This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
hello
you have deleted Daramadi bar nojoum.jpg, why? I am the author of the book "Daramdi bar nojoom va keyhanshenasi" and this pic is my own.
you had better inform the author befor deleting.
Hello,
I contact you concerning "Lenz_theodor_friedrich_carl.jpg" "This media file has been nominated for deletion since 26 October 2015."
I'am not the author of the photo. The author is unknown. It's a 'family-photo' which is in my possession. Friedrich Lenz is my great-great-grandfather.
I hope this information can help to classify this photo.
I uploaded a photograph of yours to Wikimedia. I'm just letting you know so you can change the title to your naming scheme as per last time. I've had a go, but I've no clue what the MMB part is.
Hi Jcc. Thanks for letting me know. The number after MMB is just the number of the photo on Commons, so generally it'll be the next one numerically in that sequence, in this case 04. I've sorted out the categories and such. I think you probably made a better picture with that crop than my original. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Matt,
I have a permission from Konrad Lenz for the use of the photo. What do you want me to do?
Should he contact you personally to conform it?
Best regards,
Leserin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leserin789 (talk • contribs)
@Mattbuck: I have followed your instructions and I have sent Konrad Lenz the E-mail to use. I hope it works out alright! Leserin
Leserin789 thanks for that, the OTRS team should be able to sort everything out. Oh, one more thing, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ - this automatically adds your username and the date/time. Happy editing! -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Clarification requested
... here. I assume that by "you" you mean the person who nominated this for deletion, not me. I took the photo at a conference where I photographed as many panelists as I could; I barely know the person in question and don't live in the same part of the country. - Jmabel ! talk18:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Done I've updated the link and passed the review. If you upload more stuff from there, tag it for LR so I can get it reviewed. I usually get reviews done within a day or so. INeverCry21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This report caused a crash (apparently), it's unclear why after such a long history of running without a problem that the queries became long to run. It's been set so that queries cannot run in parallel. As a user of the report, if you notice a loss of utility from the lag between image overwrites and the report being updated getting too long, do drop me a note. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This would qualify it only for "dog bones" as it in not a whole skeleton. Additionally it is not very useful as it doesn't show how the head is articulated with the vertebrates. the skull is the part which is visible in a usefukl way. --Kersti (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
FGW/GWR
Hi. I'm currently trying to update all the categories associated with FGW/GWR, with the ultimate aim that there are sub-sections for the First Great Western livery. If the only category you would prefer changed is Train liveries of GWR then I will happily rename that as Great Western Railway (train operating company). Cloudbound (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cloudbound: Well, the trains by livery section will always be split into "First Group Dynamic Lines", "First Great Western Local Lines" and now "Great Western Railway" categories. I don't object entirely to renaming them, though FGW was already a stupidly long TOC name and "Great Western Railway (train operating company)" is twice as bad. My point is that there is no such TOC as "GWR", so whether the categories get renamed or not, that is clearly wrong.
No problem with the date categories - please do what is best. I'd also prefer to get away without the full title and disambiguation for sub-categories, but if it's better to stick with FGW then so be it. As you say, the livery section is split, so that will not need to change. Cloudbound (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
We need to be consistent, if only because the template used for categorising rail images, {{Ukt}}, relies on the "train interiors" and named TOC being the same. If we rename it, it has to be to the full disambiguated title, as in principle one could create categories for train interiors of the original GWR, though that would probably have a the in the title. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cloudbound: I've deleted all the fGWR categories created by Geof Sheppard (sorry Geof) on the grounds that they are the same TOC, albeit renamed. I think a similar situation is "One" being renamed to NXEA - while we keep livery categories named the same, everything else has to be renamed en-masse. The top level category should certainly be as on enwp, "Great Western Railway (train operating company)". The question is can we get away with just "Great Western Railway" for the subcategories. There is some precedent for that sort of thing, but the issue is consistency. Clearly no class or livery categories are problematic, but line and interior ones may be due to the original GWR. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been working through the sub-sections, but have kept the "(train operating company)" disambiguation as there are some existing categories for the original Great Western Railway and I'd like to keep things consistent. Cloudbound (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I must admit I'm not happy with where we are at present. For excample, File:Coombe Junction - fGWR 153333 arriving from Liskeard.JPG is shown as a Class 153 of Great Western Railway (correct) but a Train of First Great Western on the Looe Valley Line (incorrect). As Matt pointed out, the toc needs to be the same in both categories for the templates to work - and these really speed things up when you're categorising images.
