User talk:Sacredhands

License tagging for Image:Lightship nantucket color.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lightship nantucket color.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Age Revisions
I believe you've misread the edit summary. It says ''Reverted 2 edits by 69.245.210.232 identified as vandalism to last revision by Sacredhands. using TW) (undo)''. The edits by 69.245.210.232 were identified as vandalism, not yours. Yours was the one reverted to. :) Moonriddengirl 01:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Warnings
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | interiot's tool | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

July 2007

 * Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  Mdwyer 05:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Byron
The images you are adding to the Byron Nuclear Generating Station appear to be copyright violations. I couldn't find anything that said the files were licensed under CC-2.5. I only found this copyright notice: "All images on this site are copyrighted and may not be used without written permission". (As well as this general notice.) If you are the author, please include a notice on the website source that states these files are released under the terms of the license used here. Otherwise, they will probably get deleted. They are truly awesome photos so I hope you can add that notice to the source images. IvoShandor 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also I had tagged this image,Image:Byron nuclear generating station exelon.jpg for speedy deletion, but I put a hold on that because I think you might be willing to clear up the copyright confusion. I would recommend GFDL licensing because it is much less likely that a company would use an image licensed under the GFDL for their commercial purposes because the license requires that they release their use of it under the same free license, highly unlikely any company would want to do this. Note that licenses which restrict commercial use are not allowed on Wikimedia projects. IvoShandor 12:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, I meant no offense by removing your photo, and tagging it. If you are the author, I am only trying to protect your rights under copyright. IvoShandor 12:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Flickr license still says "All rights reserved" which precludes commercial use and isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. Please change the license to acceptable terms. If it isn't changed the images will have to be deleted. Thanks Sacredhands. : ) IvoShandor 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nice job on filling out this page. Lots of interesting information. Not sure if the panorama is too big, but it looks better big. Sacredhands


 * (edit conflict)It might be a bit large, but panoramas can generally be larger than most images. Not sure if the section placement is appropriate, hope you won't be offended if I end up moving it around and maybe shrinking it just a bit. I have undertaken an expansion of the article that isn't completely finished so there may be a better spot for it when all is said and done. Thanks again for your contributions and attention to this copyright matter. It is greatly appreciated by me, and the rest of the community (as well as the countless throngs of readers around here). After edit conflict comment: Thanks for the compliment! : ) IvoShandor 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling this might happen, you have changed the flickr license to "Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0," while a CC license it isn't acceptable here because of the non-commercial clause. Examples of acceptable licenses include the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 and the GFDL. Sorry this is such a hassle, but its part of the mission, a free, as in libre, content encyclopedia. IvoShandor 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed Flickr setting to Attribution Creative Commons for both images. Sacredhands
 * Awesome man. The only thing I see, which probably isn't a huge deal, is that the license here still says 2.5 and your Flickr license (which is totally fine now) says 2.0. And for your efforts, don't know if you are in to these are not but you jumped through all the copyright hoops this morning and took what I think are some pretty nice photos, so:




 * IvoShandor 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pamploma
Nice photograph, well done! (And by-3.0 is an excellent choice for license, I use it myself.) Sdedeo (tips) 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Selita ebanks victorias secret top super model.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Selita banks victorias secret top super model.jpg. The copy called Image:Selita banks victorias secret top super model.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 13:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Paul newman menomonee falls wisconsin mcarthy eugene rally.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Paul newman menomonee falls wisconsin mcgovern rally.jpg. The copy called Image:Paul newman menomonee falls wisconsin mcgovern rally.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

removal of image
the removed image is placed back. the cc license was set in flickr. a simple note to me would have resolved this issue. :) Sacredhands —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The second picture is copyrighted. If you are the owner of the picture contact permissions at wikimedia dot org in order to attain permission to upload the file. M. (er) 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just look at Talk:Julia Allison to see what I have done with the images. M. (er) 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ana Beatriz Barros
I am going to alert the admin board to your actions, which seem geared toward self-promotion. You also violated the 3RR rule on this page. -- David  Shankbone  13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if anyone is going to take you task, it should be me. You can check out my own user page.  -- David  Shankbone  13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the article to use the free image. This is not a difficult choice for a free encyclopedia.  Of course if you wish to remove the stipulations from your photographs, we can re-consider the photos on their own merit.  E LIMINATOR  JR  14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * free over quality does not make for a quality wikipedia. this is really about david wanting to be the first image. If it means that much to him, I'm happy to put my second. quality will win out every time.Sacredhands 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's about freedom, although the "wanting to be the first image" argument rings of WP:KETTLE calling the pot black. I also think my image is, frankly, better than yours.  I notice an IP address from Springfield, Massachusetts reverted EliminatorJR.  -- David  Shankbone  15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, quality will out over mediocrity any day. happy to be second to please your inner child.Sacredhands 15:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, although I find it amusing. -- David  Shankbone  15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When self-interested opinion gets in the way of aesthetic the world suffers.Sacredhands 15:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How are you immune from any of the criticisms you lodge? I have hundreds of notable photographs, and I don't require my byline on any of them.  Unlike you, I actually meet the people in their homes and offices, which is a far greater investment of time and editing.  I'm well known on this site, and you sound silly saying such things.  -- David  Shankbone  15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Get over the byline issue. It's a non-issue. Creative Commons allows anyone to set the terms of their licensing. The fact that you embed your name in the image title and put your name in the summary is your choice. The fact that I choose to be credited beneath the photo is my choice. Looking at Ana's backside is not a flattering portrait of her. It's voyeuristic and clearly represents a male point of view that feminist's have made an effort to eliminate from society. Again, that's your choice if you think that represents her best interest. I disagree. Sacredhands 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is my opinion of how your conditions interact with Wikipedia image use policy. Conditon 1 is acceptable as long as the link is on the image decription page; it should not be on every page the image is used (no credits in captions, see Image_use_policy). Conditon 2 is not acceptable per Image_use_policy. Condition 3 is a courtesy; however since you are uploading your own photos, you can check "what links here" any time you want. Condition 4 is not acceptable, in my opinion, because we have no control over how a freely-licensed photo may be used 6 months from now; making written notification a requirement rather than a courtesy creates too great a likelihood that your images will be used in a manner that contradicts the license and therefore makes them unfree. In summary, I believe your images can not be considered "freely licensed" unless you modify your license requirements, and as unfree, they are subject to the normal rules on use of unfree copyrighted images (deletion when orphaned, fair use justification required, etc.) Thatcher131 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Use of photos found on Wikipedia exist under two conditions: 1. there are used within the Wikipedia site or 2. they are used outside the Wikipedia site. For those instances where the images are used outside the site, then the caption "Photograph by ..." seems totally appropriate. This has been the standard way of crediting photographs for years. What is acceptable under Creative Commons Attribution versus its use under Wikipedia ALONE is at issue for me. Sacredhands 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What you don't understand is that images on Wikipedia must be usable on mirrors and forks. Therefore condition 4 is not acceptable. It is our choice to not be willing to credit authors in image captions (which makes us unable to use your image, per CC-A). Keep also in mind that in the case of living people, we don't accept non-free images. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this work?

