Light show

Oona O'Neill photo

Sorry, but no. The back shows it was taken in London by Paul Popper there.

• Try this. It's from the New York World-Telegram Sun and WP uses a lot of PD photos from it. The PD tag for the photos from the collection. We hope (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. --Light show (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations

---

Hello Light show. You have uploaded one or more files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful. This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

-FASTILY 00:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• You just approved the deletion of a Carly Simon image for no logical reason. The deletion was first made because an editor felt he needed to see the reverse side of the photo. I stated that I owned the photo, that the reverse side was blank, and that I would if asked scan and show it. You simply ignored that in your rationale:

There is no evidence presented to substantiate this (probably false) PD claim.

For the record, I fail to see how that is a copyvio by any stretch of the imagination. I have also been under the misassumption that Commons editors respected AGF guidelines, since most of your rationales include, "probably false," which implies the exact opposite. --Light show (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this and this, which were created with photos you uploaded after I warned you about uploading photos of questionable copyright status. Since you have decided to ignore my warning, you are blocked until you decide you are ready to adhere to our copyright policies -FASTILY 22:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, noticed you coincidentally blocked me within a few minutes after I requested undeletion of a photo, which has nothing to do with uploading anything. --Light show (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case, as it's apparent from this discussion, as long as the "Commons policies" appear to contradict and override well established U.S. law, I'll have to stick with the law. --Light show (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Re: Brando photo: Per the discussion to undelete this photo, besides mine, there were two independent opinions about its PD status. One, by Jim Woodward, was essentially an "arguable" opinion, relying primarily on a boilerplate statement printed by the studios to return the photo after using, and using that as proof that it was never published.

The essentially opposing opinion, by Carl Lindberg, was based solely on stated law, not opinion, with a supporting link to the main Warner Brothers case (7/2011) covering the issue. That case makes it totally clear that a "general publication" occurred because it was intended to publicize a film.

In all of my uploads, I rely on U.S. copyright law, not that of the EU or UK, whose laws are totally different. It seems strange to permanently block an editor who has uploaded many valuable images because he relies on U.S. copyright law, and uses the same copyright tags- mostly U.S.- when doing so. The result is that you are punishing an editor for not violating the law. If I were to upload a U.S. PD image, but claimed its status based on UK or EU laws which nullified its PD status, I would be violating U.S. law along with WP guidelines. It would force me to commit "third-party" copyfraud, by claiming a U.S. PD image was not in fact PD, and was assumed (as Masem stated) to be copyrighted by someone, somewhere, somehow, outside the U.S. I think I should be unblocked and you should revise your tags instead by eliminating all U.S. law. --Light show (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Mass deletions by User talk:Fastily: Over the last few minutes, they bot-tagged nearly 200 650 PD images for deletion based on an irrelevant rationale, once again simply ignoring PD law in the U.S. --Light show (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed that from a random survey of the photos tagged, the average one is used on around five different articles, typically as a lead image. That would mean that over 3,000 articles will be affected. A few dozen were self-taken photos and others were either from the U.S. government or older than 1923. --Light show (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

All bot tags have since been reverted. --Light show (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "There's no way to respond to new deletion requests, such as File:Grace Kelly - High Society.jpg, File:Julie Andrews - 1967.jpg and File:Piper Laurie - 1952.jpg. All commenting editors for all the newly-tagged images are incorrect in their rationales, in fact the rationale for Laurie is totally ridiculous. Also, some of the above explanations should be considered." Decline reason: "No real reason for unblocking was given. That a block disables you to respond to DRs is normal. A block is meant to prevent users from editing. Jcb (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

--Light show (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

For the Piper Laurie photo, for example, a "Motion Picture" copyright is totally separate from a photograph copyright, and each requires a separate registration form. Movies receive a "PA" (Performing Arts) copyright and photos would received a "VA" (Visual Arts) copyright. Therefore the details about the movie copyright are irrelevant to publicity photos, as pointed out to the same tagging editor on previously tagged photos, which were subsequently "Kept." This is not a screen shot. --Light show (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File:James Caan - tribune.jpg

File:James Caan - tribune.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!

We hope (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Wood - Beatty - Splendor.jpg

File:Wood - Beatty - Splendor.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!

We hope (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Deleted comments about this image can be read here. --Light show (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Another erroneous deletion? File:Armand Assante - 1984.JPG

That image was uploaded from an ebay press photo site, and included front and back, with no copyright notice. Yet it was speedy deleted as "insufficient information to verify no notice claim." --Light show (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Ann Sheridan - 1939.jpg

File:Ann Sheridan - 1939.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!

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Orson Welles - AE.jpg

File:Orson Welles - AE.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!

WFinch (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Pia Zadora - 1985.jpg

File:Pia Zadora - 1985.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!

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Roy Scheider - 1977.jpg

File:Roy Scheider - 1977.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!

94.220.234.126 14:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Maud Adams - 1974.jpg

File:Maud Adams - 1974.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!

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe another career image like this one could be uploaded to the Commons by someone with access. --Light show (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Wallach - Malden - 1956.jpg

File:Wallach - Malden - 1956.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!

We hope (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:John Wayne 1972.jpg

File:John Wayne 1972.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!

We hope (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Theodore Bikel - 1972-B.jpg

File:Theodore Bikel - 1972-B.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!

We hope (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "As requested, I will include a reverse side image when needed, which was one of the main problems noted, and will include any proof of publication. I've been doing this for years now anyway, except when all relevant details were already on the front and a renewal was not filed. Nor is it possible to respond to the continual deletion requests from an editor, such as this one, when the notice on my talk page states, "We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry." FWIW, in that last DR, the rationale given for the DR is, "Without knowing which studio produced this, there's no way to be sure if it was renewed or not." However, as I explained clearly in a similar DR for Don Murray, which was kept, the name of the studio is not needed. And as another editor observed, the text on Monroe's photo is not a valid copyright notice. Without the opportunity to respond to DRs many other images will continue to be deleted, as these were." Decline reason: "The letter c in a circle is a copyright notice. I don't think you agree to the terms, rules, and regulations here. After being blocked so many times, and switching to a new account, you should know better. Uncontroversial contributions doubtful. Com:PCP, for the better of the project." Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Light show (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record: User:Fastily blocked this account while User:Denniss blocked the User:Wikiwatcher1 account at the same time. The user has been the subject of an en:WP CCI for some time. In November 2014 he was blocked from uploading images to en:WP for the same related issues. The user asked for the ban to be lifted at en:WP in March 2015; it remains in place. We hope (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Leon Uris - 1969.jpg

File:Leon Uris - 1969.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!

B (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Library of Congress did a survey years ago about whether such Wirephotos were copyrighted, and they found that they weren't. Anyone can verify that with User:We Hope who originally posted that fact. --Light show (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote found: "Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed."--Light show (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the fears expressed in the DR, that "the date on this photo is 1969, so the post 1963 caution from the LOC legal department would seem to apply here." That would only be true if there was a "proper notice," as implied by the LOC. The U.S. has clear copyright rules with specific dates, whereas "Copyright registration doesn't exist in Europe and there is no such thing as "renewing" a copyright. A copyright notice has no legal meaning." This is a U.S. photo.

And FWIW, the result of that clear difference is that someone like Honor Blackman is stuck with a poor lead image, instead of one more honorable for an actress. Excuse the digression. --Light show (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Per the recent comments by en:User:We hope, From what's been said by LOC, checking the original registrations won't solve this issue because they're saying that the post-1963 photos may be protected regardless of their registration status, that would only pertain to a photo that had a proper notice, as the LOC made clear. And even if they didn't, their library's opinion would not overrule U.S. copyright law.

In any case, a notice is only a "notice of intent" for copyright purposes, which only gives the publisher 5 years to register it formally, at their expense. After that, it is presumed to be PD, and someone using it has a "complete defense" to infringement. The reason that press photos were not copyrighted was because it would have been ridiculous to pay an attorney and copyright fees to register tens of thousands of press photos whose value is only good for a few days, except in rare cases.

