- 1 DR
- 2 Cats
- 3 msg
- 4 Omar sangare.jpg
- 5 Foto kwijt
- 6 New image
- 7 Please help
- 8 File:Jimmy Verstraeten docu2.jpg
- 9 Lemur
- 10 File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg
- 11 Files of deletion
- 12 Foto's Sander198
- 13 Antonius van Padua
- 14 Schepenstraat.jpg
- 15 File:Mormon Temple Edmonton Alberta Canada 01.jpg
- 16 Disorder in the court
- 17 File tagging File:Old_Louisville_house_with_ornamentation.jpg
- 18 Flags and coats of arms
- 19 Holland Festival programma boekje
- 20 Message regarding your category move
- 21 File:110-1068 IMG.jpg
- 22 User:Econ Engineering
- 23 New user advise
- 24 Category:Teeth und andere
- 25 File:JY006.jpg
- 26 Guatemala
- 27 Seasonal greetings
- 28 Not politicians
- Lijkt inderdaad gefixt :) Van hier ziet alles er prima uit in ieder geval -- Deadstar (msg) 11:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Waarom haal je deze categorieen weg? Het is behalve een kunstwerk ook een afbeelding van een historische gebeurtenis, daarom had ik er historische cats bij gezet.  Woudloper (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ik heb een nieuwe cat aangemaakt voor Diponegoro (mijns inziens het hoofdonderwerp van het schilderij), en die vervolgens ingedeeld bij de verschillende historische gebieden. En om dan dubbele indeling te voorkomen heb ik de categorieën van de individuele files in de categorie verwijderd. Ik hoop dat dit wat opheldering geeft? -- Deadstar (msg) 16:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thx for your msg (2007y) :P, I upload now more photos :) BTW: Is possible to change login from "Amz" on "Ziaja"?:) I have http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Ziaja Sorry if I crash something (like your page) but I dont know how good use wiki from editor :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziaja (talk • contribs) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Ziaja, nice to hear from you. You can check Commons:Changing username for information on how to change it. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. As for the GNP 1.2 - just from the glance I thought that it was the broad one and most appropriate. You know,all that legal mumbo-jumbo talk makes you dizzy sometime. Is there another one more proper for general use? If anything I want to make sure that if anyone uses it for other reasons, the source (Strumien magazine) would be mentioned. But even that is not important, as that photo is only part of the original. best regards, --Bepege (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ik heb me net rot gezocht naar de foto File:Aceros cassidix.jpg die ik ooit op nl.wikipedia heb gezet. Ik namelijk ineens een gapend gat im mijn foto gallerij op nl.wikipedia. De foto is later verplaatst naar commons, maar leek nu dus ineens helemaal verwijderd te zijn. Blijkt na lang zoeken dat iemand ontdekt heeft dat de vogel een andere jaarvogel zou zijn, nl Aceros undulates. De foto is vervolgens door jou (als ik het goed begrijp) van naam veranderd naar File:Aceros undulatus (female) -Aviafauna-6.jpg. Nou zal het best kloppen dat dit inderdaad de Gewone jaarvogel is, maar het lijkt me toch wel netjes om even de originele uploader te waarschuwen, en bovendien alle links (al is het op een gebruikerspagina) aan te passen. Magalhães (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Excuses voor het vertraagde antwoord, maar ik heb het even nagekeken: Het lijkt erop dat mijn bijdrage alleen een goedkeuring van de hernoeming is geweest: User:Snowmanradio had de hernoeming aangevraagd (23:01, 26 October 2008 . . Snowmanradio (Talk | contribs | block) (1,108 bytes) (see bird 21 on en WikiProject Birds talk page for discussion on identification of this hornbill) & 22:49, 26 October 2008 . . Snowmanradio (Talk | contribs | block) (1,107 bytes) (rename media please - see BirdTalk on en wiki - bird 22)). Verder is degene die de afbeelding uiteindelijk verwijderd verantwoordelijk om ervoor te zorgen dat er geen gebroken links (ook op een gebruikerspagina) zijn voor de afbeelding. Dus dit is in dit geval helaas dus niet goed gegaan.
