User talk:Verbcatcher

Archives
2016 2017 2018 2019

Hi please help me assign the correct copyright to a photo of the deceased Denzil Davies.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Denzil_Davies_(former_Llanelli_MP).jpg

Many biographical articles have one photo of the deceased included in them, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Smith_1992.jpg

Regards Littlemonday (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlemonday: I have replied at w:en:User talk:Littlemonday#Fair-use images. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant risk of copyright violation, uploader may not be the original photographer. Published elsewhere before upload here. The file name matches https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/My_Perrott_Family_Data-52 where it is declared as 'Copyright free fair use', but unclear whether the Wikitree uploader is the photographer. Crop of an image at http://www.oocities.org/laugharne63/history.html. No camera metadata. Small file, possibly a scan. Has the appearance of an old photograph."

It is a scan of a photograph taken by a currently unknown family member (in 1989 according to a note on the reverse) and was uploaded onto my wife's wikitree profile when first created in 2018. Presumably the information there gave rise to your suspicions of a significant risk of copyright violation in the light of its earlier appearance on the GeoCities site, taken down in 2009. It would be helpful to establish if you know that the copyright notice by "Laurence Durbridge" (as updated from 2000 to today's date) applies to the images in his article. We've not come across this name before but he may have an association with our relative. Certainly the well written summary of the History of Laugharne, dating presumably from between 1994-2009, suggests a link to another individual, now deceased. If possible we'd like to get in touch with Laurence about his use of the photograph and other matters including the origin of the 1973 image of Laugharne Castle. After your researches, can you help us with this at all? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do extensive research on this, a Google image search uncovered the two links. Generally, if an image has previously been published online it is treated with suspicion, and supporting evidence through COM:OTRS may be needed. Photographs on Commons must either be public domain (very old) or be licensed by the copyright holder. The copyright holder is assumed to be the original photographer. If you don't know which family member took the photograph then you cannot know that they have licensed it, and as you were not the photographer then you cannot license it yourself.

A Google search for "Laurence Durbridge" laugharne soon led me to him. There is a page on him:

• http://www.geocities.ws/laugharne63/introduction.html

It seems that he created a GeoCities site on Laugharne. These pages have been archived by two archives. The homepage is here, and some of the links work:

• http://www.geocities.ws/laugharne63/
• https://www.oocities.org/laugharne63/

The Laugharne School page[1] says that Laurence was there in 1967 to 1976, and at the time of writing he was living in Perth Western Australia and working as a software engineer.

The feedback link generates this email address, which you could try:

• laurie.durbridge@adi-limited.com

adi-limited.com redirects to Thales Australia and Laurence Durbridge lived in Perth, so it might still work.

I hope this helps. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His email address suggests he was known as Laurie. This looks like him:

