User talk:Fabrice Florin (WMF)/Archive 01

How can we make Wikipedia better?

Hi!

I like those images of people holding those info-boards in front of them. Really very interesting...
Regards, High Contrast (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Wikimania 2013 - Hong Kong - Photo 133.jpg

The author of the video / The Wikimedia Zero project in South Africa should be credited to make this screencap compliant with its CC license. Vera (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Vera, nice to meet you at Shek-o beach, and thanks so much for cleaning up the file info for my photos from Wikimania!. I also really appreciate your creating a new category for these photos, as well as flagging this picture from Sue Gardner's talk (I have now added more source info and removed your template, hope that was the right thing to do). I would also appreciate your advice to help fix my incorrect descriptions and categories for all files in the series labeled 'File:Wikimania 2013 - Hong Kong Photo xxx.jpg|'. What would be the best tool to do a 'find and replace' on these files? Should I use VisualFileChange.js or HotCat -- or both? How would I install these tools and get them to work on my browser? I am sorry for knowing so little about these tools on Commons, as I am just getting up to speed on learning them, being a relative newbie here. So I would be grateful for any guidance you could give me (I have a lot of experience as a multimedia producer and product manager, but not with Commons tools, sadly). Thanks in advance for any tips! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've since found who I think are the authors of the video and have updated the source information. I use VisualFileChanger and HotCat and find them to have their own moments of usefullness. See my Tips and Tricks page on links to their respective tools-pages. Remember: categories aren't tags. I've written a blog post about this here --Vera (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Vera! I really appreciate your helpful tips, which I will take to heart. I now understand that categories are not tags, but it took me a while to figure this out --- this is very confusing to new users, who are used to modern, intersecting tagging systems. Next year, we we hope to bring in a separate tagging system to Commons, to complement the current category system, with the help of WikiData; more on this later. I believe the author of the video is Victor Grigas, though I have not confirmed it yet. All the videos we produce for WMF are CC-BY-SA-3.0. Can we remove the deletion template from the file now? Hope this helps :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2013 photo descriptions

Hi Fabrice, File:Wikimania 2013 - Hong Kong - Photo 053.jpg & File:Wikimania 2013 - Hong Kong - Photo 054.jpg and possibly others have incorrect descriptions. -- KTC (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Testing Notifications

Glad to see that Notifications was just released on Commons, and wanted to test that it works as intended. This tool was developed by a Wikimedia Foundation team managed by yours truly (see also our new multimedia team's upcoming features here on Commons). We hope the Commons community will like it! Fabrice Florin (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Attribution of Media Viewer tool

Hey. The attribution of nearly all the media viewer tool mockups is incorrect. I fixed two of them but the others need fixing to. Would it be possible for you to do that? PS. I really like the mockups! cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 17:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Multimedia vision 2016.webm

I reported a copyright issue of this file. Please see also the file's talk site. --Martina talk 05:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Martina and Amada44: Thank you so much for pointing out this oversight and for kindly outlining how to fix this error. I sincerely apologize for this mistake, for which I am solely responsible. :( As a relatively new employee at the Foundation, I was not fully aware of the detailed attribution requirements on Wikimedia Commons, particularly for multi-image presentations like this one.

Now that you and guillom have clarified what needs to be done, I am preparing all the required information now on this spreadsheet and plan to wikify it, then post an update to the file's description, hopefully within an hour or two. Please let us know if you see any errors, and feel free to make any necessary improvements, either on the spreadsheet or in the description, once I post it. I thrive on feedback!

In the meantime, I would respectfully ask that you not delete this file, which is strategically important to the foundation and to many community members who helped us create this vision. Amada44, I am sorry that I didn't see your request in November, as I was away on vacation when you posted it and it got lost among hundreds of other emails. Once we finalize license info for this WebM video and companion PDF slides, we plan to focus on all the mockups, but this could take us more time, given the number of files involved -- so we would be grateful if you could give us another week or so for those mockups.

Going forward, our multimedia team is planning to work with Wikidata and the Commons community to build a 'structured data' system so that all this license info could be made 'machine-readable' and automatically cross-posted properly, to reduce the amount of manual labor required to give proper attribution in cases like these. This is a long-term effort, which many community members have been asking for, and which will probably take through the end of 2014, but seems much-needed. This particular incident has sensitized me even more to the importance of this issue, and given me greater clarity on all of the license fields we need to support in this system (note that my spreadsheet already has 18 different fields, and may still be missing a few :).

