User talk:Latebird

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

I will answer questions on the same page as asked, so that the dialog remains in one piece.
This means that I'll observe your talk page after posting there.
If you post here, please do the same.


Image:Mongolia flag large.png[edit]

Please don't put deletion requests on redundant images. {{redundant}} is enough. --EugeneZelenko 15:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mn coa erdenet.png[edit]

Why are the "E"'s in Erdenet reversed? AnonMoos 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but... I have no idea! --Latebird 06:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Silly me: see Э. --Latebird 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Khuvsgul.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Khuvsgul.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Shizhao 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mongolische Schriften[edit]

Tag, wo kann man eine mongolische Standardfont finden und vielleicht herunterladen? Vielen dank! --Shibo77 17:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I think a Category:Mongolian script would be a better encompassing category, further divided into sub-categories: Category:Phags-pa script, Category:Soyombo script, Category:Classical Monglian script, what do you think? --Shibo77 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
A bit late, but basically I agree. Just that images should only be listed in the respective subcategory, and not in both. --Latebird 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Stop terrorizing Mongolian wiki[edit]

You knew that everybody can use NASA images openly in Wikipedia but you intentionally put copyright violation sign in Mongolian wiki. Stop your racist terrorist actions in Mongolian wiki. Plus most images in german or french or russian language Wiki's have very different copyright formats than english therefore our Mongolian format cannot be written only your preferred format unless you are something racist westerner. Orgio

Someone obviously doesn't understand the Wikipedia iamge licensing requirements (eg. that every image nees to be tagged accordingly), let alone the normal rules of civility. --Latebird 04:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Please stop flagging my Mongolian images as "superceded". If you make a newer image, you simply replace my image on the page where it exists. Otherwise, you could quickly invite, for example, that I go and update my image and then put a "superceded" tag on your image, correct? Neither supercedes the other - it is rather a selection of the quality or accuracy of the image for the article. As it is, I will be updating my images soon - and then what? So please - if you wish to add a category, it helps me greatly. But stop with the "superceded" tagging. Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As you well know (we discussed that a while ago in enwiki), you created your maps based on inaccurate data. As a result, they are full of errors. Obviously, incorrect maps shouldn't be used, and the best was to ensure that (short of deleting them) is to mark them as superceded when better ones have arrived. This is standard procedure on Commons, and I don't understand why you object to it. If I remember correctly, then you even worked together with Bogomolov to help create the new ones. --Latebird (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think you understand. It is not standard practice to go around deleting someone's work. There are MANY occurrences where a map may be created and exists in several different formats, etc, without being deleted. Commons is not a place for a single existence of a map. When there are inaccuracies, the standard practice is to inform the creator (as occurs from time to time) or update the map (depending on the licensing). And there isn't a standard timeframe to count down, either - as many of us do this in our spare time. Along the lines of your thinking, when I start to update the maps (which will be soon), if I create .svg format, then we should DELETE all the rest and place "superceded" tags while the process occurs, right? I disagree. Creating the maps in a different format (or with different colors, etc) is very much allowed on Commons. Just look at the atlas, where many different maps have been created and contributed. So don't give me that crap about "short of deleting them" please - I ask you nicely to NOT put the tags on there. Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not about different file formats, it is about maps presenting false information. Once you eventually fix them, everything will be fine, and no tags will be needed anymore. But as long as this is not the case yet, they must be marked, to make clear that they should not be used in this form.
In all Wikipedia projects, the standard timeframe for removing demonstrably false information is "immediately". Note, however, that I did not suggest to delete your maps, even though a deletion request would probably succeed given their current state. In fact, the "superceded" tag gives you time to fix them, but it also prevents any damage to people unaware of their present shortcomings.
I'm looking forward to any svg maps you will create (I've said that many times already). Once those are there, we can still think about what to do with the png files. Sometimes it makes sense to keep both formats, and sometimes it doesn't. This question depends on many factors, and cannot be answered before actually seeing both of them. --Latebird (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
That is certainly not true, nor valid. There is no "false information" whatsoever - or else you would have to take down all of the historic maps as well. Deletion request would not be valid, and you are truly out of line. The superceded tag is unnecessary. I'm not creating SVG - but I will be modifying the pngs I have (too bad for you). I'm telling you right now, you are way off base. If you place the tags, I will update mine to make the others out of date, and then they will have superceded tags instead. According to your own rules it will be a valid case. Then what will you do? Argue to keep yours? Stop the preferential BS.
And now that we want to really play games, the maps you say "supercede" are in a DIFFERENT LANGUAGE than ENGLISH - which means that mine are still valid for use on English wiki after I fix them (the ones you think are NOT - you DO NOT use non-English maps on English wiki), thus the superceding will occur pronto. Rarelibra (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Rarelibra, you are the only person willing to play games here.
Your sum maps contain many incorrect sum boundaries and many of the sum names are completely wrong. This has been pointed out to you in previous discussions, and it can be easily verified with existing published maps. If such incorrect data is not "false information", then I don't know what is.
New maps that are more correct will always superceed existing less correct ones, no matter who created which. Maps of different design both correctly showing the same information can co-exist without competition. Historical maps also don't compete against current ones. They need to be correct for the time period they refer to, and correct ones will superceed incorrect ones there as well. If any of that looks like "preferential BS" to you, then you need to learn about common sense.
Someone cloned Bogomolovs maps in Macedonian language. Those are very obviously not the versions to superceed the incorrect ones, and I have no idea why you would think so.
Unfortunately, I don't see that you are willing to have a rational conversation here. You just twist the facts and try to turn everything into a personal attack. This is not a productive use of my time, so I will have to look for other courses of action. --Latebird (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You are truly lost. New maps do not always or automatically supercede old maps. I will correct this as I will be posting map updates in the next week. The English language maps I post will be the ones used, not the so-called superceded maps you claim that have another language on them. Rarelibra (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The key point you chose to ignore is that the superceeded maps contain massive amounts of errors. If you now decide to fix that, then the problem will be solved. But you weren't in a hurry to do that for the last two years, so I'm not holding my breath. The "your maps vs. my maps" attitude you display here is also very inappropriate. If you want to superceede Bogomolov's maps "in retaliation", then you would have to show that they are incorrect, which doesn't happen to be the case. --Latebird (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
So you must do this for a full time job, eh? Well, yeah, it's been a while, but now I will focus. Also - I don't have to show them as incorrect, I only have to have much more detail to make them MORE correct - quote your own rules. Rarelibra (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

