Guy WF Loftus

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Guy WF Loftus!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

File:Bbc-orwell-768x734.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

File:Bbc-orwell-768x734.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

87.154.170.101 23:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Timtrent: My apologies for causing you such distress - from what you have indicated, I will attempt to delete it immediately. I had an email from the chairman of Trustees for the Orwell Society, who own the Statue, requesting that I use this image, which he supplied along with copyright provenance (you are correct - I am not the author). I clearly have no legal understanding of copyright transfer (an email granting authority is not legally binding?) - I don't know how to delete the photograph but I will research it and do so.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Be undismayed. Simply use COM:OTRS to lodge that email, or ask the chairman of trustees to perform that task. Timtrent (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Timtrent: - I am writing to them now - is there a smart way to cite this discussion (hyperlink)?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Quote https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_WF_Loftus but the only thing that will hold sway od the actual permission. Timtrent (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Understood - thanks for your help2A02:C7F:F86F:6300:D4A5:EBB0:F5F8:D03F 18:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

File:Bbc-orwell-768x734.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Bbc-orwell-768x734.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.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: from https://orwellsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/bbc-orwell-768x734.jpg. Site homepage explicitly claims copyright

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

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

Timtrent (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Silvia Tro Santafé 231121.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Silvia Tro Santafé 231121.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:Silvia Tro Santafé 231121.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Timtrent (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Dione-venables-02-1024x952.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Dione-venables-02-1024x952.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Timtrent (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

File:OS Jura.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

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

Timtrent (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

File copyright can introduce us to a world of pain

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

It's a difficult and pedantic area, but we can simplify it. The simplistic view I am about to present is not an exhaustive treatise. Commons:Licensing is exhaustive,

Only ever upload files where you are 100% certain you have the right to upload them
Always understand that the photographer owns the copyright unless that has been varied by a legal process. Thai includes heredity
When you have been granted "personal" permission to upload a file, always present that via COM:OTRS
Never upload files you find on the web, unless onward licencig is present. Examples of onward licencing are at the foot of this page. Especially, if no explicit onward licencing is present, the file must be regarded as someone else's copyright.
As a paradox, even if it is your own copyright picture from or found on another web site, do make your copyright ownership known via COM:OTRS. Editors and admins here may delete it if you do not, citing COM:PCP. Commons always acts to protect itself.
If you are unsure of the licencing, do not upload it here.
Commons is not Wikipedia. You may have heard of the doctrine of Fair Use. This is unavailable to Wikimedia Commons

I hope this very brief summary is of use to you and will help you to navigate the rules better here. I do not want you to open yourself up to the loss of editing privileges by simply not quite understanding things.

When editors suggest files need permissions, etc, they aren't always correct. As humans we make errors. I can nominate items for things, but have no powers of deletion. I am not now and will never be an administrator. If I make an error I trust an administrator to correct me. If they make an error they trust others to correct them. Thus we have checks and balances, and we all learn. Timtrent (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Timtrent: Just picked this up - very useful - thanksGuy WF Loftus (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Orwell statue photograph is going through the process guided by Timtrent with thanks. Photo-portraits of Silvia Tro Santafe and Dione Venables have email trails, which are referred to in the metadata. In future, these types of permissions should be verified proactively, as the metadata is not evidence in itself, which means sending the email directly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - that is a lot of work for a small group of volunteers, so - are you saying this is a requirement?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where there is any doubt it is wise to use COM:OTRS.

Not using it where there is doubt is a gamble, and means the work will need to be done anyway should the item be submitted to a deletion process.

Metadata (As in EXIF data) is not wholly useful, as you say. If, however, it identifies the uploader as the photographer, then the metadata is useful. Some cameras allow this setting to be filled in, others do not. Timtrent (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note, too, that the OTRS process does not always result in validation of the permission. If it fails that should then become a dialogue with the volunteer response team, seeking information on any the process has declined to verify permissions and asking what additional specifics are required.

Remember above all things that Commons protects the owner of the copyright assiduously and thus protects itself from claims of breach of copyright Timtrent (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:SPE (PRMS) resource lassification framework diagram.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:SPE (PRMS) resource lassification framework diagram.jpg

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:SPE (PRMS) resource lassification framework diagram.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 09:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In other languages ^{(translate this)}
Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ 日本語 ∙ +/−

Please use SVG

Thank you for uploading some images! Did you know that Wikimedia Commons recommends the SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format for certain types of images? Scalable Vector Graphics are designed to look appropriate at any scale, and SVG images are easier to modify and translate, helping Wikimedia to distribute knowledge to all of the world. A lot of modern programs support SVG export. If you encountered problems or have questions, don't hesitate to ask me, a member of the Graphic Lab, or the Graphics village pump. Uploading images in SVG format isn't mandatory, but it would help. (To avoid any misunderstandings, please don't just put raster images into an SVG container as embedded raster.) Thanks, and happy editing!

--EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Got it - vectorising is a lot more efficient (I tended to oversize resolution in an old "dpi" world to ensure scalability but that makes for much bigger raster files than needed); will examine my options in future and retrofit legacy images if I can. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ahem - I note your caution about fake SVGs because I tend to take screen dumps of images to make them a bit smaller, which is a fast way of rasterising - but not truly scalable. The resulting bitmap is just that, with no vector elements - so if I were to export a screen dump as SVG format, it is just a raster and not really a vector document (no beziers, no vector compressions). I guess this is what you would want to avoid... Guy WF Loftus (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

My question is how do you vectorise amorphous pixels (raster images) when they have no vector components? Aren't all bitmaps saved as SVG "false", unless the edges, tone changes and internal structures are auto traced and colour assigned, which is not possible in most cases. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

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

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

Affected:

File:Roy Finlay 1914.png

And also:

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:TCS centennial logo.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

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

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Eugene - I have had difficulty getting the appropriate officer to sign off on the image (release into the public domain) - I'll tell them they have 7 days now. Thanks for the prompt. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Example-Probabilistic-Volumes.svg

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Copyright status: File:Example-Probabilistic-Volumes.svg

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Example-Probabilistic-Volumes.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 16:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The author is sending a release email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - hopefully this will turnaround in 2 working days. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Florence

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can you be more specific about where you found this? It's certainly not your 'own work', as you were not around in 1916 to press the button on the camera. Thank you. DS (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - This photograph has been incorrectly attributed - it belongs to me now (it didn't when I created this image from the original). What is the best way for me to correct this? Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Personal collection", then? Okay. Photo was taken in 1916 (per original filename, or 1914 per metadata), by... "court photographer"? What else do you know about its provenance? As many details as possible, please. DS (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks User talk:DragonflySixtyseven - have updated the entry and reconciled the metadata - the court photographs were made in 1914 but this one was taken two years later apparently by the same photographer - I hope the attribution is correct - what is best practice for personal collections?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Stan collector.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

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

Johnj1995 (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Johnj1995: for pointing this out - forgive me for asking a question (I should know by now) but my method is haphazard and inefficient. 1) I locate a photograph, 2) I research the copyright owner, 3) I seek their approval to release copyright by email, 4) I upload onto Wiki Commons, 5) then I send a template to the owner to email permissions to release copyright. That has worked for me but I guess it should be 1, 2, 3, 5, 4 - what is the recommended route?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

File:Stan collector.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Ixfd64 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good call - my mistake - I was informed that his wife had taken the photograph; good that we can find the truth - I am tracing Matt Dale to see if we can establish ownership: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftetrapods.org%2Fnews%2Fstan-wood.html&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cff97aa0e09ed44577c6408dac28492be%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638036171892354992%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EuhcAzY4fIsL4F2B2vBzRa7cc%2Ffi7a%2BL6FDxUied8NM%3D&reserved=0 - my apologies for jumping the gun on this one (although I am more apologetic to his widow - she should have to go through this - I should be more careful). Guy WF Loftus (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

It'd be best if you post this sort of thing on the page for the deletion request itself - the deciding admin might never look at your user talk and see your response. DS (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you could get permission from the copyright holder, and have them forward the correspondence to the Volunteer Response Team, then we could keep the image. I see you've done this for several other files.

And as DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) said, it would be useful if you also share your thoughts on the deletion discussion page. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have moved the discussion to where it belongs - but you mentioned another thread which I would like your opinion on - you said " I see you've done this for several other files", which is true but it is because I don;t know how it should be done. 1) I locate a photograph, 2) I research the copyright owner, 3) I seek their approval to release copyright by email, 4) I upload onto Wiki Commons, 5) then I send a template to the owner to email permissions to release copyright. That has worked for me but I guess it should be 1, 2, 3, 5, 4 - what is the recommended procedure? Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Howard Ionascu 2017.jpg

Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Howard Ionascu 2017.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

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

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Didym (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic