Commons:Deletion requests/File:AmigaOne X1000 03.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The addedum to the license makes it appear this image was uploaded to promote photography by this uploader more than to contribute to proejct. It is missing source & author although it might seem that the uploader was the author based on the license claim. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dear @Ellin Beltz: , there was only unnecessary "}}" in the description [1], that's why the source & author wasn't displayed properly. The photos from this Amiga X1000 session are unique on Commons and are used in many Wikipedia articles, i.e. [2]. I support Wikipedia and Commons for many years (see my history) and I share my pictures for free on CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. I made a template with an exact credit line, becouse I found out that a lot of people had been using my pictures without any attribution. Most people are to lazy to search for author's name, they just copy picture and make caption like "photo by Wikipedia". There's an exact attribution line to copy in my template and it really works (well, at least in 95 percents ;)). CLI (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The line which seems to be promotional reads More of my work can be found in my blog: http://zatrzymujeczas.pl. Up until then, the template reads only about the image uploaded to Commons, but by adding the last line it becomes apparently self-promotional. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: , ok, maybe you're right. I just removed the last line from the template. --CLI (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No licensing problem. Also template is not promotional. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)