye book I think you made a mistake? Your photo was a crop of this Getty Images photo taken in 2004. It should go without saying, but a photo taken in 2004 cannot show a footballer who died in 1980. You cropped the photo to show en:Phil Joslin (referee), the football referee who was born in 1959. I'm not quite sure how that happened, since you link to the original Getty photo which does not look like it was taken before 1951. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I've had another look, and I think that the problem may be one of mistaken identity, (and still not the intentional crime that you have accused me of). I had thought that the chap in green goalkeeper strip was Phil Joslin (born 1916, ret'd 1951), but I did not realise that there was also a referee called Phil Joslin (born 1959), and he must be the other chap in red. I had thought that I recognised Phil Joslin as the man in green, but all the other online pictures of Phil Joslin are the ref (b.1959). So there are no pictures (copyright or otherwise) that I can find, of Phil Joslin (born 1916). I am not a football fan at all, so I am not able to recognise football heroes. I was just helping out with articles which need images. I think I'll give up on this one. I'll replace the reqphoto template. Storye book (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Update. Yes I agree, we have both come to the same conclusion, that there are two Phil Joslins and I had not realised that. I did not see any reference to the date of the photo (I'll take your word for that), just the name Phil Joslin. I do a lot of work with photos, and a lot of old photos get re-used, especially in obituaries and nostalgic articles, so I am used to checking picture contents. And yes, I should have realised that the photograph is too recent - before 1951 they wore enormous shorts, and they still had army short-back-and-sides haircuts. I must try harder with football photos! Thank you for your patience. Storye book (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

NO worries, and you don't have to take my word - the full image description is at https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/martin-smith-of-northampton-town-argues-with-referee-phil-news-photo/3449058 Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan image file

I am not sure if it is a copy violation, 'cause if you check the link on Flickr it shows the photo is public. Fitzwilliams (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not all public photos have a free license. In fact, most images you find on the internet are unfree and copyrighted. In any case, you provided a link to a completely different image (and it has an unfree license). The photo you uploaded is a commercial agency photo and Getty Images photos are almost always copyrighted. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay I will be further aware about this. But I used the Google images creative commons filter and they showed it was for public use. Fitzwilliams (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Help

I've seen your message that I hae multiple copyright strikes on wikipedia, I've been trying to figure how to authorize it, and I don't want to be blocked from editing, how do I make Pictures Authorized? 45BearsFan (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@45BearsFan Hi, when you upload previously published photos you'll want to go through the process described at COM:VRT/CONSENT. If you own the images, you'd want to present some verifiable evidence that you are the photographer. If not, you'll want the copyright owner (for example, Chicago Wolves or Vancouver Giants) to contact the Wikimedia Foundation through the link I provided above, and confirm that they've agreed to the license terms that you've provided. I'm not sure how much of your uploads are your own work, but in general, if you did not take a photograph, don't claim "own work". Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

SO, in other words, you'll need the owner of the picture for some evidence, and if its my own work (Only GIANT Center) I need to give evidence? 45BearsFan (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@45BearsFan If it's your own work, it depends. If it's been published already, you'll want to provide evidence that it is yours since it's easy for someone off the street to say, "Hey, that's my work.". If it's not published anywhere, it's generally fine, but you'd want to upload the original JPEG with EXIF data. If it's not your work, you shouldn't publish them without receiving an explicit license release from the owner. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Haeundae LCT The Sharp.jpg

File:Haeundae LCT The Sharp.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!

221.133.172.75 17:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

98.5 The Bull logo

I don't understand, the bull is no problem, it's just a logo. ThinkingSirus1800 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@ThinkingSirus1800 Thanks for responding. The issue is that you selected {{PD-Textlogo}} as the license, and the bull graphic is obviously not a text element. Complex logos are copyrighted and cannot be kept on Commons (see COM:TOO, though they may be uploaded on en-wiki as fair use). Anyway, if you'd like this image to be kept and have a valid argument, please make sure to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:98.5TheBullTulsa.webp. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you give the right licensing template quick please? ThinkingSirus1800 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@ThinkingSirus1800 I don't think there's a "right" license because the logo is too complex to be in the public domain (please read COM:TOO if you haven't already). That's why I listed it for deletion — if there was an appropriate license, I would've just switched it myself. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I put another license, please tell me if it's okay. ThinkingSirus1800 (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Miki Station construction 2021-12-29.jpg

File:Miki Station construction 2021-12-29.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Tanigami Station interior 20210903173622.jpg

File:Tanigami Station interior 20210903173622.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Ueno Station platform screen door.jpg

File:Ueno Station platform screen door.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:London cab tribute to Queen Elizabeth II 2020-09-08.jpg

File:London cab tribute to Queen Elizabeth II 2020-09-08.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.

