User talk:KDS4444

Usurpation request

This message is intended for any bureaucrat wishing to verify my request for account usurpation with the login KDS444. Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

COM:OVERCAT

Hi KDS4444. Please read this section of the policy. --Leyo 18:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that's great! But why...? --KDS4444 (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Because of your most recent edit at the time I posted this comment. --Leyo 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Message of User Nano9725

Bonjour,KDS444.

Je ne sais pas si tu comprends ma langue (je suis un Francais) mais au moins je parle moins anglais.Tu sais,j'ai un message à t'envoyer.Sur Wikimedia Commons,au temps de son anniversaire,ou bien celui de de Wikipédia,ou une prochaine année de plus,il faut que vous adoptez une nouvelle loi:mettre des boutons C vert pour les images autorisées à copier,à partager,à distribuer et des C rouge pour les images interdites à copier,à partager,à distribuer,c'est-à-dire celles protégées par le droit d'auteur,placées dans le domaine public.Ou bien quand on clique sur les icônes,que cela ouvre le visualiseur de médias.Comme ca,cela permettra aux publics de bien voir pour ne pas se tromper quand ils les copieront sur Wikipédia.Ce serait une bonne idée.Que dirais-tu?

Nano9725,Friday 07 November 2014,18:39.

Je ai reçu votre message. Merci de me contacter. Bien que je ne parle pas couramment le français, je ai étudié suffisamment le français pour comprendre la plupart de votre message quand il est arrivé, et Google Translate m'a aidé à comprendre le reste. Cependant, je ne suis toujours pas certain que je comprends votre objectif. Je pense que vous demandez si je pense que ce serait une bonne idée pour Wikimedia Commons d'adopter une politique où ces images dans le domaine public seraient marqués avec une lettre verte "C", et que ceux qui ne dans le domaine public serait marqué avec une lettre rouge "C", car cela permettrait au public de distinguer facilement les images qu'ils pouvaient ou ne pouvaient pas télécharger Wikipedia. Cependant, quand vous dites "Wikipedia", vous ne avez pas la distinction entre la Wikipédia anglophone et la Wikipédia française. Je sais que le Wikipedia anglais a ce que l'on appelle en anglais une politique "d'utilisation équitable", qui permet aux gens de télécharger des images sur le site Web de Wikipedia en anglais mais qui, communes serait normalement interdite. Sous une telle politique, il n'y a pas d'image qui pourrait être importée sur Commons qui ne pouvait pas aussi être téléchargés sur la Wikipédia anglophone, et donc de marquage des images avec un C vert ou un C rouge communes ne serait pas utile pour déterminer quels pourraient être les images téléchargé sur la Wikipédia anglophone. Mais peut-être vous demandez si je pense que ce serait une bonne idée pour communes pour marquer ses images avec un C vert ou rouge C de sorte que le public puisse distinguer les images qu'ils pourraient utiliser pour leurs propres fins, mais qui sont sans rapport avec des communes ou à tout Wikipedia. Mais si ce est le cas, puisque tous les médias qui est importée sur Commons doivent déjà être sous licence libre, ces lettres de couleur ne serait pas utile, sauf pour indiquer si une image est dans le domaine public ou non. Ne importe qui peut utiliser librement toute image sur Commons à des fins déjà. Toute image pas dans le domaine public ne oblige l'utilisateur à donner crédit à l'auteur et à nommer leur source. Mais peut-être je ne comprends pas votre question. Si ce est le cas, pourriez-vous se il vous plaît dites à nouveau, en français, et laissez-moi voir si je peux obtenir une meilleure compréhension de celui-ci? Merci! KDS4444 (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Answer

Well, I'll say more in English,because you make some mistakes when you speak French.. I too was on Google Translate and it has selected French, with English. This will allow me to do some research and talk to people in other countries. Well, I see that it's not worth putting green C button for images allowed to copy and C red buttons for images prohibited to copy. There is already a media viewer, green, and see if the images were permitted to copy (CC ....) or not (PD = Public Domain [Domaine public]).

Nano9725,(talk),Wednesday,December 17th 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture stuff - File:Ełk...

First, thank you for the message and sorry for my English. I am very glad that You like my picture. The answer is yes - there is the picture in high resolution - i will upload it immediately. Sorry that You waited long time for my answer - I am a new user of Wikimedia and I have no idea that users can talk to each other.

Featured picture stuff - File:Ełk...

Hi again.I have heard of Featured Pictures from You and of course I took a look on this page - the Featured Pictures is a great idea. The picture of the chapel is not directly from a camera. The original photo was modified mostly by manipulating some colours, blurrying some areas, cropping and so on using GIMP with plugins, PhotoScape, PaintNet,Photobie and by using modified filters built in a camera, e.g. Dramatic. 1957birth (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Scallop Diagram2.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scallop Diagram2.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Kitten heels.jpg

File:Kitten heels.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!