Again, I really appreciate your helpful guidance and clear recommendations -- and I am deeply sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused to you and to the photographers who so generously contributed their work to the free culture movement. I will post again in an hour with a link to a proposed solution to this issue and will be available through the weekend to help resolve this effectively. Thanks for your patience and understanding :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Fabrice. I added some data and field information. For a final check, I recommend a cross-check with Chapter 4. Restrictions of CC-BY-SA 3.0. When these requirements are fullfilled you should be on the safe side. If you have further questions don't hesitate to ask. Or maybe have a look at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ --Martina talk 18:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Martina: Thank you so much for responding so promptly -- and for kindly helping me fill in some of the data and field info on the spreadsheet ! It's much more fun to do this work with an experienced collaborator like you :) I particularly appreciate your adding the license 'deed' field, as I was not aware of the difference between it and the short summary from Creative Commons (I'm assuming you did this, right?). In any case, it was really nice of you to go above and beyond the call of duty to give me a hand.

I have to go to an eye exam now, but will finish this work when I come back in an hour or so. When I'm done, I would be grateful if you could take a final look at the description. I am thinking of replicating the spreadsheet, with one line for each image, but embedding the links for readability. Also, what should I do for the overall license info for the entire video? Should I keep it at CC-BY-SA-3.0 but specify that's only for the text and user interface designs and non-photographic content? That seems to be the way to go, but wanted to get your guidance on this tricky question. I will also ask our legal team on Monday. Thanks again for being such a gracious collaborator, I am really enjoying working with you on this project :) 18:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)~

Take your time. The DR rests until the required information is added, and will then be closed.

I feel sorry that, being a new employee, you get so stressed now. I had somehow expected that every Wikimedia employee who publishes free content would first get an introductory training in how to use their website's main licences. As this is obviously not the case, that could maybe be a useful proposal for the future.

I try to answer your questions as best as I can and know. But it is sure a good idea to ask your legalteam colleagues for a final check.

The deed is a short summary of the licence, but partly misleading (i.e. not telling that an URI for the applicable licence is required; in the German CC-by-sa version, the URI is expressively specified as internet address of the legalcode).

I added questions as comments to some fields (marked in the right upper corner) where I don't know for sure what is required in detail (i.e. is the email address part of the attribution as given in the name field by the author?)

Yes, the copyright owner of an adaptation can choose the license under which he/she wants to publish his/her own work. There are some contradictions in the actual licensing: The video starts with stating "CC-by-sa 3.0"; it ends with "© Wikimedia Foundation - available under CC-by-sa and CC-by" (which means, in my understanding: any versions); the file description page states "Author: Fabrice Florin (WMF)", now names "Wikimedia Foundation" only as source (no longer as copyright holder) and again shows CC-by-sa 3.0 alone. You might want to harmonize the file description with the licensing in the video. --Martina talk 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Info The credits in both files for the used images look very good to me now; I have withdrawn my DR and asked for keeping the files (and closing the DR). --Martina talk 23:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Martina: That's wonderful news!

I am glad that you are comfortable with the updated license information -- and really appreciate that you already removed the DR in both the video page's description and its companion slides. Thank you so much!

I kept the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license for the overall video, audio, design and images other than photos and maps, which seems like the right thing to do. And Erik Moeller originally taught me to use my own name as the author of my work as a WMF employee, and credit the foundation as both the source and the copyright owner. That seems reasonable to me, based on my own experience as a content provider over the years. But I will check on this as well with our legal team on Monday.

I am not sure what to do with the user that included his Facebook email in his credit. That doesn't seem like a very good idea to me, but I respected the author's wishes in this case, though there may be legal reasons to remove it after we talk to our team. I'm not going to change the video credits at this time, because that's a lot of work, and I think we are OK with them, based on prior discussions with legal.

Thanks again for all your help with this project. I look forward to more collaborations in the future. :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your very fast response and additional work today!

