User talk:Kobac/Archive 1

A kitten for you!

Amazing!

Creat2010 (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Alfa Romeo 33 1.7S.jpg

There is permission written on it. Ask the original uploader of 1st Photographs from the Garage de l'Est picture , who has asked the permission. --Typ932 (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked all uploaders of the photos from that category, but first of them is not available last years. (( Kobac (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

With that energy you could ask directly from Garage de l'Est, as seems you are familiar with OTR system and then you would need ask only once... --Typ932 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have asked the owner of the copyrights, a Mr. Stedehouder, and he promised me an e-mail offering the rights. He hasn't gotten back to me yet because he was on vacation and I didn't want to bother him too much, but I will be sending him a mail again. I suggest that we don't all of us start mailing, in case we become annoying! Cheers, Mr.choppers (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you're all ahead of the game. I realised that all of the images in Category:Photographs from the Garage de l'Est are tagged for speedy deletion due to this issue and as I'm only responsible for uploading one of them, didn't want to add to a snowstorm of emails to M. Stedehouder. I'll watch your progress and replace the file if I have to, but it would be a shame to lose this source of very clear pictures which (notwithstanding this issue) are good for Wikimedia projects. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I received a response from mr. Stedehouder and have forwarded it to the OTRS people. I also created a licence template which can be added to all of the images in question as soon as OTRS approval is received. Is there somewhere else I should place this, to ensure that the blizzard doesn't happen? Mr.choppers (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Great news guys, there is indeed some valuable images --Typ932 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Really good news. Anyway, we need to put the direct links to the photos in file descriptions. Kobac (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I put some, seems the original image with same size is hard to find...maybe they have updated those photos in that site, but anyway its the source. Would need some help to do this as there is so many photos or if we can use the http://www.delest.nl/autoarchief link ?--Typ932 (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

How can we check that these files was really downloaded from this site without direct link? I'll try to do something. Kobac (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly easy. The backgrounds used in all of the photos are all the same. The image sizes, backgrounds, and subjects make it very clear that all images in the category as it currently stands are indeed from de l'Est. Perhaps there can be some way to have an admin look at them all, and then okay future uploads. Also, why did you change the template? The text is rather garbled now, and why the Russian? As for File:Citroen Visa Decapotable 1985.jpg, which is in use in seven articles across Wikipedia, this should do. I have to go to work so I can't really keep up with the ongoing efforts to delete all of these photos. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understood why we can't use Russian in template? If you want to correct the English text or add the text in another language - you are welcome. Kobac (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I already wrote the text to the license in English once, I don't see why it was changed. The license was given by mr. S in English, English is the main language of the commons (for category names etc). If there was any other language which would be useful, it could possibly be Dutch. I will revert to the original version - I will keep your Russian translation on the talkpage, but I would like the meaning to better reflect the original licence as offered by mr. S. Also, I wonder what the OTRS people are up to? It's been three days since I sent the mail. Mr.choppers (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Templates can be made in any language. When the text of a template is available in multiple languages, the English version is the authoritative version on which other language versions of the template should be based.

Commons:Language policy

So you can't remove any translations to the talkpage, they must be placed in template. Certainly, I can use your text in English and translate it to Russian. I copied the structure (with text) from another standart template for images from websites. Kobac (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope we get the OTRS soon as those pictures could be deleted after 7 days, and we are now in 4th day... what about that source link, what should we use , we need some help to fix those as there is so many files --Typ932 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been through the Garage de l'Est website and managed to trace about 55 of the 87 images to those currently available. Where possible, I've linked these to the webpage showing the image, as this confirms the description, whereas the image file does not. I will continue to trawl through the site for dead links, but it's a thankless task. Given that I've proved that >>50% of the images come from the site, can we accept the remainder in Good Faith? Wikiwayman (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am hunting for an admin who could assist, because the problem is that all of these images could be picked out by someone for deletion again in the future as delest keeps updating their site. But 55 out of 87 is great, especially in light of the small number of people who uploaded from there (six or seven?) and that all the photos share certain characteristics. Unless there is a reason not to believe the picture to come from delest, I think that they should be marked as reviewed. I just can't find an admin who will respond. Mr.choppers (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO If the files are sourced right at first place, they cant be deleted afterwards anymore, same goes for flickr once uploaded with proper rights cant be deleted anymore- --Typ932 (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, not entirely, because Flickr files are reviewed by a trusted reviewer. That's why we somehow need to have an outside editor come look at these images. Mr.choppers (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm working through the remaining 30 or so problem images which are no longer available on the Garage de l'Est website and I've found a solution! See File:1964 Simca 1500.jpg for an example. Although the file link to the original website is broken, the site has been archived several times by The Internet Archive Wayback Machine. This proves that the photos come from the declared source. Wikiwayman (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the last five image files in this category with issues:

No image available, need to assess provenance on basis of background, camera type and uploader statements

• File:BMW520 1978 white.jpg (text description only in archive, no image)
• File:Fiat Croma 1989 grey.jpg (text description only in archive, no image)
• File:Subaru Rex 1992 white.jpg (text description only in archive, no image)

Alternate images available, showing same car in position and with lighting conditions shown - surely these are ok!

