User talk:Gump Stump

English: Welcome to the Commons, Gump Stump!

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?)

--SieBot 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

TUSC token 0148a8d06ce1e60d5318172f5b4f7075

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token 178ec6a12adb64a53d26d74631f2b65a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:MacArthur Manila.jpg

Hi. I'm not sure what you're trying to do with File:MacArthur Manila.jpg. The transfer bot if used sloppily without adiquate human supervision can generate garbage and misinformation-- especially if used on images which did not originate with Wikipedia users (the default setting). The bot is by nature completely ignorant; when it says something wrong, please correct it. It looked to me like you were reintroducing bot generated garbage which made the description page less rather than more clear and accurate. Please have as honest and accurate a description of the image as possible. Also note that the Wikipedia uploader and the person who transfered the image to Commons were already credited even before you re-added a repeat of that same information. I tried to explain my edits step by step in the edit summary just now. Look at the edits and description summary, and if you still have have questions please ask. Thanks you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Retouching pictures

1. Thanks for referring me to the template. 2. The upload dialogue when overwriting a previous image no longer offers a choice of licenses - it inherits the previous one (It appears to have been streamlined considerably compared to several months ago. I don't really want to upload a completely new image every time I try to improve one, as it's additional workflow and needless bloat. If it's necessary, I may re-license every time I make a change - but I'll probably end up improving less images. :( Hohum (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

File:RichlandWaPNNL 1.jpg

I do not know what if anything you can do but I am at my wits end. The files involved are en:File:RichlandWaPNNL 1.jpg, File:RichlandWaPNNL 1 enwiki-r35340931.jpg, and File:RichlandWaPNNL 1 enwiki-r306255690.jpg. Hopefully you can help straighten things out. -- Allen4names (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at a new photo I uploaded for Encino, Los Angeles, CA

Please take a look at a new photo I uploaded for Encino, Los Angeles, CA. I want to start uploading my own photography in the way that Wikimedia Commons prefers, so there is no question about public domain. It is Plaza De Oro, Encino 05.31.10.jpg. There was a telephone number prominently visible in the picture. I blurred it with Photoshop in order to avoid giving the business any free advertising, or in the event the telephone # is later assigned to someone else.

Thanks! JGKlein (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on JGKlein's talk page. - Gump Stump (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Granting permission for old historic photos my father took, and for which he has given me permission to donate for Public Domain.

Hello,

I am trying to learn and follow all of the correct procedures for granting permission for donating old historic photographs to Wikimedia Commons for public domain.

Here is an example of a photo that my father took in 1960 of the Iowa farm where he grew up: File:P'ville farm and silo.JPG.

I have already signed and submitted to Wikimeda Commons a document I wrote entitled "Release of Photographs For Public Domain", in which I legally declare that my father and I are donating these photos to Wikimedia, and they may become public domain. I put my electronic signature on the document, converted it into a PDF, and e-mailed it to fetchcomms@yahoo.com on May 24, 2010.

I had originally drafted the release for both of us to sign; however, my father was hesitant to put his electronic signature on a document that was being sent out over the internet. If you would like me to e-mail you a second copy of it, I will be happy to do that. Please provide an e-mail address where I can send it.

Would it work if I drafted another copy of this release, had my father sign it, and then sent it to Wikimedia Commons by "snail mail" instead of e-mail? Or, if you were to take another look at the wording of the PDF document I have already e-mailed, where I state that my father has given me full permission to donate these photos, perhaps that would be sufficient. It is possible that the PDF document I previously e-mailed was "lost in the shuffle".

Thanks! JGKlein (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on JGKlein's talk page. - Gump Stump (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check this photo to see if I have correctly granted permission for public domain.

Please check this photo to see if I have correctly granted permission for public domain.

File:Marvin Braude SFV Constituent Svc Ctr.JPG

Thanks! JGKlein (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perfect. I just made a small edit after yours (removing an empty image note that was on the file). - Gump Stump (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! JGKlein (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you please check this file, too? File:Columbus Ave. Elementary School, Van Nuys, CA.JPG Thanks for your patience. This is all new to me. JGKlein (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perfect. - Gump Stump (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with getting permission for photos my father took from 1957 - 1969

Hello again -

I have copied and pasted the text you suggested into an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I made a list of the photos my father took from approx. 1957-1969 that he gave me full permission to donate to Wikimedia Commons for public domain.

