Wikimedia Commons

User talk:Revent/Archive 11

< User talk:Revent
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Revent in topic Copyright status: File:Harrah's Reno logo (2).jpg

Toniaureada uploads

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I'm wordering if you'd mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/Toniaureada as well. These photos all are claimed as "own work", but it looks like someone other than the uploader has taken them, unless that is they can be considered selfies. FWIW, File:Toniaureada16.jpg looks like it comes from twitter.com/TONIIMPRIVATE. Anyway, according to en:Toni aureada this young lady just turned 15 and my guess is that someone connected to her has been uploading the files and creating the Wikipedia article to try and promote her career. I'm wondering if OTRS permission is needed for these or are they OK as is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I've marked them all as {{Npd}}, and yes, anytime an image has been previously published on the internet we need OTRS permission unless the original source licenses it in a way we can use... never 'assume' that a wiki account belongs to the person it's named after, even if it seems like an obvious attempt at self promotion. NPD is a 'delayed speedy', that gives the person a week to send in an OTRS permission, but tbh these are probably not in scope anyhow. Reventtalk 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. Does it matter if the photo online can be shown to have been posted after the file was uploaded to Commons? In this particular case, it was kind of impossible to tell. If, however, the online version is dated (like a newspaper article) and the date is after the file has been uploaded, then can we assume they got the photo from Commons even without proper attribution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, in all cases it really comes down to common sense, in a large degree. If the later publication is a wider crop, or higher resolution, then it obviously did not come from us. Also, it's a bit unlikely that a person would have posted an image to their own social media account that came from us. In general, though, you always look for the earliest source (TinEye is helpful here, as it indicates the date when the image was first crawled at a location... the Internet Archive can also help).
The most recent posts to her 'personal' Twitter do rather indicate that the account here is indeed her, but... still very unlikely to be in scope, and tbh not particularly worried about exactly which rationale is used to hit the button. Reventtalk 14:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: We get many cases of random fans creating accounts named after people, in order to write about them, and then taking images from their social media, though. Reventtalk 14:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all the info Revent. I try to use the Internet Archive whenever possible to find the earliest use of a file, but I wasn't aware of "TinEye". Also, thanks for the tip about size/resolution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #223

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Thank you

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Revent,

I trust you're fine. I want to thank you for all your contributions at Village pump. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Third Reich Documents

