Rybkovich

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Rybkovich!

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) 00:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Cal v Syracuse 1968.JPG

File:Cal v Syracuse 1968.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!

Yann (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:1938 rose bowl win.jpg

Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content. We do this because Commons is a shared media repository. Downstream wikis have different policies based on local laws. Uses that are acceptable under US law, for example, may not be acceptable in many other countries with more restrictive rules. In addition, fair use is not compatible with our aim as a collection of freely distributable media files. Therefore, Commons cannot legally rely on fair use provisions. Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally if your project allows this.

 

Yann (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Lynn O. "Pappy" Waldorf in Berkeley.jpg

File:Lynn O. "Pappy" Waldorf in Berkeley.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!

— ξ^xplicit 06:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your postings

---

Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributions

As a courtesy to other editors, it is Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

--SignBot (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Above TOO?

Hello Rybkovich, in answer to that, your curiosity is legitimate but sadly I closed a lot of DR yesterday and I don't remember exactly this logo / emblem, so honestly I can't answer in a specific way. However it's true that I consider a logo as below TOO only when it is simple text. When there is a simpler arrangement of geometric forms, even if they are simple, in a visual purpose, I consider this a design that make it original and unique, thus is above TOO.
Please do not modify a deletion request when it is closed as it is now an archive, you should use talk pages instead.
I hope you understand that my purpose was not to annoy you but to protect what I consider the work and property of others.
Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: Thanks for the reply. I asked because I am interested in intellectual property and the originality standard that is generally accepted here and how it corresponds to the US copyright case law. Thanks for letting me know your approach. Rybkovich (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Interested in intelectuel paropery law

Dear Rybkovich,

I read that you are interested in intellectual property law. Perhaps you ding this interesting. Perhaps you already watched those vids and if that's the case I apologise for the inconvenience. Natuur12 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Natuur12 Thank you! I was really into copyright in law school but am practicing something what I was also really interested in but is completely unrelated - criminal/constitutional. The videos are a great way to dive back in I already watched a couple. Was you point regarding the google maps in regards to what I argued in the File:London-Boroughs-20mph.jpg deletion discussion? Rybkovich (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was. I realise that I was a bit cryptic but it is a reply thowards this comment. (The google maps point is also mentioned in one of the vids as a side note btw.) Natuur12 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

yes I thought so too, but did not want to be cryptic on my end. There is a good post/paper on argument that google maps should not be protected? I think google maps decisions on what shops to show and how to represent parks/free land could be claimed as creative. The results of a program can be considered as original yes? Especially if it spits out the results based on information on the user it is displaying to. But also not all images do this, some images are pure simple geographic displays which could be argued as not copyrightable.Rybkovich (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

See here. I should have told that I am only referring to the base map. Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting paper. Not sure if it can still be used because of the date. (If was a biology paper it wouldn't be to old but not sure about legal papers) Natuur12 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Natuur12 still have not read the article. Contacting you to ask for help with an issue. If you have time, is this editor correct? The image was a page from a book that was likely to be printed at the same time as the books I linked to. I also contacted the editor. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Letters of Amulo and Agobard.JPEG Rybkovich (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I figured it out, the user did not put the tag PD-old on the upload thats what the editor meant by license Rybkovich (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Natuur12 I found a great article on copyright and its connection to digital databases. It is from 2006 and covers both Europe and USA. It was very helpful in my understanding. I think that under USA law the database on which google maps is based on is copyrightable because of the creativity involved in creating it. Regarding the image of the map itself I would think that even a very simple image is copyrightable because it is generated by the database, but it is a very thin copyright and a derivative from it would not be violating the copyright. Which seems to be the exact policy we have here. Here is the article [1]. PS what was the exact article that you recommended from that JSTOR link? PSS I have been watching the copyright lectures and they have been great. Rybkovich (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Maps

I have read the piece by Janssen and Dumortier which you cited. Thanks for sharing it. I find it both interesting and disappointing.

