Hosta

Cosplay

Do you happen to know of any references that might help me on this, other than the various Lucasfilms cases in the US and UK? --MichaelMaggs (talk)

(un)deletion of some of our files

Many thanks for your help and suggestions. We will proceed accordingly. With best, ESDC Secretariat

Help ...

Hello ... Pls Delete all Old & New version of this file

commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Harminder_Singh_official.JPG

Harminder Singh official.JPG

Thanks :)

« Wemmick's Castle »

Thanks for the information. You're absolutely right. The best thing is to remove the file from Commons. It's not all that important, since it's not a genuine illustration. Personally, I'm deleting from the article Les Grandes Espérances. Best wishes, Robert Ferrieux

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

⧼Wikibase-terms/Clindberg⧽: العربية, български, Deutsch, English, ‎français, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎മലയാളം, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska, اردو, 中文

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 7 February 2014. Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

VPC

Hopefully you took my comment in the spirit it was meant, as a 'teasing' joke. What you said was quite apt, just a bit of a 'wall of text'... I try to keep things friendly.. the OP's comment was rather not, so a bit of a digression seemed in order. Revent (talk)

Oh, no offense taken ;-) That's hardly my worst example of a stream-of-consciousness wall of text reply on here either... I have some pretty long ones sometimes ;-)

FYI

this got archived within hours. :-( Missed it?

File:2020 Bols Blue.jpg

Hi Clindberg. Would you mind taking a look at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/10#File:2020 Bols Blue.jpg? That VPC discussion has already been archived, but it only received a few comments. I could start a DR about this file to see if things can be further sorted out, but only want to do that if there are serious COM:PCP concerns. The label seems to be OK per the TOOs of the US and Netherlands, but the design of the bottle makes things a little more complicated. The file's being used in quite a number of articles on lots of different Wikipedias; so, if it needs to go, I think that should be via a DR and not speedy deletion. I'd like to have a little more feedback though before I go ahead a start a DR. The fact that the file is also marked as a "Quality image" may also be an additional reason to move a bit more slowly here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I would vote to keep that one, pretty easily, per s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.. The very subtle background of the lettering might well be copyrightable, but that's about it. The bottle itself is utilitarian, and the photo (per that court case) would not be derivative, since it's not focusing on the label itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I was more concerned about the signature near the bottom of the bottle than its overall shape and labeling. I thought that could somehow be an issue (perhaps per COM:CB#Engravings or COM:SIG), but it's only partially visible and certainly not the focus of the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Signatures not copyrightable in the U.S., and probably not most other countries (though it has not been addressed in courts for the most part, which means people aren't trying to protect them either). And yes, not the focus of the photo anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

HMS Cruizer

Grateful for your opinion of this picture. Also of the variants listed at en:HMS Cruizer, and hanging off that, the wikipedia article image for en:Doterel-class sloop. Some worries there? At the least, the auction house has something wrong perhaps?

The artist is definitely Antonio de Simone (II), not his father. Christie's summary isn't well drafted here, pretty confused... Broichmore (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to match the photos on HMS Kingfisher (1879). Would make sense as a training ship based in the Mediterranean that it would visit Naples. This page states there were two groups of that class with different-shaped bows. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Kingfisher looks so big (longer) in comparison? I think it looks closer to File:StateLibQld 1 142431 Cruiser (ship).jpg which is 1852. However the headline picture at HMS Kingfisher (1852) looks so much bigger. I'm thinking there is a mix up going on both at commons and Wikipedia of these two or more? Broichmore (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Have to admit, that does look like the same ship in the painting. HMS Cruizer (1852) also became a training ship stationed at Malta, though it was renamed Lark for that -- maybe the painting was from before that, or just used the original name. Although apparently the spelling was changed to Cruiser in 1857, and it was serving in China through those years, so nowhere near Italy. (The 1879 ship was also briefly named Lark before it was renamed Cruizer, oddly, so it had some of the same names but going the other way.). The 1879 ship was only 10 feet longer though, so may be hard to tell between them. They seem to have the same number of gun ports. Both classes were supposedly barque rigged, but I do wonder about that lead photo on the 1879 ship -- sure looks like the third mast is also square rigged (though maybe it had both square and fore-and-aft sails; the HMS Gannet setup today looks similar). The 1879 ship photo at the bottom of the article, as the Cruizer, seems to be barque rigged though. Just not sure -- they do seem to be similar ships, with similar names, so you wonder if the other photos are correctly identified as well. If the name spelled Cruizer is correct though, it would have to be the later ship, to be in that area in the painter's date rate. May have to look more later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Think the spellings of Cruiser and Cruizer are interchangeable, a red herring!