Valleyjulie54 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Gene Simmons

Hi! The symbol on the bottom of the back side is the logo of Kiss' record company "Casablanca Records". About the Deep Purple photo, is a book. Sorry for my english. Progenie (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sourcefield

Hello! This edit made the template swallowing all the following text on talk pages. You should have closed the table. Mithril (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, time for me to confess that I do not understand what you just said there. I didn't know there was a table involved, or that I should have and did not close it; am also not sure what you mean by swallowing talk page text. All I intended to do was rephrase the wording of the template, nothing more than this, though I admitted that I am new to (and therefore hesitant at) editing templates. I would be glad to fix the problem if I understood it better (perhaps you can show me?). KDS4444 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Damn.. Read this guideline or never start new line with “{|”. That's not some tag for inline css, that marks the beginning of a new table. Mithril (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for help

I wish that I could help you, KDS4444, but right now, I definitely have no time at all. You can use my page as you see fit. Regards, Wereldburger758 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I have already composed a basic help page, and I think it will do the job. Thank you for your willingness to consider the request. KDS4444 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Tagging copyvios

Hi, Please inform the uploader. This is best done with the gadget. See in your preferences. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

otrs

Hi! There's a ticket for you: 2015110210006361 Somehow you didn't show in the user list, so I moved it around a bit until I found you. Now I don't have the rights to change the owner in info-en. . Hope you can grab it? Let me know if it doesn't work. Best, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that one was indeed mine. No matter how many times you tell a client to make sure they respond with the ticket number in the subject heading.... But anyhow, I got it and have taken care of it and I thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:File:GNS3 logo.png

Just check the source tree. There is not a special licensing for the logo, and therefore is part of the source code licensed under the GPLv3. Also, the logo is included in the Tarball, the Windows installers and the OS X dmg package, with no special licensing. Jeremy Grossmann is who commited the file to the GNS3 repo at GitHub. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. This was not evident when I looked at the source for the image, but I believe you. KDS4444 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

HeterochromicHusky

It comes from whitewolfpack.com. Done. That's it. There are no more informations about author of this image.Jade D Face (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jade D Face: To help complete the file description, you will need to put the exact page from whitewolfpack.com in the "Source" field of the file. Then others can verify its licensing status. Do you know the exact page? (Pintrest does not have the right to release an image under its own copyright, and so cannot be used either as a source or as an author). KDS4444 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I found it. The original image comes from Flickr, where its rights are all reserved (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexvehr/8533379855/). You can try contacting the photographer and asking him/ her to release the image under an acceptable copyright license, but in the mean time this is a clear copyright violation and will have to be removed post haste. Sorry about this. For future uploads, it is very important to trace an image to its origin and to verify its license before uploading. Virtually everything you come across on the Internet is already fully copyright protected and cannot be uploaded to Commons. Ok? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Then how can I upload image on my wikipedia profile? They say that I can add there only images I own. But I want to have some pretty image of husky on my page.Jade D Face (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Jade D Face: The best way to get an image of a husky on your user page is to do a search of Commons for already-extant images of huskies and selecting one of those. I have not looked myself, but I am guessing there are likely hundreds: they are very popular and well-known dogs, and lots of people have taken pictures of them and uploaded them to Commons under free licenses. And if you can find one you like (perhaps this one?), you are then welcome to use it on your user page (or anywhere else!). Please let me know if you need any further help with this. Ok? KDS4444 (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will look for the best one.Jade D Face (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Match of the Century 1953 Hungary 6–3 England.jpg deletion request

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Match of the Century 1953 Hungary 6–3 England.jpg

I can see no evidence that the source file is freely licensed KDS4444 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know one single word in Hungarian but this link may or may not be evidence. Thuresson (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That link in translation says Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0. Good enough for me. Nomination withdrawn. KDS4444 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Match of the Century 1953 Hungary 6–3 England.jpg

Photograph of a poster made out of several portrait photos. The photographer who donated it to a free collection quite likely did not the concept of derived works (Fortepan accepts donations fairly uncritically; there have been similar problems in the past, see e.g. this). Some of the portraits appear in the book Kocsis és Czibor so the original photographer is clearly different.

Same goes for the images which have been cropped from this:

• Bozsik_József_6-3.jpg
• Budai_II._László_6-3.jpg
• Czibor_Zoltán_6-3.jpg
• Grosics_Gyula_6-3.jpg
• Lantos_Mihály_6-3.jpg
• Lóránt_Gyula_6-3.jpg

Tgr (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

+1: File:Kocsis Sándor.jpg. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(That image claims PD, for no apparent reason. --Tgr (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC))

• Delete:The source is not reliable, separately permissions needed from the authors. --Pallerti (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This should not be deleted. I think the source link was not correctly attributed when I uploaded the image. Please see here where the link shows there is a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence. Thanks, --Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Rano Kau volcano diagram.jpg

File:Rano Kau volcano diagram.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!

GeoWriter (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Photo use

I have sourced an image which I wish to use for an article. The photographer will release the rights on Creative Commons by email. He has done this before. Should I upload the image first and then ask the photographer to send the requisite email or does he need to send the email first and then upload it. If the latter, what is the address the email should be sent to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne O'Donnell (talk • contribs)

Two things: first, please sign your posts here with four tildes so I can see who you are! (Or maybe you are a mystery person...?) Second, the photographer (or you) should upload the image to commons, and should put a template somewhere on the file description that reads {{subst:OP}} (for "OTRS pending"). After you save the file and add that template, make sure you send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org which contains a statement of permission from the author (you are familiar with the standard template for this, yes?) and includes a link to the place on Commons where the image has been uploaded (the same page where you put the subst:OP template). Even if the image gets deleted for not having adequate permission within the allotted time frame, it will be undeleted once OTRS processes your statement. If you'd like me to personally handle the statement (and I'd be glad to), just say so in the intro of you statement ("Please direct this statement to OTRS Volunteer Kirby Schroeder") and I will see it is handled quickly. But we need the image uploaded to Commons first, and we need that template added to the file description somewhere (doesn't really matter where), and the author has to have agreed to a suitable license for use (like CC-BY-SA 4.0 or the like). Let me know if you have any questions! I'm here to help. KDS4444 (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Earthworm head.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Earthworm head.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion requests

