User talk:Scooter

Image:Macaque juvenile-Nusa Penda.jpeg

Danke schön.^[1] Nice to see it getting some use. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 07:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it within the new images and liked it a lot. Found a good place for it, I think. Best wishes, --Scooter 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 6a87df9efac6afadc7210b74f291ea3a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, Image:Sm JimRisch B&W.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:Image:Sm JimRisch B&W.jpg]]). 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!

Tom (talk - email) 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I already did, and I sent you the message above to remind you to be more careful when transferring images from en:wikipedia. The image on Wikipedia had no sourcing whatsoever, not even a link. It is your responsibility to make sure the images you are transferring to the Commons have been properly sourced and licensed. If you see a problem with an image, do not upload it to the Commons. --Tom (talk - email) 03:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

At least, I know now who's responsible for the bad reputation of Commons admins. We talked about this topic on de-WP quite too often. I repeat: It is NOT my responsibility to care about licences of pictures which appear to be valid on en-WP. Don't tell me to be more careful, I don't need such ridiculous advice. I think it's better that I don't write what I'm thinking right now. Do your job, I'll do mine. --Scooter (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, I'm not trying to be harsh. However, the image you uploaded was clearly improper since there was absolutely no sourcing by whoever uploaded it to the English Wikipedia, just a license tag. That should raise red flags instantly and it should have been deleted from the English Wikipedia long ago. You should not assume images are properly licensed on the English Wikipedia and you should not upload those images until you verify them yourself! Please see Commons policy: "repeated uploading of inappropriately licensed media is grounds for blocking an account". It shouldn't have to come to that, but bear in mind that it is your responsibility to ensure you are transferring correctly sourced and licensed images. Otherwise, it just creates more work and bureaucracy here. Take a few moments to ensure the image is accurate, and it will save a lot of headaches. --Tom (talk - email) 18:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The only red flag will be raised when I meet you ever again. This is ridiculous. Blocking? For uploading pictures from en-WP which I didn't upload to WP myself? You only found this one because I transferred it! I can only repeat what I said about Commons admins a few lines above. They take anyone here, don't they? Well, however, EOD. --Scooter (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}}

Hello,

I'm a bit puzzled. Since {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}} was deleted on en.wiki on the 3rd October 2008, how did you manage to upload File:George Howard Williams.jpg with that license to Commons on the 30th of October? Unfortunately, the license is going to be deleted here too, for the same reasons. Patrícia ^msg 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, I am tagging several images marked with this template as having no permission, since the template was not valid and in some cases there is no good assertion of what license would be valid. I don't want to flood your talk page with warnings, so you might want to keep an eye on what happens to images using the above-mentioned template. Patrícia ^msg 17:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at first: At the time, when I transferred this file to commons (please don't call it "upload" by the way, I didn't upload those images, just transferred them from one place in a Wikimedia project to another), the congress-bio-template was still valid in Commons. So it was the only way to put a similar license into those images on en-WP which were without any license at that time. After I had transferred them to Commons, I changed the license to congress-bio. (You could have seen this in the history, by the way, it's not a secret.) And I was pretty much shocked when I noticed that the congress-bio license was deleted here as well and had not been replaced by any other license. Second: I still don't understand this policy. But again: these are not my images. I didn't upload any of them to en-WP, I just transferred them to use them on de-WP as well. If there is now a policy to delete them on Commons - well, your decision. I think those people who want to delete them should at first take a look for licenses themselves; that's not my job. I spend enough time with writing articles and looking for new images which are properly licensed all the time as you can see in my upload log. Best wishes, anyway --Scooter (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

re

Images using the PD-USGov-Congress-Bio copyright tag need to be relicensed. see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio--shizhao (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? What do you mean? I told what I would like you to do on your talk page. But okay, once again: The image can get a valid license after you have restored it. I don't want to upload it by myself. Do you understand what I want? --Scooter (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Frank Bartlett Willis.jpg have restore--shizhao (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:JohnDHoblitzell.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

Kam Solusar (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:WilliamRLaird.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

Kam Solusar (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:RushDHolt.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

Kam Solusar (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:AlvaLumpkin.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

