This help desk is a forum for questions and help on:
How to use Commons
Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them.
Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after two days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days. The latest archive is Commons:Help desk/Archive/2026/03.
Latest comment: 9 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I recently found a few files on here that depict the same thing, some with a template warning about its factual inaccurate, some without.
these images are all of the same concept, so in my view they should have the same disclaimer and be in the same category/categories. I will explain the situation below.
whereof the first (Larousse) includes an extensive description explaining the likely origin, and states that “all projects that use this file need to make this context clear”
It calls itself “own work” and links itself to the second example, while being a crop of another photograph (of a page in an old book) it references right under the second file.
The second file includes a template stating “the factual accuracy of this description or the file name is disputed” referring to a discussion on the talk page that appears to no longer exist.
This is followed by a template saying the flag is “fictitious, proposed, …” and includes in its description a similar or the same warning as in the first file. Also classed as own work, but acknowledges it includes elements taken from the first image.
It has a different copyright licence. (Public domain rather than CC)
The third firm is a png that appears very similar to the second file.
it however has no extended description, no caption or any templates referencing the potential issues with the file. It is also classed as “own work”.
On top of this divergence in descriptions, they also differ in their categories, which makes little sense to me since they seem to depict the same thing.
the first file is in categories:
Flags with one yellow six-pointed star (centered), Proposed flags of Israel, Proposed flags of Palestine, Zionist flags, Vertical bicolor blue and white flags, Historical flags of Palestine, Historical flags of Israel, Flags with the Star of David.
The second file is ALSO in the categories:
SVG special or fictional flags on top of the SVG flag subcategories corresponding to the four categories of “historical/Proposed flag of” mentioned above as well as the remaining categories mentioned above and “Blue and white flags of Israel”
(And several hidden categories)
Now the third/last flag is only in the category “Historical flags of Israel” when visibly it is almost indistinguishable from the second flag.
(and only in the hidden categories corresponding to its copyright licence/publishing)
In looking at these flags and categories, I also found several other flags in “Historical flags of Palestine” that appear to be the same, almost the same, or the same idea.
It seems to me that this entire thing needs to be reorganised. In general, the subject of Israeli/Palestinian historical flags seems very disorganised and at least somewhat inconsistent.
I am looking for some guidance on the policy here, to help me try to see what must be done/what I can do to make this all a bit better. I think also perhaps there should/could be a gallery on this subject. (If there isn’t already one)
PS: I also have another question related to these kinds of legal templates/notices that I placed yesterday. If someone could also look at that, that would be great.
@Slomo666: The license and (2014) date of File:Palestine flag in Larousse 1934.png are bogus. I'm not sure if anything there is copyrightable, but if it is, and if the 1933 date in the description is accurate, then it would be copyrighted in the U.S. through 31 December 2028 and should not be here. Otherwise, it should be {{PD-ineligible}}.
As for the descriptions: the only thing really wrong with the descriptions in the first two is, "All projects that use this file need to make this context clear." No, really, they don't. We don't get to tell other projects what they "must" do.
File:Flag of Palestine (1924).svg has a {{Fact disputed}} tag saying to see the talk page, and nothing on the talk page. That doesn't seem to be of much use. The caveat, "This flag is fictitious, proposed, or unofficial, although it may look similar to an official flag. Such flags should usually not be used in articles, unless they are in widespread unofficial use," is accurate, up to a point, but since clearly this flag was in widespread unofficial use as a de facto flag of the Yishuv, it adds up to nothing.
