User talk:Charles Matthews

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Charles Matthews!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour 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 irc:wikimedia-commons #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 graphic 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?)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

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, Charles Matthews!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gallia Sacra SW.JPG is uncategorized since 21 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Guillim Display of Heraldrie 3rd edition.jpg is uncategorized since 24 June 2009.
Image:William Bates (Faithorne).jpg is uncategorized since 3 July 2009.
Image:William Gouge.jpg is uncategorized since 3 July 2009.
Image:Concent title page.jpg was uncategorized on 20 October 2009.

File:At the Holy Well Topham.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

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 08:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Archibald Bower Macardell.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Archibald Bower Macardell.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.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Curator collection[edit]

Hi! As you might have found, you can find (most of) the books of London engravings included in the Mechanical Curator collection at Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection/Synoptic_index,_UK_and_Ireland#London

-- including what looks like two copies of Charles Frederick Partington's "National History and Views of London and its environs", one with 112 plates, the other with 162 plates (most of them multiple images). Plus also a copy of "The Castles and Convents of Norfolk", with apparently 69 images / 22 plates now appropriately listed under Norfolk.

It's certainly on my plan to start marching through and uploading these in bulk. I got a bit side-tracked by some high-quality colour highlights from the BL collections; and then also tidying up the organisation of many of the BL images we already have; and then sorting out some en-wiki articles (some of the DNB originated) relating to people associated with Matthew Paris which had got a bit confused, at least from the standpoint of current scholarship. But I very much have been meaning to get back to the MC collector.

At the moment, the way to attack these is book-by-book; the German user ‎Metilsteiner in particular has been doing some fantastic work.

Images can be uploaded most easily a book at a time using the Flickr2Commons script, which can pull out all of the images with a sysnum... tag corresponding to a particular book. The images need to be given meaningful file names by hand though.

Images should then have their detailes pushed through the Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/script, to fill out an {{Artwork}} description template, appropriate permissions template & also to defaultsort them into a sensible order. This can be reasonably quite efficiently with AWB, which saves having to repeatedly key all the fields which are the same throughout the book.

It's also useful to add a category for the book (I can't remember whether Flickr2Commons does this automatically). The {{BL1million bookcat}} template can then be used to tag the category as having come from a Mechanical Curator book, with a link-back to the images on Flickr. The category should also be linked to from the list of books by subject, using the {{HasBookCat}} template.

After that, it's just a question of adding the images individually to Commons categories and to wiki articles as appropriate -- though in many ways that is the most important step, as that is what will actually get the images found and used -- so it's crossed my mind to try to discourage people from uploading bookfuls of images, unless they know they are going to take the time to integrate them fully into the wiki in this way.

I had thought to maybe try to encourage people to each "Adopt a Book" at the wiki-meetup in London this Sunday. (Though perhaps with sets smaller than Partington's "Natural history and views", at least to start with). Which I may still try and do. But I'd hoped to have had a few more dry runs through the process myself first, and also tidy up some of what's already been uploaded not always quite so carefully.

Engravings, particularly topographical engravings, are something we really ought to have more systematic coverage of on Commons than we currently do. With luck, if people can start getting into uploading the Mechanical Curator images, we might start to get there. Though it would be nice if things like this could be fixed too. But let me know if you've got any good ideas for helping to encourage people to get involved and have a go. Jheald (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: "London Illustrated" is a good book. I know where the copy in UCL Library is shelved now, and photographed a handful of the listings for some sets I was already interested in. The real trouble though is finding good scans of the original engravings. The nice thing about the Mechanical Curator set is that the BL has made them available on the plate, often with the PDF available, if they can't be identified directly from the caption. It would be nice, ultimately, to have the whole of "Adams" uploaded to here; but the problem will be sourcing the images. Jheald (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I honestly have enough troubles of my own right now, without venturing into mass uploads; but I might trying something in collaboration. Britton's Picture of London (1826) would be of interest, given that File:Jewin Street (Old Jewry) Chapel.jpg is one I went and got from it. Anyway, that defines my interest a bit more narrowly. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

transfer Image from English Wikipedia[edit]

Hello my brother.Did you see that this picture is good to be a second copy of this? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It isn't a high-quality image, however. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Edward Scriven (1775–1841), 1845 by Benjamin Phelps Gibbon.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Edward Scriven (1775–1841), 1845 by Benjamin Phelps Gibbon.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.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, fixed. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Losh at the Lit and Phil[edit]

Hi.The photo in the hallway is a memorial to James Losh. Feel free to use the pic as required and credit it to John Price. The other photo features a bust of Thomas Bewick (not Losh).Hope this is helpful. Ardfern (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I have followed through on the descriptions, and used the former photo on James Losh. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crop of File:Jeremy Farrar and David Weatherall at RILD launch (14425802043).jpg[edit]

Charles, !! Forgot to create a new version? Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on my conscience. I was using the crop tool before having figured it out properly. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:CRMatHeadway1.jpg[edit]

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:CRMatHeadway1.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.

Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: This request comes seven years after the original upload to Wikipedia; which poses a clear problem since the manager with whom I was dealing is no longer at the organisation. I can try to contact the current manager, and explain the position. Whether that can be done on a timescale of seven days is questionable. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit unfortunate that the file wasn't spotted when it was uploaded. It's sourced to 'Headway', which seems to be someone other than yourself. Is this a work for hire? In many English-speaking countries, the rule is that the copyright to a work for hire belongs to the employer, so it's possible that the organisation is the copyright holder. Since you wrote that seven days may be too little, I changed the word 'March' into 'May' in the template to give you some extra time. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: Thank you for the extra time. Headway [1] is a brain-injury charity, and the photo is representative of the work I did there (2003 to 2012). Permission to use it was given to me verbally, since the organisation thought it could help them in terms of publicity. I can use the website to correspond with them, and ask for a formal mail. As you might guess, it is only the recent large-scale publicity for go, with which I have been involved, that led me to move it here. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: Now resolved: I have seen the mail for Ticket#2016051310016796, which has been added to the description page. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed this. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CRMatHeadway1.jpg[edit]

File:CRMatHeadway1.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ju Ta 21:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:French pastry school Chicago entrance.JPG[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:French pastry school Chicago entrance.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.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added the license now. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer[edit]

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign. My contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. I has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and it is very expensive for me to acquire this equipment. I has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a camera with a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. --The Photographer 14:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOA project[edit]

Hi Charles, here is the link to our WM Commons/Wikidata/Wikisource project http://blogs.tib.eu/wp/noa/ Inablu (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For categorizing my uploads. Appreciate it! :) Reh man 09:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COM:OVERCAT[edit]

Hello. Please be aware that it is not necessary to categorize images in several levels of the same branch in a category tree. For example, File:Charles Louis Baugniet.jpg should not be placed in Category:Charles Baugniet, because it is already in Category:Paintings by Charles Baugniet, which is a subcat of Category:Charles Baugniet. For more details, please see COM:OVERCAT. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I am indeed aware of the need to avoid this type of over-categorisation. I normally use Cat-a-lot carefully, and remove duplications of which I'm conscious. The structure of subcategories varies from case to case, and sometimes I'm caught out. I'm quite happy then to remedy the situation, since Cat-a-lot makes that a simple operation. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

File:Wikimania 2018 hackathon mentoring table plugbar.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 05:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waterhouse.jpg[edit]

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

Jcb (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Press pass" for Commons photographers[edit]

Hi Charles,

I thought of an aid for editors who take photos for Commons in situations in which one might be viewed suspiciously despite being technically legal, e.g. when I visited Evoluon. It gives as much detail of the photographer as he/she is willing to share and has text explaining the use of the images etc to help him/her explain his/her role. The pass resembles a press pass and can be printed by the photographer from a PDF automatically generated from a self-filled form on Commons and e.g. worn on a lanyard. Deception is not intended, so everything on it must be true, taking into account the photographer's privacy, but may be styled to give an air of authority.

From Wikimedia's perspective, the relevant tasks are

Agree on the wording
Provide the form

Do you think this idea has legs? If so, is there anyone I should pitch this to?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 10:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmglee: I'm expecting to be in the WMUK office next week, and can raise it with them there. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Charles. I've since found out that there have already been such initiatives:

though it's more for news/event coverage. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 00:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfred William Pollard.jpg[edit]

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

Xover (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daniel_King[edit]

Daniel King 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019: it's Wiki Loves Monuments time again![edit]

Hi

You're receiving this message because you've previously contributed to the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest in the UK. We'd be delighted if you would do so again this year and help record our local built environment for future generations.

You can find more details at the Wiki Loves Monuments UK website. Or, if you have images taken in other countries, you can check the international options. This year's contest runs until 30 September 2019.

