More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
- 1 "Taken on"
- 2 "No SVGs"
- 3 Thanks much
- 4 Commons:Deletion requests/File:What about the children.jpg
- 5 AN/U
- 6 Please stay away from User:Fry1989
- 7 About your clarification
- 8 Not sure if you noticed
- 9 File: Familija-klarineta.jpg
- 10 Majax
- 11 re Just so you know
- 12 Thanks for your analysis at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perversion-for-Profit-lesbian.jpg
- 13 Thanks
- 14 Commons:Deletion requests/File:محمدصالح عابد عبدالله عبيد 2013-04-25 11-45.jpg
- 15 DR vote
- 16 Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment
- 17 A little pussy for you!
- 18 Indenting
- 19 Review of Commons' scope
- 20 Motivation of cancellation
- 21 Ottava and AN/U
- 22 new Commons brochure draft
- 23 thanks!
- 24 Template:NGruev
You really need to pay better attention, I gave a link to Tuvalu's SVG on that DR, and I will give the link ot the SVG on Ecuador's DR as well. We have SVGs of EVERY national flag. Fry1989 eh? 17:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:What about the children.jpg, nice to know someone thinks the image should not be deleted. :) Much appreciated! Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I do not wish to be rude, but if I were to believe that the image is really not useful for educational purposes, I would not vote keep. So there really is no reason to thank me. Sinnamon (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you please respond to my comment and reconsider your vote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:What about the children.jpg? The image has been unused at the time of the nomination, and was solely added to other wikis to be kept here. --Conti|✉ 11:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there, Sinnamon (talk · contribs), thanks again for your initial comment. Please keep in mind the image is in-use at Wikiquote, and it will remain there. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stay away from User:Fry1989
I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with edits such as , , , and , but it appears to be intimidation/harassment and/or bad faith stalking. Such behavior can serve no beneficial purpose and is blatantly counterproductive to the collaborative atmosphere of Commons. It does not matter how much you dislike User:Fry1989; such behavior will not be tolerated on Commons. That said, please disengage yourself from User:Fry1989. If you are unable to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Sincerely, FASTILY (TALK) 07:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- "It does not matter how much you dislike User:Fry1989" What? Sinnamon (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
About your clarification
- I hope you didn't take it personally. I understand that it's just a default. Sinnamon (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if you noticed
Not sure if you noticed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Momomo.jpg, which is similar to two other discussions you had commented at already, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed by Jeff Walenta.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Dreams-of-a-ridiculous-man.jpg. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Update: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Momomo.jpg is the only discussion left open, as the other two linked above other than Commons:Deletion requests/File:Momomo.jpg have both been closed as kept. -- Cirt (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand. Does it mean that I can recover File: Familija-klarineta.jpg - to reload again?