In a recent deletion request you raised a speedy deletion, this was not in compliance with policy. Please take a moment to sit back and think about how best to handle these types of OTRS request in a way that avoids drawing attention where this might cause more harm than good for the complainant. In past cases where I helped complainants as an OTRS volunteer, sometimes no action was needed after a clearer explanation of how policies and processes worked, and in other cases images were deleted or renamed or had their usage changed, without any significant public discussion and we still fully complied with Commons policies. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Fæ: Got your message but am not certain I understand. Are you suggesting that I should have explained to the complainant that he shouldn't feel that the image resembled him, or that the bullying he was experiencing was not that important, or that there was nothing I could do to help him because the image was within policy constraints and that I hoped he would get used to things soon? I agree with you that the basis for the deletion request was shaky; I am also aware that sometimes editors can agree to make exceptions to the policy rules when someone's real world is being affected by what appears on Commons, which was why I proposed the image be deleted. Can you give me a sense of what, as an OTRS volunteer, you think I should have done? I had no authority to delete the image outright, no basis on which to move/ rename it. You have access to the ticket through the OTRS system: what do you think I aught to have done other than the not-so-helpful things I mentioned above? (This is a serious question). KDS4444 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The case was discussed sufficiently in the DR. There is a big difference between an unpaid volunteer helping correspondents with Wikimedia project issues, licensing and policies and giving advice or support for someone who feels harassed or may be experiencing bullying/cyberbullying. OTRS volunteers are not equipped or trained to offer the latter, and correspondents would be better off getting passed over to WMF employees, who may be unable to help, but at least might have some training and are covered by public liability insurance. OTRS itself is not a secure database and is not guaranteed to remain confidential. These distinctions as to the role of volunteers are important to keep straight. P.S. I do not have access to OTRS any more and so cannot examine the correspondence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As you must know by now, this problem has been resolved with an SVG replacement of the problem image. I have considered your advice to me above, and wanted to respond. I wanted to be clear about this: I gave no advice. I responded to a request for help with a problem, which is a very different thing. When anyone has a problem with material that they come across on Wikipedia, the only email address to which they can write is the one that shunts to OTRS, and while I could have passed the issue over to the WMF, I can't imagine they would want to be bothered with every OTRS ticket that the volunteer wasn't sure how to handle on first reading. I do not consider it my role as an OTRS volunteer to only respond with policy explanations, I consider it my role to help the clients who write in, if I can, and to see if I can solve their issue (within reason). Please also consider this: while the OTRS system may not be perfectly secure, I have signed a confidentiality agreement with the WMF in order to be an OTRS volunteer, and since only OTRS volunteers are allowed access to the OTRS database, and since we have all signed such agreements, I do not know how the system could possibly be more secure than it is. Third, the person who submitted the original request did not provide a personal name, and has not responded to my follow-up messages— perhaps the account was used for a one-off request. Which is fine— that doesn't mean the request was any less real for that person. And the best news is that the problem was solved— without having to involve the WMF— and a person's life was made less miserable as result, and nothing was compromised either in terms of confidentiality nor in terms of content to Wikipedia. That seems like the best possible outcome that could have happened. So while I grant you that I am not a specialist trained in handling sensitive personal issues like this one, I am also an adult and an OTRS volunteer who takes his role as such very seriously and would have probably done exactly what I did all over again without regret or doubt. Was a deletion proposal the right move? Maybe not— but it did spark a conversation that led to the outcome that took place, so in that sense it served an important purpose (i.e., not deletion, but change). I think that is ended "correctly." I hope you will agree! KDS4444 (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to help the bullied young man. If there's anything I can do please let me know. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ellin, you are a dream. I still find myself stumbling through the complexity of OTRS requests from the general public, and even though I admit that I remain far from perfect in my own judgement, it is reassuring to know that others understand my motivations and are willing to offer to assist me in my process of figuring things out— for the Common good, as they say. Which is all I am aiming for, in the end. Catch me if I fall. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Re:Disney Quest Copyright Violation

Would the photo that I used still be under the DisneyQuest logo on it's Wikipedia page? If not, it doesn't add that much of significance to the page, so i would be fine if it was deleted, thank you!

In the same vein, would this photo, https://www.flickr.com/photos/rollercoasterphilosophy/8209399147/in/photolist-dvrjmB-nt6k4V-dtpHd2-drkoDj-n9QcrJ-n9QauM-nt6ke4-7RPhS8-8TkQBE-nr3mj7-n9Qc1d-8matPu-n9QbKy-nr3b8p-dtv3Uh-3iSgDU-dtv3ZY-drkoLh-nrjyY6-nrjyWH-bmMgbn-dtv3Xf-dtv4bu-nrjzj6-8TkEeu-dvrjAX-dvrke4-dvwUjw-dtv43q-dtv4fG-7UGqPW-bmMhei-dvrknp-bmMhUz-dvrkhK-dvwUuW-bmMijt-dtpHi6-bmMfyF-dtv4nY-dvrjWB-bmMf4k-8m7jot-7rDdN6-bmMhxz-bmMgE2-7rDcX8-7rH8bA-bmMfUZ-8m7j1F be considered copyrighted if it has the some rights reserved sign under it that is considered good too use for Flickr?