• File:Opel Rekord GLS 1986 red.jpg (rear view only)
• File:1966 Fiat 1500 interior.jpg (external pictures only)

Wikiwayman (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Subaru Rex does include the original page name, in Love Krittaya's original upload. All three pictures were uploaded by User:328cia around the same time, all three are taken in 1999 with the same Kodak DC290 camera as was this and countless other pics from the same period. The size of the files, the lighting (northern European), and the subjects in question also align. There is nothing to suggest that these photos are not what they claim they are. I also managed to find an archived front view of the 520, listed as a "1978 with 544 original km". The file has been modified to reflect this. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Acomoclitismo.jpg

Why did you tag this as no source? It says own work. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Low resolution and "(c) Adolf Hitler" in file description. It's a copyvio reworked in Photoshop. Anyway, the uploader have few days for answering. Kobac (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  No evidence of copyvio, all webpages which use it were published well after this was uploaded. I'm going to convert to a DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of Category:Unidentified locations in Germany

Hello!

Please do not use Category:Unidentified locations in Germany for images where it does really not play any role. This image is not intended to be used for automobiles somewhere in a region that could be anywhere in the world. Please use instead Category:Automobiles in Germany. Thanks for your support! --High Contrast (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK. Kobac (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Discussion

Did you read the discussion of the file? The user said it was important for some userpage.--74.34.91.136 05:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• You are this user, but unlogged, aren't you? I've read the discussion, but did you read the Commons' rules? Kobac (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow extraordinary solving, anyway, yes it is a spiral. I already changed the category into the spiral images. Of course it's even strenuous to read all the rules although, yes, I have read the Commons' rules.--GoShow (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are not the creator of image it will be deleted by sysops. Kobac (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I still disagree, there are many copyrights which allow their pictures on Wikipedia, then why are you not oberservant with the rest of the images on the website such as this image.--GoShow (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that this file was uploaded from site which distributed under a Creative Commons License? Kobac (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although, I was trying to make a suggestion there are many which have reliable sources from reliable biographical pages which can be used if necessary--GoShow (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Information in your uploads

I've noticed a lot of your uploads contain descriptions that aren't very accurate or useful, such as File:Skoda_Museum_-_Flickr_-_jns001_(7).jpg. Is people can't tell what something is, it's reuse potential is dramatically lowered. In the future, could you please try to add more information to the descriptions and categories of your uploads? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I know about this problem, but there is no description on the source of this photo on Flickr. Nevertheless the photo is of good quality, not out of project scope and we can use them, so I uploaded it (like some others) for identification and possible renaming in future. Kobac (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Я не разбираюсь в загрузке фото

Что на каждое фото нужно разрешение, в том ОТРС я не разбираюсь, а помочь никто не хочет, только удаляют, я за взаимопомощь, вы злой я посмотрю не успокоились, странно вы тоже против социальных сетей или вы просто людей не любите, будьте добрее, помогите и объясните я новичок на викискладе, может вы загрузите сами все фото?--Den1980- (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Правильно ли я понимаю, что вы сначала что-то делаете и только потом читаете инструкции?

Я не против социальных сетей, просто здесь не социальная сеть.

Меня, конечно, больше интересуют не файлы, а то, почему вы убрали из статьи о Казинце запросы источников, проставленные аж в 2010 году? У нас с вами, насколько я помню, несколько месяцев назад уже был разговор по поводу проверяемости информации.

Людей я люблю, но исключительно женского пола и исключительно тех, с кем знаком в реальности. Kobac (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Где почитать инструкции насчёт загрузки фотографий, подскажите, или вы не любите помогать людям, вот что я имел ввиду, мне нужна помощь, а не любовь, Взаимопомощи не хватает в Википедии, хотя наверное вы меня прекрасно поняли и в прошлый раз, просто решили пошутить, я инструкции не читал, подскажите где они, я почитаю, да есть у меня такая черта, сначала делаю, потом, если возникают трудности читаю инструкции, источники добавил---Den1980- 07:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ru:Википедия:Получение разрешений. Kobac (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Спасибо---Den1980- 12:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why the deletions?