Now ... is there a way that I can individually edit each photo individually so that they do not get deleted?

Please take a look at how I edited this photo: File:Farm house and Barn yard, Marion County, IA, 1957.jpg

Was that appropriate? If not, could you change it to how I should do it, and I will do the same for the rest?

Thanks so much. JGKlein (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fine, as long as (as I said on your talk page), your e-mail to OTRS has:

1. The person who "Father of JGKlein" is referring to is identified and named as the copyright holder
2. The file "File:Farm house and Barn yard, Marion County, IA, 1957.jpg" is identified in the e-mail
3. "the Public Domain" is identified as the license your father is releasing the photos under (because that's how you tagged the file page)

Sorry to be repetitive, but if any of those steps aren't completed, the OTRS process is incomplete.

I did make one change to the file page you linked to: for any photo that you included in your OTRS e-mail, you can remove the {{no permission}} tag on its file page, but make sure the {{OTRS pending}} tag is still displayed on the photo page. Once your e-mail to OTRS is processed, a volunteer will replace the "pending" tag with an OTRS confirmation tag. - Gump Stump (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the correct procedure for release for public domain - publicity shots of actors?

Hi again,

What is the correct procedure for release for public domain - publicity shots of actors?

I am referring to these two photos:

File:Arngrim, Alison brown turtleneck.jpg and File:Harper, Ron (actor) 407 x 470 px 37 kb.jpg

I know both of them, and each e-mailed me these pictures to me, and were very pleased to have flattering photos of them posted in Wikipedia.

So what do I need to do to make these legal for public domain?

Thanks! JGKlein (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi JGKlein--the process is the same as you did with your father's photos, with a couple of notes:

-The actor in the photo is not the person who took the photo, so ideally they should get the photographer to fill out the form (see Commons:Permission). However, if this isn't possible, if the actor hired a photographer to do their headshots the actor is probably a copyright holder and is entitled to use the photo as they see fit (the actor should know if this is the case). In either case, the photographer must be named as the "Author" of the photograph.

-A form should be filled out just like the form for your dad's photos, and the photographer or actor can either e-mail the form to you (and you can forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) or they can e-mail it there directly. As before, the specific file name on Commons and specific license have to be part of the form. You can also tell them about other licenses to choose from if they don't want to release their photos into the public domain--Commons:Licensing gives a good summary of this, and it would be worth reading (for you, anyway).

This photo is an example of an actor headshot with the information filled out correctly. Good luck, - Gump Stump (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The photo of the actor you sent is a friend of a former coworker of mine. Mark Harmon is a great guy. He does a lot of charity work for kids, which I admire him for. JGKlein (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Permission for another category of photos - family photos inherited from old photo albums

Hi -

You are so helpful! Thanks for being SO patient with me while I try to learn all these new procedures.

There is another category of photos I am posting. These are VERY OLD family photos (some over 100 years old) in which all of the subjects are now deceased. Some have come from my father, and others have come from my aunt in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The copyright holder would be the person who inherited these family photos. Both my father and aunt have given me full permission to use all of these photos "to do anything I want with them". But I want to make everything completely LEGAL by Wikimedia Commons standards so as not to cause you any headaches in the future. How would I handle this class of photograph?

Also, I think you know by now that I am a good faith contributor of historic photos who is not going to cause Wikimedia Commons any legal trouble, so is there any way to temporarily tag the photos I have already contributed, so they don't get deleted? Some are still red flagged as saying "This may be deleted soon" (or something to that effect). I am trying to read all the complicated "legalese" about copyright law, but I am not a lawyer, and it takes a while for me to digest all this.

Thanks so much, Gump Stump! JGKlein (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to help, since I don't have the unique opportunity you do, of uploading some old and rare photos. Licensing for old photos depends on who took them, when, and whether they were published. The photos need to be in the public domain in the United States in order to upload them (you cannot use a modern free license on these photos, as the copyright holder is dead). Now, I'm assuming that the photos you want to upload are unpublished, i.e. they are private family photos that have never been for public display, purchase, etc., and that they were all taken before 1978 in the United States. If so:

A: If you do know who took the photo and when they died, the photo falls into the public domain 70 years after the date of their death. So for it to be in the public domain in 2010, the creator must have died before 1941.

