User talk:George Ho

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, George Ho!

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.

-- 07:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Archives /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

File:Polistil VG2 pong console.jpg

Hello

I think that the best action would be to remove the television from the image and leave only the console.

--Arosio Stefano (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Logo of Three's Company

Hi! I completed your request on Graphics Lab. The resulting image can be seen here. Best regards, --Ivi104 (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Kelsey Grammer

Hi, George. Glad you like the image. That Nikon camera I used was such a joy -- I'd still use it, but the auto-focus motor went bad, and I just haven't been able to face how much it'll cost to fix.

Not sure how Getty Images figures in -- I took the photo myself at that Tony Awards event in a Manhattan hotel. I guess I'm unsure of the question. But anything I can do to help, just let me know! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

VI tag failed

Hi George Ho, although your VIC nomination was successful and File:Damien Chazelle (cropped).jpg was promoted, the bot failed to tag the image, this is possibly because the image file is protected. DeFacto (talk). 07:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto. I changed the status to "supported". You can re-promote it when the image is not protected, or I can change to "promoted". --George Ho (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: that won't work here. I think the problem is that the image file is protected, so the bot couldn't add the VI seal to the image. The reason given for the protection is that the file is transcluded in Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en. DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The image is no longer cascaded, DeFacto. What about "re-promoting" it to VI? --George Ho (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The image is now correctly tagged. DeFacto (talk). 18:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Rupert Graves.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 22:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

-- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Altering a PD-Text Image

Hello, I am planning on uploading some images of record labels that may fall under Public Domain - Text and would like to ask you a question, as you seem to have experience with these types of images. Some record labels simply contain text of the track listing along with a small logo of the record company's logo. Are there any restrictions with altering the image to remove the logo (so that it image would qualify as Public Domain - Text)? Thank you. --Amineshaker (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Amineshaker. There is {{PD-textlogo}}. You can create a derivate, but not in similar file pages. Though I don't own record labels and pages, any change would affect reader viewership. Nevertheless, I would neither encourage nor discourage a change. COM:VP or COM:VPCOPY may be suitable venues for more answers. Also, there is Commons:Derivative works. Please notify me before making a change to any of my uploads. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ted Danson.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Not very sharp, but best in scope by default. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Ted Danson 2008 number 2.jpg: +2
2. Ted Danson.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Ted Danson 2008 number 2.jpg: Promoted.
File:Ted Danson.jpg: Declined.

--Yann (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cloris Leachman.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Seems like the best photo in scope to me, partly because of the careful light control in the studio. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Scores:

1. Cloris Leachman 1970.JPG: +2
2. Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: -1 (current VI within same scope)
=>
File:Cloris Leachman 1970.JPG: Promoted.
File:Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former.

--Yann (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Rupert Murdoch.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: +0
2. Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: Declined.
File:Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 09:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Support - In my opinion, this remains a better picture than the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: Promoted and so continues as current VI. <--
File:Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg: Declined.

--DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Damien Chazelle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 22:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

-- DeFacto (talk). 18:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

yo

I put US and Chinese allies down on it to represent the actual sides of the cold war better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger Aragorn (talk • contribs) 06:50, 5 March 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC)

