User talk:Carstor

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

If you're asking questions here, you'll find the answers here as well.

non commercial license no use on commons[edit]

Hi, I see you have used the {{cc}} template to create an invalid license and marked a your image with it. It does not make sense to use the {{cc}} in this manner, it marks every image it is used on as a 'license' which makes no sense, so to start with you can not use "{{cc}}" in this way. The second problem is the the license you have attempted to create is invaild on commons as it does not allow 'commercial use'. So you need to add an acceptable license (eg {{gfdl}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} etc) or ask for the images to be deleted. The image I am speaking about is Image:McIlhenny_Factory9.JPG --Tony Wills 12:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the photographer of this picture, I just uploaded it on commons (than as public domain as I was told to by the copyright owner). Don't know why he changed permissions. Maybe you can ask him - as far as I know he writes as en:User:Skb8721 in the english wikipedia. There are also several other pictures by him I uploaded, might be there's the same problem as well ... --Carstor 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that info, I hadn't noticed the license was changed since upload. Technically he can't make it a more restrictive license once it has been released. So I suppose the question is whether he did in fact release it for all uses (and specifically commercial use). So the question is, was that original license valid, is that what the email stated. Did you lodge the original email, giving permission, with commons, do you still have a copy?
Without the email lodged in the OTRS system the image will eventually be deleted I expect. You might want to correspond with him and check it really was him who modified the license, and let him know it won't stay on commons with that license - perhaps he can upload it directly on wikipedia with a more restrictive license. --Tony Wills 23:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info A license which may suit his purpose is {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}} which licenses images for free use (including commercial) under GFDL, but has an alternative license for non-commercial use (the user has the choice, but can only use it commercially if they attach a copy of the GFDL license to every published versions which tends to limit commercial use :-). This sort of licensing is discouraged but apparently quite valid --Tony Wills 02:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Image:BarrellwarehouseSMALL.JPG[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:BarrellwarehouseSMALL.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

C-M 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Image:Buddhatemple_(2)SMALL.JPG[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Buddhatemple_(2)SMALL.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

88.74.133.104 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Image:Factory(packing)5.JPG[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Factory(packing)5.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

88.74.133.104 20:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Image:McIlhenny_Factory9.JPG[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:McIlhenny_Factory9.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

88.74.133.104 20:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Solanum_betaceum_unripe_fruits.jpg and Image:Solanum betaceum habit.jpg and Image:Solanum betaceum flower.jpg[edit]

I was attempting to categorize these images (they seem at the very least quite nice) when I ran into some problems. I found w:Solanum_betaceum and w:Cyphomandra_betacea and here Category:Cyphomandra betacea as well as Category:Solanum leaving me simply confused. Can you do this? -- carol 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The genus Cyphomandra was transfered to Solanum a few years ago. Although not all follow this transfer, most newer scientific works use the name Solanum betaceum for what was once Cyphomandra betacea. It's also the systematic approach used in the german wikipedia for the Tamarillos. I knew that the english wikipedia didn't follow this transfer so far, but I've done nothing there so far. I just started to move everything on Commons from Cyphomandra to Solanum. But Category:Solanaceae is quite a mess in my eyes as pictures are included without any logic into different categories at family, genus or species-level and it's quite hard to find a picture. I guess the best would be not to categorize pictures and to include them into gallery-articles. This would make transfers (as this one right now) much easier and pictures would be easier to find. --Carstor 07:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh, it is a mess then! Centuries of mess maybe. -- carol 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! 17 September 2007!!! Since the time I wrote this, I have had problems when pasting taxonomy that I found near to the species that I was working with, mis-named galleries and software being used that refuses (for good reasons) to upload into non-existent categories. Within a family, there have been species galleries categorized at the family level and at the genus level all while the species category existed.

If I might rebuild the reason a broken system is made -- I am not talking about a broken classification system, instead I am talking about a broken upload system. I think that it has a lot to do with those categories in the list that can be found at User:Rocket000/Sandbox. Categories with (indexed) as part of the name and other ones with (cat indexed) as part of the name. After attempts are made, there seems to be a lot of discussion that probably will not lead to a cleanup. So, allow me to suggest that there is at least a one to one relationship between discussion that is designed to fail and messes nobody wants to take responsibility for. TOL discussions might have made the proportions more like 7 or 10 to 1.