It can't be moved to Trains of Great Western Railway on the Looe Valley Line as that is for steam trains photogrpahed befere 1948. Note that the pre-grouping categories do not use 'the' so as to be consistent with more recent categrories.
Then what are we going to do with the livery category? We'll need to distinguish from Class 57s in lined-out heritage colours as opposed to First's new plain green.
I still think that 'Great Western Railway (First Group)' is the shortest that we can do this without getting tangled up with the 'Real' GWR which was, afterall, around an awful lot longer than this reincarnation is likely to be. It also future-proofs us against some other TOC using the name again in the future.
For the livery, how about First Great Western Railway? Ideally that would be the TOC name too. The old GWR colours appears to be Great Western Railway green currently, but yes, something needs to change. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
For the TOC I definitely meant "Great Western Railway (First Group)", however the repainted trains use a GWR logo plus First Group strap line so I wouldn't complain if we settled on "British Rail Class 166s in GWR (First Group) livery" etc. as that is probably how a non-expert would describe it. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a concern here - the rebranding of FGW as GWR is not retro-active. File:Devonport 43122.jpg shows a train operated by "First Great Western" in a FGW livery, and at that time GWR solely meant the historical entity. These should continue to be identified as First Great Western.
IMO it would be better to treat FGW and GWR as two separate entities, as if it was a new franchise than to muddy the historical stuff. Of course, in the transitional period there are GWR trains in the FGW liveries...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: while you're correct that earlier trains were FGW, we have precedent for this, for instance National Express East Anglia was originally called One, and while we have categories for the "One" livery, all trains are listed as NXEA. It's still the same franchisee. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe so - I'm aware its a re-branding rather than a new entity. IMO it would be better to distinguish between FGW and GWR - for instance by having FGW as a sub-cat of GWR. Its seems very wrong for categories like this to be wholly populated by FGW trains, and when we have images of actual GWR trains they should be easy to spot in cats like that.
Hello Mattbuck, Thanks for your response. I don't know if I found myself to the right place here to reply. I tried again, several times, with the same result. It opens in a new browser window but does not appear in my downloads. I tried several times with Safari, and got the same result. I don't know what I might be doing wrong. I click on Downloads, then Full Resolution. I haven't had this problem before, but haven't used this site either.
As part of the project Quality images training in Tunisia, the Wikimedia TN user group is looking for a Wikimedia commons User able to organize a training about Quality images, featured pictures, Valued images and Graphic Lab/Photography in Tunisia from February 18th to 22th, 2016.
To participate please fill this form --Touzrimounir (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Smiley.toerist, I'm not entirely sure, I've only been there twice. It certainly COULD be Piccadilly, but if so I think the ramp's likely been replaced with a travelator. I'd check your images by time - if the ones on either side are Pic, this one probably is too. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
These indicate Piccadilly, but the time marging is large but they exclude anything not in Manchester. By the way the day times are offset by several hours as my camera didnt have the correct time set. If I can find a station clock I can calculate the correction needed. This is why I avoid using the time in the classification and sorting information. In the meantime I have a mystery with . I put a message in the Village Pump.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
If you created this project page, 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.
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!
If you created this project page, 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.
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!
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!
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!
I'm still not entirely, happy but it seems reasonable to withdraw the DR's on the basis that they don't seem to have a policy reason for deletion at present. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Sfan00 IMG: I can't say I think that the Jennifer Ann photo is something which should be on Commons, but if it's in use in an article we shouldn't second-guess their editorial judgments. IThe sixty nine image I'd say is generally within scope; the scanner one I'd have thought is outside except we don't seem to have any other photos of "people photocopying their backsides", which is after all a common pop culture thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Your railways gallery
Hi Mattbuck, I've seen my rail transport related uploads being added to your gallery. I'm curious: how do you do this? Is this the work of a bot? And how do you recognise which ones are rail related? --Judithcomm (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
If you created this project page, 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.
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!
Sorry, completely new to Wikimedia, i never knew it existed until 5 minutes ago!
Could you confirm how the licensing works if i want to use some of your images? From a quick look it seems as though they are license free as long as i credit your work? Is this correct?
I am looking for images of Providence Tower / Wharf in London, which is where i happened upon your images, are we able to use these in a printed book if we credit you, and if so how would your credit need to appear (exact wording?).