• https://au.linkedin.com/in/laurie-durbridge-29032017

If so, he left Thales in 2013, so the adi-limited.com address probably won't work. If you are a LinkedIn member you may be able to message him or see a current address. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't see this before I replied on my Talk page which is now edited. Sounds promising, we'll try to get in touch, think he is/was related to my wife's deceased father who we now believe took the photo in question.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in touch with Laurie and the Laugharne Corporation, neither have knowledge of its origins and do not claim copyright. It is of the late Stuart Lewis, who was Portreeve from 1979/81, who could well be a relative. We all hope it survives the your deletion request Sirjohnperrot (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Unfortunately for the photo to be kept we would need to establish who the photographer or the copyright owner is, and for them to assign an acceptable licence. Meanwhile I have found this picture of the portreeve's chain of office, whose license is ok for Commons. It is of poor technical quality, but better than nothing. (Most or all of the photos at Geograph are allowable, and the geograph2commons tool simplifies their upload to Commons.) Alternatively you could identify the next public event involving the portreeve in his robes and either go yourself with a camera or ask a local Wikipedian to do so. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, if it gets the chop your find will be a reasonable substitute - well done yourself :) I'm going to give that great Hugdon image a go in the Corporation section, never seen it before! Am I allowed to crop it slightly do you know? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear which image you are referring to. Yes, you can crop images. If it is an historical image or the crop is significant then you should upload the cropped image as a new file, see Commons:Overwriting existing files. I recommend using Commons:CropTool, the result may be technically better and it takes care of most licensing and category issues. If you replace an existing image you may need to purge (or flush) various caches to see the new image. I have uploaded several cropped images (my uploads). Verbcatcher (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from its Talkpage, I think you've now worked out which is the image in question :) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Verbcatcher, I have seen your comment at the deletion request opened by me. And as you have doubt regarding files from BH site, do check the template here. Thanks, stay safe. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 11:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the image was freely given to me by its owners, the Ecuadorian group Black Sun, after looking at the article I created. 18:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Davidnikolalde: , thank you for your response. Your response should have been at the nomination page; please see my reply there. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you list this file for deletion. Do I have to change initials of photographer? I already had problems with uploading photos of Dalida 2 years ago as I was new and I didn't knew how photos from internet have to be licence free. But last time I uploaded, I took care to find extract from my private print collection. I am not sure who exactly is the photographer but this photo is definetely from family album, as there are multiple photos from concerts and TV appeareances in in 1980s etc. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 02:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @DalidaEditor: You need to indicate who the photographer was, and establish that this photographer has licensed the photograph with the cc-by-sa-4.0 license you gave on the file page. If the photographer has died then his or her heirs could licence the photograph, but they may need to email the OTRS system to confirm this. If you don't know who the photographer was then you could put 'unknown', but then the file would then not be allowed unless it is old enough to be public domain. Owning a print of a photograph does not mean you own the copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could I do what the uploader did for File:Brigitte Bardot.jpg?? I am not sure by name which of my father's brothers did, but surely it was one of them... What about the photos frpm negatives on film that specifically I inherited, aren't they are mine ownership? I even planned to upload a series of them in further months when they get scanned. Sorry but I am confused. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 21:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DalidaEditor: If the photographer has died and you have inherited the sole copyright then you can use an 'heirs' license such as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. If there were multiple heirs than they all must agree to this license. It would be difficult to establish that you have inherited the copyright if you don't know who the photographer was. Have all your father's brothers died, and are you the sole heir of all of them? It makes little difference whether they are negatives or prints, owning a physical print or negative does not mean that you own the copyright. Also, to link to a file you should add a colon after the '[[', for example [[:File:Brigitte Bardot.jpg]]. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your positive and very appreciated contributions to some of my DRs. IMHO Common's precaution principle is enough for deleting most contemporary files for not having camera EXIF, but as you have kindly done, it gives more strength to find previous presence in internet. Therefore your help is very fruitful. Can I kindly ask you to do that from time to time also on files about nude people or porn images? For some reason people who have no objections to the precautionary principle in other DR cases, when it comes to those files I identified right above suddenly become more exigent. Of course I do not know you, you may be a minor, etc, I suppose you are an adult and see no problems in doing this. If you would not like to search for that kind of images for previous publication I will understand it very well; I myself am ashamed while doing any categorization or proposing a DR that someone from my family will see the screen! :) Be well in these "difficult" days (at least where I live, confined at home most of the time) and just take it as a thank you note. Do not do anything only because I asked you to. Take care. --E4024 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: as far as I am aware, there is no consensus to delete images solely on the basis that they are small, have no camera EXIF and were amongst the first uploads by the uploader. If there were such a consensus then it would probably be straightforward to make the file upload system reject them. Adding 'dubious "own work"' without giving the reasons why you are dubious is not help much. Nominating files for deletion without an adequate rationale is disruptive.

I agree that several of your images you have nominated for deletion merit nomination, but I urge you too investigate more before you nominate. Substantial deletion rationales include:

• Publication on a webpage that is clearly dated before the file was uploaded to commons. A clear date might be the date of an accompanying news report, or a upload date to Facebook, Flickr, etc., or an archive at archive.org.
• Photographs of manufactured objects that are identical to those on the manufacturer's website or on an e-commerce website
• Images available elsewhere in a higher resolution or a wider crop, suggesting the uploader did not have access to the original image
• Photographs of celebrities from a viewpoint that is not accessible to the general public, such as musicians taken from a position on the stage and photographs in recording studios.
• Metadata asserting a conflicting copyright or a different author
• Metadata indicating that a photograph came from a site such as Facebook.
• Watermarking that casts doubt on the authorship or the license

Reasons to be dubious of 'own work' include:

• Highly-polished and highly-produced images that look 'professional'
• Images that have the appearance of being copied from a poster or a book illustration
• Visible halftone or Moiré patterning, indicating a printed original
• Very old images (before about 1960)
• Metadata from a very high-end digital camera, such as Hasselblad or Phase One
• Multiple images with similar dates but metadata from several different cameras
• Other questionable uploads by the same user, particularly if they have been deleted.