First, could I get you to sign your posts on my talk page here so I can see who you are? That would be very helpful! Second, I am not sure I understand your first question: "Would the photo still be under the logo on it's Wikipedia page..." I don't understand exactly what you are asking there— could I get you to elaborate? Third, you asked about another photo. The photo you gave a link to does seem to be licensed for reuse on Flickr. However, not all photos that get uploaded to Flickr are actually correctly licensed, and Commons does its best to apply much more stringent (and accurate) rules to such things. Something freely licensed in Flickr may not fly on Commons (because there is no one actually checking Flickr uploads to make sure they are correctly licensed), and I suspect that the image you linked to above falls into this category because the sign is very likely copyrighted and not licensed for reuse. The person who took the photo almost certainly does not realize this, and it is a common mistake but is one we try not to let slide on Commons (as it were). Anyhow, if you would like to elaborate on your first question, please do, and when you are done please sign your post by putting four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~ just before you hit "Save page." Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm so sorry I forgot all about the signature. To elaborate on my first question, you had said that on Wikipedia you have the license to use the logo on the DisneyQuest page. Would the same apply to the picture that I had uploaded to Wikipedia's DisneyQuest page and just be taken off of commons or should it just be taken off of Wikipedia entirely?

Windyshadow32 (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is my understanding of how this works: Wikipedia is allowed to use the original DisneyQuest logo under "fair use" terms only. Two of the terms of fair use are that the use occur only once, and that it be of relatively low quality. With the original SVG logo and your photo, we now have TWO uses of the logo, which exceeds fair use. Now, the logo is hosted on Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons, because Commons does not recognize fair use at all. Your image is on Commons. So I don't think Commons can retain the image at all because of copyright reasons, which is kind of a shame because the photo in question is a really nice one! But this how we keep from getting lawsuits getting brought against us— by following the rules whenever we can, as closely as we can. Does this make sense to you? Please let me know if you disagree and why, and I will gladly respond. Thanks! (and thank you for your signature!) KDS4444 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I see how that can be a problem, but I see examples of this kind of thing on pages like the Art of Animation resort page, is it different because it has the hotel behind it or is just the same kind of thing happening to me? I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. If I am still not getting the entire point of this, then I understand why you would need to take the photo down. Thank you!

Windyshadow32 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not know much about the Art of Animation resort page— could you provide a link? Keep this is mind: the fact that other stuff exists that should not does not mean that this image should be allowed to exist. Each of these things gets handled on a case-by-case basis, and perhaps the resort page you are referring to is replete with derivative works that are copyright violations no one has caught yet. That doesn't make them right, it only makes them behind schedule! But show me a link anyway so I can see for myself. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney%27s_Art_of_Animation_Resort Here is the link to that page. I don't know if it is because it has the resort somewhat behind it but if that is true, Would an image of the entire building of DisneyQuest (something like this? https://www.flickr.com/photos/sangre-la/3012255032/in/photolist-5AbAtA-5A7iNn-5AbAv5-5VEv2A-ekGBT-ekwSD-5QRFoW-4cW8dP-ekGtX-ekGP7-ekz4U-5EMJtQ-ekDxF-ekxQ1-5A7iPi-ekxCL-ekDHU-ekySZ-ekFZT-9fDMen-ekGbL-ekzjB-ekykZ-ekAnd-ekAyG-ekycn-ekHh9-ekCKq-ekGYR-ekytB-ekzw4-ekGHo-ekwvi-ekBQT-ekzWA-eky1B-ekCWD-buGgaN-bHB2pD-ekDkp-ekwFy-ekzJS-ekGmD-5QMpp8-pGTjbf-pGP3yz-pqjvv8-uTuLpy-ueec9P-uXTRSE) be allowed even though it has a non-free logo in the image? Thank you for all the help. Windyshadow32 (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I get the sense that what you are hoping for is a de minimis justification for the image. Unfortunately, I don't think that will work either (see the link above for more explanation of de minimis). KDS4444 (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Final question, say an image like this (https://www.flickr.com/photos/williamsdb/3431840973) which doesn't show the logo as much, would it still have de minimis apply to it? I think if it does, we can finally get this deal sorted out, and delete the image.

