User talk:Christopherpeterson

Nati Abscal pic

Christopher, I am confused. Commons:Image:Nati Abascal.jpg is your picture, only moved to Wikimedia Commons. It looks identical to me - I've temporarily undeleted Image:Nati abascal valentino model muse september 8 2007 christopher peterson.jpg so you can confirm this - and I certainly don't see any sunglasses in either picture. I see you've now uploaded a black & white pic, so you'll need to click on the old version of the original picture. Can you let me know if I should upload the new one onto Wikimedia Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I'm rather stupid today. The picture in the Nati Abascal article was changed from Image:Nati Abascal.jpg to Image:Nati Abascal2.jpg here. All makes sense. Can I go back to the original colour pic or do you prefer the b&w (personally, I prefer the newest one, but you're the expert). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOOps. bw it is. I don't mind being replaced if it's a better photo, but the one that person replaced it with is not worthy IMHO Christopherpeterson 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't wouldn't be out of place on the wall of one of those Dolce Vita-style bars in Rome. Thanks for uploading such great pictures for our readers. If there's ever anything you need undeleted, or anything else I can help with, just give me a yell. Ciao, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Wendi_deng_murdoch_christopher_peterson.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Papa November 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above image, your website states that the no derivatives of the image are permitted. This isn't a suitable license for wikipedia. If you're happy to permit derivatives, please could you update your website to reflect this? If not, I'll delete the image to safeguard your rights. Thanks Papa November 00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Davis

Hi. Many thanks for uploading the photo of Clive Davis. I hope you are happy with the change I made to the picture (cropped to remove the portion of dark sky so that more can be seen of Clive). Best regards, --Rebroad 10:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image titles

Hi, a few of your images have been moved over to Commons and renamed. I noticed in the process of deleting the redundant images that you give very descriptive image titles. When being moved to Commons, they are being renamed to include only the necessary info; the subject's name, for example, or the addition of their profession (First Last (profession)). Anyway, I just wanted to suggest that you upload straight to Commons and perhaps use shorter names. The other details, such as location, date, and your name can be included in the summary section. Great photos, by the way. Best regards, Lara❤Love 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

? Miranda 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leven rambin.jpg

Hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Speedy deletion of Image:Olivia thirlby.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Olivia thirlby.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Olivia thirlby.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Optigan13 (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this is just a rather alarming way of saying that your photograph of Olivia Thirlby has been moved to Commons:Image:Olivia Thirlby.jpg. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]