User talk:KTo288/archive November 2008-October 2009

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

Darkone[edit]

Hello - re your deletion requests on User:Darkone's images (I assume he has uploaded other images with such conditions, and you may have called for others to be deleted as well, or may still call for them to be deleted):

If I understand anything about these licenses (correct me if I am wrong) then it is that they cannot be constrained afterwards. An image licensed as CC Sharealike 2.5 therefore is freely available under this condition anywhere. The conditions need to be removed, not the images. If we do something else, we open ourselves up to images being removed after being freely available on Commons for years and years, just because the author has changed his mind later on! Ingolfson (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jade/artifacts images[edit]

Serious appreciation for taking a look - such help is always welcome on Commons :).

I'm happy that they are of value to us. Maybe a little less happy that he is a dealer - I wonder what his intentions are? If you are happy to then please ask, I do have rather strong views about people using Foundation wikis for "promotion" of things (but I guess if they are worth to us & he is not selling as such that should be ok). Again - thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 10:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, reading between the lines, I think he's just someone who is just very proud of his collection and wants others to see them. Its only if you follow the links he's given that you realise he has a shop. Any way I'll add a message to say that he can probably show if he doesn't sell.KTo288 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The message seemed fine - however if the links take you to him trying to sell from these images then I think that is effectively using Commons on a promotional basis. I think I'll post something back on the admin board again.
I do appreciate your time & help. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe take a look here. I think Mike is right - "description" should be just that, not a link to a selling website. Worth trying to come up with a message that tries to get that over? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - not be around for a bit. That looks fine & again I appreciate your help. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 10:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Message posted.KTo288 (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me for that too.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome too. KTo288 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with renaming[edit]

Hey - Just wondering if you can give me a hand in Category:Media renaming requests needing target. I'm getting through them, and I can't tell you how much I love the new Google Translate :), but sometimes it might be easier to have a native speaker. No rush, I'll just start with all the ones that don't involve Chinese/Japanese characters, and I can always come back to them later myself. Thanks! -- Deadstar (msg) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was meaning to do two or three a day since your last message, I managed to do about six before being distracted by other things.KTo288 (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I know what that's like! Cool & thanks for your help :) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem, just to ask do all file name have to be in English and files in other languages (such as the contents of Category:Jade zhang) need renaming? KTo288 (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, no not all filenames need to be in English but I, a Dutch/English speaker, find it very helpful if filenames are spelled using the Latin alphabet. In trying to find a guideline, I found that Commons:First steps/Upload form links to the naming conventions for en: wiki (implying that they should maybe be in English?), perhaps you can check what the Chinese version for that page says, as I don't think they link to en: wiki from there. The other advice it gives in regards to filenames is that it should be "descriptive".
I found a whole pile of images were requested to be renamed from something very descriptive (but in Japanese) to something not descriptive at all (like "P12345"). I translated the filename using google and asked for the rename anyway as (for instance) the Mayflower search doesn't work for special characters, and figured that at least now they might be easier to find (see Category:Kitaharima - Yokamura park). I think that if a file is spelled using the Latin alphabet, it is more likely to be found by a larger group of people than if it was spelled using non-Latin characters. (and as a PS: I wouldn't go into every non-Latin image requesting a rename as I trust that the uploader has named it something useful.) But that's my 2c. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I found a whole pile of images were requested to be renamed from something very descriptive (but in Japanese) to something not descriptive at all (like "P12345"). That seems to be my experience as well. Some of the files needing rename targets are actually descriptive just that they're in kanji. The zh upload page just recommends that names have to be descriptive not that they have to be in a latin script. I guess for most users they see kanji/hanji think I don't understand this and tag for rename. KTo288 (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
...and so you made me think. As I did a catchange after the rename request (bit of a d'oh moment) the rename wasn't done for the Category:Kitaharima - Yokamura park and I've changed my mind about the rename & have taken the template off. The Japanese is a good description & there's no reason to change it simply based on the reasoning title is in Japanese. -- Deadstar (msg) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess if you can come up with a good name for a retitle you'll have the information to add an English description to the information box, if it needsit, which I guess better matches the goal of Commons being a multi-lingual project.KTo288 (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Categorization help needed[edit]