B: If you do not know who took the photo and/or when they died, the photo falls into the public domain 120 years after it was taken. So for it to be in the public domain in 2010, it must have been taken before 1891.

If the photo does not fit either of those categories, it can't be uploaded until enough time has passed. I'm using this section as a reference, by the way. So it may seem bizarre, but if someone anonymously took an unpublished photo in 1891 (the year basketball was invented!), it's still copyrighted for another year. I hope you know who took the photos and when they died, as that will be a shorter time frame than 120 years. Note that there are also other situations that may apply: if any of the photos were published (e.g. as a postcard) then if it was published before 1923 it's in the public domain automatically; or, photos taken by US government employees in the course of their work are ineligible for copyright so they are in the public domain automatically. There are other situations which may apply (see Wikipedia:Public domain).

For your photos that are tagged as "no permission", you can probably take the tag off for now--it would be a shame if any got deleted while you are trying to find the proper license. If you know that a photo is incompatible with Commons, just leave the tag and it will be deleted automatically. - Gump Stump (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For some of the old photos, I DO know who is in them. In others, they are strangers, such as hired ranch hands. I guess one of my favorite photos will have to wait for a while, until I figure out how to legally upload it for public domain, with no hassles. I have a WONDERFUL picture of some cowboys/ranch hands in South Dakota playing poker in a saloon. I don't know what year it was taken, but it looks like the 1800's. It is real treasure. The problem is, the photo is SO GOOD, the faces are clearly recognizable. I am worried that a descendant of one of them may recognize one of their ancestor's faces in the photo!

Thanks again. JGKlein (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. My father really did take aerial pictures of the Iowa farm where he grew up. He is a retired Navy pilot. My father said he was steering the plane with his knees while taking the Iowa aerial photos. Now THAT takes talent! JGKlein (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember that it doesn't matter who is in the picture (for photos that age it could be anyone or anything); it just matters who took the picture. The saloon picture sounds great, I hope you can upload that one! - Gump Stump (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

OK - let me do my homework and read as much as I can about copyright law. Meanwhile, the pictures are safe. I am a dedicated, meticulous custodian of historic artifacts. My whole family knows I am the most reliable person to store things with, and that I should be a curator in a museum.

My father was a Navy pilot with John McCain in 1967 when the fire broke out on the USS Forrestal. He has two pictures of John McCain that I am sure he has never seen. I may contact John McCain to get his permission to publish those.

I also have some more photos of people as children, who later grew up to become famous, that I don't want to write about here, where everyone on the internet can read it. I may e-mail you privately about those.

Thanks for your continued input. 71.134.154.218 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If your father was a Navy pilot, I have good news--any photo that he took while he was in the Navy is automatically in the public domain, and can be uploaded freely to Commons, because he was employed by the US government. See Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy for details.

Also, if you have a picture of someone (like John McCain), you don't need their permission to upload the photo--the permission that matters is the permission of the person who took the photo, not the subject. The photo of Mark Harmon, for example, was uploaded by the photographer; they may have asked Mr. Harmon, but it wasn't necessary. People who are the subject of a photo still have rights (see Template:Personality rights for details), but that is independent of copyright and is the responsibility of people who want to use the photo. I'm looking forward to seeing some more of your uploads! - Gump Stump (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Is a publicity still from a 1934 Laurel and Hardy film "Babes in Toyland" considered public domain?

Hello again,

I found a publicity still from the 1934 Laurel and Hardy film "Babes in Toyland" in a thrift store in the Los Angeles area. It looks like it was discarded by a theater operator. Would this be considered public domain? I know there is a provision that scenes from a film included in "Coming Attractions" trailers (previews) used to advertise a film are considered public domain. Does that also apply to publicity stills?

As a matter of fact, that film's copyright may have lapsed into the public domain, because I know it has also been shown in a computer "colorized" version. How do I research this?