The dimensions in Wikipedia for Cruizer-class sloop and Osprey/Doterel need checking. Cruizer-class is considerably shorter. The images for Kingfisher and the Doterel-class look considerably longer than the 1852 ship.

Osprey and Doterel-class sloop's: according to Wikipedia the former is a knee bow and the latter vertical. I'm starting to think that this is not a true statement, and that the bow is not a defining feature between the two. The Ospreys look all knee style, but the Doterels are varied. The change in bow was on a case by case basis. Of the Doterel's (at the least) Gannet, and Kingfisher are knee bows. Phoenix and Pegasus, need checking; not enough images at commons.

If however Wikipedia's correct on the classes then the image File:HMS Kingfisher (1879).jpg is an Osprey class ship. However Wikipedia says the Kingfisher is Doterel, when the image is saying Osprey.

File:HMS Cruizer (1854).jpg is also on commons as the representative image for "Cruizer class sloops", but I dont think it is. Its far too long, definately longer than an extra 10 feet. Think (if Wikipedia is correct) it's an Osprey class. In any event its probably Kingfisher (1879) as named Cruiser between 1893 and 1919.

File:LAMBART(1897) p042 H.M.S. CRUISER LEAVING CORFU.jpg Think this is actually Cruiser 1852, think Lambart is using the old name (Cruiser) for her. Broichmore (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure which photo to believe anymore :-). Navypedia also states that the Osprey class was knee bowed, with the Doterel class having a vertical stem. At first I read that as there being two groups of Doterels, some with vertical stems and some not. However... HMS Gannet (1878) still exists and is most definitely not a vertical stem, so the Kingfisher could easily be the same. The Doterels were clearly not all vertical stems. Navypedia does say the later classes were 58.8 m long, whereas the earlier Cruizer class was 48.8, so that is a 10 meter difference -- far more than 10 feet. Still, might be a bit hard to judge based on individual photos. The biggest difference would be the armament, I think -- the Cruizer-class was a 17-gun sloop, with traditional cannons largely broadside. By the Osprey/Doterel class period, they were much larger guns, and fewer -- a couple at the bow, and two on each side. The Osprey/Doterel class then does not seem to have as many gunports. And most obviously, the bow had an indented area for the embrasure of the forward guns, so they could more easily fire forward. The composite construction was probably necessary for that type of feature, and exists on photos of both Osprey and Doterel classes.

Based on that, the painting must be the 1852 ship then. File:HMS Cruizer (1854).jpg however looks correct to me. Same basic number of gunports and placement relative to masts. Don't see the indentation. And the lifeboats seem to be in about the same spots. File:StateLibQld 1 142431 Cruiser (ship).jpg would also appear to be the same ship. The photo of the Kingfisher is too poor quality to see if it has that indentation at the bow, but otherwise I could believe the identification (but would also not be terribly surprised if it was a completely different class). File:LAMBART(1897) p042 H.M.S. CRUISER LEAVING CORFU.jpg ... really not sure. It does have a lifeboat across the stern, which is also seen in this photo of the Espiegle (Doterel-class). But the Lark photo seems to have the same. And while hard to see, it does seem to have gunports on the side which could well be the earlier ship. Doubly confusing because the ships apparently switched names in 1893 -- seems like the original Kingfisher was renamed Lark in November 1892, then the Cruizer in May 1893, while the 1852 Cruiser had that name until May 1893 when it was renamed Lark. So it seems as though the two ships switched names in May 1893. You'd think Lambert would have used the correct name at the time (1895), but who knows -- the name switch could cause plenty of confusion. I could believe either way on that one. But, no way is the painting the Osprey or Doterel class, given the gun placements. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item.jpg