Hi KTo288, looking at your contributions i see your helping getting files categorized, great! Could you have a look at Category:Media needing category review in use at zh.wikipedia? These files were uncategorized, but my bot added categories. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best.KTo288 (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Great! When you click the Check them now! link in the template, the template will be removed and the edit summary set. Makes checking lots of files easy and fast :) Multichill (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'll do my best, but see my above promises to Deadstar, I'm easily diverted and distracted by interesting lines of pursuit, with categorisation I prefer slow and thorough. KTo288 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

Note: You cannot place a request to rename this image: [1] or any other image because you are neither an Admin nor a trusted user. Commons does this to stop vandalism of image titles. Even an original uploader can't do this. I suggest you contact Wuzur to do this task as he is an Admin. He has helped succesfully place rename requests on images I uploaded where I gave a wrong title. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but yes KTo288 can. :) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for clearing this up. I see it now. Unfortunately, KTo288 never once states on his user page that he is trusted. So a mere mortal like me wouldn't know this information. Oh well, such is life. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you Leoboudv for your message I guess you read my edit summary on that file and wanted to help. And thank you Deadstar for your interventions on my behalf. Sorry if my not mentioning that I am a trusted user has caused any confusion or resentment. As I have said elsewhere my trusted user status seems to come and go, hence that message as my initial rename request on that image failed because I was not a trusted user, but seems to have worked the second time. Anyway I'll make amention on my user page that I'm a trusted user.KTo288 (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO numbers[edit]

Saw you are working on oilers. Question: does any of these have an IMO number? I try to create a category with all Category:Ships by IMO number. --Stunteltje (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. The majority being purpose built for the military they will have hull numbers or pennant numbers. However some of the earlier ships were taken into military service from civilian service (probably before IMO though), and some auxiliaries are built to civilian classifications so may have an IMO in addition to their military identities. KTo288 (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that is probably why I found IMO numbers of Fort type. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, you learn something new every day.KTo288 (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Did you ever receive my email? -- Deadstar (msg) 22:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just read your e-mail, sorry but I check my mail infrequently. Thanks for your confidence, however I don't think I can make the commitment that the job requires, I spend more time on Commons as it is than is good for me. Again thankyou. KTo288 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:30076848 3b23ec7505 b.jpg[edit]

Why did you change {Rename needs confirmation} to {Rename} ? - Erik Baas (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To confirm the rename, is there a problem? Do you have reservations about the new title, if so I can change it back.KTo288 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I know my request has to be confirmed; the idea was to skip the stage where "User:Betacommandbot" (?) changes {Rename} to {Rename needs confirmation}, commenting "rename failed". - Erik Baas (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This is another of the occasions where having "approved user" plastered on the user page avoids misunderstandings (see the thread third before last).KTo288 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Right, thank you, I didn't know that; I'll put my name on the list. And now I know you're a "trusted user", I also understand why you changed the template. - Erik Baas (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem.KTo288 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename JPG to jpg[edit]

Hi, the imagename .JPG is not missleading, it is simply a cosmetic change but such renames are causing a lot of work because they are reviewed manually and the Category:Duplicate is overflown with 3,000 images (normaly there are 2-300), so please dont make unnecessary renames like on Image:Hing Wah Street.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure now why I did that for that one. I originally thought it was something else that was misleading not the file extension which got changed in the process, however that doesn't appear to be the case from what I can see of the files history. I think there were a batch of them which were miscategorised and misnamed and this one got caught up with the others. Anyway I'll keep your message in mind for any others I rename or approve a rename of.KTo288 (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem, you did very well on many other images, e.g. Image:Hong Kong Granville Square.jpg, from the same user, so maybe that was the reason. --Martin H. (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your time.KTo288 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