- En het zou inderdaad netjes zijn om de uploader te waarschuwen bij het aanvragen van een rename. Ik hou het zeker in gedachten voor de volgende naamsverandering die ik aanvraag. -- Deadstar (msg) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This image is fake. 188.8.131.52 01:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I try to enter http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elbegdorj.JPG link this file to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsakhiagiyn_Elbegdorj here. But there is another file with the same name in wiki is showing up as this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elbegdorj.JPG
- Awesome! I greatly appreciate you!
- Gek genoeg had ik alle info toegevoegd vanuit de history... net als jij had gedaan? Ik had in eerste instantie een rename aangevraagd, met een leeg template. Daarna alle info toegevoegd? In de geschiedenis zijn de edits omgedraaid opgenomen -- Vreemd. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg has been moved, or re-uploaded. The original copyright, which I own, is not respected. The original copyright was "© Denis Moyogo Jacquerye, CC-BY-SA License, 2006" but now User:Anuskafm claimed the copyright with the GFDL 1.2. See File:Armoiries de la République démocratique du Congo - 2006.png for reference. --moyogo (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have posted your question at Licensing talk, unfortunately, licensing isn't my strong point.-- Deadstar (msg) 09:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Files of deletion
Bedankt voor je bericht over de foto's. Ik heb een mail gestuurd naar email@example.com om de officiele permissie vrij te geven. 5 foto's zijn gemaakt met mijn eigen camera en ik ben de enige rechthebbende. 2 zijn screens van materiaal van mijn eigen homevideo camera. De enige waarvan ik niet de rechthebbende ben is de onderstaande. Die is van NL film, maar is vrijgegeven en wordt op vele websites gebruikt. Daar heb ik ook een verklaring van en die heb ik ook doorgestuurd naar Wikimedia Commons.
Bedankt in ieder geval en keep up the good work!
Antonius van Padua
Hartelijk dank voor de verbetering! De foto betreft een houten beeld van St. Gerardus Marjella, maar heeft een prominente plaats boven het altaar in de Antonius van Paduakerk in Aerdenhout.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Dit is de Schepenstraat in Rotterdam.
- Pasted the above at User talk:WinterE229, as they are the creator of this image. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Disorder in the court
Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk. -Nard the Bard 14:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
File tagging File:Old_Louisville_house_with_ornamentation.jpg
|This media was probably deleted.|
|Thanks for uploading File:Old_Louisville_house_with_ornamentation.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (firstname.lastname@example.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.
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 OTRS-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 (
Flags and coats of arms
Hello Deadstar, first of all thank for your numerous contributions. Nevertheless I learned, that on 2009-10-14T08:41:01 you edited the White Dragon Flag of England.png: removing category Red and white; quick-adding category Red and white in heraldry (using HotCat.js). For sure you will agree that this file depicts a flag, and not a coat of arms. So the correct category here is Red and white flags instead. During my categorisation work here in commons I have already created quite a lot of heraldic (for coats of arms) and vexillological (for flags) categories, as well as creating a see also-section at each top of these categories, helping others in finding files as well as categorising them correctly.
- Sometimes it helps if someone explains it to you - so thank you. I don't know much about all that stuff really - I'll try and stay away :) -- Deadstar (msg) 07:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Holland Festival programma boekje
LS, waarom is bovenstaande verwijderd, 't is geweon een scan van een programma boekje uit 1954, daar zit toch geen auteursrecht of wat dan ook op. Groet User:Arend041 3 november 2009.