They say, on page 211:

”Today, maps are not drawn by cartographers. They are instead stored as digital files in databases, which raises the dual dilemma as to whether these databases of factual information are given protection under copyright law and if the images that are generated from these databases can still be protected as a map from a pictorial point of view.”

That’s simply not true. As examples, take both the USGS quads of the United States and the NOAA charts of US waters. They are printed on demand, from raster images of quasi-paper versions. I say “quasi-paper” because they are edited, corrected, and updated by cartographers at the two agencies only on computer screens and not on paper, but they are, nonetheless “drawn”, albeit by manipulating a cursor rather than a pen. It’s hard for me to believe that there should be any distinction between a raster image of a map and a raster image of a piece of computer generated art – both are, to be sure, just collections of bits in a computer memory, but they can be seen and manipulated only as pictures.

It’s disappointing therefore because the piece completely ignores the fact, that even in digital form, a map can be either a raster map or a vector map.

In a way, this reminds me of the Turing test – if a given map is noticeably better than other versions of the same map, by whatever standard is appropriate, then that map must exhibit some sort of creativity – it must be more than a simple assemblage of facts. Thus I would argue that a raster nautical chart from one of the major chart agencies is more creative than a vector chart created on the fly by the rendering software. I would also argue that the British Admiralty charts are better – more creative – than those from Service Hydrographique et Océanographique de la Marine and those, in turn, are more creative than those from NOAA.

It also frustrates me that ‘’Feist’’ is even mentioned in the same breath with maps and charts. A phone directory is a phone directory and no creativity will make it anything else. A map, is a work of art. When is the last time that anyone paid tens of thousands of dollars for an old phone book? (I can cite an instance of tens of thousands of dollars -- I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually hundreds of thousands or even millions). Or, in the same vein, why do experienced navigators like me pay twice as much for a British Admiralty chart rather than buy a NOAA chart of the same area?

Also, it ignores the fact that maps are, of necessity, selective. No map, except at one to one scale, can show all of the detail present in the area that is mapped. Both nautical charts and USGS quads are good examples of this. A modern survey of an area – at land or at sea – will probably have a depth or elevation measured every ten feet. At 1/62500 (roughly an inch to the mile) that would be 500 points per inch on the map in each direction. Obviously that can’t be plotted – which ones to show must be shown by contour lines, which can be done by computer only to a point, and, on nautical charts by a limited number of explicit soundings – less than 1% of those available.

You objected to my saying that this area of copyright was “evolving” – the cited piece spends a lot of space discussing exactly that and by no means leaves me with the impression that the issue is well settled either in the USA or in the EU. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

By no longer evolving I meant the principle that in a geographic/site mapping context the product of a conversion of factual data into a visual representation of that data cannot be automatically considered to be original. I think you are completely right when the conversion is complex and involves digital data. During this week I will look at US case law and tried to find some precedent, even if its not the maps context, that we can try and apply them to your examples above. Rybkovich (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at cases re our maps discussion

@Jameslwoodward
I think that the Meshwork’s case would be heavily relied on if the issue of copyrightablity of modern maps comes in to question.
You emphasize the editing and correcting in creating rastor maps (did I get this right?) I agree that considering the amount of work put into editing and correcting can play a part of originality analysis. But as per rejection of sweat of brow it is not something that weighs heavily towards originality. I don't mean to be rude by saying - You:
You: “if a given map is noticeably better than other versions of the same map, by whatever standard is appropriate, then that map must exhibit some sort of creativity.”
When a map becomes noticeably better – does this happen because more factual data is considered or is it just a difference in the representation of the same data? If more data is now represented, then “noticeably better” is not necessarily an indication of creativity. Even if it is the same data, but now it is more exact, I still don’t think that is a necessary indication of creativity either. I looked it up but I’m still not exactly clear on Rastor/Vector. In your going from Vector to Raster example do you mean separating a continuous line into digital data, like going from analog sound to digital sound? By going from Vector to Raster does one introduce more data?