COM:VP[edit]

I've removed your notice about COM:RFA. That page is always busy, so there is no point in promoting it now as opposed to any other time. Furthermore, RFAs are well-attended on Commons, so there is no need to promote them further. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First an admission, I'm a lurker on the COM:RFA page and while I agree with you that the page is busy and that RFAs are well attended, I have to add that the page is busy with the same small circle of users. Normally this would not have led me to place a notice on VP as the RfA process has always seemed well run and I trust the judgement of those voting. However this is not an other time because of Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship). I am indignant over Gryffindor's behaviour and wish to see that he suffers the consequences of his actions, however because of the vote stacking by the instigators of the de-adminship the likely result at the moment is that Gryffindor will survive the vote. The message on VP however futile was a small attempt to dilute the twin effect of the influx of voters from de:wiki and the closing in of ranks by established COM:RFA voters to close ranks around one of their own.
The notice was placed in response to this thread and the opinion of two other users that notification the Gryffindor de-admin should be placed on VP. I added my own resonse to the thread right after placing the notice on VP, can you assure me that my concerns are misplaced.KTo288 (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I stated clearly enough in my edit summary why it is unnecessary to have a notice there. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you read my prediction? In effect I was accusing anyone who decided to remove the notice of trying to control who was voting by keeping the majority of users who do not enjoy politicking ignorant of what was/is occurring. I repeat again, ...while I agree with you that the page is busy and that RFAs are well attended, I have to add that the page is busy with the same small circle of users.... If you find a small innocuous even message to be such a challenge to your inner circle no wonder so many users feel excluded from the running of Commons. Can I again ask you to re-consider?KTo288 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Having just done something I enjoyed on Commons and re-considering what I would need to do to see this through, I give up, the cabal has won and I wash my hands of this affair. KTo288 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


File names[edit]

Hi. Thank you for spotting the error about the name I used for Miss Costa Rica's photo. I was in South Africa last week, and I tried to upload photos asap, I was a bit tired, working long hours, so I did some mistakes, I haven't defined categories for the photos, etc. I still have to upload photos for the last 4 participants. I plan to clear the mess this week, and change some photos for better ones. User talk:rosengurtt 15 December 2008

No problem, anyway thanks for taking and uploading all those images, the results of the competition has only just hit the mainstream news here, this is one occassion in which the WMF is ahead of the mainstream, I had fun putting your images into Category:Miss World 2008 it was the next best thing to being their myself as non of the channels here broadcast the competition anymore. Unless they are exact uploads there is no real need to change images but thats your call.KTo288 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion[edit]

Hi KTo288, when you nominate something for deletion, you have to notify the uploader. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, I do my best but sometimes I forget, thanks for the reminder.KTo288 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, you might want to enable MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js to make nominating images easier. Multichill (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but in case you haven't noticed I'm pretty useless with scripts and things, and just thinking of messing with the default settings on my browser is making me feel queezy. Instead I'll tie a knot in my handkerchief to remind myself to cross the ts and dot every i when making deletion nominations.KTo288 (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New categories[edit]

Thanks for making the many new categories for my images to go into. The several Lambert and Davidson pictures now have a place to go into. I probably will be uploading other similar pictures and they will fit perfect into these categories you made. I noticed also you made the new category of "Defunct automobile companies." Should I add General Motors and Chrysler to the list - OR perhaps I should wait until after March of next year after they run through their bailout money. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome it was interesting to learn something new, especially so since you expanded the en:wiki article. There's no rush the category will still be here come March, though there might be a problem if the rumours are true that some Chinese auto companies are interested in GM, do we then make GM a subcategory of the new Chinese owners or close a chapter in automobile history and add GM to the defunct list.KTo288 (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Spamalot rabbits[edit]

I hate licensing and such :(

Reedy (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheer up Reedy. You know when things are getting me a bit down and I'm feeling a little sad, I have a little whistle and think we're on planet that's evolving, and revolving at 900 miles a hour... Sorry mixing skits, but you know what I mean. There are so many things to be feel great about, (or so many other more important things to hate) that there's no point in dwelling on things beyond our control.KTo288 (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories on my photographs[edit]