It's all early stages yet, just need to check i don't head down the wrong path to begin with.
Thanks for contacting me. I'm generally happy for you to just put my name "Matt Buck" below the image. If you could let me know if/when the book is published I'd be grateful. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey Matt,
I received a mail with a deletion request for File:Charing Cross metro station, London.jpg
I cannot find any info on why. Should also add that I am a Wiki-noobie so I am still finding my way around. I see where you work so I am sure you have a more than valid argument for deleting the photo. So, please go ahead with the deletion if necessary. Just let me know why.
Viola, the reason I am requesting deletion of the photo is that, while I have no doubt you took the photo, you are not the creator of the artwork on the platform walls. It's not anything to do with my day job, it's just about copyright. When a photo includes a portion of a copyrighted work, there are several policies/laws which come into play.
The first is COM:De Minimis, which basically says "the law does not concern itself with trifles". If an inclusion is small, or irrelevant to the photo, it can be ignored. For instance if you take an overview of a platform, it's unlikely that the adverts will be relevant to the image, and so their copyright status can be ignored. If however this is not the case - for instance you take a photo specifically to show the advert - then it becomes relevant to the composition and thus relevant to the copyright status. With your photo, the artwork is a major part of the image, and so fails the de minimis test.
If an included work fails de minimis, we need to move on to COM:Freedom of Panorama. This is a set of country-specific laws which dictate what works are ineligible for copyright due to their being in public. These vary massively - for instance in France, architecture is not covered, and so we cannot host images of the Centre Pompidou (it's a modern building so still within copyright) but could host photos of Notre Dame Cathedral (which is old enough to be out of copyright). In the UK architecture, and3D artwork and 2D non-graphical works (so long as they are permanently installed in a public place) are covered under freedom of panorama, so you're free to upload photos of statues and mosaics. However 2D graphical works, such as photos or artwork like in your photo, are not covered under UK freedom of panorama.
Finally need to consider whether the work is freely released or in the public domain. Unless we have specific evidence to the contrary, we assume that all works are all rights reserved, which is why I nominated your image for deletion.
Thanks for the response. I assumed that all photos that are taken from Wikimedia Commons can be used on Wiki. Is that incorrect? All the best, --Viola Parker (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I've checked a few recent results on another good-quality monitor, and it's consistent with what I get on my main display. I don't know what to say - others seem pleased with the results. DavidArthur (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
East Midlands Parkway railway station / Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station
I'd like to contest the addition of the railway station category to photos which only show the power station (mostly cooling towers). Categories are to classify what the photograph shows, not where it was taken from. Thus, a category for a railway station one would expect to only contain photographs which include the station, and this is true for the power station category as well. You wouldn't put a photograph of a motorway in the category for the make of car in which you were travelling when you took the picture, so this should apply here too. The close proximity isn't a factor (all St Pancras photos taken from the Kings Cross side of the road don't go in the KX cat as well). Rcsprinter123 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Rcsprinter123, I can understand your car argument, but I don't think it's a correct analogy. A car is not a fixed point in space, that I was able to take a photo of Port Talbot from my girlfriend's dad's skoda tells you nothing about Skoda Octavias. However photos of the power station from the railway station do tell you something about the railway station. We quite legitimately have categories for views from places, and those are in turn categorised within that place, for instance views from the Shard are categorised within the Shard category. When you have a fixed location, showing what you can see from that location informs you about that location. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you would consider a "views of Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station from EMP station" subcategory? I just can't find it acceptable to have pictures just of Y in a category labelled Z. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
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!
Hi Matt, Hope all is well,
When you're not busy could you categorize these images [3][4][5] for me please?,
I'd hoped to do it myself but truth to be told I'm clueless and I know you're a genius when it comes to categorizing these :),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk23:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice to see you have many friends there, still with such behaviour no wonder people can't be bothered to Upload, thus now presumably follows your rationalisations and other false arguments Oxyman (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Oxyman, if you knew me you'd know I don't really have friends. I nominated the image for deletion in good faith, and I stand by my arguments for why it is out of scope. I do not mean to cast aspersions upon you in any manner. Nor have I colluded to get others to back me up - I have not requested any aid from fellow admins, any who do comment do so entirely independently from me. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but admins actions have been atrocious all round and never in the spirit of a discussion, not a suspicious conspiracy, just a fact. Oxyman (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope she likes it ... if you're preparing it this far in advance of Christmas, it must be something really special. Glad to be a part of it, whatever it is.