File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item.jpg is one of the many files that are related to COM:VPC#PD-US-no notice usage. The plate itself may date back to 1916, but obviously that would pre-date {{PD-US-no notice}}. The problem is (I guess) whether the photograph sourced to wfpp.columbia.edu/pioneer/ccp-anita-stewart/ dates back that far. This seems highly unlikely, though it is possible that someone associated with the WFPP is actually the "private collection" the photo is attributed to or otherwise took the photo themselves. Either way, there's no way to verify the photo falls under "PD-US-ineligible". Given that the original content on the source website is likely protected by copyright and that there's no clear way to figure out the provenance of the photo, I'm tempted to tag this as a Copyvio. Is it possible that the photo could be considered a case of COM:2D copying or would a commemorative plate be more akin to a 3D-work-of-art and thus the photo a COM:DW? The shape of the plate itself is almost certainly utilitarian and the artwork on the plate might be PD-ART, but the photo isn't being claimed as "own work" and I'm not sure whether the photo is eligible for its own copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the photo has a copyright (even if the plate does not), and the EXIF dates it as taken in 2011. By our current standards, photos of coins can have a copyright, and that photo is more copyrightable than that. So, we would need a license for the photo. If the plate was much newer, the shape of the plate is not copyrightable (it is utilitarian), but the separable artwork on the plate is copyrightable, so the photo would be a derivative work -- but given that the plate is likely pre-1926 that is moot. But there is still the copyright in the photo which needs a license. Giving fair use rationale on the image page is usually a red flag on Commons. Possibly if the photo was cropped to just the artwork it might be OK (if that is pretty much a copy of the 2-D artwork at that point). But not the whole photo. (We crop photos which contain painting frames, for example.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Cropping is an option that can work well with paintings because the frame isn't really essential to the painting itself. Would a crop need to just get rid of the lace background or would it also need to remove everything outside of the gold center circle? Personally, I think the image is used pretty decoratively with the only mention of a souvenir plate being quite general in en:Anita Stewart#Vitagraph Studios and thus losing it wouldn't really be a great loss; moreover, it's unlikely use of the photo could be justified as acceptable per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy despite the claims made in the faux-rationale on the file's page. If, however, cropping is a way to save it then perhaps that should be at least explored. I can ask about that at COM:GL/P. What would be the best license for the artwork? {{PD-Art}}? {{PD-Old}}? {{PD-US}}? Some combination of licenses? For reference, en:Vitagraph Studios was based in the US, but I've got no idea who did the artwork for the plate. I'm assuming that given how old the plate is and that it was likely a work-for-hire that there would be no p.m.a. issues, but that's nothing I can verify for sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, you'd have to crop it enough for {{PD-Art}} to apply. That gets a little difficult with a circular subject, and removing any 3-Dish aspects. The art itself is PD-US-expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I started COM:GL/P#Crop a commemorative plate. Maybe someone can create a decent crop. If not, then I'll either nominate or tag the file for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone cropped the photo as File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item (cropped).png. Do you think the crop is OK for Commons? Should the uncropped version be tagged for deletion if the crop is OK? If the crop is OK, then perhaps the thing to do would be to get rid of that faux-rationale and relicense the file. Do you think the {{PD-US-expired}} license is sufficient on its own? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I would use PD-Art|PD-US-expired . Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the licensing and description of the cropped version. Would you mind checking it to see if what I did is OK? If not, feel free to tweak things as necessary. As for the uncropped file, I will ask a Commons admin about it to see whether it should go to DR or can be tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks again for all your help in trying to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I asked an admin about this at User talk:Explicit#Question about original and cropped versions of same image and it seems there might still be copyright issues with the crop. So, perhaps the original cannot be cropped without VRT verifying the copyright holders CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