I want to thank you to have setup categories for most of my photographs. I'm not very good at this (never sure about what to choose). Stephane (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome,the pleasure was mine.KTo288 (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan[edit]

Hi! I am aware of the political sensitivities involving the ROC and the PRC. The solution is to distinguish between stuff involving the island, and stuff involving the government (ROC) - Long story short: there is no "Taiwan" government - there is an ROC government, and stuff of the government should use ROC. There are scenarios where Taiwan is more appropriate (Taiwanese culture, Taiwanese people in a geographical context). But the military isn't one of them as it is an organ of the government. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW please read: en:Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof - it's EN guidelines/policy. I used this as a guide. The military is an organ of the ROC government, so the military should be at ROC. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation KTo288. Would it be possible to describe somewere, on a place we can reference to, your current category structure and the rationale (as done in for example Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Current_requests/2009/01/Category:Railways and Category talk:Basque Country/Category scheme Basque Country). If we don't have such a description, the debate will continue in the air and through all sorts of rename requests. Much obliged. --Foroa (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Will do my best.KTo288 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer and the link to Wikipedia Naming conventions (Chinese)-Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. Although I was previously unaware of it, I find it wise, succint and an accurate summary of the situation as I understand it. Actually I'm surprised that you haven't included the link on the discussion pages of those categories you are seeking to move as it seems a pretty persuasive arguement, if I ever need to edit an article on Taiwan at Wikipedia I now know where to look for guidance.
This is not Wikipedia, and sage as that guidance is, these are not articles that we are talking about, even so I do not hesitate in endorsing most of its advice (the one area I would dispute would be:- "Text should treat the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China.'" which is itself disputed at the page itself.
Where we differ then is in how we would implement these guidelines. With an article what is used is language and constructions of words to create pictures and to express ideas. Commons does not deal with words, but with pictures and those pictures can create ideas and narratives in the mind of the observer. On commons pages, words in the form of introductions and captions can maybe help steer the direction of the narrative. However with categories unless you work very hard the order in which images are presented cannot be controlled and you have no control over the narrative. What control we do have over what and how an observer sees an image comes from categorisation.
I will use Category:Air force of Taiwan to illustrate this,as this was the category that first alerted me to your concerns. If we were to have one and only one category for this topic, then I think I would have to agree with you and move its contents to a category called Category:Air Force of the Republic of China. However that would be tantamount to saying you can only write an article using one sentence or one paragraph.
In articles, we use sentences to express a single idea, and paragraphs to link these ideas to create a theme. When done well these disparate paragraphs join to create a narrative. On Commons we don't have sentences and paragraphs but we do have categories and the taxonomic tree.
Within the tree indvidual files belong to or should belong to at least one category. However just as an article is not a jumble of haphazard unrelated sentences, Commons is not a mess of individual unrelated categories. Categories themselves can belong to categories which in turn belong to other categories. Any file that belongs to a category belongs to every category that that category belongs to and so on. So since the category Air force of Taiwan is a sub category of Air Force of the Republic of China every file presently in Air force of Taiwan also belongs to the category Air Force of the Republic of China, which in turn is a sub category of Category:Air force of China.
The wikipedia page offers the construction "Republic of China (Taiwan)" as a way to disambiguate between the pre 1949 entity and the current entity calling itself the "Republic of China", and this is exactly what is being done in the way the current categories are organised.
Again thank you, and my apologies if it seems I was lecturing you on a topic that you are familiar with.KTo288 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you prefer to keep this conversation in one or two places? This reply is being posted on both my talk page and yours.KTo288 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thank you for the guidance on the ROC (even though I was already aware of some of the political issues)
I understand that Commons and Wikipedia have different missions, and I understand that there are differences in implementations of things. It's that I am not aware of a case where one would need to separate categories for generally the same subject; we have category redirects which we use to guide people from one name to another. So "Military of Taiwan" could redirect to "Military of the Republic of China" - BTW it doesn't really matter where the conversation is. It's up to you. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Although normally there would be no need to have separate categories for generally the same subject. "Military of the Republic of China" is not a synonmn for "Military of Taiwan"
To paraphrase Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)
(Use) Republic of China When referring to the pre-1949 Republic as it existed on Mainland China. or When referring to the state in article space after appropriate disambiguation has been given.
The word disambiguation is important here because depending who you talk to there is either one or two entities called the Republic of China. All sides agree that a Republic of China existed on the mainland from the end of the Imperial period until 1948. However according to the PRC point of veiw the RoC ceased to exist after this point. The Taiwanese point of veiw is that they are a government in exile that there was no break in 1948.
The current nesting of categories makes it explicit that the "Military of Taiwan" is derived from the historical "Military of the Republic of China", whilst emphasising the break because "Military of Taiwan" should only contain images post 1948 and "Military of the Republic of China" should directly hold only images prior to 1948.
To do as you suggest and have a single "Military of the Republic of China" to which "Military of Taiwan" redirects would create a narrative in which there is a single uninterrupted entity called the Republic of China. Such a narrative would be consistent with the Taiwanese world view, but not that of the PRC and increasingly most other nations.
By way of illustration I have created a mock up of how a unified Air Force of the Republic of China category may look. You can find it here, now compare it to the existing Category:Air Force of the Republic of China. KTo288 (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the state of the Republic of China has continued to exist. There separate viewpoints about what ought to happen to the ROC state (PRC view: ROC state should be abolished, Taiwan independence view: state of Taiwan should replace ROC, people who like the status quo think it should stay the same, etc.) - But the actual state of the ROC has existed since 1912. The UN doesn't recognize the ROC, but the ROC still exists. There isn't a "state of Taiwan." Now, maybe one could have separate "Military of the Republic of China (pre-1949)" and "Military of the Republic of China (post-1949)" - But I'm not sure how much of the hardware the ROC got to keep and whether the defeat and retreat to Taiwan would have significantly altered the ROC's military hardware? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies / IMO discussion follow-up[edit]