There is also a concept in the U.S., called the "reasonable person" standard. For a photo like this one, where there is full typed description, title, name of source, and date, clearly printed on the front, it would be "reasonable" to assume that if a copyright notice was printed, it would be on the front. There are more logical reasons why a worthless press photo like this one would not be copyrighted, but this "analysis-to-paralysis" discussion should be enough. If not, why doesn't someone simply pass this question back across the Atlantic to the WMF HQ and get a clear legal opinion instead of debating this by European standards, whose laws are nearly the opposite of ours for pre-1989 photos? --Light show (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Potentially not just pre-1989 photos, but many other photos also. Will tourists even be allowed to carry cameras? Who knows? --Light show (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Geraldine Chaplin - Omar Sharif.jpg

File:Geraldine Chaplin - Omar Sharif.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!

George Ho (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is obviously not a copy, but an original, if you look at the reverse side. --Light show (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

File:With Patton.JPG

File:With Patton.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!

Damiens.rf 17:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You can revise the license to PD-Pre1964 since the publication was not renewed. You can also change author to "unknown photographer" --Light show (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Portrait sitting.jpg

This image is another tagged for deletion but without notice to me, the original uploader. There is no explanation of why the source given is not enough. This was an original photo possibly not yet published on the web. Nor were typical press photos ever registered in any case.--Light show (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Jolson-Korea.jpg

This image is another tagged for deletion but without notice to me, the original uploader. The photo was taken in 1950; only the the book was published in 1975, which probably used the photo from some archive. Photos require their own separate copyright registration and would not be covered by the book published 25 years later. In any case, I found no copyright renewals for the photo or anything remotely similar for 1978, the required renewal date. If this wasn't an army-taken photo, it would still be unlikely that a press photo was copyrighted or renewed for the reasons explained above. --Light show (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Rod Steiger - 1961.jpg

File:Rod Steiger - 1961.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!

Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This DR is a response to my suggestions at en:Talk:Rod_Steiger#No_infobox, and my reply about the tag is noted there.--Light show (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Who needs copyright laws anyway? Not us.

File:Omar Sharif - Zhivago - 1965.jpg
Could be copyrightable and owned by MGM, even when the copyright notice is omitted. George Ho (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Deleted: unclear (c) status Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Light show (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to fix redirects

My user name pages have not been redirected. Therefore, my old talk page messages do not show up on this one. Also, my main user page does not get redirected either. And when on that page, if you click on talk, it only goes to the new talk page. Can anyone revise or add the redirects? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Roy Orbison - 1960s.jpg

File:Roy Orbison - 1960s.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!

We hope (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "As User talk:Fastily is no longer active, I'm requesting lifting the block here. The primary reasons for the block have all been agreed to by me, including showing a reverse side image when needed, having complete descriptions with correct license tags, and including supporting proof of publication. I have also offered to post a link or description of images on my talk page before uploading to gain pre-approval. I'm well aware of and respect the precautionary principle and do my best to abide by it. For verifying copyright in the U.S. I'm familiar with and have access to the Catalog of Copyright, online or hardcopy. I use the U.S. Copyright online search. If there are other reasons for keeping the block that I need to agree to, can someone present them? Consideration for the request would be appreciated. Thanks.--Light show (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)" Unblock reason: "I think a 'conditional' unblock here is reasonable, given that this is an old block and that the user has continued to reply to issues on their talk page, with the understanding that the user will comply with the restrictions to which he has committed (prior posting to his talk page, in particular). I would think that a 'short leash' on such issues would be reasonable, however... I would support a prompt indefinite reblock upon any evidence of misbehavior in the future. Follow the restrictions that you stated in this request, and you will be fine. Upload problematic images without prior discussion, and a block will be permanent. Revent (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Photos for review

