Xunks

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Xunks!

First steps tutorial 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. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hello, Please do not create speedy/copyvio deletion requests for old images (more than 70 years old). These should get a proper deletion requests. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Бурунов-2019.jpg

File:Бурунов-2019.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: COM:LL License laundering - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS-VqdMV_oU Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Skazi.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Tagging copyvios

Again, I asked not to tag with speedy deletion images which do not fit this criteria, i.e. old images should get a regular deletion request. Please read the rules. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yann, as I see at the VP, you find it helpful when a bot automatically tags all ‘no license’ files as copyvios. And when I do the same with bulks of files (where my tagging is 95% accurate and 5% maybe not, because it takes a good deal of time to tell one from another), you object. Is this consistent? --Xunks (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Well, there is a difference between {{Copyvio}} and {{No license since}}. And File:Mata-ponce-de-leon.jpg and File:Matovelle, oblatos.jpg may be old enough to be in the public domain, so they deserve a regular DR. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I am aware of this difference and I see no reply to my question. I still see your words bot which tags images from an external source without a license as copyvio, but it stopped working. :( This was very helpful in the thread I started at the VP. --Xunks (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi, I gave you the Autopatroller right. Thanks for your contributions. Yann (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of Balakovo (Saratov oblast).png

https://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=1309 en:Balakovsky District Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• This website is not a reliable source to make statements like this. And this one is: [1]. So, the coat of arms of the Balakovo district coincides with the coat of arms of the city of Balakovo and the current filename is correct. --Xunks (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  http://www.heraldicum.ru/russia/index.htm

  Герб Балаковcкого муниципального образования (в современном понимании - Балаковского муниципального района) утвержден Решением Совета депутатов Балаковского муниципального образования Саратовской области №315 от 5 октября 2000 года "Об утверждении проекта Герба и Положения "О Гербе Балаковского муниципального образования".

  https://docs.yandex.ru/docs/view?url=ya-browser%3A%2F%2F4DT1uXEPRrJRXlUFoewruO5y1wuwh2YOmp07x6MisaCyqcpU1KRfeuczTPJC2rzzfjO4LDl_-_cd6m755Pgkm3BQuVGGQimQBdBkTYuGKRmnEuZHUL92CiU8fOvB1jCmFm2F9YH5q9d9O52nHY4zBQ%3D%3D%3Fsign%3D655CYdi6HCLa8YZkcYiTghe7yAqCALngRQfNFSE2mnk%3D&name=2000_balakovo.doc&nosw=1 Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  • I still see no evidence this is not the Coat of Arms of Balakovo anymore. --Xunks (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    File:Герб Балаково (1987).gif

    The coat of arms of Balakovo was approved by the executive committee of the City Council of People's Deputies on August 26, 1987, decision No. 361/14. The coat of arms depicts a stylized rook sailing along the Volga. The sail of the rook depicts a retort, a trowel, and an atom. In the lower part of the shield is the coat of arms of Saratov, an ear and a fish. Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    • Again, I still able to see this: Герб города Балаково и Балаковского района. Дата принятия: 05.10.2000. --Xunks (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

      ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ

      о Гербе Балаковского муниципального образования Балаковский район. Дата принятия: 05.10.2000. - Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

      • Instead of linking to your internal resources, not available to anyone in the world except you, and trying to refute what is obviously mentioned in an reliable source, I suggest that you focus on the proper description of your own recent uploads, where one false licensing is being replaced File:Flag of the Crimean Republic.svgby another, no less false. --Xunks (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

        The coat of arms of the city was not canceled Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

        https://nsportal.ru/ap/library/drugoe/2012/04/05/balakovo-istoriya-sozdaniya-gerba Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

        http://www.clow.ru/a-rusgerb/information/392.html Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

      847. Герб Балаковского муниципального образования Саратовской области http://www.heraldicum.ru/registr1.htm http://www.heraldicum.ru/russia/subjects/towns/balakovo.htm Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• ru:Обсуждение_проекта:Геральдика is the proper place for discussions like this. I’m still among those who are not convinced by your arguments. --Xunks (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  You refer to https://www.mo-balakovo.ru/city/symbolism/ this site links to https://geraldika.ru/s/1082 where it says ГЕРБ БАЛАКОВСКОГО РАЙОНА. COAT OF ARMS OF THE Balakovsky District Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  https://geraldika.ru/s/1757 Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Форум Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  РЕШЕНИЕ № 315 от 5.10.2000 г. Об утверждении проекта Герба и Положения «О Гербе Балаковского муниципального образования» и РЕШЕНИЕ от 14 апреля 2011 г. № 14 О ВНЕСЕНИИ ИЗМЕНЕНИЙ В ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ О ГЕРБЕ БАЛАКОВСКОГО МУНИЦИПАЛЬНОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ Герб Балаковского муниципального района. Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Crimean Republic.svg

No source Куку Кукуевичъ (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Did I correctly fix the omission?