Windyshadow32 (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, my judgement call is far from authoritative, and another editor might think differently, but I'd interpret that image as de minimis and falling under freedom of panorama in the US (for which it would need to be correctly tagged on the file description page once copied from Flickr to Commons). Go for it! KDS4444 (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So just to be safe since I already have "this user has been warned about copyright violations" tag on me in the new users section, in your opinion do you believe that I uploaded this correctly? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Disney_Quest_(3431840973).jpg I have appreciated your help through all of this, I know I'm hard to put up with. Windyshadow32 (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Windyshadow32: So close! When you want to use a picture from Flickr that is correctly licensed, all you need to do is use the upload wizard and select the option to upload a Flickr image— the wizard will take care of all of the information template fields for you (like the source, author, date, etc.). If you don't choose to use the uploader (not everyone does!) then you only need to make sure that your "source" is a bare URL (do not put it in brackets) pointing to the original place that you found the picture (on Flickr or elsewhere). Everything else about the upload looks good to me! You got all the other fields correct, and the image looks like it should pass muster. Please let me know if you happen to have any questions in the future: I do not claim to be a Commons guru, but I've been handling licensing and sourcing issues for a few years here and am always glad to answer questions when I can (that is to say, you are not at all hard to put up with and I much prefer lots of questions!). KDS4444 (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Saltwater Limpet Diagram-en.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saltwater Limpet Diagram-en.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding File:Goux_-_chateau.JPG

Could you please provide location information for this image? Ideally we would like to know the coordinates (longitude and latitude) from which you took it. If you can find the location on Google Maps, you can right-click on the map page and then left-click on "What's here?" and Google will tell you the exact coordinates of the position. Once you have this information, you can place it in the {{Location}} template which I have already added to the image. Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Marianne Casamance (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Merci! KDS4444 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Upload wizard error page.jpg

File:Upload wizard error page.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!

BethNaught (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

about the troubles with the template, today it will be corrected and working well again. I will also look for a better explanation of the parameters. Thank you for your info, and for your patience! sarang♥사랑 05:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am flattered you noticed and are taking the time to correct the problem. Much thanks for that! KDS4444 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Steam Turbine.jpg

File:Steam Turbine.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.

 

Ariadacapo (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Human tooth diagram-en.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Oppose Below minimum size requirement --Alandmanson 16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)  Support That's not a photo, is an .svg file. You can download as a png with 4mpix size. Otherwise OK for me. --C messier 13:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)  Support --PetarM 18:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

File:InfObTeleMacro.png

Dear KDS4444

File:InfObTeleMacro.png solved. See : User_talk:Tamasflex#File_tagging_File:InfObTeleMacro.png I wiped that was not mine. Best regard, Tamas--Tamasflex (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Really?? Because you are listed as the author and the source as well as the uploader. Do you know who the author is? KDS4444 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Your threat

Dear kds4444, just look when I posted my last pic. Then look how many pics I uploaded. Then calculate the percentage of copyvios. Regards, AM (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think that the percentage of copyvios is what matters, what matters is that there appear to have been a number of them. And the message I left you was not a threat: I am not an admin and cannot block your account. It was a warning to emphasize that uploading copyrighted works is not okay, because it looks like you are not uploading with adequate care and attention to this. That's all. Cheers. KDS4444 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

See, 12 years ago there were many discussions about copyrights and a lot of items (i.e. italian buildings) were not really clear. Obviously many of these pics caused no offence as they remained here for many years. Now, I wouldn't upload most of the doubtful. By the way, on this page I see 3 pics uploaded by you that were deleted ;-) . Take care, AM (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Archimolluscm-de copy.svg

Hi there, I saw your notice at "Requested translations". There are actually a few things that need to be corrected in your image so I'd like to show you a table with what needs to be done:

Current text	Replace with
Mantle	Mantel
Anteriore Aorta	Vordere Aorta
Bauch	Magen
Einzelnes Paar anterior Tentakeln	Ein Paar vordere Tentakel
Zerebralen Ganglien	Zerebrale Ganglien
Lichtempfindliche Occelli	Lichtempfindliche Ocellen
Prominenter Kopf	Abgesetzter Kopf
Raspelnde Orgel	Raspelzunge
Nervenring Umgebung Ösophagus	Nervenring um die Speiseröhre
Zwei Paar ungebunden Nervenlängsschnüre	Zwei Paar unverdrehte Nervenbahnen
Einfache Schleife Darm	Einfacher, gewundener Darm
Serie von Pedal Retraktor Muskeln	Reihe von Muskeln zur Fußkontraktion
Ventral flach muskulös Kriechender Fuß	Ventral gelegener muskulöser Kriechfuß
Mantelhöhle hinten gelegen	Hintere Mantelhöhle
Osphradia	Osphradien
Interne Bipectina-Ctenidien	Interne doppelt kammförmige Ctenidien
Exzessives Wasser	Austretendes Wasser

If you have any questions please feel free to ping me here. De728631 (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• De728631 You are an answer that has arrived unhoped for, and you have my sincerest thanks! Now I can tie up that loose thread. Yay!!!! KDS4444 (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Please see the newly revised version of this image and do let me know if you spot any remaining errors there. I am at your disposal to correct them. KDS4444 (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm always happy to help. And looking at the new upload it seems we both missed something. Please change the following:

• Pedalganglien -> Fußganglien
• Mantle -> Mantel
• ocellen -> Ocellen (for reference, nouns in German are always capitalised)
• Raspelnde -> Raspelzunge

Cheers, De728631 (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

De728631: I have now (I think) made all of these corrections. Can I get you to take one more look and make sure it is all correct? Much thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I found yet two more bugs:

• Zerebralen Ganglien -> Zerebrale Ganglien
• and there is one label missing just right of "Mantel": dorsale Gonade, vor dem Herzen gelegen

But that should be it. De728631 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