The DR notice is not yet removed from the files (as regular user I am afaik not allowed to do that) but I asked an administrator to close the DR and remove the tags. :::Your above mentionned plans to develop a tool for automatically created proper attributions sound very interesting and would for sure be very welcomed by Wikimedia contributors. There are some first steps towards automatted attributions like de:Wikipedia:Buchfunktion (Help:Books) or MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Stockphoto.js but both are buggy. An overview for the Stockphoto gadget is here. --Martina talk 00:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The DRs are now closed; the tags removed from the files. Cheers and success with your projects! --Martina talk 01:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Martina: Thanks for this good news. I'm so glad we were able to resolve this issue promptly and really appreciate all your help in making this possible. Next week, I will consider updating the credits in the video itself, after I confirm specific requirements with legal. As a longtime TV producer, I do not believe that it is common practice to put such detailed information in the credits of a video, as long as they are included in the description. I've never seen anyone do that, though sources will be commonly be listed in the aggregate, but without specific licensing info. However, I will check with legal and keep you posted on our decision. Either way, updating the video is a half-day job, so it would have to wait until next weekend, due to higher priority deadlines on my to-do list. A possible compromise would be to put them on the slides, which is easy to do.

Thanks as well for the interesting links to the de:Wikipedia:Buchfunktion (Help:Books) or MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Stockphoto.js projects, which are much appreciated! I will check them out in coming days, and will aim to incorporate any useful insights or techniques in our own work. Warm regards, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading attribution in articles

Hope you remember the discussion at VP. I checked several articles and came to know that the attribution is fine in many cases including Flickr uploads. The attribution problem of Poco's work is resolved when I added his user name link in the author field. But the problem is still there in File:Greta Hall.jpg that is used at Greta Hall. It was attributed to me and another user who are no way associated to that image. The problem is that the algorithm we are using is trying to populate the contributors from the page history when failed to find the contributor(s) from the author field. Sometimes it fails, even if there is information in the author field too. I agree that some file pages have no author field at all (especially for some old uploads and those transferred from another wikis); but trying to attribute from the page history is wrong. The better thing you can do is to leave the contributors list blank (for those failed cases) and advise people to find the author(s) from the URI that already provided there. Jee 05:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 01⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Fabrice Florin (WMF),

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 23.jpg

File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 23.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pete F (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 10.jpg

File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 10.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!

Pete F (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - May 2014 - Photo 22.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - May 2014 - Photo 22.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!

russavia (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Russavia: What element of this image (and the next one, too) do you consider eligible for copyright? I see a rendering of the continents (a simple representation of facts) with some explanatory text. Where is there sufficient creative activity to make this slide eligible for copyright? -Pete F (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - May 2014 - Photo 23.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - May 2014 - Photo 23.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!

russavia (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 12.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 12.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!

Pete F (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 17.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 17.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 18.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 18.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 10.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 10.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 08.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 08.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This nomination also includes the following files:

• File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 09.jpg
• File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 11.jpg
• File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 12.jpg (in addition to the above nomination)
• File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 13.jpg

-Pete F (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pete F: I would appreciate it if you showed more tolerance for the photos which I regularly post from the Wikimedia Foundation's monthly metrics meetings, such as this one. Since our work impacts the entire Wikimedia movement, I believe these photos provide information that is useful to our community, and serve our transparency goals. In this particular case, I handed over my camera to my colleague Dan Garry, who was kind enough to take a few shots of our team while we were presenting our new Media Viewer project. I uploaded all the photos in one batch, and didn't have time to go change the author name when they were first uploaded. I have since added his name in the author field, as well as added relevant attributions shown for known images in the background. However, it is not practical for us to provide the detailed information which you require in the dozens of shots you just nominated for deletion (just fixing the 6 images above took over a half-hour). I have a lot more important things to do for the movement than to go chasing credits for every slide that appears on my photo coverage of these meetings. We don't do this for our live video coverage of the meetings either, for sensible reasons. This is why I respectfully ask that you remove your nominations for deletions and restore the photos to their original status. Thanks for your understanding. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you left the same comment on the nomination page, I direct you to my response there. -Pete F (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 17.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 17.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 20.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 20.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 09.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 09.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 19.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - February 2014 - Photo 19.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia December Metrics Meeting - Photo 17.jpg

File:Wikimedia December Metrics Meeting - Photo 17.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have withdrawn this nomination, as the source file has been identified. -Pete F (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia December Metrics Meeting - Photo 15.jpg

File:Wikimedia December Metrics Meeting - Photo 15.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia December Metrics Meeting - Photo 08.jpg

File:Wikimedia December Metrics Meeting - Photo 08.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!

Pete F (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 28.jpg

File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - March 2014 - Photo 28.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!

Pete F (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia-Metrics-Meeting-July-11-2013-20.jpg

File:Wikimedia-Metrics-Meeting-July-11-2013-20.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.

 

Pete F (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)