Hi KTo288, thanks for your message. I really appreciate your willingness to write it (!), but as I just said on the IMO discussion page: I'm sure I was also off making a big deal out of it, and besides, I should just have been clearer. So my apologies just the same! :o) Warm regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding.KTo288 (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

File:HulkPrincipeFelipe2.JPG[edit]

Hi KTo288.

I´m not very sure if this can be consider a derivative work according to the spanish law as the image I took it cames from a figure that it seems it´s permantly exhibited in a Museum in Valencia. Anyway if you consider that the image has to be removed, please tell me as I´ve uploaed more superheroes images from that museum that should be also deleted. Regards. --elemaki (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elemaki most super hero images fall foul of Commons:Derivative works, the most important option in the decision tree used to illustrate that policy is "Did the creator give you permission to issue it under a free licence". Bear in mind what being hosted on Commons under a free license allows, the three freedoms, that is freedom to use, freedom to modify and freedom to use commercially. Taking the Hulk image you uploaded under those three freedoms I could perhaps blank the back ground and photoshop the highlights and catchlights in the image, I could then print the image on T-shirts which I could then attempt to sell. When challenged by Marvel for infringing their copyright I could then claim I had a free license granted to me by Commons. What I guess you have in mind is appropriate to a fair use criteria, a criteria which is not applicable to Commons.KTo288 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


File:Tedwilliams pic.jpg[edit]

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

--Ytoyoda (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Category:Narrow gauge railway lines[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Narrow gauge railway lines 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) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Industrial rail transport[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Industrial rail transport 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) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Category:Santos[edit]

While this image is not a clear portrait of Santos, it includes a newspaper article about him. Sherurcij (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And so it is, too focused on the picture to notice the text. Newspaper or magazine, added Category:1907 magazines to the file as it looks more like a magazine article to me, change it to 1907 newspapers if you know for sure.KTo288 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