I see you have again needlessly targeted many perfectly fine files for deletion. 328cia is inactive for almost three years, so posting to his talkpage will do nothing except ensure that many perfectly fine files will be deleted. If a file was uploaded from another wp project six years ago, why a sudden hurry to delete it because someone missed dotting an "i" ages ago. Why, for instance, is File:NissanGloria95.jpg tagged for deletion? It is marked as having been uploaded by a user called Suland, who was editing a lot of Nissan Gloria/Cedric-related articles (and adding pictures) six years ago. The car bears a vanity license plate with his name on it. How much more do you think is necessary? Please begin exercising a measure of judgment before tagging perfectly acceptable images for deletion, so as not to injure the project needlessly. I am still trying to find a trusted user who can assist me in protecting the Garage de l'Est images from you but could you please slow down on the deletion tagging, especially when it relates to transfers from other wp projects? Mr.choppers (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The file transferred from Wikipedia must have an upload log. What if the file was deleted as sourceless? How we can to check it? Must we keep it anyway? Kobac (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Buick Riviera GS image (and the other shot by the same editor) you list above is a justified deletion - but only after checking the links available. I don't believe that particular uploader at fr.wp is indeed the original creator. But again, I checked to see whether it was ok, all it takes is a little smidgeon of judgement and an extra minute. When the files are this old, I would suggest starting a deletion page for the file in question and then allow for other editors to weigh in, instead of just having them deleted without thought. Mr.choppers (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

More problems

I don't know how you are finding these supposed missing sources: File:Banovci School.jpg seems fine to me. If you think he ripped off the file from somewhere else then that's one thing, but just placing a deletion tag on it is hardly appropriate. Report the user, start a discussion or whatever, but you can't just ask to have things deleted indiscriminately. Please exercise care in whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. Mr.choppers (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr.choppers, did you seen all contribs from this user? I did. Did you seen metadata of files uploaded by him? I did. Did you read his answer about his "own work"? If yes, why you remove the permission request?

If the user uploaded files created by different cameras and at one date in different places (for example, 1, 2) it seems very doubtful and we must request the permission.

Also I think that daily carping to my actions are not constructive.

Best regards, Kobac (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Start a discussion. Having a few eyes on a file is immensely more productive than simply deleting blindly. You still haven't responded to the clear problems of the NissanGloria95 file I listed above - and you keep tagging for deletion everywhere. Please, slow down, think, relax, and allow for some constructive conversation before deletions. Mr.choppers (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Further proof why your deletion tags are placed indiscriminately and senselessly: File:73coronetcustom.JPG. Another version of the same file uploaded by 328cia, with complete sourcing. If you had spent two minutes thinking and looking for evidence, you wouldn't have tagged this file for deletion. Please be careful, as your haphazard efforts are most definitely harmful to the Commons project. I don't know if you are using a bot or something, if you are, please consider retiring it. Daily carping is indeed constructive when it concerns a daily stream of careless deletion requests. I do admit that dealing with these issues now will protect all of these files from future deletions by simlarly blinkered editors, but please let us do it slowly, and with input from more than one person - a person who appears to consider it a success to have a file removed for any reason. Best regards, Mr.choppers (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your flickr Tussauds uploads

Apparently we may not upload photos of US Tussauds wax statues because there is no FOP for US for artworks. See here. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hidden cats

Hi.

I do a lot of categorization, so sometime I make mistakes. I do not know why I removed that categories. It must have been an erro. I have fixed it. Sorry.

Barcex (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Kobac (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Про фотографов

Это я пытаюсь разобраться в смысле категорий. Позвольте ещё вас расспросить. Получается, что в категорию "фотографы" попадает или фотограф, чьи снимки загрузил кто-то другой, или фотограф, который не связан с интернетом. Следовательно, если фотограф сам решил публиковать свои фотографии под свободной лицензией на викискладе, он не будет фотографом. Получается, чтобы быть фотографом на викискладе, надо отказаться от него?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Всё дело в признании. Причём даже не со стороны каких-нибудь влиятельных институций, а хотя бы других участников. В этом смысле правила здесь весьма либеральны: полно категорий, работы в которых выполнены любителями с Flickr — и ничего.

Но для фотографа-любителя, желающего быть включённым в список именно фотографов, а не просто участников, которые что-то загрузили, по сути, есть только 2 пути: либо становиться признанным настолько, что о нём создадут статью в Википедии, после чего он попадёт в этот список, либо размещать свои работы хотя бы на том же Фликре, после чего ждать, когда на них кто-нибудь обратит внимание. Kobac (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Retire your bot, please

You listed a whole series of images from Ragdoll8 for deletion for having "no source". Every single one of them has a source ({{own}}). Please retire your bot or whatever it is that leads you to these incorrect conclusions, and please remove the deletion tags. And please stop it with the frivolous deletion requests. Next time I am going to report you, but please, couldn't you just exercise a little bit of care instead? Mr.choppers (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain your position with direct references to paragraphs of the Policies? Kobac (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You have marked a number of photos for deletion for "lacking a source", when the source is clearly stated as "{{own}}". This is wrong, and may lead to the deletion of images which are not problematic - a negative result for the Commons. Please untag all of them, and start paying attention. An apology to the uploaders you have unfairly targeted would also be in order.