I created a subpage of potential photos to upload. Editors are invited to review these for comments or approval. --Light show (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(regarding your question to me on that subpage) I've been keeping an eye on that page, and I'll try to give you a better response later, but briefly I think you should try as hard as possible to err on the side of being cautious as far as assuming anything. It would really be best if you could mange to find a couple of other knowledgable editors (maybe by poking people who have been active in DR'ing uploads of your in the past, or asking some friendly admins) who were willing to watchlist that page and give feedback. I don't really like the idea, given the history, of making an assumption of 'tacit' approval without knowing that more people are keeping an eye on it, and not just 'driving by'. Also, it wouldn't be really appropriate if I was the only person 'rubberstamping' your uploads, since I'm the admin who gave you another chance by unblocking you. Revent (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

To give a better response, now that I've had a moment to ponder this (and, to be honest, given the arguments you are making) I don't think it's a good idea, at all, to let you assume any kind of 'tacit approval' at all. I think you are still... let's say, vague, about what is sufficient evidence of a work being under copyright to make it clearly not acceptable. It's a matter of 'due diligence', really... given that you have a long history of people questioning if you have really checked, or if you have discounted evidence that would exclude a work under the PRP, you really need some editors (other than me) who are willing to verify that they have done it for you before you upload. I might take some effort and reaching out on your part to find people who are willing to work with you on this, but that is the intent of the restriction under which you were unblocked... explicit 'approval' of new images that you suggest before uploading. Revent (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Lumet-1950s.jpg

File:Lumet-1950s.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!

Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The same concern applies to File:Lumet-1950s-cropped.jpg. I'm afraid with no information on the publication, the copyright status of these images is speculative. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: As I commented at the DR, this is a 1968 photo, and under the management of Getty Images. Fairly obvious copyvio, IMO. Revent (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Revent. I've tagged both the main and the cropped for speedy deletion accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Lumet-Caine-1982.jpg

File:Lumet-Caine-1982.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!

Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Uploading conditions

Just as a note, before the issue is raised, the uploading by Light show of 'modern' {{Own work}} images, that were taken with a cellphone camera and have not been previously published on the internet (such as File:American River North.jpg) should not, IMO as the unblocking admin, be considered a violation of his unblock conditions. They deserve scrutiny, of course, given the previous problems, but such images were not the subject of the long-standing copyright concerns. Similarly, the mere 'modification' of an existing image, without changing the licensing, is not a 'new upload' or a 'new assertion' of an images copyright status, and so not a violation of the terms... it will, however, obviously 'flag' the image for an examination of the original claim, which might result in deletion. Revent (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind adding the "modification" opinion to this DR, so the fixed image can be used? --Light show (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That file is on the English Wikipedia, not Commons. I have nothing to do with your restrictions there, and you are AFAIK explicitly banned from uploading any images to the English Wikipedia. Revent (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Debbie Reynolds - self 1975.jpg

File:Debbie Reynolds - self 1975.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!

Revent (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to close that as withdrawn, my watchlist is essentially unusable (80k+ pages) so sometimes it can take me a bit to notice some edits. Revent (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Peter Falk - Gena Rowlands.jpg

File:Peter Falk - Gena Rowlands.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!

Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Lamarr patent.png

I think you're probably incorrect about the authorship, there... that actual document was published by the USCO, certainly, but appears to be the text of the patent application written by the inventors (or someone else, on their behalf). Still, almost undoubtedly PD. Revent (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In 1941 they would have used a typewriter on a application, not a typesetting machine, which this was done by. --Light show (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean it's the 'application itself'... it's obviously typeset, I mean it's the 'text' of the application, republished by the USCO. It's written as 'our system', not from the perspective of the USCO describing a patent. Revent (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Robert De Niro - 1971.jpg

File:Robert De Niro - 1971.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!

czar 22:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Robert De Niro - 1976.jpg

File:Robert De Niro - 1976.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!

czar 22:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kirk Douglas Walk of Fame Star.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Kirk Douglas Walk of Fame Star.png. 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, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Medal of Arts award 2012.jpg

The data you give on this file page is wrong. The 'source' for the file is not the whitehouse.gov page that you linked (which actually has no images), it's apparently (after hunting around) a still from a video on the White House YouTube feed. The source you give for something that is not your own work should be where you, personally obtained the actual work. Please fix (you can use {{From Youtube}}, even). Thanks. Revent (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I appended the source with the White House Youtube video. I was doing a lot of hasty edits and fixes to her article so I apparently got confused, although I had the correct source link in the image's caption on her page. --Light show (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Barbra Streisand pictures?