I don’t really want to get into a Dee discussion on this, but where do you see that this flag was in “widespread unofficial use as a de facto flag of the yishuv” ? Slomo666 (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC).Reply
I don't have anything citable. I'm pretty sure that I'd seen pictures of this flag over half a century ago in what were already at the time older magazines, etc., that my paternal grandparents had. I certainly don't have access to them now. Probably a worthwhile research topic for someone. Either way, {{Fact disputed}} with no clear statement of what is at issue is useless. - Jmabel ! talk20:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wow, half a century. I can’t say I have memories going back that far ;). I believe you though. I think a good place to start looking would be the Israeli national library/archives as I think they have the largest collection on the history of the yishuv. Slomo666 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
At the bottom of c:Data:Mapping of national parties members of European parties to lower and upper houses.tab are a pair of buttons: Export to CSV and Export to Excel. I can click Export to Excel and save the file on a local drive and then edit the spreadsheet with Libre Office Calc and save the changes. Then back at commons, I click edit and there is a text box that has 'A .csv or .xlsx file to import' and a Select a file button. So I click the button, select my edited spreadsheet and the file name (without drive and path) appears in the text box at commons. Then nothing. I cannot edit that file name to add the drive and path to the filename. And even if I could, there is nothing to suggest what I should do next; no instructions, no load-this-file-into-the-editor button; nothing.
In the editor, there is a dropdown menu called 'Edittools'. Clicking that does nothing (no menu appears).
So the question is: does the spreadsheet-import work? If it does, how do I make it work for me?
I tried this for myself, and when I upload the file, the new data is automatically populated in JSON format in the edit box. I can view my changes by clicking "Show changes" at the bottom. This works for both CSV and Excel, but strangely only a CSV import updates the "sources" field at the top. Anon126 (✉⚒) 00:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I hadn't tried csv. I can import a csv file but not xlsx. Don't know if that is because the .xlsx file that Libre Office Calc creates is somehow unacceptable to the importer it not being a 'pure' Excel-created xlsx file.
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! I received a notification about winning the Wiki Science Competition 2025 in Kazakhstan. However, I am unable to open it. The message is not clickable. Игорь Улитин (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
One year from now, actually, but I agree. No indication of any loss of copyright (e.g. through lack of renewal), so it would presumably have a year to go. I'll start a DR. - Jmabel ! talk17:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: it's not at all obvious to me why you referred this person to that particular page. It is unlikely to help them.
@Therussianbearfr0msiberia: I assume you mean the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki), since that is the only one your global contributions say you've edited, but dthere are literally hundreds of Wikipedias in various languages, so it helps a lot to be specific.
Are you are having trouble uploading a picture, or adding a picture that has already been uploaded to a Wikipedia article?
@Jmabel: what I saw was that they had less than 10 edits on English Wikipedia and had thus not achieved autoconfirmed status, which a user needs to upload files there
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: Then you should have said as much, rather than linking to a long and rather confusing section on an information page. But you also presumed that they were trying to upload, something that they did not say at any point in their question. - Jmabel ! talk06:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Therussianbearfr0msiberia: you attempted to upload a very low resolution image as a new user, which was stopped by an automated filter. Also, based on the description the image is from World War II, but you have still claimed that it is your own work, taken in 2026 and licensed CC-BY-SA. For a historical image these claims seem very unlikely. You must provide accurate information about the images you upload. MKFI (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Before I upload a photo of this building at Dollywood with a butterfly on the facade, I wanted to ask if this would be fall under COM:FOP US. The butterfly appears to be part of the building and not a sculpture. APK (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am having difficulties updating the information and musical biography of my band, including historical details and related content. I am not sure how to do it correctly according to Wikipedia’s guidelines.
We are currently developing a project related to my latest book, and I need to have the Wikipedia article ready.
As a musician, I hold the rights to my images, music, and artistic work.
I would appreciate any guidance or assistance you can provide. Please contact me or help me understand the proper way to proceed. Mauriciomejia44 (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is not Wikipedia. You are asking this question on Wikimedia Commons. We are a sister project of the English-language Wikipedia, but so are many other sites (including Wikipedias in several hundred other languages).
Generally, you should not be writing about yourself in Wikipedia. See en:WP:COI and en:WP:AUTO. If there is already a Wikipedia article about you or your band, the latter has some very concrete information about what you may and may not do in terms of the content of that article. (If there is not, then about the only legitimate action you can take toward that end would be to submit a well-sourced request at the appropriate page under en:WP:Requested articles.)
