Castillo blanco

"Out of scope" without more is an insufficient reason for a deletion nomination. You have to explain why it's out of scope. if I see any more such nominations, they will be closed as defective in process. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Rodhullandemu: What should I do to make the reason more sufficient? Do I need to include a link to Commons:Project scope? I have been browsing through deletion nominations by other users and I found a lot of nominations of this type. While working on the categorization, I have started many of these nominations and most files were deletion without further questioning. You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mill race at Newmill - geograph.org.uk - 585777.jpg, about a random piece of landscape with half a house visible and no categorization. I think this file is useless for a Wikipedia article, at least if it's not given what the photo is supposed to illustrate. I am prepared to learn, but at this point I do not understand what I should have done differently in this nomination. Calling some of the people who have deleted files after my nominations: @Daphne Lantier: @Jcb: @Sealle: @Well-Informed Optimist: @Moheen Reeyad: Can you help me understand what I did wrong in my nominations? Castillo blanco (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

See examples of "not realistically useful for an educational purpose" in COM:SCOPE. That image could be regarded as a landscape including the building, and the fact that it's uncategorised is neither here nor there. A minute's research could easily provide at least a location categorisation since it's a Geograph image and therefore has geocoords. We are also not here to provide images only for Wikipedia, but for the world. Unless you explain why you think the image is not in scope, it's extremely unlikely that such nominations should, or will, succeed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

That image has an exact coordinate; it is easy to categorize by location. Lack of categorization is not a reason for deletion -- only if it's not even possible for others to figure out what it's a picture of. This is a collaborative project; other users can add categories. It is a picture of a landscape -- and used as an educational photo on Geograph, meaning it's possible to be used as an educational photo here. I don't think you have a good understanding of COM:SCOPE, from a spot check of several nominations at least. A few are reasonable, but several are not (and I reverted an inappropriate speedy tag as well). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Castillo blanco: Your nominations are fine in general. Most administrators will judge the files themselves if they see an 'out of scope' nomination. Only a small selection of admins need you to spell out a detailed explanation. Also the result of an 'out of scope' nomination may differ from admin to admin, because this is often not an urgent reason for deletion and it's difficult to draw a hard line between what's in scope and what's not. I will see if I can categorize this file to get it off your desk. Lack of categories is not on itself a reason for deletion (we have a huge number of files without categories), but it may influence the outcome of an 'out of scope' nomination. @Rodhullandemu: Why did you speedy close this DR? I see no valid reason for speedy closure. The nomination is not that odd. The file is rather useless if you ask me. I think you should undo your closure and grant the DR its normal time. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Believe me, in several years here I've seen some useless images. But that's my opinion, and as an admin judging a deletion nomination I'm not a mind-reader and have no clue as to why a nominator thinks an image is of no educational use unless a reason is provided- not necessarily a detailed explanation, just a hint beyond a reason too broad to be considered serious. As a lawyer I've also seen many instances of defective process, and things without rationale I generally consider to be defective. Under mild protest, I will reverse my closure but would like to see an expansion of merely "out of scope". Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

That was OK to speedy close I think. If a file is useful for Geograph, it's useful for here. For example, if someone was making a geograph-like site, they could use this image, meaning it's useful in an educational context. May not be useful in a lot of contexts, but that is not the SCOPE criteria. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I came here through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miles', J.D., home - NARA - 280176.jpg. What were you thinking? Multichill (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: Is it really necessary to approach this relatively new user in such an offensive way? The messages of today seem to be the first they ever received from fellow users. So maybe it's worth trying to approach them in a more mellow way? They seem to have good intentions, so maybe it's better to first try to get them more familiar with our labyrinth of established practices than to piss them off as a first step? Jcb (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is a fair point, but on the other hand, for first-time uploaders to have their work dismissively sent to a deletion request and only a rationale of "out of scope" (without any explanation why, putting the onus on the other person to figure out what the reason might be), can be considered even more rude, unfortunately. This user does seem to be wanting to do the right thing, but deletion requests (and especially speedy deletion tags) are not the best places to be making mistakes. Something like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Military Penal Codes in Xuanyun Region- Public Notices WDL4704.jpg should never be made, if you watch deletion requests for a while and get a better feel for what actually gets deleted. There are differences between admins, of course -- some want to curate "bad" images -- but a few of these were pretty far out of bounds. There are plenty of outright copyright violations which are uploaded (i.e. copies from the web marked as "own work" when it's obviously not, that sort of thing); policing those would be far more helpful then trying to determine the exact borderlines of COM:SCOPE. If in doubt for those, just leave them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will do my best to read a number of deletion nominations and learn from them. Do you have a few examples of nominations I should read? Castillo blanco (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Castillo blanco, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Castillo blanco, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