You: The paper ignores the “fact that maps are, of necessity, selective.” Do you mean that maps necessarily simplify the information, other wise a map would be to scale? If so, I agree that simplification can be a factor in originality analysis.

This is from Meshworks Toyota case:
What Meshworks did - “Based on these measurements, modeling software then generated a digital image resembling a wire-frame model. In other words, the vehicles' data points (measurements) were mapped onto a computerized grid and the modeling software connected the dots to create a "wire frame" of each vehicle. In other words, the vehicles' data points (measurements) were mapped onto a computerized grid and the modeling software connected the dots to create a "wire frame" of each vehicle.“….
“At this point, however, the on-screen image remained far from perfect and manual "modeling" was necessary. Meshwerks personnel fine-tuned or, as the company prefers it, "sculpted," the lines on screen to resemble each vehicle as closely as possible. Approximately 90 percent of the data points contained in each final model, Meshwerks represents, were the result not of the first-step measurement process, but of the skill and effort its digital sculptors manually expended”

How these facts were considered in the originality analysis:
“In assessing the originality of a work for which copyright protection is sought, we look only at the final product, not the process, and the fact that intensive, skillful, and even creative labor is invested in the process of creating a product does not guarantee its copyrightability. In the case before us, there is no doubt that transposing the physical appearances of Toyota's vehicles from three dimensions to two, such that computer-screen images accurately reflect Toyota's products, was labor intensive and required a great amount of skill. But because the end-results were unadorned images of Toyota's vehicles, the appearances of which do not owe their origins to Meshwerks (the creators of the images), we are unable to reward that skill, effort, and labor with copyright protection.”

Re intent, which I think is very important:
Meshwerks' intent in making its wire-frame models provides additional support for the case's conclusion. "In theory, the originality requirement tests the putative author's state of mind: Did he have an earlier work in mind when he created his own? If an artist affirmatively sets out to be unoriginal--to make a copy of someone else's creation, rather than to create an original work--it is far more likely that the resultant product will, in fact, be unoriginal. A person's intent to copy . . . should be considered strong evidence that what that person has produced is not copyrightable. Of course, this is not to say that the accidental or spontaneous artist will be denied copyright protection for not intending to produce art; it is only to say that authorial intent sometimes can shed light on the question of whether a particular work qualifies as an independent creation or only a copy.
In this case, the undisputed evidence before us leaves no question that Meshwerks set out to copy Toyota's vehicles, rather than to create, or even to add, any original expression. The purchase order signed by G&W asked Meshwerks to "digitize and model" Toyota's vehicles, and Meshwerks' invoice submitted to G&W for payment reflects that this is exactly the service Meshwerks performed. Meshwerks itself has consistently described digitization and modeling as an attempt accurately to depict real-world, three-dimensional objects as digital images viewable on a computer screen.”

Now in your maps examples is intent different from making an exact representation of requested aspects of the item in question? I think this is very important. If the intent is to be as exact as possible then it seems like it is likely that the work will not be considered as original. No matter the form of this representation. In Meshworks it’s a 2-d digital visual representation of a real object. Re the digital process itself – I think that the program that does the work can be copyrightable, but the product itself cannot. That is the principle that I get from Meshworks. But, like you said this process is evolving so this may change.
Back to the current rule. Here’s an example of how I understand it. In the context of blind people - I think that complex auditory representations or a different from normal visual representations used to help represent information to blind people, the representations themselves would not be able to be copyrighted no matter how complex is the process of creating those representations. Rybkovich (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Answers to questions above: BA charts are noticeably better than NOAA charts because the BA cartographers do a better job of representing reality. They are almost always working from the same data -- both agencies publish charts of the whole world, but in many (most? all?) cases only one of the two has actually surveyed the area in question. Thus BA charts of Boston Harbor rely on NOAA surveys and vice versa. I equate "a better job of representing reality" with creativity.