If you have further questions about this, I suggest you ask them on the English-language Wikipedia, not here on Commons.- Jmabel ! talk05:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
నేను చిత్రీకరించిన ఒకవీడియోని ఫోక్ లోర్ ఫోటోగ్రఫీలో పాల్గొనేందుకు అప్లోడ్ చేయడానికి ప్రయత్నిస్తే అభ్యంతరం అని వస్తోంది. Mp4 ఫార్మాట్లో ఉన్నది తీసుకోవట్లేదు. దీనికి పరిష్కారం ఏమైనా ఉందా ? ఉంటే తెలియజేయగలరు
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
నేను చిత్రీకరించిన ఒకవీడియోని ఫోక్ లోర్ ఫోటోగ్రఫీలో పాల్గొనేందుకు అప్లోడ్ చేయడానికి ప్రయత్నిస్తే అభ్యంతరం అని వస్తోంది. Mp4 ఫార్మాట్లో ఉన్నది తీసుకోవట్లేదు. దీనికి పరిష్కారం ఏమైనా ఉందా ? ఉంటే తెలియజేయగలరు Suryajyothi Sampara (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I have no idea where nor even quite how to ask this question. Is there a way to check commons for similar images? I found the image to the right by sheer luck tinkering with search terms, but am now wondering if we might possess a colour image of the figure on the right. It is a wooden statue head of an unknown princess of the Egyptian Twelfth Dynasty that is held by the Cairo Museum/Egyptian Museum apparently in gallery 49 and its catalogue entry number is JE 39390. No idea if any of that information is useful. Mainly, do we have something like 'reverse image searching'? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I found out only in the last 48 hours that there is process under way to add International Standard Contents Codes (ISCCs) to files, with exactly this sort of purpose. But, no, we don't currently have a way to do this. I've had some back-and-forth with Ainali at User talk:AinaliBot#International Standard Contents Code; someone else would be very welcome to pick up the thread there and start creating some useful documentation of the intent of this. - Jmabel ! talk23:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Demo from from the hackathon two weeks ago.There are some demo tools available that could help with this. However, just a fraction of the images on Commons have a perceptual hash yet so it's unlikely it will find something now. In the video to the right, I show how it could help during upload, but we could of course imagine setting up tools to use on request as well. Ainali (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
How do I upload someone else's photography found on a blog post on a forum as an image to Wikimedia Commons?
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
trying to add an image of the rear view of a car to an article about the car and the front view picture found in the article is from the exact same source as the rear view picture but I can't upload it to Wikimedia Commons as you can't upload someone else's work Parespeare (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Uploading the work of others is permitted on Commons if the copyright licence is compatible — see Commons:Licensing for details.
You need to know the copyright resrtictions of the other photographer's work. First of all check if the copyright restrictions have been published alongside the photograph.