1. You edited User:Castillo blanco/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
2. Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 05:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC).Reply

I fail to understand what the reason is for deletion request. (File:Gunilla Carlsson.Dirk Niebel 1c399 0350.jpg) I also fail to find the deletion request, so I can discuss the DR. Please provide a link to the DR.

Please explain, in detail, what the reason is for the DR. Also explain what is different with the permission in this picture, from a very recent picture

File:Robin_Bengtsson.melodifestival2017.17d801.1370385.jpg

Should the recent picture also be deleted? If not, why not? Both pictures where uploaded the same way, by commonist.

You write "English is not my native language". What is your language, maybe I can communicate in your language? --Janwikifoto (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've read somewhere that photos from an external website should have an OTRS tag. This photo has a web address in the metadata. My native language is Spanish. If your Spanish is better than your English, don't hesitate to contact me in Spanish. Castillo blanco (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

No hay ningun traduccion official del LICENSIA. Pero los conditiones legales son

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

y no hay ningun texto OTRS.

The OTRS - as I understand it - is a way to assure Wikipedia that the uploader has permission. For example if you upload my pictures, with my permission. Then Wikipeida may want to see the permission, and that would be OTRS. Los Wikipedia gente han complicado los textes, mucho. Pero NO EXISTE ningud "licensia exclusiva wikipedia" - y ahore tienes el texto legal, que you ha leido antes de upload. El contractto (texto licensia) as validao. OTRS es alo otro, extra. --Janwikifoto (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Janwikifoto: I don't think Castillo will be able to understand the more-or-less-Spanish-alike gibberish you uttered. Apart from that, the text of the license is irrelevant for this case. Please contact OTRS instead of filling several user talk pages with bullshit. Jcb (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Castillo blanco, you've marked several images from the Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project as categorized, although they are just categorized in the county categories. I'm working at the Category:Northumberland at the moment, and so I saw this image, which you've tagged as checked: File:Goat Fence and gate at Carter Fell - geograph.org.uk - 848216.jpg, for example. The county categories are just main categories, the files in all these categories have to be categorized more differentiated. Please finde the location of every file, before you tag them as categorized. Thank you! --Tine (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

concerning the Deletion nominations https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rahulkepapa#File_tagging_File:Does_Charity_Empower_?.webm

I have changed the copyright of the original video on youtube channel The Vrinda Project from Youtube standard licence to Creative commons see On The Vrinda Project Channel ⇒ Does Charity Empower ?
I have also written to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Is there anything more I need to do?

Ok, I have removed the tag. Please add proper categorization to the file. Castillo blanco (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I saw your warning about this photo. I made big efforts to repair and to edit the information about this photo. I will be glad if you can see my edit and respond me if it's sufficient. Sincerely yours, אביתרג (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You made a photo of a poster. That poster is created by somebody, who has copyright on that poster. If you want to release a photo of that poster into GFDL/CC, then you need permission from the author of the poster. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You have made a lot of good work and I made you autopatroller. Thank you! Taivo (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Castillo blanco (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Castillo blanco, I went over some of your recent edits. Thanks for your work! But sometimes, you get ahead of yourself with the permission missing tag. Please watch out a bit more carefully if there really is no permission granted. Chaddy (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I disagree on all three files. I have now started normal deletion nominations for these files. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

