User talk:Anatiomaros

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. Please feel free to use Welsh, English or French on this page. If a message is left here I will reply to it here so you may wish to place this page on your Watchlist. If I leave a message at your talk page I will reply there. This helps keep discussions together in one place. An urgent message might reach me quicker at my talk page on Welsh Wikipedia. Diolch/Thank you/Merci.


Heia![edit]

Hei. Ie, dwi yma hefyd :) Dwi ddim yn dod fan hyn lot a dweud y gwir. Os wyt ti angen unrhyw gymorth â phethau fan hyn, cysyllta â fi (gwell ar Wicipedia). Cofion cynnes iawn. Xxglennxx (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Diolch Glenn. Doedd gen i ddim byd arbennig mewn golwg, ar wahan i'r ffeiliau sy'n cael eu llwytho i fyny gan GeographBot(Sgwrs). Ond mae hynny'n brosiect tymor hir felly does dim brys arbennig. Os oes gen ti ddiddordeb efallai yr hoffet ti gael golwg ar Category:Monmouthshire neu rai o'r ardaloedd eraill yn y De Ddwyrain rywbryd? Mae angen gwiro nifer o gategoriau - ceisio cael y ffeiliau yn y categori tref/pentref iawn o leia - a dwi ddim yn gyfarwydd iawn a'r rhan yna o'r wlad. Cofion cynnes iawn i tithau hefyd, Anatiomaros (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Poll_for_promotion_to_policy[edit]

You may be interested to know that most of the miller test legal jargon has been removed. --Gmaxwell (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's certainly an improvement (words fail me when it comes to describing that neo-McCarthyist document!). Anatiomaros (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

File:O.M.Edwards_01a.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:O.M.Edwards_01a.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

80.187.103.61 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. This anonymous "contributor" hiding behind a dynamic IP made three DRs in the space of a few minutes last night. He/she obviously didn't pause long enough to actually read the description page which clearly states the source and all other neccessary details. This is the first time a file uploaded by me has been trolled like this, but I've seen far too many other examples by anon IPs. Conclusion: the Nominate for deletion button should only be available for use by established registered users so that the Commons community doesn't have to waste its time and resources dealing with such nonsense. Anatiomaros (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nude women named Amy[edit]

Actually, I believe that's not the only nude picture of her currently on Commons, and I think there have been some that were here historically but have been deleted, so Nude women named Amy is not an unreasonable category name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! It just seemed a bit unlikely to me and the cat link was red anyway. No problem! Anatiomaros (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice[edit]

Since you put these history attacking behavior on this Pissa Tower discussion page, I am advising you to avoid these kind of words or references in future by respecting this Guideline Personnel Attack--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 17:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack on you and I'm sorry if you perceived it that way. Such nominations are indeed a waste of time and resources for us. Please consider very carefully before nominating files for deletion. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
That deletion request is a simple reflection of What is written here Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy and nor any cultural heritage asset, subject to a fee and other restriction due to the cultural heritage and landscape law.[1] The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state owned things with some artistic, historic, archeologic or ethnoantropologic interest; libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities unless esplicitly removed on a case by case basis This creates all the confusion to a common user...It can be simply re-written as FOP not applicable for buildings for more than 70 years of age by quoting the copyright section on the law...--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That deletion request was rejected, and rightly so. Please take the general issue of Italian FOP elsewhere if you feel that strongly aboout it. End of "discussion". Anatiomaros (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Llwybr Huw Tom 001.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Llwybr Huw Tom 001.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 20:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)