Polarlys (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ach Polarlys, was soll die Scheiße denn jetzt? Ist das denn etwa meine Schuld, wenn der Commonshelper nicht in der Lage ist, die Beschreibung des Originalbildes mit rüberzuziehen? Da ich ja wusste, dass hier so ein Mumpitz ablaufen würde, habe ich unmittelbar vor dem Transfer hier die Quelle eingefügt - für ein Bild, wie ich zum x-ten Mal betonen muss, das nicht von mir ursprünglich hochgeladen worden ist -, damit so etwas nicht passiert. Aber leider, leider ist das jetzt hier nicht mehr zu sehen. Ist ja wohl nicht meine Schuld. Dann soll halt irgendjemand den Commonshelper mal modifizieren. Unsereins macht sich die Heidenarbeit, die ganzen Bilder rüberzubeamen, und muss sich dann noch mit solchen Sachen hier rumschlagen. Das nervt! --Scooter (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Scooter! Ich sehe keinen Grund für derartige verbale Ausraster. Dass der Commonshelper quasi wertlosen Datenmüll liefert, ist hinlänglich bekannt, ein Großteil der Bilder muss nach dem Transfer manuell nachbearbeitet werden. Die Informationen in „Source“, „Date“ und „Author“ sind bei historischen Bildern i.d.R. wertlos. Im CH kann das Commons-Formular schnell noch via Hand modifiziert werden, das ist deutlich weniger Arbeit für alle Beteiligten, als eine nicht mehr nachvollziehbare Bildquelle, und liefert auch noch bessere Ergebnisse. In diesem Sinne: Dir einen schönen Sonntag. --Polarlys (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ich weiß jetzt nicht, wo Du da oben einen "verbalen Ausraster" hineininterpretierst. Ich arbeite schon eine ganze Menge manuell nach - und wenn man dann einfach blind so einen Baustein reingekloppt bekommt, ist das sehr, sehr frustrierend. Kritisier doch lieber die Leute, die in der en-WP nicht in der Lage waren, ausreichende Bildbeschreibungen zu liefern. Wenn ich ein Bild selber hochlade, hat es stets alle Informationen. Dass ich mich dann hier noch mit sowas rumschlagen muss, ist mir unverständlich. Wenn doch bekannt ist, dass vom CH "Datenmüll" geliefert wird - warum wird denn nicht endlich (endlich!) mal eine Optimierung vorgenommen? Das Ding wird doch sicher nicht nur von mir verwendet. Vielleicht kann das ja mal bei Gelegenheit jemand von Adminseite auf dem "kurzen Dienstweg" mit Magnus klären. Als "einfacher User", der sich mit seinem merkwürdigen JIRA-System nicht zurechtfindet (da bin ich sicher nicht der Einzige), hat man da scheinbar schlechte Karten, wie ich in der Vergangenheit mehrmals feststellen musste. --Scooter (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ich meine nur, dass Wörter wie „Scheiße“ dem Austausch hier nicht sonderlich förderlich sind. Nicht mehr und nicht weniger. In der englischsprachigen Wikipedia gibt es keine hinreichende Kontrolle und keine sonderliche Qualitätskontrolle bei Uploads. Nimm ein durchschnittliches Agenturbild, papp einen Baustein rein, lad es hoch und trete dann nie wieder in Erscheinung: Es wird in den meisten Fällen niemanden kümmern, die Eingangskontrolle findet dann bestenfalls hier statt. Wie Tom oben schon sagte: Man kann nicht davon ausgehen, dass da irgendwas korrekt ist. Du hattest die Bildquelle und es ist dir ein leichtes, sie hier zu ergänzen, ohne das dies als Vorwurf verstanden werden soll. Was den Commonshelper angeht, so hab ich irgendwann 2007 mal die Ergänzung vorgeschlagen, dass die Kategorien nicht übernommen werden müssen. Das wurde umgesetzt. Ansonsten hab ich das Gefühl, dass es einigen Programmierern primär um die technische Komponente geht, als um irgendwas anderes. Beispiele: massenhaftes Anlegen von quasi inhaltsfreien Stubs in quasi inhaltsfreien Kunstsprache-Wikipedias, Über-Kategorisieren von Bildern mit dem Resultat, das nachbearbeitet werden muss, Ergänzung von Angaben wie „eigenes Werk“ – einzig aufgrund eines PD-self-Tags usw. (da kann schon mal Getty Images in den Metadaten stehen) oder eben Tools für den Bildtransfer, ohne dass da ein sonderliches Augenmerk auf die Lizenzierung/Weiternutzung gelegt wird. Manche Tools transferieren (automatisch) Bilder mit Lizenzbausteinen, die als „unfrei“ und nicht mit Commons:Licensing kompatibel hier gelöscht wurden – vor JAHREN. Da ansetzen zu wollen ist ein Kampf gegen Windmühlen, da stoßen Sprachen, Projekte, Richtlinien und Urheberrecht aufeinander. Ich wollte mit dem Baustein doch nur eins: „Lieber Scooter, ich verdächtige dich nicht der Urheberrechtsverletzung, aber bitte ergänze doch kurz eine URL. Danke schön!“. Viele Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wenn man sich ärgert, muss man das sagen dürfen. Punkt. Soviel nur noch dazu. Ansonsten hatte ich, wie schon oben geschrieben, die Quelle ergänzt. Dass der CH sie dann wieder löscht, tut mir leid, aber dafür kann ich nichts, und manchmal sieht man auch nicht alles. Ich bin halt auch sauer, dass unsereins, der die Dinger nur von einem Wikimedia-Projekt zum anderen schiebt, dann den Baustein auf die Seite gesetzt bekommt. Schau Dir doch mal an, wie meine Diskussionsseite aussieht - als wäre ich ein Dauer-URV-Einsteller. Ich finde so etwas extrem unangenehm und auch ein bisschen peinlich. Dabei ist es doch genau umgekehrt: Seit einigen Wochen arbeite ich systematisch daran, die auf der en-WP hochgeladenen Bilder nach Commons zu beamen, um sie dann in meinen Artikeln (und jenen mehrerer Kollegen) in de verwenden zu können. Dabei geht eine Menge Zeit, die ich fürs Artikelschreiben oder für andere schöne Dinge des Lebens verwenden könnte, dafür drauf, auf der Website der Kongressbibliothek und in anderen Online-Medien nach einer sauberen Lizenzierung zu fahnden. Stelle ich fest, dass dies für die Verwendung in der de-WP nicht möglich ist, lasse ich die Finger von dem Ding. Und wenn nach dem Transfer doch noch jemand einen guten Grund dafür finden mag, die Datei zu löschen - dann ist es doch nur umso besser. Dann ist eine URV-Datei, die seit Jahren auf den Wikimedia-Servern schlummerte, endlich weg. Aber in diesen Fällen, die nun hier auf meiner Seite dokumentiert sind, vermag ich diese guten Gründe, mit einer Löschung zu drohen, einfach nicht zu sehen. Und passt man mal irgendwie kurzzeitig nicht auf, sind die Bilder womöglich auf einmal weg, unwiderbringlich verloren. Das ist und bleibt ein Ärgernis. (Ein Ärgernis übrigens, das nicht zuletzt in der für mein Empfinden nach wie vor hanebüchenen Entscheidung, das Congressbio-Template ersatzlos und blindwütig zu löschen, begründet liegt. Aber das ist ja eine andere Geschichte.) --Scooter (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

