User talk:Rockfang/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1
Image deletion warning Image:Miller_Chill.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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  +/−

Sterkebaktalk 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tmbox

My awesomeness, which was called into question by my previous failure, has now been restored. Tmboxes should work as on en.wp, though I haven't bothered with the other styles of mbox. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The box background color and border still aren't showing.--Rockfang (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. I just read the Village Pump section. Thanks for the effort and help with this.--Rockfang (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
File:Lily Pons.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!

I strongly doubt the Flickr user is the actual author/copyright holder.--Infrogmation (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice.--Rockfang (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


File:Lucy_Lawless_and_Rene_O'Connor.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!

Martin H. (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

When you use Comm. Help. for file transfering, pls transfer them from original Wikis, cos otherwise proper author and license information can be lost. Thx. Masur (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The original author information was on there.--Rockfang (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If I sent this to the wrong person, my apologies. But I think you have mis-read the discussion regarding this file! I own it and it was on my site (IE I OWN Lamakungfu.org) so I have every right to uploard it to wiki and release it. I've been saying the same thing over and over again and this file people have tried to delete FOUR TIMES NOW! We keep going over the same thing! 173.52.174.71 13:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that you own the file. I was just marking it for deletion because there is a copy on Commons now. When there are duplicate copies of a file on the english wikipedia and here, we typically delete the wikipedia version.--Rockfang (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be scheduled for deletion on commons as well? 173.52.174.71 03:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it does. If you own the website the image is from, you can just put a line on the same page saying that this image is public domain, and you should be fine. Something along the lines of "The above image is released into the public domain." But it has to be on the webpage the image is on.--Rockfang (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fly to the Sky

Hi, you don't need to upload downsized duplicates of pictures, Wikipedia downsizes them for infoboxes automatically. Hekerui (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I can't remember why I would have done that. Oh well.--Rockfang (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright
File:Anna1922berlin (bigger).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

--Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


File source is not properly indicated: File:Kosovo map-en1.svg

العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Kosovo map-en1.svg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

--Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


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)  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Triple tracks in CR-39.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.

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


File:Ryan_Miller_(ice_hockey).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!

Gump Stump (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


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)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Drake Circus circa 1900.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Drake Circus circa 1900.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

KTo288 (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Flickr request

Your request is now located here. ZooFari 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information.--Rockfang (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rockfang, thanks for your application to be a Flickr reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You are automatically a Picasa and Panoramio reviewer as well. Please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr images if you haven't done so already. Backlogs include Category:Flickr images needing human review, Category:Picasa Web Albums files needing human review, and Category:Panoramio review needed. You can use the following scripts by adding them to your monobook.js:

importScript('User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js'); -- for Flickr reviewing only
importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); for reviewing Panoramio and Picasa images as well.

You can also add {{User reviewer}} or {{User trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! –Juliancolton | Talk 17:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also gave you autopatroller rights. Good luck, ZooFari 15:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I had to look it up to see what it was. :) Rockfang (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

2 Flickr pass templates

No problem. I don't know why but this has happened many times to several different users' uploads. Its irritating to see 2 pass marks on 1 image. So, I just remove the bottom flickr pass. I don't know why this problem happens but it is a small one luckily. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review problems

Since you are trusted, you may wish to mark some (maybe 15?) of the high resolution flickr photos. The flickr bot has malfunctioned right now and the backlog is large as I said here Best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll work on it later tonight. I'm working on starting a new article on the English Wikipedia at the moment.--Rockfang (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm afraid, its better than having the bot mark it at present which at 1-2 photos would take make the backlog reach 300+ images very quickly. I only mark the high resolution flickr photos. Bryan, the flickr bot operator was notified on his talkpage and by E-mail by an Admin...but I don't know if he's around. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Russian Consulate-General in Simferopol.jpg

Hi, in relation to File:Russian Consulate-General in Simferopol.jpg, you have marked this as failing review, however, if you read the messages on the image, you can see that the photographer has confirmed that he agrees for the photo to be used under the 2 licences noted. Can you please recheck that. Cheers, --russavia (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--Rockfang (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that Rockfang. Cheers, --russavia (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

thx

Thanks, for the review and reminder. I think you may be getting a lot of Flickr reviews as Magnus' bulk tool is misbehaving Victuallers (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow

What happened, looking at the history of File:Stylophorum diphyllum pods.jpg at one point three image reviewers had approved the image lol Hekerui (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. :) Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Farshidmoussavi.jpg

Please see File talk:Farshidmoussavi.jpg. What do you think? -- deerstop. 00:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Flickr user is Armin Linke or not. If you do decide to put the file up for deletion, I suggest leaving the {{Flickrreview}} template on the file's page because the license here still matches the license on Flickr, even if the Flickr license is incorrect.--Rockfang (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. Well, we better be skeptical in this matter. "Consider whether the picture on the album site was really made by that user."-- deerstop. 08:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I personally would only choose that "criteria" for failing an image if it was blatantly obvious. I have no idea who Armin Linke is, so it does not appear to be a blatant copyright violation to me. Someone more familiar with Armin Linke may disagree though, which is totally understandable.--Rockfang (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I suppose Armin Linke is http://www.arminlinke.com/ -- deerstop. 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