What matters is if the remaining portion of the photo qualifies for {{PD-Art}} or not. If it does, then there is no copyrightable expression left in the crop. If the remains are effectively 2-D, and the photo is straight-on, it should be fine. We have, in the past, kept photos of paintings where we cropped out the frame (a 3-D element) and left just the painting portion, as that portion of the photo was PD-ineligible. There is some gray area around when exactly does it become "effectively" 2-D when the original object isn't quite 2D. If someone wants to nominate on that basis, that's fine, we can have the discussion then. But just because a photo is copyrightable does not necessarily mean a crop is -- the copyright in a photo is not the subject itself, but the framing, angle, timing, and element like that. PD-Art is ineligible for copyright precisely because those elements become unoriginal -- the framing is decided by the painting itself, the angle is straight-on, etc. In this case, the framing of the photo and the choice of background to create the full image is probably enough -- but those are gone. We do deem photos of coins as 3-D objects (out of caution), so it doesn't take much, but I'm not sure the very slight curve of the bottom of a bowl is really enough to give rise to a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

What you're stating makes sense to me; however, what Explicit stated also makes sense to me. Ideally, a crop of freely licensed photo uploaded to Commons would be much easier to deal with, but this is not really that kind of situation. Could it possibly depend on who took the original photo that was cropped? Just for the sake of argument, if I take a photo of a PD painting and its frame, then there are three elements in play, right? The painting, the frame, and my photo. If the painting is PD and the photo is freely licensed, then that only leaves the frame to take care off. If the frame can be cropped out then everything else is OK, right? I'm not totally sure, however, what happens when were dealing with the same situation except the photo was taken by a third-party. I'm trying to make the best out of this and keep the file if it can at all be possibly kept, but I'm not going devote tons of time trying to argue in favor of keeping a file that I didn't upload if there are reasonable concerns as to whether Commons should keep it. This is particularly true in a case like this where the uploader doesn't seem to care one iota and seems to be expecting others come in and clean up their mess. I will feel a little bad though if it turns out I asked someone at COM:GL/P to crop a file that really shouldn't have been cropped. Please understand I'm not venting in your direction per se and truly appreciate all of the time and effort you've invested in this so far, even if the uploader probably doesn't care or know what's been going on. I just want try and get things as right as possible. I tagged the original file for speedy deletion with {{Npd}}. Maybe the thing to do would be to start a DR and see what the consensus might be. It seems a bit odd to keep a crop of a deleted file, but maybe that's not so uncommon a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it does not matter who takes the photo. If the photo is copyrightable, it needs a license -- in the end, it is copyrightable expression that needs a license. As PD-Art shows, there are certain photos which lose their copyrightable expression. When cropping to the painting, that removes any possibly copyrightable aspect of the photo, so the remainder is simply a copy of the painting, and the painting's copyright is the only thing left (no matter who took the photo). We allow such photos here, even if the photo itself has no explicit license (though that is still preferable, certainly). There is no identifiable expression left to license. It's not the frame which has a copyright (it's utilitarian usually), it's just that a wider crop puts the copyrightable aspects of a photo back in play. To me, what's left is simply a copy of the plate, with no additional creativity in the remaining part of the photo -- it's a straight on photo, and cropped per the plate itself. So I think it's fine. Agreed that it may be too much effort to help someone who does not understand copyright, doesn't care quite enough, for our standards -- but if that file is in use, then it could still help the project. The original photo definitely needs deletion; the crop though I think is PD-Art -- if you want to start a DR on it so that others weigh in and someone else decides, that's fine to. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I tagged the uncropped version with {{Npd}} and the uncropped version is using {{Extracted}} to link to the cropped version. The uploader has been notified that the uncropped has been tagged for speedy deletion; so, if they do nothing, the file will end up deleted. If the deleting admin also then deletes the crop, then that's the end of the story to me. If they don't delete the crop, then perhaps the crop is OK. At that point, I will ask the deleting admin about the crop to see whether it's OK. I don't think there's anything else that can be done with respect to that one particular file.