Hi, Ranger Aragorn. Well, you're welcome to make maps of such things here in Commons. However, at Wikipedia, verification to represent the alliances is needed, even when true. May you create a new file without replacing the current version, i.e. create a different file without affecting File:Sino-US 2.png? Or may you replace the current version of the file? --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lutz Bachmann.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Please add geolocation. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Added location, Yann. However, I could not pinpoint the exact location, so I used the city's artificial one instead. --George Ho (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Why do we want to promote criminals here? I cannot oppose according to the rules, but hopefully others will not support. Charles (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope. We have Wikipedia articles about everybody, even the worst people. I don't see any reason why Commons would not have pictures of them. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Question - Charles, on the same basis, would you want to exclude photos of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Tojo from VI? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• No. They are dead and so publicity here cannot inflame anything. Charles (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I understand where you stand. But Wikipedia and others also cover living people who are newsworthy for being notorious, racist, violent, criminal, etc. The philosophical argument that they shouldn't be given publicity is certainly a respectable one, and I have my own views about that in relation to U.S. media coverage of Trump and certainly in relation to the names of mass-casualty terrorists and apolitical mass murderers (who by the way are mostly dead, either suicides or shot dead, but whose publicity can inflame things and encourage copycat crimes), but I wouldn't question the appropriateness of awarding a VI for a picture of Trump or pictures of mass murderers on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - @Charlesjsharp: , I've mentioned to you before that you can't hold a Valued or Quality image candidate up to unwritten rules. Valued images are held up to criteria based around an image's ability to illustrate a subject, or as its known here, a "scope". It does not at all have anything to do with ethics, opinions of a scope, or motive of an image. This image is being assessed on whether or not it's the best illustration of Lutz Bachmann. This is NOT a discussion on Lutz Bachmann himself. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Please don't lecture me. I can comment all I want - it just happens your ethics are different to mine. I am not voting against the nomination. Charles (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - @Charlesjsharp: you're not voting against it, but you're certainly trying to influence the vote. You literally said that "hopefully others will not support". Philip Terry Graham (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support - Of the two shots of Bachmann that currently exist on Commons, this is by all standards the better shot. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Donald Tusk, portrait photograph.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question - Isn't this scope a bit broad? There are plenty of images of Donald Tusk on Commons. Maybe a more appropriate, more narrow scope for a Valued Image would be "Profile shots of Donald Tusk", or something like that, in my opinion. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment see debate on talk page. On this one he's clearly notable, but I don't see how we can say one of the pictures in the category gallery is more valuable than the others. It's a nonsense. And I don't think we should have scopes of DT with xx and DT with YY either. Churchill with Roosevelt and Stalin would be OK! I really do think we risk ruining the reputation of VI and making fools of ourselves with pictures of living people. Charles (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Question Charles, debate on what talk page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Main VIC talk page. Charles (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion I can see that would suggest that "Donald Tusk" couldn't be a reasonable scope. Don't our readers benefit from having some VIs of him? We can start with one and either add others or replace the image with another, in time. Right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

•  CommentQuite good, but it needs geocoding. Yann (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Info
  By looking at the background of the photo, it most likely occurred at indoors. There were bookshelves. I was able to use the Bing Translator to pinpoint the original location of the photo. I looked at the photo album and realize that Tusk visited one of the Polish universities. Therefore, Yann, I added the geocoding by copying and pasting the location from the university article. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - It's a decent portrait shot, but as I said before, the scope is too broad. There are hundreds of pictures of Donald Tusk on Commons. I think choosing this particular image as the most valued in this very broad scope would be very controversial at best. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with PTG. Charles (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment @PhilipTerryGraham, Charlesjsharp, Ikan Kekek: I thought about narrowing the scope to either "Portrait of Donald Tusk", "Donald Tusk in 2009", "Photo shoot of Donald Tusk", "Donald Tusk in a university", or something else. Any other suggestions? --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment No scope would persuade me. Charles (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose =>
declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Narrowed the scope and re-nominated the image. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above. Charles (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Charles: There are only a few potential candidates now. Why do you oppose? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1. Because it's a meaningless category, because the photos in it are not 'portraits'. 2. Even within this scope, we cannot judge which is most valuable. 3. Because a VI should be the most valuable image, irrespective of whether it is a studio portrait or a journalist's photo or whatever. 4. Because there are many images of this man on Commons and the choice of this one is SUBJECTIVE. Where possible, VI judging should be OBJECTIVE. For instance, some people prefer a smiling face, others a stern one. You and the nominator prefer a smirking face. As I said above, it is a nonsense for us to pretend we know best. Charles (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Ok for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Obviously I need a rest from VI! Charles (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Neutral - The scope has been narrowed, but there are still other images in the scope that can easily be thought of as the most valued of this scope. I agree with Charles on this one. It is a matter of subjectivity whether or not this is the most valued image of the scope. Either way, it'd be a lot better to bring this image and the other images of its scope into a most valued review instead. I'll be sure to do that regardless of whether this one fails or passes this initial review. The only way to bring objectivity would be a consensus discussion on which is the most valued from a technical and quality standpoint, since they all look the same visually. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Pat Nixon Statue