I have been using (and they are online with this information so it should be very clear that I am not paper pushing here) http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/ and my goals are simple. To make it easy to upload into a correct genus name and to create a species subcategory for it that will work it into the existing categorization system. To reduce the taxonomy system wars (or upgrade them, as it seems to be) to those who are able to figure out how to use and adjust the template logic when indeed, there is agreement that something is wrong or misplaced and everyone can read this information as it is accessible to everyone.

If you do not like the subfamilies that uniprot has very openly and accessibly suggested, those same genus are all in the family category as well and the two are clearly sorted to be separate from each other in the way the software lists them. I am also working with information from http://delta-intkey.com/angio/ GRIN, de.wikipedia, Mobot, Plants and efloras -- in that order.

In our discussion on my talk page, your argument seems to be relying heavily on the an idea that I am messing up a good system that was in place. This implied suggestion (you were smart enough not to say that actually) is quite not correct. The more mess that I clean up the more I understand the years of discussion and inactivity that allowed and even encouraged the mess here.

I have only one question. It is very specific and to answer it, all you have to do is to look at an online and accessible (and tidy!) location to answer this question: In the category for Solanaceae, are there any genus that should be there which are not there?

A side observation now. I grew up in an area that was mostly run by the automobile industry. Some of the tales I heard about how the Union rules were very very sad and a sorry condition for the species which are the human beings to have found themselves in. It is interesting how the educated groups resemble this now to me. I never worked directly for this industry so what I am telling you now are what was told to me via first hand accounts, I would be the second person telling them. The first story I heard was that one person had to "write up" her boss/manager. There was a quota that had to be met and he was filling boxes with brake parts after the official work day was over. Apparently, pride in work and accomplishment had given away to weird rules about the time alloted. He got a bad mark on his record because he cared and wanted his team/shift to succeed. That was in Ford area and from not a Ford plant but a parts plant that made Ford replacement parts. The other story is from General Motors. This worker was proud of this story. He was an electrician there and his job was to repair an outlet. Under the outlet was a puddle of water and his job was not to clean up the water -- that was a job for the janitorial staff. He was proud that he got to hang out and be paid for three days awaiting the janitorial staff to show up. Both of these tales make me very sad as does the demise of employment to be found in that area now. These are not tales of the evolution of a species.
Recently I watched over several years another potentially sad thing happen here where I have been unhappily to me relocated to. The neighborhood garbage collection is the subject of this eye-witness account. They have two kinds of trucks here for the task of putting the contents of the containers into the trucks. One version of the truck has an arm and in theory if everyone puts their containers onto the road properly (with enough space between and not blocked by any of the vehicles parked there) the operator of the truck should just be able to sit there and empty the container into the truck using the mechanical arm. The other version of the truck has the operator getting out and putting the container on a hook and a mechanical lifting thing on the truck empties the container and it is up to the operator to put the containers on the hook. The containers have an embedded metal rod for this task and this type of truck. One day, I watched while a person went down the road before the truck came through and put the containers so that the arm would work more efficiently. It was like a contest or a timing and I worried that they might be reducing staff for accomplishing the task based on the results. The other truck version was not being included in the timing of the task and the setting of the containers before the truck got there was not honest for timing the task. So if that was a run that set the requirements for doing that task, whoever got the truck that demanded the operator get out and put the container onto the hook, that person was basically screwed being asked to do something that was impossible and match time allotment that was extremely wrong
To me, having worked on the service end of life so much all of these stories and in particular the last one where the results of the test or timing were wrong, these stories are so much of what is wrong with people who sit around and make decisions without actually doing anything or with little experience other than knowing little ways to win arguments. One of those little ways is an implied fact that is wrong, like that things were good before I started with this template system. My stories of the Union problems in Motown -- I doubt that these are the exact cause of the unemployment and the virtual end of the auto industry there, but they were contributors to that demise! The people at the top who look at numbers which are inaccurate and make decisions based on wrong information -- Starbucks was trying to sell burnt coffee beans like it was some hugely expensive and elegant thing to people they obviously had no respect for when if they had just called it Dark Roast then the people who knew they liked that kind of coffee (you don't need specific breeding or education to know your preference for that, btw) would have bought them! Dumping bad stuff on people who are considered to be stupid or uneducated or whatever -- very very bad business. I have so many examples of this.
I really am of no mind to argue in that traditional way of not answering specific questions and implying non-existent facts. Here is a specific question for you: Are you a product of evolution where the species can rise up and actually use the tools it has created or of de-evolution where the species has failed in reality and is no longer adaptable?
Once again, I thank you for your interest in all of this. If you interest in all of this could start with the reality that what was happening here was not so good, it would make it seem more like problem-solving between two beings who can access their intelligence and share the sources of their intelligence and not like using those same little tricks of the argumentation that in my experience, even a victim of downs syndrome can use.... -- carol (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cocona.JPG[edit]