Many thanks for your help once more! MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding incorrect category[edit]

Hi Charles, I would greatly appreciate if you would not add Category:François Langlois de Chartres to prints that are already in Category:Prints published by François Langlois de Chartres. I was wondering why I was repeating work that I thought I had already done. It ends up being fairly tedious, since one has to examine the inscription on each print and/or the source page to determine this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert.Allen: I do understand the need not to over-categorise. I have a large-scale project at User:Charles Matthews/Engravers to improve categorisation of engravings. In this case the existence of a Prints subcategory got past me. Apologies. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's "Prints published by", an important distinction. Anyways, thanks for keeping a lookout. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding incorrect categorisation[edit]

Hi Charles, I would greatly appreciate if you would not add [[Category:Created with DrawShield]] in future – just use the Template:Image generation which will categorize poperly. Thank you -- sarang♥사랑 07:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarang: OK, the tool adds Category:Creations with DrawShield. I will remove it. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blazon[edit]

Hello, Charles Matthews! I notice you’ve uploaded quite a few coats of arms under titles of the form “Blazon of X“. A minor quibble: blazon technically refers to the verbal description of an armorial device, or to the peculiar jargon traditionally used for the purpose, while a drawn or painted depiction of arms is properly called an emblazonment. Indeed the file pages I looked at did not have any blazon in their descriptions.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Odysseus1479: Thanks for taking an interest. These pages are generated by the tool https://drawshield.toolforge.org/#/ and that tool was set up with titles "Blazon of X" (not by me). You can find the code used as "blazon" on the pages, in Template:Blazony below the description space.

I say code, because the software is based on that used at https://drawshield.net/create/index.html to allow creations from a "dialect" of traditional English blazon, with added parts to help with arrangement.

So I didn't choose the titles. In defence of the slightly awkward terminology, I would say that I regard the tool as useful as giving a demo of the blazon. The graphics are SVG, which make for easy reuse. In particular the blazons used can be put into drawshield.net for further versions, and can be used for quartering and impaling. User:Charles Matthews/DrawShield is my project page of all of this, listing sources. I use structured data, rather than the description box. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Philip Oxenden Papillon.png[edit]

Copyright status: File:Philip Oxenden Papillon.png

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Philip Oxenden Papillon.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An oversight - template now added. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata infobox not appearing[edit]

Hi Charles,

How are you? Hope you're coping well with lockdown: two weeks to go!

May I get some Wikidata help from you? I uploaded some photos of w:Chesterton Hall and created category:Chesterton_Hall, copying category:Chesterton Tower's wikitext. However, the infobox claims that Wikidata doesn't have Chesterton Hall, although it's at Q5093861. Any idea how to fix it?

Lastly, any plans to revive the meetups after the lockdown?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 22:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmglee: Hello! Well, I'm not in Cambridge right now, and life is complicated.

{{Wikidata Infobox}} is automated by Pi Bot. I have added Category:Chesterton Hall to d:Q5093861, and this should prompt the bot to fill the box.

I would like to continue meetups in Cambridge, but right now the situation is still unclear. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear, Charles. Hope you're all right. Thanks for trying to fix the category. It still says "NO WIKIDATA ID FOUND!" but it will hopefully be picked up by the bot.

I was thinking of resuming the walks you organised previously. Keeping it outdoors is also safer. If you'd like me to drive it, please let me know.

All the best with your current situation, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 21:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Owen Williams bookplate.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Owen Williams bookplate.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Owen Williams bookplate.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) 05:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

License added. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Distin Family 1844.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Distin Family 1844.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Distin Family 1844.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, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Katherine Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas Ross.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Katherine Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas Ross.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Katherine Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas Ross.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) 06:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRefine starts SDC development! 💎[edit]

Hello Charles! As you may be aware, OpenRefine has started development of features for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons. Would you like to be informed about ongoing work? You can sign up here to receive occasional updates on a Wikimedia talk page of your choice. Also, feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions! SFauconnier (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SFauconnier: Thank you. SDoC has somewhat changed my habits of work here. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arms by family name[edit]

Hi Charles, you are doing some great work on English heraldry with the drawshield package, many thanks! Have you noticed that there's already a category which covers "Category:Arms by family name", which I believe was set-up by you - it's Category:Coats of arms of families of England, all done alphabetically, and almost 2,500 sub-cats! There also exist corresponding cats for Scottish and Welsh families. Would you mind if I move all your 40 or so entries now in "Category:Arms by family name" to "Category:Coats of arms of families of England"? I would then propose to delete "Category:Arms by family name", using the "bad name" tag. Thanks and best wishes, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobsterthermidor: Hello. Actually I had been using Category:Coats of arms of families of England, and became dissatisfied with it. I was using it as classification by surname; and of course surnames are not necessarily attached to countries such as England. Certainly some cases might be Welsh, for example, and so on.

It came to me that Category:Arms by family name, which I had not created while I thought it over, would be useful higher up the category tree. I'm actually more comfortable with it as a broad container.