Raster vs Vector. When I use a raster program such as Microsoft Paint and draw a straight line, the program records each pixel as I go along. If I place a label on the drawing, once I type it, the letters are simply a bunch of black pixels -- the software must deal with them as pixels, not as letters or words. There is no relationship between the pixels -- leaving aside data compression for this discussion -- the data file for a raster image 1,000px square will be a million pixels. If I want to move one end of the line I just drew, I must change each pixel in the whole line, probably by erasing the whole line and starting over. If, on the other hand, I draw a line with a vector program such as AutoCAD, the program records the beginning of the line and the end (and the width, the color, whether solid, dotted, dashed, and so forth). If I want to move one end, I give the AutoCAD command "Stretch", highlight the end I want to move, and drag it. Since the software knows that the object is a straight line, it can redraw all the pixels. If I type a label, the software knows that it is typeset, and can change the size or typeface, or move it as a whole.

Maps are similar. If you buy a NOAA paper chart or a USGS quad today, you go to an authorized vendor who has a large color printer and the page is printed from a raster file -- a file that has millions of pixels, each one standing on its own, unrelated to those around it (I simplify a bit, but that's essentially true). I can also download (free, because there is no Federal copyright) a copy of the raster file and display on my computer a copy of the chart that looks exactly like the paper chart. If I zoom in, it does not act like Google maps -- all of the symbols and lettering simply get larger, as if I were using a magnifying glass.

NOAA also publishes vector chart files -- I can download them for free as well, covering the same areas as the raster charts. A vector chart is a database of points -- objects such as buoys and lighthouses, depth soundings, contour and shore lines -- all of the data needed to construct the chart. If I call up a vector chart at a certain size, the software creates the chart on the fly, putting in an appropriate amount of detail for the scale required and making all the symbols an appropriate size. If I zoom in, the symbols and labels stay the same size. In fact, I can set my preferences for symbol size and the amount of data displayed. I can show the water areas in different colors for different depths, changing those according to the draft of the vessel I'm on. The system can warn me if I set a course near a danger. With all of that versatility, we should all be using vector charts, but I'm not, and I suspect most navigators are not -- a well drawn raster chart is easier to read than a vector chart of the same area. The difference, I think , lies in creativity of presentation, just as we acknowledge that a particular choice of words is creative and deserves copyright. Thus I think that raster created maps -- hand drawn, whether with a pencil or a mouse, deserve copyright. Vector charts do not, unless you believe in database copyright, because a vector chart is simply a database of annotated points and lines.

An analogy which may work -- translations have copyrights. New translations of the Bible are protected everywhere. I suspect, though, that if I hand Genesis to Google Translate, that the result will not have a copyright, no matter how good machine translation gets in the future. Similarly, I think that a human drawn raster map should have a copyright, where a machine drawn vector map would not.

Selectivity: Yes, no map can show every detail except at 1:1 scale. The cartographer must be selective.

Meshworks: Irrelevant. The intent of the final product of the Meshworks process was a digital file which, if fed to a large enough 3D printer would have produced an exact model of the car. Although it took a lot of work to achieve that file, I see no creativity there, so I agree with the decision. A map, on the other hand, is intended to create an easily readable and usable representation of the real world. The choice of what details to include, what symbols to use and their sizes, the choice of colors, the location and orientation of labels all contribute to making a map more or less readable.

I might also argue that as a map scale gets larger and larger (smaller area), that the creativity required goes down. The case we discussed about the plot plan is on point -- at very large scales -- building lot size, for example -- you can plot all of the relevant detail. My has little creativity because everything is shown, to scale. I'd say the crossover comes at about the size where city streets cannot be shown to scale -- somewhere between 1:1000 and 1:5000.