 

A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Aftermath_of_the_death_of_Elizabeth_II

Category:Aftermath_of_the_death_of_Elizabeth_II has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Angela Amin (cropped).jpg

Dear @Adeletron 3030 you have recently left a message on my PDU arguing that this file is missing its licensing. However, its source says on the lower side of the page that it is CC 4.0, exactly as what I have uploaded it. Best regards, Przelijpdahl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Przelijpdahl Hi, sorry I didn’t give you any information about why I thought the source information was missing. You’re correct that the website where you found the image has a CC license. But I don’t think they own the image. For example, the same image appears at a higher resolution at https://congressoemfoco.uol.com.br/projeto-bula/reportagem/angela-amin-pp-sc/, which says “all rights reserved”. My guess is that the image comes from the subject’s office, but I don’t know how they licensed the image. That’s why I tagged it as the permission missing.

You can challenge the “no permission” tag with the “start a deletion request” button on the template. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey

All my works are not derivative works. They are all made by me Miyera20 (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

URLs

Hi Adeletron, thanks for your work! Just FYI as I stumbled upon the logs: Blacklisted URLs can be written (not clickable, however) within <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags: https://www.aliexpress.com/i/3256802599371412.html?gatewayAdapt=4itemAdapt. Cheers, Achim55 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good tip, thank you! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Good username

That's all. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

because of people like you

the world sucks lol bro its the internet and NO ONE cares if theres a sh*t picture in this site DanielMBBR (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

the images of the Colombian battalion cannot be eliminated, it is heritage in my country

These images cannot be eliminated apart from being the heritage of my country and having its author, you do not have to ask permission from the page where it was taken from because its author allowed free use who was a war veteran Hailcolombia2009 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

war veteran gilberto diaz velasco dies

he did not leave anything about the right of his photographs, before he wanted them to remember the feat of his comrades, and there is nothing better than saving them here on wikipedia and you are going to delete them for me I can accept that you delete the image of general tapias but the of the Colombian battalion and general nova, you can't because they don't need permission here in my nation it is free to use Hailcolombia2009 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Autobus Z-1 na ul. Wyścigowej w Warszawie.webp

Hi, on the source page there is question mark and the word "Więcej" ("more" in Polish) - in the top right corner. If you hover your mouse over that word, you'll see the licence. Generally, the vast majority of pictures on that website is licenced under CC. --Botev (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Brighton_&_Hove_Albion_FC_v_Tottenham_Hotspur_FC,_30_July_2011

Brighton & Hove Albion FC v Tottenham Hotspur FC, 30 July 2011 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

62.216.208.9 17:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

File:James Hemings.jpg

File:James Hemings.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!

CzarJobKhaya (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Valentina Berr.jpg

Hi. El Salto used to publish all of their content under the cc by-sa 3.0 license, which could be seen by scrolling down at the bottom of their main website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelAlanCS (talk • contribs) 01:25, November 14, 2022‎ (UTC)

@MiguelAlanCS: Thanks for pointing that out. I've "downgraded" the tag and started a discussion. Please respond at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Valentina Berr.jpg. 12:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Nelson Rockefeller, presidential candidate, in Philadelphia 1968.tif

Copyright status: File:Nelson Rockefeller, presidential candidate, in Philadelphia 1968.tif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Nelson Rockefeller, presidential candidate, in Philadelphia 1968.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 06:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Lusail Stadium rendering (cropped).jpg

File:Lusail Stadium rendering (cropped).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!