De728631: Ah ha! And now?? KDS4444 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a finishing touch and now it should be alright. By the way, I think it would be helpful to group the letters of each label so people can more easily remove the text to add new translations. De728631 (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain I understand... Group the letters?? There is an unlabeled language neutral version of the image here where the parts are replaced by letters and numbers making it relatively easy for use in other languages, though I realize this is not the same as a truly "unlabeled" image. But then I am not certain what you are asking. I agree that it should be as accessible as possible in other languages. Please advise. And thank you again for helping me create the German version! KDS4444 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I didn't know about this neutral version. What I meant was that in the labeled versions the individual letters of a text label are single SVG objects. These can be grouped to create a collective object handle. But with this language-neutral file as a basic version we don't need those grouped labels. De728631 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

De728631: To my surprise, the version of the image that you and I have been working on is not, in fact, the one being used on the German Wikipedia at the moment— the one being used is located here. I am not at all certain which is better, and did not know the other version existed until just now. What do you think of the German translation of the other file? It looks like it was created by a native English speaker. KDS4444 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit that the descriptions at File:Archimollusc-de.svg are a bit more detailed and contain more terms in "anatomy speak" than our version. And TomCatX is a native German speaker. I'm not sure what to do here but I don't think we should keep both versions. De728631 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Elephantreaching.jpg

Please do not tag the old stock of images with missing permission tags. They are off limits according to AGF. --h-stt !? 18:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

h-stt: Please see my most recent comment on that file's description page. Precautionary Principle seems to trump AGF, even for the old stock of photos, when real doubt exists about the copyright status of a file. KDS4444 (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright discussion

Hi. I happened to come across your discussion of copyright in a few places. I thought there were a lot of people on commons with a relatively significant familiarity with copyright, but a lot of the responses you got were pretty bad. I'm not a lawyer, but I have spent a crazy amount of time reading copyright law, court rulings, and assorted quality sources on the subject.

Copyright works like a layer of imaginary paint. Legal paint. If you take a photograph, copyright is a layer of legal paint on that photo owned (and controlled) by you. If I draw arrows and labels on it, then I hold the copyright on that. The derivative work is covered by both copyrights - two layers of legal paint. If someone uses that as part of a collage of images, that collage gets a copyright. That's a third layer, painted on top of your copyright and my copyright. That can only be sold with permission from all three of us. If your copyright expires, then that layer of copyright evaporates. The others remain. If I draw arrows and labels on a public domain image, then the combined derivative work gets painted with my copyright.

A copyright requires a "creative contribution". The threshold for that is very low. If I draw five straight lines pointing to a few spots in the image, and randomly label them A B C D E, that passes the creative-contribution threshold. I chose how many lines to add, I chose what angels to put them at, I chose where each of the starting and ending points are, and I chose which line to label with which letter. (And I chose exactly where to place each letter, in relation to each line.) Imagine erasing the original image, and seeing just a white square with my lines and letters on it. That's what I have a copyright on.And the combined version is covered by both copyrights.

There was a special court ruling that a slavishly accurate photograph of a painting does not get a new copyright. The key point there is that the goal of the process is to avoid any creative input by the photographer from creeping into the image. The photographer is acting as a glorified photocopy-machine, accurately reproducing the source material with no creativity. In Europe some courts may apply a "sweat of the brow" doctrine, asserting that the photographer gets a copyright because of the labor he put into it. That is highly contentious, it's rejected by the U.S. and most of the rest of the world. The U.S. and most of the world consider "creative contribution" to be the fundamental requirement for a copyright. A machine photocopy of a public domain painting will also be public domain. A slavishly accurate human-photograph of a public domain painting will also be public domain.

The content of an SVG file is essentially a specialized "software program" telling the computer how to draw the image. A machine generated SVG would not get a new copyright layer because there was no human-choice-contribution to writing that SVG-program. However if an SVG is created by hand then there's a near infinite number of ways someone could craft it. Even something as simple as choosing what order to draw the various elements constitutes a "creative choice". That creative choice gets written into the SVG-program. So hand converting an image to SVG will add a layer of copyright. Whether it was a public domain source image or a copyrighted source image, a hand-conversion to SVG will add a copyright (unless the image was dead-trivial).

The SVG case is closely related to vector fonts.[1] The drawn font cannot be copyrighted (at least not in the U.S.) However the "program" telling the computer what lines to draw, at what angels, and in what order, that gets a copyright. So you can take a "copyrighted vector font", write your own instructions for drawing each letter so it turns out identical, and you now have a copyright on that font file. Alsee (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Alsee: thank you for sending me the above thoughts. I agree with you on most of them, and am also familiar with the "sweat of the brow" doctrine and what it implies. However, we differ on the last point: if a person knows about Mickey Mouse and is able to draw a Mickey Mouse (using pen and paper or using a vector program) but the character of "Mickey Mouse" is a copyrighted character, then any version of Mickey Mouse that I draw remains a derivative work and while that means that my new Mickey Mouse might be entitled to its own copyright as a derivative work, unless the copyright to the original Mickey Mouse character had either expired or had been release into the public domain or had been licensed for reuse or the owner of the copyright had released it to me to reuse, then I could not assign my new Mickey Mouse a different copyright than the original work on which it was based and without the permission of the copyright holder of that work I would in fact have no right to generate a derivative work at all, never mind offer it under a different copyright (never mind under a completely different and more freely licensed copyright such as CC-BY-SA 4.0). A recreation of a work that was generated by someone else, as I have come to understand it, does not make the second work a new work entitled to its own copyright, even if that second work was created by an unrelated software program— because the creative aspect of the first work is only being recreated/ reproduced in the second— that is, the second work is creative only to the extent that it includes new creative input. "Authorship" remains fundamentally that of the first work, with the derivative work only entitling the author of that work to authorship of those aspects which are new and creative on top of the first. It is also my understanding that relatively minor changes to a work will also fail to generate a new copyright unless they are able to cross the threshold of originality— choosing where to place a line or what color to use for that line, while obviously "chosen", are not necessarily creative at the same time. Copyright covers creative works, not works merely of choice.