In many cases the problem could be resolved through OTRS, but it is reasonable to expect a response from the uploader before suggesting this.

Also, some of your language in deletion requests is insufficiently clear. Your audience includes the uploader who may be new to Commons and have no or limited knowledge of English. Where possible link a Commons page that explains the issue; translations of these pages are often available. Do not use obscure and unlinked terms or abbreviations, even things like 'IMHO' and 'OTHO' may not be understood. Lack of clarity makes it harder for everyone and is unwelcoming to new users who might become valuable contributors. Here are a few examples:

• LTA troll. - here
• Looks OoS to me. - here
• This is an F10 but due to the time it has been here I open an unnecessary DR. Please delete it ASAP. - here
• What scope have we got here? - here
• Not an "own work" but post-mortem photo of a photo. - here

Do not use sarcasm, such as this:

• 1963 "own work"? Most of us were not even born then and you were taking photographs. For some reason your TP is full of deletion notiifications... Delete. - here

However, we are basically on the same side and I encourage you to continue to identify images that should not be here.

We may be less in agreement regarding nude and pornographic images. In my view, all parts of the human body are in scope, as are most sexual activities. We should not have images that are illegal in the US (where Commons is based): this may exclude the most extreme pornographic images. We might also exclude images that are illegal in their country of origin, as we do for copyright issues. That said, we don't want more low-quality files if we already have better files of the same subject. I am not familiar with searching for prior publication of this type of image. I suspect that they may be blocked by Google Image Search, and the images may be on paywalled sites that are less searchable.

Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not give me geography, history or any other lessons based on EN:WP. I am only trying to do good faith contributions here. If you want to have more insight about that WP please read -carefully, as always you do- my words in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canadian Armenians protesting in front of the Peace Tower of the Canadian Parliament.jpg. After that, you may look at some cases in EN:WP with more scepticism, I guess and hope. If you are active in that place maybe you would like to do something about the two articles I mention there. EN:WP has no obligation or destiny to be an arm of propaganda for "any" lobby. While thereat, keep an eye on attempts to get the article of Bedros Kapamajian deleted; Agatha Cristie would like to be able to create herself such a hero... Regards. --E4024 (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After your constant critism now I feel shy to open a DR on "small file w/o camera EXIF, dubious ow" for this file; can you do that with other words? Of course you may choose to believe that our uploader is also a parliamentarian and easily can take photos at the General Assembly hall... Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you will not open a DR; at least can you tell me your expert opinion on this file please? --E4024 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: I realise that you have received several criticisms of you deletion nominations. However, many of your nominations are for images of which were right to be suspicious - the main issue is that in several cases you have not clearly stated your reasons, and possibly have not done enough research. You should also be aware of the differences between a 'possible copyvio' nomination and an 'out of scope' nomination, and only use the relevant arguments for each. Copyright violation is a serious legal issue, whereas we can be more relaxed with 'out of scope' claims. The precautionary principle does not apply to 'out of scope'.

Please do not nominate files with only "small file w/o camera EXIF, dubious ow". You should clearly state the reasons why you are dubious, and "small file w/o camera EXIF" are insufficient reasons. With this image there are several more reasons to be dubious:

• The description by the uploader includes "at the Turkish Parliament during a debate". The image looks like the main rostrum of the parliament (compare to this photo). This may have been taken from a position only accessible to accredited photographers. Or is there a public balcony from which this could have been taken? However this photo from the same uploader suggests that the photographer may indeed be a parliamentarian or a politician's aide.
• I suspect that this is a still from a video of parliamentary proceedings. A Google Video search for Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu led me to this YouTube channel and this Twitter feed. I initially thought it was a still from this video, but that is dated just after the upload to Commons, and his suit looks darker.
• A Google Image search led me to an article whose URL includes "2019/09/13" [2], before upload to Commons. However, it possible that the image was added to the article later. Unfortunately the page has not be archived by archive.org. I am unfamiliar with the BoldMedya website - is it for a reliable organisation which can be trusted to get their dates right and not to add images after publication? The image also appears in a Kronos news report dated 26 May 2020.[3]

I encourage you to nominate this file for deletion, however please first look for a matching video on the YouTube and Twitter accounts I have linked above. A 'smoking gun' would simplify the deletion process and saves other people's time. If you can't find the source video then I suggest this nomination text:

• Risk of copyright violation, earlier publication elsewhere.[4][5], small file without camera metadata. May be a still from a video in the Turkish Parliament.(similar video)

If I had found prior publication on the website of a reliable high-profile news organisation then I would have suggested a 'speedy' nomination with {{Copyvio}}.

I hope that you and your family have not been affected by the recent earthquake near İzmir. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my family are in İzmir, but thank God they are all OK; thanks for thinking. --E4024 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Verbcatcher, coming back to your comment, do you mean this should not be deleted either? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: I'm sorry I was not clearer. My point was that in out-of-scope discussions the number of uploads made by the uploader is not relevant. We need to consider whether the subject of the photo has a clear educational purpose and whether we already have sufficient higher quality images of the same subject. The uploader's history is sometimes significant when a copyright violation is suspected, because if a user has a good history of acceptable uploads then we can assume that they understand the rules and we can have a higher degree of trust. We should delete this file as 'out of scope', unless it can be established that the man shown is sufficiently prominent or his hat has significant cultural importance. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Verbcatcher for the clarification. :-) Lotje (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexandre vranckx.jpg, which you linked above, the uploader's history is not relevant here either, and you have not mentioned it. My only criticism of this nomination is that I would have linked COM:SCOPE, so that the uploader can see what the problem is. This is particularly important when the uploader has used a language other than English because COM:SCOPE is available translated into several languages, as in COM:SCOPE/fr. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean adding COM:SCOPE to the file instead out of scope? I'm rather confused now, to be honest. :-) Lotje (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Verbcatcher, sorry to trouble you again, but what to do with this and this file? Sigh Lotje (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination text was "Out of scope", I am suggesting putting "Out of scope, see COM:SCOPE", although "Out of scope" might be sufficient.

File:Come back home -produced by Arnold Sondashi.jpg appears to be a copyvio of an album cover. It was available on another website before upload here[6]. I suggest a speedy deletion nomination by adding this to the file:

• {{Copyvio |Non-free album cover |source=https://www.musicwemake.com/listen?song=come-back-home-Yz3bP94GYXrYU3uueJJTkQ}}

I would do the same with File:Remember me (in all you do) produced by Arnold Sondashi.jpg, from the same uploader. I found this here. In this case the reference site has the same date as the upload, but in my view this is not a problem for album covers.