A1Cafel (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Urgent Help Needed

I need urgent help.i don't know how to seek copyright status from copyright holders.What is VRT? Crompton editz (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Crompton editz It's explained at COM:VRT. The steps to receiving permission from copyright holders is explained at COM:VRT/CONSENT. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

DR categorisation

You seem to have included a category in a deletion rationale (Special:Diff/715252359), which correctly categorised the DR but also categorised the files nominated for deletion. I have removed the files from the DR category. Brianjd (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Sayden Rajkumar Velliapura.jpg

I see that you've assumed the work of this file as "derivative" when it's simply isn't the case here. The Flickr uploader and the image photographer are the same person. I don't see why there's a need to delete this file on the grounds of baseless "derivative" remark. If you need a little more assurance on the matter, you can run a TinEye check for the same. Also I've been on Commons for sometime to understand the basic copyright laws. Hope you'll look into this. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 17:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003 You'll have to forgive my skepticism but I have a hard time believing that any image in this Flickr account is the user's original work. The image tagged as "derivative" is clearly a crop of a larger photo, which is why the source image should be identified. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Adeletron 3030 I don't mind your skepticism tbh, but you're forgiven. Regarding the "derivative" thing. What If I said I know this flickr uploader and I'm sure they own the copyright to it? I'll be pleased to see if you can find any of the files mentioned ON thier flickr account anywhere else. The fact they are I think a research student too. It's highly unlikely for me to think that this is a derivative work. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 18:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003 I realized after I replied that there's already a discussion for images from the Flickr account. I've removed the "no permissions" tag and left the link to the discussion. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Finlandia-Laponia-Monte-Aurora-Boreal (1).jpg

File:Finlandia-Laponia-Monte-Aurora-Boreal (1).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!

A1Cafel (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add Japan photographs taken on ... and Railway photographs taken on ... blindly to 快速踊り子 (talk · contribs)'s files

I requested 快速踊り子 (talk · contribs) to upload files with original exifs left but he doesn't care. For him and some of other users, date in |date= means only the date of uploading to commons, and the actual date of photography may have been weeks, or months, or even a decade before. Let's see File:Nagaden Series2500 C10..jpg for example. It seems that the transport was done circa May 2022 (1). But the the date in |date= was 2022-12-22 (1). It makes categories you added bogus (1, 2). Generally speaking, you should not add Japan photographs taken on ... and Railway photographs taken on ... to exif-less files when the date of uploading to commons equals the date in |date=. You should have edited the date field as {{otherdate|?}}<br><small>〔{{upload date|2022-12-22}}〕</small> instead (1). Clarifying a thing of which a third party cannot know as unknown is the intellectual honesty.
On the other hand, File:Nagaden Series3500.Formation N8 20221224.jpg was a rare example where the uploader revealed the date of photography in |description= (1). But the categories you added were incorrect ones (1, 2). Please take time and think carefully before adding these categories, if you really wish to make commons a trustworthy image reservoir. Regards, --トトト (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for not being more careful. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

File:060219 StAugustineMassGregory.jpg

Please review the link provided in my response and here regarding the free use status of the image you recently deleted. Then please restore the image. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. We all make mistakes. Thanks for correcting it so quickly. X4n6 (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a derivative work and no source or permission of the original work is provided.

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Dino Baggio Blackburn Rovers 2003.jpg

Hello Adeletron 3030. This media is my own work, and I wrote that when uploading the image. Can you tell me exactly what is missing and what source information I need to add? If I can I will do it. I repeat the image is personally mine, you will not find it anywhere else on the internet and it is not subject to copyright. I just want to help you. Greetings and all the best. Rovers Makedonija (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rovers Makedonija Hi, I tagged it because it appears to be either a video screenshot (it's the same angle as TV broadcast cameras) or a really tightly cropped photo, though the camera metadata is missing. There's no information to help verify that the license is correct, since the date is only given as "2003". Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Adeletron 3030 I can find the date the picture was taken as I remember it was during the Blackburn-Everton game at Ewood Park during the 2003-2004 season. For the rest, I already told you that it was my doing, it's your choice whether to believe me or not, but if I were you, I would ask myself why I would lie to you, what would I gain by doing so. Additionally, this was taken with a phone camera and if you're 30 you should know what they were at that time. I have other pictures of Blackburn games I've been to, even more recent and much better quality, but it seems I won't be allowed to post them here. In any case, I wish you all the best and a successful year. Rovers Makedonija (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more detail to the file. I've changed this from a speedy to a "slow" discussion and you should've received the link in your talk page. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Costelpana1.jpg

