User talk:Jacklee/Archive: Image issues (2009)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

File:Brassiere-white.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Brassiere-white.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)‎ | +/−

138.210.197.242 04:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:GardarThorCortes-HeatherSmall.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:GardarThorCortes-HeatherSmall.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)‎ | +/−

Ciell (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:GardarThorCortes-orchestra.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:GardarThorCortes-orchestra.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)‎ | +/−

Ciell (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:GardarThorCortes02.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:GardarThorCortes02.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)‎ | +/−

Ciell (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:GardarThorCortes.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:GardarThorCortes.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)‎ | +/−

Ciell (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Contributions user:Terence

Hi Jacklee, would you have a look to find a home for the many uncategorised pictures of user:Terence in your beloved Singapore ? Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been slowly categorizing pictures in "Category:Singapore" for some time now. Where are these uncategorized pictures by Terence? Are they currently all in one place? — Cheers, JackLee talk 03:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Several are uncategorised but you might have a look overhere. --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
* Gulp * If you'd like to help, put the uncategorized pictures in "Category:Singapore". I tend to check there for uncategorized images to work on. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have done it. Regards, Wouter (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It is great to have you hardworking and collaborative folks on Commons. I really appreciate. --Foroa (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow. That's a lot of photographs. Guess I have my work cut out for me. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your flickr review request

Hello Jacklee, and thank you for your application to be a flickr reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. Congratulations! Please see Commons:Flickr images if you haven't done so already, and the backlogs at Category:Flickr images needing human review and Category:Flickr review needed. A helpful script for easy-tagging flickr images is at importScript('User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js'); (which you can add to your monobook.js), and you can add {{user reviewer}} or {{user trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your work on Commons! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of Vivian Balakrishnan

I've changed the license agreement on this picture : http://www.flickr.com/photos/zac08/2913820966/ Please feel free to use it. Michael Lim

Hi, Michael. Thanks very much. However, in order for your photograph to be used on Wikipedia it needs to be licensed with either a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 (CC-BY-2.0) or a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC-BY-SA-2.0) licence. Right now, the photograph is tagged with a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 (CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0) licence. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So can I change it to Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial instead? Would this be ok?

No, unfortunately Wikipedia only accepts images tagged with CC-BY-2.0 or CC-BY-SA-2.0. This is because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can use, even for commercial purposes. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok... CC-BY-SA. done, Michael Lim

Thanks very much! The photograph can now be viewed at File:VivianBalakrishnan-20081005.jpg. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Rails in art

Category discussion notification Category:Rails in art has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious schools

Jacklee, I think this recategorization is wrong. A Catholic school, for example, doesn't typically teach primarily religion. It's a Catholic-run school teaching a general curriculum, probably (but not necessarily) including some religion courses. I suppose the addition of the Category:Schools by subject may be OK, but it shouldn't replace Category:Schools by type, which I'm restoring. - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. It seems like there may be a need to distinguish between schools managed by religious organizations, and schools that teach religion. At the moment, "Category:Religious schools" is ambiguous. What about keeping "Religious schools" for schools managed by religious organizations, and creating a new category "Category:Schools for religious teaching"? — Cheers, JackLee talk 04:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with doing something like that. I assume that the intent is schools that exclusively teach religion? Even that may get a bit tricky. For example, you probably don't want the theology departments of universities. Maybe Category:Schools of religious instruction? (Equally cumbersome, but might be clearer.) - Jmabel ! talk 06:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least schools focused primarily on teaching religion. At the moment "Religious schools" seems to span both types of schools, and this is confusing. For instance, "Category:Coranic schools" is a subcategory, and such schools primarily exist to teach their students about religion, I believe. "Category:Schools of religious instruction" is fine with me; will go ahead and create it. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

At least so far, this is not correctly disentangled. Category:Jewish schools was moved whole into Category:Schools of religious instruction, but under Category:Jewish schools is Category:Seattle Hebrew Academy, which is a Jewish-oriented day school providing more or less a normal American education. Similarly, the two photos of the Maimonides School, and the one of Lander College for Women, part of Touro College. So we are going to need to make some sort of similar distinction between two types of "Jewish schools". - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Jewish schools in the US or, indeed, anywhere in the world. I've created "Category:Schools of Jewish instruction" and moved into there what I think are the most obvious images (images of cheder and rabbis). Please see if I've done this correctly. — Cheers, JackLee talk 05:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. & I've now sorted out the other branch (Category:Jewish schools and its subcategories). - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Law firms/law offices categories

Please see this edit; I don't think that moving the law offices categories to law firms categories would be a good idea, because the "law offices" categories are usable more for the buildings than for the firms that operate within them. As I'm sure you know, you can open a move request by placing {{Move|new name}} on these categories, or you could go to Commons:Categories for discussion. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've listed "Category:Law offices" for discussion at CfD. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)