For the time being, since the category does now exist, I have changed it to a subcategory of Category:Personal coats of arms. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, try Category:Coats of arms of families of Wales and Category:Coats of arms of families of Scotland! I do think your new category is an unnecessary duplication. Please explain why you think it's necessary in view of the two cats I just mentioned above. Categorisation should be done based on where the family originated - or rose to prominence - which sometimes takes some further research. For example of the many dozen coats of arms relating to families called "Smith", some may originate in Wales or Scotland, so a separate category needs to be set up e.g. "Category:Smith (of Bangor, Wales) arms" and placed in the cat Category:Coats of arms of families of Wales. It's logical, and should meet the concerns you raise! Rules / laws / customs / motifs of heraldry are very nation specific, you seem to want to pool all British Isles heraldry together. We don't mix French and German heraldry based on surname, so isn't this similar? Please would you discuss this further with me and elaborate your concerns more fully before we have a disastrous schism in categorising heraldry of the British Isles! We have over 2,500 categories in Category:Coats of arms of families of England and about 40 in your new duplicate category. Please note also that the category Category:Coats of arms of families of England and its Welsh and Scottish counterparts conform to those relating to other nations, for example Category:Coats of arms of families of Germany, Category:Coats of arms of families of France, etc. they don't feel it necessary to have a further cat "Category:Arms by family name". It's very important we get this right, Many thanks, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobsterthermidor: You clearly think the category shouldn't be there. I don't see it that way. This is unfortunate.

Rather than get into details of how I'd prefer to work on basic categorisation, and how you might prefer me to work, I have a suggestion. Say I add Category:Coats of arms of the United Kingdom to be classified in addition, whenever I think that is suitable. And that I don't remove it without good reason. Then the classification I do will be in parallel with the system you speak of, which I have no wish to interfere with.

I don't have the slightest difficulty with the idea that the "Smith arms" category will be disseminated into "Smith of X arms" subcategories, by those sure of their ground. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, surely this is a community project, not about how one or the other of us would prefer to do things. You seem to be going out on a limb, I'm asking you to conform to an already well established category, which does a very good job in categorising personal arms by family name already, and I have made the point that your duplicate / "paralell" category does exactly the same thing (not even as well as it does not split out the nations) and is going to cause major problems later down the line. Do you see what I am saying? Can you forsee the problem? In response to your previous objection I notified you of the existence of the Welsh and Scottish categories and you have not explained why those do not meet your needs. Now it seems you want to create a third category containing files for someone else to sort out. Coats of arms of the United Kingdom don't really exist, heraldry is regulated by English and Scottish heraldic courts entirely separately, and so many aspects are different, as I said above. Why not just get it right first time? It's not difficult, I assume you are using for your source Burke's General Armory 1884 or something similar, which usually states the geograpic location of the family bearing the arms concerned. You don't need to be some kind of genius to be "sure of your ground", it's stated there in Burke. The heraldry images here are growing at an exponential pace and unless we put in a proper well-thought-out framework now to categorise them, we will be deluged with ad hoc categories left right and centre which will be too big and troublesome for anyone to sort out and rationalise. If we can't agree on this and reach a sensible solution, I feel I have to take it to wider discussion for the good of the project. Let's have another go at sorting this out. I await your response, please address my concerns. Regards. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then, to a detailed discussion.

One thing I do is upload here armorial bookplates: a very fruitful source for research. I categorise them as Category:Heraldic ex libris, and am sometimes able to add only a category such as Category:Smith arms. I may start only with the family name Smith, because there is no other context. The person in question may turn out to be Canadian.

There are similar issues with quarterings, where a blazon is annotated with a family name; with impaled escutcheons that are somewhat made-up from a wife's background. There are pub signs, and heraldry on postage stamps. There are certainly arms that I can photograph on buildings, and do some partial research on.

So the category system here is required to cope with disparate things, and the available information may at best be partial. Wheely bins here in Cambridge sometimes have Vermuyden arms. That is municipal heraldry, of course, rather than personal heraldry.

I recognise what you are saying, but in terms of a particular world of personal heraldry. It seems to be the herald's world, indeed. Arms are such as are granted, within the scope of an autonomous college or court. Required family information is on file, and the question of who belongs to a "family" is rule-based and something that can be subject to rigorous investigation of who is armigerous.

I hope I come across as comprehending. Commons needs a working classification of heraldic content. The "herald's world" seems to me a Procrustean bed. In any case I would say that is why we are having this discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Charles, I'm glad we're having this discussion and you certainly do come across as very comprehending. All the issues you raise have already been taken care of and built into the system, it seems that you're just not familiar with them. I'll go through your comments in order: I use the cat Heraldic ex libris, it's a good one. The Canadian Smith's arms are going to be "dumped somewhere" pending further sifting/research, that's fine, I do that frequently, the cat Category:Coats of arms of families of England can be used as a dumping ground, a place of first sorting, and it's reasonable to assume that this surname is English. When the cat gets to a critical size, someone who is interested (like me) will go through all the images in Category:Smith arms and sub-categorise them, move them to Category:Coats of arms of Canada to be classified (there's a recipe for a big mess!) or Category:Coats of arms of Canada, etc. I did that for Category:Beauchamp arms for example. The problem is that one big dumping ground becomes just that, a huge mess. Look at Category:Coats of arms of the United Kingdom to be classified, already 394 images! If that doubles in size it will be out of control and too big a job for anyone but the most dedicated to sort out. 258 more in the dumping ground (without sub-cats) of Category:Coats of arms of families of England (I thought there were more, has someone recently moved them elsewhere?).