You have also neglected to respond to my issues raised aforehand regarding the Dodge Coronet, the Nissan Gloria, and various other images you incorrectly listed for deletion. What gives? Mr.choppers (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If my actions are contrary to the Policies, please give me a link to the paragraph of it. Thanks. Kobac (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? You list images for deletion for no reason! This is a blatant violation. You also refuse to discuss or amend your actions. Mr.choppers (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example from only a minute ago, of an admin telling another user not to do exactly what you are doing. While many of the images you found problematic were indeed to be deleted, the ends do not justify the means. Mr.choppers (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the point-view of one of admins can not be the Policy here. Certainly, if want to keep copyvios and spam you can discuss it here, but not with me.

Commons’ users aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed. The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted.

Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle

The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided.

Commons:Licensing#License information

Also I'm still waiting for your citations from Policies or Guidelines. Kobac (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that copyvios etcetera should be deleted. But you cannot use "no source" to delete a file because you think it is a copyvio, this would be akin to giving a speeding driver a ticket for parking illegally. There is no policy that says this because it is so blatantly wrong. If you suspect a picture of being a copyvio, then tag it as such. And the reason the NissanGloria95.jpg isn't found on Wikipedia is because once an image has been transferred to the commons and verified, the original file is deleted. You therefore had a whole host of files which were perfectly fine, deleted for no reason. I hope you are proud of yourself. Anyhow, I am going to bring you up on the admin board, since you pretend not to understand why I am asking you to change your ways. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please use correct tags.

You have been criticized at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Kobac for carelessly or deliberately not using correct tags when asking for the deletion of a file. An example is File:SmartWash-in.jpg which you put a {{No permission since}} tag on, when you actually knew that the correct tag was {{Copyvio}}. You admitted this at User talk:Dontforgetthisone.

Commons Admins delete around 1,300 files every day and the backlog is growing. Half a dozen of us do half of those and we try to work very fast. When an Admin sees a file with the wrong tag, he or she must do additional research to determine whether the file should actually be deleted or not. This slows the Admin down and increases the backlog.

It also means that you are in my mental list of untrusted taggers -- that I cannot depend on your opinion when deciding whether to delete or not. I suspect that others of my colleagues keep similar mental lists, so your incorrect tags slow us down in a second way. Therefore your mis-tagging wastes Admin time, which is a very scarce resource.

Please take more care in the future. If you do not, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim, I didn't found copyvio when marked File:SmartWash-in.jpg, so I couldn't use this template. But I seen that this file has very low resolution and uploaded by Dontforgetthisone with another similar files with attribution from authors, who didn't gave the permissions. I found copyvio only after this user send me a "Talkback".

While I agree that I could re-mark this file, after I became aware of it. Kobac (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:2001 Holden Captiva - First drive - Flickr - NRMA New Cars.jpg

File:2001 Holden Captiva - First drive - Flickr - NRMA New Cars.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

OSX (talk • contributions) 03:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:2001 Holden Captiva - First drive - Flickr - NRMA New Cars (1).jpg

File:2001 Holden Captiva - First drive - Flickr - NRMA New Cars (1).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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

OSX (talk • contributions) 03:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:2011 Ferrari FF - Flickr - NRMA New Cars.jpg

File:2011 Ferrari FF - Flickr - NRMA New Cars.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

OSX (talk • contributions) 03:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:2011 Range Rover Evoque - First Drive - Flickr - NRMA New Cars.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:2011 Range Rover Evoque - First Drive - Flickr - NRMA New Cars.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:2011 Range Rover Evoque - First Drive - Flickr - NRMA New Cars.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

OSX (talk • contributions) 03:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:NEW YORK 1986-2003 LICENSE PLATE - Flickr - woody1778a.jpg

File:NEW YORK 1986-2003 LICENSE PLATE - Flickr - woody1778a.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Sreejith K (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Фото о Приднестровье

Здравствуйте. Вы поставили под сомнение ряд моих фотографий на викискладе:

• File:Хоржан Олег Олегович - агитация donor.tiras.biz.jpg
• File:Смирнов И.Н. - агитация на украинском donor.tiras.biz.jpg
• File:Смирнов И.Н. - агитация на русском donor.tiras.biz.jpg
• File:Евгений Шевчук -агитация donor.tiras.biz.jpg
• File:Владимир Путин и Анатолий Каминский - агитация donor.tiras.biz.jpg
• File:Анатолий Каминский кандидат в президенты ПМР - агитация donor.tiras.biz.jpg
• File:Анатолий Каминский - агитация donor.tiras.biz.jpg
• File:Информация о строительстве часовни на Мемориале славы donor.tiras.biz.jpg
• File:Обновление специальный выпуск donor.tiras.biz.jpg
• File:Газета Приднестровье donor.tiras.biz.jpg

Все эти фотографии сделаны лично мною (на фотоаппарат или при помощи сканера).Я немного подправил описание ГАЗЕТ. Если вас новое описание не устроит то можете удалить файлы.