All these three files are below the threshold of originality and therefore not capable of being protected. Chaddy (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying me. The File:إيقونة بوابة مختارة.png is a modified version of the original image, and I just changed the color to gold. Please note that this image is used in a big amount of pages in arwiki. If there is any other information needed; please don't hesitate to ask me. Thanks.--ASammour (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Castillo blanco (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am actually to busy to put whatever the hell you need for these 4 images you want deleted. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] but as is true, its states I took the photos. Even with permission of the artist who was my friend at the time. If you really want to delete stuff go right ahead. But this is a waste of time and good resources.

All the files need permission from Goodiepal. This permission has to be registered by OTRS. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please, see [5]. At end of the history you can do what you want. I'm no more interested. But keep in mind that the images like this are about 10.000 (all my production). Bye --Massimop (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Massimop: Did you draw the lions and the tree yourself? Castillo blanco (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

In [6] I declared I draw using software LEDA (Les Escus des Armes). This software includes a lot of images, as lion, tree, star and so on. --Massimop (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the answer. That's a pity. Using a software is one thing, but using the library of that software causes a problem here. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hola. I don ´t know how to contact you, that´s why I write here. My email is ckpapa@gmx.com. After reading please erase this comment: I made corrections for author and source of one of my uploaded pictures, but after saving there are errors, missing information about author and source. I am author and also source. Please help me how to correct this. Picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Čeláre.png Thank You in advance. Zsolt Zólyomi --CkPapa (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Jmabel has solved this one for you. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please don't tag images without any obvious copyright issues as "no source". If File:Coat of arms zolotonosha 2.png had been deleted for example, that would damage the project.

You can help by adding a source, or ask the uploader on their talk page to do so. If you question the accuracy of an image, please use {{Factual accuracy}}. If you think it's fake or fabricated, nominate the image for deletion. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

File:ADH 0016 A. Damhoeri - Bunga Talang Mamak.pdf had pending OTRS. No reason to tag such files for deletion either. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

And File:Corvo.png had a clear source. Be less trigger happy, please. Tm (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

As had File:Cotes-Inde du Sud.png. Tm (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Castillo blanco: The taggings were in principle correct for both maps. In contrary of what Tm states, these two maps are not sourced at all. However, for such old uploads, we prefer a regular DR instead of a 'no source since' tag. Jcb (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Castillo blanco and Jcb: I do not agree with the tagging of Corvo.png and Cotes-Inde du Sud.png. Corvo.png says Ritad av sv:Användare:Chrizz. I think it is possible the user did draw the map by himself. Cotes-Inde du Sud.png says Complété par Shiva-Nataraja à partir d'un fond de carte conçu par http://www.upct.org/ 2005, Gérald Anfossi. Gérald Anfossi is the original uploader User:Nataraja from frwiki. They are not no source at all. I do not think they need a Deletion Request either.--Roy17 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nope, a user drawing Cotes-Inde du Sud.png themself from scratch is so unlikely that we can safely disregard this option, at least per COM:PCP. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Jcb: Do you not read??? à partir d'un fond de carte conçu par http://www.upct.org/ One thing I'm sure is you definitely dont know what's written on the now defunct website: Un Point C'est Tout est une association qui veut mettre à disposition du public des cartes du monde, libres de droit de reproduction, des cartes où tout le monde peut écrire, dessiner et raconter son histoire, sa vision du territoire... (underscored by me).--Roy17 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible to come to an agreement first and to contact me then? Castillo blanco (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