For images that appear in Wikipedia:

Attribution Rules under Creative Commons license:

1. Use of photo outside the Wikipedia website must include the caption: &quot;Photograph by Christopher Peterson.&quot; Within the Wikipedia website: according to Wikipedia Image Use Policy conditions.

2. Use of photo outside the Wikipedia website must include a link to my website: christopherpeterson.com

3. As a courtesy, I would appreciate being informed of any use of my photos in any medium for any purposes. Sacredhands 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about something along these lines?
 * 1. Either the caption "Photograph by Christopher Peterson." and a link to the website christopherpeterson.com must appear below the image, or, if the image is used in an online medium, the image itself may be a hyperlink to a separate page providing this information.
 * 2. As a courtesy, I would appreciate being informed of any use of my photos in any medium for any purposes.
 * This has the benefit of working for wikipedia without a special "in wikipedia" clause, since this (a link from the image to a page giving the credit/licensing info) is how wikipedia does things, and this way would allow mirrors/forks. Is this arrangement (i.e. image may be hyperlinked to a page giving byline info and website link anywhere, not just wikipedia) acceptable to you? —Random832 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Works for me. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the issue. I appreciate it. Sacredhands 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems good! Thanks :) -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sartorialist
What was the copyright violation? I'll fix it since it was my photo. Thanks. Sacredhands 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Scott schuman sartorialist bryant park fashion week photographer.jpg was deleted because it appeared to be a copyright violation. Specifically, it had been copied from flickr but the source page made no mention of the license. Therefore I assumed that you had copied it in violation of copyright. If you are the copyright owner, of course, then you don't need to put it there, but should instead use the license tag . I'll restore the image with that tag now. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Edgar bronfman jr.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Edgar bronfman jr.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't listed this yet. It appears you are Christopher Peterson, the photographer.  If that's correct, please change the image page.  It should not say Flickr is the source, since you yourself actually are.  Instead, write something like "Photograph taken by Christopher Peterson (User:Sacredhands)".  The license tag can stay.  Thanks, and sorry for the confusion. Superm401 - Talk 06:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the source to my actual domain name. does that work or should I add the sacredhands link as well? thanks.Sacredhands 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Papa November 12:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Papa November 12:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Odette Henriette Jacqmin


The article Odette Henriette Jacqmin has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable. Can't find any sources/coverage myself, and article creator could only offer a blog and two links selling products.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Sacredhands! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Odette Henriette Jacqmin -

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Suzy menkes wwd fashion critic writer.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Suzy menkes wwd fashion critic writer.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Redsky89 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ica institute contemporary art boston waterfront gallery.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ica institute contemporary art boston waterfront gallery.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ica barbara lee family foundation theater boston ma.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ica barbara lee family foundation theater boston ma.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Stephen a scharzman blackstone equity group hedge fund.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stephen a scharzman blackstone equity group hedge fund.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Derek Blasberg


A tag has been placed on Derek Blasberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://web.archive.org/web/20071101064802/http://derekblasberg.com/Site%202/Welcome.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Shar jackson ex wife kfed fashion week 2007 ny christopher peterson photographer.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Shar jackson ex wife kfed fashion week 2007 ny christopher peterson photographer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XXN, 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Derek blasberg writer christopher peterson photography ny.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Derek blasberg writer christopher peterson photography ny.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XXN, 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Gregory crewdson pittsfield ma photographer.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gregory crewdson pittsfield ma photographer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XXN, 19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Brooklyn bridge fulton park new york.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Brooklyn bridge fulton park new york.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XXN, 19:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Institute contemporary art boston museum ica panorama.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Institute contemporary art boston museum ica panorama.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. XXN, 19:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Institute contemporary art boston museum ica panorama.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Institute contemporary art boston museum ica panorama.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Santiago calatravas milwaukee art museum panorama.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Santiago calatravas milwaukee art museum panorama.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ica exterior institute contemporary art boston.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Ica exterior institute contemporary art boston.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Derek blasberg writer christopher peterson photography ny.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Derek blasberg writer christopher peterson photography ny.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 01:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)