Thanks! JGKlein (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure--something like this or this licensing might apply, but I don't know. You could contact the uploader of that Babes in Toyland screenshot and see what their reasoning was for using that license. You could also check with someone at WikiProject Films; if anybody knows or knows how to find out, it would be them. I also forgot to tell you about this website, which covers copyrighted materials in the US. It's a good resource for any files. - Gump Stump (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this actor's photo and tell me if I did everything correctly.

Hello - Please take a look at this actor's photo and tell me if I did everything correctly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harper,_Ron_(actor)_407_x_470_px_37_kb.jpg

It is included in the following Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Harper_(actor)

I want to do everything correctly, because Ron Harper knows several other famous actors & actresses who, if I gain their trust and do everything correctly for Ron Harper, may submit their face shots for publication in Wikipedia. I don't want to write their names here in this public forum.

I am having difficulty locating your e-mail address so I can ask you any off-line questions. Can you e-mail me and give it to me? I will ask most of my questions here, for the benefit of public discourse. But for some things, I would like to speak to you privately. For example, discussion of the names of some the well-known personalities with whom Ron Harper is aquainted. I really want to get everything right.  :)

Thanks! JGKlein (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi--things look good, but I don't know how you got the OTRS numbers (the {{OTRS|1297783|2008011610018533}}) you put on the page. That is something an OTRS volunteer puts in once confirmation is received. Can you explain that? Also, I left instructions on how to e-mail me under this section of your talk page. Let me know if it doesn't work. - Gump Stump (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The {{OTRS|1297783|2008011610018533}} is what I copied from File:Mark Harmon 1.jpg, because I was trying to follow that as an example. I now realize I should not have done that. Would you please correct my error, and then I will look at what you did and learn for the future?

Thanks! JGKlein (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I replaced the OTRS template with "OTRS Pending". I also replaced the category--make sure that a category exists (or that you create it properly) before you put a file into it. Because there is no category called "Ron Harper, actor", the image was essentially uncategorized. Check my earlier instructions to you about how to apply proper categories. And just to make sure, you did send the permission e-mail to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org", right? - Gump Stump (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi - yes, I see that you made the change. Yes, I sent the e-mail to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org". I still have it saved in my "out box". In case the original e-mail was lost in cyberspace never-never land, I can resend it.

Thanks again for your continued help. JGKlein (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I think I was able to successfully send you an e-mail. Please let me know if you got it. Thanks. JGKlein (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging my two User names of JGKlein - one for Wikipedia and other for Wikimedia Commons

Hi there,

I just realized that I didn't need to create a separate user name for Wikimedia Commons, since I already had one for Wikipedia. I just noticed that I could have added "uploads" from my Wikipedia user page. Is there a way to easily merge or link the two accounts with minimal headache? And avoid causing massive foulup with the pictures I have uploaded?

My Wikipedia account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JGKlein

My Wikimedia Commons account: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JGKlein

I have copied and pasted some of the text from my Wiki user page to my Wiki Commons page. That's when I noticed that other Wiki contributors had them under the same account.

If this is complex, please don't spend a lot of time on this for right now. Consider it low priority while I think about how to proceed in the future.

Thanks so much! JGKlein (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Check to see whether you have a unified login here: Wikipedia:Unified_login. You probably do, but you will be able to find out there. That's as unified as it gets--your user pages and contributions are still separate (Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects), but you can login under one user name on all projects. - Gump Stump (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Osho Drive By.jpg

I did not take the picture. At the time I uploaded it, the web source site stated "Use freely but state my ©". This is visible in the web archive version: [1]. I trust the web archive version is acceptable proof that the author/copyright holder gave the permission claimed in the image summary. I've updated the summary with the web archive version and deleted the speedy template. --JN466 04:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. There a couple of other images in the category Rajneeshpuram that could use the same treatment. Also, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the photographer's statement is equal to a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license; it sounds more like Attribution to me... -Gump Stump (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, there must be three or more images from the same source. I've replaced the template in File:Osho Drive By.jpg. Does it look okay? --JN466 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good to me. Are you going to do the other ones? I've removed the deletion template from the other image in that category I tagged. -Gump Stump (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've done the other three images in the category. --JN466 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:David bowie 05061978 01 150.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:David bowie 05061978 01 150.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Stifle (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:David bowie 05061978 01 150.jpg