But wow! I didn't know until I looked at that file page, though, just how much use it's gotten across the projects. All that from an image taken with a humble old Kodak DP/S (and when I say "old" I mean, "old" by today's standards of continuous rapidly advancing technologies, not "old" in the sense of a film camera or even something as genuinely classic as a Speed-Graphic or Leica). I should really nominate it for VI.
Funny thing ... I actually prefer, as a representative image for Wadi Rum, this one, which I had in mind for the article infobox from practically the moment I took it, since it shows some of the scant vegetation that grows in some areas (but those areas are the ones you are most likely to visit if, as my father and I were, you have most of a single day to visit).
I was probably very lucky that day, more than seven years ago now, that I visited at such a photogenic time that even with that camera, the images I took came out as well as they did (I really wonder what it would have been like with the D3X I have now ... then again, that was my dad's camera at that time, I think). I also like that this five-image panorama came together so well ... a cropped version is now the banner for the wikivoyage page (and again, it is an accurately representative image, what I saw with my own eyes that day). Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I quite like your representative one, but it's not quite what I'm after. Looks oddly like a Western film set or something. And I like to think it'll be something special, but I always organise a bit far out - I probably have jam for Christmas 2017! -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Your previous "keep" contribution (2011) regarding deletion of one of my images
Dear Mattbuck, you previously commented "keep" for one of my images flagged for deletion in 2011. I wonder if you can comment on a current case regarding my images. On 3 Nov 2016 a user made various mass deletion requests regarding my images, the majority of which were uploaded in 2010.
Perhaps it is not unreasonable to infer the 2010 images were appropriate (not to be deleted) in 2011, because only one image was flagged for deletion in 2011?
It is also worth noting, regarding the current mass deletions, three of the images were threatened with deletion in 2011 due to a question of permission, permission which I had to email to prevent deletion. Surely if the images were unsuitable in 2011, when the "missing permission" issue arose, they would have been flagged for deletion in 2011 instead of merely being subject to a request for copyright permission?
Being a former public figure, of minor fame, I worry I am being unjustly targeted, a possible bias in these flaggings, which could especially be true considering the provocative nature of my fame and campaigning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRHSP (talk • contribs) 10:25, 03 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRHSP (talk • contribs) 10:36, 03 November 2016 (UTC)
SRHSP, I don't believe there's any specific targeting going on here, other than an attempt to delete images which a user sees as being out of scope. I shall leave any further discussion to the deletion request page. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
You wrote: "No evidence subject is the uploader." What evidence do you need from me? The picture looks professional, because it's my official photo. I added the metadata, because I'm the owner of the rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelbfisch (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add a street address for the photo of UCL Institute of Education, and also at the places the photo is used. Is it on Gower Street, or Bedford Way?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! * ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! * Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! -- George Chernilevskytalk18:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
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!
Category:Trains_on_the_North_TransPennine 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!
File:Loughborough Junction stn look towards Cambria junction.JPG
I don't understand why you reverted my edit. Southeastern trains never ran on the Sutton Loop line. Also, the Southeastern train in the picture is at Loughborough Junction so it can't be from the Sutton Loop line. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Pkbwcgs, you left it in the category for 375s on the Sutton Loop Line, I'm trying to keep consistency. If that's not the Sutton Loop Line, what line do you believe it is? Ping Geof Sheppard for extra thoughts. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree Blackfriars is on the SEML, but that's from the link to London Bridge. I guess perhaps Catford Loop Line would be the best option. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I speak to the issue of the two photographs that represent two children
The first is an image of a child that describes how (boy in Adigrat), so there is not written in the description that the child is Tigrayans origins, we have no security.
The baby could be a Yemeni immigrant in Adigrat.
the photo must be deleted because, as I said it does not have the security that is Tigrinya, because the description of the photo is not mentioned its origin
the second is the photo of a little girl with a haircut by an adult (like a lolita) does not even six years so a photo child should be eliminated,
We're not on Wikipedia, how they use the image is not the point. We're not claiming the children are of whatever ethnic origin, merely that they are in that village (or whatever it is). As for your comments about the girl, I think you're being rather overzealous there. Now please confine your comments to the deletion requests and stop forum shopping. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
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!
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!