"Municipal heraldry" / corporate heraldry is also all taken care of already here. Look at the treatment of Category:Coats of arms of Pembroke College, Cambridge - and how it ends up in the cats Category:Valence arms and Category:Coats of arms of the House of Châtillon, both personal arms. But it also goes into a corporate arms cat Category:Coats of arms of colleges of the University of Cambridge. Much corporate heraldry is a development of personal heraldry, for example Category:Coats of arms of Leicester goes into corporate and personal cats: Category:Coats of arms of cities of England and Category:Beaumont or Bellomont (Earl of Leicester) arms.

Back to Smith - at least by putting it into Category:Smith arms it has been sorted to level 1, rather than being in level 0. There's nothing wrong with guessing - Smith goes prima facie into Category:Coats of arms of families of England while Malone goes into Category:Coats of arms of families of Ireland.

Good example re Vermuyden arms. The arms on the Cambridge bins are I'm guessing the personal arms of Vermuyden, listed in Burke's Armorials, p.1055. (I'm guessing that without having looked into the historic connection between that family and the corporate entity which disposes of refuse at Cambridge, but there will be one) Pub signs were mainly coats of arms originally, as you will be aware, so there's a cat Category:Howard Arms pubs which is in Category:Howard arms which is in Category:Coats of arms of families of England and Category:Norfolk heraldry. I notice that there is Category:The Vermuyden, Goole, which I would guess was originally "The Vermuyden Arms" pub, so I would make a new cat Category:Vermuyden arms, and put it in there together with images of Cambridge bins. Hopefully someone will draw a shield with just the Vermuyden arms on it and add to that cat, forming the identifying image.

Impaled arms, with husband's arms on dexter and wife's on sinister, go into two cats, please examine the treatment of File:Basset Impaling Prideaux.png. The same for quarterings, if 4 quarterings, the image belongs in 4 cats, if 9 quarterings, the image belongs in 9 cats, see treatment of File:Armorials SirEdmondPrideaux 1stBaronet Died1628 FarwayChurch Devon.PNG, which has 9 quarterings and is sub-categorised into all the different sub-categories. Heraldry on postage stamps goes into the same cat as an image of just the shield, same with images on coins. Look at Category:Coats of arms of Queen Elizabeth I of England lots in there, coins, sculptures on buildings, paintings, coffee house signs, etc, but all share the basic same image, of one coat of arms. Basically any object showing the image of say Howard arms the arms goes into Category:Howard arms. This is not only a logical categorisation but also extremely useful for students of heraldry having so many and disparate images of the same thing in one place.

I think you would find it useful to study the contents of a large cat such as Category:De Warenne arms to see exactly what's in there and how wide the variety of objects on which the arms are depicted. As you say, the "category system here is required to cope with disparate things", but it really does that already, just a question of understanding what goes where. As to the law of heraldry you refer to lastly, the College of Arms in the City of London regulates all "English heraldry", separate authorities exist for the regulation of Scottish arms, Canadian arms, etc, all totally separate and different, with different rules and customs. As for "rigorous investigation of who is armigerous" I usually don't worry about that too much, unless coats of arms are obviously fake, when they go into Category:Fictional coats of arms of the United Kingdom (fictitious ?).

I hope this clarifies the issue a bit more, let's keep discussing it if you still have any concerns. Your images are much appreciated, I frequently come across them, uncategorised completely - or should I say categorised to an uncreated category - when I set up a new cat when categorising an old church monument and am thrilled to see your images pop up from nowhere, in the newly created cat, and am then pleased to have given them a cat so others can see them. There seem to be a lot of your images floating out there in the ether, unseen by anyone, which is a shame. Regards, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least we are somewhat on the same page(s). Thank you for the detailed workflow explanations. I shall have to consider what to do about them.

As for my creations with DrawShield (and currently I'm the only user of the software tool, apparently, apart from one guy who created the arms of Visby, blazon "gules"), they are all to be found in the hidden category Category:Valid SVG created with DrawShield. So far 635, it having turned out to be my lockdown bonus project.

Yesterday I created a Milman escutcheon, and when I searched for Milman+arms found another one. So Category:Milman arms is now there. I remain of the opinion that finding stuff is of the essence.