If the photograph has was as "copyleft" or "Creative Commons", it is OK to copy it, giving credit where credit is due. If there are no published restrictions, then copyright is automatic and you need to contct the original photographer to get a waiver. I did that with this image. The permissions box in the image description has the relevant links. Note that in this case the Meccano modeller owned the copyright of the design but I owned the copyright of the phtograph. Both sets of copywirght were waived. Martinvl (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ODC-SIERRA-LEONE: also, in case it is not clear, you can overwrite your own upload by using "Upload a new version of this file" on the file page. Just make sure that what you upload is another version of the same work (e.g. not a different photo of the same subject). - Jmabel ! talk04:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
File:2 EUFOR RCA Mission in Central African Republic in 2014 EUROGENDFOR.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright
@PPIOJOSE2025: Hi, You have apparently uploaded documents which are not made by you, and which are not under a free license or in the public domain. Please do not do that again, or you will be blocked. Please read COM:L. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I am writing to ask for permission to use the cover image of Sabrina Carpenter’s latest album on Wikipedia. The image would be used in the article about the album for informational and educational purposes. Wikipedia is a free, non-commercial encyclopedia, and the image would be used in a limited, low-resolution format with proper credit. If possible, permission to use the image under a suitable license (or confirmation of its use under fair use conditions) would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you require any additional details. Thank you for your time and consideration. Andria Gagua (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Davidlarson1234: Just curious as to why you think File:Gelbvieh.jpg gives off a bad impression of en:Gelbvieh. Is the photo of another breed of cattle? As someone not very familiar with different cattle breeds, the photo looks OK to me. Is there some technical reason why the photo is bad? The photo seems to be being used with out issue by several different Wikimedia Foundation projects; so, it's not clear why a change is needed. Of course, if you're able to provide a better photo, then please do; however, it's not a guarantee that all the projects using the current one will automatically agree to switch to a new photo, absent a really compelling reason to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! I'd like to find all charts from Our World in Data that are used in the Spanish Wikipedia. Is there any tool that will list all files in a category (such as Category:Our World in Data, and ideally subcategories) that are currently being used in a specific wiki (such as eswiki)? Thanks! Sophivorus (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
License for third-party logos not officially available on the internet
However, I can't upload the file as it's not my work. The currently uploaded version is marked as 'own work' by JiaqiDerKrasse - which is most likely wrong as well (EDIT: I just looked at their discussion page, they have uploaded a lot of logos that have been deleted because they were marked as 'own work'). There is also no version of this logo hosted on their own domain, as it is rendered with an animation on pageload.
OK, that would mean that these images are copyrighted by the news photographers. Thus, they aren't suitable for Commons - it's highly improbable that a photographer working for AP, Reuters or a freelancer selling their images to CBS etc. will grant a free license. If you're writing on the English Wikipedia, you may fall back upon their local unfree media rules: en:WP:NONFREE. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have painted a portrait of head and shoulders froma full length portrait by Henry willioam Pickersgill who died over 151 years ago. the face is different to his portrait but she is wearing similar clothes.. can i put it on wikicommons? Aehtnas (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have pictures of an exibit's language and the title of the exhibit from the MILA in Lima, Peru. Would these be ok to add to show that Mariotti's work was in this exhibit? LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
If it is just text, and not enough text to be copyrightable, then the sign itself would be {{PD-ineligible}}; depending on what else your own photo incorporates, it could be either derivative of someone else's copyrighted work (so not eligible for Commons) or you photo might also contain content you can copyright and upload under one of the usual licenses. - Jmabel ! talk16:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago15 comments2 people in discussion
Noticed issues that I don't know what to do with, so I'm sticking them here for somebody to look at who hopefully knows more than I do.
The category name at Category:General guide to the exhibition halls of the American Museum of Natural History (1911) contains the year 1911, and most of the images in it are marked 1911 in their filenames and metadata, but most of those images are actually from 1927, 1939, or 1945. For example, the 1927 images are derived from the book "generalguide27amer" on the Internet Archive, which is marked 1911 in the Internet Archive's metadata, but if you look at the first page of the scan, the book is from 1927. The Internet Archive seems to have ingested these AMNH guides from the Biodiversity Library, which has a directory where you can download guides from different years, starting in 1911, so I figure that's where the incorrect date came from. Seems like the category should be renamed, the images should be renamed, and the image metadata should be updated?
Guessing that if those two sets of images from the AMNH have this type of issue, there are more as well.
The good thing is that the Biodiversity Library pages indicate that it thinks both sets of documents are in the public domain, so hopefully the license tags are still generally valid despite the later dates. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
And, yes, it would be good for someone to sort it all out: set dates correctly, set up and use appropriate categories, fix misleading filenames, and put appropriate licenses on things ({{PD-US-expired}} for anything 1930 or earlier; hopefully {{PD-US-not renewed}} for the rest, though that will take some checking). That list of tasks is probably not exhaustive. Also, if anything post 1930 turns out to be still in copyright, we want to set up DRs that can be added to categories like Category:Undelete in 2029 for 1933 materials, so that we can easily undelete them in the appropriate year. Best to categorize & rename before DR'ing, because years from now when we undelete, someone will have trouble getting back to the context.