At Flickr the license of this image is stated as Copyright, right. But kamidv gave me in a personal message the authority to upload this image in Wikimedia Commons. The license of this image in Wikipedia she told me should be BY-NC-ND. If needed, I can post the message. --Edwinvandersar (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Any images with Creative Commons licenses that use NC and/or ND are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. To see a list of Creative Commons licenses that are allowed, read this.--Rockfang (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The license on Flickr was changed. I hope now it's correct--Edwinvandersar (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The license currently shown on Flickr is good. I've fixed the image page here and it looks fine now.--Rockfang (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:NoticeBoard

No problems Rockfang, I understand your point. (and for record, i do not programed the bot to see if have any other tags in files, so is my mistake) Best regards, Béria Lima Msg 06:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rockfang,

Can you check possibility of Flickr washing in this file. Geagea (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I tagged the image as "reviewed", I did a search on www.tineye.com and a google image search, and I did not see any apparent copies. There are 2 images that come close: [1] has people in front of the building. The file uploaded here does not appear to. [2] is also somewhat close, but the grass is a different color.--Rockfang (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ya, it was hard but found it. Thumbnail from http://www.flickr.com/photos/30496606@N05/4071322138/in/photostream/ . Thanks anyway. Geagea (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Flickr reviewing

Thanks for all your work reviewing Flickr images. Cheers and stars and all that. Mr.choppers (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I find doing it enjoyable.--Rockfang (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If uploader will keep this File:Britt Nicole - 2010 - Acoustic.jpg in Commons, my opinion are that we need OTRS-permission, like other album covers.--Motopark (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the speedy delete template you placed on that image. In my understanding, an image needs to be tagged for 7 days before being speedy deleted in situations like this. The template I added discusses this.--Rockfang (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nice Editting Job"

Thanks for the compliment RF. The software I used was 'GIMP' its the Free software created for Windows and Linux. Its not amazingly user freindly (a bit like commons?) but its amazingly powerful and it improves without you spending any money at all. The "perspective" tool allows you to pick up points (eg the corners of the plaque) and move them to where you want them to be. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

While this image is arguably not the same as File:Jim Lee Photographer.jpg since it has the attribution added to the bottom left-hand corner, would you mind speculating as to how effectively the same image has now been accepted and attributed to two separate authors? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

When I review Flickr images I check to make sure the source link on the local page goes to the same image on Flickr. I also make sure the licenses match between here and Flickr. If the image is not a blatant copyvio (a Metallica cover art image for example) then I "confirm" the image. Both of the images you linked met those confirming critera. I do admit that it is unlikely that the rights to both images that are so similar are held by two different names, but it is not impossible. A sex and/or name change could be involved. If you think one of the images should be deleted, you could try COM:DR. The English Wikipedia has a Media copyright questions page. I'm not sure if there is an equivalent here at Commons, but if there is, it may be a useful place to discuss these images. I hope my response answers your question.--Rockfang (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Don_Ho.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!

7 (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Should you have passed the other image indirectly referenced in this DR discussion. It might well be a flickrwash. Is there grounds for you to revert your flickrpass and file a DR I wonder? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. I've just read the DR, and I understand the logic of wanting it deleted. If someone wants to list it at COM:DR, I would not be against it. Thank you for giving me a heads up.--Rockfang (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll think about filing a DR here. Update. I have now filed a Deletion Request here and mentioned you indirectly. I think that without OTRS, this is likely a flickrwash. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the update.--Rockfang (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lena Kolarska-Bobinska photo

This photo is covered by EP audiovisual legal use policy http://audiovisual.europarl.europa.eu/AssetDetail.aspx?g=0919b5cd-9a6e-47fc-8021-0f640dbea09f http://audiovisual.europarl.europa.eu/LegalNotice.aspx#copyright

Howdy. I looked at that second link, and found the following text:"Reproduction of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union ... is authorised for non-commercial purposes only ...". Commons does not typically host files that are authorised for non-commercial use only. I hope this clears things up.--Rockfang (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Kate_Grenville_cello_20081004.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!

Peter Ellis (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Mandalay mohinga stall.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!

Sven Manguard Wha? 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:TOC Excitation and Oxidation Equations.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!

Stefan4 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Leyo 01:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


File tagging File:EB logo.png

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)  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:EB logo.png. 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.

79.173.80.63 18:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your prior participation in a discussion

You previously participated in a discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg.

There is another discussion ongoing, again, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg.

Please if you wish to do so you may voice your opinions and comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Airspeed files logo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

BrightRaven (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File:JT-1979-lamaha-gardens ji.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!

Kelly (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)