Perhaps we could do a deal, under which I try to bear down on Category:Coats of arms of the United Kingdom to be classified, and you fish around in Category:Arms by family name. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and it turns out that someone else has been active with DrawShield, since May anyway. So there are uncategorised escutcheons out there. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Charles, that sounds very productive and collaborative. Having said that I'm not sure what you mean by "I try to bear down on Category:Coats of arms of the United Kingdom to be classified, and you fish around in Category:Arms by family name", sounds good prima facie, but please be a bit more specific! What is your final conclusion about the usefulness and future of Category:Arms by family name, or are you still thinking about that principal issue - which is fine, please let me know when you have come to a decision. Does any shield produced with drawshield automatically get assigned to wikimedia and/or to any specific category, is it officially connected to the wikimedia project? I don't know much about it. I've noticed you name your images "blazon of ..." which is technically incorrect as a w:blazon is the formal written description of an heraldic image, not the image itself. It might be better if you use the formula "Coat of arms of ...." of "Arms of ...." even "shield of ...", etc, before this "bad habit" spreads! I think that in French blason does mean the shield itself - as in the wonderful expressions "redorer son blason" (re-gild / restore one's family's prestige) and "ternir son blason" (tarnish / dishonour one's ancestry), but not on this side of the Channel. Congratulations on your 635 images, great contributions, let's find the ideal home for them! Regards, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the naming of the DrawShield files, I answered above at User talk:Charles Matthews#Blazon. Basically it is what the software does.

DrawShield lives at https://drawshield.net/: I correspond with Karl Wilcox who is the author of the software, about issues including having new charges added to the system. What is at https://drawshield.toolforge.org/ is a 2020 version of that software, adapted by Magnus Manske so that the result uploads here. I use both these sources (for example a new charge from drawshield.net uploaded on top).

There is no direct Wikimedia involvement, besides Magnus, therefore. The software is open source, so if a Wikimedia group wanted a custom version there could be one. There could be some point in that. I know from Karl that his version is being developed with other volunteers (both for new charges, and better rendering of some issues such as quartering). Things are still in flux, therefore. There are escutcheons I just can't do, because a charge is missing; and others where the positioning is unsatisfactory as things stand.

The SVG files here are vetted under the igen system. That's a technical check.

I'm happy to expand on all of this, of course.

As for my workflow, I'm someone who tends to have a set routine or workflow for particular tasks; and consciously modifies it when I see the point of doing that. So I'm still thinking about the categorisation issue. (I work on four of the Wikimedia projects, also. That's a bit too much to be everywhere at once. I'm digitising Alumni Oxonienses on Wikisource, which prompted today's File:Blazon of Ennis Baronets of Ballinahown Court (1866).svg because the 2nd baronet was at Christ Church in the 1860s.)

I'm glad we're talking, and finding common ground. I'm chary of getting into disputes - too much experience of those on Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobsterthermidor: Example from just now: I created a Hennessy escutcheon, for a family from County Tipperary. Could hardly be more Irish. Category:Hennessy arms, I find, is made a subcategory of Category:Coats of arms of families of England. The reason would be the arms of Baron Windlesham, in the UK peerage. Now, the first Baron is described as Franco-Irish, in his Wikipedia article.

Now, I don't want to upset your arrangements, really. But I might not be the only person to object to that categorisation. It seems to be an artefact.

My personal take on family names, as opposed to families, is that they are not naturally classified by countries, or languages. If you say that Hennessy is not a French name, for example, you have a problem explaining why there is a cognac called that.

If families are treated in a strict genealogical sense, which I was talking about above, one can talk about "families of Scotland" for example by looking at origins, which would be what many people meant. That make sense for heraldry. Where I get lost is imposing a country classification on a family name. It seems to me to be one step too early. Fine for "Hennessy of Windlesham, Surrey" to be a UK family at least, or a family of England for some purposes. Not fine to bundle up "Hennessy of Ballymacmoy" with them, nor indeed "Hennessy of Bordeaux".

Anyway, for me, Category:Arms by family name deals with that issue.

Charles Matthews (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Sir Charles Mansfield Clarke 1st Baronet Lane.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Sir Charles Mansfield Clarke 1st Baronet Lane.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Sir Charles Mansfield Clarke 1st Baronet Lane.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) 07:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Willoughby Cole, 2nd Earl of Enniskillen Robinson.jpg[edit]

File:John Willoughby Cole, 2nd Earl of Enniskillen Robinson.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: Lower-resolution duplicate of Thomas Robinson (before 1770-1810) - John Willoughby Cole (1768–1840), 2nd Earl of Enniskillen, Later 1st Baron Grinstead - 631045 - National Trust.jpg.)