Что касается агитационных платов относящихся к выборам Президента ПМР в декабре 2011 года, то могу сказать следующее: Я не вижу в этих плакатах ничего ценного. На мой взгляд они интересны только с исторической точки зрения. Мне не известны авторы этих плакатов. Но на изображениях присутсвует информация о заказчиках. Каминский - заказчик спорткомплекс Шериф. Эту информацию я указал дав фоткам соответствующую категорию на викискладе. На плакате с Шевчуком - заказчик - ООО "Аркстиль". На плакате с Хоржаном в правом нижнем углу похоже что имеется какая то надпись, но разобрать тяжело. А искать у себя оригинал в РАВе мне не хочется. На плакатах со Смирновым - заказчик ооо "Диливери". Если вы считаете что вышеупомянутые изображение нарушают авторские права - то можете их удалять.

Лично я считаю: что авторские права на изображения в википедии доведены до абсурда. Ведь таким же образом нельзя выкадывать фото, скажем, автомобилей. Ведь у них тоже был автор (дизайнер)! Да у любой вещи есть автор, так что же теперь вообще НЕ фотографировать? Ещё раз повторюсь. Если вы считаете что вышеупомянутые изображение нарушают авторские права - то можете их удалять. С уважением Донор (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Правила-то, может, и абсурдные, но уж какие есть. Делать копию чего-то, не считаясь с автором, нельзя. Сделал копию автомобиля, не договорившись с дизайнером — нарушил, сделал копию фотографии без ведома фотографа — опять же нарушил. А сфотографировать не фотографию, а автомобиль — почему нет? Kobac (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Valerian Kuybyshev.jpg

File:Valerian Kuybyshev.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Sreejith K (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms and flags of Zelenograd

И зачем было именно удалять? А не просто добавить иную. Alex Spade (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Тем более когда она уже в ‎некоторых случаях стояла. Кроме того в указанном случае - вы ещё и невидимый символ как-то смогли добавить между Moscow‎ и ]] (зато AWB его видит и спотыкается). Alex Spade (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

>> double('Moscow]]') // правильная категория
ans =
    77   111   115    99   111   119    93    93
>> double('Moscow‎]]') // добавленная категория
ans =
    77   111   115    99   111   119    63    93    93

• Это Cat-a-lot глючит. Я только не могу понять зачем у одного из московских округов должна быть категория как у города? И для чего подкатегория с гербами этого округа должна находиться в категории для флагов? Kobac (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (1) Потому что Зеленоград - достаточно отдельное образование, сохраняющее большую часть всех признаков отдельного города. Расформировать её под соусом "это округ" - всё равно что расформировать и всю Category:Zelenograd. (2) Ни для чего, ибо её там не было (как нет и сейчас). В категорию для флагов добавили её вы. Alex Spade (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • А ведь и правда я добавил, хотя, как я считаю, нужно разделить её на гербы и флаги (собственно поэтому в итоге её и очистил). У меня логика такая: категория Zelenograd должна быть, как и категории об остальных округах. Но и подкатегории должны быть такими же, как и подкатерии у других округов. Ни у кого не должно быть сомнений в том, что это округ, а не самостоятельный населённый пункт. У нас ведь нет подкатегории для флагов районов Читинской области? Нет больше отдельной области — нет и подкатегорий для этой бывшей области. Kobac (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Как раз есть очень большие сомнения потерял ли Зеленоград статус города. Alex Spade (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
        • И на чём они основаны? Kobac (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Зачем?

Доброго времени суток. Зачем вы поудаляли категории городов по регионам? --Insider (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Я действительно произвёл некоторые преобразования в целях унификации. Несколько категорий по городам я переименовал в категории по населённым пунктам. А некоторые (2-3) не только переименовал, но и объединил с категориями о деревнях.

Чисто теоретически можно, конечно, всё восстановить, но я исходил, во-первых, из того, что категория Cities in Russia, в которую все они были включены — это категория именно для городов, а не для их объединений (обсуждаемые категории по сути выбивались из строя), во-вторых, материала для создания категорий о населённых пунктах у нас хвататает по всем субъектам РФ, а для городов — только по нескольким (при этом общих категорий о населённых пунктах этих субъектов у нас как раз и не было). Так что я пока не считаю целесообразным разделение на города и деревни.

