More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
You said this, in regards to that fraudulent bosnia map... quoteKeep (for now). This is used in many projects. If there is consensus on the Wikipedias to use another map, then they should and can go ahead and use another map, but they haven't so far. It isn't up to Commons to impose such editorial choices on the Wikipedias.quote What difference does it make if it is used in many projects if it is a clearly wrong map? The person who made these maps does not want to cooperate with new ones which exist. There has been a big discussion, the author has agreed that the map is wrong, and now is not moving forward in anything to agree with the new maps that I have presented to him. (LAz17 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
- Hi. I'm afraid I don't really understand your argument: if everyone agrees this map is wrong, why is it still used in so many places? Couldn't you have this discussion on Wikipedia, and reach consensus to use another map there? As I said, from Commons' point of view, it looks that the Wikipedia need this file (despite the mistakes you say it has), so why would we delete it? Pruneautalk 07:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The map is there because of what happened on the english wikipedia. The Croats used these maps to replace other maps. I have, and many others too, have indicated that their maps are fraudulent, yet they continued to keep them. I have started to delete their maps, one step at a time. The author of these maps held one last stand, and boy did it last a while. But, we came to the concensus that the map that I provided for 1991 is CORRECT. You can see that here, at the bottom, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Bosnian_census . As for why are they on so many wikipedias - one simple reason... someone who speaks another language thought that this map looks good and decided to put it up on the project of their language. There is nothing unusual here. Simply, the person had little knowledge on the ethnic map of the region, and tried to expand the page in the other language. TO be honest, the map itself does not look too bad, and people can easily be fooled by it. This is why it is very useful to read the renowned "Mark Monmonier"s book "how to lie with maps". We see this going on here. (LAz17 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).
- Where does it indicate on which wikiprojects this map is? Are admins only allowed to see that? (LAz17 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).
- To find out where an image is used, use the "check usage" tab at the top of any image page, next to the "watch" tab. Any user can see that.
- I can't understand the discussion you've linked to, since half of it is in Croatian. Anyhow, the point remains: this is an editorial issue, which should be dealt with first and foremost by the Wikipedias. I would suggest that you notify the various Wikipedias about the issues you say this image has, so that they can take the actions they deem necessary. Pruneautalk 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
- [[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
- [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.
- Image:LAzUpload.GIF was uncategorized on 4 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Image:BanHrvatska1939.gif was uncategorized on 30 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Image:NoviSadTram1911.jpg was uncategorized on 6 April 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Ja sam dodao svoj glas za brisanje, al bi lakse bilo da se sve odjednom pobrisu. Sve su samo kopije njegovih pobrisanih karti na en.wiki ili je kao izvor uzimao druge bez izvora koje su takodjer pobrisane. --WizardOfOz talk 05:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Meni samo ide na zivce sto ni jedna nema bilo kakvu vaznu referencu. Za sve karte je uzeo jednu (onu pobrisanu na enwiki) i samo na nju referencirao iako je mijenjao i podatke, i granice opcina i sve. Za podatke uzima privatnu stranicu koja nema ni podatke o vlasniku a kamoli neke izvore. To sam i njemu rekao pa vidi odgovor iznad. Ne znam ko kod vas na srwiki (mislim da te znam od tamo) pravi karte, al one dvije koje sam vidio kao primjer stvarno bolje izgledaju. Sad je pitanje koliko vrijede izvori tih karti jer je zadnje brojanje stanovnistva bilo 91, dok su sve drugo samo procjene. Na drugu stranu si u pravu, jer bilo bi glupo pobrisati a da nema zamjene. Kad ti nesto treba ostavi mi poruku na bswiki, meti ili shwiki, brze vidim nego ovdje. Poz. --WizardOfOz talk 20:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Odgovorio sam. --WizardOfOz talk 04:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
|Hello, LAz17. You have new messages at Darwinius's talk page.
|File:BosniaEthnic1935.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.