Or such has been my understanding so far. But I am very interested in discussing this point with you, as you say you have done a lot of reading and research in the area. I am not an attorney either, though I do live with one who spent a number of years as General Counsel for Feature Animation at Disney and off of whom I like to bounce things like this from time to time. He makes a good sounding board. I will see if I can get him to have a look at what you and I have both written above and offer up some of his thoughts for us! I look forward to reading your own response soon, yes? Thanks again for expressing an interest in discussing this with me. Let's keep the conversation going. (quick aside, it is "angles", not "angels"— I've made that mistake myself in the past!) KDS4444 (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The way copyright law is written, it defaults to creating new copyrights for (almost) anything and everything. They pile up as restrictions. If I freehand-draw a copyrighted work, I am absolutely granted a new copyright on that. It doesn't much matter even if if I did so illegally. The law says I get a copyright, and the law says I can assert my copyright against anyone who copies my work. But as you note, that does not allow me to release someone else's copyright. The original copyright is still there, and my copyright is a second layer of restrictions. If I freehand-copy a copyrighted work, that cannot be released for use without permission from both me and from the original copyright holder.

It is also my understanding that relatively minor changes to a work will also fail to generate a new copyright unless they are able to cross the "threshold of originality". Right. The noteworthy point I was trying to make is that the threshold is lower than most people would expect. Courts have a bias in favor of aggressively accepting copyright claims, anywhere that it is remotely plausible to do so. I think there was a case where the text on a form was public domain, but a court upheld a copyright on the spacing and formatting of the text on the printed form. Result: Photocopying that form gets you slaughtered in court, but typing it over with different margins etc & printing it up is fine. A music CD is covered by dozens of copyrights, including one just for the the selection and order of songs that were included. Adjusting the contrast on an image won't create a copyright, but adjusting contrast and the brightness and the color balance and running a sharpness filter and cropping... I would not be surprised if a court bought that as establishing a new derivative work copyright. How much does someone have to fiddle with image enhancement before it crosses the threshold of originality? The only way to know for sure is to play Russian Roulette and see if a court rules against you. :/ Alsee (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

To super-clarify: If I make a derivative of your work and sell T-shirts with that image, you can sue me. If someone else copies my version and sells T-shirts, then you and I can both sue them. It doesn't much matter if I violated your copyright - I still get my own copyright and I can sue anyone who violates it. Alsee (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like we are both more or less on the same page as far as this business is concerned. That makes me wonder what it was that led you to contact me— must've been something specific I did or said to someone, and I can think of a few candidates, but I'd rather leave that to you. Care to reveal? I am always open to having my understanding and interpretation of copyright further refined, so long as that is done correctly (i.e., what I really don't like is learning one thing, and coming to believe it, and then discovering that what I learned was actually not correct after all, and having my ass handed back to me— whatever the state of the union is, I just want to have an up-to-date understanding so that I can make as few mistakes as I can! I know I am not always right, but I do strive to be right often enough that I don't doubt myself). KDS4444 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Soul Mixer and Dragon Nest.png

i screenshot this pic from mine empire. its not copy

• Do you own the rights to the program? Did you write the program yourself? Because if the program is copyrighted, then u have no right to redistribute its art and claim that it is actually your own. Does this make sense? KDS4444 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Elephant reaching

I think I would have still closed it thus. We need active evidence of a grandfathered-era image being an infringement before it can be deleted on copyright grounds, and seeing that much of the argument for deletion was based on "no evidence of permission" (when sufficient evidence had been provided by quoting the photographer), it was a matter of these votes simply not complying with relevant policy. The latest block log entry cited [2] as a reason, and the block immediately followed a bunch of edit warring at en:Pedophilia (example edit), while previous edits involved an attempt to remove his own images from the project (example); the blocks don't appear to be at all copyright-related. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Answer to your message

Hi kds4444, I hope this is the good place to write an answer to your message: [[3]] . I understand your concerns; and here is a proof that it's me Deevad, aka David Revoy owner of the account on Wikimedia: proof . I hosted this screenshot of your message on my website, that's the only idea I had to proof my identity. Secondly, about Sintel, The footer of the page says "All artwork are copyrighted by David Revoy unless otherwise noted." and at the end of the page in the article of Sintel, it's written the CC-BY license. Let me know if all of this is OK to you, and thank you for helping to triage the big database of Wikimedia and clean the permission issue. :-) -David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deevad (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello KDS4444, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Hindenburg-keel-plan-view2.jpg

File:Hindenburg-keel-plan-view2.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!

134.186.197.200 19:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Subduction-en.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Subduction-en.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Nautilus diagram-en.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nautilus diagram-en.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Third imperial Fabergé egg.svg

File:Third imperial Fabergé egg.svg 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!

