User talk:Susmuffin
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. 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. |
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Tagging copyvios
[edit]Hi, When tagging copyright violations, please inform the uploader. This is best done using the gagdet. See in your preferences to enable them, tab "Gadget", section "Maintenance tools" : "AjaxQuickDelete" and "Quick delete". These add links in the left column (or right column for Hebrew, Arabic, etc., language interface). Regards, Yann (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I request not to delete this file, and I have filled in the necessary information. The photo comes from the magazine "Asahi Graph" (December 11, 1970), more than 50 years ago, and more than 50 years since the death of the author of the poem Yukio Mishima, the copyright should have entered the public domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yukio_Mishima%27s_Death_poem.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 蝠翔似黑潮 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
File:Ernest Shipman standing.jpeg 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. |
Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio logos and username
[edit]Please be sure to examine their username when tagging logos as copyvio, e.g. File:Dingu Media Official Logo.jpg. Here, there is clearly a plausible claim that the user is the copyright holder, so we shouldn't rush to delete their images. You should use {{subst:npd}} if there is a plausible claim that the image is validly licensed by the copyright holder, but that claim needs to be proven. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, regarding this image you uploaded, how can you be so sure this was published without a copyright notice? The author you do not know and the source noted is where it is reproduced on a fan site. There is nothing to indicate or verify its copyright status either way. While genuine "free" images are always preferred to non-free, the quality of this is inferior to the previous non-free version and as such, unless the status of this image can be verified, i'd suggest it should not be available. Can you advise or clear this up? Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- The website also has a copy of the fanzine that it was published in. I did not see a clear copyright notice in it. Furthermore, I checked for renewals using UPenn's records. I did not see any relevant ones in 1968 or 1969, as copyrights had to be renewed twenty-eight years after publication. Susmuffin (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I do not have enough knowledge regarding public domain copyright to accept or dispute what you are suggesting, but I am weary that the image has come from a source which itself probably did not hold the original copyright. The quality of this is inferior to the non-free, though I do accept if this is indeed public domain, there may be a case to use it instead (though I wouldn't necessarily think its better). Pinging @Diannaa as I think she is more up to speed on these things! Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we have adequate proof that the licensing is correct, so I have nominated the image for deletion. A Commons admin will assess and decide what to do .— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure that you used the right tag for this deletion. Bungle appears to think that there is a possibility that it was published elsewhere before the publication in the cited fanzine. Regardless, you can click through Fanac's copy of it using the buttons above and below the image. The "Page 1" button is the correct one. Do not click on the image itself, as that will simply lead to the file. Yes, their system is poorly designed. On another note, this sounds like it is turning into the kind of discussion that belongs in Commons:Village pump/Copyright. This line of thought could easily result in the deletion of a sizeable portion of the images in Wikimedia Commons. If we delete images because a unproven assumption that they might have been previously published elsewhere, why should we have any American works that was published after 1927? Susmuffin (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- You would be better off placing this info on the file's talk page. The assessing admin won't see it here.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure that you used the right tag for this deletion. Bungle appears to think that there is a possibility that it was published elsewhere before the publication in the cited fanzine. Regardless, you can click through Fanac's copy of it using the buttons above and below the image. The "Page 1" button is the correct one. Do not click on the image itself, as that will simply lead to the file. Yes, their system is poorly designed. On another note, this sounds like it is turning into the kind of discussion that belongs in Commons:Village pump/Copyright. This line of thought could easily result in the deletion of a sizeable portion of the images in Wikimedia Commons. If we delete images because a unproven assumption that they might have been previously published elsewhere, why should we have any American works that was published after 1927? Susmuffin (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we have adequate proof that the licensing is correct, so I have nominated the image for deletion. A Commons admin will assess and decide what to do .— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I do not have enough knowledge regarding public domain copyright to accept or dispute what you are suggesting, but I am weary that the image has come from a source which itself probably did not hold the original copyright. The quality of this is inferior to the non-free, though I do accept if this is indeed public domain, there may be a case to use it instead (though I wouldn't necessarily think its better). Pinging @Diannaa as I think she is more up to speed on these things! Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
File tagging File:Hannes Bok, July 1941.png
[edit]![]() |
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Hannes Bok, July 1941.png. 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 ([email protected]). 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:Hannes Bok, July 1941.png]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]![]() |
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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)