articles and categories[edit]

hi Latebird,

basically Common rules state that article be in native language or native name, while categories go under the English name. I took a look at the English article and the agreed name is Ulan Bator, not Ulaanbaatar. sincerely Gryffindor (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am just going with what is established in the English Wiki. I suggest that you put your input maybe better there where more people can voice their opinion. Gryffindor (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Uryankhay-Tuva AO.png[edit]

Mongolia tag was not erroneous - as this territory was Mongolia part before 1914, this map depicts the Mongolian boundary history and territory exchange with Russia. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Khar-Nuur[edit]

With this edits ([1] and [2]) you removed a Zavkhan aimag category. Why? This lake is in Zavkhan aimag. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The two images are in Category:Khar Nuur, which is a subcategory. Listing them in both would be redundant. --Latebird (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Khar-Nuur lake, Khovd aimag, Mongolia.JPG is in Khovd aimag, there are a lot of Khar-Nuur lakes in Mongolia.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Yoiu're right, I didn't pay attention to that. In that case, it's probably not a good idea to have this category. Once we have enough images of those khar nuurs, we can create more specific categories for them. --Latebird (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have much more Khov Khar-Nuur pictures, but is it sensible upload all of them?Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If they give a more complete impression, why not? Btw., where in Khövsgöl ist that other Khar Nuur? And are the article and image in pl:Char nuur really about the same lake? --Latebird (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Good question! It is much easier to me write articles in Polish or Russian, but in fact En:wiki is more translated. In en: wiki is a mistake with the Khar-Nuur - NASA is this mistake author. Satellite images (hi and low resolution, you remember them) are of Zavkhan aimag Khar-Nuur (2 km elevation), but NASA file description describes the Khovd Khar-Nuur (1.1 km elevation) wich is really a relict of former glacial sweet water see. You see 900 m elevations level difference makes impossible Zavkhan lake be a former see part. Zavkhan lake was so young it had no fish. In 1950-s Soviets introduced en:omul from Russian Baikal lake and, accidentally, a en:cisco (fish). Now the omul-cisco hybrid is a single fish population of this mountaineous lake. Zavkhan lake is in 48 deg 21 ' N 96 deg 06 'E, the Khovd lake is 48 deg 05 ' N 93 deg 11 'E. So en:wiki writes about the Khovd lake, but picture and coords are from Zavkhan lake. I was at both, but when I was at Zavkhan lake I didn't have a digital camera, only my collegues from expedition can provide pictures of this lake, but I am not sure they will want this - they don't like Wikipedia as it is, from academy science POV, not relevant in many cases.