Hey! I've noticed your wonderful work collecting pictures from eBay. My knowledge about how this works is equal to zero, so if you could offer a helping hand, I would be (more than) grateful! I need some more Barbra Streisand pictures, but I don't know how it works. Help? (please tag me in respond) Torfilm (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:Dr Jonas Edward Salk (cropped).jpg. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

Revent^talk 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Linda Eastman 1960s.jpg

File:Linda Eastman 1960s.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!

Ariadacapo (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Gilda Radner - 1980.jpg

File:Gilda Radner - 1980.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!

INeverCry 20:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Monroe 1953 publicity.jpg

File:Monroe 1953 publicity.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!

SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Ohio algal bloom.jpg

File:Ohio algal bloom.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!

Eureka Lott 14:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Dead fish in algae.jpg

File:Dead fish in algae.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!

Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Buy images or download

Do you buy the images from EBay or do you download them from the website? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done both. --Light show (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Einstein 1933.jpg

File:Einstein 1933.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!

Revent^talk 20:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I, Kaldari, hereby award Light Show the Barnstar of Diligence for finding so many useful images to add to Commons, and diligently verifying their public domain status. Kaldari (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--Light show (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Léonard Cohen

Bonjour, vous avez cru bon écraser la version originale de la photo par votre fichier recadré. Je sous signale que cela n'est pas permis, vous devez créer une nouvelle page avec un nom différent. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Simple cropping is usually fine. --Light show (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ce n'est pas juste un simple recadrage, c'est la destruction d’une œuvre originale de son auteur, donc renommez ! --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Will do. --Light show (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Merci et bonne journée ! --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Valley trailer 67.jpg

File:Valley trailer 67.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!

Winkelvi (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Both files were speedy deleted, yet I responded with proof of their validity. They were deleted without any rationale or reply, and not per DR guidelines, and based solely on an automatic presumption that the tagger's rationale was correct. There was no time for any of the regular copyright editors to review and comment at the DR. It would be nice if a proper review of these images was made with some actual discussion or justification given, if there is one. Another editor's comment at the article's talk page didn't give one either. --Light show (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Valley trailer 67-2.jpg

File:Valley trailer 67-2.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!

Winkelvi (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

AN/U

You should be informed that a thread regarding you has been opened at AN/U. Revent^talk 09:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Carl Reiner 1960 still.jpg

File:Carl Reiner 1960 still.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!

Kaldari (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• User:Kaldari, since you just restored the image, can you chime in since it got deleted again. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Misc. notes on proxy requests

One of the recommendations from MRG when she blocked me from uploading images at En/WP was that I get others to upload for me. I've done that a number of times, ie. here. It's fully allowed unless I hear otherwise. Although, to be honest, I've found few editors who knew how. After an ITN RD of a famous journalist which also made the front pages in the U.S., his lengthy article lacked any image. Yet it took two weeks for someone to finally upload one after I made the request and provided all the minute details including the proper license. And We hope has never offered to upload anything from any of my requests.--Light show (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense block

Lightshow, I unblocked your account and retracted my comments on the noticeboard. I am sorry I made the mistake of accusing you of fraud by falsifying information on the Carl Reiner photograph. You have the right to complain at the noticeboard and you may also start a de-sysop procedure if you desire. Again, I am sorry for being so stupid not to read the information given correctly. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not an issue; mistakes happen. --Light show (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you. For details see the discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard.