We agree about the files I mentioned. There is some disagreement about the files Tm mentioned. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've added something (the source is a "collection", by which we usually mean that it is a document or a support physically possessed by the owner of the collection itself), now I think it should be okay; after all, it's a signature, which is copyright ineligible. Please let me know if anything more is needed. Thank you :-) --g (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the quick action. In my opinion it's alright now. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's a reproduction of a wooden print from year 1500.... It's in the public domain since centuries. Which source declaration do you need? You are a bit exaggerating... This image has the PD-Old domain since the beginning, there's no need for other declaration (it's not declared as "Own")--Grigio60 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Even if an image is Public Domain, you are requested to always tell us were it comes from. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but being reasonable. You can also add {{Own scan}} for such a file. Requesting its deletion, when it's clear that the file is in the public domain (the source can be literally whatever) is very close to hurting the project. Please take care in the future. --Ruthven (msg) 08:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You have just made it much more time consuming to add the metadata to my recent files. That's awful. Please wait at least two hours before complaining!!! --Rodomonte (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why is it so much more time consuming? Because there is a 'no source' template to be deleted? That should take less than a minute for the whole series. I can do that for you if you wish. Just let me know when you are ready with the addition of sources and I will delete the templates. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

By the way, the original talk was here. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

كيف اضيف المعلومات تريدونها لملف علماء نجد Alfowzan5 (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this language. The Google translation makes no sense. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Pray tell, what is this a derivative of? --Golbez (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I mean, yes, it needs source info. That I can do. But you specifically used a template that says it's a derivative, so I'm curious what you think it's a derivative of. Would it be all the other maps that I uploaded and sourced on the same day? --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Golbez: Yes, I intended to use that template. What is currently missing is information about the map you started from. I suppose you traced or copied the United States map from an existing map, making your files derivative works of those existing maps. That's why information about the source map should be included. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I traced the outline from public domain maps. That is sufficient. --Golbez (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Golbez: You have to tell this in the source field and you also have to tell which public domain map you traced. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Part of it being public domain is that I don't have to cite it. It's not CC-BY. It's PD. Furthermore, I don't know which map it was, as it was a decade ago. You can try to get it deleted and hobble a featured list, I guess. (Finally: It's an outline map of the coastline of the United States. If you think this is somehow fancy copyrightable material, ... I dunno man, you do you.) --Golbez (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Golbez: You have the obligation to provide correct source information. 'Own work' is not correct, as you already admitted. Please correct this or undo your removal of the problem tag, so that an admin can take a decission. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is my own work, on the same level that someone who used the circle stamp in Photoshop is still making their own work, despite not drawing that circle freehand. The basic, undetailed outline of a coastline that I worked on over a decade ago from PD sources is not really sourcable. So you're suggesting I change it to, "99% own work, 1% traced from the public domain sometime in the mid-2000s"? --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you don't know what map you used, how can we check that it was PD? I think you should read COM:DW to know what a derivative work is. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

One angle I might take is, because shorelines and state borders are basic facts and not copyrightable. Therefore any representation of them alone is PD. Therefore I don't need to source it, because by its very nature it's public domain, regardless of sourcing. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are mistaken. Simple square state borders may be ineligible for copyright, but not a map like this. Jcb (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Jcb: Anything beyond the simple state borders is self-made. Hence why I'm making it clear that the only "derivative" work here is public domain borders. No, I will not source them, any more than I would expect any map ever to have to source where they got the basic outline of a country from. The irony here is, if I took a photo of a public domain map, I'd be able to tag it as own work. All COM:DW states with regard to maps is the fact that the maps I used are public domain. Perhaps you'd like to point out where attribution is required for basic, noncopyrightable information? Stop templating the regulars and actually site what I've violated. --Golbez (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've brought you up here: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_Golbez because I find your backdated re-tagging of no-source on sourced files, while not informing me of this fact, was highly improper. --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Castillo blanco: In this case the revert of the removal of the tag is fine, the uploader is not allowed to remove the tag without solving the problem. You were correct here regarding the difference between DW and own work. Jcb (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I solved the problem, I gave an accurate representation of the work. That it was replaced without informing me is improper; that it was replaced backdated a week later with no notice, and subsequently deleted without notice, is highly improper. --Golbez (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here, let me help: [7] There's a few hundred files for you to tag as needing a source. Go for it. Cmon, commit to destroying the best thing I ever made for Wikipedia for the crime of not sufficiently detailing which public domain non-copyrightable map I traced the outline of a country from 12 years ago. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