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

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

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Escutcheon of the Levinge Baronets (1704).svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Escutcheon of the Levinge Baronets (1704).svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Escutcheon of the Levinge Baronets (1704).svg. 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) 05:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRefine and Structured Data on Commons: community meetup, February 22[edit]

OpenRefine logo

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for updates about Structured Data on Commons (SDC) functionalities in OpenRefine.

The OpenRefine team has made quite a bit of progress in the past months. We warmly invite you to a meetup with updates and a first demo of the newly developed SDC editing functionalities in OpenRefine. Bring your questions!

When? Tuesday, February 22, at 15:00-17:00 UTC (check the time in your timezone).
For whom? For anyone who is curious about the current status of SDC support in OpenRefine!
Where? Online, via Zoom. The event's info page has the link.
The meeting will be recorded and the recording will be published to Wikimedia Commons afterwards.

Check the event page for more info. With kind regards, SFauconnier (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Escutcheon of the Glyn baronets of Ewell (1759) and of Gaunt's House (1800).svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Escutcheon of the Glyn baronets of Ewell (1759) and of Gaunt's House (1800).svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Escutcheon of the Glyn baronets of Ewell (1759) and of Gaunt's House (1800).svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRefine and SDC updates: user survey and monthly office hours[edit]

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for updates about the Structured Data on Commons (SDC) features that are currently developed for OpenRefine.

Short survey for SDC features in OpenRefine[edit]

OpenRefine is running a short survey to learn about user needs and expectations for its new SDC features. If you upload files to Wikimedia Commons and/or edit structured data there, please help by filling in this survey!

Monthly OpenRefine and Wikimedia office hours[edit]

OpenRefine's community meetup of February 22 was very well attended. You can see its recording, slides and notes here. The team now hosts monthly, informal office hours for Wikimedians (online, via Zoom). Upcoming office hours are:

Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4PM UTC (how late is this in my timezone?)
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 8AM UTC (how late is this in my timezone?)
Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4PM UTC (how late is this in my timezone?)

The Zoom link of the next office hour will be posted on OpenRefine's info page on Wikimedia Commons. Please drop by and say hi!

All the best! SFauconnier (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Alumnioxonienses02univ.pdf[edit]

Copyright status: File:Alumnioxonienses02univ.pdf

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Alumnioxonienses02univ.pdf. 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) 01:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escutcheon of John Sambrook Crawley.svg[edit]

File:Escutcheon of John Sambrook Crawley.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

Di (they-them) (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

Affects:

Verbcatcher (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: The first of these has an adequate replacement now at File:Escutcheon of Starkey of Norwood Park1.svg. As far as I'm concerned it can be deleted.

For the second, there is an off-the-shelf replacement charge here at File:Meuble héraldique sphère armillaire.svg, for the infringing charge. I have asked for the substitution to be made in the DrawShield system. That has not happened yet, apparently. (I believe there is a weekly refresh there.) So, recording the blazon here as "gules, an orle argent charged with eight mullets azure, an armillary sphere much smaller or".

That image is actually in use on enWP, so I'd like the chance to chase up the substitution. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: I have now been able to replace the second image, and it can now been deleted. Thank you for your patience in this matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Richard Butler 1846.jpeg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Richard Butler 1846.jpeg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Butler 1846.jpeg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 15:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template fixed. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:John Humphery arms.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:John Humphery arms.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:John Humphery arms.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 18:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

License added. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Sir John Musgrove 1st Baronet arms.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Sir John Musgrove 1st Baronet arms.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Sir John Musgrove 1st Baronet arms.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) 19:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

License added. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Henry Wollaston Blake Silvy.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Henry Wollaston Blake Silvy.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Henry Wollaston Blake Silvy.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Unlock the Account[edit]

Dear Administrator

   I, Yadhu Krishna BP, Wikipedia User was blocked by Administrator:JBW on 8th Sep 2022. He had advised me not to disturb any Administrator requesting the unblock for at least a year. But after a negotiation the period was reduced to 8 months. Now on May I again requested to him but he made false statements on me that I had not obeyed his advices and said he is unfortunately busy with some other works. I had requested him for more than 100 times, sincerely. I don't know whether my approach to you will be helpful or not but still waiting for a positive outlook.

Thanking 2402:8100:3906:CC9C:0:0:0:1 09:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at w:User talk:Yadhu Krishna BP and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yadhu_Krishna_BP. You have been persistent in using talk pages, but I can see why there are doubts about your capacity to contribute to Wikipedia. Also, you have been advised not to make this type of contact. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrator

Sorry, for disturbing You.

I know I had been advised and I had obeyed it for 8th months.