@Dreamyshade: any interest in taking this on? Fæ who uploaded these is long gone from Commons.
Whoever takes these on, once these are categorized by year (I know, I'm making an assumption there), if there are mass renames to be done on the category for any given year, you can hit me up to do those. - Jmabel ! talk23:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I improved the metadata for a few images that I'm working with, but the whole thing is more than I'm up for figuring out. The copyright status may be complicated for some of the post-1930 materials in the "scienceguide7692amer" category - some of those leaflets were reprinted versions of articles from Natural History Magazine, which has renewed some of its copyrights. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dreamyshade: do you see any straightforward way to determine which images were published in which year? I'd hate to lose a ton of images from 1930 and earlier just because we could not be sure of the date. - Jmabel ! talk01:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel Yes, most of the images should show evidence of their publication date if you click the "view book online" link in the description and scroll up to the nearest title page. For example, picking File:Guide leaflet (1901) (14581928588).jpg randomly: if I click through to the book, it's on page 89 of a publication; if I scroll up to page 1, it says it was published in February 1935. I don't think that the post-1930 images should be bumped off Commons just because of the date though - would need more research about copyright notices, registration, renewals, etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm about to go do other stuff IRL, but I'll get back to this. Sadly, it looks like a lot of this is 1945, so it might be over a decade until most of this will be out of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk19:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel Also not seeing a copyright notice on the 1939 guide, which looks to be the source of about half of the remaining files in the "1911" category (based on a search for the keyword "generalguide39amer").
@Dreamyshade: sorry, I did that for the first couple of categories, but forgot for the rest, I'll do that now. (It's mostly done with a tool, but it's not fast to run.) - Jmabel ! talk04:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Jmabel ! talkJmabel ! talk04:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I've seen that the Wikipedia page for Prior Scientific is lacking some pictures. I work for the company and recently came across some photos of old instruments that Wikipedia users might find interesting and that would give more depth to the page. None of the instruments is currently available so there is absolutely no promotional purpose to them! Since I wasn't even born when some of the pictures were taken and definitely didn't work for the company, I can't say that I produced them. How should I proceed to upload them to the commons? SLawrence PS (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@SLawrence PS: Hi, and welcome. Someone in a legal position to release copyrights for the company could read and follow VRT, carbon copying you on the resulting email message to keep you in the loop if you are not in a position to do that yourself. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Seanoconn7: Hi, and welcome. You should be able to right click (or long tap) on the "Original file" link, or any "Date/Time" link in the "File history" section, of any file description page to save such link as a file using your browser. You may also left click (or tap) on such a link (or use the "File URL" field from the "Download" link) to display the file full-sized in your browser, possibly crash your browser if the file is too large, and if not save as a file from there. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Can I upload photographs taken by my late father? I was his only heir and inherited his entire estate, including a large quantity of original photographic prints and 35mm slides and negatives, which I have digitally scanned. The pictures are mostly from the 1950s-1990s, and I think some of them would make good contributions to existing Wikipedia pages. Nicky Mono (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Strictly speaking, inheritance law varies by location in the United States. For instance, my dad died intestate (i.e. without a will) in Indiana, and what I was entitled to as his only son is different than what it would have been in other states. Based on what you've written above and my not-a-lawyer/this-is-not-legal-advice perspective, you probably are the person who owns the copyright and you could probably choose to relicense them however you want, assuming that there aren't prior restraints, like if he took photos as work for hire when contracted or if he for some reason already released them under a certain license that is incompatible with relicensing. (Those are pretty unlikely.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Nicky Mono: looks quite safe. Make sure you identify you father as the author, rather than call it "own work." The appropriate way to license these when you upload would be either {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}, {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} or {{Cc-zero-heirs}}, depending which license you prefer to offer. I personally recommend against CC-zero: if circumstances dictate, you can always grant someone permission to use a photo without mentioning you, but once you sign it away in general you can never get it back. Also, you probably should give some thought to what you want as the attribution. - Jmabel ! talk00:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Здравствуйте! Пытаюсь этим вечером загрузить свою работу.. Обнаружил ошибку на странице загрузки.(там ещё картинки прикольные на странице загрузки) Можно убрать слова: "добросовестное использование на Википедии запрещено". Dmitryts2015 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dmitryts2015: Здравствуйте и добро пожаловать. Где это находится, если быть точным?