I'm sorry for any inconvenient. I just hate the automated tool that makes this every time an image is transported from Wikipedia to the Commons. Looking at that, there's no way to know if that work was actually done by the US federal government. Cheers, KveD (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

File tagging File:Ray Mabus.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ray Mabus.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:Ray Mabus.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Wknight94 ^talk 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please talk to the original uploader on en-WP. Can't you see that it wasn't me? Sorry, but I'm fed up with being blamed for "uploading" files which I didn't "upload" at all. Please take notice at last that there is a significant difference between uploading a file and transferring it from en-WP to Commons. --Scooter (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But you did upload the image... here. The standards here are different than the standards at English Wikipedia. Here, in cases like this, where there is significant doubt that the copyright holder actually released the image to the satisfaction of COM:L, eventually someone is going to insist on further proof, esp. via COM:OTRS. Read Commons:Permission for a nice little essay along these lines. Image uploaders can get away with much more at the individual Wikipedias than here so uploaders here are going to be treated separately than uploaders there. Wknight94 ^talk 22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. I did what you should have done: talked to the original uploader. For another time: It's not my fault when the licences are not alright in en-WP or somewhere else. You should be glad when it gets noticed by my "upload" (it still isn't an upload, but anyway...) that there is something wrong. Otherwise it would still have been somewhere else in a Wikimedia project since April 2007. But, no, of course I'm the one to be blamed. This is nothing but silly. Must I read something like that before going to sleep? I really shouldn't. Go on, delete it, do whatever you like. It's not my file, anyway. EOD. --Scooter (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:P000100.jpg

File:P000100.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!