File:Arnold Sondashi is a Zambian based artist he creates music and write music.jpg is in scope, based on the two album covers. The concern here is that this may be a copyvio. I have not found this image elsewhere with Google or TinEye. I don't think the watermark indicates a problem as this may have been applied by a Tecno Pouvoir 2 phone.[7] This is supported by the metadata. However, the solid white background suggests a professional photo, either taken in a studio against a white backcloth or processed with image editing software. The pose, the shirt, the white background and the trim of the beard match one of the album covers, suggesting this is from the same photographic session. It is possible that the uploader has copied a publicity shot with their phone. Also, the claimed photographer is "Arnold Garry Sondashi" and the subject is "Arnold Sondashi", but this does not look like a selfie. The uploader's history is significant in this case, as they have uploaded three images and the other two appear to be clear copyvios. I would nominate this for (non-speedy) deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Verbcatcher, to me, it is a labyrinth... Thank you very much for checking this. Lotje (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small file, comments at MD etc. If I nominate it myself my harasser may object. Please you take care of this, coach. Thx. E4024 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was nervous of nominating this because you asking me to do so might be perceived as ganging up on the uploader. However, I found prior publication of an uncropped image, so I nominated it for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at some of the images in this cat also, whenever you have some free time? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated one, and I may nominate another. The Canadian ones look ok. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link unused in EN:WP and removed from WD. Is there a way to see the pic larger? --E4024 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a higher resolution version on that site. I think this photo is bogus. It does not look like the other photos linked from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicholas Alahverdian Photo.jpg and I think it is a photograph of the actor Peter Capaldi in his costume for the TV series Doctor Who.[8][9] This casts doubt on the credibility of the webpage. f6s.com appears to be based on user contributions and it is possible that the page was put up to act as a source for w:en:Nicholas Alahverdian. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. When I saw that before, before sending you, when I used it in WD, the image was another; looked like the person we have been discussing... (All this is because I am a vandal sock. :) --E4024 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your initial question, you can get a slightly larger picture if you save a local copy of the webpage and look for the image file in the local copy. With the Chrome Browser on Windows press Ctrl-S and save as type "Web Page, Complete (*.htm;*.html)", then look for image files in the new directory with the _files suffix. In this case the image file is only 140x140 pixels. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My niece and nephews can do that, I guess! :) Merry Xmas to you and family. --E4024 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a copyright note on the file? --E4024 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The watermark is from Splash News, a photographic agency that is unlikely to release pictures with a free licence, and indicates that they claim to own the copyright. Their name is also in the metadata. The use of the {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} template is presumably based on an assessment that this is an official mugshot taken in a US federal prison by a US federal government employee as part of their duties. This is supported by the caption in the cited source "Radical Islamic Abu Hamza al-Masri poses for this mugshot following his extradition from Britain to the U.S." However, the Daily Mail has a poor reputation for accuracy (it is a deprecated source in English Wikipedia, see WP:DAILYMAIL), so we should not rely on it to support the claim. The same picture is in The Economist (which is reliable) without a 'mug shot' description but with a 'Rex Features' watermark,[10] which makes Splash News's claim less reliable. It is unclear whether this is a prison mug shot and whether PD-USGov-DOJ is applicable, so it would be reasonable to nominate this for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase in the URL 'Abu-Hamza-mugshot-U-S-Marshals-release-picture-radical-hook-handed-cleric-deported-UK' may indicate the original title of the Daily Mail article. This would support the claim, but I think this is inadequate. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes, Master!

(Guess what is my new year wish...:) E4024 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, happy new year, Verbcatcher (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! It was being abandoned by a wikihound. I got my gift but then another one...

• Please look at my new Category:Jack Armstrong (artist). I suspect the pics I added there have been swiped from elsewhere and not "OW" as declared. --E4024 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Finding evidence for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jack Armstrong Cosmic Harley Bartels in Marina Del Rey.jpg was straightforward, and I am surprised that you didn't nominate this yourself. Do you know how to find things in archive.org? You might be wise to proceed with caution in areas where you might be perceived as pursuing an agenda, but this does not apply here. Finding the source of File:Jackarmstrong.png took a little longer. I noticed that the file description was "Jack Armstrong at the Bell Air magazine launch party", and a Google search for 'Jack Armstrong Bell Air magazine launch party' quickly led to the video that this came from. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What agenda? I have none other than contributing to develop Commons; ah yes, especially the representation thereat of my country, TR. Who is this chap BTW, I know nothing about him. (Is he a Turk, an anti-Turk? :) E4024 (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boss, the File:Trying to leave it on our doorstep.jpg is not at the provided source; and that source is copyrighted. What now? Thx. --E4024 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image bears the text "Tacoma News-Tribune, 1920", indicating that this was published in that US newspaper in that year. I see no reason to question this attribution. This means that the image is public domain and that the {{PD-old-auto-1923}} template is correct. We don't require a reliable source when we can establish that a file is public domain, although this is still very desirable. The source is archived at archive.org,[11] and I have added this link the file page.

