User talk:Bengt Nyman

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Bengt Nyman!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Princess Estelle Silvia Ewa Mary 2012.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Princess Estelle Silvia Ewa Mary 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.


COM:AN/U[edit]

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−


float  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. It concerns intentional duplication of categories. Thank you.

Direct link to discussion is here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:John B. Gurdon 1 2012.jpg[edit]

Hi, I nominated this image for deletion because it is flickrwashing. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mo Yan 7 2012.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Mo Yan 7 2012.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

88.156.174.162 13:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Own work! There should be no licensing problem. I see no reason for deletion.Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your images on Commons and on flickr[edit]

A huge thank you for all your image uploads to Wikimedia Commons and for the generous licensing of your images on your flickr account! The images truly add a value to the Wikipedia articles which they illustrate. Some images are outright stunning. I look forward to seing your future images and hope you will receive the recognition I think you deserve. --Bensin (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You very much! You make it all worthwhile. Bengt Nyman (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations Mr. Nyman on receiving such an inspiring compliment, well deserved. Rare to see. I'm glad for you, and for me that I'm not the envious type. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Madeira 3291.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Madeira 3291.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

- Darwin Ahoy! 16:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! You have uploaded a 1991 prized photograph by Alberto Garcia of the Mount Pinatubo eruption (http://albertogarcia.ca/28/mount-pinatubo-1991-eruption/), probably by mistake - Possibly it was in exposition at São Vicente caves, madeira Island, and you photographed it? Best regards, --- Darwin Ahoy! 16:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, thank you very much for your photographs, they are truly spectacular! :D --- Darwin Ahoy! 16:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I photographed it in the Sao Vicente caves. If it violates anything, please feel free to delete it.Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a derivative work, so it had to be deleted due to Alberto Garcia's copyright. But no worries, it happens every time. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Thank You. Bengt Nyman (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Don Giovanni 1 2014.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Don Giovanni 1 2014.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Hangsna (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please delete. Bengt Nyman (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2014 (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.
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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Bengt, det är bra om du är inloggad när du skriver här så råder det inga tvivel om att det är du själv som skriver det. /Hangsna (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Please delete all. Bengt Nyman (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobel prize 2015[edit]

Dear Bengt, thank you for your pictures of the 2015 Nobel prize laureates, they are highly valuable. Just to improve the descriptions, what kind of an event was this? Was it the "get together" at the Nobel museum (as the nobelprize.org site says)? This kind of information helps a lot to understand the story behind a photo and makes it even more valuable in encyclopedic sense. — Yerpo Eh? 07:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My Nobel 2015 photographs were taken at the press conferences for the Nobel Prize in Medicine at Karolinska Institutet in Solna on December 6, 2015 and at Vetenskapsakademien in Stockholm on December 7, 2015. Bengt Nyman (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Tack för tack för ditt foto av Tu Youyou, --Polarlys (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Email[edit]

Hi Bengt Nyman, You're welcome :), Happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 19:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Italic text== Please give images better names ==

العربية | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Українська | +/−


I noticed you've uploaded File:DIMG 7792 (2561709488).jpg and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error.

Please give uploaded images meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. I suggest you rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and happy editing!

Steinsplitter (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you uploaded hundreds of files from flick'r with generic filenames, you have to give them all better names. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
+1. By giving random names, you give work to others. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
In addition, you need to check the usefulness of the files you upload. Not all files under a free license on Flickr are suitable for Commons. Files need to have an educational purpose. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is on the wrong track when it comes to the purpose of file names versus file descriptions. There is a industry world standard here which Wikimedia Commons presently violates. I agree that there are a lot of poor quality and non-educational images uploaded to Commons, but I do not see any effort on behalf of Commons to enforce an "educational purpose" which probably should be an administrative "No Thank You" effort rather than a user choice.Bengt Nyman (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
If administrators wish to se the original file description without having to open the image page I believe it would be better if the upload tools were designed to display both file name, description and file size under the Commons thumbnail, just as it presently lists file name and file size. Bengt Nyman (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
You have to follow wikimedia commons standards and policy's, the American Society of Media Photographers is not relevant at all and has zero influence to wikimedia commons. This is community approved, please also read COM:OWN and COM:POLICY. We don't change policies just because a single user (or the American Society of Media Photographers) believers that they are wrong. I have nothing further to add here, because it leads nowhere. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Final recommendation: The blacklisting of common camera file names to satisfy Wikimedias policy about descriptive file names is an impractical solution to the problem. I am suggesting that a Wikimedia filename can be made descriptive WITHOUT LOOSING the trace-ability provided by the original file name. This simply requires adding a description as a prefix to existing filename. I am recommending updating for example flickr2commons with the choice "Add prefix to every filename: [ ]". This will save serious users a lot of time, preserve the file trace-ability and eliminate the negativism of blacklisting. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Recommendations[edit]

Wikimedia Commons present blacklisting of camera filenames creates an impractical user work-flow.

The long term solution would be to restructure Commons upload tools to where original filenames would be left intact but augmented by a brief description to be shown with Commons image thumbnails, while a more complete description would be shown as present on the image page.

A temporary solution would be to offer a batch-file-renaming feature as part of Commons upload tools.

The present blacklisting of filenames places a barrier in the way of Wikimedia Commons ability to attract quality images. Bengt Nyman (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons in error[edit]

The following resites recommendations of the American Society of Media Photographers:

File naming is an important component of file management. Here are the basic rules and recommendations.

Follow basic computer system rules for file-naming.

Use unique file names for each image.
Avoid incorporating job names or descriptions in file names.
Append file names to distinguish originals from derivatives.
Apply file-naming system consistently.
Never use multiple names for the same image file.