- Dat is het 'm juist - er zitten nog steeds auteursrechten op. Iets valt pas semi-automatisch in het Publiek Domein als het meer dan 70 jaar geleden is gepubliceerd, of als de schrijver/ontwerper meer dan 70 jaar geleden is overleden. (Er zijn nog wat meer regeltjes aan, maar dat is de hoofdlijn zeg maar). En als u het niet zelf heeft ontworpen, kunt u het niet vrijgeven onder welke licentie dan ook, dat privilege ligt bij degene die het wel heeft gemaakt. Voor meer informatie over licensering kunt u terecht op COM:PD#Netherlands (over publiek domein in Nederland) of COM:L over licensering in het algemeen. Ik hoop dat dat helpt. (En u kunt uw bericht ondertekenen met vier tildes, dan worden naam en tijd automatisch ingevuld ~~~~.) Met vriendelijke groeten, -- Deadstar (msg) 10:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- LS, dus het foldertje van de bakker mag ik niet scannen en als voorbeeld in WP zetten? Groet Arend041 (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nee, tenzij er uitdrukkelijk toestemming is van degene die het foldertje heeft gemaakt voor de bakker. En dan nog kan het zijn dat bepaalde onderdelen (bv als het om een nationale bakker gaat maar iemand heeft lokaal een foldertje gemaakt) zoals een logo nog steeds niet kunnen worden vrijgegeven. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- LS, dus het foldertje van de bakker mag ik niet scannen en als voorbeeld in WP zetten? Groet Arend041 (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Message regarding your category move
- Further to the above, is there any consensus for this? London Boroughs are never referred to as "Islington, London borough of" etc (let alone artificial constructions like "Kensington and Chelsea, Royal borough of London") - and in any case, the capitalisation is incorrect ("London Borough" or "Royal Borough" - never "Royal Borough of London" - are always capitalised). — iridescent 20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Deadstar, thank you for closing this Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/01/Category:London Boroughs that has been oustanding for such a long time. If there are further problems, a new cfd can be opened. Note that many subcategories in the boroughs have to be changed, for example "buildings in xxx" has to become "buildings in xxx, borough of Londen" with the actual naming (alternatively: "buildings in the Royal Borough of London xxx". --Foroa (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Iridescent is absolutely right. They are always written in the form I put in Categories for discussion . It is done like this to avoid confusion, because the ‘entity’ XXXX is not the name of the borough but the ‘whole title is’, which is why it was done like that on WP. XXXX might be a subdivision like the name of a town or ward or something quite different. It becomes more obvious when trying to understand something written by someone that ignores this. I have even seen the BBC deliver news reports from the wrong locations at times; even the wrong hospital on one occasion because they didn’t read the full address properly, so these things matter. Doing otherwise will upset people and cause school teachers to turn purple with rage and shake their fists.
- Whilst "Hanringey" is obviously a typo it also further demonstrates the importance of preserving the proper titles of these boroughs so as not to confuse borough with town or district, ward, housing estate etc. So it should be in the form and structure of Category:London Borough of Haringey and [[:Category:Harringay]] district of London and so on but certainly not >xxxx, London Borough of<
- For the "buildings in xxx" and other ranges of categories etc., this could be more difficult. One thing they have realised on WP is that by letting anyone create a new category regardless of if they know how the classification of the subject is structured, then you can have a confusing mess which spreads over hundreds and hundreds of sub categories and their subs. The only way to sort this out I think would be to write a script containing a list with the first-part of the name for each of the boroughs. Then have conditionals statements to search the string; say something along the lines ‘if ‘Croydon’ then add ‘Borough of London’. Then have it programmed to go through each category in turn, on the whole database. There is a small problem in that a few of these names are also place names in other parts of the world which were parts of the British Empire but these would be easy to sort out afterwards. Image from those places already turn up in the UK cats so this would not be the greater evil. I will have to think about these other cats further and see how big the problem has become on WC. Hopefully its not as advanced as on WP.--P.g.champion (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I'll open a new cfd for this, and in the meantime will leave things as they are. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I was going to move File:110-1068 IMG.jpg to File:Market Street, York PA.jpg but file is widely used and I'm not sure how to work the delinker with a file name change without breaking all the links first. So do I move file first, and then ask delinker to change it? Sorry - I usually use it for categories only :). Thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 14:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I moved this from User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. To move a file please add the request to the delinker commands, then move/rename the file and create a redirect while renaming. The image will still appear on the projects as file redirecting works, Delinker will follow your command and delink the redirect. --Martin H. (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This role account has uploaded over a dozen images to the Commons, claiming to be the creator. Since they are all related to an article about a company called "Econ Engineering", I suspect the human being behind the role account is not in fact the copyright holder and cannot license these images' use. --Orangemike (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by User:Econ Engineering. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
New user advise
Hi Deadstar, sorry for the confusion i seem to be causing, I hope the image problem is now recified.