Ras67 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Stewart Levenson.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

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

 

Guanaco (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Tom Paradise.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Tom Paradise.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.

 

Guanaco (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Burt Prelutslky.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

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

 

Guanaco (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Tom Paradise.jpg

File:Tom Paradise.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!

Guanaco (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Stewart Levenson.jpg

File:Stewart Levenson.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!

Guanaco (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Self portrait with hat.jpg

File:Self portrait with hat.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!

Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Scaphopoda.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scaphopoda.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2017 closes on December, the 15th

Hi, "Wiki Science Competition" 2017 has started It is a world event. The upload phase in Asian, American and European countries without juries ends on December 15th. Here you can find more details. This is a manually inserted message for commons users with knowledge of the English language who are also globally active or who have uploaded images related to the competition's themes (science buildings, microscopic images, scientists, wildlife...). #WSC2017 #WikiScience #WikiScience2017 Wiki Science Competition

--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

French traduction of Scaphopoda

Hi,

I'm trying to make a french traduction of your picture File:Scaphopoda.svg

Here is beta result : https://framapic.org/zEI293h9WVkt/iDFrVn016LmB.png

I thank you for you work, and I hope you are ok with this traduction.

--Touam (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Transformer image

I don't have your email so I'm writing here. I reverted your change to File:Transformer3d col3.svg, because the direction of the primary winding was incorrect (the current and magnetic flux follow the right-hand rule). If you'd like to redraw the image, please show the directions as they currently are. Thanks. Heitordp (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Will fix and re upload soon. Please verify once I do, if you would. KDS4444 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Have now revised, see if it is correct now. Thanks again. KDS4444 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's correct now. Thank you for revising the image. Heitordp (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Your contributions to the commons make this world a better place. Bravo! StereoTypo (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Not public domain template

As I think you've noticed, I've been working on {{Not public domain}}. I'm trying to include the things many user templates have in common. I've now added a line "Informing me about usage is not mandatory, however, I'd appreciate a note if you use my work outside Wikimedia projects. Thanks!" which also appears to be quite common. I'm informing you about this because I've enabled it by default. If you don't want it on your files, it can be disabled with notify=no. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Subduction-en.svg needs editing15:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)~

This image shows Oceanic crust and Continental crust with brackets indicating thickness, but the continental crust is actually much thicker than the oceanic crust. The oceanic crust bracket appears to include the entire oceanic lithosphere (crust and upper mantle). I would recommend revising the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenvandellen (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter? The continental crust shown here is thicker. As a representational image it's fine. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It matters enough. Am working to fix this. Illustrator is giving me problems, but I am working to fix this. Hoping to have a new version for you soon. KDS4444 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Kenvandellen: done. Better, yesd? Sorry for the extensive delay. KDS4444 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear KDS4444! I'm a geologist, and I've just observed an error on this image, and I would like to sign for you. The arrow of Moho discontinuity shows to a wrong surface. On the image there is a green discontinuity between asthenosphere and lithosphere, and the arrow of Moho shows there, but it's not correct. Moho is the discontinuity between crust and mantle, so Moho is located at the bottom surface of crusts (oceanic and continental, too), see here, so I recommend this correction. Anyway, I like this image, because it's nice-looking and shows the subduction very well. :) Kind regards, --Sphenodon (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of this error and am working on a fix right now. Should have new version up within 24 hrs. KDS4444

@Sphenodon: The error has now fixed. I am not permitted to overwrite the existing file, but I have submitted an image replacement request to have the file overwritten with another that I just updated (File:Subduction-en44 copy.svg). Hopefully someone will get to doing this before the image becomes Commons Picture of the Day tomorrow. Fingers crossed. KDS4444 (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Overwritten. --jdx ^Re: 08:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the fast correction and overwriting! --Sphenodon (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:VA Portland Health Care System.jpg

Copyright status: File:VA Portland Health Care System.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:VA Portland Health Care System.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.

Also

• File:VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System - Highland Drive.jpg
• File:St. Albans VA Medical Center.jpg
• File:Robley Rex VA Medical Center.jpg
• These might be some PD by the fact of US gov/state - I'm not an expert on which US states do PD, but they are not CC-zero. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't really care so much anyway. Thanks for deleting these. KDS4444 (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Fountain pen diagram.svg

File:Fountain pen diagram.svg 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!

GKFX^talk 10:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Error in File:Wheel_and_rudder_assembly.gif

I believe the overhead view on this is incorrect. The tiller head should move in opposite direction of the wheel. The front view is correct, and the wheel movement is consistent between the two, so it's the tiller/rudder in the overhead view that is doing the wrong thing.

Update on usage of image of the Sciatic nerve

Per your request, this is to let you know that I am using your image of the Sciatic nerve (File:Sciatic nerve2.jpg) in the website http://alamapa.com/ (a website in Hebrew focused on mapping the Bible), specifically in the page for Genesis 32 (http://alamapa.com/chapter/%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%91 - where the angel touches what is assumed to be Jacob's Sciatic nerve).

Thanks, --Aaadir (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your threat

I didn't upload pics for years. So, where is the reason of blocking me? BTW please keep away from my page design. Thank you. AM (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of image in Book

Hi there

I am trying to contact KD Schroeder to inform them of use of their image in a book. Is this the place?

Thank you

Bill Morris — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2406:E003:18C8:4001:B8CF:D150:D7A1:5CB2 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)