Wikimedia Commons' present practice to demand descriptive file-names unnecessarily violates several of the recommended ground rules for file-naming. Since this is demanded by Wikimedia Commons for the convenience of image administration it would be better if the above rules were respected and that Wikimedia Commons image thumbnail engine(s) were updated to display the requested information, such as image description or part thereof, without violating accepted rules and good practices for file-naming. Respectfully Bengt Nyman (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Recommendations[edit]

Wikimedia Commons present blacklisting of camera filenames creates an impractical user work-flow.

The long term solution would be to restructure Commons upload tools to where original filenames would be left intact but augmented by a brief description to be shown with Commons image thumbnails, while a more complete description would be shown as present on the image page.

A temporary solution would be to offer a batch-file-renaming feature as part of Commons upload tools.

The present blacklisting of filenames places a barrier in the way of Wikimedia Commons ability to attract quality images. Bengt Nyman (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Final recommendation: The blacklisting of common camera file names to satisfy Wikimedias policy about descriptive file names is an impractical solution to the problem. I am suggesting that a Wikimedia filename can be made descriptive WITHOUT LOOSING the trace-ability provided by the original file name. This simply requires adding a description as a prefix to existing filename. I am recommending updating for example flickr2commons with the choice "Add prefix to every filename: [ ]". This will save serious users a lot of time, preserve the file trace-ability and eliminate the negativism of blacklisting. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2017 (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.
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)‎ | +/−

Sorry about this, but I think it's important. Sincerely, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2016 (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.
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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

LX (talk, contribs) 10:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
No comment. Administrators to decide. Bengt Nyman (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Category moves[edit]

Hi Bengt Nyman, When requesting category moves could I ask you in future you provide valid reasons, Here you only put "3" which means nothing to me (or anyone else),
Usually I decline those if the template's been set up incorrectly or no valid reason was given (It was your lucky day today :) ),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I used the recommended command: [{move|new_name|numeric rationale|additional reason}] (use to change the name of a category). 3 is the numeric rationale, Correction is the reason in english for your convenience. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming. If this is no longer the correct command for requesting to change/move a category please direct me to the right one. Bengt Nyman (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Nobel Laureates 1084 (31372333611).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Nobel Laureates 1084 (31372333611).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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I requested the deletion because of problems with the file. Please go ahead. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Nobel Laureates 1088 (30647237334).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Nobel Laureates 1088 (30647237334).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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I requested the deletion because of problems with the file. Please go ahead. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2016 (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.
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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Didym (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

These are public images released by the manufacturers i question for public information purposes and unrestricted use. Bengt Nyman (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:600 mm telefoto lens.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:600 mm telefoto lens.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion requests[edit]

I agree with you that those files should be deleted on your request, but could you please start regular deletion requests instead of speedy deletion requests, those files are not recently uploaded and don't qualify for speedy deletion. --Didym (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to find the files. I requested Speedy Deletion and deleted them from my personal category. Bengt Nyman (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Didym: who told you that uploaders can simply revoke their contributions? No, one cannot. If the upload was not very recent, then just 'uploader request' is not a valid deletion reason. Jcb (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: most (but not all) of these files are actually out of project scope and unused. Many also do have personality rights issues. --Didym (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2017 (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.
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)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion nominations[edit]

Hi, if you want your uploads to be deleted, there must be a valid reason. You cannot just revoke your contributions. We only delete files on uploader request shortly after upload. It's vital for a free license that releases cannot be revoked. Jcb (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If you don't stop these nominations NOW, I will make you stop. Jcb (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I am requesting deletion of ocean surfing images which are redundant by similarity, not used by any Wikipedia and not needed to generously illustrate the subject of surfing. Bengt Nyman (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
These are not valid reasons for speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Is it reason enough for some other kind of deletion or washing ? Bengt Nyman (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Probably not. The quality is good. We don't know if they are in use outside Wikipedia/Wikimedia and we don't want to put external reusers at risk. Jcb (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I thought that reusers external to Wiki had to download, if they wanted a copy of an image.
That's not necessary. But even if they do, what if you decide to change the license at Flickr and then start accusing the reusers of copyright violation? It would be difficult for the victims to show that you are wrong if we delete the files from our servers. I am not saying that you have such plans, but I have seen this scenario happening several times, including hugh bills sent to the reusers by the author. Jcb (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I wish to delete some of my older, redundant and substandard images which are not used anywhere. Please tell me if and how we can accomplish this. Bengt Nyman (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Please just leave the files alone and forget about it. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Events 1422 (26345792433).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Events 1422 (26345792433).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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Didym (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete ! Bengt Nyman (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

File renaming[edit]

Hi there. I've proceeded one of your rename requests. But the second one is not possible. Would you choose a different name? -- DerFussi 20:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please name the file in question. Bengt Nyman (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I can not find the file originally named file: Gustavsberg VII IMG_7785 (33428096824).jpg. I asked that it be renamed to Gustafsberg VII IMG_7785 (33428096824).jpg to correct the spelling (f instead of v) WHAT HAPPENED? Bengt Nyman (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
It's here: File:Gustafsberg VII IMG 7279 (34138936201).jpg. Maybe you used the wrong name in your request (cop-and-paste error)? I just pushed the button in the template. Please ask an admin or ask here to resolve this. Because I will go to holiday today. -- DerFussi 06:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Vånö EM1B3047 (35004350210).jpg[edit]

Hej Bengt, where did you take this photograph? It would be good to know so we can add a category for the location. Regards, De728631 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Vaxholms Kastell. Bengt Nyman (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thanks a lot. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)