I kindly ask you to undelete the photo Costelpana1.jpg which I published on Wikipedia Page of Costel PANA. We, me and Costel PANA, are friends (see on his Facebook Page) and he gave me this photo to publish it on HIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE. RIC76 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please have Mr. Pana follow the steps described at COM:VRT. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:College basketball teams in the United States by name

College basketball teams in the United States by name has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

–IagoQnsi (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Diego Abade.jpg

File:Diego Abade.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!

P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

7.27 Carton

Hi, I want to adress the fact that the picture used in the 7.27 (Cigarettes) draft has been used from gettyimages. Now I understand the confusion here, but gettyimages allows for use of their image if it’s not commercial. (search for gettyimage’s copyright policy regarding their watermarked images) Citing from their policy; „The Getty makes available, without charge, all available digital images to which the Getty holds the rights or that are in the public domain to be used for any purpose. No permission is required.” This means as long as it goes under their policy, which here it has, is perfectly legal and holds no complications unless their policy has been broken, and it hasn’t. Thank you very much. Minewit (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Minewit You're citing the content use policy for the Getty Institute, a research institution that's different from Getty Images, which makes money licensing photographs for republication and they certainly do not release the images to the public domain. The photograph you uploaded comes from https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/cartons-of-the-7-27-brand-of-cigarettes-are-displayed-at-a-news-photo/939869018 and in addition to the standard Getty Images copyright, it's also marked "for editorial use only", and Commons does not allow such restrictions. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

File:23, Matchday 3 - Manchester United 2-1 Liverpool - Old Trafford, Manchester - August 22, 2022.jpg

I understand why you nominated the image for speedy delete. But you did not give me much time to investigate and confirm the audit trail. Couuld you please revert the deletion so we can discuss its deletion. I believe I have the photographers formal permission and I am asking him to confirm that he is Tom - this may take 48 hours or so. Victuallers (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC).

@Victuallers: The image credit is in the description as well as the EXIF data, and you can see the image sold at gettyimages.com, where it specifically says "Strictly Editorial Use Only.". The Flickr uploader also says, "I don't claim ownership over any of these pictures, except if otherwise specified." If you think the Flickr uploader, despite all the indication otherwise, is the copyright owner, you can request undeletion at Commons:REFUND (I don't have such powers). Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I did investigate more and I'm very unimpressed with Football Pictures who changed the license of an image they did not own to "allow" its use on Flickr. This is premeditated deception IMO. (Sorry to say) you are perfectly right. Well done and thank you. Is there some way I can get this Flickr account added to the black list for loading? Victuallers (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Victuallers Unfortunately, it’s a common enough occurrence that there’s a term for it, Flickrwashing. I’ve already reported the account to COM:QFI, a blacklist of suspicious Flickr accounts. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Beachtime 7.jpg

And also:

• File:Beachtime 6.jpg
• File:Beachtime 4.jpg
• File:Beachtime 8.jpg
• File:Beachtime 5.jpg

Yours sincerely, Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add Category:xxxx 2023 in rail transport in ... etc to Flickr user ivva's files

I once recognized the Flickr user ivva uploading a photo to his stream which he had uploaded more than a year earlier on his instagram account. The copyright may be OK but the date of photograpy of his work should be treated as unknown, if exif-less. And the fact is almost all photos on his Flickr stream are exif-less. So please do not add Category:xxxx 2023 in rail transport in ... etc to his photos, and always use the template {{Original upload date}} at the date field. Thank you. --トトト (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@トトト Thanks for letting me know. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of File:State Farm Stadium before Super bowl LVII.jpg