Hi Stifle. I undid your npd tagging of this image file. I didn't upload the photo (I just found a larger version on the source webpage) but the uploader claimed it was his/her own work, so npd doesn't seem appropriate here. In addition, he/she has been active in the past in proving his/her own authorship (see File:Peter gabriel 31081978 02 400.jpg). If you know something I don't, let me know. -Gump Stump (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You uploaded a larger version of the image and there is no evidence that the uploader wished to release it at that resolution. I'm not disputing the original image. Sorry if that was unclear, but you need to prove that User:Helwik agreed you could upload the higher resolution image. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't realize that was a problem. I thought the cc license applied to the creative work, not the creative work at the resolution it was uploaded as (unless specified separately by the author). Is there a Commons policy you can refer me to? I can't find mention of that in the text of the cc license itself. In the meantime, I'll revert the image and remove the npd template. -Gump Stump (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any, but I would suggest checking at COM:VP. An uploader may for example release a low-resolution of an image under a free license while retaining rights to a larger version, in case he may wish to sell it. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Khalifa_International_Stadium_interior_night_2009_Emir_Cup.jpg

File:Khalifa_International_Stadium_interior_night_2009_Emir_Cup.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!

84.62.200.57 10:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:G20_world_leaders.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G20_world_leaders.png

I added some more information above. Please help! Taylorluker (talk)

I'm not sure what you mean. That file doesn't seem to exist... -Gump Stump (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Exact Duplicates and scaled down copies

Hi Gump Stump, the reason we delete scaled down versions of images is that the wiki software automatically scales images, there is no use for scaled down versions.

The reason we delete exact duplicates (ie copies of exactly the same file) is that they are liable to end up with different descriptions, categorization etc - just unneeded work to keep them synchronised. Note that the nature of wiki software is that nothing is ever really deleted, everything can be reverted and restored - so no space is saved by deleting images - I think of 'deleting duplicates' as a simple merging operation.

Note that we do not need to "delete" photos of the same thing. Two different photographs of the same painting for instance are likely to have different lighting, different white balance etc, and are not considered duplicates.

In relation to these two images, they were certainly not exact duplicates. They appear to be photos of different prints. Someone may wish to even combine aspects of each to produce a "restored" version. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Diamond image

Hi Gump Stump,

I'm working on a science programme for the BBC in the UK and we are interesting in using the lovely image of a diamond face which I understand you own. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diamond_face_trigons_scale.jpg)

Would you be willing to grant us permission to do this?

Thanks,

Aemj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemj (talk • contribs) 17:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aemj, yes, I took that photo. My permission is not required to use it: I licenced the photo as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, which basically requires attribution of the author (Gump Stump, Wikimedia Commons) and that if you modify the image you release the resulting work under a similar licence. However, if that licence is too restrictive for your purposes feel free to message me again and we can work something out. You may also want to see the higher resolution TIF version visible here. Thanks for your interest! -Gump Stump (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I just wanted to check that you are happy for us to use it - I'll speak with our picture licencing team to see if they are happy with using this Creative Commons licence, and if not I'll be back in touch. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.123 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gump Stump - would you be able to send me an email? Unfortunately our picture licencing team require a slightly more formal written agreement - my email address is alice.jones@bbc.co.uk. Thanks. aemj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemj (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bunder diamond project camp India.jpg

File:Bunder diamond project camp India.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!

117.204.181.174 07:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

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. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

File:David bowie 05061978 01 150.jpg

File:David bowie 05061978 01 150.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!

Rybec (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Feature picture on Wikipedia

A public domain image from the US Coastguard that you uploaded has been given feature picture status on Wikipedia. File:Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling unit on fire 2010.jpg. In the first nomination that was withdrawn by another editor, the consensus was that the photo needed tilting, cropping and clone work. I made the adjustments and the image was re-nominated and then promoted. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Gump Stump,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth 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 (2015) 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 were 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.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Khalifa International Stadium interior night 2009 Emir Cup.jpg

Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Battelle logo.svg

File:Battelle logo.svg 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!

131.167.254.75 20:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)