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I don't follow your logic. There must be thousands of docs on WP and elsewhere which originated in the Third Reich, but were "captured" by the Allies, and published. Are they all verboten? Please explain, with independent sources, if possible, for your arguments RodCrosby (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@RodCrosby: There are probably quite a few documents that, if actually 'published' by the Third Reich, would be either copyrighted or of undeterminable status.... I have never gone specifically hunting, and do not intend to do so. Most documents that that I have seen, however, were produced for 'internal use', and never actually published until later by the various Allied powers... those are under those nation's laws. There are also many documents such as identification papers, that were produced as a single copy, and that come down to us through some later publication... those are also under the laws of the nation where originally published.
You had two files... both declared as 'Crown Copyright', though neither was produced by the British Government. The claim to Crown Copyright was completely, obviously, and blatantly wrong. The one I speedily deleted, the British Free Corps pamphlet, would be clearly illegal to publish under German law if still under copyright, as Nazi propaganda, and I deleted it on that basis. It it only okay if either the author can be determined and he died at least 70 years ago, or it can be shown to have been truly 'anonymous'... and I find it unlikely that the authorship was not recorded by the Third Reich. Even if anonymous, it was a copyright violation when you uploaded it (and only became PD in 2015, based on when you claim it was published). I welcome you to do more research, and request undeletion if you can find out some kind of provenance that shows it was written by someone who died at least 70 years ago... I suspect strongly, however, that it was written by a member of the Corps, and they survived the war for a number of years.
The other one, that appears to be a scan from an identity card. Again, the claim to 'Crown Copyright' is ridiculous. The photograph itself is probably anonymous, but we have no idea when it was scanned. Both Germany and the UK allow 70 year copyright after publication for anonymous works, and a 25 year publication right for works that had expired before their first publication. The odds of one or the other protecting both works are quite high.
You could potentially demonstrate that one or both is in the public domain, by giving more information. Without that, we are left with claims to 'Crown Copyright' that are blatantly false. Neither work was produced by the UK government, even if initially published by them. The highest probability, in my opinion, is that the propaganda was written by some member of the Corps who survived the war by a number of years, and whose copyright still has a few years to run, and that the id card was scanned and first published by either the UK or German government sometime in the 'internet era', and they own a 25 year copyright from whatever date it was first published.
Either way, both were uploaded to commons on completely, and obviously, false claims. Reventtalk 01:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
A couple of things worth highlighting.
  1. Republishing Nazi propaganda may be illegal in Germany, at least stuff with a swastika, unless being used for research purposes. However that law does not apply to Commons, and on this project we host a lot of material that would be illegal to republish in Germany unless in the right context. The case that a document is illegal in Germany is not a speedy deletion rationale for this project, each case is worth having a DR for as differences such as having no identifiable author, or being a collective work, may mean copyright has expired.
  2. With regard to WW2 British seized documents from Germany, these were claimed by the Crown and can be republished in the UK under a 1957 act, specifically created post-war for war seized property. It is wrong to say that Crown copyright claims are false in this context, it would be valid for me resident in the UK to republish material in the UK, or for a UK institution to make claims about copyright (though "literally" much of it will be copyright expired under a correct reading of UK law). In this legal sense of publication, I would be at no risk of claims for compensation or prosecution. However this part of UK copyright law does not override the law of other countries when publishing outside of the UK, so I would have to check copyright status in those countries before attempting to publish elsewhere. On Commons we consider the country of publication for German Third Reich material to be Germany, we ignore the oddities of UK law in preference for Germany and U.S. law (as we host the images there).
With regard to "internal documents" of the Third Reich, I suspect that these would be considered published records by their nature. I would not jump to assumptions about later claims of publication rights as past cases have been suspect.
If you want to open a discussion, I suggest the copyright noticeboard, though it may be more beneficial to seek out past deletion requests for publications of this type of material as much of this was talked through a couple of years ago in DRs. --Fæ (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fae: It is worth noting, with regards to discussion of if British law applies, that both of these were described as 'from an unknown source', and there was no actual justification given for claiming that they were under Crown Copyright.... I could find no actual source online for either, and nothing to indicate that 'Crown Copyright' was not simply picked as the only legal circumstance that would make them PD at the time of upload. I think the identity card is likely, as I said, to be under publication right 'somewhere' as having been first actually 'published' by someone in the last few years, but that can be argued at the DR.
As far as the propaganda, that I closed early, searching for 'the actual text' shows that a copy exists at the Imperial War Museum, and it's discussed here, with the text in the footnote, on page 806. As 'a circular sent to all prisoner-of-war camps', it was clearly published in Germany, apparently circa 1944-1945... that would have made it a copyright violation when uploaded, and to have only become PD at some time since if the authorship is truly anonymous. It seems quite unlikely to me, however, that it's authorship was never determined... the Germans tended to keep records, and 'having been the author' would have been a valuable piece of evidence at a postwar trial. Calling it 'seized property' would be rather irrelevant for our purposes, as it was published in Germany... the German copyright would still protect it. A point of law that people seem to often disregard on Commons is that the absence of attribution on the work itself does not make something anonymous.. the authorship has to have neither been recorded at the time, even separately, and never have been determined during the time the work was still in copyright. If it was ever determined to have been written by a member of the Free Corps who survived the war for any significant period of time, then it is still under copyright.
Also, and I think significantly, the image of the propaganda circular truly does not appear to be a scan of an original document... if so, it was preserved under remarkable conditions, as the background is completely uniform, and the typesetting appears to be modern. I think it's almost certainly an image of a modern replica, and probably under it's own 'publication right'.
I think I made it clear above that I'm perfectly fine with it going to UDR, and I'll even undelete it myself if something can be found to show that it's anything other than 'a random image found somewhere on the internet', but I think it's almost certainly a copyvio of a modern replica, and the only possible 'window' for it to be PD for our purposes is quite narrow, and opened long after it was uploaded. Reventtalk 14:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"lol, hit harder"

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Revent! I was asked to help a user having all kind of problems, and in due course I felt that I would briefly share my - uncalled for ;-) - opinion about attitude. (Not "your" attitude, mind you, but general commons locals'.)

You have correctly reported some reuploaded images on AN and commented there: "Uploader just told you 'no', lol. Hit harder." It turned out when checking the case that nobody have ever explained to the (not so experienced) user what the problems really were with the images. The deletion contained a link to "out of scope" policy [biolerplate] which, incidentally, was not the reason the images were deleted in the first place. Nobody mentioned the user that there was suspected privacy problem, and what it was; nobody explained about what why, and how the images were out-of-scope (it's an extremely vague definition even for the experienced). Maybe when the next similar case comes around you want to take some minutes and briefly explain to the user what the problem exacly was, which may prevent the clueless uploader to reupload, and you may not misinterpret it as "telling you 'no', lol", and definitely not hitting harder as a first countermeasure. (And infinite blocking, as a result, was way overreaction in my opinion, but I accept it's a matter of taste, the freedom we admins here possess.) Try to see it from the point of view of a person who hardly ever see commons, use local wikipedia, and was redirected here by its uploader form. Images were deleted with no usable explanation (Now I have checked the talk page history, and it was you, alone, who at least faintly tried to explain, but fell short on that, and it was very late and lacked usable details; still, you seem to have been the only one who ever tried). I write this because commons have a long-standing problems of being rude and and new-user unfriendly, and since most project uploader directs people here we have even more responsibility to be polite and understandable than one separate local language project. Don't misunderstand me: no offense taken, and none was intended to give. Thank you! --grin ✎ 10:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Grin: To be honest, I thought that indeffing him.. or even blocking him at all... was considerably too much at that point, but I was not going to turn around and wheel war with A.Savin... I was simply trying, rather hard, to tell the person to either ask him, or actually use the template. My 'uploader told you no' comment was a joke, written when I noticed that the link at AN had turned blue again, and that the files had been re-uploaded, less than half an hour after being deleted.... I was assuming, at the time, that the uploader had actually been told 'why' they were deleted. What I meant was 'go yell at him a little', not 'go block him'. I only noticed that he was blocked when I saw his talk page in my watchlist, and to be honest it was rather a 'what the hell' moment. If he had just asked right away, like I was trying to tell him to, I would probably supported unblocking him... and I still would, if he actually asked reasonably, but you saw what the conversation turned into. Reventtalk 13:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks for telling me and I see your point now. I hope this resolves now and in the future the others will take more care to inform the enduser, even when he looks like doing something bad deliberately. Have a nice day! --grin ✎ 16:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A bit of image upload help, please.

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey! I have left you an earlier message at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leevi_Madetoja#Help_with_images. Not sure if you saw it, since Commons is where you hang out mostly. Thanks! - Sgvrfjs — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:483:4100:AB6:ACA6:E179:8DEC:376F (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sgvrfjs: I hang out here, but 'echo' is now interwiki, so I see notifications from en. Your ping there did not work, however... I think it's because you typed {{ping| Revent}} instead of {{ping|Revent}}. Echo doesn't actually depend on the templates themselves, but instead on the server recognizing the saved text, similar to a signature, and it simply broke here.
It's awesome that you have done so much work on that article... I'll take a look, and reply over there. Reventtalk 01:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't see my ping over at en Wikipedia (again because of my error or a system breakdown)...I'd really appreciate it if you'd take up the uploading task. Thanks! - Sgvrfjs
@Sgvrfjs: Yes, it'll probably be a few days before I can get to it. Preoccupied. Reventtalk 23:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #224

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Planet to Earth: this tool uses data from Wikidata to visualise the links between places on an astronomical body named after a place on planet Earth.
    • WikiDataScape is a Cytoscape app for interactive browsing of Wikidata.
    • The property "KML file" was created last week (see list below) and has already a full list of values, sample LUA module and property documentation page available (Property talk:P3096)
    • enabling data access in user language will be deployed on Wikidata on August 29
  • Development
    • Fixed a but where the text field doesn't always load when trying to add a statement (phabricator:T115267)
    • We're now also creating mediainfo entities when a statement is added to a non-existent media info entity (phabricator:T140760)
    • Fixed a but where the suggester would show information twice (phabricator:T143645)
    • The ArticlePlaceholder now also shows the links to other projects in the In Other Projects sidebar (phabricator:T141771)
    • Worked more in figuring out how to show usage tracking data (phabricator:T103091)
    • Made progress on Citoid support for Wikidata to make it easier to add useful and complete references (phabricator:T141856)
    • Worked on restore "purge without confirm" user right (phabricator:T143435)


User contribution

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello

I spotted that you suggested deletion one of files that I uploaded. I want to ask you to recheck all my "warships" uploads.