I just want to say I did not know the original source I thought it was https://www.relevo.com/nfl/super-bowl-2023-horarios-20230130120439-nt.html. Oddballslover (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Oddballslover Understood, though it says “Getty Images” in the link, and there’s nothing on the page indicating that the photograph has a Creative Commons license (and the terms and conditions say “all rights reserved”). In any case, if you see a photograph on a website, you should generally assume that it is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Commons. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Xfinity 500 logo.png

I see that you tagged this as "no permission". In general, the "no permission" tag should only be used for files claimed to be under a free license without adequate evidence, never for files claimed to be PD. If you disagree with the PD claim, you can file a regular COM:DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@King of Hearts Sorry, that was me being careless. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:University_of_Connecticut_athletics

University of Connecticut athletics has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Denniscabrams (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Pdq logo vertical.png

Hello! I have taken down the image that was copyrighted without stating that it was, and replaced with the same image but uploaded via the non free work link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDQlogovertical.png Candeadly (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Candeadly Thanks for letting me know! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Man talking with female salesperson in a car showroom by senivpetro.jpg

File:Man talking with female salesperson in a car showroom by senivpetro.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	i saw you in multiple images that should be marked with copyvio. you are fast, good work. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 16:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Ben_Wallace

Ben Wallace has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Help

Verify my photo roger schmidt 2015 pls TarifaXxx (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Re:Please read COM:OVERCAT

Hello Adeletron 3030 ok but this temple is the location of the movies: The Story, and The Game of Death. The guardians of the temple are the guardians (characters) of this temple in this film. Can I include the temple (location) of the guardians in this category? Can you please? Thank Teocistide (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Teocistide For what you're trying to achieve, I'd create subcategories titled Category:Filming locations of ___ and add them to Category:Palsangjeon, not the individual photos. That way, every image in the Palsangjeon category will be in the filming location category. Let me know if that makes sense. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok Adeletron 3030, thanks for your reply, I created these categories, ok? Teocistide (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

But the name of this category is The guardians of the temple, so, I think, that inserting the photo of the temple in this category makes sense Teocistide (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Use in a film is generally not a defining characteristic of a place, and such categories should generally not be created. (For example, some famous locations have appeared in hundreds of films, and it would be ridiculous to categorize those places under every single film.) Wikidata supports non-defining characteristics and is a much better place to store that information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

File:IFSC Climbing World Championships 2016 Paris logo.png

File:IFSC Climbing World Championships 2016 Paris logo.png 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!

DCB (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, how can I find what is the correct license to this picture?? Sbo2023 (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

File. Trzcianiec.

Cytuję . Plik jest „utworem, wykonanym sposobem fotograficznym lub do fotografii podobnym”, które upubliczniono w Polsce przed 4 lutego 1994 i na „utworze nie uwidoczniono wyraźnie zastrzeżenia prawa autorskiego” /Ustawa o prawie autorskim z 1952 i 1994/ Pamulab (dyskusja) 06:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[odpowiedz] Strona Domena publiczna – Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia pkt.5 Pamulab (dyskusja) 06:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[odpowiedz] domeny publicznej - Art. 2 ustawy o prawie autorskim z dnia 10 lipca 1952 r. – istnieją kontrowersje, czy tak to można interpretować, ale inna interpretacja prowadzi do absurdu niemożności jakiegokolwiek publikowania większości anonimowo wykonanych zdjęć po 1952 r. Pamulab (dyskusja) 06:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[odpowiedz] Może mi podpowiesz jak zdobyć zgodę na publikację od anonimowego autora zdjęcia? Zagrzebaliście się w gąszczu licencji - nawet sprzecznych ze sobą - na Commons. To właśnie taki przykład. Pamulab (dyskusja) 07:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Pamulab (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Series E257-5500 OM53 Kusatsu･Shima shinmaebashi.jpg

What a careless edit. I have told you not to trust the date field of User:快速踊り子's files. He states that Series E257-5500 OM53 Kusatsu･Shima shinmaebashi.jpg was taken on 25 March 2023.

---

トトト (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Rahm Emanuel, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brad Pitt at 'Bullet Train' event at Tokyo Station 2022-08-23.jpg

File:Rahm Emanuel, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brad Pitt at 'Bullet Train' event at Tokyo Station 2022-08-23.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!

181.43.4.96 13:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)