This Barnstar is awarded for your kindness towards user and for improving images and sorting categories that are related to British railway. Thank you very much! Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
File:Abus S333AJP.jpg
Hi Matt, as I know you've put a lot of effort into categorising images, I'd appreciate your view on the categories on this image which I'm discussing with another editor. They deleted the categories for the second bus in the picture and when I try to reinstate them they just revert my edits saying "Categories should only be used for the main subject of an image ". I can't find any policy or guidance so wondered what you think would be appropriate? Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
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!
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!
I was notified that some of the photos I uploaded will be deleted unless "the uploader can clarify source and perhaps explain a bit about current and future potential usage".
I have made these photos and I wanted to categorize them as I am new to Wikimedia so I did not consider that field, but I am not able to edit my photos.
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!
On IRC, your name was suggested as someone that might be interested in getting clarifications on these sorted out. Until some off-wiki researches found otherwise some uploaders have assumed the BR double arrows logo was PD-Shape. In terms of a simplistic view this may indeed have been a reasonable assumption. However, in trying to determine what the status of certain other ex BR design elements was off-wiki, it was determined that through various transfers post privatization, the logo design was now nominally owned by the Department of Transport. Perhaps you would be willing to contact them in order to get an official position lodged on the OTRS system. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
As a side issue to this does Wikipedia have any contacts within The National Archives and the National Railway Musuem, that would also be able to shed light on other former BR design elements which occur in media on Commons (such as train liveries and signs)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could use one of your images on the front of an mailable brochure produced by Astley Media in Exeter for their client Tech South West? We will credit the image on page 2 as your work.
Many thanks, kind regards, Lisa Singleton.
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!
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!
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!
Is the train in this image really operated by Govia Thameslink railway? Thameslink never operated Class 455s and there is no evidence of the train in this image being operated by them. Firstly, Thameslink trains usually don't terminate at London Victoria (unless there are engineering works on the Sevenoaks to West Hampstead Thameslink route). Secondly, the train is in Southern livery and is a Class 455. I don't know if there were any engineering works on the day this image was captured but I wouldn't classify this as a GTR train. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Pkbwcgs Yes it's GTR. Southern is just a GTR brand since about two years ago (check Wikipedia but iirc that's the timeframe). Anything since Southern got merged into the GTR franchise should be categorised as GTR. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
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!
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!
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!
Pkbwcgs, Gatwick Express IIRC was a TOC in its own right, but then it got merged into Southern and became simply a brand. The 387s belong in the GTR category. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Вікі любить пам'ятки 2017 в Україні / Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in Ukraine
Вітаємо!
Запрошуємо взяти участь у міжнародному фотоконкурсі «Вікі любить пам'ятки»! До 30 вересня включно Ви можете подавати власні фото пам'яток історико-культурної спадщини України — і змагатися за призи. Звертаємо увагу, що завантажені матеріали будуть враховуватися у тій версії файлу, що був на час завершення конкурсу, тож якщо у Вас гарне фото, вантажте його одразу у високій роздільності. З регламентом конкурсу можна ознайомитися тут.
Окрім традиційних номінацій за найкращі фото і найбільшу кількість сфотографованих об'єктів, у конкурсі також є спецномінація для Ваших відеоматеріалів про пам'ятки. Якщо у Вас розмір відеофайлу завеликий для конкурсного завантажувача, спробуйте скористатися стандартним завантажувачем, але не забудьте поставити ідентифікатор пам'ятки. Якщо виникатимуть будь-які труднощі — пишіть нам на wlmwikimediaukraine.org.ua
Приєднуйтеся! Зі списками пам'яток можна ознайомитися тут. Більше інформації про конкурс дивіться у блозі конкурсу. – З повагою, Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки». 21:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I would like you to share your views if this file fails COM:DM. This is because, the movie poster in this picture seems to be the subject of the picture rather than the train and it would seem to be useless if the movie poster is cropped as not much of the train is visible. However, a previous picture which I nominated (File:Willesden Junction station MMB 01 1972 stock.jpg) has been closed for keep. However, the movie poster is more clearer in File:Marylebone station MMB 19 1972-Stock.jpg than the train. Therefore, it would be appreciated if you share your thoughts on this matter. Thanks - Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
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!
I am aware that you put 'MMB' for most of your images but I don't understand what it stands for. Can you please explain this? Thanks - Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
File:Upminster station MMB 01.jpg is in three different categories relating to Class 321s. Is there really a Class 321 in this image or has it accidentally been put in the Class 321 categories? I can't find seem to find any train in that image. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Please check if I closed this category discussion correctly. I am not experienced to closing category discussions. Thanks - Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
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!