As for the other files, there were two which fell into the "After-1964" category: one seems to be licensed correcty but just had an incorrect date in the file name and the was licensed as "PD-US-no notice". I just made a {{Rename}} request for the former, but did start a DR for the latter at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seconds (1966 film). Joel Productions, Paramount Studios. Publicity photo. Director John Frankenheimer at left. Actor Rock Hudson, in background center.jpg. Once again, the uploader has been notified so they can comment if they want. There are seventeen files in the "Pre-1926" category and among these three (File:Herbert Brenon, film director, Cropped image of original photo, July 8, 1916.jpg, File:White Tiger (1923 film). Universal studios, publicity still. Tod Browning, director.jpg and File:King Vidor, American film director (1894-1982).jpg) are licensed as "PD-US-notice" and one (File:Cinélux poster for M-G-M's 1925 The Unholy Three. Directed by Tod Browning.jpg is licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. The first three might simply need to be converted to a different license (though I'm not so sure about the colorized publicity still), but last one licensed as cc-by-sa-4.0 is a concern because it's sourced to the website of "fine artist, painter and muralist" and it's unclear whether it's a derivative work of the original poster. I'm also a little unsure about File:Motion Picture Magazine, April 1919. Anita Stewart. Publicity portrait.jpg and File:Outside the Law (1920 film), Universal Studios Lobby Poster, 1921. Directed by Tod Browning.jpg because of their colorization. The remaining seventy files all fall in the "1926 to 1963" and these are probably going to be the more difficult ones to resolve since most of the sources provided are COM:PRS type of websites. It might be better to divide these up by source website than try and discuss them all in the same DR. -- 04:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I went through the ones you mention, and fixed some to be PD-US-expired. The licensing on a couple others was also fine (one done by Prosfilaes). A couple of the colorized ones were colored at the time (magazine cover and poster), no issue. File:Cinélux poster for M-G-M's 1925 The Unholy Three. Directed by Tod Browning.jpg] is a French work with a named author, so I nominated that one since we need to find that author's life dates. If you want to do a bulk nomination for the 1926-1963 works, and see if anyone wants to do the copyright searches to save particular ones (provided we know the copyright owners to to search for, and years), that would be fine I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I'll give the 1926-1963 files another look over and see if I can find any information on some of them before starting a DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Just adding a link to Commons:Deletion requests/PD-US-no notice files uploaded by Lord Such&Such as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

1960 AP Photograph -PD?

Greetings, I've come across your contributions in discussions across the site and possibly you may be able to help. I'm interested in trying to determine if this AP photo from September 1960 taken in New York is public domain. I've searched the AP photo archive and found a photo taken at the same event but from a different angle but no result for this specific photo. I've searched the 1960 and 1961 copyright registrations and found no results there. Any thoughts regarding further searches I might undertake or actions I might take to make a stronger claim for public domain? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If a photo was published in 1960, it would have had to be renewed in 1987 or 1988, so the records would be online at https://cocatalog.loc.gov . Photos can be difficult because they could have been renewed as part of a book, or something like that. On the other hand, only the copyright owner could really renew them (a renewal of a newspaper in which they appeared would not matter). Renewal records are marked with the original year of publication on that site, which can make them easier to search for (you can restrict by year in the Set Search Limits). There is not enough there to assume PD-US-no_notice, but at the very least we know it was published then (since unpublished photos would have retained their copyright), so searches should be easier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, that's very helpful. A search of Associated Press registrations shows the earliest item dating from 1963, there's nothing before that. Searching by those depicted turns up nothing relevant from 1960. Would you recommend doing anything else? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Mystery ships

Hi Carl, Have you any views on this picture, dated 1895? Broichmore (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I'm not sure where to even start. Those aren't ship names I don't think, of any navy. Are those warships? They seem like it, but I can't imagine there were many active sail-only ships in the 1890s. Unless those are also steamships, but even those were also rare by then. They could be receiving ships, but can't imagine they would have their sails out in that case. Any idea where the painting was supposed to be located? "Europe Squadron" doesn't make any sense as the name of a ship, nor of a British naval unit. The U.S. did have a European Squadron for a while, based in the Mediterranean. But those aren't U.S. naval ship names either. The 1890 Lloyd's doesn't have any ships by the name of Patrick or Herdman so they aren't merchant ships either, I don't think. I can't quite make out any flags on the ships. I'm having a hard time even figuring out what the artist meant by those names... could this simply be a made-up scene? Or an illustration of a work of fiction? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, think we'll have to put it in the fictional list. Most likely, the label, has been transcribed wrongly and or misunderstood, but I cant even get a handle on the place. Thought it could be Dublin, but the buildings look too big... Broichmore (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. 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. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, it makes this: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|Correct name}}` For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)