Hi George, I just now saw an email notice that an image I took and uploaded was deleted here back in December (I don't check my Wiki emails very often.) The reason wasn't really clear to me, so I was wondering if you could clarify the reason for the deletion. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Replied to your talk page. --George Ho (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned

Hi. Thank you for this edit. However, I am confused about it. You seem to prefer adding an empty third parameter to Template:Unsigned, which is unnecessary. You also seem to prefer this template to Template:Unsigned2, even though they function identically if one rearranges their parameters. Please help me to understand these preferences.

Additionally, you seem to prefer adding "(UTC)" when these templates already do that for you, causing "(UTC)" to appear doubled on the page (understandable since your home wiki is English Wikipedia, which doesn't do that for you). Please don't add "(UTC)" to these templates here.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know, Jeff, that Commons's "unsigned2" doesn't function the same as en.WP's version. I'll be careful. George Ho (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, George.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, George Ho. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. — Corky 20:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Re:File:Joe Louis Statue.jpg

The photo in question was taken years ago at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada. The person poising with the statue is my son. In other words I took a picture of my son posing with the Joe Louis Statue. At the time that the image was uploaded I had no knowledge of who the creator might be. If the image is improper and or violets any rules, then feel free to delete it. 2600:8800:C80:8EF0:5D11:2F3:733:95AA 03:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I posted the "speedy deletion" template.Marine 69-71 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for being so meticulous in obtaining permissions. Keep up the good work! 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Kate Burton in The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg

And also:

• File:The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg
• File:Mark Blum in The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg
• File:Dick Latessa in The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg
• File:Will LeBow in The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg

Yours sincerely, - Alexis Jazz 21:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Kate Burton in The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg

And also:

• File:The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg
• File:Mark Blum in The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg
• File:Dick Latessa in The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg
• File:Will LeBow in The Cherry Orchard 2007 production.jpg

Yours sincerely,   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Hogwarts coat of arms colored with shading.png

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

whym (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for getting a picture of the late en:Robert Miles

Thank you for getting a picture of the late en:Robert Miles on the page. I feel the admins were being a bit heavy handed not letting us use a picture of him under fair use (see this page for that discussion), but I am glad that Salim Lamrani very generously donated a picture of him to the Wikipedia and you were able to help make that happen to honor Miles’ memory. This is the best solution. Samboy (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Garam _talk 12:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

OTRS agent?

Hi George Ho. As you may know, OTRS is seriously backlogged. I have seen your meticulous work in obtaining permission from copyright holders. Do you want to give us a helping hand with OTRS backlog? If so, please apply to become an OTRS agent at m:OTRS/Volunteering. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Abramovich_dan.jpg

Hello. Why did you say that the first version is not in compliance with license?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Pierpao. I can say that MFO has released anything marked with "Copyright: MFO" under CC BY-SA but just low-res versions. MFO has been very strict on hi-res ones, so CC BY-SA would not apply to such versions. I figured that bloating the image into bigger size (but still in similar low-res) may violate the licensing terms because MFO intends to give out photos in smaller sizes for anyone to freely use, but I could be proven wrong. George Ho (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Pierpao, George Ho: Commons considers a higher resolution to not legally result in a new copyright. However, if the author requests it, the community generally respects the wish to not have a high resolution image hosted here. In this case, the image was merely upscaled, which should be okay. However, the result of the upscale was not very pretty so I reverted it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Toho movie handprints - Hibiya, Chiyoda, Tokyo - DSC09701.JPG