With all of that said, I know that copyright law is not always logical -- I'd like very much to see some case law that is closer to point than Meshworks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree re more similar/specific cases, it is an interesting issue and also very important for us. Rybkovich (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Expert opinions

Hi, Thanks for your offer, that's interesting. The first issue is how far can a professional give an opinion without being official legal advise. I really don't know where is the limit. The first issue that comes to mind is a long contentious issue, currently discussed again on the VP: URAA. I could easily come with dozens of difficult cases after digging into past cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yann I started looking at the URAA discussion. It doesn't seem like there are any unanswered legal questions. What I think is needed is an objective break down of arguments raised in previous discussions and conclusion that were reached by the community. Articles/discussions such as February 2012 WMF's URAA review statement in Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA, March 2014 Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge, April 2014 Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, Commons:Licensing/Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

So that there is an easy access to the reached agreements, so that editors arguments/questions can be more easily evaluated/answered. I will keep you updated. ----

Thanks for your analysis. It is always interesting to have the opinion of a professional. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Echo

Please don't actually type '@Revent' or the like when replying to a person, it does not notify them. Instead, use {{Ping}}, {{Reply}}, or {{Mention}}... any of those will activate the 'Echo' extension and actually ping them. Also, please be sure to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~. Thanks. Revent (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edit on AB

Hi, Your edit created quite a mess [2]. Could you fix that please? Regards, Yann (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Yann: Hi, I do not understand what you mean. Can you be more explicit?

Are you saying I deleted this: −

• Wikimedia Foundation states in February 2014:

  Indeed, to date, we have not received a single takedown notice under the URAA. A valid notice would provide us with the facts necessary to make a determination under the URAA. It requires information that may not be available to a Commons volunteer trying to make a decision without a takedown notice. So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. If we receive a valid takedown notice or get actual knowledge of infringement, we will do a full legal analysis of the work based on all the relevant information that is presented in that notice and vigorously resist any invalid notices.

I think it is pretty obvious that we should apply this WMF advice in this situation, since the copyright status of this image is very complex: the image is in public domain in its country of origin and there are not copyright holders nor licensees in the US. The argument in favour of the deletion is abstract and is not based on any concern, but in a mechanical application of URAA, while this case involves much complexity. In cases like this, Commons volunteers should not delete the content until WMF receives a valid takedown notice and they do a full legal analysis.--Pepe piton (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2016

If so should I paste it back in or should I undo my edit?

Hi, You removed edits which are not yours, including mine. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

---

@Yann: Both Pepe' comment:
Wikimedia Foundation states in February 2014:

Indeed, to date, we have not received a single takedown notice under the URAA. A valid notice would provide us with the facts necessary to make a determination under the URAA. It requires information that may not be available to a Commons volunteer trying to make a decision without a takedown notice. So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. If we receive a valid takedown notice or get actual knowledge of infringement, we will do a full legal analysis of the work based on all the relevant information that is presented in that notice and vigorously resist any invalid notices.

I think it is pretty obvious that we should apply this WMF advice in this situation, since the copyright status of this image is very complex: the image is in public domain in its country of origin and there are not copyright holders nor licensees in the US. The argument in favour of the deletion is abstract and is not based on any concern, but in a mechanical application of URAA, while this case involves much complexity. In cases like this, Commons volunteers should not delete the content until WMF receives a valid takedown notice and they do a full legal analysis.--Pepe piton (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"::Sorry, but I am not going to follow that. What I see here is a tentative by Odder to start again an old war. It is quite obvious that a majority of people do not support deletion of URAA afffected files in most cases, because it is quite difficult to determine if URAA applies or not. That IS the point made by WMF Legal department. That a few vocal users claim otherwise won't change anything. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

−

I changed my closing statement. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)"

and your comment:

""::Sorry, but I am not going to follow that. What I see here is a tentative by Odder to start again an old war. It is quite obvious that a majority of people do not support deletion of URAA afffected files in most cases, because it is quite difficult to determine if URAA applies or not. That IS the point made by WMF Legal department. That a few vocal users claim otherwise won't change anything. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)"

Are already in the main text. The issue that I "removed edits which are not yours, including mine" appears to be resolved. Or am I still misunderstanding and should do something else? I apologize for what happened. Rybkovich (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