BUT WHY KHOVSGOL? You added this category. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My brain doesn't seem to be working very well today... I read Khövsgöl where actually Khovd is written. --Latebird (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Category:Scouting yurts[edit]

Das ist aber ein schlechter Name für die Jurten, die unter anderem auch von den deutschen Pfadpfindern verwendet werden. Erfunden wurden sie nämlich von Tusk, der kein Pfadfinder war sondern die dj1.11 gegründet hat. Jurten sind nicht typisch Pfadfinderisch sondern typisch Jugendbewegt. Darüberhinaus sind vor der einen Jurte keine Pfadpfinder zu sehen sondern Mitglieder der Waldjugend. --Kersti (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Und wie willst du diese vereinspolitischen Haarspaltereien in einem vernünftigen englischen Kategorienamen unterbringen? Kennst du einen allgemeineren gängigen Sammelbegriff als "scouting"? --Latebird (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Dann benutze den deutschen Begriff Category:Yurts in the Deutsche Jugendbewegung. Außerdem ist es keine vereinspolitische Haarspalerei, wenn Du das ganze unter Category:Scouting kategorisierst statt unter Category:Deutsche Jugendbewegung, sondern der typische Wandervogel oder Bündische - Pfadfinder mal ausgenommen - wird nicht auf den Gedanken kommen die Jurte dort zu suchen, wo es sie wirklich nicht gibt: in der INTERNATIONALEN Pfadfinderei. --Kersti (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Und ein Außenstehender wie ich würde nie auf die Idee kommen, unter "Deutsche Jugendbewegung" zu suchen. Der Begriff hat für meine Ohren einen eher historischen Klang. Die "Jugendbewegung" an die ich mich persönlich noch erinnern kann, hat Häuser besetzt und Punk gespielt... Für den Laien ist "Pfadfinder" der Oberbegriff, auch wenn es vereinstechnisch und vielleicht sogar philosophisch eine Untergruppe sein mag. Ich habe selber viel mit mongolischen Jurten zu tun, und wenn dort eine Abgrenzung notwendig ist, dann ist immer von "Pfadfinderjurten" die Rede. Auch der einschlägige Handel verwendet ausnahmslos diesen Bezeichnung. Ich kann zwar irgendwie nachvollziehen, wie du auf deinen Vorschlag kommst, aber besonders alltagstauglich scheint er mir nicht zu sein. Ob man das dann unter "Scouting", "Jugendbewegung" oder am besten unter beidem einsortiert, da bin ich aber nicht heikel. Man sollte dabei allerdings auch beachten, dass es die Dinger nicht nur in Deutschland gibt, sondern mindestens im gesamten deutschsprachigen Raum, und wahrscheinlich auch darüber hinaus. --Latebird (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Wenn etwas sachlich falsch ist, dann ist Alltagstauglichkeit kein Argument. Und es ist eindeutig und unzweifelhaft falsch, Die Jurte unter den internationalen Pfadfindern zu kategorisieren, weil sie ein deutsches (und östereichisches) Phänomen ist. Ebenso eindeutig und unzweifelhaft ist es falsch, sie unter den Pfadfindern zu kategorisieren, denn sie gehört in die Überkategorie Jugendbewegung, weil sie bei allen Jugendebewegten Bünden verbreitet ist und nicht von Pfadfindern stammt. Der Alltagstauglichkeit kannst Du mit einem kleinen Hinweis auf der deutschen Pfadfinderseite fröhnen, in dem steht, wo man die Jurten findet. Ich habe eine Kategorie Schwarzzelte eingerichtet. --Kersti (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Seiten- und Kategorienamen sollen gängige Bezeichnungen widerspiegeln, egal ob irgendwelde Spezialisten diese Bezeichnung "richtig" oder "falsch" finden. Und in unserem Fall ist auf Deutsch "Pfadfinderjurte" die de-fakto gängige Bezeichnung, und diese Bezeichnung habe ich nach Commons-Konvention auf Englisch übersetzt. Für eine Änderung des Kategorienamens hast du also bisher keine guten Argumente gebracht. Falls du diese Kategorie ihrerseits anders kategorisieren willst, habe ich damit aber kein Problem. Category:Schwarzzelte ist sachlich gesehen eine sinnvolle Überkategorie, allerdings weiß ich nicht, ob der deutsche Name Bestand haben wird. --Latebird (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Du bist odffensichtlkich Pfadfinder, sonst würdest Du nicht meinen, daß das das Gängigste ist. ;-) - aber die Hauptkritik richtete sich gegen die Kategorisierung nicht gegen den Namen, denn in der Überkategorie INTERNATIONALE Pfandfinder ist die Kategorie für Leute die Wissen wo diese zelte herstammen unauffindbar. Wenn es da eine Kategorie für alle Pfadfinderzelte gäbe, wäre diese natürlich eine Kategorie, in der Kothen und Jurten zusätzlich eingeordnet werden müßten. --Kersti (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Nein, ich habe weder mit Pfadfindern noch den anderen derartigen Vereinen irgendwas am Hut. Wie schon erwähnt betrachte ich die Sache als Außenstehender, und damit ohne irgendwelche persönlichen Präferenzen. Kannst du von dir das gleiche sagen? Aber die aktuelle Lösung scheint ja für beide in Ordnung zu sein, also ist das auch egal... --Latebird (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia COA[edit]