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for conditional unblock

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "1. Am kindly requesting an unblock for self-taken photos. I already have dozens of self-taken images uploaded with some used in articles, including lead image. I would like the ability to comment or modify, if necessary, or upload other self-taken photos. 2. I would also like the ability to repair or improve already uploaded images added by others. A recent example is this image, which I cropped and adjusted for tone. 3. I would like a reconsideration of my current block. It was added due to unusual cicrcumstances: The reporting copyvio editor at EN/WP was engaged in an edit war with me and another editor. That reporting editor came to the Commons specifically to have me indeffed, and has himself been blocked numerous times, and I believe is currently blocked for edit warring. The other editor he was warring with was also reported by him and was immediately blocked for being a sock. I believe that apparent retaliatory edits are a form of bad faith and targeting which should be considered. 4. In my case, that editor originally reported a copyvio for unusual reasons: I added a frame from a trailer that had no notice. He looked for and found another trailer for the same movie which did have a notice. It was based on that forensic and major search effort that he got me blocked here. I think the technical nature of the block should be considered. Should the block be lifted, I would naturally continue to ask for pre-approval of any uploads as I did for the previous year before the current block. Thanks for any consideration. Light show (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)" Decline reason: "There is no indication that the reasons the user was blocked before have been resolved. The user's history of blocks and unblocks gives me no confidence for an unblock. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Your ability to obfuscate and wholly misrepresent the truth is stunning, seriously. You were indeffed because you repeated behavior you were blocked for previously: uploading copyrighted material. Anyone who wants to see the evidence and discussion only need to go here [1] for how it all played out and why the decision was made to have you indeffed. For further evidence that unblocking at this time would be a bad idea, look at this very talk page, starting with the first entry. Copyvios have been an issue with you for a long time. You've been blocked for it before, have even been prohibited at en.wikipedia from uploading files because of your continued copyvio issues. Nothing has convinced you to stop, so the community spoke, admins listened. While an Indef does, by definition, mean "until further notice", it sure as hell doesn't mean just four months. Especially with your history. Copyvios are one of the worst, most egregious and damaging of infractions here. Four months indef sure doesn't cut it for a lesson learned and signal received, not in my book. And definitely when you consider how you're downplaying the behavior that finally got you indeffed and are trying to blame it on others. Winkelvi (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for conditional unblock

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Am requesting an unblock for essentially the same reasons stated in previous request, along with a few other reasons below 1. As can be shown, I have added many dozens of valuable PD images to bios after requesting and receiving approval from Commons reviewers, such as from user:Clindberg. The reason for the latest block relied on a fluke and unintended addition. It is rare that such an insignificant trailer capture is challenged by another editor who searched for another trailer that did show a notice, and finding one, used it to indef an otherwise responsible uploader. The image could simply have been tagged and removed, and I would have removed it myself. 2. I have tried to improve bios lacking any lead image by posting a photo request notice along with links to numerous PD or Non-free images (if the person is deceased.) However, it seems that no editors are available or capable to adding them, or even replying with a reason. 3. A recent example of a lead PD image which could easily improve a bio lead is that of Stan Laurel, which is blurry, shows him in character, and actually lacks a verifiable date or primary source. An apparent PD image such as this one, showing him in a natural and clearer pose, along with publication date, would improve his bio IMO. 4. And again, I would continue asking for approval for images found. Thanks for any reconsideration. --Light show (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)" Decline reason: "I consider myself totally impartial, because I have neither blocked nor unblocked you never and I have not participated in discussions about you. But now I read Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_62#Light show and copyvios and I see, that consensus in Commons is that you must remain blocked. Reason of your block was not one or two cases, but overall broader unacceptable attitude: uploading a lot of copyright violations during long period. Unblocking you less than year after indefinite block would be unfair. Taivo (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Your continued ability to obfuscate and wholly misrepresent the truth remains stunning, seriously. You were indeffed because you repeated behavior you were blocked for previously: uploading copyrighted material. Anyone who wants to see the evidence and discussion only need to go here [2] for how it all played out and why the decision was made to have you indeffed. For further evidence that unblocking at this time would be a bad idea, look at this very talk page, starting with the first entry. Copyvios have been an issue with you for a long time. You've been blocked for it before, have even been prohibited at en.wikipedia from uploading files because of your continued copyvio issues. Nothing has convinced you to stop, so the community spoke, admins listened. While an Indef does, by definition, mean "until further notice", it sure as hell doesn't mean eight months when you still come back with blaming others for your own, repeated bad choices and dishonesty that continued for years. Copyvios are one of the worst, most egregious and damaging of infractions here. Eight months indef, no remorse or understanding of your repeated copyvios and still putting the blame on others sure doesn't cut it for a lesson learned and signal received, not in my book. Continuing to downplay the behavior that finally got you indeffed that you are trying to blame on others, no remorse or understanding of why you received this block only continues to demonstrate you're here for you, and you alone. If I were an admin, I'd deny your request in a heartbeat. Hopefully, an admin will do the same. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Leon Russell Shelter promo.jpg

File:Leon Russell Shelter promo.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!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Jack Benny - 1964.jpg

File:Jack Benny - 1964.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!