I'm contacting you about the use of your images in my website (www.dixon.es).
I've got to admit that the different copyright and licensing agreements under which fotos are made available via Wikicommons seem a bit of a labyrinth to me, hence my contacting you directly.
I'm not a programmer, and fighting with websites is a real trial for me. However, I've got this far, and I'd like to know how you'd like me to proceed with a credit (assuming that you're ok about my using the fotos in the first place, of course).
I did initially add credits to the fotos themselves, but they looked really poor in the standard slider that I've used, so I removed them and added a "Credits" link on the main menu, with intention of listing all the fotos that I've used along with the corresponding credit and link.
So, before I go ahead, I'd like to have your feedback about the idea, and of course about the use of your fotos.
Coffeman, I was on a train going past. I'd seen it a few days previously when going the other way and so when heading back home I kept a lookout for it. Nothing happened, and the date's on the photo page. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, that sounds serious. Could you let me know exactly what error message you get when you try to login to Montage with your username User:Mattbuck, via the link I sent in my email? I'll need to refer that back to the developers straight away. As far as I know, there have been no other reviewers who have reported a similar problem, so I've no idea what could be causing it. Sorry for the difficulties. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
By Ahadjsma: Deletion request for pictures of my father on different film sets.
Hi Matt,
I have indeed fixed the problem of the source and the author by listing not only what film was the Shot of, but also the name of the Director of Photography by whom the shots were taken. I'd like to make sure this solves the issues through which you flagged those pictures for deletion. Kindly confirm.
Thanks.
--Ahadjsma (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Ahadjsma. October 9th. 2017
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadjsma (talk • contribs)
File:Bea 2017.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!
Hi Rob, in case Matt doesn't get to it himself, here's a quick answer:
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. Yes, you can use it. Any of it, whatever it is, if it's on Commons you can use it. It's what Commons is here for. Nor do you have to ask first, although thanks for that as photographers do appreciate it.
This image is licensed as CC-by-sa, so take a look here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en for full details of what that entails. Broadly it means that you have to do two things: credit the author and source (maybe Matt has a favoured format for that, but "Licensed CC-by-sa by Mattbuck @ Wikimedia Commons" would generally do it). Secondly there's a share-alike requirement, which is complicated and spelled out more on the Creative Commons site (CC is unconnected to WC). Basically, if you make a derivative image or mash-up, you would be required to distribute that too, under a CC-by-sa licence (maybe by uploading it back here). But no-one is expecting that use of a photo in a book requires the whole book to be open-sourced as well!
Note also that you can use CC-by-sa content commercially. It would be CC-by-nc-sa which restricted that, and that's not used on Commons.
TyrellCorporation, as Andy says, the photo is freely usable under the terms of the CC-BY-SA licence. My preferred attribution is simply "photo by Matt Buck", though I'm not picky. I'd also appreciate it if you could, when you're done, give me a link to the presentation - not for approval or anything, but simply because I like to see my photos in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Both, Many thanks for the info regarding the photo, it all seems fairly straightforward. I'm happy to add a credit and point you in the direction of the edited image when it's completed. It probably won't be fully viewable for a number of weeks though but be assured I'll notify you when it is. Thanks again. Rob
Rob, I've corrected the attribution on your Commons upload. It's certainly a striking livery, though I have to say the front looks a bit weird - I'm not used to non-yellow liveries, but it looks a bit dark there, perhaps change the interconnecting door to white, and splash some of the light green around the light clusters? I like the sides, nice and stripey.
Thanks Matt, The large expanse of yellow on the noses are slowly being phased out in favour of more subtle/smaller areas. This is happening on many new livery designs and allows for a bit more creativity in terms of the branding and style. Many thanks for the use of the photo - much appreciated! ;) Cheers, Rob. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.117.173 (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
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!
Done I've updated the link and passed the review. If you upload more stuff from there, tag it for LR so I can get it reviewed. I usually get reviews done within a day or so. INeverCry 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Ducato_di_Savoia_e_stati_limitrofi.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solihull_Station_-_Chiltern_Railways_168218_(27117581986).jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solihull_Station_-_London_Midland_172_344_(8715450902).jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chiltern_Mainline_Class_67_leaving_Solihull_-_82301_(8713810522).jpg){kind=link}
Glad to be a part of it, whatever it is.
wikimediaukraine.org.ua