As you were the first non-bot to edit the image, I'm letting you know. Cheers, --Infrogmation (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Coleman Livingston Blease.jpg

Hi, File:Coleman Livingston Blease.jpg is not an exact duplicate of File:ColemanBlease.jpg, it is the source image for the edited version. We keep all versions of images, especially the original version from which others are derived. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Library of Congress

Thank you for uploading images form Library of Congress. But I noticed you are using extra small resolution of photos even when at the same source hight quality uncompressed tiff or RAW tiff's are available. Please consider uploading better images --Justass (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't use "extra small resolutions". And I can't work with TIFs, sorry. --Scooter (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Henry_Johnston.jpg

File:Henry_Johnston.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment at File:Barbara-Rose Collins.jpg

(You left this comment at this image). As this is an obvious duplicate, there is only one image left in this person's category. Could we erase this category then? It doesn't seem necessary to keep this cat because it's highly improbable that there will be another image of her. --Scooter (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In reply to this, it may seem a little silly to have a category with a single file in it. However to get rid of it would be a bad idea - Commons:Categories#Improper categorization of categories is a cause of over-categorization explains why: In short, its better to have Category:Barbara-Rose Collins than to have that file in Category:Female politicians of the United States, Category:Democratic Party (United States) politicians, Category:Members of the House of Representatives from Michigan, Category:Members of the Michigan House of Representatives, Category:African American politicians, Category:Wayne State University alumni and Category:People from Detroit, Michigan... Don't rule out other pictures turning up either, she is an American politician - there will be lots of pictures of her around.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but I'm afraid, I don't agree with you. Following your statement, it would be necessary to put each image of a person into the person's own category. But that would bring the same problem again. We would have categories full of other categories instead of categories full of images. Concerning your last sentence: I'm working long enough in the field of US politics at WP to know that there won't come any more images from a politician who left congress 14 years ago. We can call ourselves lucky to have this one. Regards, --Scooter (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Its better to have the minor subjects in their own category than to "pollute" the higher categories. If this image is in the category for the person, then its in the category for that person and you can find it easily even if its one name amongst hundreds. If its not, then you will struggle to find the image of that person amongst all the other files in the higher level category. It also makes it harder to find images of anyone else treated in the same manner - you end up with hundreds of images of. It also makes categorisation of new content harder, as you can't expect an uploader to tag a file with a dozen highly related categories - most will only put one of those. Poor categorisation sucks, and getting rid of categories for notable individuals is the wrong direction.

And there unquestionably a lot more media of this politician: There is plenty of non-free content [2], there's transcripts of her speeches etc etc. I agree finding free content is harder, but even if this was the only image in existence of her I'd still say keep the category. As it happens, it appears she is still an active politician in Detroit, so present-day free media might turn up.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Obrien.gif

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Obrien.gif, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Obrien.gif]]). 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!

shizhao (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

When do you get it at last? This is not an image that was uploaded by me to an Wikimedia project, but only transferred to Commons - four years ago!! Where have you been all the time? This is nothing but ridiculous. It is not my job to search for some license stuff that hasn't been provided by the original uploader after the image was used all the time on the en-WP. Alright, delete it, I don't care. But it is not my fault. I just took an image (that was used for a long time on en-WP) and put it on Commons. If there hasn't been a proper license - why wasn't it deleted before on en-WP? Can you tell me? Or why don't you ask the original uploader - which wasn't me as I constantly repeat. By the way, there is some license information in the file. Why don't you use it? My god, this is just embarrassing. --Scooter (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Jane Swift 2008.jpg

File:Jane Swift 2008.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!

Rosenzweig τ 12:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

File:RonDeSantis.jpg

File:RonDeSantis.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:RonDeSantis.jpg

File:RonDeSantis.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!

January (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:WilliamRoyer.jpg

File:WilliamRoyer.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.

 

——Mr. Matté — 'pedia talk 22:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:William Scranton.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For the very last time! I did NOT upload this image, i only transferred it from the en-WP where it had been uploaded years ago. It is not my fault if now - only five years after I transferred it - the proper licence can't be found any more. Sorry, but this whole system is a mess. But go on, delete it, if it's fun for you. No one cared about it within the last five years but now, that I made an edit in this image, suddenly someone noticed it. You must be kiddin' me. --Scooter (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Silvio Conte.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Silvio Conte.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Silvio Conte.jpg]]). 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!

Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 12:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Jajaja. Jetzt also gern mal auf Deutsch: Ich habe dieses Bild nicht hochgeladen! Bevor ich es mittels CommonsHelper von der en-WP hierher verschoben habe, befand es sich sage und schreibe bereits sechs Jahre auf einem Wikimedia-Server. In dieser Zeit hat es offenbar niemand für nötig gefunden, die Lizenz zu überprüfen. Der Benutzer, der es anno 2006 hochgeladen hat, ist schon seit 2007 nicht mehr aktiv. Wie soll bitteschön jetzt, nach einer dermaßen langen Zeit, noch nachvollzogen werden können, woher das Bild stammt? Es ist völlig offensichtlich ein Kongressfoto und damit nach bekannten Richtlinien hier als gemeinfrei zu betrachten. Aber die Homepage, von der es einst stammte, gibt es nun einmal nicht mehr. Sollen wir es also deshalb jetzt löschen? Abstrus ist das einfach nur noch. Aber macht Ihr mal. Hilft dem Projekt enorm weiter. Genau wie diese sinnbefreiten Bothinweise, die an der völlig falschen Stelle platziert werden, ohne mal darüber nachzudenken, welchen Sinn sie haben - oder mal ein eigenes persönliches Wort an den Benutzer zu richten. Nö, macht ja mehr Spaß, einfach den Baustein dahinzuklatschen. Als jemand, der eigenständig mehrere tausend Bilder mit korrekter Lizenz hochgeladen hat, finde ich so einen Umgang im Prinzip schon sehr merkwürdig. --Scooter (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for all the pictures of congressmen. Good Job!!!!!

Jamo58 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

File:James Scrugham.jpg

File:James Scrugham.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!

Yann (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:MartinChavez.jpg

File:MartinChavez.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!

72.244.45.153 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Smith-william2.jpg

File:Smith-william2.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!

January (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File:GriffenBell2.jpg

File:GriffenBell2.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!

January (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:GMThomson.jpg

File:GMThomson.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.

 

–⁠moogsi (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:McCarthyofficial.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:McCarthyofficial.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:McCarthyofficial.jpg]]). 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!

Josve05a (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Repnancyjohnson.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Repnancyjohnson.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Repnancyjohnson.jpg]]). 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!

Jcb (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:RichardBrodhead.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:RichardBrodhead.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:RichardBrodhead.jpg]]). 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!

Jcb (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:RLowry.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:RLowry.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:RLowry.jpg]]). 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!

Jcb (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Robert Meyner.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Robert Meyner.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Robert Meyner.jpg]]). 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!

Jcb (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:RobertUpton.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

Jcb (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:RWJohnson-photograph.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

Jcb (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

File:RWJohnson-photograph.jpg

File:RWJohnson-photograph.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!

Basvb (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

File:AaronCragin.jpg

File:AaronCragin.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!

Jcb (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:JamesIredell.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

Gamaliel (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Again and again and again. I am fed up with this behavior. I repeat: I AM NOT THE ORIGINAL UPLOADER. I ONLY TRANSFERRED THE IMAGE FROM EN-WIKIPEDIA. DON'T BLAME ME FOR MISSING SOURCES. THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN ORIGINALLY UPLOADED 12 YEARS (!!!!!!) BEFORE BY SOMEONE ELSE. WHERE DO YOU THINK, THE SOURCE SHOULD NOW COME FROM? Beside this, the image shows a person that died more than 200 years before, and you want to delete it? What is wrong with you? Why don't you just put the PD-old Template into the file? People like you are the reason I don't do anything anymore on Wikipedia. --Scooter (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Henry Latimer US.gif

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Henry Latimer US.gif, 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!

Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Aren't you able to read what I wrote? This is ridiculous. --Scooter (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:DavidBarton.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

JuTa 16:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ventob.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ventob.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Ventob.jpg]]). 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!

Castillo blanco (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

File:SamYorty.jpg

File:SamYorty.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!

—howcheng {chat} 23:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Graciepfost.jpg

File:Graciepfost.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!

Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

File:DanielJEvans.jpg

File:DanielJEvans.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!

Star Garnet (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)