See I have no option, other than making such contact. I used to contribute or edits on articles only after discussion or only if i have a prerequisite knowledge about it. At least unlock my account. I will never make any unwanted edits nor disturb any one by requesting.

Please Sir unlock my Account as a last chance. I cannot wait more that's why...Please. 103.179.196.228 17:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will say to you what I always say with these appeals. If exactly the same thing is going to happen again, no one will want to unblock you. We don't require heavy self-criticism, but a show of basic understanding. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Charles Wigley Wicksted Ouless.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Charles Wigley Wicksted Ouless.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Charles Wigley Wicksted Ouless.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) 16:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter baronets of Invereighty[edit]

hi, I noticed and wondered what your source was. I noticed that it is a replica of Baxter Baronet of Kilmaron: Erm. on a chevron engrailed between three mullets gu. as many garbs or, within a bordure of the second -- ref: https://ia601002.us.archive.org/0/items/ordinaryofarmsco01paul/ordinaryofarmsco01paul.pdf and https://www.heraldry-online.org.uk/baxter.html so am not sure if it is a title error or a heraldic oddity. Yours ever, Czar Brodie~commonswiki (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar Brodie~commonswiki: There is a link for the blazon on the description page, to https://archive.org/details/debrettsbaroneta00unse/page/47/mode/1up. I don't think there is an anomaly here. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for super swift response. Yep your source is good, and you are correct - not an anomaly - they are the same family, so rehashed the same arms. Sorry to bother you with another question: I noticed the hand of ulster in the picture of your reference (yet not in text); I sometimes struggle to know if to add this if it is not in the text, and can I add it to any part of the shield? Czar Brodie~commonswiki (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar Brodie~commonswiki: That is an augmentation of honour for baronets, allowed by King James I. I regard it as optional. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Yours ever, Czar Brodie~commonswiki (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Mary Browne Evelyn Meyer.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Mary Browne Evelyn Meyer.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Browne Evelyn Meyer.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) 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Charles Matthews

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

File:At the Holy Well Topham.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Archibald Bower Macardell.jpg[edit]

Mechanical Curator collection[edit]

transfer Image from English Wikipedia[edit]

Copyright status: File:Edward Scriven (1775–1841), 1845 by Benjamin Phelps Gibbon.jpg[edit]

James Losh at the Lit and Phil[edit]

Crop of File:Jeremy Farrar and David Weatherall at RILD launch (14425802043).jpg[edit]

File tagging File:CRMatHeadway1.jpg[edit]

File:CRMatHeadway1.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:French pastry school Chicago entrance.JPG[edit]

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer[edit]

NOA project[edit]

Thank you[edit]

COM:OVERCAT[edit]

Image without license[edit]

File:Wikimania 2018 hackathon mentoring table plugbar.jpg[edit]

File:Waterhouse.jpg[edit]

"Press pass" for Commons photographers[edit]

File:Alfred William Pollard.jpg[edit]

Category:Daniel_King[edit]

September 2019: it's Wiki Loves Monuments time again![edit]

Adding incorrect category[edit]

Adding incorrect categorisation[edit]

Blazon[edit]

Copyright status: File:Philip Oxenden Papillon.png[edit]

Wikidata infobox not appearing[edit]

Copyright status: File:Owen Williams bookplate.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Distin Family 1844.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Katherine Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas Ross.jpg[edit]

OpenRefine starts SDC development! 💎[edit]

Category:Arms by family name[edit]

Copyright status: File:Sir Charles Mansfield Clarke 1st Baronet Lane.jpg[edit]

File:John Willoughby Cole, 2nd Earl of Enniskillen Robinson.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Escutcheon of the Levinge Baronets (1704).svg[edit]

OpenRefine and Structured Data on Commons: community meetup, February 22[edit]

Copyright status: File:Escutcheon of the Glyn baronets of Ewell (1759) and of Gaunt's House (1800).svg[edit]

OpenRefine and SDC updates: user survey and monthly office hours[edit]

Short survey for SDC features in OpenRefine[edit]

Monthly OpenRefine and Wikimedia office hours[edit]

Copyright status: File:Alumnioxonienses02univ.pdf[edit]

File:Escutcheon of John Sambrook Crawley.svg[edit]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Copyright status: File:Richard Butler 1846.jpeg[edit]

Copyright status: File:John Humphery arms.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Sir John Musgrove 1st Baronet arms.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Henry Wollaston Blake Silvy.jpg[edit]

Request to Unlock the Account[edit]

Copyright status: File:Charles Wigley Wicksted Ouless.jpg[edit]

Baxter baronets of Invereighty[edit]

Copyright status: File:Mary Browne Evelyn Meyer.jpg[edit]

Navigation menu

Search