File:Toho movie handprints - Hibiya, Chiyoda, Tokyo - DSC09701.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Please evaulate. This is a copyrighted artwork with "per de minimis" permission. The first version is a high resolution pic and has to be deleted. About the second choose yourself. There is another file File:Toho movie handprints - Hibiya, Chiyoda, Tokyo - DSC09706.JPG with the same issue. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Toho movie handprints - Hibiya, Chiyoda, Tokyo - DSC09706.JPG

File:Toho movie handprints - Hibiya, Chiyoda, Tokyo - DSC09706.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Please evaulate. This is a copyrighted artwork with "per de minimis" permission. The first version is a high resolution pic and has to be deleted. About the second choose yourself. There is another file File:Toho_movie_handprints_-_Hibiya,_Chiyoda,_Tokyo_-_DSC09701.JPG with the same issue. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Ronald_Brown_(mathematician)

Ronald Brown (mathematician) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

RE: Deletion request for WishyouwerehereUSA.png

Well how would you go about posting album covers on their corresponding Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFSyndicate (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

Can you please withdraw? I don't understand why you're doing this. AlbanGeller (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

George Bergman photos

Hi,

Thank you for all of your work with the George Bergman photos. I just wanted to let you know that:

• Category:Files provided by George Bergman‎ has been renamed Category:Photographs by George Bergman
• Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection (Bergman) has been renamed Category:Photographs by George Bergman from the Oberwolfach Photo Collection
• Template:George Bergman permission has been renamed Template:George Bergman cc-by-sa-4.0 and GFDL-unspecified, and has had some minor edits
• Template:George Bergman GFDL-1.2 has been created for Bergman's photos from the Oberwolfach Photo Collection
• I will be going through the existing files and making sure that they all have OTRS tickets; many of the ones uploaded by other users do not.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Category:David Hyde Pierce.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I have checked this image against all the relevant VI criteria and am happy to support its nomination as a VI. The image has been used in a number of articles. Martinvl (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt 1961 first edition.jpg

File:The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt 1961 first edition.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!

Frontman830 (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:FoP-Italy

Template:FoP-Italy 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 template, 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. 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!

Ox1997cow (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

File:The Close I Get to You by Roberta Flack and Donny Hathaway US vinyl A-side label.jpg

File:The Close I Get to You by Roberta Flack and Donny Hathaway US vinyl A-side label.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!

DerpGunKV2 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons:URAA-restored copyrights

May I remind that Commons:URAA-restored copyrights says: "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. ......" It resembles medium enforcement per m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term#Statement from Wikimedia Foundation. As File:March of the Volunteers.png qualifies for Template:PD-EdictGov, would Commons:De minimis apply while involved in URAA-restored copyrights? If any disinterested administrator would like to delete File:March of the Volunteers.png, let Chinese Wikipedia have it while easily able to claim US fair use. I am trying to stay neutral on this uncertainty. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why the Macau government is named the copyright holder of the sheet music, a derivative of the song possibly copyrighted in the US. A sheet music company must have been the original publisher. Furthermore, de minimis doesn't apply to the very faithful reproduction of the work. Neither does PD-EdictGov, which to me doesn't look like an "edict". George Ho (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Footwear News magazine logo.png

And also:

• File:Footwear News magazine logo.tif
• File:Highlights for Children magazine logo.png
• File:Highlights for Children magazine logo.tif

Yours sincerely, --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Michael Paul Chan 2011 interview.tif

File:Michael Paul Chan 2011 interview.tif 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!

Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Complex language at Commons:Deletion requests/Free Marc images

I’m a native English speaker, and even I have trouble with your phrase impermissibly used commercially by anyone who is not the artwork's copyright claimant/owner. I am particularly confused by the word impermissibly (it sounds redundant with doesn't allow earlier in the sentence, unless you carefully read the sentence to note the context of each word, but even then I am not sure it is the right word in this context). Perhaps you could try to simplify the wording a bit? Brianjd (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I added more words and another sentence to clarify. George Ho (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)