В настоящий момент из категории с населёнными пунктами одного субъекта можно легко перейти в аналогичную категорию другого (для этих целей даже специально был создан шаблон {{Federal subjects of Russia}}). Старая конфигурация делала подобные переходы затруднительными. Сомневаюсь, что для рядового пользователя есть принципиальная разница между городами и ПГТ, зато путаницу при поиске чего-то похожего в другом субъекте это создавало изрядную. Kobac (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

„это категория именно для городов, а не для их объединений“ - совершенно не понял что это значит. Вас не смущает что после всех этих преобразований Murmansk (например, и многие другие) перестали соотноситься с категорией Cities in Russia? --Insider (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

В категории «Cities in Russia» идёт простой перечень городов. Сейчас их в нём около 970. Каждый город вносится индивидуально. Считаете нужным добавить в эту фактически свалку Мурманск — добавляйте. Но категоризация населённых пунктов по субъектам, как я считаю, куда важнее. Kobac (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Суть в том что какая бы свалка там не была, этими правками вы выкинули часть категорий из важной надкатегории. Сделать можно было сразу так, как сейчас сделано в категории Category:Cities in Russia by region. --Insider (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Tipper lorries in Karachay-Cherkessia.jpg

Hello!

I do not think that the trucks on the image are Kamaz-produced. More probably they are MAZ trucks. Or do you have any clue why they are Kamaz trucks? --High Contrast (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Certainly it's MAZ. I looked at the description: Камазы = KamAZ trucks in Russian. Kobac (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! Is it a MAZ-6303-truck? --High Contrast (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the cab looks similar. Kobac (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Susuman-Sovetskaya-str.jpg

Источник стоял Own work - собственная работа. Получается, что не годится. Зачем тогда спрашивают при загрузке? Зачем этот шаблон? Написал источник так: Dj-2's own scan of Dj-2's own photo made in seventies of XX century in Susuman town. Чувствую, что тоже не пойдёт. Научите, как? Дело в том, что этот снимок я сделал сам, напечатал сам, потом сосканировал с отпечатка тоже сам. И файл представлен к удалению??? Dj-2 (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Dj-2

• Поставил шаблон FOP. Вроде бы, на улицах советских городов фотографировать было разрешено. Сусуман не входил и не входит в число закрытых городов. Так пойдёт? Заранее благодарю за разъяснения. Dj-2 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Dj-2
  • Даты поправьте, пожалуйста, тогда вопросов не будет. Когда и что вы отсканировали значения не имеет: сканирование не создаёт новый объект авторского права. В настоящий момент у очень многих участников, когда они видят что-то типа «3 марта 2012» под старой чёрно-белой фотографией возникает только одно предположение: это снимал не загружающий. Шаблоны о запросе источников можете поубирать. Kobac (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Мерси! Только сейчас понял, насколько нашим людям нелегко приходится на Западе :))) Dj-2 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Dj-2

a heads-up

Joost Bakker a prolific photographer from IJmuiden wrote to me today. We have corresponded via flickrmail before and he has struck me as a generous nice guy as well as a very fine photographer.

Anyhow, in this message he told me he had wanted to contact you, and another commons contributor, who has uploaded some of his images in the past, but wasn't sure how. He suggested that there were a couple of whole sets from his flickr collection where the whole set might fit well here. (Here are the sets in question [1], [2], [3], [4], [5])

I too upload each image one at a time. Do you know of automated tools that would help upload a whole set?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(sorry to intrude on another conversation) - Joost Bakker is indeed a remarkable photographer, both in terms of quality and quantity. Since he clearly wants his pictures here, wouldn't it be easiest for him to join the Commons (for future photos)? As for batch uploading, I think Kobac knows more than I. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Delahaye 1948 - Flickr - mick - Lumix.jpg

File:Delahaye 1948 - Flickr - mick - Lumix.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisión de imágenes

Hola Kobac, te escribo para pedirte el favor de que mirases a modo de revisión un par de cosas a ver si son correctas.
Hello Kobac, i'm writing to you to ask you the favor of looking trough a few things to see if they are correct.

Anteriormente he sido incluso bloqueado por subir algunas imágenes incorrectamente, violando los derechos de autor. Quisiera saber si las nuevas aportaciones cumplen los requisitos, y son válidas, o por el contrario, debo retirarlas. De ser así, ver si habría alguna manera de que fuesen correctas para su uso en Commons, y Wikipedia en España, o si no hubiese nada que hacer al respecto. Aquí te pongo los enlaces en Commons:
I've previously been even banned because of uploading some incorrect images which violates copirights. I'd like to know if the new uploads are correct, or if they are again incorrect. In that case, i'd like to know if there's a correct way of using or creating them for the correct use in Commons and Wikipedia in Spain. Or maybe they can't be used in Spain? Here are the liks in Commons:

• Escudo perteneciente al extinto equipo de fútbol, la Agrupación Deportiva Ferroviaria (Creado por mi en formato .png) File:ADFerroviaria.png
• Escudo perteneciente al Real Madrid Club de Fútbol en el año 1902 (Tomado de otro usuario de Commons para usar en Wikipedia)
• Escudo del Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (Tomado de otro usuario de Commons para usar en Wikipedia) File:Real Madrid Logo.jpg
• En general, las imágenes en Real Madrid Club de Fútbol en Wikipedia, incluso las de la Historia del Uniforme del Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (creadas por mi en formato .png) ejemplo