As someone who seems to have a much better grip of wikipedia than myself please could I ask your advice as I get to grips with the site, first I think it would be advantagous for me to change my username how do i go about this or do I need to create another account? Econ Engineering (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, yes, I heard about your troubles on en: wiki (by chance I must admit) - I think they would just like you to create a new username on en: wikipedia. Once that has been created, you can read Commons:Changing username and add your request there. I think someone higher up the chain than me can transfer your edits/uploads to your new username. Don't create your new username on commons as apparently that's not the way to go about it.
- In regards to your uploads: Commons is quite a different animal from wikipedia, as we welcome any good quality content, whether it is used on any wikipedia or not. So if you have even higher resolution images of say the salt spreaders - we would love to have them (if of course you have permission). Hope this helps, if there's anything let me know. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Category:Teeth und andere
Hallo Deadstar, mit Deinen Änderungen in den Dateien und Unterkategorien von der Category:Teeth bin ich teilweise nicht einverstanden. Nicht auf allen dentalen Rö-Aufnahmen sind zwangsläufig auch Zähne dargestellt, so zum Beispiel bei File:Dental X-ray105.JPG. Ich meine, da muss es schon bei einer differenzierteren Kategorisierung bleiben. Gruß, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure exactly what you mean - I didn't change the image you mention? I moved X-rays of teeth from "Teeth" into "Dental X-Rays". My reasoning is that if it's an X-ray, and it involves teeth, it's a dental X-ray. Whether it shows whole teeth or not doesn't matter. If someone is looking for images of teeth, they'll find the right category, and if they're looking for x-ray images of teeth, they can find that in the category below it.
- The image you mention is in "Orthopantomograms". I don't know what Orthopantomograms are, so I haven't used this particular category. Looking at it now - isn't an Orthopantomogram a type of Dental X-ray? In my mind, it should fall under "Dental X-Rays" only, no need to have it in Category:Teeth too. Anyway - If you feel images should go into this or other categories within "Dental X-Rays", please move them! But I don't think they should be moved back to "Teeth". -- Deadstar (msg) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Dentistry Dental X-rays Teeth Dental X-rays on film Digital X-rays Orthopntomograms (here also all images with teeth, also they are in the Category Dental X-rays)
- Hi - It's great to have people with that type of knowledge working on the categories! I was thinking "teeth" could do with categories like "Teeth showing cavities" or similar ailments to break it up into more specific areas of interest - maybe you can look into that? (only if you are so inclined of course).
- My viewpoint is from "parts of the body" > teeth > different types of images of teeth (including x-rays, drawings etc). I think however that from the above layout, we are aiming to do the same thing: Have all images of dental x-rays sit within "teeth". And this is easily done with a subcategory. There is no need to have an image in both "Dental X-rays" and in "Teeth", as one is a subcategory of the other (and so automatically falls within the higher cat). Maybe Commons:Categories#Over-categorization will help explain it better?