Moin Carstor, kannst Du damit was anfangen? Das Foto fiel mir gerade in den Newimages auf und es ist praktisch noch nicht einsortiert. ;-) --:Bdk: 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Uffa ... harte Nuss. Laut der entsprechenden en und es-Artikel ist es Solanum sessiliflorum, dazu habe ich auch hier eine umfangreiche und aktuelle Beschreibung ... das passt zwar halbwegs zusammen, aber es kann auch alles mögliche andere sein. Von daher würde ich da erstmal dem Uploader bzw. den es- und en-Autoren vertrauen und es da einordnen. --Carstor 10:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please link images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello Carstor!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichill (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Acnistus arborescens flowers.jpg[edit]

and File:Acnistus arborescens flower.jpg. The images represent Iochroma australe. Acnistus arborescens is very different with small whitish flowers.

OK, that's what was written on the sign and according to [1] this seems to be a quite common misidentification. But according to the description of Acnistus arborescens you seem to be right. Thanks for correcting that mistake. --Carstor (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Abdruckanfrage[edit]

Hallo Carstor,

wir würden gern Ihr Foto der Färberröte-Pflanze (Rubia Tinctorum)in einem unserer Schulbücher abdrucken. Würden Sie sich hierzu einfach bei mir melden? - Nähere Details folgen dann gern.

Vielen Dank Christin Sperling christin.sperling@westermann.de

After use, please put the following template on the image's talkpage: {{published| author= |date= |url= |title= |org= |legal= }}. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA-3.0[edit]

Hi, what you discussed on en:User_talk:Skb8721#Picture_problem has come to pass, "In accordance with the Licensing update and associated WMF Board Resolution, Wikimedia will be exercising its rights under GFDL 1.3 to dual license existing GFDL content — text and images — under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0) starting June 15th, 2009."^.

  • Basically files with GFDL1.2 with the "and later versions" licenses are now available under GFDL 1.3 which allows us to migrate them to a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. I note some of the files you have uploaded or edited have the {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}} template which suggests to me that you may not want to expand to the more open CC-BY-SA-3.0 license.
  • I urge you to make these files more widely usable by adding a more general license yourself. But understand that this may not be possible (eg if the original is not your own work). If you are happy with the 'migration' of the license you can either widen the terms yourself or do nothing and it will be done by a bot anyway.
  • The Commons community has recognised that some people may want or need to opt-out of this 'migration' - to do so: add the text "migration=opt-out" to the license template eg {{GFDL|migration=opt-out}} or {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual|migration=opt-out}}
I hope that this is of some use to you, don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions (although I'm not actually an expert on licensing questions :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Carstor!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 09:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Solanum cheesemanii 1.JPG[edit]

Hi Uleli, I just saw your picture File:Solanum cheesemanii 1.JPG and I doubt it's a Solanum-plant (and furthermore Solanum cheesemanii is now regarded as a synonym of Solanum aviculare). I guess the picture shows a specimen of Jaltomata procumbens, which is found in a few botanical gardens as well. --Carstor (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for ID, I've changed the info! Uleli (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Instant ramen.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Instant ramen.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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Acather96 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Daphnis nerii distribution map, suggested correction[edit]

Hi Carstor,

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_map_Daphnis_nerii.svg I suggest coloring Taiwan green instead of blue, since on December 9 I photographed a nerii in the Danshui area of Taiwan, so I am reasonably sure it is a year-round resident. 60.248.2.163 10:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Grüße vom TFF[edit]

Hallo Carstor, hoffentlich verletze ich nicht zu sehr deine Persönlichkeitsrechte mit dem Bild. Herzliche Grüße--Schorle (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, nee, ist schon okay. Besten Dank. :) --Carstor (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Achja. Unter de:Wikipedia:Festivalsommer/Bildergebnisse_2014#TFF.Rudolstadt_2014 habe ich angefangen, eine Galerie mit allen von uns erfassten Künstlern (Bands, nicht einzelne Personen) anzulegen. Evtl. kannst Du ja von Dir auch noch Bands ergänzen? --Carstor (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Alles klar, ich behalt´s mal im Auge--Schorle (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Fink on stage 12.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fink on stage 12.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.