Years ago there was a tool to copy in easy way images from en.wiki to commons. I used it many times because I was translating warships articles from en.wiki to pl.wiki. Right now once per some time sobody want to delete them because there were no correct licence or many other problems.

Can you check all images from my contribution that were definitely not taken by my hands? I made some photos of my city and I am thinking that they are easy to spot.

I don't have so much experience about licences and descriptions to check them by myself. I will be thankfull for help. PMG (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@PMG: Actually, that's ironic, in a way. After some other issues I found, mostly with images from navsource.org, I'm started working on methodically going through the images at Naval History and Heritage Command, and uploading them from there with the 'official' caption, etc. A 'lot' of US warship images we have were copied from there, via navsource or other websites.... my request 'in return' is that anyone still around who worked on these eventually look at what gets uploaded (see User:Revent/NHHC_images for my list, I'm also working on the categories as I go through) and see if they can improve the articles. Right now I'm in the middle of uploading about 30 megapixel images of USS Alabama (BB-8)  . As I do this, I'm replacing the ones that I 'notice'.
As an example, see... File:USS Alabama (BB-8) 1921.jpg (which I have not gotten to yet). We have a 0.40 megapixel image... [1] is 25 megapixel, and since it's used I'll upload both the TIFF and a JPEG, and globally replace the uses with the high-res copy. Any of these I only upload as a TIFF, that's just for the sake of time, and I can easily also upload a JPEG with the edges chopped off if asked.... to get a JPEG in full-res I have to actually manually convert it from the TIFF, so it sows the process down. Reventtalk 20:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:USS Alabama (BB-60) - 80-G-K-9410.jpg