- Both Dental X-Rays and Teeth can go into the "Dentistry" category, it will mean that the Dental X-rays are in there twice (technically) but as you say it is of specific importance/relevance to dentistry and it makes sense to have it mentioned there seperately. Kind regards. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- So, now I have finished the new organisation of the Category:Dentistry and Category:Teeth. I think, it has been mor then 1.000 changes and 16 new categories. I intend, to observe in the future all few weeks this category. If you have a few minutes, You can look at the result. Regards, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wow! I love categories with just a few images in the main cat :) Still not sure if I agree with the fact that you can't find "dental X-rays" in the category "Teeth", but maybe we agree to disagree. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a link at the top of "teeth" to say something like "Please also see Category:Dentistry for more images", as obviously the two are closely linked but I would never think of that link (maybe it's just me). I have a few suggestions for renaming, and if you agree I can fix those easily.
- Would extra/intra oral photography) not be better grouped together in a "dental photography" category - although they don't really fit with "photography by subject" in my mind as it is not photography for art's sake.
- Dental historic instruments should be Historical dental instruments and Dental rotating instruments should likely be Rotating dental instruments
- Dental diagram/Dental school should be renamed Dental diagrams/Dental schools (plural)
- Dental x-ray film processors should be Dental X-ray film processors in line with all the other Dental X-ray cats.
- Category:Making removable partial denture (metal) - any reason why that wasn't Removable partial metal denture making in line with the rest?
- That's it - hope that helps. Kind regards, -- Deadstar (msg) 21:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Deadstar, thanks for Your answer. Im am not sure that i have all understood, You said.
- To: Still not sure if I agree with the fact that you can't find Still not sure if I agree with the fact that you can't find "dental X-rays" in the category "Teeth", but maybe we agree to disagree. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a link at the top of "teeth" to say something like "Please also see Category:Dentistry for more images".
- In the category "dental X-rays" are some images without teeth. Therefore I think, "dental X-rays" can't be a subcategory of "Teeth". The additional link is ok.
- To: Category:Extra-Oral Photography, Category:Intra-Oral Photography:
- These categories had alredy exist and I wouldn't change them, but Your opinion is better. Please modify that.
- To: Category:Dental Chairs and Category:Dental Fair:
- I think, they are so ok.
- To: Dental historic instruments should be Historical dental instruments:
- Please modify that.
- To: Dental rotating instruments should likely be Rotating dental instruments:
- This category had exist already and I myself coudn't modify it. Please do so.
- To: Dental diagram/Dental school should be renamed Dental diagrams/Dental schools (plural)
- These categories had exist already and I myself coudn't modify it. Please do so.
- To: Dental x-ray film processors should be Dental X-ray film processors in line with all the other Dental X-ray cats.
- May be, but Dental X-rays are images and processors are equipment or machines.
- To: Category:Making removable partial denture (metal) - any reason why that wasn't Removable partial metal denture making in line with the rest?
- OK - I moved per above suggestions, except "Dental school" which is moved to Category:Dentistry schools and "Dental Fairs" which is moved to Category:Dentistry fairs. Kind regards and all the best for Christmas and the new year. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank You for the greetings! Please can You also modify Category:Removable partial denture (metal) to Category:Removable partial metal denture and Category:Removable partial denture (plastic) to Category:Removable partial acrylic resin denture? Then all is consequential. Greetings for Christmas and All Best for the new year. --R. Engelhardt (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Admin Deadstar,
When you added cats to images as you did to this one in April 2007, did you check to see if the license was valid or not? The photo was only reviewed 2.5 years later which is much too long sadly. Do you have a response? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK Thanks. I have tagged it for deletion since the copyright owner says on his flickr profile that his images are copyrighted. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like you ordered a move of material in Category:Ciudad Guatemala to Category:Guatemala City. I have no objection per se, as English seems to have become usual for geographic categories. However at present the two categories redirect to eachother! If you think one of them should actually exist, perhaps you should take care of that? :-) If I might be of assistance, ask. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- My bad. Fixed. -- User:Docu at 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)