Excuse me but that image that has been marked as copyright is from wikipedia, how come its not allowed to be used here?^_^

Okay, thanks ^_^[edit]

Okay thanks for the help, and sorry if I caused any trouble for anybody, Im just not very familiar with rules here, Im only used ta handlin my own Wiki, thanks again if I need any help I'll know who ta go ta!!!^_^ -- Falzar300 (Talk) , June 6, 2009

-Falzar300^_^

No problem, glad to help, we all have to start somewhere, though most of us hold of from asking for adminship until we have at least an inkling of the local community.KTo288 (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wonderin if ya can help me with somethin, do ya have any idea how I can spread the word on the Haruhi Wiki or how can I earn it a spot on the Wikia Spotlight, its just Im havin trouble with a rival Wiki!!! -- Falzar300 (Talk) , June 6, 2009

-Falzar300^_^

Not really my thing I'm afraid, I haven't even heard of Wikia Spotlight, I guess the usual things like quality and reputation will help.KTo288 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation's work[edit]

Thank you very much for your work for the categorizations of my photos.Crochet.david (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for thanks, instead let me thank you for allowing me to share your experience of the day.KTo288 (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

...[edit]

Comment: Category:Ricardo Bofill, Special:Contributions/Ricardobofillcommons or Special:Contributions/Ricardobofill. Go to work! Sebjarod (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. A minute of your time here, please? Sebjarod (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, a response to one of your posts at the Village Pump[edit]

It's late and long, but you might find this response [2] to your comment interesting. -- Noroton (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's later and longer, and I hope you find my response informative.KTo288 (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Black and white photographs[edit]

Nice work at Category:Stougard's photo journal of life in China in 2008. You might want to apply Category:Black and white photographs and its subcategories. (Or you might not; just mentioning in case you hadn't noticed it there.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It was either add it to the category as a whole which would be inaccurate as some are in colour, or add it to individual images and swamp the Black and white photographs cat, or to create a subcat of Black and white photos by Stougard which would break the impact of seeing them together. (Basically I chickened out of making a decision).KTo288 (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Hounslow police station 2.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Category[edit]

My english is not so good. You have reason. I have not see. I will think as it repair --keriM (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


File:Cochinshipyardindia cropped.jpg[edit]

You've uploaded a derivative work We're sorry, but File:Cochinshipyardindia cropped.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a derivative of a non-free work, please explain why on the file description page. In case the file has already been deleted, you may contact the administrator who deleted it or make an undeletion request.


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

--KTo288 (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gua Xi?[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that a couple of months ago you created the category Category: Gua Xi, and redirected Category:Kuo Hsi to it. Why did you choose the spelling "Gua"? I don't read or speak Chinese, but as far as I can tell, the vast majority of sources use "Guo" - i.e. Britannica (modern edition), every book I could find on Google Books (there are no relevant results for "Gua Xi"), etc. So I'm wondering if the category should be renamed. I thought I'd ask you, since you actually speak the language.

Best, --Jashiin (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed it should be Guo, I have to admit to sloppiness on my part I'm afraid.KTo288 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries, happens to everyone. Thanks for fixing the categories :) --Jashiin (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the understanding, a bit more time and checking on my part would have saved my embarrasment.KTo288 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated License[edit]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


It has been found that Image:Vickers Viking IV flying boat G-CYEZ of the RCAF1926.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 10:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:AMX-32 tanks[edit]

Hello KTo288!

You as a experienced Commons-categorizer and military versed person could be interested in this discussion: Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:AMX-32 tanks. This discussion treats exemplarily a mass category renaming action by User:Foroa some weeks ago. He renamed almost all tank categegories, for example AMX-32 to AMX-30 tanks. The problem that is discussed is not the tank-appendix but the plural form tank, which was applied. Would be great, of you can state your opinion to this discussion. --High Contrast (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)