In particular, we have multiple upload tools, so "странице загрузки" is a bit confusing. So is "Википедии" being mentioned anywhere on this site: this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. I am currently trying to sort out an issue regarding an image of a minifigure on a page about a Lego character. I took a photo of a minifigure of the character, but I was wondering if it is still a free license image, because the character itself, its parent franchise, and the Lego minifigure as a whole are copyrighted. Can that be uploaded to Wikipedia or no? Blubewwy (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Possibly more to the point, it cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, the site on which you are asking this.
Also, Jeff is presuming that when you said "Wikipedia" you meant the English-language Wikipedia. Each of the Wikipedia's in different languages has its own rules. - Jmabel ! talk00:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
speedy delete marca de agua imagenes de hoy 31 de marzo
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion
buenas noches por favor como pueden arreglar mi problema subí fotos hoy del concurso, pero tienen marca de agua sin darme cuenta, por favor si podrían solucionar ese problema o vuelvo a subirlas sin marga de agua la imagen. Gracias. Fede Tolay (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good evening, please, how can you fix my problem? I uploaded photos today from the contest, but they have a watermark without me realizing it. Please, if you could solve this problem or I will re-upload them without the watermark on the image.
Latest comment: 16 hours ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I uploaded a picture but it was not the one I was supposed to upload. How can I delete it and upload the correct one? :( Caeleal (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Caeleal: Hi, and welcome. If the file name and file description pages match what you wanted to upload, overwriting may be a better option. The note at COM:OW states "A file can be overwritten by any user with an account older than 4 days from the file's file description page using the Upload a new version of this file link below the File history; or via Special:Upload. Special:Upload provides two warning messages when overwriting an existing file – MediaWiki:UploadFormPreviewOverwriteError and MediaWiki:Fileexists (see also Phab:T41344). The UploadWizard does not allow overwriting of files." — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Caeleal and Jeff G.: speaking as an admin, I'd rather they did {{SD|G7}}. If they overwrite with an unrelated file, it is likely to create some confusion down the line, especially because that implies that the license they offered also applies to the accidentally uploaded file, which some other user could then place under a different filename, probably not a desired result. - Jmabel ! talk19:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The photo I'm trying to upload is from a person who has given me express permission to use the particular picture I'm attempting to upload. Why does it keep getting flagged? AshleyLHunt (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@AshleyLHunt: "has given me express permission" is very vague, and does not amount to a license.
Unless I'm missing something, none of these were uploaded in the last week, so this is handled as just a normal DR. I don't see any emergency here, and I'm not even sure that some of these should be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk19:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't see a licensing for Editorial Use Only and when I choose to add a custom licensing it is saying that there is no licensing template for this so what should I put otherwise? Darrrrmilk (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 51 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I want to change the authorship of the photo, since I am the real author.
For some reason, a local university professor is listed as the author; a folder with her initials was stored on the smartphone along with the photo. Firsur (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_–_Triftbach_–_Rothoren.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(14581928588).jpg){kind=link}
_(14593848377).jpg){kind=link}
_(14593626057).jpg){kind=link}
_(14800049993).jpg){kind=link}
_(14593970537).jpg){kind=link}
_(14800340443).jpg){kind=link}
Done See Commons:Cat-a-lot. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)_217.jpg){kind=link}