And if it seems like I'm being emotional about this, I think the phrase "destroying the best thing I ever made for Wikipedia" handles why I'm so angry right now. You want to delete it over the non-crime of not sourcing non-copyrightable, public domain information. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I tried to help you, but you did not get the point. If the files are so important to you, why don't you try to help to have them sourced properly? Castillo blanco (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

For one thing, because it's impossible. I could not accurately tell you which public domain representation of non-copyrightable information I used a decade ago to create the basic shorelines and state borders. For another, because I shouldn't have to, because it's public domain, non-copyrightable information. If I couldn't accurately source it, wouldn't that in itself be grounds for deletion, me lying about a source? So in the end, it doesn't matter - either these are going to exist without a source, or you're going to delete them. Therefore there is no "point" to get, the end results are still the same. --Golbez (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've opened a discussion at COM:VPC. --Golbez (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

OH MY GOD! the lengths you go… trying to convince someone that THEIR work is not theirs… so youre THAT BITTER about adding nothing to your national wiki… unbelievable conversation, treatment, approach… sigo flipando contigo AstralChojin (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi! It is far from obvious that simple boundary maps like File:Circonscriptions de seine-et-marne.PNG or File:Locator kabupaten purbalingga.png incorporate another creative work. Some background information on this is documented at COM:DW#Maps and lately it has been discussed here and here. So such files should go through regular deletion rather than being tagged for speedy deletion after 7 days. Though, personally I don't see much of a point in doing that either without providing further evidence of another cartographic work that is incorporated, or without provding other sorts of details on why you believe that simple boundary map is an actual derivative work. Pikne 07:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

1. Please read the description pages of a file completely and with more precision to find source information, wich is not in the box, butt somewhere else on the page and don't add "unknown" templates in that cases. It's better to copy the information into the box. Example: File:De Merian Mainz Trier Köln 010.jpg
2. Do not add Template:No source since and therefore a deletion request for images with Template:PD-ineligible because in that case a source information is not needed to keep the image. Example:File:Circle Gainsboro.svg

Antonsusi (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

When uploading a file, please fill in the template completely. The no source since is meant to make sure that the uploader will do what he/she should have done when uploading. Castillo blanco (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Castillo, why not read the history of file? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ponziano_Loverini_(1845-1929).jpg&action=history

What Ogrebot removed is not real source information. There is a reason that a bot is removing these things. Castillo blanco (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Then i may suggest you to check the original license i added to the image which is taken from the book at archive.org that i correctly added to my upload. Sorry Castillo, i cannot spend my days following what other people are not reading.

May I suggest you to not spend your days moving files to Commons if you cannot spend your time to do it properly? Castillo blanco (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I did it VERY properly and added the correct licence which is Public Domain Mark 1.0 as stated in the source of the picture which is CLEARLY stated in the image page. Not my fault if BOTS do not read what i write and delete CORRECT statements.

You have to fill in the information template. If you throw files to Commons this way, we are better off if you leave them alone. Castillo blanco (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

You could also do it by yourself, as it is one single copy-paste. All this activity you did takes 10x longer time than copying-pasting one single line. Anyway, my last upload, bye bye.