- I am not an admin. I simply voiced my opinion that I think the file should be undeleted at least temporarily to allow a real discussion. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
re Just so you know
Thanks for your analysis at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perversion-for-Profit-lesbian.jpg
Thanks very much for your astute analysis at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perversion-for-Profit-lesbian.jpg. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
In regard to my deletion request on the spider image, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your last comment on the project page, and took/learned something very important from it: "...that leads to some things like the fact that you do not "own" the image that you have uploaded (but you still own the copyright to it), therefore you can't just decide to delete all your contributions." That was the point that I had been missing, or had just not thought of. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain things. Even though I created an account here last year (I think it was), I have barely done anything and don't know how it all works. I couldn't leave this reply on the project page since it is closed now, so am leaving it here. Also, you definitely did not "appear like a ____ who makes somebody's life more difficult." I admit that I was a bit aggravated at the time, but it was because I didn't understand things then (which, I do now, thanks to you). I was thinking about other places for uploading images, like Flickr, Photobucket, BugGuide.net, etc, and had I decided I didn't want one of my images at those places online anymore, I could just delete it, simple as that. I see now that this is a totally different ball game here, (especially if the images are already being used on Wiki pages), etc, and I apologize for being so whiny about the whole thing. --Lady Arachnophile (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sinnamon! I consider “Thank you for having so little respect for everybody else's time.” as an unfriendly and unnecessary statement. I look for the usage of files before proposing a deletion. I certainly make mistakes every now and then, but this is not deliberately or aimed at someone’s effort to contribute to our projects. There is (as always) only a handful of users watching Category:Uploaded with Mobile/Web. I tagged hundreds of copyright violations and files that fall outside Commons:Project scope in the last weeks, so this can happen. BTW: The article was deleted, the file is unused now. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Correct. I've overreacted. I apologise. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I wonder about your vote/comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gay 2013-05-16 14-17.jpg. This seems to have been uploaded to ridicule the boy pictured by calling him gay. There's no evidence that he's identified himself as gay. This is a young boy, looking to be about 11 or 12 years old, in a green school jacket and tie, photographed sitting in a bus seat. It doesn't look like a self-taken photo. Your comment could be taken as a repetition of a personal attack. I'd like to see what you think of this. It might be appropriate for the comment to be removed. INeverCry 01:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. It was years ago when that was actually on ENWP when they said "friends of gays cannot edit articles". The point is that many people on the net seem to get a kick out of saying "My friend Josh is gay" or something similar, this technically makes them "friend of a gay". That was my vote (Delete as you have noticed) that it is OK for a gay person to upload a picture of oneself as an example of some "gay behaviour", but these "friends of gays" shouldn't upload random pictures of their "friends" claiming that those are gay. Sorry about my vote being ambiguous, in the future I will try to make it clear. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Thanks. INeverCry 06:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment
just to let you know, i am starting a new request to restore the category.
i really think you should not have withdrawn, you had several good points, & they should be brought out into open discussion.
please rejoin the conversation? :)
- I've put it at CfD where it belongs, but maybe the VP is better ? we should put it there to get more attention. I want something along the lines of that category myself, or at least better categorising of deleted images, so that sometime when I get my pet project (a wiki fork) off the ground I can go and get all the pics that were deleted as out of scope, like good pictures of people that get deleted as personal pics out of scope. They can be used like an identity kit, like law enforcement uses, to assemble free pictures of people for whom no free pictures exist, then we'd at least have pictures for those articles, PLUS have more pictures to go with geography articles, so you look up some place, and can see what the people look like, which you simply can't do now in a lot of cases. Penyulap ☏ 04:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A little pussy for you!
- Unfortunately they're not of my making, but I am very glad that you found them interesting and amusing. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the ongoing Review of Commons' scope. This is just a quick note to let you know that as the discussion you were commenting on was related to the moral issues part of the existing guidelines I have moved it over to Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Update 2013/Moral issues (it had been started on a page for discussion of procedural issues). All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Motivation of cancellation
because was canceled the image of the calligraphy of Allah (Allah1.jpg in wikipedia italian version)? Christians would be happy if Muslims cancel the image of Jesus used in its main pages? see pages https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnismo and so on 50 pages (more or less) --Marc.soave (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have no interest in Islam, Christianity, or any other nonsense. The image was a copyright violation. If you upload an image created by you or by somebody who has released it in public domain or under a free licence, then it will stay. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Ottava and AN/U
I'm letting you know that I mentioned Ottava's near-baseless accusations against you at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Disruptive_editing_by_Ottava_Rima. The overall discussion is about the accusations that Ottava makes against users. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess that the discussion has ended. What was being said? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
new Commons brochure draft
Thanks for your comments on the Commons brochure draft. We're getting close to a final version, and I've put up a new draft that includes a lot of the suggested changes from the previous version. Please look it over if you have a chance, and post any final suggestions or corrections.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
|The Commons Barnstar|
|Thanks so much for giving feedback on the Commons brochure! You can see the print version here. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)|
This is a note to let you know that I've reopened a deletion discussion that you previously participated: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)