Source: Own work derived from Own work within description on File:Pavel_Generator_190x_Gain_-_motor_hints.svg page. -- Vinyasi (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Issue with images Freedom of Panorama, mountain landscapes?

You have nominated several images I uploaded for deletion and I am a bit puzzled with what rationale you want to delete it. A derivative work containing an image of an image? "Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original." I have not altered any of those "originals" which anyway are in the public domain. I photographed the lake Thun with the very famous mountainous landscape Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau. There are tens of thousands of similar images on commons. Like this Featured photograph of a landscape or this Featured photograph of a painting. The first has the same credentials as me. I was also the photographer like the uploader of the first photograph. We actually do not know, but we assume good faith. The second wasn't taken by a wikipedia editor but probably downloaded from some website, the uploader was a bot. Then photographs of a statue of a dog with a FOP license by the Government of Switzerland...I took all the photographs you nominated for deletion myself. Why are my uploaded images nominated for deletion but the others not? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Two landscapes that were erroneously marked, I've removed from the list, sorry for the inaccuracy. As for the rest, you may not upload derivative works without specifying the reasons why the original works may be on Commons - proof that they are in the public domain or posted by their authors under compatible licenses somewhere else. Don't you see the difference between description and layout of File:August Macke - Three girls in yellow straw hats I - Google Art Project.jpg you mentioned above and this your upload? This was created not in 2023, you are neither the author nor the copyright holder and this is not your 'own work'. Please see the Commons:Project scope/Evidence policy: In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. An example for you. --Xunks (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  What is described as missing is all included. The author of the image/photograph is myself and the source is also myself because I am the photographer. It is in the public domain and for that a license is also added. If there would be a field artist in the upload wizard, I would add it beside only mentioning Painting ... by artist ... Sorry that for a few images I was not fast enough to add the license but several were from train stations as mentioned. But ok I can add a FOP license for them. For this I am grateful for your reminder. But you could have also just come to my talk page and mentioned that those licenses are missing. I could also straightly report you for nominating erroneously, but I won't do that because I assume good faith and it would just cause unnecessary discussions. I will now see which files do not yet have a license and remove your deletion nominations. Next time you nominate for deletion, be sure there are no erroneous nominations as this creates a lot of work also for the ones responding to them. Happy editing. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, there are too many erroneous deletion nominations. For images of 1490? Several with a FOP license... Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Here is one with no license... for this it is easy to find a license and if you'd assume good faith you'd also find it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Cut it out

You are nominating all kinds of files for deletion in error. Please stop and check recent history, as at [2] and [3] both had licenses which were deleted by other editors through clumsiness. File:21-18-073-havana.jpg appears to be a photo of an older painting and should be nominated for deletion using the standard process. I don't know what your attempting to accomplish, but please Assume Good Faith and check dates and edit histories and stop this nonsense. I see several notices on your talk page about similar problematic behavior earlier. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don't block me

In response to the copyvio block tag: this is a file I uploaded years ago, before I understood the wikicommons policies on licenses. I don't want this past mistake to interfere with my current work, but I'd rather cease my uploads to wikicommons than get blocked from use entirely. I've also rectified the other license issues you raised, that was just an oversight on my part. Apologies for any issues I've caused in my time here. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

I have seen your tagging and suggest you read the official guideline on Assuming Good Faith specifically in regards to Newcomers and Copyright. I suggest you double check the files you tagged for deletion and remove the ones that were erroneously tagged. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi, Before tagging a file, please check that it was not vandalized, i.e. File:200908261510-Erik Moller-Scaling Up Can Wikimedia Become A 300 Million People.ogv and several others. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Gino Odjick in 2015 01.jpg

File:Gino Odjick in 2015 01.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Vidcap from youtube video Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Supertoff.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Gino Odjick in 2015 01.jpg

File:Gino Odjick in 2015 01.jpg 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. 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!

mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Gino Odjick in Canucks jersey.jpg

File:Gino Odjick in Canucks jersey.jpg 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. 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!

mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 11:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Oleg Strizhenov 1998.jpg

File:Oleg Strizhenov 1998.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The source video is just a cut from a tv show, it's not own work of the uploader of the video on YouTube, a CC license can't cover it Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : FlorianH76.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)