I think that your recent rename of the file to remove "Armenian Genocide"[12] was unnecessary and could be seen as provocative. The archived source page draws a clear link between the Armenian Genocide (or you might prefer "alleged Armenian Genocide") and the cartoons. This is on a University of Minnisota website so we should give it due weight. I accept that you had not seen the archived page, but the baby in the cartoon is captioned "Armenian Mandate" and the dead URL includes 'armenian'. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mandates were supposed to be temporary administrations -as in the cases of Palestine, Syria etc- (and not only Armenia) -an idea developed by W. Wilson- therefore the "Armenian Mandate" of course will have the name "Armenian". Either you did not understand me or/and you do not know the history of the end of the Ottoman Empire. Look here for something concise. (BTW why would anything related to a nation be provocative? I only changed the name to the legend of the cartoon.) Thanks for your input. --E4024 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this photo clearly supposed to teach us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartodz (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Szpieg z Kielc powieszony pod Konarami, 1915.jpg Verbcatcher (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have blocked my files. I sent a copyright confirmation email: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine . But I can't get files and account recovery https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Media-17 How can I restore my account? --Media-17 (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Media-17: I have not blocked anything, I have issued you with a warning not to upload files that are copyright violations. I did not delete or block your files, I marked them as apparent copyright violations and the files were later deleted by administrators who agreed with me. Thank you for sending a confirmation email, if this is accepted as valid by the OTRS team then the files will be undeleted. The OTRS team currently has a delay of about 13 days in processing emails in English, if your email was in another language then the delay could be longer. As far as I can tell your account has not been blocked and you could upload other files, but you should not upload any files that are similar to your earlier uploads until your OTRS email has been accepted. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== Yes, a little confused. I don’t see anyone on the list of complaints except you, so I’m writing to you. On the pages https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Media-17#Update and https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Media-17#top I see only your complaints, after which the bot deleted the files and blocked my account. Therefore, I am writing to you in order to understand how I can recover files, since I sent files with copyright confirmation to the mail: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine --Media-17 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Media-17: Your files were not deleted by a bot but were deleted Túrelio, who is a real person and is a Commons administrator. You could ask for clarification at User talk:Túrelio. I don't think your account has been blocked, I am not able to block you. What do you mean by "to the mail: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine"? Your email should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, as described in COM:OTRS. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I give my consent to remove what I published under the wrong license except this file which was created by me on my own.

Have a good day / evening. Cordially. Manjiro91 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do something about it because this sock is again and again targeting Files of Ahmed Rushdi and Waheed Murad? Regards.-Paytime (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paytime: nominating the same file for deletion multiple times without adding a new reason for deletion is disruptive. You could raise this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, but the administrators have little control over anonymous users whose IP address often changes. The most effective action in this case would be for the file pages to be semi-protected, which would prevent deletion nominations by anonymous users. You could request this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections, but it might be better to wait until the current deletion requests have been closed.

However, I am not 100% sure of the copyright status of these files, and I think a deletion request for a similar photo was upheld a few weeks ago. These photos were clearly created more than 50 years ago, but the test in COM:Pakistan is whether they were published more than 50 years ago, for example in a newspaper, a poster or a magazine. However, these files look like publicity shots so it is highly probable that they were published soon after they were created. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for a quick response. Definitely I will act upon your advice. Regards.-Paytime (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm deeply obliged for your assistance and I have got one file semi protected for a year. Regards._Paytime (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i want make a corect about mehdi rajabian album the name Coup of Gods by poster album. this is mehdi album poster: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coup_of_Gods_a_album_by_mehdi_rajabian.jpg it was uploaded by me. Please help me to request the right to publish this photo. Help me to prove the ownership of this work. i can send email for you. please writeing your email addres in here for me.

Sources of this photo:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9630715/mehdi-rajabian-prison-new-album-grammy-harvey-mason

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-mehdi-rajabian-album-risking-imprisonment.amp