I did not upload the file, you did. I don't understand why others should clean after you just because you are too lazy to do it yourself. And indeed, in the time you have spent here in this conversation, you could easily have cleaned your own mess yourself. Castillo blanco (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please check the metadata of US military images first if you believe they are missing required information. If the metadata mentions anything about "DVIDS", the image almost certainly came from https://www.dvidshub.net/. Military images are almost always issued a unique identifier called a VIRIN. You should search DVIDS and Google for the VIRIN, as well as performing a reverse-image search, before tagging the image. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

This few was recently uploaded by an active user. I tend to leave it to the uploader to complete the missing information, because he/she probably knows this better than me. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've read your message about problems with licensing of two of my pictures on commons: File:Solaris Trollino 24 MetroStyle (11).jpg and File:Solaris Trollino 24 MetroStyle (12).jpg. The owner of this files (company Solaris Bus & Coach S.A.) send on Monday OTRS permissions for these two and 10 other files on commons in Category:Solaris Trollino 24. I don't understand, why there is a problem with these two files, but there aren't the same problems with 10 other files. I added informations about the source to data of these two files. Is it now everything okey? Or what should I do to resolve this situation? Michozord (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this was the missing part. I have removed de error tags. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Castillo blanco: , for whatever reasons, the source was not mentioned by the machine when uploading the files. It is now done. Best, --Art&language (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Castillo blanco (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

We also corrected File:Art-LanguageV3No1-1974.jpg. Obviously Dr John Abate is not the author of the work but the author of the image. Best, --Art&language (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again! Castillo blanco (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why did you tag this file as no source? The file clearly has a source. Multichill (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

When I saw the file, all the information was absent. But I see that there were a lot of edits in the same minute, here and at Wikidata. There must have been some interference. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why were you editing a file the same minute it was uploaded by a trusted bot account? Multichill (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

He there. You tagged File:Denverlightrailmap.svg but this file CLEARLY has a source. It is listed right there in both the description AND in the old upload log from en.wp. Please be more careful with your nominations. Just because something was uploaded before 2009 (when we started using the Information template) doesn't mean you should speedy delete it simply because the information is in the wrong field of the template. Please be more careful. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Valla valla, so you’ve been called out before for the same reasons…. Flipante lo tuyoAstralChojin (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Castillo blanco, I have added source information on the file File:1961 Cozzolino Italy FlaminiaSM.jpg The copyright holder is clearly the owner of the sole print of this image and the original photographer was an itinerant street photographer (e.g. https://blogs.loc.gov/picturethis/2016/04/anything-to-get-the-shot-itinerant-photographers/) who would have handed over the sole copy of the image to the family on the spot. The subject of the article Mimmo Cozzolino has no record of that photographer's identity. The photographer, if they are still alive (image is 59 years old) would have no record of its existence and no copy of the image, and since this was a commercial transaction undertaken on the spot in Trieste under Italian copyright law of the time, the transaction gave rights to the subject. I have contacted Mimmo Cozzolino (who I do not know personally) from whom I obtained this image for an article on him. He has been sent the copyright permission request. I hope this clarifies. Thank you for your prompt and diligent work on Wikimedia. --Jamesmcardle (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the 'no source' tag. The copyright transfer is not how it normally works with copyright regulations. But if it is from Italy, I think it is PD and can be licensed as {{PD-Italy}}. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Фотография сделана в 1910 году (по другим информациям - в 1917 г.) [8], размещена в интернете несколько лет назад. Была использована в БашВики в статье о женском головном уборе "калпак", как иллюстрация башкирского национального костюма, потому что в то время фотографировались мало. Я сейчас в поисках возможных наследников этой семьи. Если найду, как оформить разрешение, объясните , пожалуйста.Guram52 (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you claim that the file is Public Domain because the author died over 70 years ago, you must tell who the author is and when he died. If you don't have such information, there is no way for you or for me to know that your Public Domain claim is valid. Castillo blanco (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

are you freaking serious? How in the world can a more than 100 years old photo be private domain? He presented sources and an explanation If you claim that the file is NOT public domain then prove it! Must be an exciting job to delete people work on a foreign wiki cause you have nothing to add to your national one. Flipante. AstralChojin (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Por que no estas en la wikipedia de tu idioma? Podrias aportar algo alli en lugar de restar aqui nominando cosas para ser borradas…