User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2012/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
とある白い猫
A Certain White Cat
Bilinen Bir Beyaz Kedi

User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot edits | Sandbox #1 | #2

EN JA TR Meta

Hello this is an Archive. Please do not edit. You are welcome to post comments regarding material here at my user talk page.

Always believe in yourserf and your dreams, you have a wing!
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive, February 2012

Category:Former_quality_images[edit]

Tony Wills (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jupiter taken by New Horizons probe (2007-01-08).jpg[edit]

"Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute"

I have removed the notice. I believe this work is created by NASA as the image was taken by a NASA operated space probe. I have also contacted the contractor of New Horizons to ask if they have copyright claims. If I am not able to determine that the file is freely licensed, I will nominate it for deletion myself. The communication may take a while though as OTRS would probably be involved. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please leave a talkback if you get any response, there are multiple files which are critical to get deleted (as I already mentioned of the outcome of the DR)... mabdul 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I did get a (genericish) reply which I replied to. I really want such images to be behind a rock solid license. There is more at stake here than the single image above. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


File tagging File:03 Princes Cairn TWO.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:03 Princes Cairn TWO.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 (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not 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 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 ([[:File:03 Princes Cairn TWO.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Sreejith K (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-Austria[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:PD-Austria 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 template, 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.
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 | Български | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Liliana-60 (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Afghanistan[edit]

It is vital for images to be processed individually on a case by case basis regardless of the outcome of the discussion. Vast majority of the images do not even comply with the three basic terms set forward by the template. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not the way things are done: we already have Category:Media without a source. If you see an image without source information, tag it with {{subst:nsd}}. Case by case. We certainly won't tag a complete licence category, that's disruptive. That only a "tiny fraction" cite valid sources is just your own perception. Have you checked them all, have you counted them?
If you want a list to check each of the 700 licenced files individually, one by one, go ahead and do it... elsewhere. Write the list at your user space, and follow it. The deletion request is about the licence as a whole, and this project you have is beyond such scope. Keeping the licence does not mean that all images tagged with it must be kept, and some cases may be deleted by other reasons (such as lacking enough author info). As it is, that list is just disrupting the deletion request, which about the licence itself an nothing more. Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not disrupting anything. This template's current use clearly has some problems. I can nominate all 703 images under Com:Del individually if you like. However, that would be what I'd call disruptive. I have checked the vast majority of the files at a glance. It is clear that nearly all if not all have problems where proving that content complies with the three terms of the template could be near impossible.
The deletion request is for the license as a whole with implications of every image tagged by it. In the past license discussions of this magnitude were always applied to images on a case by case basis. I do not see how this is any different.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It is not you who is disruptive, but the list inside the DR. It is disruptive because the last part of a discussion is at the bottom of the page, with this unneeded list, it is now in the middle, forcing to scroll several pages around.
It is likely that the template will be kept. As you may notice, nobody but you thinks there's any problem with it. On the other hand, deleting images without enough information to confirm that the use of a certain licence is correct to a specific image, is a long-standing practice, and it is unrelated to which licence does the image use. If you tag them all as lacking sources, even ones that do have them, then it could be considered disruptive, but if actually check case by case and tag only those that may be problematic and leave the correct ones, then it would be acceptable. Cambalachero (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you heard of collapsible lists? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I was in the wrong today. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Image:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg[edit]

Could you add w:OSCE, w:NATO and w:UN into the mix as well?

  • Practically everyone in the mix is an OSCE member.
  • Very few EU members are non-NATO members.
  • Granted UN would include everyone except Holy see/Vatican but that alone is relevant IMHO.

Also, NATO has partnerships which in my view would greatly benefit from a separate Euler explaining it.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 09:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally I have been working on an ambitious template structure at w:Wikipedia:International membership templates which intends to be a historic over view of countries' membership to organization. Take a look when you have time but mind that it isn't complete. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely! I'd love to help out with both. Feel free to send me an email and we can discuss some specs.  :) NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 12:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I emailed you to start the discussion :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 12:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me know when you are available. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then. Drop me an email when you're ready to refresh my memory about the Eulers.  :) NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 17:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I am ready :D -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)