AN

Being willing to admit an error is greatly appreciated... your position was not 'unreasonable', at all, but.. you ended up agreeing with me. Thanks. Revent (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Thank you, I appreciate it. Rybkovich (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi, I gave you the autopatroller bit. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for your confidence. Rybkovich (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Trinity Bay Canada.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Trinity Bay Canada.gif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 00:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

:@JuTa: Hey thanks for the notice. The file is from here http://www.btcrd.gov.nl.ca/pao/arch_in_nl/1996/leblanc_1996_dildo_is.html. It is in public domain because it is below the the level for originality. It is a Black and while outline of the bay, with region names added. If you agree, what PD tags you suggest I should add? I have {PD-Ineligible} listed, should I also put {PD-Canada}? Rybkovich (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Defence of transracialism article front page.jpg

File:Defence of transracialism article front page.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!

J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Meyer library stanford.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Meyer library stanford.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Elisfkc (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Bonfire before the cal stanford big game.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Bonfire before the cal stanford big game.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Elisfkc (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Flickr

Aloha! You could use the upload wizard. You'll be notified if you try to upload media with incompatible licenses. Just FYI. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I did, I think. I just realized that was not the allowable CC 2.00. Too bad. Rybkovich (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: But this should work? click me :) Rybkovich (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rybkovich (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Big Game Stanford Stadium 1925.jpg

Copyright status: File:Big Game Stanford Stadium 1925.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Big Game Stanford Stadium 1925.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I put in the right LOC reference

This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID pan.6a29005. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing.

Rybkovich (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Cal football team 1929 Nibs Price Herbert Hoover B.jpg

Copyright status: File:Cal football team 1929 Nibs Price Herbert Hoover B.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Cal football team 1929 Nibs Price Herbert Hoover B.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making sure, what is the issue specifically? I double checked the library of congress license and everything seems to be filled out correctly. Rybkovich (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Ride of the Valkyries U of Chicago.ogg

File:Ride of the Valkyries U of Chicago.ogg 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!

Jc86035 (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Die Walküre - Wotan's Monologue act 2 La Scala 1950.ogg

File:Die Walküre - Wotan's Monologue act 2 La Scala 1950.ogg 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!

Jc86035 (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2018 (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:Die Walküre - Brunhilde warns Siegmund about his death act 2.ogg

And also:

• File:Die Walküre Act 2 Prelude La Scala 1950.ogg
• File:Die Walküre 01 Vorspiel La Scala 1950.ogg
• File:Die Walkure Spring Song French Wagner.ogg

Yours sincerely, Jc86035 (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Cal Helmets Cropped.jpg

Hi, You DR is incomplete, that's why I reverted you. You should use the gadget to do it properly. Please fix it. Thanks, Yann (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien tile 1.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien tile 1.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien tile 1.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien tile 1.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien tile 3.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien tile 3.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien top passage.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien top passage.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien house.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien house.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien kitchen.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien kitchen.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien tile 4.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien tile 4.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien garden.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien garden.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien bathroom.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien bathroom.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien hallway 1.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien hallway 1.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien deck.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien deck.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Lothlorien courtyard.png

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Lothlorien courtyard.png, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:My Anus Is Bleeding.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:My Anus Is Bleeding.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 ([email protected]). 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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:My Anus Is Bleeding.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

So, here you claim to be Lewis Ames. --Túrelio (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Front door Kingman.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Front door Kingman.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 ([email protected]). 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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Front door Kingman.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

And here you claim to be John Storey. --Túrelio (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Alice in Wonderland Kingman.jpg

File:Alice in Wonderland Kingman.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: http://quirkyberkeley.com/the-murals-of-kingman-hall/ All content © 2021 by Quirky Berkeley. And anyway a derivative of the mural. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Túrelio (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Dan Kapelovitz.png

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Dan Kapelovitz.png. 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 ([email protected]). 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). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Dan Kapelovitz.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

reppop^talk 23:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)