Mif.dang (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mif.dang (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mif.dang: you should send an email to the Volunteer Response Team, see COM:VRT. The email should show that the copyright holder has given permission to publish the file under a free license. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi , i need a ticket number before send Ed mail for subject email. Mif.dang (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mif.dang: Commons:Volunteer Response Team indicates that a ticket number of assigned when your initial email is processed. The recommended format for your email is described in Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. However, I am not an expert with VRT and I have not used the system myself. If anything is unlear you could ask at Commons:Help desk. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:Seychelles National Assembly.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Verbcatcher I see you marked the file for speedy deletion citing the source as au.int but the image was converted from a PNG that exist in commons to SVG. DownTownRich (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at User talk:DownTownRich#File:Emblem of the African Union.svg. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Dogfennydd (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Verbcatcher, I've noticed you have links to Wales and have more experience with the licensing policy. Are you able to check this Welsh user's uploads, I seen you've already tagged two of their past images per talk page, however I doubt some their uploads are under the correct license or are allowed at all but I'm unsure of how to address it. Many Thanks DankJae (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DankJae: I have gone through them and have nominated most of them for speedy or normal deletion. I have relicensed most of the files from the Welsh government website, which I think can be kept. I have left the {{LicenseReview}} tags which you added, because I have not been appointed as an image reviewer. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Verbcatcher, thanks for your help, fully agree per the Welsh Government's copyright statement, Welsh Government materials on GOV.Wales are released under OGL 3.0. I am guessing files such as File:Parliament for Wales Campaign poster.jpg where the source is unclear has to be assessed by an image reviewer, and just hope the license review backlog is tackled. Many Thanks, DankJae (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Verbcatcher, sorry to bother you again, it seems the same user has uploaded Copyvio Coats of Arms from Wappenwiki.org and uploaded to Commons for use on Wikipedia, which is why I noticed them. The Wappenwiki states its license is CC BY-NC-SA Version 3.0 (and the logo at the bottom of its pages) which is not allowed per Commons:Licensing, however as a newbie, I do not want to request something I've not fully aware of, or some hidden license or policy, so are you able to look at their uploads again? Many Thanks DankJae 00:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @DankJae: I have nominated the shields for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads from wappenwiki.org. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your work, I will await any decision at its nomination. Although for this user in particular, they seem to have ignored your post on their talk page, which is unfortunate. I offer great thanks though – DankJae 20:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, I've added more files to Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Flickr account of Siyona G Gaunkar as Rejoy2003 uploaded another batch on the 8th, several days after the AFD you started with the concerns about that Flickr account. Also see Commons:Deletion_requests/Rejoy2003_uploads_from_Frederick_Norohnha, I'm getting more concerned about the lack of vetting that Rejoy2003 is doing, especially when they know concerns have been raised about a particular flickr account. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: thank you for letting me know. It would be a good idea to add a note to Rejoy2003's talk page. They may well ignore messages on their talk page, but these would be taken into account if we need to make a report to the Commons administrators. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I left them a notice about the additions, plus a plea to avoid this in the future. Ravensfire (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm the author of this upload. Can you, please, review it and keep it, since I has updated the license? --Yeeeep nooope (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged a number of my photographs for deletion, I am positive that the heirs of John Malby, Edward Allington, Seth Cardew and Michael Cardew would not want them to be deleted can you give me a link that I can forward to them that will show them simply how to give permission. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: the copyright holders should email the Volunteer Response Team to confirm the licenses for the photographs, see Commons:VRT for the email address and for the preferred format for the email. The team may need to exchange emails with them to confirm their identity and that they own the copyright. I hope that you can establish the permissions needed for these files to be kept. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the files have been deleted before permission has been confirmed then they can be undeleted later. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that doesn't seem like a remotely user friendly link, I can't imagine finding that easy to navigate or even understand for someone who has never edited Wikipedia, sadly I think my images will be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: I'm sorry to hear that, I haven't been through the process myself. Commons:Email templates might be a better place to start. Or you or your contacts could ask for help at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, but the responses there are sometimes somewhat curt. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you can delete my images but can you at least reupload them or tell me what do I choose for the image I need it for my sandbox Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna respond? Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I don't know details of what your interactions were, but I do know that "the copyright thing" is *central* to Wikimedia Commons. The whole point here is for this to be a collection of useful free licensed media. If it can't be shown to be verifiably free licensed (see COM:LICENSE for details), it doesn't belong on Commons. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Blackeyedpea2: you cannot upload non-free files to Wikimedia Commons. You can sometimes upload non-free files to Wikipedia (Commons and Wikipedia are different), but the rules there are very restricted, see w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Files similar to those you uploaded to Commons are very unlikely to be allowed on Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]