Se que es un trabajo tedioso y que quizá no es tu cometido, (en tal caso, si pudieras indicarme donde o a quien dirigirme te lo agradecería) pero intento aprender y sobre todo en lo referente a las licencias en Commons para poder usarlas en Wikipedia. Muchas gracias de antemano, un saludo.
I know it´s a tough work and maybe it's not your business (in that case, where and whom may I refer it to? I'll apreciate that information) I'm trying to improve and learn about the use of images and copirights in Commons for their use in Wikipedia Spain. Really thank you. Regards. Brgesto (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hola! You can upload to Commons logos not created by you only if the image consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. Please use {{PD-textlogo}} in future and don't place {{Own work}} template, because it's not your work. You must to declare the real copyright holder.

We can't use more composite non-free images without permission of copyright holders (even if you converts logo in Photoshop). File:Real crestds.png not consists of simple geometric shapes, but this logo was created in 1902, so the copyright has expired, because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923.

Maybe you can upload non-free logos to Spanish Wikipedia, but you need to discuss it there. Kobac (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly understood. Thank you very much Kobac. See you. Brgesto (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

MB 770 in Prague

Hi Kobac,

You removed Category:Karosa vehicles from this file without leaving any comment:

Converted Mercedes-Benz 770, National Technical Museum in Prague.JPG

Please have a look on the link on the discussion page. The car is obviously the same as mentioned on the article - or do you have knowledge about the subject? --Gwafton (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry. I didn't think about bodywark. Kobac (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's ok - but it would be good if you left a short comment in such cases so that others can see what the edit is based on.

Karosa (known as Sodomka before) made very few car bodies after the nationalisation. This MB is maybe the best known one and as far as I know they also built some prototype bodies for Skoda. --Gwafton (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent moves

These moves [6] [7] [8] [9] do not fall under renaming criteria (and these are not spelling errors). Unless handling your uploads, please avoid such moves in the future, especially for files being in use. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I stopped moving, but can you explain in which language "Novogireevo" is a correct spelling? Kobac (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no such language. It is transliteration of Cyrillic Russian into English, which has no solid rules and many alternative spellings, even for English, not to mention other languages. You might have argued in terms of "unify names" (though this argument has its limits), but not "spelling error." Materialscientist (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's keep the uncorrect names. No problem. Kobac (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please understand, this is not about being correct, but about your judgement of what is and can be "correct". Transliteration has been hotly debated on en.wiki on numerous occasions, and it is not an easy issue. Take some time to think about en:Holodomor and en:Borscht (but do not try to move those articles :-). Materialscientist (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that discussion about Russian-English spelling on TP's of articles about Ukrainian words is a good idea. )) Kobac (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct. These examples are merely to show the irregularities and absence of solid rules. We also have Tchaikovsky, etc., etc.; and borscht has no t in any Slavic language. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Novogireyevo is a Russian toponym, so I used the Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian guidance. If the each Wikipedia article's title about it contains vowel between "ee" and most of the Commons' users are wikipedians does we need use non-popular transliteration? De facto it's a spelling error on main Wikipedias and makes a ground for mistakes in future, primarily for Russian-speaking users here. Kobac (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I had to leave .. Uniformity of names is good, and I am 100% for it, but. The issues are (i) diplomacy - the link above is just some guide, not a policy, not on Commons. Any uploader can oppose it and defend their point. We want to avoid move warring. (ii) We also want to reduce file moves to a minimum. Because wikisoftware fails regularly, and we even lost some images during some moves; also, images may temporarily disappear from the articles during the move. Thus criterion 6 (harmonize file names in a set of images) may be used, but to some limited extent. Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ваши переименования

Мерси за переполнение моего списка наблюдения. Не соизволите ли, однако, исправить файловые ссылки там, где эти файлы используются, ибо иначе от переименований нет никакого толку. - A.Savin 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Для этих целей специально придуман CommonsDelinker. Kobac (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

photo uploads

Hi Kobac,

ALL the pictures that I uploaded belong to the institution that I am writing into and I belong to this institution. For the other pictures, I specifically indicate my sources or references. Please take your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolodapogi (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but we don't need your "sources or references". We need a permissions from copyright holders. No permission - no publication. Kobac (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but these pictures actually belong to the same institution where I worked. These pictures are property of our school and being used in our school powerpoint presentation. It just so happened that some of them were already on some websites. How I am going to ask for copyright permission if these pictures were actually our school's property?--Paolodapogi (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• If these images not created personally by you and published at the anouther sources (at rcbn-es.org, for example) you must receive OTRS-ticket for them. I'll send you link to instructions. Kobac (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

ok...i will wait for it...--Paolodapogi (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I already send an email for written permission to OTRS. Thanks again for the help! --Paolodapogi (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'll place {{OTRS pending}} to your files. You have 30 days. Kobac (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright. But how will I know the status of my request?