The new one was done by request, as a comglomerate between 2 images, not a copyvio as far as I'm concerned. Just because one has been deleted as a copyvio, it doesn't mean this is one, as the source images were free. Connormah (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I found the one on vector-images.com that I apparently had in mind, and while being very similar in style, it does indeed show some significant differences. Maybe the creator should specify your sources in the image description, to remove all possible doubts. --Latebird (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

terelj[edit]

Hi, ich habe gerade vorgeschlagen, category:Gorki-Terelj National Park nach category:Gorkhi-Terelj National Park zu verschieben. Gruesse, Yaan (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yaan, das ist ein sehr guter Vorschlag Brücke-Osteuropa (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


File:Clear-script-19th-ctry.png[edit]

Hallo Latebird, ich denke dass das ständige gegenseitige Revertieren hier nicht zielführend ist. Hast du schonmal versucht, IP 193.171.97.82 direkt anzusprechen. Derjenige scheint ja immer unter der derselben (festen) IP zu editieren, also sollte das möglich sein. Unsere policy, wonach Reproduktionen eines PD-Original selbst auch PD sind, ist verständlicherweise nicht für jedermann einsichtig, wie der Fall National Portrait Gallery ja zeigt. Und den Photographen anzugeben, ist m.E. schon angebracht, selbst wenn es rechtlich vielleicht nicht zwingend ist. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ganz deiner Meinung. Es war tatsächlich auch schon meine Absicht, Die Argumente bei der nächsten Runde auf die Diskussionsseite zu verlagern. --Latebird (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Latebird, die IP hat mich jetzt auf meiner Disku direkt angesprochen und um Mediation gebeten. Ich schlage vor, die Diskussion auf die Disku der Abbildung zu verlagern. Sie schreibt auf deutsch und ist vermutlich Wissenschaftlerin, da die Quelle wohl ein von ihr selbst geschriebenes Buch ist. Also bitte freundlich und mit Respekt behandeln, was ja sowieso selbstverständlich sein sollte. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Danke für die gute Lösung, die du gefunden hast. --Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Viewer issue[edit]

Hello,

A reply has been posted regarding copyright issues at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Copyright_on_images_created_using_the_Crystal_Viewer_Tool

I hope the reply would satisfy your doubts regarding the same. Also let us know if any further questions.

thanks, nanoHUB team

File:Mongolia_Parliament_Building.JPG[edit]

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

...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to do something about these idiots[edit]

This Captain Of Hope fellow and the other fellow that are trying to take all pictures of Mongolian buildings off of Wikimedia Commons need to be stopped, and stopped pronto. I am willing to help in any way I can. Vidor (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears that the deletionists have won and images are getting deleted from the Commons. I am willing to help however I can by uploading photos to the English Wikipedia to replace those that have disappeared from the Commons. Vidor (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:ZaisanmemorialUBmongolia.jpg[edit]

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

Stefan4 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Byambyn Rinchen.jpg[edit]

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

BabelStone (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:ChoinomR.jpg[edit]

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

BabelStone (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Eleassar (t/p) 09:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)