Chennai Beach Station With Trains.png

hello I added a link to Chennai Beach Station With Trains.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer2433986 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

윈도우 11 스크린샷 삭제 신청 그만하셈

너는 뭔데 삭제신청이냐ㅋ 삭제 신청 작작해. 저자에 'Microsoft'라고 했다 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajoon0102 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of new article copyright

Hi I added the image: Ferdinando Alessandri.png but the bot said the copyright was invalid, even though it wasn't because I got it from the official site. I wish you could take a look. Grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis1250Xx (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is send warning messages about my uploads which have the subst:OP template

Hi

I'm uploading some files for UNEP which they are sending a permissions email for, I've added the subst:OP template to show that the OTRS permission is being sent (its actually already been sent). However the bot is sending me warning messages, I think this is probably incorrect and would be confusing for people who are less experienced. Should the bot not send messages if subst:OP is present?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings My initial thought would be no, the bot shouldn't ignore files with {{Permission pending}}. That template itself states Please make sure the file includes a license at the time of upload; this template is not a substitute for a license. Without a license template, we have no justification for why the file should be on Commons. Most licenses also require some additional links/text alongside the licensed work: without the license template providing that information, our use of the file is technically in violation of the license. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AntiCompositeNumber ok, I understand your perspective, if that is correct then the guidance on OTRS should be ammended to say 'always include a license' or similar. The current situation is you follow the OTRS rules and then a bot tells you the files will get deleted, which isn't particularly helpful. John Cummings (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cummings Where should it be added? Commons:Volunteer Response Team#If you are NOT the copyright holder already says If so, upload the image to Commons and place the tag {{subst:PP}} ("Permission Pending") on the file description page in addition to the license chosen by the copyright holder. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding license to File:Loreto chapel Fribourg illustration.jpg

Hi, the tagged File:Loreto chapel Fribourg illustration.jpg is a copy of File:Battles of the nineteenth century (1901) (14760555201).jpg which was uploaded on Commons 2015. Obviously, the license is correct.

In the copy file, I replaced the Information-Template with the Artwork-Template, which seems more appropriate. In the tagged copy, I added the author, the source and the license from the original file. And I added the template RetouchedPicture with a link to the original file. So, I think there isn't any problem now. Can I deleat the nolicense-tag? -- Matutinho 09:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Matutinho I've added the appropriate license tag ({{PD-old-auto-expired}}). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - vielen Dank Matutinho 22:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AntiCompositeNumber, thanks for the identification of the artist: Holland Tringham. Great. I wasn't able to read the subscription.
But I remouved the template Extracted from with RetouchedPicture and added the image (thumb). I remouved, because the image is not really extracted, which means in the German translation Ausschnitt (cropped, a detail). It is what the template RetouchedPicture says: retouched (retouchiert, retouché). Or will this template cause problems with categorization? Matutinho 09:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matutinho That's fine. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can it look, if ...

Hello, I have reports that images do not conform to the license. only one "{" was missing. If he could first see whether parts of the building block are missing and do it correctly. only then send the message out? --Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think there are about 100 more pictures because I worked with the upload tool and it was everywhere ...--Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Woelle ffm The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license used on those files requires that certain information, including a link to the license, be included with the files. When the template is not displayed due to a syntax error, our use of the file is technically a violation of the license. This is why AntiCompositeBot tags files that do not display a valid license template, even when a attempt has been made to describe a license. You may remove the bot's tag once the problem has been fixed, I see you have fixed the files and have removed the tags. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

need help

The drawing File:Storchenfamilie von Lilienthal.jpg was created by Otto Lilienthal and published 1889.
Another user added another drawings from the same publication of Lilienthal (File:LilienthalFliegekunst.png) I tried to use the same licence tag, but the bot did not detect it properly and assumed deletion of my upload. I wanted to upload another drawing from his old book ... I'm a newbee and has no glue what to do so that the bot is satisfied. --Dfedra (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfedra Looks good to me now. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this success, may I ask another question. How to delete old versions of a file, e.g.
because these old versions simply include wrong parts of the screenshot...
--Dfedra (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfedra It's usually not worth worrying about, see Commons:Revision deletion § Revision deletion is used sparingly. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But similar problems occur with my new file "File:Lilienthal wäsche im Wind Fig55.png" although I used the same information as in the other pictures I took from the same book. This time I followed the instructions given by the bot how to give a license - but this makes no sense to me. Can you please have again a look at it.<br>
How to avoid these problems in the future? --Dfedra (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfedra I've fixed the license on that file. You need to include the correct license when you upload the file. There should be a drop-down box in Special:Upload labelled "Licensing:", choose the template that best fits the situation from there. You can also type the template in manually, for works by Otto Lilienthal the best template is {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1896}}. You may find Special:UploadWizard easier to use. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much that was really helpful and this will help me in the future --Dfedra (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caska - uvala.JPG

Could you please tell me what's the problem with this picture? I made it myself with my photo camera at the seaside, same as other pictures from Caska village and beach that I took last summer. There is no special copyright needed here, isn't it? --Silverije 21:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:FKTP1r1XMAQGtJr.jpg

I added the necessary attributes stations but I still get the bot that says it needs to be taken down. Here is the permission: https://twitter.com/AlexisTiptonVA/status/1487543585121746952

A written permission by the copyright holder is needed (copyright holder most likely ≠ subject), see Commons:OTRS. Thanks, --Polarlys (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The like is the written permission by the copyright holder. BSTuna (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Military exercises Center-2019-06.jpg

Почему эта фотография и последующие номинированы на удаление из-за отсутствия лицензии. Однако, лицензия на них имеется, они взяты с официального сайта Президента России kremlin.ru и на них действует лицензия CC-BY 4.0. Это указано в шаблоне {{kremlin.ru}}.

Why this photo and the following ones were nominated for removal due to lack of a license. However, there is a license for them, they are taken from the official website of the President of Russia kremlin.ru and they are subject to a CC-BY 4.0 license. This is specified in the {{kremlin.ru}} template. AlexTref871 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]