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, it remains unclear to me, why you uploaded File:USS Alabama (BB-60) - 80-G-K-9410.jpg and on the other hand mark File:Forward guns of USS Alabama (BB-60) c1942.jpg for deletion. Why don't you just upload the newer jpeg on the other? Besides, I think that "USS Alabama (BB-60) - 80-G-K-9410" is a totatlly inadequate file name. No one not used to NARA file names knows what it means. Besides that it means nothing, besides being a file number. Im my opinion, file names should describe what is shown on the photo. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cobatfor: It's because I'm 'methodically' going through the NHHC collections, and uploading the TIFFs and converted jpegs in bulk... in most cases, if a copy exists on Commons already it's a web-resolution image, as opposed to a megapixel one. I don't disagree about the file names, as long as the number is 'in' the filename so se don't get duplicates, but it gets hard to 'meaningfully' name hundreds of images myself... I'm simply using the 'titles' that NHHC has given the images.. and don't mind if someone changes them... it just slows down what is a really long and tedious process.
Because of how NHHC stores their images, and how badly the copies of these images we 'do' have are mostly described and categorized (most copies were taken from navsource.org years ago, and do not have the file numbers) it's really hard for me to reliably 'locate' duplicates until they exist (and I can then use the TinEye API to search against my new 'jpeg' copy.... TinEye does not work with TIFFs). In the case of that image, I did not notice the existing copy until after I had uploaded the newer one, but I also noticed when creating the JPEG that the original TIFF had a weird Epson color profile... I converted the version I made, when I created it, to a standard color profile, so the colors are rendered correctly.. yours is distinctly too purple, and has areas of burned in reflections (such as on the gun barrels). Also, the copies I'm making are 'deliberately' created with 100% quality settings, to avoid compression artifacts as much as possible when thumbnailed... the file is almost 3x as large at full resolution, and I can see pretty distinct compression artifacts in your upload when they are both thumbnailed to the same size.
I really don't mind if you want to keep both... just revert me adding the template, and I'm not going to object. I'm also not going to gripe, at all, if you want to rename any of the NHHC images I'm uploading (just, please, keep the numbers so we can avoid more duplicates, just like we do with Flickr, LoC, NARA, etc.). I'm just trying to somewhat methodically ensure that all the 'crappy' versions get replaced... and we, indeed, have lots of these as 700 x 1000 scans of printed copies wrongly attributed to the uploader to some message board. Reventtalk 19:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think it is debatable what colours are "right", since it depends on the type of film it was taken on: Kodak was different from Agfa etc. This photo for example, File:USS Bunker Hill (CV-17)-Tarn.jpg, sadly lost all its colours since it was taken. However, I loaded a lot of NHHC files up and I was very happy when the NHHC started to provide high resolution files. My files are then all in the range of 8-12 MB. I don't know if it is feasible for websites now to have the photos now all in the 35 MB range. The colour tifs are all about 80-90 MB at the NHHC. As with the NARA files, tifs are provided and jpegs which are identical. I, for my part, often cropped black borders or erased small mistakes and uploaded a third version. I do not see a problem why we should not have "big" and "not so big" jpegs and I don't mind, if you adjust the colours in the "not so big" files that I loaded up. Cheeers Cobatfor (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cobatfor: Yeah, I think I might have not been perfectly clear about what the color issue is... you're totally right, we have no real way of knowing exactly what the 'real world' colors were.... it's really a matter of software. The TIFF images provided by NHHC use a weird Epson printer color profile... when displayed by 'non-color-managed' software like a web browser, the rendered colors don't match what you would see if you actually printed the file on that Epson printer. Whatever software you used to create the JPEG version changed the embedded color profile, but did not actually 'convert' from image itself, so the displayed image 'looks like' the mis-rendered version that you 'see' when looking at the TIFF on the NHHC site. When I converted the image to a JPEG in Gimp, I told the software to actually do the 'conversion' when it changed the color profile, so the rendered image actually 'looks like' that the original TIFF would look like if printed on that original Epson printer. No way to know if that's what the real world looked like, it's just more accurately reproducing the colors in the digital image, using a 'color managed' workflow.
I'm not trying to 'enforce' particular image versions, other than the specific cases where the 'existing' copy on Commons is extremely bad (like, a scan of a printed copy at web resolution). I'm just actually trying to manage going through hundreds of files in a way that preserves some degree of my sanity. I'm uploading the 'original' TIFF images, unedited, and a JPEG version at the 'highest settings', and then using CropTool on Commons to do a lossless crop of margins of the JPEG so that the uncropped version is in the file history. If there's an existing 'narrower' crop on Commons, at lower resolution, then I'm actually replicating that crop at higher resolution and overwriting it. Reventtalk 21:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, there is hope that you do not try to get all my uploads deleted... :-), especially since I try to enhance the file descriptions. The NHHC descriptions are mostly correct, much in contrast to the NARA (former DVIC/defenseimagery) decriptions or the ones at the National Museum of Naval Aviation. I also try to righten the photos or enhance them, if possible, without deleting things, of course. I know that these are then not the "originals" but that would be then your tifs/jpegs! I am actually not that proficient that I would identify an Epson colour profile and modern LCD screens have different colours than the good old TV-screens, so the re-colouring or the adjustment of the colours is a difficult task. I also tried to scan old filmrolls of mine or old paper photos, but the colours are always a hassle, but that is probably just a question of the quality (and price...) of one's equipment. However, if you ever think you might need a second opinion on a photo or the decription, just feel free to call on me. I might come back to get some advice on the bloody colours! :-) Cobatfor (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #225

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • The events page is now up to date. You want to join or organise a meetup with other Wikidata editors? Keep an eye on this page!
    • 30K entries from Kindred Britain added in Mix’n’Match
    • Welsh Wikipedia includes Wikidata-based article placeholders, like this one
    • Wiki Loves Monuments started! You can help by improving the items about heritage buildings or use Wikishootme to find unpictured monuments
    • English Wikipedia now has a WikiProject Wikidata to coordinate integration with Wikidata. Why not start one for your local Wikipedia? Add it to Q20855878 if you do.
  • Development
    • RDF exports now contain page properties, this allows to query by number of statements or sitelinks (T129046)
    • Working on unit conversion for RDF exports (T117031)
    • Enabling Wikidata data access in user language deployed (T122670)
    • Information about usage of entities in other projects will be visible and reusable (T103091)
    • Pasting full entity URLs into suggesters will be possible (T117763)
    • Added meta descriptions to allow for better snippets in external search engines (T88475)
    • We replaced the old parser limit report (an HTML comment) with the new format (T143423)
    • Ongoing refactoring of the frontend JavaScript, this may break user scripts accessing private properties (T142694)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Harrah's Reno logo (2).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.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, before archiving... it was {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}, I just missed adding them until trouted. Reventtalk 05:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_11&oldid=207180606"
Return to the user page of "Revent/Archive 11".