101.175.27.151 07:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Arthur-miller.jpg

File:Arthur-miller.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!

Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for conditional unblock

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "1=Am requesting another unblock for essentially the same reasons stated in previous requests. I came across some high quality PD images of Olivia de Havilland and Errol Flynn which would be great for her bio, since it has none of them together. I'm also hoping to get the block removed, now that other editors have been uploading acceptable PD images using the same rationales of many of my previous uploads. Any reconsideration after two years would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)" Decline reason: "COM:BLOCK requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. The mere passage of time is not considered--that the earth has revolved twice about the sun is arbitrary and communicates nothing about your understanding--and an indefinite block could be lifted after two seconds or remain after two decades. This request does not address the reason(s) for your block, that you understand such reason(s), or credibly commit to refrain therefrom going forward. Эlcobbola talk 14:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

File:Marisa Berenson and Ryan O'Neal in Barry Lyndon.jpg

File:Marisa Berenson and Ryan O'Neal in Barry Lyndon.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!

SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User talk:SchroCat, my rationale: Per "RetroFilm Vault, The Ultimate Public Domain Movies & TV Archive,": "In the eyes of copyright law – a Movie Trailer is considered a separate work and would require a separate copyright on the trailer itself. Most studios did not copyright their trailers." There was no copyright found from a thorough search. In fact, I've never found a copyright for any trailer. Like publicity stills, they were always meant to be free and widely distributed in order to promote the film. The copyright seen on the trailer only refers to the film. --Light show (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Bruce Willis - 1987.jpg

File:Bruce Willis - 1987.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!

George Ho (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

George, I'm unable to edit there. What do you suggest? --Light show (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So sorry about that. The "Nominate for deletion" tool automatically notifies you. You can take down the whole thread if you want. George Ho (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Since neither of the two DRs have good rationales, George, I'd rather they be taken down also. Or can I just use this thread to give the reasons and have them added, since I'm the person who uploaded them? --Light show (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Umm... I don't think I'm the right person to ask. Blocked users are dealt with case-by-case. You may want to use {{Helpme}} to ask someone else if you like. --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

George, I remember a while back that We Hope did that for me on at least one image DR they posted. So I assume it's fine. They just copied it and said it was from the uploader. I think it was even kept. --Light show (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

All right. I'll await your rationale then. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I found an article that had the b/w image: The Herald, Provo, UT Monday, Sept. 21, 1987, p. 2. If needed I can copy and paste the entire page. There was no copyright found in a copyright search, and per the legal requirements, it is PD. And as noted by the LOC, for similar UPI photos: "Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed."source Hope this helps. --Light show (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Carl Sagan 1951.png

File:Carl Sagan 1951.png 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!

FunnyMath (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Unable or too difficult to reply to DRs like Sagan's. Nor do I expect to have any more image issues, or certainly none that can't easily be fixed or verified." Decline reason: "Oh, that's normal. You were blocked exactly for preventing you participating in Commons, including replying in DRs. You have been blocked for 3 years and naturally most obvious copyvios have been discovered and deleted during that time. So actually you have provided no reason, why you should be unblocked and what you will do differently, when unblocked. Here's no evidence, that you understand your mistakes, no regret, no promise to become a law-following user... Empty request. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

--Light show (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Irving Berlin photo DR

In response to User:Brandt Luke Zorn's recent DR, I have included some relevant details here, since I am unable to reply there. --Light show (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Cary Grant 1939.jpg

File:Cary Grant 1939.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!

SeptemberWoman (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)