• You'll receive an email or comment on your talk page here. Kobac (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks again!

• You are welcome! Kobac (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The ticket is 2012050210009671 but I am still looking over the request. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Galleria Ferrari - Flickr - KlausNahr (22).jpg

File:Galleria Ferrari - Flickr - KlausNahr (22).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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

FAEP (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Verkehrsmuseum Karlsruhe 12 Modelleisenbahn - Flickr - KlausNahr.jpg

File:Verkehrsmuseum Karlsruhe 12 Modelleisenbahn - Flickr - KlausNahr.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

188.104.114.177 00:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

File:0325 Strasburg Rail Road - Flickr - KlausNahr.jpg

I converted your uploaded file to the ogv format. --McZusatz (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC) as well as:

• File:0322 Strasburg Rail Road - Flickr - KlausNahr.jpg->File:0322 Strasburg Rail Road - Flickr - KlausNahr.ogv
• File:0492 Strasburg Rail Road - Flickr - KlausNahr.jpg->File:0492 Strasburg Rail Road - Flickr - KlausNahr.ogv

--McZusatz (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't expext. Thank you! Kobac (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Large numbers of similar photos uploaded from Flickr

Hello Kobac,

This week you uploaded around 100 photos of the Airbus A380 in the ILA 2010 event. There are many great quality photos in there. However, there are also many very similar photos. For example File:ILA 2010 - gravitat-OFF - Airbus 380 016.jpg, File:ILA 2010 - gravitat-OFF - Airbus 380 017.jpg, File:ILA 2010 - gravitat-OFF - Airbus 380 018.jpg, File:ILA 2010 - gravitat-OFF - Airbus 380 019.jpg and File:ILA 2010 - gravitat-OFF - Airbus 380 020.jpg are really similar, there is not much added value in the last four photos relative to the first one.

The problem with this is that such homogeneous batch uploads make it hard to find and select interesting files within the category system and Commons in general (Aircraft in particular already give Wikipedia editors a hard time). So, it would be nice of you, in my view, if you could be slightly more selective in what you decide to upload.

I wish to insist that the quality and value of the photos is just fine (thank you for the uploads!). It’s the value added to Commons by some files that worries me. Thank you, Ariadacapo (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ariadacapo, I understood your point of view and I'll try to be more accurate, but I see only one possible problem: the manual categorisation in this situation is difficult. But we can use a Cat-a-lot gadget, for example.

I don't think that we need to deprive users the right to choose a most appropriate image.

However, if you'll start the DR I'll vote for deletion, certainly.

Cheers. Kobac (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Help reverting categorizations

User:Antramir moved tons of three-wheeled vehicles into his recently created "motocarro" category. Since Commons is supposed to be in English as much as possible (classifying a Chinese or Greek trike as a Motocarro hardly makes sense), could I enlist you in helping to revert these hundreds of edits? Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 08:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• There are only 46 files in this category a few minutes ago. I moved them to "Three-wheeled motor vehicles". Kobac (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That would have taken me 45 minutes, easy. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked them manually, so... Kobac (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

File:2006 Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder E-Gear - Flickr - The Car Spy (20).jpg

File:2006 Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder E-Gear - Flickr - The Car Spy (20).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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

AFBorchert (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kobac, please note that deletion request covers also multiple other photographs of the Lamborghini logo uploaded by you. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Andshel

Здравствуйте. Ваши реплики на этой странице (в первую очередь [10]) были, мягко говоря, неконструктивны. Вместо того, чтобы объяснить незнакомому с правилами о свободе панорамы участнику, почему его файлы удаляются, вы перешли на ответное хамство. В следующий раз ваша учетная запись может быть заблокирована. (Andshel я тоже оставлю сообщение.) --Blacklake (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Post0151 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Post0151 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:LavAzza - Flickr - FaceMePLS.jpg

File:LavAzza - Flickr - FaceMePLS.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Vera (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:LavAzza - Flickr - FaceMePLS.jpg

File:LavAzza - Flickr - FaceMePLS.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Sreejith K (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:ROMAN EMPIRE, CLAUDIUS 41-54 A.D. b - Flickr - woody1778a.jpg

Regret to inform you the person depicted is Claudius II Gothicus, not I Claudius. I had to strip your story, since it did not make sense with this coin. Kleuske (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Files: 1937 Opel Gläser Cabriolet

Hello, Kobac! I do not not believe that only 2 cars of this kind have been built. This is the Opel Kapitän Cabriolet which had a serial production in 1938 to 1940. There are more photos of similar cars in the Category:Opel Kapitän 1938. And I do not think your car was built in 1937. The Opel Kapitän was an all new car that was introduced in late 1938. Greetings, OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)